CURRICULAR AFFAIRS COMMITTEE OF THE FACULTY SENATE

CURRICULAR AFFAIRS COMMITTEE
OF THE FACULTY SENATE
ANNUAL REPORT: Fall 2009 – Spring 2010
The Curricular Affairs Committee (CAC) of the Faculty Senate met 10 times during the academic
year.
Reviews of Proposals to Initiate, Alter or Terminate an Academic Program:
During the academic year 2009-2010, the Curricular Affairs Committee (CAC) of the Faculty
Senate completed the review on a total of 10 proposals to initiate, alter or terminate academic
programs. One request is still under consideration.
Completed Reviews
1. Approved a proposal for a Major in Neuroscience (BS), offered by the College of Art and
Sciences.
2. Approved a proposal for a Graduate Certificate in Greek and Latin Languages, offered
by the Graduate College in conjunction with the College of Art and Sciences.
3. Approved a proposal to create the Tarrant Institute for Innovative Education in the
College of Education and Social Services.
4. Approved a proposal to eliminate the Minor in Studio Art offered by the Department of Art
and Art History in the College of Arts and Sciences.
5. Approved several actions related to the Department of Communication Sciences in the
College of Arts and Sciences:
o Move the Department of Communication Sciences to the College of Nursing and
Health Sciences;
o Change the name of the department to the Department of Communication Sciences
and Disorders;
o Create a new Major in Communication Sciences and Disorders (BS); and
o Rename the graduate degree to the Master of Science in Communication Sciences
and Disorders
6. Approved a proposal to create a Bachelor of Arts in Linguistics in the College of Arts
and Sciences.
7. Approved a proposal to change the name of the Center for the Study of Aging to the Center
on Aging and to change its location from Continuing Education to the College of Medicine.
Reviews in progress
1. A proposal for a Certificate of Graduate Study in Transportation Systems and Mobility
Other Actions
Throughout the year a number of requests come into the CAC for deliberation. The following were
considered this year:
1. Approved a policy to eliminate the grade of XC and replace it with SP/UP (satisfactory or
unsatisfactory progress).
2. Approved a policy requiring that courses that extend across more than one academic
calendar segment be separate courses utilizing the SP/UP grade for the initial course(s) in
the sequence.
3. Approved a change in the Disenrollment Policy to place a deadline for disenrollment that is
the same as the Drop/Add deadline.
4. Approved a policy for limiting number of times a temporary course number can be used to
teach a course (5/6,95/96,195/196, 295/296,395/396).
5. Participated in the review of the Transdisciplinary Research Proposals.
6. Discussed, but did not approve, changes to policy regarding what happens when a student
fails a course, retakes that course, and gets a passing grade.
7. Ongoing discussion with the General Education Committee regarding development and
assessment of general education requirements.
8. Ongoing liaison with the Director of the Writing in the Disciplines program
9. Ongoing discussion with the provost to evaluate and update the process for Academic
Program Review.
10. A standing subcommittee of Curricular Affairs, the Diversity Curriculum Review
Committee (DCRC), reviewed 70 courses, designed policies and is engaged in assessment of
the implementation of the Diversity Curriculum Requirement.
11. Liaison with the Academic Affairs Committee of the Student Government Association.
Discussion of the following actions is in progress:
1. Proposal for Automatic Inactivation of Courses
2. Approval of tracks within the Biological Consortium Graduate Program (on hold at the
request of the Vice President for Research and Dean of the Graduate College)
3. Finalizing new Course Action Forms and process Policy for catalogue removal of courses
not taught in a defined time period
4. Discussion of defining Sustainability courses for national certification.
5. Revision of the APR process and standards; the process has been approved with potential
changes in the standards and data requested still under discussion
6. Consideration of definitions for potential new Continuing Education certificates.
Academic Program Review
Reviews were completed for 9 programs; 3 are currently in progress.
1. Completed the Academic Program Review for Math.
2. Completed the Academic Program Review for the Physical Therapy
3. Completed the Academic Program Review for German & Russian
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Completed the Academic Program Review for Materials Science
Completed the Academic Program Review for Vermont Studies
Completed the Academic Program Review for Engineering Management
Completed the Academic Program Review for Statistics & Biostatistics
Completed the Academic Program Review for Integrated Biological Science
Completed the Academic Program Review for Environmental Studies
APR activity is underway for the following programs:
a. Graduate Program in Curriculum and Instruction (CESS)
b. Microbiology & Molecular Genetics
c. Engineering
Report submitted by Cindy Forehand, Chair of the Curricular Affairs Committee, May 20 2010. Revision
submitted September 7, 2010.
Education and Research Technology Committee
Annual Report to the Faculty Senate
May 10, 2010
The Committee met 7 times during the 2009/2010 academic year.
The main issues considered by the committee were:
1) Classroom Technology & other Issues. The committee continued monitoring the upgrades to general
purpose classroom technology upgrades. The committee considered other issues related to classroom
maintenance. We have begun to investigate the possibility of some kind of centralized system for reporting
any type of problem in a classroom which adversely effects its use for teaching. The hope is to develop a
system whereby Faculty could report any type of problem to one place and it would be routed to the proper
unit, be that Media Services, Facilities, Custodial, etc. We are also looking into the possibility of some kind of
“emergency” help request system. This might be akin to the “Help Button” available in some of the School of
Medicine rooms, like Carpenter Auditorium.
2) Blackboard. We continued to receive regular reports of upgrades to the Blackboard system. The committee
was requested to get Faculty input, especially with regards problems and suggested improvements.
3) Clickers (Student Response Devices). An agreement was signed with the I-clicker company. The agreement
is non-binding (a Faculty member may still use any device they see fit), but recognizing I-clicker makes UVM
eligible for free base units to be used in the classroom. The University has already received about 20 base
units and the majority of these will e installed permanently in some classrooms. The committee has suggested
that this technology be included in the standard media equipment in most general purpose classrooms. Among
other things, this would greatly ease the problem of course scheduling.
4) Technology Use and Security. The ERTC was asked to preview and review both the AUP (Acceptable Use
Policy) and the Information Security and Privacy Policy. We had several discussions with CIO David Todd
about both policies and a couple of related suggestions resulted. One concerned the possibility of the
University assuming insurance liability for Faculty laptops, if the Faculty member encrypts their laptop. In the
future, encryption will be required on all University owned laptops. Another suggestion was to increase the
effort in making all University community members aware of the Security and Privacy policy. This is
especially important for new Faculty members and it was suggested that such education be included in the new
Faculty orientation process. David Todd agreed that this is worthwhile and has agreed to pursue the issue.
5) Other Issues. The committee either instigated discussion on or supplied comments on the following issues.
Electronic advising files. There are many advantages to such a system. A clear record of advising and ease
of change of advisors are just two. On-line student course evaluations. Commented on issues related to online course evaluations and made recommendations for membership on the committee to develop a University
wide set of evaluation questions. Standard syllabi. Both Faculty and students have indicated interest in some
kind type of on-line course syllabus system. Students have requested course syllabi be linked to the schedule
of courses and Faculty have indicated interest in some type of electronic syllabus management system.
Discussions are on-going with the Registrar. Digital Measures. Input on the Faculty activity reporting system
were solicited. Survey/Balloting software. The committee was asked for responses to the ETS choice of
survey and balloting software.
The committee received regular updates on many of the above and other Technology related issues and would
like to thank Keith Williams (Registrar), David Todd (CIO) and Wendy Verrei-Berenback (CTL) for their
input. Each of these three met regularly with the committee, kept us up to date on developing projects and
issues, solicited suggestions from the committee and in so far as possible acted on these suggestions.
I would like to take this opportunity to publicly thank each of the members of the ERTC for taking time from
their busy schedules to participate in the work of the committee. With the increased emphasis on the Faculty’s
role in the operation of the University, this group has, by their actions, indicated a willingness to do just that.
Lastly, but not least, on behalf of the entire ERTC, I would like to acknowledge the tireless efforts of Susannah
Magee from the Faculty Senate Office. The committee could not run as smoothly as it does without her help.
Report submitted by Larry Kost, Chair of the Educational and Research Technology Committee, May 10, 2010.
UNIVERISTY OF VERMONT
Faculty Senate Financial and Physical Planning Committee
The Financial and Physical Planning Committee met 9 times during the academic year. The
following issues were addressed by the committee:
1. Budget-related issues
 Assessed impact of fiscal year 2010 budget cuts on enrollment trends and class sizes
 Received detail data from the provost on the number of faculty positions lost due to
budget cuts
 Engaged in discussions about potential metrics the university’s could use to monitor
quality of instruction given increasing class size
 Previewed gap in 2011 budget, and assessed assumptions for tuition dollars and
academic aid, and inquired about how the budget aligns with overall university strategic
plan
 Discussed policy of utilizing 4.5% of trailing quarters’ payout ratio on investments is
appropriate given the current economic environment
 Engaged in policy discussions meant to address the fact that there is inconsistent
information flows from deans to faculty across the various schools
 Received overview of the open budget process used in the College of Nursing and
Health Sciences
 Reviewed proposal to close 2011 budget gap, assuming 4.8% tuition increase.
2. Facilities-related issues
 Received updates on facilities planning
 Focused session on issues of encompassing deferred maintenance
3. Administrative staffing issues
 Reviewed report issued by the administration comparing administrative staffing levels of
the university to its peers with a particular focus on the definition of an administrator
used in the report
 Acknowledged the sensitivity of using dollars on administration at the expense of
academic instruction
 Engaged in discussions with administration to get a better understanding of how the
report was compiled
 Prepared memo to Fred Curran, or his successor, to request additional information
related to administrative staffing headcount
4. Prepared report on the interplay between the budget and the impact of TRI/Gen Ed
initiatives to the faculty senate in response to TRI ad hoc committee motion
5. Other activities
 Received report on Energy Fund
 Received audit committee report
 Received BOT committee updates


