ºÚÁÏÉçÇø

Call to Order and Announcements

The University Senate was called to order at 3:30 p.m., via WebEx, on Monday, November 9, 2020. Members not in attendance: Dawn Fahner, Dan Gladish, Carter Hamilton, Conner Moreton, Becca Pallant, Brandon Small, Todd Stuart, and Jessica von Zastrow.

1. Announcements and Remarks by the Chair of Senate Executive Committee, James Bielo.

   1. There will be abbreviated minutes at the end of the meeting today for approval of action items before the December 11, 2020, Board of Trustees meeting.

   2. The agenda for this meeting was annotated with topics marked for Education, Discussion, or Vote.

   3. Senators were reminded about Robert’s Rule of Order. Each speaker will be allowed one question per turn, and Point of Order can be used for procedural questions.

   4. Senators were asked to leave their cameras on if possible.

   5. Senators were reminded to keep their comments and questions succinct and to mute mics if they are not speaking.

Approval of University Senate Minutes

2. A motion was received, seconded, and carried to approve the October 26, 2020, minutes.

Senator Bielo asked for approval to move the receipt of the Consent Calendar to after New Business because there are multiple Nursing courses to be received that are dependent on the passing of the two Nursing degree program resolutions. Approval was granted.

New Business

3. TCPL Hiring Policy, Draft (Education and Discussion) – Dr. Keith Fennen, Chair, Faculty Welfare Committee

   1. The draft stems from one of the recommendations from the Ad-hoc group on Faculty Composition. There are currently two ways that a TCPL can be hired: ‘a competitive search; or the approval of the Provost upon the positive evaluation and recommendation of the department if required by departmental governance, the department chair, the program director (when appropriate), and dean for a person currently holding another instructional staff position at ºÚÁÏÉçÇø.’ (Teaching, Clinical Professors and Lecturers (TCPLs) MUPIM 7.11.) This is also called a conversion.

   2. The recommendation of the Faculty Welfare Committee is to require a competitive search for all TCPL hiring. There are two main reasons why this change is being recommended. First, it ensures that hires go through the OEEO process, which hasn’t been the case with conversions. It also ensures compliance with state and federal policies. OEEO is clear that they would like to see all hires and supports the change. Second, it increases departmental involvement in the hiring process. There are departments where TCPLs are hired without any consultation. This will be a culture change for some.

   3. Senators engaged in the following questions and discussion:

      1. Senator Abbott indicated that several of her constituents had concerns requiring a search when there are good internal candidates and there is departmental support for a TCPL position. In a period of budget concerns, who is going to pay for a search? The process is time consuming, and in some cases, redundant. Why would a search be done if there is a viable candidate – it seems counter-intuitive. Dr. Fennen indicated that it is a parallel situation with departments who want to hire VAPs into a Tenure line and are not allowed to. We don’t want to circumvent OEEO. Searches are not cost prohibitive, and an internal search can be done if there is more than one viable candidate from the department.

      2. Senator Wagner stated that this process would allow us to have conversations and input about the needs of the department before hiring. She also inquired as to the status of the draft divisional governance guidelines that were discussed in spring 2020 as they are relative to this discussion. Senator Bielo answered that this will be discussed at Executive Committee.

      3. Senator Carlin stated that we would want to see less in terms of temporary positions, and if we put more resources into hiring TCPL faculty and reduce the number of visiting faculty, this hiring process would make sense.

      4. Senator Tai supports a competitive search. It does not exclude VAPs from being part of the search. An internal search could be done, which would be fair and competitive. From her personal experience, she went through a competitive search process, not a conversion, after five years in a VAP role. She feels a competitive search as a guiding principle is the best way to hire TCPL faculty.

      5. Senator Hahn asked what is meant by competitive search. It is either internal or external.

   4. A final discussion regarding the TCPL hiring policy will be in two weeks with an expected vote.

4.  SR 21-07 – Doctor of Nursing Practice and SR 21-08 – Master of Science in Nursing – Dr. Jen Rode, Director, Graduate Nursing ºÚÁÏÉçÇø (Attachment A-II)

   1. Miami currently offers a BSN. It has been offered on the regional campuses for 50 years, and in Fall 2018, expanded to the Oxford campus. The proposals today are for a Master’s of Science in Nursing with three tracks and a Doctor of Nursing Practice. Both degrees would be online delivery with the exception of two days of on-campus workshop.

