University Senate - April 10, 2023 Minutes


Meeting Minutes
April 10, 2023
The University Senate was called to order at 3:30 p.m., in 111 Harrison Hall on Monday, April 10, 2023. Members absent: Jackson Abram, Steve Bailey, Rodney Coates, Eli Davies, Amanda Euen, Tyler Eyster, Chip Hahn, Kennedy Hughes, Spencer Izor, Martin Johnson, Yong Lin, Kevin Messner,  Peter Mkhatshwa, Carla Myers, Murali Paranandi, Sam Reenan, Tayler Stambaugh, Danelle Stein, Todd Stuart, Troy Travis,  Medhi Zanjani
  1. Call to Order and Announcements and Remarks – Tom Poetter, Chair of University Senate Executive Committee
    1. April 24th is the date to elect Senate Executive leadership. You can self-elect or nominate someone else. We will also welcome the new Senators that night, though their terms do not begin until August. Check calendar invites for the April 24th meeting 
    2. A lot of the departmental elections are finished already but there are still some out there that need to be completed.
    3. If the Ad-hoc committee passes and you want a spot we will elect 2 senators to serve. Elections will be run by Rob digitally after our final meeting. There are a lot of opportunities to serve if you want to serve
    4. It is very important and helpful to make sure that you attend Senate, especially during these last few weeks as there is a lot happening. 
  2. Approval of University Senate Minutes
    1. University Senate Full Meeting Minutes.04.03.2023  (45- Yes, 0-No, 1-Abstain)
  3. Consent Calendar
    1. Curricular Items _04.05.2023 
    2. LEC Meeting Minutes_03.14.2023 
    3. LEC Meeting Minutes_03.28.2023
  4. Old Business
    1. SR 23-xx Changes to Tenure Track and Promotion and Tenure Policy, Liz Mullenix, Provost and Executive Vice President for Academic Affairs
      1. Senator: The feedback that Senator received was that they liked the previous version? (A) We did update the previous version a little more. Liz read the full description that had been updated and stated that she is happy to take it back and change more if needed.
      2. Senator: What was the rationale in removing the part about exceptional faculty? (A) It was thought that the part about the cumulative record would address that. Obviously it would have to be an exceptional record if they are thinking about going up earlier. We could add that back in. 
      3. Senator: For waiting at least one full year. Does that mean if you wanted to go up in March and it was denied, would that be 1 year or actually 2 full years that you would have to wait? (A) If you are denied, you'd know by January. Then, you’d need to wait a calendar year before going up the following March. The policy states that you’d need a cumulative record. The policy states for assistant professors, the emphasis is on their time at miami. Between associate and full, the assumption is that you are at Miami.
      4. Senator: So if someone worked for 8 yrs and was going up for full would they be able to go up for Full Professor? (A) Yes, we look at your entire record
      5. Senator: Can we count our entire record, even if it happened prior to employment at Miami? (A) Yes. We’d count that. Following the reasoning, we’re looking at your work here at Miami under the Miami workload. You are asking for a more specific definition that is currently in the policy. 
      6. Senator expressed gratitude for the changes. Is the final sentence in the policy already? Also I really object to the 5 year statement. Can we instead say 1 year instead of 5 years because the next year isn't feasible due to the workload that you have to get done? (A) the average time and rank is between 5-9 years.
      7. Senator: Can we grandfather people who were planning on going up in fewer than 5 years?
      8. Senator expressed gratitude for the changes and spoke on behalf of constituents that there are some who believe the 5 year statement is a good idea.
      9. Senator proposed an amendment: Revise the first sentence “Promotion to full professor requires a record that meets criteria, rather than a minimum time in rank.”
      10. Senator agreed with earlier support that faculty members liked the extra information regarding the 5 years because it provides extra structure.
      11. Senator: What about giving a range from 5-10 to cover every department? (A) The department policy would also have to back this up then.
      12. Senator expressed concern about how excellence in professional records is measured or attained. This might be best left to departmental consideration.
