Summary of Actions Taken

1. Approved minutes of February 26, 2003 University Senate meeting.

2. Motion passed to itemize Committee C’s action item regarding academic dishonesty into individual sections.

1. The Center for Excellence in Learning & Teaching (CELT) shall create workshops, in consultation with the Assistant Dean for Judicial and Student Assistance, on the “Promotion of Academic Integrity: Ways to Prevent, Detect, and Report Academic Dishonesty.” These workshops shall be held each semester during the week before classes begin. New teaching assistants are required to attend, and new faculty are encouraged to attend. No discussion; so ordered.

2. University Computing & Communications, in consultation with the Assistant Dean for Judicial and Student Assistance and CELT, shall create an Academic Integrity web page that has a direct link on the main UNO web page. The Academic Integrity web page shall include, but is not limited to, links to (1) “Procedure for Reporting Academic Dishonesty” excerpted from the University of New Orleans Judicial Code, (2) “Academic Dishonesty” excerpted from the University of New Orleans Judicial Code, (3) PDF file containing the Academic Dishonesty Report Form (see Appendix A), (4) Academic Integrity workshop schedule, (5) the full University of New Orleans Judicial Code, (6) section 2.7 of the University of New Orleans Faculty Handbook, (7) other web sites about Academic Integrity. Moved and seconded.

3. Section 2.7 of the University of New Orleans Faculty Handbook be changed to reflect the following (see Appendix B): (1) That during the first meeting of class, faculty shall provide “the statement from the Judicial Code on academic dishonesty, and the consequences of academic dishonesty.” (2) That faculty must report incidences of academic dishonesty via the Academic Dishonesty Report Form. (3) That a grade of Zero or F that has been assigned to an academic exercise because of academic dishonesty must be included in the calculation of the final grade. (4) That a signed “Academic Integrity Pledge” must accompany all significant academic exercises. Amending “must” to “may” in item 3 opposed by the Senate. Amending item 3, section 4, to “students signing the pledge once a semester” from “students “must accompany all significant academic exercises” passed by Senate. Item 3 passed by Senate as amended.

4. University of New Orleans Judicial Code be changed to reflect the following (see Appendix C): (1) Creation of an “Academic Integrity Pledge” that students must include and sign on all significant academic exercises. (2) That students charged with academic dishonesty can not “drop” the course, even if the act occurs before the “withdrawal deadline.” (3) That if a course allows for the dropping of an academic exercise in calculating course grade (e.g., dropping the lowest quiz score), the grade of Zero or F that an instructor had assigned an academic exercise because of academic dishonesty must be included in the calculation of the final grade. (4) That upon receipt of a second report of academic dishonesty for any student, the Assistant Dean for Judicial and Student Assistance will automatically bring the case before the UNO Judicial Committee. Motion made by Senate to table item 4, section 2 until the next meeting.

5. The Judicial Code be included in the Catalog. Item 5 passed.

3. Committee D was assigned to discuss this motion and make a recommendation to the Senate. The standardized items are: 1) a list of student learning objectives for the course; 2) for those faculty teaching 4000-level courses (which may be taken for graduate credit), a clear statement of what additional work is required for graduate students to receive graduate credit (this should be included whether or not any graduate students are enrolled); 3) a clear statement of the teacher's attendance policy (if it is a developmental, 1000-level, or 2000-level course, not whether or not attendance will be taken-that is now required-but what are the rewards and punishments involved); and 4) a standard statement about the consequences of dishonesty. The motion for all four items were placed before the Senate, the Senate passes and carries the motion.

4. The Faculty Conduct Policy Revision motion passed by Senate.
Faculty Conduct Policy to be placed on UNO website subject to review by University Lawyers. http://www.uno.edu/senate/faculty_conduct_policy_2002

Excused: Paradise, Mader, Razek, Whatley, Easterlin, Richardson
Absent: Whelan, Munster

1. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order by the Chancellor at 3:14 p.m.