   2. The MSN program would have three tracks: Family Nurse Practitioner; Nurse Educator; and, Nurse Executive Leadership. The focus of the DNP would be Organizational Systems Leadership. There is market need and ºÚÁÏÉçÇø demand for both programs due to shortages in primary care practitioners (Bureau of Labor Statistics). There is a 26% increased need for Nurse Practitioners. Student demand for Family Nurse Practitioner ºÚÁÏÉçÇø is huge, with many ºÚÁÏÉçÇøs being turned away due to shortage of programs. Additionally, the Nurse Educator Track will help fill the gap due to expected retirement of nursing faculty. There is also more of a gap currently due to more retirements due to COVID.

   3. Why Miami? Our ºÚÁÏÉçÇøs have been asking for an MSN program for years. Although there are several Ohio Universities (University of Cincinnati and Ohio State University) with MSN and DNP programs, Miami is well positioned due to size and BSN program growth on the Oxford campus. There is a huge demand in the market, with many qualified ºÚÁÏÉçÇøs being turned away. There is a phenomenal pipeline, with many Miami BSN ºÚÁÏÉçÇøs interested in pursuing a MSN.

   4. All three tracks for the MSN are five semesters with full-time and part-time options. The Nurse Practitioner track will have a 630-hour clinical requirement while the Nurse Educator and Nurse Executive Leadership tracks will have a 210-hour clinical requirement.

   5. The difference between the DNP and PhD was explained. In 2005, the DNP was developed as a non-research clinical doctorate with the graduate having a knowledge of healthcare systems who could also serve as faculty. If the DNP program is approved, the first cohort will be 2024, when the first MSN cohort completes. It is a four-semester program with a clinical requirement of 525 hours.

   6. Senators engaged in the following questions and discussion:

      1. Senator Coleman asked if there would there be a purposeful internal pathway for ºÚÁÏÉçÇøs who are in other programs. Will there be intentional recruiting from undergraduates in non-Nursing majors? Could top ºÚÁÏÉçÇøs be directly admitted? No, according to national standards, a ºÚÁÏÉçÇø would have to have a BSN to enter into the MSN program. There are a few universities that do a Masters entry nursing program for non-Nursing majors (accelerated Bachelors of Nursing). There is another type of program that gives ºÚÁÏÉçÇøs nursing content at a Master’s level. Although the total accessible market narrows, there will not be a problem with demand.

      2. Senator Carlin noted that there are many new courses to support these programs. How is that going to be staffed? Nursing has been hiring to support the new course load. They have been hiring with a cross-purpose and will continue to hire. The Family Nurse Practitioner track of the MSN is going to be taught by Nurse Practitioners on a part time basis.

      3. Senator Green asked if these programs were tuition generating. Yes, they will generate Graduate level tuition. Is this common practice? Yes.

      4. Senator Alessio indicated that some biology or gerontology ºÚÁÏÉçÇøs may be interested in pursuing an MSN, but there is not an entry point. Could this be considered for the future? Dean Bishop-Clark stated that we are at the first step and are limited in what we can do. There are other expansion options to consider down the road. These are the first areas of growth, and there are many different specialties that this can grow into.

      5. Senator Orozco asked where the programs would be located. Would they be regional? Yes, they would be housed in the College of Liberal Arts and Applied Science, but would be delivered online and at clinical sites.

SR 21-07

November 9, 2020

BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED that University Senate endorse the proposed degree and major, Doctor of Nursing Practice, College of Liberal Arts and Applied Science.

AND FURTHERMORE, that the endorsement by University Senate of the proposed degree and major will be forwarded to the ºÚÁÏÉçÇø Board of Trustees for consideration.

SR 21-07 was unanimously approved.