      13. Senator: Whatever we do with this, other than leave it, policy written is very different from practice and rumor. Even the words stated today, “going up early”; if there is no minimum time we need to drop the messaging of someone going up early.
      14. Senator: My department was in favorable of moving forward with the friendly amendment that would cover the 5 years.
      15. Senator: Are we ok with having two different standards, one for TT and one for TCPL? We need to address that as well. Are we ok with that? Even if we take this back there will be different standards.
      16. Senator: Motion of impact in terms of 5 years as a measurement and doesn’t help with the clarity issue. The clearer this can be the better the expectations. I like the amendment because of this. We were trying to provide a time frame for typical meaning and criteria to meet. (A) We were trying to provide what that timeframe typically is.
      17. Senator: About 25 percent took less than 5 years to be promoted, more so recently.
      18. Motion to table until April 17 was seconded, supported with a vote 44 -Yes 0-No, 2 abstain
    2. SR 23- 15 Midterm Policy, Ad-hoc Committee and Replacement Policy, Amy Bergerson, Associate Provost and Dean for Undergraduate Education (Result: 43- Yes, 2-No, 1-Abstain)
      1. Senator: I was most moved by the registrar, but what concerned me is if  we are acting on analytics data we need to make sure that it is good data. I am in favor of this but I think that we need to be mindful of this and ensure that the data we are using is good data. (A) Analytics data isn’t used here when professional advisors use midterm data to engage with students. We should think of the response like a social worker because the goal is to connect students with the right support and resources. Each year there are 60,000 connections based on this information.
    3. SR 23-16 Ad-hoc Committee on Midterm Progress, Amy Bergerson, Associate Provost and Dean for Undergraduate Education (Result: 46- Yes, 0-No, 0-Abstain)
      1. Senator: I still want to include a mental health professional as a member? (A) Senat execute will be responsible for appointing 5 members of this committee and we will take that into consideration
    4. SR 23-17  Sense of the Senate: Ohio Senate Bill 83, Rosemary Pennington, Associate Professor and Area Coordinator of Journalism   (Result: 45- Yes, 0-No, 1-Abstain)
      1. Three edits were made:
        1. Edit 1: Whereas, the government of Miami University – vested in eleven trustees appointed by the governor with the advice and consent of the senate – is entrusted with maintaining Miami’s “invaluable heritage of high scholastic standards” and maintaining “maximum freedom of scholastic inquiry and action” for the benefit of the citizens of Ohio and the United States;
        2. Edit 2: Whereas we recognize that an inclusive approach to diversity and equity must encompass the lived experiences of all faculty, students, and staff members of Miami University;
        3. Edit 3: We, the members of the Miami University Senate, reaffirm our commitment to critical thinking and independent thought; to the appreciation of diverse views; to a sense of responsibility to our global future. All of which we believe to be at risk should Senate Bill 83 be passed. We urge all legislators to reject this bill that would lay waste to higher education in Ohio, putting in jeopardy the health of the state’s economy and its ability to recruit a diverse and qualified workforce.
      2. Senator: I strongly support this resolution and hope that we all vote in favor of this.
      3. Senator: Who is the audience? (A) It will be submitted as testimony to the senate and shared with faculty, staff and students through senate minutes.
      4. Senator: Will this language be sent in a campus wide email? (A) That would be up to the President's office.
      5. Senator: Thank you and I strongly support this and so do the people that I shared this with. 
    5. SR 23-18 Re-apportionment of Senate Seats for 2023-2024, Joe Carlin, Director, Mallory-Wilson Center & Professor and Assistant Chair, Department of Microbiology  (Result: 45-Yes, 0-No, 1-Abstain)
      1. Senator: Does this impact someone who was elected by a different caucus than they now represent? (A) No, you would stay
  5. New Business
    1. TCPL Policy & Guideline Changes, Dana Cox, Associate Provost for Faculty Affairs, Professor of Mathematics Education, and Tracy Haynes, Teaching Professor Presentation only; Discussion and Anticipated Vote on April 17, 2023
