The University of Oklahoma (Norman campus)

Regular session – December 7, 1998 - 3:30 p.m. - Jacobson Faculty Hall 102

office: Jacobson Faculty Hall 206 phone: 325-6789 FAX: 325-6782

e-mail: facsen@ou.edu web site: http://www.ou.edu/admin/facsen/

The Faculty Senate was called to order by Professor Alexander Holmes, Chair.

__________________________________________________________________________

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Announcements:

Spring 1999 schedule of Faculty Senate meetings 1

Tenure vote, faculty appeals procedures 1

Copyright policy 2

Election, councils/committees/boards 3

Promotion vote 3

Research professor position 3

Health care 6

__________________________________________________________________________

The Senate Journal for the regular session of November 9, 1998, was approved.

The regular meetings of the Faculty Senate for Spring 1999 will be held at 3:30 p.m. in Jacobson 102 on the following Mondays: January 11, February 8, March 8, April 12, and May 3.

President Boren approved the Senate’s revisions regarding the tenure vote and the faculty appeals procedures (see 11/98 Senate Journal, pages 4 and 5).

Prof. Holmes explained that Prof. Pat Weaver-Meyers (University Libraries) is chair of a task force formed to review Legal Counsel’s proposed modifications in the copyright policy. Other members of the task force are Randy Coyne (Law), Mark Gillett (Law), Peter Kutner (Law), Andrew Phalen (Art), Michael Rogers (Music), and Deborah Trytten (Computer Science). The proposal concerns the ownership of intellectual property. It is fundamental to the academy that faculty members own their intellectual property. The proposal will be voted on in January.

Prof. Weaver-Meyers commented that last spring she had handed out a policy proposed by the task force and one proposed by Legal Counsel (see 5/98 Senate Journal, page 5). This new proposal is a compromise (Appendix I). As a compromise, it is not exactly what anyone wants, but it is satisfactory to the University and faculty. She asked the senators to discuss the proposed policy with their colleagues here and at other institutions. It is important to those who want to profit by their intellectual efforts. The basic issue is that copyright law considers works like textbooks and articles as works for hire, but this proposal and the current policy state that there are exceptions to what is considered a work for hire. Other issues include new media works, such as works created on the web, electronic courseware, and software.

Prof. Fleener asked how this would relate to the state questions just approved. Prof. Weaver-Meyers answered that the questions relate to the patent policy, which will be brought to the Faculty Senate in the next month or two.

Prof. Holmes presented a motion of the Senate Executive Committee to make the following amendments to the proposal (in bold).

Prof. Van Gundy asked about the definition of "non-University contractual or legal obligations." Prof. Holmes explained that the federal government mandates that an individual who has a research grant with federal dollars cannot retain private ownership. Prof. Van Gundy cited an example of a contract with a book publisher. Prof. Holmes said that would also qualify. Prof. Van Gundy said he thought the language was confusing.

The Senate approved the nomination of Neera Badhwar (Philosophy) to complete the 1997-00 term of Andy Magid (Mathematics) on the Faculty Compensation Committee.

Last month, the Senate discussed the issue of providing the numerical result of the tenure vote to the candidate (see 11/98 Senate Journal, page 4). Prof. Holmes promised to bring back comparable language concerning promotion. The Senate Executive Committee proposed a motion to add a parallel provision to the Faculty Handbook allowing a candidate to receive the vote on promotion (additions underlined). The motion will be voted on next month.

Prof. Fleener asked whether the motion also pertained to the Campus Tenure Committee vote. Prof. Holmes said the language related to the departmental faculty vote for promotion. [Note: The Campus Tenure Committee does not normally review promotion cases.]

Prof. Holmes reported that a task force was put together to look at the issue of professorships for non-tenured individuals strictly on the basis of their research activities. Prof. Barbara Greene (Educational Psychology), is chair. Other members, including individuals who have large research grants, are Jeffrey Harwell (Associate Dean of Engineering), Peter Lamb (Meteorology), David Levy (History), Bruce Roe (Chemistry and Biochemistry), Eddie Smith (Graduate College Dean and Vice President for Research), and Rick Tepker (Law).

Prof. Greene reported on the proposed change in the Faculty Handbook to create a new category for a continuous term, non-tenure track research professorship (Appendix II). In addition, the task force proposed the following amendment to the proposal (addition in bold). The proposal will be voted on next month.

