University Senate - October 7, 2019 Meeting Minutes

Call to Order and Announcements

The University Senate was called to order at 3:30 p.m., in Room 111 Harrison Hall, Oxford Campus, on Monday, October 7, 2019.  Members absent:  Darryn Edwards, Effie Fraley, Jeong-Hoi Koo, Antonio Lim, and Ikaika McKeague-McFadden.

  1. Announcements and Remarks by the Chair of Senate Executive Committee, Dana Cox

    1. Senator Cox announced that there no classes on Friday, October 11, 2019, for Fall Break, but remember that there are classes on Thursday!

    2. Midterm grade submission is open and grades are due by Friday, October 18, 2019, at Noon.

    3. The Community Development Committee is welcoming advisors to participate in “Midterm Motivation.” This will occur on October 8-9, 2019, in Armstrong Student Center between 11:30 am and 1:30 pm.

    4. The Arrest Reporting Policy, which will be discussed later, is NOT an adopted policy, thus it cannot be enforced.  It was sent back to Senate by Faculty Assembly for further discussion, and there is no time limit on Senate’s decision.g.

Approval of University Senate Minutes

  1. A motion was received, seconded, and carried to approve the September 23, 2019, minutes of University Senate.

Consent Calendar

  1. The following items were received on the Consent Calendar without debate: 

    1. Curriculum

    2. HPAC Annual Report – 2018-2019
  1. TCPL Policy Discussion– Robin Parker, General Counsel

    1. Senate approved changes to the TCPL policy (MUPIM 7.11) in spring 2019. Senator Cox received a number of questions about the policy, so it is being brought to the Senate floor for discussion.  It should be noted that Keith Fennen, Chair of Faculty Welfare Committee, supports the policy and its wording.  The discussion today is not to remand the policy.  The policy is approved.  The discussion is to ask questions and get clarity on the policy as it is written.  Robin Parker from the Office of General Counsel and Celia Ellison from Academic Personnel were present to answer questions.

    2. Senators brought up the following points and questions in discussion:

      1. There were some faculty who had let their dean know of their intention to be promoted before the policy changed, and now there is a concern that they are under a different policy. Parker addressed this indicating that if a TCPL wants to go up for promotion early, it is to be discussed with their Dean.  

      2. Does a faculty member have to ask permission for years to be counted? Ellison responded that a TCPL faculty member can request years of credit if they are an Assistant being promoted to Associate, but if they are seeking promotion to Full, they do not have to ask for credit.

      3. Why is there an ‘up and out’ instead of letting people continue on year to year contracts? Can people choose to opt out of the policy?  No, the policy was designed to improve job security and commitment, both by the University and by the employee.  A concern was raised about TCPLs who had retired from their professional career and did not want to take the steps to get to the Associate level.  The concern is that if they don’t seek promotion, they would be at risk for losing their job.

      4. There were several comments regarding Grandfather Clause. Several senators felt that the term ‘grandfather clause’ meant that there would be an exemption for existing TCPLs.  Many senators and their constituents thought they could be exempt from the new policy and are upset that they have to adhere to the policy.  Why would we commit to multi-year contracts?  There was a comment that this is not a true grandfather clause and not a proper way to proceed.  People hired before the new policy had a different expectation for what they thought their job would be and are OK with being exempt from the policy.

      5. What would Miami do if a person chose not to go up for promotion? They would not be renewed after 4 years.  There was again concern that the policy was going to have an effective date and the policy would not apply to them unless there was a ‘look back’ so people can reap from the benefits.  Parker explained that there never was discussion about an exemption and that the intention of the policy was to promote job security.

      6. Can we take the policy where it is now and make adjustments? Yes, it would need to be approved by the Board of Trustees again.

      7. Why wasn’t Senate made aware of the specifics of the Grandfather Clause? There was concern that there was not consensus.

      8. Is it possible to date the policies so a faculty member knows what policies to follow based on the year they were hired? Tracking of policies is done within in the Policy Library.  Remember that the terms and conditions of employment change every year.

      9. A few senators indicated that their constituents are not happy about the changes.

      10. It was noted that there are currently a total of 158 TCPLs: 13 Full; 57 Associate, and 88 Assistant.

      11. Senate did not get to discuss the grandfather clause. Parker thought the ‘up and out issue’ had been resolved with the fact that everyone had four full years.  It was her understanding she had Senate’s approval to finalize the language of the policy over the summer 2019.  It was written with input from Keith Fennen.  Her question to Senate was if Senate wishes to retract or change the policy, what would it look like, and what would the cost of that be?  There was additional conversation about what the grandfather clause would look like.  There was always a fear that TCPLs were not going to have a job, so this is moving in a positive direction. Is it an issue of educating faculty?