2. Approval of Minutes
Minutes of the February 26, 2003, meeting were approved.

3. Remarks by the Chancellor
a. The Chancellor told the Senate that the Lakeshore Drive exit has been changed to a “right turn only” to reduce near-accidents and accidents. Vice Chancellor Robert Brown worked with the city to have this change implemented. He also stated that Vice Chancellor Brown is working with the city for plans on a marked pedestrian crosswalk from the Research Park to UNO’s main campus.
b. The Chancellor let the Senate know that the 1% pay-raise that was promised last year in his memo will be in the July budget. He also said that he was unaware of the Governor putting money in the state budget formula for a statewide salary increase; therefore the prospects for a merit increase for the 2003/2004 year is highly unlikely.
c. The Chancellor reported that he is asking the Board of Supervisors to increase the Facility Use Fee to $75.00 per student. This has not been increased since the 1970’s and would be a great help with the deferred $15 M maintenance issues we have on campus.
d. The Chancellor asked the University Planning Committee to make recommendations about a potential Academic Enhancement Fee for Academic Programs. This enhancement would boost curriculum changes and improvements. For a successful campaign this enhancement would need a heavy emphasis on undergraduate programs, but would also entail some improvements in Graduate Education. The University Planning Committee (UPCOM) on April 1, 2003 in the University Center at 12 Noon, UC Ballroom, is conducting opening hearings concerning the ‘03/’04 budget and strategic planning. The Chancellor encouraged input and the sharing of ideas from the University Community at this meeting.
e. The Chancellor asked for continued involvement and support with Bruce King, Research Professor, Psychology, regarding Institutional Effectiveness. Dr. King remarked that it is important to keep the process of Institutional Effectiveness high within the University’s priorities. The University must do everything it can to make the process a success. He finished by saying that after this process is done once, it will only become much easier for all involved especially during the next SACS review.
f. The Chancellor asked Ed Johnson, Director, Freshman Affairs, and Susan Krantz, Associate Dean, Liberal Arts, to review and give a progress report on the Noel-Levitz retention report during the May Senate.
g. The Chancellor finished by reminding the Senate that this University is one that encourages the free exchange of ideas, and it is important to respect everyone views, especially during this emotional time of war. He stated his message to the Driftwood was one of tolerance and appreciation for diverse points of view, and the Chancellor encouraged support for our troops.

Faculty Council Committee Reports were received by the Senate as follows: 1.) Committee on Academic Computing; 2.) Committee on Artists, Lecturers, Speakers, and Commencement; 3.) Committee on Courses and Curriculum, 4.) Committee on Faculty Honors; 5.) Committee on Freshman Affairs and Remediation; 6.) Committee on the Library; 7.) Committee on Student Affairs; 8.) Student Publications Board; 9.) Committee on University Admissions; and, 10.) Committee on University Honors and Awards. The Minutes of the UNO Faculty Council and the individual Committee’s reports can be accessed at: http://www.uno.edu/~chof/Faculty_Council/
Faculty_Council_Minutes_3_24_03.pdf

The Faculty Council Policy Committee held a vote for the Faculty Council Hearings Pool at-large members; Gary Gunderson, Research Professor, Mathematics, reported that the three individuals elected would start serving in Fall Semester. The election resulted in the following appointments: Michelle Burns, Economic and Finance; Nancy Easterlin, English/Woman’s Studies; and Yvelyn Germain-McCarthy, Curriculum and Instruction. All were elected for three year terms.

Faculty Council adjourned at 3:30 PM.

4. Legislative Update: Robert W. Brown, Vice Chancellor, Governmental and Community Affairs
Vice Chancellor Brown reported that there is a $500M hole in the State Budget. Subtracting legislative budget cuts and movement in funds, and with this being an election year, new taxes cannot be added, resulting in very limited funding from the State.

5. Report from the Provost: Dennis R. McSeveney, Associate Provost
a. The Associate Provost reported that Jack McLean, Associate Vice Chancellor, is out and the Office of Academic Affairs is making every effort to keep the on-going paperwork and 101’s moving.
b. SACS has a new accreditation process and the University will be in the second part of the cohort.
c. The Associate Provost asked the Faculty to be involved in the Noel-Levitz retention project.