Began coordination with Provost Office for a follow-up survey of department chairs in
the impact of increased student numbers
Coordinated discussions related to Peoplesoft reporting issues, especially as they relate
to grant oversight
Report submitted by Don Ross, Chair of the Financial & Physical Planning Committee, May 20 2010.
Report from the Senate Professional Standards Committee
2009-2010 Academic Year
The Professional Standards Committee (PSC) is the standing committee of the Faculty Senate responsible for
reviewing sabbatical leave applications, as well as re-appointment, promotion, and tenure (RPT) cases. Our
role is advisory to the Provost and we are engaged after such applications have passed through their
respective college and school review processes.
During the Fall, 2009 semester, the committee considered 50 sabbatical applications. Deliberations on these
were completed on 11/16/09. In the Spring, 2010 semester we considered 90
Reappointment/Promotion/Tenure (RPT) dossiers and one sabbatical application from the College of
Medicine. The unit breakdown of the RPT dossiers was as follows:
Unit
BSAD
CALS
CAS
CEMS
CESS
CNHS
Extension
Libraries
RSENR
COM
Totals
Promotion
1
5
11
1
1
1
3
2
4
16
45
Promotion &
Tenure
1
1
11
2
0
0
0
0
1
1
17
Tenure
Reappointment
Total
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
0
2
17
2
1
0
0
0
0
4
26
3
8
39
5
2
1
3
2
5
22
90
The deliberations were completed at the 4/5/10 meeting. The committee’s progress was somewhat hampered
by the loss of 3 members at the beginning of the spring semester due to sabbaticals and medical leaves. It
should also be noted that there was a bit of confusion on the deadline for the spring deliberations between the
Provost’s Office (3/15/10) and the PSC (considerably later). We were able to work together to formulate a
compromise, which comprised the Provost’s Office waiting until the PSC completed deliberations, and the
PSC updating the Provost’s Office weekly with the result of the meeting’s votes.
The PSC was asked at the end of the fall semester to review the guidelines for the composition of tenure
track search committees proposed by the Provost in the fall of 2009. The committee surveyed the faculty,
discussed the issue, and wrote a report, which was presented to the Provost and Associate Provost during the
4/19/10 meeting. That report will be presented to the Faculty Senate at the 5/20/10 meeting. In addition, at
the 4/19/10 PSC meeting, the committee heard a presentation arranged by the Provost’s Office on the Digital
Measures reporting tool.
The Professional Standards Committee made the following recommendations to the Provost based on their
work during the 2009-2010 academic year:
1. The sabbatical applications should proceed from the unit/college of origin directly to the Provost’s
Office without PSC review unless the Provost wished the PSC to review a particular application
or the application was not approved at the college/unit level. The rationale for this suggestion
was that the PSC rarely, if ever, disagrees with the unit of origin and that the workload of this
committee is quite heavy and growing yearly. This change would also allow the committee the
time to take on the additional tasks requested by the Provost’s Office while still preserving the
protections accorded to the faculty pursuing sabbaticals.
2. A box labeled “Recusals” on the RPT Forms at the points where the votes of departments, Faculty
Standards Committees, and the Professional Standards Committee are listed should be added.
The rationale is that separating recusals, which involve conflicts of interest or absence from a
vote, from abstentions, which may indicate an inability or unwillingness on the part of the voter
to decide on an up or down vote, would aid the deliberations at subsequent reviews.
Report submitted by Julie Roberts, Chair of the Professional Standards Committee, May 20 2010
Report (2009/2010) of the Research, Scholarship and
Graduate Education Subcommittee
UVM Faculty Senate
May 6, 2010
Membership of the Committee:
The Committee met on 13 occasions, the first being September 3, 2009 and the last being May 6, 2010. The Committee
membership included Lisa Aultman-Hall, Sid Bosworth, Chris Burns, Binta Colley, Catherine Connor, Richard
Galbraith (Chair), Sharon Henry, Diane Jaworski, Barbara McIntosh, Donna Parrish, Timothy Stickle and Mary
Tierney. Representatives from the Graduate Student Senate also attended on several occasions. In addition, many of
the meetings were attended by the President of the Faculty Senate, James Burgmeier, by the Vice President for
Research, Domenico Grasso, and his staff Dan Harvey and Melody Burkins-Brown, and by Ruth Farrell, Director of the
Office of Sponsored Programs.