Prof. Greene said that one of the things that makes this a unique kind of position and different from the current temporary appointments is that the individuals will come in at the assistant, associate, or full professor ranks, and those at the assistant or associate rank have the possibility of going up for promotion. No stipulation for such a position is currently in the Faculty Handbook. Units may elect to use such positions if they have large externally funded research projects that can support such a position. As OU has been more successful in getting large grants, there are no mechanisms for managing these research projects. These types of positions are likely to be held by research scientists who will go through the typical national recruiting procedure. Units have to elect to do this, and faculty within units will have to vote on changes in their personnel policy. Many people think that for the University to continue to attract large grants, we will need a prestigious position to attract top research scientists who are looking for more job security and greater affiliation with an intellectual home. Currently, people are being appointed to continuous term research professorships at the college level without any safeguards or significant faculty input.

Prof. Karriker asked about the rationale for the different ranks. If the individuals are top scientists, they will fall into the professor rank. Prof. Greene responded that some people might have been successful in getting external money but not have a strong publication record. Prof. Beasley pointed out that the term, "manage," in this case means in the sense of deal with, not administrating. Prof. Greene agreed that she was not talking about a category of administrators. Prof. Beasley said his area has had people in post-doc positions for ten years or more and has lost some of them to other universities or labs with this kind of position. Such individuals seem to be interested in the title of research professor, which looks better on grant proposals.

Prof. Schwarzkopf commented that we are proposing a class of faculty that can have rank and promotion but not tenure. He asked how this would differ from appointments like clinical professors, which are used primarily for teaching roles. Prof. Greene said the idea was to have it established at the University level rather than on an ad hoc basis. Also, there are no written procedures or larger structure governing those other kinds of temporary positions. Prof. Schwarzkopf asked why we should focus just on research rather than a specialty faculty track if there is no operational difference. As it is, these individuals cannot teach a class. We should look at this in general. Prof. Greene said she was more comfortable doing it this way, because it is solving one specific problem, with the idea of keeping these appointments from growing out of control and threatening what we are about. She said she was opposed to some across-the-board procedures for all possible categories of temporary faculty.

Prof. Holmes added that a critical difference is the funding. This is strictly for soft dollar funding. Prof. Schwarzkopf said he was not comfortable with that kind of distinction. Prof. Engel asked about the set up for bridge funding. Prof. Green said the administration is working on setting up an account. The central University budget will provide bridge funding. Units will be involved in the hiring of these individuals. The idea is that it would be advantageous to the new research professor to have an intellectual home.

Prof. Russell said this is a way that the University can enhance its mission and service to the state. He asked whether these individuals could be adjunct faculty so they would be able to teach, how their salary would be established, whether they could be PIs or contract administrators, and whether this would be written into the policy. Prof. Greene said the whole purpose of the position is that they will not have the distractions regular faculty members have. They could be adjunct faculty, but we would want to discourage that. They would have some teaching responsibilities in terms of supervising graduate students. They would not be principal advisors, because they would not have a regular appointment, and current rules prohibit that. However, they could be committee members if they meet the criteria. Salaries would be negotiated the way salaries are negotiated now. The proposal states that the units must show evidence that they have three years of funding for a particular person. Prof. Russell asked whether the task force would put all of this in the proposal. Prof. Greene said the task force set it up so the units would decide salary issues as they currently do.

Prof. Holmes clarified that this document is an attempt to bring into the open what is going on currently. People are being granted these kinds of positions ad hoc. This proposal would require the units to develop their own internal procedures for review, promotion, evaluation, and pay increases. There would be an academic home in order to give legitimacy to the title. A provision was added that under no circumstance would any other mechanism be allowed for the granting of such professorships other than what is proposed in the document. Prof. Benson said the title of professor is considered an important title that should not be conferred by any other process than the unit’s. This is an attempt to bring the decision-making to the faculty in the units. They can decide whether it is in their interest to have these positions and what conditions should be imposed.