6. Action Items

a: Committee C
Nature and Extent of academic dishonesty: Over the last three years there has been a yearly average of 11 cases (range 7-15) of academic dishonesty reported to the Assistant Dean for Judicial and Student Assistance. The Committee believes that the true level of academic misconduct at the University of New Orleans is higher and that there is a vast under-reporting of academic misconduct because faculty and students do not know the rules. The Committee’s first decision was to change the perspective from “…procedures and practices … for minimizing … academic dishonesty” to “Procedures and practices for the Promotion of Academic Integrity and Honesty.” The proposals listed below address the role of (1) the University, (2) the Instructor, and (3) the Student in the Promotion of Academic Integrity and Honesty.
Moved by Committee C. Items separated into individual parts.

1. The Center for Excellence in Learning & Teaching (CELT) shall create workshops, in consultation with the Assistant Dean for Judicial and Student Assistance, on the “Promotion of Academic Integrity: Ways to Prevent, Detect, and Report Academic Dishonesty.” These workshops shall be held each semester during the week before classes begin. New teaching assistants are required to attend, and new faculty are encouraged to attend.
No discussion; so ordered.

2. University Computing & Communications, in consultation with the Assistant Dean for Judicial and Student Assistance and CELT, shall create an Academic Integrity web page that has a direct link on the main UNO web page. The Academic Integrity web page shall include, but is not limited to, links to (1) “Procedure for Reporting Academic Dishonesty” excerpted from the University of New Orleans Judicial Code, (2) “Academic Dishonesty” excerpted from the University of New Orleans Judicial Code, (3) PDF file containing the Academic Dishonesty Report Form, (4) Academic Integrity workshop schedule, (5) the full University of New Orleans Judicial Code, (6) section 2.7 of the University of New Orleans Faculty Handbook, (7) other web sites about Academic Integrity.
Moved and seconded.

Tim Ryan, Dean, College of Business Administration, commented that he was worried about the wording and that academic "dishonesty" should not be used, but rather that "integrity" be used at all times to keep a positive image on the resolve. Dennis McSeveney stated that it makes sense not to mandate this on the UNO homepage as it would insinuate a problem with academic dishonesty at the University. Dr. John Stewart-Savage remarked that this is a focal point of the institution and for SACS. Having this seven clicks away makes it too hard to find the information. Chancellor O'Brien agreed with Dr. Stewart-Savage.

3 Section 2.7 of the University of New Orleans Faculty Handbook be changed to reflect the following: (1) That during the first meeting of class, faculty shall provide “the statement from the Judicial Code on academic dishonesty, and the consequences of academic dishonesty.” (2) That faculty must report incidences of academic dishonesty via the Academic Dishonesty Report Form. (3) That a grade of Zero or F that has been assigned to an academic exercise because of academic dishonesty must be included in the calculation of the final grade. (4) That a signed “Academic Integrity Pledge” must accompany all significant academic exercises.

Objection from the floor that Faculty are being told they "must" do something by the Senate. "must" should be changed to "may" throughout item 3. Dr. John Stewart-Savage, Associate Professor, Biology, remarked that the Faculty Handbook dictating what must be said on the first day of class is just one more addition to what is already required. Dr. Rene Casbergue, Department Chair, Curriculum and Instruction, remarked that the notion that one size fits all for all classes is not right. This idea is insulting to upperclassmen. Dr. Alan Artibise, Dean, College of Urban and Public Affairs added that in some cases even upperclassmen, graduate students and even doctorial students are new to campus. The idea to make it clear that there is a policy of Academic Integrity at the University of New Orleans. Dr. Scott Whittenberg, Professor, Chemistry, remarked that the perception of having this policy is that it gives the appearance of a cheating scandal on campus that must be contained. Dr. Stewart-Savage remarked that currently academic dishonesty is under-reported. There is too much work in reporting dishonesty and that there is no clear pathway, or form, for the Faculty to follow in the steps for reporting dishonesty. Dr. Alan Artibise, Dean, College of Urban and Public Affairs, stated that the committee looked into other institutions and they all have clear stated procedures and policies for academic dishonesty that are much more draconic. For UNO this is catch up with the rest of the academic world. Dr. Bruce King, Research Professor, Psychology, added that he felt that the current process for reporting academic dishonesty is so time consuming that he only reports the most extreme cases; any streamlining would be a good thing. Dr. Tim Ryan brought forth to the Senate that the process of reporting academic dishonesty, and the “must” in the wording are two different issues. Chris Baker, Student Government Representative, remarked that he did not feel any students, even graduate students, would be offended by being reminded of the academic policy. There was a statement from the floor that “must” would relieve the Faculty from being pleaded with or badgered by the students, since the rules and process would be precise. Dr. Scott Whittenberg, Professor, Chemistry, remarked that if a Faculty member did not want to follow the procedure they are not going to. Dr. John Stewart-Savage remarked that this is really not an unusual change in the wording of the Faculty handbook; the wording in the handbook is consistent, everything is the handbook is riddled with “must”. Dr. Daphne Main, Associate Professor, Accounting, suggested that rather than a blanket statement for the academic pledge, the pledge could be modified by department.