Research at UVM. The first meeting was attended by Domenico Grasso who spoke about his vision for
research at the University. He noted the desire to have focused strategic investment in research at UVM and to
elevate the existing and emerging research and scholarship to a more visible level commensurate with the
University’s attention to undergraduate education. He noted that specific strengths of the University as
identified by the Administration were environmental, biological sciences, psychology, behavioral and
neurosciences and complex systems. It was noted by a Committee member that six or seven areas had been
identified by the Provost which would be shared with the faculty and the Faculty Senate and that criteria by
which each of the areas would be selected would be determined through the Faculty Senate and consensus
building. Another Committee member expressed the opinion that it is the faculty who need to drive successful
new research endeavors.
There was general discussion about problems of graduate education and research at UVM and Grasso asked
Committee members to send him their comments and suggestions on barriers to research.
Previous work by this Committee on metrics for research and creativity were noted and the pertinent
documents were sent to Grasso. A list of obstacles to research compiled by the Committee members was
assembled and sent to Grasso at the September 17th meeting.

Transdisciplinary Research Initiative (TRI). On October 1, 2009 Jane Knodell, Interim Provost, and Grasso
attended the meeting. The Provost reported that the Administration would be sending a letter to the University
community announcing the Transdisciplinary Research Initiative which would involve the creation of eight
working groups. She then announced the eight topics: biological sciences and bioengineering, complex
systems, culture and society, environment, food systems, neurosciences: basic, behavioral, clinical,
developmental, policy studies and public health/sustainable health/health policy. She then laid out the
procedure by which the working groups would be created. After much discussion about this subject it was
noted by a Committee member that one of the largest obstacles might be to get the faculty on board and take
seriously the fact that change is on the horizon. Grasso responded that the Administration is very concerned
about the implementation of the changes and assured the Committee that the RSGE Research Roadmap and
similar documents would be used.
At the November 5, 2009 meeting it was concluded that five RSGE Committee members were on TRI
Working Groups. The graduate student representative asked if graduate students were included on the
working group and if not, why not? Evidently they were not and it was suggested that both undergraduate and
undergraduate groups should discuss the initiative and their potential roles and communicate their suggestions
and concerns with all deliberate speed to the working group chairs.
It was suggested that working groups have access to review and critique of their working plans by external
content experts and a letter was sent to the Provost requesting this revision to the process. This
recommendation was subsequently approved. It was also suggested and the suggestion adopted that the
working groups minutes would be made public. The Committee discussed and agreed that they should
formulate plans on how the product of these working groups should be reviewed with special emphasis on the
extensive work of this committee on analyzing various metrics.
In discussions on November 19, 2009 it was noted by a member of one of the working groups that there wasn’t
sufficient time for the group to do its work and that the overlap between spires was highly problematic. It was
also noted that some of the groups were finding it difficult to focus their work due to the enormous breadth of
the topics within spires.
After recusal of the five Committee members who were part of working groups, four members of the RSGE
Committee agreed to serve on the TRI Senate Review Panel and Professor Jaworski volunteered to Chair the
Committee. There was much discussion and review of the criteria of the review rubric. Concern was raised
about the vagueness of the terminology concerning diversity and this concern was communicated to the
Administration. However, no action was taken as a result of this communication.
As of May 6, the Provost is awaiting approval of the Board of Trustees concerning the plan for the selected
spires, the opinion of the FPPC Committee about the requests of Deans to access the 30 faculty lines being
held by the Provost, and the report of the Senate Ad Hoc Committee on future TRI processes.

Federation of Student Research Opportunities. On September 17, 2009 Abu Rizvi, Dean of the Honors
College and Gayle Bress, Undergraduate Research Coordinator, visited with the Committee to discuss student
research opportunities. There is a large array of programs available to undergraduates and graduates to support
them in research and scholarly activities. However, these programs are highly decentralized, often occurring in
specific departments or colleges and the plan is to try to aggregate all of these opportunities into one web site
to make it easier for students to understand and assess their opportunities. Likewise there are also plans to
form a University-wide database of faculty from all colleges who are interested in guiding students in all areas
of research. There was much discussion about these proposals and suggestions were made but the underlying
principal was clearly enthusiastically endorsed by the Committee.