SR 21-08

November 9, 2020

BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED that University Senate endorse the proposed degree and major, Master of Science in Nursing, College of Liberal Arts and Applied Science.

AND FURTHERMORE, that the endorsement by University Senate of the proposed degree and major will be forwarded to the ºÚÁÏÉçÇø Board of Trustees for consideration.

SR 21-08 was approved with one abstention.

5.  SR 21-09 – Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Resolution – Senator Cathy Wagner

   1. Senator Wagner indicated that Dr. Bennyce Hamilton, Chair, CODI, supports this resolution. This resolution arose from issues of inequity being dropped out of view. We have administrators who are really supportive of diversity, equity, and inclusion (D, E, & I) issues but administrations can change. This is intended to provide an accountability mechanism for the task force recommendations that have already been released taken place and a pathway for support, advice, and dialog. The resolution supports the D, E, & I Task Force’s goals.

   2. Senator Wu asked what efforts are being made to ensure the general ºÚÁÏÉçÇø population is being kept up to date as to the progress, and how do they know who to hold accountable? Senator Wagner suggested that ASG have a similar resolution. Provost Osborne added that Dr. Anthony James, Interim Associate Vice President for Diversity and Inclusion is doing weekly communications to the community. He encourages Senate to reach out to CODI for updates.

   3. There was a friendly amendment to add a specific timeframe for reporting to Senate. Once a semester was suggested.

SR 21-09

November 9, 2020

Resolution on Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Task Force Recommendations

WHEREAS Senate voted this summer in SR 20-25 to “work to dismantle the systems of oppression that are operating at our University,” to “make anti-racism a core value of our community,” and to “work in the immediate future to prioritize resolutions that take specific and measurable action,”

RESOLVED: Senate endorses the goals of the Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Task Force, including building accountability and transparency about DEI and building pathways for creating and sustaining DEI resources. Senate requests that the Implementation Committee provide an update to Senate on their progress at least once per semester, and that both CODI and Senate participate meaningfully in discussions about implementing recommendations.

SR 21-09 was approved: 47-yes; 2-no; 1-abstention

Consent Calendar

6. The following items were received on the consent calendar:

   1. Curriculum

   2. Academic Policy Committee – Annual Report

   3. Academic Policy Committee – Meeting Minutes – October 9, 2020

   4. Academic Policy Committee – Meeting Minutes – October 23, 2020

New Business

7. Changes to Senate By Laws 8A and Curriculum Process – Discussion – Associate Provost Carolyn Haynes

   1. Senate Execute committee asked Associate Provost Haynes to review Senate ByLaws 8.A., also known as SR 14-01. It was noted that there have been additional resolutions since 14.01. The terminology has been confusing. Was ‘programs’ meant to refer to academic program or the departmental unit? Part of the issue is that this is difficult to find for those wanting to eliminate a degree program. It is more likely that the degree program elimination information should be kept in the Policy Library under ‘Changes to Academic Curriculum’.

   2. A three-pronged approach was taken. First, move the focus of Senate ByLaws 8.A. to be on academic units. Second, put a process into place within ‘Changes to Academic Curriculum’ if the department wanted to eliminate a program via their departmental governance documents and there was no controversy. This would be initiated through the CIM system. Last, if there was controversy or disagreement amongst the faculty members in the department, or if someone outside of the department is asking for elimination of the program, the department could request the process as outlined in Senate ByLaws 8.A. and a process coordinator could be assigned.

   3. One of the concerns that was voiced was that in some cases, departmental governance documents are silent on curriculum matters. Associate Provost Haynes has developed some guidelines for departments regarding appropriate voting procedures.

   4. The changes to Senate ByLaws 8.A. and Academic Curriculum have already gone through Academic Policy Committee and COAD.

   5. Senator Carlin asked about the process for selecting a Process Coordinator? This would go through Senate Executive Committee and be approved by the Dean.