      12. A TCPL faculty member shared an experience regarding reason a TCPL may not want to be promoted to Associate, which supported some of the previous conversation that not all TCPLs wish to be part of this new plan.

      13. Senator Pohlhaus wanted it noted in the minutes that this is a discussion in which comprehensive, verbatim minutes would have been useful. For the record, the issue of record keeping was discussed at the October 8, 2018, Senate meeting, where it was indicated that comprehensive minutes would not be taken.

      14. A motion was made to bring this back to the Senate floor at another time. Executive Committee will discuss this; however, Senator Cox asked if the discussion could continue during this meeting.  The senator making the motion indicated that was OK to continue the discussion.

      15. A comment was made that there is confusion about what is expected to progress from one level to the next. It was clarified that to go from the Assistant to the Associate level, it is either four or five years. Every chair has to work with the TCPL faculty member on a Professional Development Plan in writing with markers with a pathway to promotion identified.

      16. A question was asked about the 88 people at the Assistant rank, how many are fearful about the new policy? What is their level of education regarding the level of support in place?  Associate Provost Wanko indicated that there was just a workshop for TCPL promotion where many questions were answered, and the TCPL webpages have been updated with the new information.  Department Chairs are also going through training during Academic Administrator’s breakfasts.

      17. Concern that with 88 Assistant TCPL faculty going up for promotion at the same time, is that too much for committees to handle? There was assurance that the numbers would be divided amongst divisions.

      18. Should the whole policy come back to Senate?

      19. Senators are urged to talk to their constituents about process and protections. TCPLs should be entering into discussions with their Chair so there are no unwanted surprises. Individuals should know where they stand – annual reviews should be concrete.

      20. The TCPL Policy is in the Policy Library. Senate can make a recommendation.  In the meantime, Senators should communicate to constituents that policy stands.

      21. There was discussion about the Policy, ‘Employment of Persons Holding a Miami Degree’. This policy originally was in place so that Tenure Track Faculty could not be hired if their doctorate was from Miami. That was also put into place two years ago for TCPLs, but got pushback from chairs.  Policy was amended that there will be an exception if the position vacancy is part of a national search.  This is not associated with the Grandfather Clause that is in the TCPL Policy.  Concern was voiced that this sends a message that TCPLs with Miami degrees are not hirable.  Parker indicated that the point of the policy is so institutions have diversity of thought, and a concern with an institution hiring people that they train is that you risk having a ‘copy of a copy’.

New Business

  1. Partitioning of Kinesiology and Health – Dana Cox – Chair, Senate Executive Committee and Helaine Alessio – Chair, Department of Kinesiology and Health

    1. Senator Alessio introduced her colleagues from the Sport Leadership and Management area of the Kinesiology and Health Department, including Dr. Melissa Chase and Dr. Brody Ruihley.

    2. The Kinesiology and Health Department is currently the largest department on campus, with 1600 students and 47 faculty. The department has five majors:  Athletic Training, Kinesiology, Nutrition, Public Health, and Sport Leadership and Management.  The Athletic Training program is sunsetting due to students now needing a Master’s degree to sit for the national exam.  Of the remaining majors, Sport Leadership and Management is the only one that does not have a health focus.  Students focus on sports and business, and faculty come from business and analytics backgrounds.  Sport Leadership and Management is the fastest growing major with over 600 students.

    3. Dr. Chase indicated that an external reviewer suggested that they consider the separation. It is estimated that there would be a one-time cost of $117,000, with an annual cost of $53,000.  She stated that each department, if separated, would still make 6 million dollars annually.  The enrollment can withstand the separation – the outcome would be two viable departments.  KNH would still be the largest department on campus.

    4. A question was asked as to how much overlap is there between KNH and Sport Leadership and Management? There is more overlap with Business, Journalism, and Communications, although there is some overlap with KNH Electives.

    5. A question was asked whether there would there be other majors offered within Sport Leadership and Management? Chase answered that there were no plans at this time to offer more majors.  There are currently four tracks within the SLAM major.