Open Access and Publications. Chris Burns, Library Associate Professor, brought these issues to the attention
to the Committee which discussed them during several meetings. The issues revolve around the current
protocol for publishing whereby all rights to the scholarly activity and the resulting publication are signed over
to the publisher at the time of acceptance for publication. There are also other relevant issues such as digital
library collections and how we will handle these in the future. Subsequently, Chris Burns arranged for a
faculty member from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology libraries to address us on the steps taken by
the MIT faculty. Briefly the faculty adopted a policy whereby copyright on their publication was immediately
assigned to MIT for use in educational and scholarly activities. Surprisingly, almost all journals have gone
along with this policy with the exception of Nature and Science and as a result, there is an opt out policy for
faculty if they believe this assignment will interfere with their ability to publish. Subsequently the University
of Vermont Library Committee prepared a White Paper on this subject which was disseminated to the Faculty
Senate and subsequently discussed at a full Senate meeting. The upshot was volunteers were requested to form
a committee to examine these issues at UVM.

Obstacles to Research. A list of obstacles prepared by the Committee was sent to Grasso. After discussion,
the Committee agreed to prioritize the long list into two smaller lists. The first being issues that could be
addressed right away without significant investments and the second list of greater barriers which would
require greater investments. The Committee prioritized the list of obstacles as follows:
1.
The availability of time to pursue research.
2.
Sufficient financial support for graduate students (fees, tuition, health care, GTA, GRA) to attract and
retain the highest quality students.
3.
Lack of sufficient support staff trained to provide support throughout the grant life cycle.
4.
Lack of adequately trained technical support to assist researchers (i.e. statistics, IT, lab equipment).
5.
Lack of sufficient intramural support for seed and pilot funds to increase competitiveness for federal
research grants.
On November 19, 2009 Grasso met with the Committee to discuss the obstacles to research.
A. Availability of time to pursue research. Grasso indicated that he would bring this issue to the Presidential
Senior Leadership Committee and the Deans’ Council. There ensued a discussion about different
curricular approaches, four credit course curricula and European pass/fail approaches. He summarized
that there wasn’t enough research capacity at the University to generate the indirects to have the
discretionary funds to better address these obstacles.
B. Sufficient financial support for graduate students. Grasso reported that this would be a high priority for
the new Associate Dean of the Graduate College, but that he would like to see more graduate students
written into graduate proposals, tuition separate from stipends and grants charged directly for tuition,
higher stipends, health care coverage and more higher quality graduate students. There was push back
from the Committee that the impact on productivity of a grant needs to be considered. Funding agencies
and panels are not concerned with the University’s budget but simply want to know how many papers
have been published and how much has been done within the funding period. Concern was also expressed
about students auditing classes because they don’t wish to pay tuition.
C. Lack of sufficient support staff that is trained to provide support throughout the grant life cycle. Grasso
reported that OSP and DCA are being merged and voiced the hope that this would result in improved
lifecycle grant support. The Committee noted that this was an important topic and plans to invite Ruth
Farrell from OSP to elucidate on these changes.
D. Lack of adequately trained technical support to assist researchers. This issue refers to equipment and
facilities. Grasso indicated that this was the idea behind the Vermont Advanced Computing Center i.e.
investing in a high performance computer system would eliminate the need for numerous smaller
computer systems. It was noted that although the support staff in the Engineering College may be
supportive in this regard, it was not necessarily the case in other colleges.
E. Lack of sufficient intramural support for seed and pilot funds. Grasso indicated that the only way to fund
these programs is by increasing indirect cost recovery. However, it was also noted by a Committee
member that the Provost could restructure the way that indirect costs were divided. In further discussion it
was noted by Dan Harvey that there was confusion concerning the complex subject of indirects and
whether or not that portion of them being returned to colleges and departments was in fact being spent on
research. He acknowledged that this was a field which needed ongoing work.
In subsequent discussion of indirect costs with Michael Meunier, Assistant Controller, it was noted that
because administrative costs are capped at 26% the University, even with fully funded indirects, looses a
minimum of 19% on every grant because our real administrative costs are approximately 41%. It should
also be noted that most universities receive a discounted indirect cost rate compared to the true calculated
costs. Grasso commented that using a figure of 40% as a percentage of faculty time for scholarly
activities and research the University subsidizes about $34 million for these activities. This is clearly
problematic because some people spend considerably more than 40% of their time pursuing these
activities while other people spend considerably less. Provost Knodell commented that the model at
UVM is based on positive synergies between research and teaching and that it’s more important to
determine how the pieces can fit together in a sustainable model. However, it was noted that this
description of an ideal balance is exactly what the RSGE Committee has long been requesting data (for
the last three years) to determine. The Committee expressed a wish to see data similar to the F&A data
presented for research as applied to education detailing the costs and revenue for instruction. Mike
Meunier reported that his department is working on these figures.
On May 6, Ruth Farrell updated the Committee with plans for the reorganization of the Office of
Sponsored Programs and Grant and Contract Accounting into one seamless operation.

URECA! Five subcommittees were set up in the fields of engineering and physical sciences, social work and
education, social sciences and humanities, health sciences and environmental sciences. Forty three URECA!
applications were received and reviewed by these committees. Twenty eight applications were funded through
the program administered by the Honors College.

Burak Nominations. The Committee approved all submitted nominees from the first round of nominations
with the exception of one. A note was sent to the nominator for the unapproved nominee expressing why he
wasn’t accepted and how to improve the application for future submission. On the second round of nominees,
the Committee approved 10 of the 15 submitted.

Graduate Student Rights and Responsibilities. The Committee again raised the issue and requested of the
Graduate College the creation of a formal document detailing graduate students’ rights and responsibilities.
This marks the sixth successive year in which this request has been made without response.

