UNIVERSITY SENATE MINUTES
NOVEMBER 5, 1998
The second meeting of the University Senate for 1998-99 was convened in 25 Law Building, Minneapolis campus, on Thursday, November 5, 1998, at 2:28 p.m. Coordinate campuses were linked by telephone. Checking or signing the roll as present were 115 voting faculty/academic professional members, 26 voting student members, 2 ex officio member, and 2 nonmembers. President Mark Yudof presided.
A. Amendment of the Uniform Grading and Transcript Policy
| Approved by the: | University Senate - April 16, 1998 Administration - June 5, 1998 Board of Regents - no action required |
|
Implemented by the: Administration - Fall 1999 |
Office of the Executive Vice President and Provost
University of Minnesota
The University of Minnesota and the Minnesota State Colleges and Universities
(MnSCU) signed on January 15, 1998, the Partnership Agreement for Public
Higher Education. The agreement provides an opportunity for the
University of Minnesota to reflect on its experiences with applied partnership
degree programs with community colleges in the Twin Cities, which evolved from
the 1993 statement on partnerships, and to develop a general set of guidelines
for new applied partnership degree programs. The January 1998 Partnership
Agreement expands upon the earlier agreement, and recognizes the need for
additional creative and strategic collaborations between the two public
systems.
In 1993, the Twin Cities Higher Education Partnership recognized that the educational needs of students and employers locally, regionally, nationally, and globally were changing very rapidly. It further recognized that public higher education institutions in Minnesota had entered a period of tight fiscal constraints in which improved collaboration and responsiveness were more critical than ever in making the best use of available state resources. Subsequently, the Board of Regents approved the four applied degree programs on the dates noted below:
|
Bachelor of Information Networking Bachelor of Applied Business Bachelor of Emergency Health Services Bachelor of Construction Management |
June 1993 July 1993 January 1996 January 1996 |
Partnership degrees are innovative, career-oriented, baccalaureate degree programs, offered by a baccalaureate degree granting public institution in Minnesota, and are best delivered by collaboration between partner institutions. The four-fold rationale is based on the premise that a new type of applied baccalaureate degree program is essential to keep Minnesota citizens competitive in a global economy, and that continuing education and lifelong learning are essential in a knowledge-based society,
First, the partnership degree programs recognize and respond to the growing need for a new type of applied, career-oriented baccalaureate degree program. They blend appropriate levels of the "how" and the "why" of knowledge, and are developed with all of the necessary educational, structural and procedural integrity common to University of Minnesota degree programs.
Second, the partnership degree programs are a direct response to workforce needs and issues being discussed by businesses and industries. Businesses and industries of the 21st century will require an increasingly skilled and knowledgeable workforce.
Third, all partnership degree programs address the need to identify creative institutional strategies to use limited state resources in an effective and efficient manner.
Fourth, the University of Minnesota is uniquely equipped to provide specialized course work that is the foundation for certain leading edge career fields consistent with the land-grant mission of the University.
As a Research I, land-grant institution in a major urban center, the University of Minnesota-Twin Cities has an appropriately broader set of degree programs than institutions having only one of the above defining characteristics. Fundamental to the land-grant concept is access by Minnesota citizens to degree programs that contribute to the evolving needs of the state's businesses and industries. Location in a large metropolitan area that includes numerous highly sophisticated and technical businesses and industries adds yet another dimension in determining the range and nature of the degree programs offered by the University of Minnesota-Twin Cities. One of the strengths of the institution is the range and quality of its course offerings and degree programs.
Principles to Guide Thinking about Degree Programs
Fundamental to any degree program offered by the University of Minnesota is a core group of University faculty committed to working together to offer a high quality degree program. In an era in which educational needs cannot always be met within the boundaries of traditional academic disciplines or even single campuses, some of the models successfully used in interdisciplinary graduate education can be applied in designing applied baccalaureate degree programs. In considering a new partnership degree program, the University of Minnesota must first consider whether the opportunities realized by offering the degree (e.g., attracting new students and additional income sources) outweigh the possible negative consequences (e.g., reducing time available for other undergraduate and graduate programs, faculty research, and outreach activities) of redirection of faculty effort in the collegiate units involved.