      1. Annual Promotion Document Review
        1. Promotion and Tenure Policy (currently under review by Senate)
        2. Tenured and Tenure-Track Faculty: Promotion and Tenure Guidelines (No changes for 2023)
        3. TCPL Policy
        4. Teaching/Clinical Professors or Lecturers/Clinical Lecturers: Dossier and Evaluation Guidelines
      2. Motivation and Process
        1. Independent Survey of TCPL faculty by TCPL Mentoring Committee (77 TCPL responded).
        2. Data was presented at a meeting of all Associate Deans charged with administration of the promotion of TCPL faculty.
        3. Consensus was reached about Priority changes and a draft was collaboratively written.
        4. Draft was circulated to chairs and the TCPL Mentoring Committee for comment and feedback.
        5. Minor revisions based on feedback were added to the draft, major revisions were documented for further discussion and review (next fall?)
      3. Data was presented that illustrated some confusion about the PDP plan, formative review, and representation of TCPL faculty within the promotion process. 
      4. TCPL Policy Revision Rationale:
        1. Service is an expected component of workload for TCPL faculty and, as such, we removed all “if/as assigned” language from the document. Further, “University Service” has provoked some confusion and was eliminated. While some TCPL do perform service at the University level (i.e. University Senate Committees), This is not a requirement for promotion. Examples provided in slides.
        2. It was agreed that more formative evaluation was needed and that this evaluation should take into account what is written in the PCP. Thus, changes were made throughout the policy to formalize the second and third year formative reviews and specify that the PDP be included as a document in those as well as the summative review prior to promotion. Examples provided in slides.
        3. Language was clarified around the dossier to ensure that dossiers were considered to be a cumulative document. Example provided in slides. 
        4. We added language around the departmental promotion committee to indicate who was eligible (and required) to serve in these important capacities.  Example provided in slides. 
        5. Grandfather Clause was revised to reflect that all TCPL faculty who were hired prior to July 1, 2019 have specified participation in the policy. TCPL faculty hired prior to the specified date who have extended their probationary period by one year will be promoted in the 2023-2024 academic year at which time the second paragraph can be eliminated from the policy.
      5. Senate Senator Questions and Comments:
        1. Senator: Is there a reason we would submit to chair the P&T committee. Could they be given feedback because sometime the Chair? (A) Expectation is that it be submitted to the person who would be evaluating them. 
        2. Senator: Do you happen to know the current competition numbers prior to the promotion cycle? (A) There are a lot more now then we had before. Senator followup response: Even in last year's number alone that should be enough which is great. Thank you so much for all of this.
        3. Senator: This seems really really helpful and thank you so much
        4. Senator: Is there a reason behind advising and service listed? (A) They are 2 separate things and not all are assigned advising. Academic advising is not typically addressed in the service portion of the dossier.
    2. CEC TCPL Cap Change, Timothy Cameron, Associate Dean & Professor Presentation only; Discussion and Anticipated Vote on April 17, 2023 
      1. Limitation on Number of Lecturers and Teaching Faculty

        TCPLs may not exceed the following percentages of continuing faculty (full-time TCPL and Tenure/Tenure Track) within each division:

        1. CAS:  23.0%
        2. CCA:  29.0%
        3. EHS:  26.0%
        4. CEC:  20.0 29%
        5. FSB: 29.0%
        6. CLAAS: 23.0%
      2. Rationale
        1. All engineering and computing programs and students benefit by including experienced industry professionals who may or may not have terminal degrees
        2. Some CEC programs have difficulty attracting and retaining sufficient TT faculty to meet all student needs.
        3. Increasing the TCPL% helps prevent over-reliance on VAPs and provides more opportunities for VAPs to become permanent faculty. 
        4. A 29% cap provides flexibility as faculty discuss the merits of defining a new position as TT or TCPL.
        5. The current 20% cap is the lowest of all divisions - 29% is the cap in FSB, CLAAS, and CCA.
      3. Amendment Process
        1. Dean called a meeting of the CEC Faculty Assembly for March 27 with 14 business days notice (10 days required); Proposal to request Senate approval for increasing the CEC TCPL cap to 29% was discussed (after motion and second)
        2. Secure online voting, as allowed by CEC Governance, was open from March 27-30. A valid vote requires a quorum (50%+) of eligible voters 
        3. Approval of motion requires a simple majority (50%+) of those voting
        4. The proposal to request Senate approval for increasing the CEC TCPL cap from 20% to 29% passed with 79.2% of the vote; A quorum (66%) was reached, as required for a valid vote.