Distinguished Professors. A slate of Distinguished Professors was reviewed by the RSGE Committee and
prioritized with five names being submitted to the Provost for the next round of review which starts with a
collection of external references. The Committee struggled for some time with the review process and the
guidelines for nominating Distinguished Professors. Jane Knodell was invited to meet with the Committee to
discuss these issues which centered around whether gender age, college, discipline and length of time at the
University could or should be contributing factors in the evaluation. In her opinion, international reputation
was one of the most important attributes. The Committee really did not come to consensus on this issue
although all agreed that standard guidelines should be improved for future nominations in an effort to increase
diversity of submitted candidates. Various other universities were polled about their Distinguished Professor
requirements. Other Universities have similar very general calls, but have more information about selection
criteria and instructions for nomination packages on their web sites. At the University of Michigan, the review
committee uses no formal rubric but looks for good all around candidates and committee members vote their
conscience. Their review committee is comprised of University Distinguished Professors. It was decided to
request of the Provost that the second round of reviews be performed by a separate group, perhaps the
University Scholars or existing University Distinguished Professors.
Report submitted by Richard Galbraith, Chair of the Research, Scholarship & Graduate Education
Committee, May 20 2010
Student Affairs Committee (SAC)
Annual Report to the Faculty Senate
May 10, 2010
Membership of the 2009-2010 Student Affairs Committee
Andrew Barnaby, Elizabeth Berman, Sin-Yee Chan, Jurij Homziak, Jennifer F. Prue, Alan McIntosh, Lauck Parke,
Stephen Pintauro, Alan Segal (Chair), Sharyl Toscano, Curtis Ventriss, Stuart Whitney, Sheila Weaver
Issues for the 2009-2010 academic year

Charge of the SAC
o The charge of the SAC according to the Faculty Senate bylaws was reviewed to orient new committee
members and help sharpen the focus of committee discussions.
 7.153 Student Affairs Committee. This committee shall have responsibility for matters
relating to student affairs, their effect on the educational process, and the academic climate of
the University, including items referred to in Sections 1.1d, 1.2e, 1.2f, 1.4, and 1.5. It shall
recommend policy with respect to honors programs, remedial programs, athletics, discipline,
health service, placement, housing, student activities, etc. It shall include among its duties indepth and ongoing review of University admissions and financial aid policies, including their
relation to projected enrollments. This committee shall establish policy in matters related to
general admissions standards and prerequisites, as referred to in Section 1.1d, and shall
review, recommend and participate in formulation of admissions procedures. The committee
shall establish a continuing liaison with student government groups and with all appropriate
administrative and academic offices.
 There was discussion of whether the statement addressing the power of the SAC to establish
policies in certain matters would also include issues related to classroom conduct, student use
of technology, and academic integrity.

Mission of the SAC: Student Safety and Wellness
o SAC Mission Statement: The Chair suggested that the committee create a clear and overarching
mission statement, in order to generate action items that can be accomplished. He presented the
following draft statement, and asked for input from the committee:
o Student Affairs Committee Mission Statement (draft):
To Support Awareness, Acceptance, Guidance, and Wellness of Students
 Awareness—Faculty keeping up with the issues important to students
 Acceptance—Promoting esteem and understanding diversity among students
 Guidance—From the classroom code of conduct to social justice
 Wellness—Promoting personal and community health, and developing effective
methods to deal with student stresses and crises

Student representatives on the SAC and communication between SAC, SGA, and GSS
o Last year, there was no student representative from either the undergraduate student government
(SGA) or graduate student senate (GSS). This issue was partially remedied this year as representatives
of the SGA attended several SAC meetings and made important contributions, as detailed in the
minutes from 1/27/2010 (Kate Ash, SGA Vice-President) and 3/24/2010 (Bryce Jones, SGA
President).
o The committee feels that the presence of a student representative (and/or an SGA member) greatly
enhances our meetings, and helps the SAC stay up-to-date and on-point with what students are
thinking and how they are feeling. A goal for next year is to have a student representative at every
meeting (an assigned student either for the year or one student for each semester), as well as a
representative from the SGA and the GSS at least once per semester. The SGA will make their
meeting minutes available to the SAC to facilitate a closer relationship between the two bodies.

Classroom Code of Conduct
o At the beginning of the year, the Chair raised the issue of what guidelines are currently listed in the
Code of Conduct regarding the use of the internet, cell phones, and other electronic devices in
classroom. The committee spent a significant amount of time on this issue, addressing the questions of
1) what activities might constitute “disruptive behavior” in the classroom, and 2) whether the Code of
o
o
o
o
Conduct—especially in the era of multimedia, multidevice, and multimodality social networking
available to the millennial learner over the air or via the UVM wireless network—should be amended.
Currently the Code of Conduct leaves this issue at the discretion of the faculty member.
For example, the School of Business has required faculty to include a "classroom protocol" in their
syllabi for over 20 years. Though it does not expressly address cell phones and internet issues, the
last item states in essence; "....and any other requirements added by the faculty member.... A
suggestion was made to create guidelines and consequences and put them in a sample syllabus for
faculty members to use as an example when creating their own. A syllabus template can be found on
the CTL website.
Our discussion was somewhat prescient because in February 2010, the Provost asked the Educational
and Research Technologies Committee (ERTC) to bring this issue to the attention of the Faculty. In
turn, the ERTC asked the Student Affairs Committee to consider whether an explicit statement should
be added to the Code of Conduct regarding the appropriate and inappropriate use of electronic devices
in the classroom. We acknowledged that such “electronic” intrusions into the classroom are already
present. If the ringing of a cell phone during class is considered disruptive, it is likely that other
electronic notifications and activities are likewise disruptive.
Our committee sought the input of the students on this issue, and at 3 separate meetings, 3 different
student representatives all commented that ‘students will text regardless of the rules’ as this is a
cultural norm for them. It was also noted that the University’s emergency alert system is through cell
phones, so cell phones cannot be banned in classrooms.
Initially, the committee agreed to write an overarching guideline and make a recommendation to the
administration that it be added to the Code of Conduct. Ultimately, however, the committee
decided that the wording in the current Code of Conduct is sufficient and can be applied to
electronic devices without a specific amendment. Instead, the committee urges faculty members to
clearly outline expectations in their syllabi and on the first day of class.