Prof. Russell asked whether the idea was to add a paragraph in the Faculty Handbook recognizing this rank. Prof. Greene responded that the second part of the proposal is what would be added to the Faculty Handbook. There was some discussion about the appropriate language for the Faculty Handbook. Prof. Karriker reiterated her question about the need for various ranks. Prof. Beasley said this has been going on anyway except for the title and bridge funding. Some funding has been provided ad hoc. The people who have left have cited prestige and security as being important. Prof. Holmes clarified that a research assistant professor could be someone just out of graduate school. Prof. Karriker suggested that they be called post-docs. Prof. Beasley explained that calling them assistant research professor would help in recruiting. Prof. Karriker suggested the titles of Research I, II, and III. Prof. Beasley answered that most of these kinds of people in his unit have been called research scientists. When they have been here a long time and are being recruited by someone else, there is no mechanism to keep them here. Prof. Karriker said she was concerned about the unit having no control over the work they do. Prof. Beasley said in his area, a research professor participates in committees and faculty meetings. His unit adopted a personnel policy parallel to the one for regular faculty.

Prof. Patterson asked about the amendment to the proposal. Prof. Greene said the task force had added a sentence to clarify the nature of the bridge funding. Prof. Patterson proposed that the language be changed to read, "provide no more than a year’s salary." Prof. Bert remarked that we would be treating research professors better than regular faculty. They would get a year’s salary for every five years of service, whereas regular faculty members are eligible for sabbatical only at the end of six years. In his opinion, we should not skew this out of proportion to the regular faculty. Prof. Engel pointed out that the University will establish some kind of accounting so the people who want to bring research professors in will have money in escrow, and it will not impact any unit’s budget. Prof. Murphy suggested that the third sentence in that paragraph should read, "net indirect costs." Prof. Greene said she would take that suggestion back to the task force.

Prof. Holmes explained that there had been a request for a comparison of health care benefits at peer institutions. A survey of Big 12 health care plans, which was compiled by Oklahoma State University, was distributed at the meeting and is available from the Senate office.

Prof. Holmes asked Prof. Will Sutton (Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering), a member of the Employment Benefits Committee (EBC), to discuss the health care negotiations. Prof. Sutton said Legal Counsel was responsible for the Request for Proposal (RFP) (available in the Senate office) and had hired a consultant, Kelly Hudelson. The RFP required bids on a number of options: deductibles and number of dependents, record keeping requirements, satisfaction surveys (90% required), fully or self insured (right now we are self insured), an HMO look-alike option, and including Goddard Health Center in the plan. The bids were narrowed to Blue Cross/Blue Shield and Prudential (two handouts on the health plan bids were distributed at the meeting and are available from the Senate office). Problems with bids were that Prudential’s bid was too high on the HMO look-alike and Blue Cross/Blue Shield did not bid an HMO look-alike. Three options are under consideration. Option A is to retain the current plan, which will cost an additional $1,000,000. Option B is to make Blue Cross the entire provider, which would cost about $500,000 more. Option C is to make Prudential the entire provider, which would save about $400,000. [Note: These figures have been revised.] Apparently, the President had wanted the bids to be based on our current coverage. However, the vendors quoted different benefits. A $1,000,000 increase translates to a one percent raise that employees would not get. Prof. Deming pointed out that part of the cost would come out of the employee’s pocket and that many employees are established with a doctor. Prof. Sutton replied that the administration thinks the health care providers will join the plan the University chooses.

Prof. Scherman said access is an issue. Prudential's office is in Houston; Blue Cross is based in Oklahoma. The University needs some provision whereby the employees can get satisfactory answers to their requests. Prof. Sutton said the proposal required a 90% satisfaction rate, but the penalties for not meeting that requirement are miniscule. Prof. Leigh said the comparison between the options was really a comparison of apples and oranges and would not help her communicate back to the faculty. Prof. Sutton said the Employment Benefits Committee is meeting with the insurers on December 11. Anyone is invited to attend. The vendors will be responding to a list of questions developed by the Employment Benefits Committee (available from the Senate office). This is not just about dollars. Prof. Leigh said the Benefits Office told her that the University wants Prudential. Also, her primary care provider refuses to give her referrals. Prof. Sutton said the University is self-insured, which gives us more leverage to force the provider to provide certain things. Prudential is under a different set of options. The Personnel office and EBC are supposed to be working for faculty and staff. We need a grassroots effort saying what we want. The reason health insurance was bid was to get the most value for our money. Following some discussion about our coverage, Prof. Sutton explained that the Executive Committee had recommended Option A as the first choice because it means less disruption for everyone, even though it costs more. The second priority would be Option B. Option C was rejected because it is lesser quality health care. Prof. Sutton asked the senators to talk with their faculty and e-mail comments to him, and he will take them to the committee. Four faculty members from the Norman campus are on Employment Benefits Committee. When asked about the number of bids, Prof. Sutton said about eleven companies submitted bids. A criterion was that the company currently must do business in Oklahoma.