A set of assumptions about University College serves as the basis for discussions about partnership degree programs. The first is that University College is a University-wide vehicle for offering partnership degree programs. A second assumption is that degree-granting delivery of University of Minnesota degrees via University College is limited to partnership degree programs and the degrees offered through the Program in Individualized Leaning and the Inter-College Program. The third assumption is that discussions about central funding for partnership degree programs occur as part of the annual planning and budget discussions between the Office of the Executive Vice President and Provost and University College. The fourth assumption is that some of the partnership degree programs to be offered in the metropolitan area and greater Minnesota may be awarded by MnSCU institutions, even though much of the coursework may be delivered by current University of Minnesota collegiate units. The following set of principles is suggested as the foundation for discussions about partnership degree programs:
The degree program must be consistent with institutional values, contribute to the accomplishment of the University's mission, and reflect strategic directions for its academic programs.
The degree program balances liberal education outcomes with the provision of specific technical skills.
The degree program is an appropriate baccalaureate-level degree program and does not imply a level of preparation more appropriate for post-baccalaureate professional education.
Criteria for formal admission to a partnership degree program are consistent with quality standards used for admission to other degree programs in the collegiate unit(s) involved.
The degree program cannot be delivered entirely by one of the colleges on the Twin Cities campus of the University.
The degree program is more effectively and efficiently delivered by a partnership between Minnesota's two public higher education systems, and provides enrolled students with a better educational experience because of the partnership between the institutions.
Naming of the degree programs balances generality versus specificity, so that titles convey a broad focus appropriate for a baccalaureate degree, are not too time-bound in their meaning, and yet clearly convey the core knowledge domain studied by students.
Program-specific courses are designed in response to needs identified by business and industry representatives who participate in the curriculum design process.
Offering the degree program through the University of Minnesota employs its unique resources consistent with appropriate mission differentiation vis-à-vis the state universities, the community colleges, and the technical colleges.
Degree programs should respond to demonstrated "gaps" in program availability in the Twin Cities metropolitan area or in other parts of the state.
No partnership degree program unnecessarily duplicates any existing degree program(s) in any college or campus of the University of Minnesota.
Degree programs should be delivered to students such that their access to courses offered by partner institutions is "seamless" (i.e., no need to navigate two different registration systems).
The institution awarding the degree should be evident to students upon initial application for admission to the degree program.
Certain partnership degree programs might be offered by other institutions, such as Metropolitan State University, in a partnership involving two-year colleges and University of Minnesota resources.
Degree programs should incorporate appropriate instructional technology to enable students to learn effectively and efficiently.
In most cases, the coursework most appropriately delivered by the University of Minnesota should consist of upper-division coursework in the major field of study.
The curriculum should be delivered in a manner and in locations compatible with the schedules of working adults.
Development and approval of degrees must involve appropriate consultation with leadership and faculty in appropriate colleges of the University.
A core group of tenured University of Minnesota faculty, often housed in different departments or collegiate units, is ultimately responsible for the degree program, although ad hoc committees provide curriculum design.
Applied, partnership degree programs must be evaluated on a periodic basis, at which point the program's viability is evaluated based on program quality, value to students and employers, program demand, and financial considerations.
Criteria for Program Review and Evaluation
Although the six criteria noted below are fundamental, another set of broader questions serves as the context for applying the criteria for partnership degree programs. Those questions include the following: What are the educational needs of residents of the metropolitan area, and does the partnership degree program respond to the economic development needs of the area? In partnership with MnSCU, does the University of Minnesota have the capacity to respond to those needs, and what strategic investments are necessary to build faculty expertise to respond to future needs? Are there institutional and inter-system strategic issues that need to be identified to guide decision-making about the institution to offer a particular partnership degree? What are the relevant institutional performance measures to be used in evaluating the positive and negative effects of developing the new partnership degree program?
The issues to be addressed in proposing partnership degree programs are identical to those used in the submission of all new degree program proposals for approval by the Board of Regents. Appendix A is a copy of the outline used in summarizing information for submission to the Board of Regents. Implicit in that review process are the six fundamental criteria to guide decision making about academic programs offered by the University of Minnesota, including all degree programs delivered in partnership with MnSCU institutions. Those six criteria, first articulated in A Commitment to Focus in 1986, are as appropriate today as when first proposed a decade ago:
Quality: The degree to which the program provides high quality educational opportunities consistent with the mission of the University of Minnesota.
Uniqueness: The extent to which the degree program offers opportunities for students that are not available elsewhere in Minnesota, especially in the Twin Cities metropolitan area.