Improving the navigation to, visibility of, key University policies
o Committee members have expressed frustration because key policies (e.g., the Code of Conduct) are
difficult to find on the UVM website, and documents may not be updated or clearly linked. The First
Year Experience Committee has also heard from some students about the difficulty of finding
information on UVM’s sites. Our student representatives had the impression that most students are not
aware of the Code of Conduct. A suggestion was made to include a link in faculty syllabi to the Code
of Conduct and incorporate it into their ‘rules of the classroom’ on the first day of class.

Addressing Students: The Problem of Personal Pronouns
o Given the diversity of our students and the increasing complexity of how individuals wish to be
recognized, there is a need to educate faculty with respect to an individual’s personal preferences. The
use of an individual’s ‘personal pronoun’ is one such example, the committee noted that one way to
respectfully inquire about a student’s preference is to simply to ask “What’s your pronoun?”

Student Advising and Mentoring
o The committee discussed the difference between what faculty offer as advisors and what students may
actually want or need for advising (i.e., more mentoring or developmental advising). Committee
members were interested in finding out more about how to provide better quality advising and perhaps
systemize it. We were fortunate that one of the committee members (Jennifer Prue) specializes in this
area, and she educated us on this issue and provided a useful handout entitled, “Navigating Effective
Developmental Advising: Research and Student-Generated Best Practices for Mentoring the
Emerging Professional.”

ACCESS Services
o Committee member Jennifer Prue (CESS) provided information on ACCESS services. At the
University level, she stressed that students must self-identify (meaning neither classmates nor the
ACCESS Office can identify the student’s disability). Second, students must provide the ACCESS
office with documentation in order to receive services. Some students who should in practice continue
to take medication and have the structure of an IEP (Individualized Education Plan), as they may have
done in high school, give these up with the new freedom of college. There also exists a gap in
o
o
communication between ACCESS and faculty members partly due to the self-identification
requirement. There is also a lack of adequate and appropriate training and support for faculty.
Professor Prue shared a list of expectations that students can realistic ally expect of faculty members,
and noted that while difficult at times, faculty members should be commended for providing the extra
support to students, which shows they are good teachers, and are doing the right thing to do for the
student.
The committee discussed issues with ACCESS students that faculty members have come across in
their own classrooms and invited committee members to contact her with future questions. It was
suggested to identify a point person at the program or department level who is knowledgeable about
ACCESS services to serve as a resource.

US Sino Pathways Program
o Chris Lucier (Vice President for Enrollment Management), Kin Howard, and Brian Reed (Associate
Provost) presented an update on the status of this program at our October 2009 meeting. They noted
that students who will be coming to the University as part of the program are currently in English
language (writing and speaking) immersion classes while still in China. Combining academic and
non-academic orientation, they will also be learning about American education and learning styles,
and American culture. Before arriving in the US, students will take a test equivalent to the TOEFL,
which is required by all UVM non-native speaking students.
o Approximately 50 students will be coming to the University, most of who will go into business,
engineering and science programs, and a few to social sciences. Mr. Lucier pointed out that these new
students will not be additional students, but will be included in the overall enrollment, and considered
to be first year students. Brian Reed presented the academic coursework plan or bridge, separating the
coursework for students expected to be in the engineering program from students expected to be in
other programs. Students are expected to be able to complete coursework in three years. The bridge
does include orientation beyond academic coursework, For example, in the Exploring America series,
students will be out in the community, visiting Montpelier, and taking part in campus and Burlington
activities. It was requested that the libraries be involved as part of the orientation.
o Less than 1 % of undergraduates at the university are international degree seeking students, versus 3
to 7 % nationwide, so the university is trying to increase these numbers. Kim Howard noted the
program model has been tested by Kaplan in England and Australia and had a very high success rate,
which greatly influenced the university’s choosing this program. Lucier added that this exchange
program has never before been done in the US.
o Last Spring, Howard reported, a Student Success Task Force was formed to prepare for the program,
and also to look holistically at how well we are currently meeting the needs of international students
at the graduate and undergraduate level. She invited all faculty members to join the committee as
mentors to the new students. Howard provided a Philosophy Statement, which guides the overall plan
and answers frequently asked questions. In the next month, Howard stated the program hopes to have
a website up with this and more information.
o Finally, they noted that success of the program will be defined by two factors: first, if students have a
great experience and second, whether colleagues have a great experience, are well prepared, and have
classrooms that are enriched by the experience. Finally, it was noted, the desire of the university is to
increase awareness of internationalization here at UVM.

Executive Council Issues Relevant to SAC
o Academic calendar: the scheduling of Final examinations was reviewed
o Graduation: proposed changes in the Graduation Ceremony was reviewed
o The Transdisciplinary Research Initiatives (TRI): this issue was the single most discussed issue on
campus this year, and the SAC members voiced concern on the overall effect on students, particularly
the undergraduates. As articulated at one of our meeting by Kate Ash (SGA Vice-President), there is a
feeling of disenfranchisement with regards to recent budget issues and the Transdisciplinary Research
Initiative (TRI). Kate reported that students feel their requests for information on how the TRI will
affect undergraduate education have been largely ignored by the administration. She did suggest that
in some cases students haven’t based their requests or opinions on the data or information made
available to them by the administration (on the budget, for example), thus sometimes resulting in
unreasonable requests or inaccurate opinions. In addition, she noted that some students may be
influenced by statements made by faculty in class. She stressed that these comments made by faculty
do affect students, that what faculty says matters to students, and that these set a negative tone. Kate
stated that potential changes due to budget issues and TRI are a big fear of students currently. This
illustrated the importance of having student leaders to share correct information. In order to improve
accuracy of information, the SGA plans a series of forums in order to educate students on the UVM
budget, General Education and the TRI, and provide a forum for discussion.
Subcommittees and other member assignments