    6. The proposed department would stay in Education, Health & Society.

    7. A question was asked as to what are the projections for the Masters program? The students’ degree would be still be the KNH degree.Senator Cox indicated that the next step in the partitioning process is to approve that the process will move forward in accordance with Senate By-Laws, Section 8, SR 14-01. Senate unanimously approved a motion to move forward with the process to partition Kinesiology and Health into Kinesiology and Health and Sports Leadership and Management.

  2. Process for Reconsidering Reporting Arrests Policy – Dana Cox – Chair, Senate Executive Committee

    1. The Arrest Reporting policy was returned to Senate for review by Faculty Assembly. The mandate is not that we should vote in a certain way - Senate should hear from their constituents.  Executive Committee has met and discussed the best way to proceed.  It was agreed that time is needed to gather information, and therefore, Executive Committee is recommending an ad-hoc committee be formed to gather the information in a full report.  Senate could vote to turn the policy back or to be a part of shared governance and solve the problem it was asked to solve.

    2. Senators brought up the following points and questions in discussion:

      1. Why was the policy put in place? It is not clear, but part of the education that needs to occur.  The policy is suspended. If senate does nothing, does that mean nothing gets done?  Does senate have the power to stop the policy?  Senate is advisory, but the advice of senate is taken seriously.

      2. Multiple senators expressed strong support of an ad-hoc committee. The question was asked ‘If [the policy] were in place, could it have prevented a crime?’  An ad-hoc committee needs to educate Senate on the issue.  A senator brought up a larger question as to why it was on the consent agenda.  It was expressed that Senate needs a larger discussion as to how we respond to policies.

      3. It was stated that we need to stay at the table. If the policy were to be voted down, could senate still create an ad-hoc committee?  How would the policy be enacted?  There are culturally shifting landscapes that we are responding to with this policy.  Executive Committee is enthusiastic about the ad hoc committee.  The Deans were asked to make recommendations of people to serve.

      4. The discussion needs to involve Robin Parker. It was asked if we even need a committee.  Parker added that this policy is in response to situations that have occurred at other schools.  Sometimes, institutions are the last to know about criminal behavior.  If it is voted down, what are we to do as a university?  Should people not have to report?  The ad-hoc committee is a chance to find a common place.

      5. It was stated that the committee’s purpose it to research the policy and educate Senate, not to wordsmith the document.

      6. The resolution was shown and it was reiterated that this is to create an ad-hoc committee, not to suggest a policy.

      7. SR 20-03 was passed by voice vote with 2 Nay votes.

SR 20-03

October 7, 2019

BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED that an ad-hoc committee be appointed by Senate Executive Committee to reconsider the NOTIFICATION OF POLICE REPORTS, ARRESTS, CRIMINAL CHARGES AND INDICTMENTS Policy originally approved by Senate on April 22, 2019 and to make a recommendation to University Senate about further necessary actions.

Executive Committee charge to the Ad-Hoc Committee:  As the resolution states, the outcome of the committee’s charge is “make a recommendation to University Senate about further necessary actions.”

When making this recommendation, we ask the committee to gather information from a broad representation of stakeholders including:

  • The rationale behind the policy;
  • A clear statement about how this policy will be enacted; and
  • The concerns shared by members of our community.

The Chair of this Ad-Hoc Committee should report the findings of the committee to University Senate on or before December 2, 2019 with an accompanying motion that reflects that recommendation about how to proceed.


  1. Provost Updates – Jason Osborne, Provost

    1. There will not be a Provost update today.

  2. Executive Committee Update - Dana Cox, Chair, Senate Executive Committee
    1. Kate de Medeiros and Jen Green presented the final report from the Ad-Hoc Committee on Composition to Executive Committee.  They will be presenting to Senate on October 21, 2019.

    2. Executive Committee will be hearing two resolution proposals at their meeting on October 14, 2019.
    3. Senator Cox will be working with the Governance committee on several issues, including redistribution of seats and potential changes to the structure of Senate Executive Committee.
    4. Realignment of the University Committee on Internationalization (formerly the International Education Committee) is complete.

    5. Executive Committee will be talking about the strategic plan at another meeting.



  1. A motion was received, seconded, and carried to adjourn the Regular Session of University Senate.  The meeting adjourned at 5:00 p.m.

Next scheduled meeting of University Senate:

October 21, 2019, 3:30 p.m.

Room 111 Harrison Hall, Oxford Campus