      4. Senate Senator Questions and Comments:
        1. Senator: Cost and Savings. Not actually directed to you just a broader question. What would be the cost saving in doing this? Would love to have the information when we receive these types of proposals.
        2. Senator: A VAP costs more than a TCPL. Is there a plan to close that gap? (A) I’m not aware that our VAPs are paid more than TCPL. Provost indicates that to have a TCPL requires a line and as of 2018, the lines are fixed.
        3. Senator: Any worries about how you’re going to get lines? (A) Dr. Cameron indicated that he raised it as potential change back when the policy changed and there didn’t seem to be a need. We were informed by the Academic Personnel that we’ve reached our cap, so we can’t even legally fill the positions we have approved now. So, there are lines.
    3. Academic Integrity Policy Revision,  Brenda Quaye, Assistant Director for Academic Integrity, Theodore (Ted) Peters, Senior Assistant Dean, Academic Advising Presentation only; Discussion and Anticipated Vote on April 17, 2023
        1. Petition process to waive a period of suspension or hold dismissal in abeyance
          1. Suspension/ Dismissal still required for multiple offenses
          2. Petitions to be decided on by the Interdivisional Committee of Advisors
          3. Removal of requirement for a Code of Student Conduct dishonesty to be a first offense
            1. Code of Student Conduct Dishonesty can still be considered as a aggravating factor
            2. Code of Student Conduct has parallel revision
          4. Sanctioning guidelines
          5. Updating criteria
            1. Specific inclusion of fake excuses and AI use without permission
          6. Process clarification
        2. Rationale
          1. Petition Process
            1. Required suspension/dismissal disproportionately affects international students and domestic students of color
            2. ID Committee to provide consistency in decision-making
            3. Allow for context and mitigating factors to be considered
            4. Hearing Officer (chairs) will have input
          2. Sanctioning Guidelines
            1. To provide consistency across departments and divisions
            2. To allow for sanction differentiation appropriate to the offense i.e., more severe offenses yield more severe sanctions
        3. Case Numbers from 2018 - 2023 (to date of 04/06/2023) - * 75 cases are pending outcomes - 4 cases could result in suspension. The chart in the slide provides numbers for Total cases, Responsible, and Suspensions/Dismissals from 2018 - 2023 (to the date of 04/06/2023).  Please review the slides for all the numbers. 

      1. Senate Senator Questions and Comments:
        1. Senator: I don’t think metaverse means what you think it does. (A) I am open to a friendly amendment on that. 
        2. Senator: Will you develop a policy on how these petitions could be written and submitted? (A) It would go to divisional advising offices (potentially). They wouldn’t bring them forth, but we would work with advisors to be able to help students.  We know that some students are better self-advocates than others. We want to provide those resources when we can.
        3. Senator: Friendly amendment recommendation: On page 90 I believe of the Agenda today I would advise not to use the word “equivalent” as I see that as being problematic, so I would suggest a friendly amendment to remove it. (A) Associate or full TCPL is absolutely fine. I appreciate that.
        4. Senator: AI has a workshop in Hamilton tomorrow and Thursday at Oxford. AI isn’t plagiarism, it’s misrepresentation work as your own. (A) We did add it into two places so I think the way we used this policy fits, but we can review that. 
        5. Senator: Can you talk about the decoupling process between Academic Integrity and Code of Conduct ? (A) Academic Integrity offenses were counted together with fake ID. We don’t have as many of those, so we are removing the required nature to take them all into consideration, but we still can if it makes sense. (Senator responds that he applauds this action.)