The question of amending the wording in item 3 from “must” to “may” was brought to the floor. The Senate voted to oppose the amendment

In Item 3, section 4 the question was raised that instead of having an Academic Integrity Pledge signed for all significant academic exercises instead of one form signed at the beginning of the semester might be a better avenue. Dr. John Stewart-Savage remarked that such an action is not repetitive and does not reinforce the importance of academic integrity to the student. Once the Faculty are used to the process it will be routine. Question raised what are the consequences if a student wouldn’t sign; response is that the consequences would be the instructor’s choice. Question raised as to whether the signing of the pledge should be for all students or just for under-classmen.

Amendment of Item 3, section 4 brought to floor. Item is amended to students signing a pledge once a semester, instead of for all significant academic exercises. Signing of the pledge by all students stays.
Motion passed as amended.

4. University of New Orleans Judicial Code be changed to reflect the following: (1) Creation of an “Academic Integrity Pledge” that students must include and sign on all significant academic exercises. (2) That students charged with academic dishonesty can not “drop” the course, even if the act occurs before the “withdrawal deadline.” (3) That if a course allows for the dropping of an academic exercise in calculating course grade (e.g., dropping the lowest quiz score), the grade of Zero or F that an instructor had assigned an academic exercise because of academic dishonesty must be included in the calculation of the final grade. (4) That upon receipt of a second report of academic dishonesty for any student, the Assistant Dean for Judicial and Student Assistance will automatically bring the case before the UNO Judicial Committee.

Dr. Joyce Lambert, Professor, Department of Accounting, commented to the Senate that limiting one F or one 0 on a assignment may not be a significant enough repercussion for academic dishonesty (Item 3, section 4). Dr. Stewart-Savage remarked that the severity of academic dishonesty can go through the process all the way to expulsion should the situation so warrant in its severity. However, he reminded, that a case of academic dishonesty must go through proper processing with the Student Judicial Committee. The Chancellor remarked that a faculty member cannot fail the student without due process. The Chancellor went on to say that it is important that the student realize that they have the right to appeal, and a problem exists when the student does not know this. The Chancellor remarked that even if a student forgets to sign the pledge on something like a final exam, it does not release the student from being forthright, acting with integrity and being honest
The Chancellor called item 4, section 3; none opposed; the section was moved and seconded.

Dr. Dennis McSeveney, Associate Provost, addressed item 4, section 2, reminding the Senate that there are many reasons for a student to drop a course, just because there may be a situation of academic dishonesty, there may also be circumstances in which the student would have to be allowed to drop a course. Kathleen Plante, Registrar, remarked on the administrative nightmare it would be in flagging students who were not allowed to drop a particular course. Also raised the question that if a student dropped before the process of academic integrity took place, where are we then? Can a “W” be changed to an “F”? From the floor the question was asked if the action would not follow the student on his transcript and if so what would be such repercussions. Dr. Stewart-Savage commented that all things must be weighable by the Associate Dean of Student Judicial Affairs and that instead of flagging a particular course, perhaps an option would be flagging the student from dropping any course without proper authority. Dr. Main agreed with Dr. McSeveney that if a student be allowed to drop the course that the process should still continue. The Chancellor remarked that he did not feel that a student who has been caught cheating should be allowed to simply get out of the infraction by dropping the course. He suggested to the Senate that a decision as to whether a student can’t drop as part of the judicial process needs to be considered and that item 4, section 2, should perhaps be tabled to committee with Dr. McSeveney and the Registrar. The Chancellor asked for the feelings of the Senate on whether a student who gets a 0 in a course for academic dishonesty be prohibited from dropping the course.
Motion made by Senate to table item 4, section 2 until the next meeting.