Senior Awards: Sin-Yee Chan volunteered to work on this subcommittee.
Undergraduate Retention Plan Working Group: Professor Andrew Barnaby volunteered to serve on this
working group being created to develop strategies for undergraduate retention.
SAC Chair for 2010-2011

Selection of the Chair for the next academic year was discussed at our final meeting and it was decided that
Alan Segal will serve as Chair.
Report submitted by Alan Segal, Chair of the Student Affairs Committee, May 20 2010
2009-10 Academic Year Report to the Faculty Senate on the UVM Athletics
Program
Robert Manning
Professor
Rubenstein School of Environment and Natural Resources
UVM Faculty Athletics Representative
John Gennari
Associate Professor
Department of English
Chair, Athletics Advisory Board
This report highlights and summarizes important activities and accomplishments of the UVM athletics program
in the 2009-10 academic year. The focus of the report is on matters that are most relevant to university faculty and the
Faculty Senate. The report was prepared by Robert Manning and John Gennari who have faculty-based oversight and
advisory responsibilities for UVM athletics. Robert Manning is the UVM Faculty Athletics Representative, appointed
by President Fogel, and responsible to UVM and the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) for oversight
relating to matters of academic integrity and student-athlete wellbeing. John Gennari is Chair of the UVM Athletic
Advisory Board (AAB), a group of faculty, staff, students, and alumni who have broad advisory responsibilities to the
President and the Director of Athletics.
1.
UVM student-athletes continue to perform at a high level in the classroom. In the fall 2009 semester, the
combined grade point average of student-athletes was 3.15 compared to the overall UVM student grade point
average of 3.10. This was the 15th semester in a row that student-athletes attained a grade point average of 3.0
or better. Student-athletes also have a higher graduation rate than the overall student body. UVM won the
America East Academic Cup for the 2008-2009 academic year. America East is the primary athletic
conference in which UVM competes. The Academic Cup is presented to the member university whose
student-athletes receive the highest grade point average. This is the fifth consecutive year UVM has won this
award, and UVM is the only institution to win the award six times. Academic majors of UVM student-athletes
generally reflect those of the student body as a whole.
2.
The AAB met with the coaches of selected teams during its monthly meetings this year. Coaches were asked
to describe their team philosophy, and AAB members followed up with questions and comments. Much of the
discussion was directed at the academic achievement of student-athletes and matters relating to their wellbeing.
3.
During the 2009-10 academic year community service continued to play an important role in the Department
of Athletics. This past year approximately 350 UVM student-athletes, athletics administrators and members of
the coaching staffs performed more than 600 hours of service in greater Burlington. Activities ranged from
volunteering for Green-Up Day, Special Olympics, and the Ronald McDonald House to sports clinics, school
visits, and blood drives.
4.
The AAB has further developed the “faculty engagement” initiative inaugurated during the 2008-09 academic
year. AAB members continue to deliver short reports on UVM’s athletic programs to their home departments
and colleges. Where appropriate, faculty are being offered tickets to games to support student-athletes from
their home departments and colleges. Additionally, this year the AAB has submitted a nomination for the Dan
and Carole Burack President’s Distinguished Lecture Series. The nominee, Dr. Michael Messner of the
University of Southern California, is a pioneer in the scholarly study of U.S. sports culture, with a particularly
strong focus on gender issues. This nomination reflects the AAB’s effort to increase and enhance connections
between the academic and athletic cultures of the university.
5.
The athletics department in recent years has institutionalized a process of reporting to the AAB on its efforts in
the areas of gender equity and ethnic/racial diversity and inclusion. As in past years, the AAB is satisfied with
the department’s performance in these areas. We base this conclusion on our observation of the department
senior staff’s commitment to recruiting an increasingly diverse body of coaches and student-athletes; its efforts
to monitor and assess department climate issues; and its creation of an environment in which gender and
multicultural diversity, inclusion, and mutual engagement are central values and hallmarks of excellence within
the department.
6.
The AAB this year heard testimony from the athletics department about its hope that student-athletes continue
to enjoy full priority registration status, owing to scheduling difficulties and other problems that would arise if
this status were revoked. The board was briefed on the issue by Joe Gervais, Assistant Athletic Director for
Student-Life Services, and also by Keith Williams, Registrar of the University. Gervais kept the AAB chair
apprised of his discussions on this issue with Chris Lucier, Vice President for Enrollment Management. The
department’s and the AAB’s current understanding is that the Provost is considering revoking blanket priority
status for student-athletes, and instead enjoining the athletics department to institute a class priority system for
certain groups, said changes to be implemented in November for spring 2011registration. The AAB shares the
athletics department’s concern about this possible change, as it is convinced that priority registration allows for
reduced class absences, better academic performance, improved relations with faculty, enhanced progress
toward degree, retention, and timely graduation among student-athletes.
7.
The AAB has communicated to the Faculty Senate President its interest in seeing the Senate adopt a more
formal, systematic process for the nomination and appointment of the board’s faculty representatives. As it
happens, one of the three faculty seats on the board has come open and needs to be filled as soon as possible.
In accordance with the AAB Constitution, we hope the Faculty Senate will produce a nominee who, as much
as possible, balances the board’s faculty membership with regard both to gender and to college affiliation. At
present, the board’s faculty contingent would appear to disproportionately represent the College of Arts and
Sciences (though perhaps less than it might first seem if one considers the relative size of the colleges), so a
nominee from one of the other colleges would be welcome.
UVM Faculty Mentoring Program: AY 2009-2010 Annual Report
Submitted May, 2009, by Lynne Bond, Director
For additional information, contact [email protected]
Acknowledgements: The success of the Faculty Mentoring Program depends upon many individuals, and foremost
among them are the faculty who serve as mentors. Their conscientious support and attention are central to the
contributions of the program. Special thanks to Sue Dinitz, Robert Low, Kathy Fox, Rachel Johnson, and Jim
Mosenthal for the generous time and thought they put into their presentations at the two spring, 2010, “Green Sheet
Workshops.” We also appreciate the ongoing support and collaboration with the Provost’s Office and, in particular,