SR 21-10

November 9, 2020

BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED that University Senate adopt revisions to the Guide for the Consolidation, Partition, Transfer, or Elimination of Academic Divisions, Department, or ºÚÁÏÉçÇø (Bylaws of University Senate, Section 8.A) as stated below:

The purpose of this resolution is to guide the decision-making process when consolidation, partition, transfer, or elimination of academic divisions, departments, or programs is under consideration.  “ºÚÁÏÉçÇø” in this document is defined as administrative units such as academic departments, programs or institutes that offer degree programs, and academic divisions, rather than curricular programs interdisciplinary programs and degree programs (see “Changes to the Academic Curriculum” in the Policy Library for the procedure for elimination of an academic degree program or major). Fundamental to all that follows is the principle that ordinary administrative chains of command should always be observed in the decision-making and implementation process; that is, discussion, consultation, and fact-finding will normally begin at the programmatic or departmental level, with recommendations passing through divisional channels before reaching the Provost’s office.  This does not preclude initiative for such a decision-making process coming from a higher level, but it is meant to establish the principle of involving in a substantial way, those who are closest to the areas under consideration.  In keeping with University Senate’s primary responsibility for curriculum, programs, and course offerings, Those who have proposed a consolidation, partition, transfer, or elimination of Academic Divisions, Departments or ºÚÁÏÉçÇø will present to Senate the rationale for the restructuring in question. Senate will consider the suggested change and make a recommendation to the Provost. If the restructuring moves is to go forward, a process coordinator will be designated by the Provost in consultation with the Executive Committee of University. The process coordinator should be a neutral person who has no formal ties with the division, department or program under consideration and is a tenured, full professor who is nominated by the professor’s academic dean.

At all times in the process outlined below, every effort should be made to keep the Provost, other appropriate University officers, and the faculty, staff, and ºÚÁÏÉçÇøs in affected divisions, departments, and programs informed of the progress of such discussions as they take place. 

In consultation with the Provost, the process coordinator is charged with:

1. ensuring that the decision-making process is fair and empowers all constituents;
2. ensuring that the process not only allows adequate time to hear and debate all concerns, but also is as efficient as possible;
3. acting as a sounding board and mediator, as required, throughout the decision-making process; and
4. acting as a liaison between the affected units and University Senate (the process coordinator does not need to be a member of University Senate).

The following actions should guide all administrators and key stakeholders whenever consolidation, partition, transfer, or elimination is being formally considered. Relevant communication should occur at a time that would allow for substantive feedback from affected parties.

Step 1. A request with a rationale for consolidation, partition, transfer, or elimination of an academic degree program, a department, program (academic unit), or division is submitted to the Provost. This request may be made by the chair or director of the unit involved or it may come from a higher level.

Step 2. If the Provost deems the request worthy of consideration, those who have proposed it will present to Senate the rationale for the restructuring in question. Senate will consider the suggested change and make a recommendation to the Provost. If the Provost deems the request viable, the Provost shall name a process coordinator at such time that formal discussion involving consolidation, partition, transfer, or elimination begins. In consultation with the person who initiated the request and the Dean, the Provost may constitute an ad hoc process committee.

Step 3. In consultation with the Provost and Dean, the process coordinator shall ensure that information is shared widely with divisions, departments, and programs; and with all interested parties within and external to Miami.

Step 4. The persons involved in instituting the request (along with the ad hoc committee where required) will work with the affected division(s), department(s) or program(s) to develop a specific proposal that includes course and timeline of action and impact analysis. The analysis should assess benefits and impacts on the University mission, on all constituents, and affected units, and on budget. Where diverse perspectives exist, the process coordinator will ensure that they are included in the impact analysis. If deemed necessary by the Provost in consultation with the Dean and chair or director, a formal or informal Academic Program Review may be included in the analysis.

Step 5. In consultation with the Provost and the appropriate dean, and at the earliest time possible in the process, the process coordinator will ensure that the proposal in progress is presented and discussed at a regularly scheduled meeting of University Senate. Multiple Senate visits may be necessary.

Step 6. In consultation with the Provost, the process coordinator shall ensure that the Council of Academic Deans and all affected administrators and departments and programs are consulted on the draft proposal.

Step 7. The process coordinator shall ensure that the proposal is presented to University Senate for consideration.