Prof. Cline suggested that the Faculty Senate send an open-ended questionnaire to all faculty members. Prof. Sutton said the administration wants a recommendation from the EBC before the end of the year. The contract is for one year with the option for the University to continue. Prof. Schwarzkopf suggested that the Senate conduct an annual evaluation procedure starting next year. Following some discussion about conducting a survey this year, Prof. Holmes commented that the time frame is short and the question of what the survey would say is problematic. The process this year has been very open and inclusive. Four members of the faculty are on the committee, and the committee is operating in an efficient way. Last year, the EBC was given a plan at the last minute but was able to stop that plan. In this afternoon’s meeting with the President, the Executive Committee told him it preferred Option A and rejected Option C. The President said he did not realize there would be differences in benefits. His mandate was to solicit bids on the current package to see if we could get lower costs. The Executive Committee told the President that $1,000,000 is only a 5% increase in health insurance. Prof. Sutton added that the committee would be asking the vendors very specific questions at their next meeting. Prof. Schwarzkopf moved that the Faculty Senate endorse the Executive Committee's recommendation: Option A is the first choice; Option B is the second choice; Option C is an unacceptable choice. After a brief discussion, the motion was approved on a voice vote. Prof. Schwarzkopf moved that Executive Committee draft a plan where the Senate can be a proactive participant in the evaluation process of health care for next year. Prof. Holmes asked whether he meant evaluation or design of the plan. Prof. Schwarzkopf said his intention was for the Senate to be an active, if not the driving partner, in conducting the satisfaction survey mentioned in the bid. The motion was approved on voice vote. During a discussion about the state health plan, Prof. Sutton said that plan was rejected because it was judged to be inferior and the cost went up. Prof. Holmes said an institution would have to stay in that plan three years. Furthermore, its rates change dramatically. Two years ago, OU benefited by the high rates charged by the state plan because its reserve fund was appropriated by the State Regents and distributed to us.

The meeting adjourned at 5:00 p.m. The next regular session of the Senate will be held at 3:30 p.m. on Monday, January 11, 1999, in Jacobson Faculty Hall 102.

____________________________________

Ruth Okediji, Secretary

____________________________________

Sonya Fallgatter, Administrative Coordinator

-------------

Appendix I

(deletions crossed through; additions in bold)

1. PREFACE

2. POLICY

It is the policy of the Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma that all rights in copyright shall remain with the creator of the work unless the work is created with substantial use of University resources, is specifically assigned or commissioned by the University, is subject to contractual or legal obligations, or is a "work made for hire" as that term is defined by U.S. Copyright Law.

3. OWNERSHIP

3.1 Scholarly/Aesthetic Works.

In keeping with traditional academic practice and policy, ownership of copyrights to works of artistry or traditional scholarship in the creator’s professional field such as textbooks, course materials, scholarly papers and articles, computer courseware, software, novels, poems, paintings, musical compositions or other such works of artistic imagination produced by University employees who have a general obligation to produce such works where the specific choice, content, course and direction of the effort is determined by the employee without direct assignment or supervision by the University shall reside in the creators unless they are also sponsored/contracted works or specifically assigned by the University. The general obligation of faculty to produce scholarly works does not constitute specific assignment. Such exempt works of artistry or traditional scholarship shall be subject to an irrevocable, non-exclusive, free-of-cost and world-wide license in the University to exercise all copyright rights in and to the work except the right to commercially distribute copies. Upon request by the University, the creator(s) will grant University a nonexclusive, free of cost, world wide right and license to exercise all copyright rights in and to the work, except the right to commercially display, use, perform or distribute copies of the work, unless to do so would impair the ability of the creator to commercially or professional exploit the work. If a use of the work by University is reasonably determined by the creator to impair the exercise of such rights, the University shall discontinue the impeding use but otherwise shall remain free to use the work as provided in this Paragraph 3.1.