Rachel Johnson, Associate Provost, who has actively invited our collaboration in functions involving new faculty.
What is the Faculty Mentoring Program?
The Faculty Mentoring Program was originally established in 1995, through the leadership of the Women’s Faculty
Caucus. This program pairs new and junior faculty members with senior members in a related discipline of the UVM
community (but outside the mentee’s department). This relationship can support junior faculty (referred to as the
“mentee” or "protégé") to become familiar with institutional expectations, networks, and practices that are relevant to
productivity and advancement at UVM. There is a considerable body of research that documents the importance of
mentoring for academic and career satisfaction and achievement. Research reports that mentors also gain a variety of
tangible and intangible benefits from the mentoring activity. All faculty who are new to UVM are invited to apply for a
mentor if they so desire. Other junior faculty may also apply, even after being at UVM for a number years.
The Faculty Mentoring Program also provides intermittent communications, workshops, and other events that may help
to support career development, satisfaction, and/or promotion among junior or new faculty.
Activities for AY 2009-2010
A. Protégé—Mentor pairing:
A total of 117 new protégé-mentor pairs have been established during the last five academic years (AY 05-06, 0607, 07-08, 08-09, 09-10; records are not available for preceding years).
AY 09-10: The Faculty Mentoring Program was introduced to incoming UVM faculty during the New Faculty
Orientation (August 25, 2009) and by email announcements. Although the program receives applications requesting a
mentor from faculty who have already been at UVM for several years, the vast majority of applicants are in their first or
second year of appointment. The total number of applicants varies from year to year in part depending upon the number
of new faculty recently hired at UVM.
From May 2009 through April 2010 the program received:
o 14 new applicants requesting a faculty mentor
o
o
o
o
o
o
applicants came from 6 different schools/colleges including 13 academic depts./units
they included 11 women and 3 men
they included 3 persons who self-identified as ALANA
3 applicants were Associate Professors without tenure
3 applicants were non-tenure track (2 lecturers, 1 research assistant professor)
9 of the 14 applications were received in the early fall (during initial faculty recruitment)
What are protégés looking for?
Three themes were most prominent in the applicants’ descriptions of the types of guidance they were seeking:
a) establishing productive courses of scholarship, publication, and extramural funding
b) developing effective strategies in coordinating work and parenting
c) understanding how to “navigate” UVM culture, systems, and colleagues
Specific mentor characteristics that applicants most often sought were:
a) familiarity with the applicant’s scholarly area or analytical approach
b) successful history in scholarship and teaching within the UVM setting
c) experience working to balance family and work
d) gender and/or race/ethnicity identification that resembled the applicant
B. Faculty Greensheet Panels
Forty-two individuals attended one of the two Faculty “Greensheet” Panels (March 26 & 31) that were conducted to
provide junior faculty with suggestions and support regarding strategies for pursuing and documenting their work
relevant to academic reappointment, tenure, and/or promotion. Panelists included those with expertise in the processes
involved for tenure-track faculty, lecturers, and clinical, extension, library, and research faculty. Unsolicited feedback
from this year’s attendees was extremely positive.
A summary of commentary from these greensheet panels will be posted on the UVM Faculty Mentoring Program
website this summer.
C. Program Evaluation Survey
In May ‘08, a program evaluation survey was distributed to all protégé-mentor pairs. The evaluation was designed to
collect information regarding participants’ satisfaction with and recommendations regarding both mentoring and other
program support activities. Responses (from 38 mentees and 46 mentors) were analyzed and summarized in an
Evaluation Report that can be accessed from the Faculty Mentoring Program Website. To summarize the findings of the
evaluation:
o
o
o
o
o
Most mentoring pairs are in contact (through meetings or email) 1-3 times per semester.
Both mentees and mentors are very positive about their experiences in the Mentoring Program.
Mentees report their relationships with mentors have been most helpful and satisfying in focusing on advice
about teaching, research, and how UVM works (69%) as well as in helping them connect with others on
campus and get general support (35%).
Mentors report their relationships with mentees have been most satisfying to them (the mentor) in terms of
connecting and sharing professional and personal experiences (47%), making the mentor feel helpful (31%),
having the opportunity to witness the mentee’s progress (25%), and learning from the mentee (13%).
40% of both mentors and mentees report there are no disappointing or unsatisfying aspects about their
mentoring relationships. The most common disappointment or dissatisfaction reported by both mentees
(38%) and mentors (33%) was the difficulty in finding time to meet given other time demands of both
members.
This summer 2010 an abbreviated program evaluation is expected to be conducted.
D. New Faculty Reunion
On behalf of the Provost’s Office, Rachel Johnson, Associate Provost, sponsored a New Faculty Reunion March 18,
2010, that the Faculty Mentoring Program co-hosted. This provided an opportunity for the Director of the Faculty
Mentoring Program to engage new faculty in a discussion of what is working well and where additional support or
guidance is needed for new faculty. Among new faculty, concerns were minimal and satisfaction was strong, especially
regarding the perceived level of support, friendliness, and openness from colleagues.
E. Consultation
Several times each month, an individual, committee, or unit has called upon the Director of the Faculty Mentoring
program to consult, most often with one of two emphases: (a) the individual wishes to discuss some particular problem
or concern that s/he hopes might be addressed by identifying a mentor for oneself or for another person; or (b) the
committee/unit asks the Director to educate its members regarding the operation and opportunities involved with the
UVM Faculty Mentoring Program.
The spring 2008 evaluation survey indicated that mentees welcome infrequent email “tips”
regarding scholarship, teaching, and professional development issues. As a result, we have begun to
disseminate such tips approximately monthly drawing frequently from the web site for
“Tomorrow’s Professors” ([email protected]).
F. Faculty Mentoring Website
The website has been updated in an ongoing fashion. The program application and principles of operation are available
online, as is a summary of the most recent program evaluation.
G. Future plans
Some faculty have expressed a need for more support for faculty who wish to be considered for promotion from
Associate to Full Professor. We have begun to provide this support on an informal consultation basis this year and will
discuss possible strategies for formalizing such activity.