        6. Senator: Under cheating AI Chat box to AI Tools? (A) We can make that change.
    4. Registration Policy Proposal,  Amity Noltemeyer, Associate Dean of the Graduate School, Professor of School Psychology Presentation only; Discussion and Anticipated Vote on April 17, 2023
      1. Proposed Change - Admission Requirements: Miami students can express interest and apply in a combined degree program anytime during their undergraduate career. To matriculate in the combined program, the Miami undergraduates must have earned a minimum of 64 undergraduate credit hours Junior or Senior standing and have a GPA of 3.00 or greater or meet the GPA requirement set by the combined degree program…..
      2. Rationale
        1. Maintain consistency with the spirit of the original policy and the undergraduate policy
        2. Reduce likelihood of additional revisions needed if the undergraduate hours change again
      3. Senate Senator Questions and Comments: No questions at this time.
    5. Probation Policy Revision,  Amity Noltemeyer, Associate Dean of the Graduate School, Professor of School Psychology Presentation only; Discussion and Anticipated Vote on April 17, 2023
      1. Academic Probation - A graduate student with 9 or more cumulative Miami graduate-level grade point average earned hours is placed on academic probation at the end of any semester or summer term in which his/her cumulative grade point average is less than 3.00.
      2. Rationale
        1. There have been times when students had below a 3.0 gpa for multiple semesters before receiving a probation notice
        2. Earlier notice of concerns could lead to better action planning and support
        3. Only 1 university (of 7) we benchmarked against has a similar policy that focused on graded hours
      3. Senate Senator Questions and Comments: No questions at this time.
  6. Special Reports 
    1. ASG Overview, Khenadi Grubb, Student Body Vice President
      1. Amitoj and I are grateful for our time here. She is sorry that her calendar does not allow her to be here to present to you herself. 
      2. It has been quite the year.
        1. Raising the minimum wage (20%)
        2. Nellie Craig Scholars. We’ve hired a full time employee in the center and student workers who will be a part of that program.
        3. Gratis Menstrual Product Implementation (King and Scheidler hall, but soon to be in all)
        4. Wear Red Redhawks; a way to increase school spirit. Those wearing red might get a ride on a golf cart.
        5. Bi-Partisnaly Endorsed (College Republicans and Democrats)
        6. First Annual Etiquette Dinner
        7. Restarted the Ohio Student Body Presidents Coalition
        8. Mental Health Awareness ($25k raised for mental health on campus)
      3. ASG Senate
        1. Composting in Cafe Lux
        2. Night Caps; cover for cups handed out in Armstrong
        3. Annual Inclusion Forum
        4. Outreach Committee - DE&I X Communications
        5. UNV101 Reform; 
      4. Leading with love - Our Leadership Philosophy and How it has led to our success
      5. Senate Senator Questions and Comments:
        1. Senator: For the incoming government what should we expect? (A) More composting and sustainability on campus.
  7. Provost Update
    1. Senate Bill 83 on Friday the House announced a companion bill which means that they are in agreement with this bill and that it looks like it will pass in some form. Hearings begin next week. IUC has been working hard together. There is a strong sense that it will pass in some way. The idea now is making it the least offensive possible. Miami just passed a resolution, Cleveland State, and Central State. There is one in the works from OSU.
      1. Senate Senator Questions and Comments:
        1. Senator: Is there anything we can do individually or as a body? (A) We need to try. This has a lot of support, but we can try to make it less reprehensible. As private citizens, contact your representatives.
        2. Senator: IUC is the organization body with presidents and provosts and they are working to do the best they can. If the bill is going to pass, we will try to make sure it’s tempered
        3. Senator: Is there anything we should say to our representatives? Talking about how research grants could be impacted and it could be expensive. Every university was asked to provide data about fiscal impact and that has been submitted.
        4. Senator: Alumni network mobilization? Several alumni have responded, but the Ohio business community is quiet.
        5. ASG is working on something and Amitoj is working with Student Body presidents across Ohio on language to submit too. 
        6. People that are from Ohio and have family from Ohio ask them to reach as non-University staff. 
  8. Adjournment

The next meeting of University Senate is scheduled for April 17, 2023, 3:30 p.m., 111 Harrison Hall