3.2 Personal Works.

Ownership of copyrights to works prepared outside the course and scope of University employment and without the substantial use of University resources (equipment, facilities, services or funds (regardless of source) administered by and/or under the control of the University) shall reside with the creators; provided, the provision of office facilities, limited secretarial assistance, library facilities for which special charges are not normally made or other resources which are made available to the public without charge, shall not be considered substantial use of University resources.

3.3 Sponsored Works.

Ownership of copyrights to works produced by or through the University in the performance of a written agreement between the University and a third-party/sponsor shall be governed in accordance with the agreement. If the agreement is silent in that regard, ownership shall be governed by the other provisions of this policy it shall be owned by the University.

3.4 Commissioned Works.

Ownership of copyrights to works produced for University purposes by persons not employed by the University or by University employees outside their regular University employment (commissioned works) normally shall reside with the University. In all cases, copyright ownership shall be specified in a written agreement signed by the parties. Any commissioned work agreement which provides for ownership by other than the University shall also provide the University with an irrevocable, free-of-cost, non-exclusive, world-wide license to exercise all copyright rights in and to the work, except the right to commercially display, use, perform or distribute copies of the work, unless to do so would impair the ability of the creator to commercially or professionally exploit the work. If a use of the work by University is reasonably determined by the creator to impair the exercise of such rights, the University shall discontinue the impeding use but otherwise shall remain free to use the work as provided in this Paragraph 3.4.

3.5 University Works.

Except as otherwise provided in this Policy, the University shall own all copyrights to works made by University employees in the course and scope of their employment and shall own all copyrights to works made with the substantial use of University resources. Provided, University shall give due regard to the creator’s interests in the quality and integrity of the work and where appropriate grant recognition for creation of the work. To the extent consistent with University rights under the U.S. copyright law, nothing herein shall be construed to prevent the creator from using his/her knowledge, expertise, research and creative achievement in other employment.

Ownership of copyrights to works produced by registered enrolled students without the use of University funds (other than Student Financial Aid), that are produced outside any University employment and are not sponsored or commissioned works, shall reside with the student creator(s). Provided however, in all cases a student’s graduate thesis or dissertation shall be deemed a student work under this policy but as a condition of enrollment and awarding a degree, the University reserves an irrevocable, non-exclusive, free-of-cost and world-wide right to reproduce in any media and distribute to the public, on a non-commercial basis, copies of said theses and dissertations., unless to do so would impair the ability of the creator to commercially or professionally exploit the work. If a use of the work by University is reasonably determined by the creator to impair the exercise of such rights, the University shall discontinue the impeding use but otherwise shall remain free to use the work as provided in this Paragraph 3.6

3.7 Jointly Originated Works.

Ownership of copyrights to jointly originated works shall be determined by separately assessing the category of work of each creator under this Section 3. Rights between joint owners of a copyright shall be determined pursuant to copyright law or by agreement between the owners of the work.

4. REVENUE SHARING

4.1 The University may assign or license its copyrights to others. The University shall share revenue which it receives through copyrights with the creators, as provided hereafter. Specific provisions of sponsored agreements (grants or contracts) or other third-party contracts may govern rights and revenue distribution. Accordingly, any royalty share or expenses contractually committed to such third parties shall normally be deducted before revenues accrue or before the creator’s share is distributed. In all events, revenue sharing with the creator(s) may not violate the terms of any funding agreement or applicable laws and regulations.

4.2 The revenues received from a University owned copyright (excepting commissioned works) after deducting costs and expenses of registration, maintenance and defense of University copyrighted works and pursuant to paragraph 4.1 (net revenue) shall be shared with faculty creators as follows:

(A) the first $5,000.00 of net revenue will be paid to the creator(s);

(B) thereafter, faculty creators will receive sixty percent (60%) of such net revenue;

(C) the remaining forty percent (40%) of net revenue to the University will be dedicated to research purposes and to the promotion of original works.

4.3 Notwithstanding the above or anything else to the contrary herein, staff employees are not eligible to share revenues received from University owned copyrights where such employees create copyrightable works as a part of their normal responsibilities of University employment. Provided, a staff employee may apply to the appropriate Vice President for Research Provost to be treated as a faculty member for purposes of revenue sharing for a work resulting from a specific project upon a showing that his/her duties and responsibilities in that project are, in practical effect, substantially the same as those of a faculty member.