5. The Judicial Code be included in the Catalog
Item 5 carries.

b: Committee D
Committee D was assigned to make recommendations about syllabus content to be in line with SACS requirements. The SACS Leadership team wants the Senate to recommend that all faculty include a set of standardized items on the syllabus. Committee D was assigned to discuss this motion and make a recommendation to the Senate. The standardized items are: 1) a list of student learning objectives for the course; 2) for those faculty teaching 4000-level courses (which may be taken for graduate credit), a clear statement of what additional work is required for graduate students to receive graduate credit (this should be included whether or not any graduate students are enrolled); 3) a clear statement of the teacher's attendance policy (if it is a developmental, 1000-level, or 2000-level course, not whether or not attendance will be taken-that is now required-but what are the rewards and punishments involved); and 4) a standard statement about the consequences of dishonesty.

Dr. Ting Wang, Professor, College of Engineering, said that Committee D received and discussed responses sent to Senators and Faculty. Committee D, after discussions, were still in favor of all items. Dr Bruce King said that this was not an original concepts by the SACS leadership team, rather, these are to help the University meet SACS preparations and requirements. The Chancellor added that there is a national movement regarding student learning objectives, and learning objectives are what the Department of Education are mandating. The Chancellor finished this statement saying that this is an era of accountability to Federal requirements, and our University needs to be in the forefront in meeting those requirements. Dr. King told the Senate that most Academic Departments were confused as to what constituted student learning outcomes; Faculty need to convey to students what should be learned from the particular course being taught.
The motion for all four items were placed before the Senate, the Senate passed and carried the motion.

c: Faculty Conduct Policy Revision
Motion made by Daphne Main, Associate Professor, Accounting, and Gary Allen, Professor, Geology and Geophysics, passed by Senate: Faculty Conduct Policy to be placed on UNO website subject to review by University Lawyers. http://www.uno.edu/senate/faculty_conduct_policy_2002

3. Faculty Representative to LSU Board of Supervisors: Dr. Diana Hulse-Killacky
N/A

8. Comments, questions and suggestion
N/A

9. Questions for Administrators

1. Would administration support a Student Activity Fee, a 5% increase in tuition put forth as a referendum through Student Government to: 1. Increase SAC funding to about $360,000/year, 2. improve the quality of the school newspaper (Driftwood), by possibly mailing it out to the entire Student Body, 3. Permanent funding for Club Sports, Pep Band, Cheerleaders and Starlettes, 4. Create a permanent shuttle service with possibly 3 lines: (1. to and from arena w/ stops at grocery stores and key spots on campus, 2. to and from Downtown CTR, 3. to and from Jeff CTR-this may have to be a separate referendum) 5. Bring back the Yearbook?

Due to the lateness of the these questions in the academic year, the Chancellor asked if Student Government might review proposal and bring it forward next year. Suggestion was accepted.

2. There are several university committees, which have student representation, of which many only meet once per year or not at all. I'm not going to name them. I think administration knows what committees I am referring to. There is rarely any agenda or brainstorming by these committees. Why do we have these committees? Shouldn't these committees be doing something constructive? Do we need to pick better leaders for these committees?

The Policy Committee, is conducting a survey regarding the composition of these committees for a report at a later date.

3. When the referendum was presented to the Student Body to create and build the Recreation and Fitness Center (RFC), it was advertised and promised that a Board with majority student representation would be created to help make/decide on policies in the RFC. An attempt was made at an "Advisory Board," but has since, for no better terms, fallen to the wayside. The only problem with an "Advisory Board" is the students still do not have a say in general policies regarding the RFC. Will Administration follow through and establish a Board, composed of majority students with the authorized power to create/change policies concerning the RFC?

A RFC Board with a student majority representation has met.