Step 8. The process coordinator and the University Senate shall make recommendations to the Provost.

SR 21-10 was approved: 49-yes; 1-no; 5-abstention

 

SR 21-11

November 9, 2020

BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED that University Senate adopt revisions to the Changes to the Academic Curriculum (MUPIM 11.1) as stated below:

Deleting a Program Minor, Thematic Sequence or Certificate

(Note: any reference to class days in this manual includes final exam week.)

Each academic year during fall semester, the Office of the University Registrar will electronically notify the appropriate chair or program director and academic dean of minors, certificates, and Thematic Sequences that have had no or a low number of ºÚÁÏÉçÇøs (less than 12 ºÚÁÏÉçÇøs for undergraduate programs and 7 ºÚÁÏÉçÇøs for graduate programs) graduating within the academic program during the prior four academic years. No action will be taken on these academic programs at this point in time.

If the programs on this list continue to have low or no enrollments by the start of the fifth academic year, they will be removed from the next publication of the General Bulletin. In this fifth academic year, the chair or program director with the approval of the appropriate academic dean may notify the Office of the University Registrar of a decision to retain the minor, certificate, or Thematic Sequence on the list of active University programs for one (1) additional academic year. The program will remain for an additional sixth year and be deleted during the following year, if low or no enrollments.

Failure to supply such notification by the stated deadline of the fifth year of a low or not awarded program will result in the deletion of the program from the General Bulletin. A department or program wishing to offer an academic program that has been deleted must follow the procedures for approval of a new academic program before the program may be offered again.

Departments or programs may also elect to propose an elimination of a minor, Thematic Sequence, or certificate, on their own and at any point, following the appropriate department governance procedures.  In this situation, the proposed elimination must be submitted for approval by the following bodies following the process described in “Eliminating or Revising a Degree, Major, Co-Major, Minor or Certificate.”

Eliminating or Revising a Degree, Major, Co-Major, Minor or Certificate

Any elimination or revision to a degree, major, or co-major, minor, certificate, or concentration, including name changes to the same, at either the undergraduate or graduate level shall first be approved by the department or program, after consultation with other departments or programs (where appropriate).

Revisions requiring approval include:

• Change in name of program
• Curriculum modification, including addition or revision of a concentration with a degree program or major
• Change in delivery mode for 50% or more of the requirements
• Change in sites where program is offered
• Accelerated or flexible delivery
• Enrolling non-matriculated ºÚÁÏÉçÇøs to enroll (for certificates only)
• Elimination of program

The proposed elimination or revision must also be submitted for approval by the following bodies.

Approving Body or Person	Undergraduate	Graduate
Department or Program	Required	Required
Division	Required	Required
Graduate Council	Not Applicable	Required*
Council of Academic Deans**	Required	Required
University Senate (Consent Calendar)	Required	Required
Office of the Provost***	Required	Required

*Only those that require approval by the ODHE Chancellor’s Council on Graduate Studies (CCGS)

**Only members of COAD with faculty status vote on curricular items.

**The Office of the Provost, in consultation with the academic division and department or program shall coordinate appropriate approvals with external agencies, including the Ohio Department of Higher Education (ODHE), U.S. Department of Education (DOE), and the Higher Learning Commission (HLC). External approval is required for substantial changes to the curriculum, change in sites where the program is delivered, change in delivery mode, and (in the case of certificates) enrolling ºÚÁÏÉçÇøs who are not already enrolled in a Miami degree program.  

If a department cannot agree upon the elimination of an academic degree or major by a simple majority vote, the department or academic program (unit) may request that University Senate Executive Committee in consultation with the Provost appoint a process coordinator who will be charged with:

• ensuring that the decision-making process is fair and empowers all constituents;
• ensuring that the process not only allows adequate time to hear and debate all concerns, but also is as efficient as possible;
• acting as a sounding board and mediator, as required, throughout the decision-making process; and
• acting as a liaison between the affected units and University Senate (the process coordinator does not need to be a member of University Senate).