5. ADMINISTRATION

5.1 Release to the Creator. An individual creator of a University owned work may seek transfer of the University owned copyright to him/herself by making written request to the appropriate Vice President for Research Provost. If the University decides not to exploit such work, then it may transfer the copyright, by written agreement, to the individual creator to the extent consistent with any applicable third-party agreement or law. Provided, such transfer shall be subject to an irrevocable, non-exclusive, free-of-cost and world-wide license in the University to exercise all rights under the copyright in the work except the right to publicly distribute copies for commercial purposes and subject to or such other conditions as may be agreed upon in writing between the individual creator(s) and the Provost Vice President for Research, unless to do so would impair the ability of the creator to commercially or professionally exploit the work. If a use of the work by the University is reasonably determined by the creator to impair the exercise of such rights as transferred in the agreement, the University shall discontinue the impeding use but otherwise shall remain free to use the work as provided in Paragraph 5.1.

Provided further, in all events the University shall retain such rights as it deems necessary to perform its obligations under law or any contract/grant arrangement with third parties.

5.2 Disclosure and Protection. An individual creator of a University owned copyrightable work shall protect the work by placing the following statutory copyright notice on all copies thereof ("Copyright [insert year produced, e.g., 2000], the Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma."). If the creator believes the work may have commercial value, he/she shall promptly provide written disclosure of the work to the appropriate Provost Vice President for Research.

5.3 Legal Compliance Warranty. A creator of any copyrighted work owned by the University under this policy shall, prior to the filing of the application for registration with the Copyright Office, Library of Congress, execute a statement that he/she warrants that Any work created by a University employee or student, to the best of his/her knowledge and informed belief, shall the work does not infringe on any existing copyright. or other legal rights; that work not identified as quotations is the expression or creation of the creator; that necessary permission for quotation and the like have been obtained; and that the work contains no libelous material nor material that invades the privacy of others.

5.4 Creators of copyrightable works subject to this policy and the University shall cooperate as reasonably necessary to effect the terms of this policy. For example, if copyright to a work of traditional scholarship vests in the University by law, the University will, upon request and to the extent consistent with its legal obligations to third parties, promptly execute such documents as will transfer copyright to the faculty creator(s).

5.5 The Provosts Vice Presidents for Research, Norman Campus and the Health Sciences Center, shall be responsible for administering the research and copyright affairs of the University in a manner consistent with this policy. The Provosts Vice Presidents for Research shall cooperate in consultation with the Copyright committee on each campus to establish written directives to be approved by the President of the University and distributed to the employees and students of the University, which shall govern the procedures to be followed in processing copyrighted works created within the University.

5.6 The University does not act as a fiduciary for any person concerning consideration received under the terms of this policy.

6. CONTRACTUAL TERM

The terms of this copyright policy are a part of any contractual relationship of the University with any member of the faculty, staff or student body. This policy, as amended from time to time, shall be deemed to be a part of the conditions of employment of every University employee and a part of the conditions of enrollment and attendance of every student at the University.

7. RESOLUTION OF CONFLICT

Should disputes arise relative to the distribution of royalties and/or ownership of copyright between the creator and the University, the matter will be referred to the Copyright Committee, which will make recommendations to the President for proper resolution of the disputes. Either the University or creator may contact the Chairman of the Faculty Senate or Provost to arrange to have the Copyright Committee meet to consider such disputes.

8. UNIVERSITY COPYRIGHT COMMITTEE

a) The University shall have a Copyright Committee for each Campus that shall consider and investigate disputes among administrators, faculty, or staff and shall recommend appropriate solutions to the President. The Committee's responsibilities shall include, but not be limited to, disputes concerning:

1) Ownership of copyright

2) Terms of commissions

3) Distribution of royalties for the University-owned works

4) Distribution of royalties for works that may have required specific and unusual University expenses

b) The Copyright Committee of each campus shall have as its members:

• One member appointed by the President for a four-year term;
• One student member appointed by the Graduate Student Senate for one year;
• Two staff members, one appointed by the President, one appointed by the Staff Senate, all appointments are for three years; and
• Three faculty members with two appointed by the Faculty Senate and one by the President. All appointments are for three-year terms. Tie votes will be settled by chair of Faculty Senate, who shall be an ex-officio member of the committee.

Each member of the Committee shall have one vote. The Committee shall keep its own records, determine its own procedures, and elect its own chair who shall report to the President. The Committee also may review this policy from time to time and may recommend changes to the President.

--------------

Appendix II