GP.03.05
April 28, 2003

UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS
URBANA-CHAMPAIGN SENATE

Committee on General University Policy

GP.03.05 Annual Report for 2002-2003
(final- Information)

The Senate General University Policy Committee (GUP) is responsible for studying, reporting and making recommendations to the Senate concerning general University policy in broad terms. The following report summarizes the activities of GUP during the 2002-2003 academic year. GUP met ten times (September 16, October 14, October 28, November 11, December 16, January 22, February 12, March 12, April 2, and April 16). One additional meeting is scheduled for this semester (April 30).

A. Items that were completed by the committee:
GP.01.06 Evaluation of Ability to Work Policy
The Senate Executive Committee (SEC) referred the proposed policy on evaluation of ability to work to GUP and the Committee on Academic Freedom and Tenure (AFT) and asked the committees to prepare a joint report to SEC on proposed action. The committees have reached agreement that approval of the policy should be recommended, with the addition of one sentence to the text of the proposed policy.

GP.03.01 Code of Conduct
The Senate Executive Committee (SEC) asked GUP to consider the Interim Code of Conduct statement which would be added to the University’s “Handbook for Good Ethical Practice.” GUP reviewed the statement and suggested additional wording to improve the Introduction to the Code: “This is not an attempt to define what one should not do, but to communicate the University’s expectations of proper conduct and what professional conduct the University values.” The proposal was approved by the Senate on December 9, 2002.

GP.03.03 Implementation of “Severe Sanctions” Procedure
The Statutes now call for each campus to establish procedures to implement the provision made for “severe sanctions other than dismissal for cause.” This matter was referred by SEC to GUP, AFT and USSP. It was agreed that GUP would take the lead in drafting a document that would do so for action by the Senate. This task occupied GUP more than any other during the year.

A document was prepared, and after going through a number of drafts in committee was circulated to AFT and USSP. Further drafts were developed in response to their comments and suggestions. When agreement on language was reached, the document was transmitted to SEC, which had further suggestions, in response to which further changes were made. With the support of AFT, USSP and SEC, the document was then presented to the Senate as an Information item at its March 2003 meeting. Following the discussion of the document on the Senate floor, several further changes were proposed by USSP and agreed to by GUP. The document will now appear on the Action agenda of the April Senate meeting for Senate approval.

B. Items that are under continuing consideration:
GP.03.02 Non-Tenure-Track Faculty Policy
GUP has devoted considerable time and effort to gathering information with respect to conerns and policies pertaining to what at most other institutions are called “non-tenure-track faculty,” and to discussing what might be appropriate for the Senate to do in this connection. It appears that the single most important issue, as far as the campus administration, college deans and department heads are concerned is that of making multi-year contracts possible. When this issue was presented to the Senate previously, it was tabled until such time as satisfactory procedures for dismissal for cause and other severe sanctions for those who would have such contracts had been worked out. Consequently, GUP has begun to work on this matter, as has USSP. That work is expected to carry over into the next academic year.

GP.03.04 Support Services Strategy (S3)

GUP sought to learn whether the Central Administration still intends to implement elements of the Support Services Strategy report that was produced several years ago, beyond those elements of it that are now being implemented in the form of UI-Integrate. After reviewing the contents of the report, GUP invited Steve Rugg, from the Central Administration, to discuss the matter with the committee. In the course of that discussion it became clear that some such intention does still exist, and that Rugg himself is a strong advocate of the kinds of centralization at issue. GUP intends to continue to monitor this matter, and to make recommendations with respect to it from time to time as may be appropriate.

C. Items that are being monitored by the committee:
GP.98.08 Faculty Representative on Board of Trustees
In 1999, the Senate approved a resolution (co-sponsored by GUP and Senate Council) requesting that there be faculty representation with voice privilege from each campus at Board meetings. Similar resolutions were passed by the UIC and UIS Senates.

GP.01.01 UI-Integrate (UI2)

GUP continues to monitor this issue.

GP.01.05 Academic Integrity Procedures
In 2001, the Faculty Advisory Committee noted an apparent gap in the “Procedures on Academic Integrity in Research and Publication.” This deals with cross-college complaints and the question of which Dean should be involved. GUP responded with a letter to Senate Council on April 26, 2001 recommending that Deans from both colleges should be involved and also that the complainant should have the right of appeal to the Provost. GUP continues to monitor this issue while revisions to the “Procedures on Academic Integrity in Research and Publication” are finalized.

GP.02.01 UIUCnet Funding Plan
This issue arose in the spring of 2001 from a draft plan to propose an annual charge for networking access on a per port basis with additional charges for excess bandwidth utilization as a way to raise money for campus networking. GUP responded with a letter to Senate Council on April 6, 2001 expressing concerns with the plan and the issue was referred to the Information Technology Committee.


General University Policy
Richard Schacht, Chair
Clifton Brown
Carolyn Dry
Debbie Ehler
George Gross
Carol Livingstone
Peter Loeb
Joshua McClure
David Swanson, Ex officio