Within the span of one academic semester, the process coordinator will engage in analysis of the proposal, including substantive deliberation and feedback from affected division(s), department(s) or program(s). The analysis should assess benefits and impacts on the University mission, on all constituents, and affected units, and on budget. Where diverse perspectives exist, the process coordinator will ensure that they are included in the impact analysis.  The process coordinator will present findings of the analysis and make recommendations to the University Senate and the Provost.

Once these steps are concluded, the process for approval, elimination or revision of a degree program or major (as appropriate) should be followed.

SR 21-11 was approved: 41-yes; 1-no; 9-abstention

8. Amorous Relationship Policy – Senator Liz Wardle ()

   1. Reminder that this began in January 2020 at the Senate retreat during a breakout session regarding the need for a policy for consensual amorous relationships. Drafted at the retreat and then was tabled. There was then more input from Deans and Senator Bielo convened a Senate Working Group consisting of Associate Dean, Tim Cameron, Senator Helaine Alessio, Senator Debbie Coleman, Senator Liz Wardle, and Senator Cathy Wagner.

   2. The current policy is very brief and states that you may not exercise authority over those who you have a romantic relationship with. The proposed policy is stricter than this. It states:

      • Current Miami faculty members be prohibited from pursuing or engaging in an amorous relationship with any current Miami undergraduate or graduate ºÚÁÏÉçÇø. 

      • Current Miami graduate assistants be prohibited from pursuing or engaging in an amorous relationship with any current Miami undergraduate ºÚÁÏÉçÇø enrolled in their courses or over whom they have other supervisory responsibility.

      • Staff be prohibited from pursuing or engaging in an amorous relationship with any current Miami ºÚÁÏÉçÇø over whom they have some supervisory role or other span of control. 

      • No Miami employee be permitted to engage in an amorous relationship with any other Miami employee for whom they have supervisory responsibility (wherein one person has the power or authority to alter or influence the responsibilities, duties, terms, and/or conditions of employment of another).

   3. Pursing a ºÚÁÏÉçÇø is a different matter than sexual harassment, which is handled through Title IX. There are power differences between faculty and ºÚÁÏÉçÇøs and the pursuit of a relationship could be either exploitive or show favoritism. This policy also protects graduate ºÚÁÏÉçÇøs who don’t have protections. There are exceptions: partners of Miami employees who take classes; and, any relationship that existed prior to the policy. Those in new relationships would need to fill out a conflict of interest form.

   4. The process handling the violations of the policy should be responded to as opportunities for education with progressive discipline if incidents continue. Concerns should be routed to the first line supervisor who will consult with OEEO to ensure it’s not a violation of Title IX. If violations continue, the University may take disciplinary action up to and including termination of employment.

   5. It is being proposed that a standing Senate committee be formed to assist in reviewing cases and making recommendations when needed. This committee will consist of a representative from Miami’s legal counsel, two elected faculty members, one elected undergraduate ºÚÁÏÉçÇø, one elected graduate ºÚÁÏÉçÇø, one elected unclassified staff member, and one elected classified staff member. The committee would make a written recommendation regarding any disciplinary action, and if that recommendation is not followed, a written explanation would need to be submitted as to why.

   6. Some existing policies would need to be adjusted if this passes. Also, if this passes, it needs to go into the Student Handbook.

   7. Senators engaged in the following discussion and questions:

      1. Senator Morris asked if there is an amorous relationship, is there a pathway for them to continue? This was not built into the policy, because the expectation is that the employee not have an amorous relationship. If they do it, they would go through the sequence of actions as outlined in ‘d’ above. We did not want to build in a route for pursuing ºÚÁÏÉçÇøs. Have this been shared with General Counsel? Yes, there has been communication with Robin Parker and will be further review and changes if needed.

      2. Senator Carlin asked why this would be a Senate standing committee and not handled in the same manner as other harassment and discrimination cases. Senator Wardle answered that it doesn’t necessarily have to be a Senate committee, but it does need to be a group that is standing and has history. Senator Carlin’s suggestion was to keep it out of Senate.

Adjournment

9. The meeting was adjourned at 4:55 p.m.

9. 9. 3.