4. How come we do not utilize campus police to patrol the TechPark, Arena and Jeff Center? It seems to me that it would be better for all concerned to direct revenues towards building our University Police Force, rather than hiring the company that gives us the "lowest bid" to protect UNO residents. Further, why is it that every time I (and there have been multiple complaints about this) walk through the Tech Park, I am harassed by a rent-a-cop? I see the fence going up now, why was this necessary? Do we need to put up "No Trespassing-US Gov't Property" signs? I really think UNO Police are better suited for this job; they treat students with much more courtesy and respect.

The Chancellor reported that the University is taking under consideration such a proposal. With the heightened security in the country and that these are Federal Buildings that need to be secure and the concern is meeting that need with the best possible method.

10. Committee Assignments
Committee A: Look into the feasibility of scheduling classes such that there are essentially equal numbers of classes each semester regardless of the night of the week on which they fall, including the possibility of not having class the Wednesday night before Thanksgiving.

Committee B: No Assignment

Committee C: Look into the issue of academic dishonesty, specifically to examine the nature and extent of the academic dishonesty problem at UNO and to recommend procedures and practices which faculty can use to educate themselves and their students for minimizing cheating, plagiarism and other behaviors related to academic dishonesty. Further, any procedures related to the student judiciary process that need modification should be addressed as well.

Committee D: No Assignment

11. Other Reports
a. Association of Louisiana Faculty Senates: Dr. Ray Sweany
(Handout)
The Association of Louisiana Faculty Senates passed four resolutions at its spring meeting in Shreveport. The resolution of greatest impact endorses the Regents policy on tenure and asserts that it should be guiding in policies of the Louisiana Community and Technical Colleges (LCTC). New hires in the Community Colleges receive annual contracts and there is no tenure. Faculty hired prior to the creation of the LCTC system retain the tenure status that were in effect when they were hired.

In taking this action, we are aware that our activities may result in a review of the Regents policy which dates to the mid-1970’s. In this regard, the University of Louisiana System has instituted a policy of post-tenure review similar to what was promulgated in the LSU System in 2000. Copies of the UNO implementation policy have been transmitted to the University of Louisiana at Lafayette, Northwestern Louisiana University and Tech.

ALFS also encourages all systems to establish Faculty Advisory Councils (FAC) to their boards. These bodies should be faculty bodies which can serve as a conduit of information to and from the Boards. Currently, the LCTC System has no Faculty Advisory Council and the Southern System Faculty Advisory Council is led by a system officer. The FACs of the ULa System; and the LSU System are considered exemplary.

The body approved policy statement of faculty and administrator pay. These documents are an outgrowth of the fall meeting. I will transmit the exact working of the statements at our next meeting. Also, the constitution was amended so that the Faculty Advisory Council to the Board of Regents would serve as the executive committee for ALFS along with elected officers.

The faculty senate of SUNO reports that it is considering a vote of no confidence in its chancellor and vice-chancellor for academic affairs. At issue are a number of items. An article appeared in the Times Picayune which fairly describes the ground for such a resolution. My understanding is that the senate may take this action around April 1.

At the CLCU meeting, we heard from five candidates for the office of governor. They were Richard Ieyoub, Randy Ewing, Hunt Downer, Buddy Leach, and Dan Kyle. John Hainkel and Kathleen Blanco had communicated that they would be unable to attend. John Kennedy was planning on attending but did not show. Bobby Jindal had become a candidate and was given a tentative invitation but he did not appear. Those who attended were asked whether they would adopt the Foster policy of not cutting higher education and they all said yes. Faculty were assigned candidates and I will pass on to you what they have learned about their candidates and their attitude toward higher education. One report by Bill Stewart of SUNO has already been released. John Hainkel believes the Foster emphasis on education has drained money from economic development.

On a personal note, I was re-elected for another year as president of ALFS.

b. UNO Staff Council: Mr. David Richardson, President
N/A

c. Student Government: Mr. Jared Munster, President
N/A

d. Alumni Association: Dr. Sandra Harris Eason, Senate Representative
N/A

e. UNO Athletics Council: Ms. Sybil Boudreaux, Chair
(Handout, not reported at Senate, see Appendix A)

12. Old Business
N/A

13. New Business
N/A

Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned 5:53 PM