Connectedness: The extent to which the degree program connects with and relates to other degree programs on the Twin Cities campus rather than exists as an isolated degree program.
Integration: The extent to which the degree program's various components and services are coherent and internally consistent in meeting the educational needs of Minnesota and the seven-county metropolitan area.
Demand: The extent to which student demand for the degree program is present or is projected for the future.
Cost-effectiveness: The extent to which the degree program costs are commensurate with the outcomes, build upon current academic resources, and can be operated at reasonable costs.
Current Status of Partnership Degrees
Each of the programs was to be continued for a four-year period, at which point the program's viability will be evaluated based on program quality, value to students and employers, retention and graduation rates, program demand, and financial considerations. Only the first two partnership degree programs have been in existence long enough to expect to have had graduates. Three students have completed the B.I.N., and eight students have completed the B.A.B..
Many of the active students (i.e., students who have expressed interest in the program and have taken at least one class) are MnSCU students who are exploring the program but are not yet formally University of Minnesota students. The information presented below was current as of the beginning of fall 1998.
Number Number At Admission
Active Graduates Mean Age Mean GPA
Bachelor of Applied Business 141 16 32.4
2.91
Bachelor of Information Networking 77 9 32.5
3.02
Bachelor of Emergency Health Services 7 --
32.9 2.82
Bachelor of Construction Management 7 --
25.7 3.28
Process for Creating Future Partnership Degrees
The January 1998 Partnership Agreement for Public Higher Education places the development of additional partnership degree programs within the broader context of increased cooperation between the two public systems to meet the higher education needs of Minnesota citizens and Minnesota's businesses and industries. The higher education organizational structure in place when the first partnership degrees were created has changed, and that change has implications for both the current as well as any future partnership degree programs. Furthermore, since the program review and approval function of the Higher Education Coordination Board was eliminated effective July 1, 1995, there is no longer a statewide process to review proposals for new degree programs.
Given the articulation of the above guidelines and principles, how might they guide our current thinking about the four current partnership degree programs? The four partnership degree programs were conceived and developed in the context of an organizational structure for public higher education in Minnesota that no longer exists. The four partnership degree programs were designed to enable students to complete a University of Minnesota degree by completing designated coursework in selected community colleges in the Twin Cities metropolitan area. Although the degree programs have much in common relative to their genesis and philosophy, each is quite distinct. Variations exist relative to the needs being addressed, the existence of degree programs offered by other institutions in MnSCU, preliminary evidence about the educational levels of individuals applying for admission to the degree programs, and the feasibility of delivering the degree programs at sites throughout the Twin Cities metropolitan area.
The 1998 Partnership Agreement indicates that the two public systems "agree to join in joint strategic planning, develop incentives for implementing partnerships, and streamline the process for approving and implementing cooperative activities." As an important first step in that direction, the chief academic officers of both systems (the Senior Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs of MnSCU and the Executive Vice President and Provost of the University of Minnesota) will co-chair an Inter-System Policy Committee, which will provide oversight and a coordinating mechanism for joint working groups. One of the first joint working groups to be appointed will be one charged with responsibility for addressing inter-system issues relative to extant and future applied partnership degree programs.
Since the rationale for the partnership degree programs emphasizes that the career-oriented baccalaureate degree programs are responsive to the documented need for a new type of degree program, one of the first tasks is the development of a vehicle for the systematic identification of new program needs. The 1998 Partnership Agreement suggested that future collaborations might lead to partnership degree programs in agriculture, food production, health care, technology, and other fields. Businesses and industries that have identified gaps in the availability of educational programs need a clear point of access to those within the University of Minnesota, who in consultation with similar staff in MnSCU, explore the feasibility of developing a particular new educational program.
The following steps should be followed in developing and proposing new partnership degree programs:
Step 1: In this informal process, University College staff, together with leadership and faculty in University of Minnesota collegiate units, consult with business and industry, in collaboration with representatives of MnSCU, to identify educational programs suitable for further exploration as partnership degrees.
Step 2: After their consultation with the units involved, University College consults with the Office of the Executive Vice President and Provost for approval to proceed to the curriculum design phase.
Step 3: Appointment of curriculum design committee that includes representation of faculty from University units, faculty from partner institution(s), and business and industry representatives from the sectors the partnership degree program is intended to serve.
Step 4: Review and approval by University College Academic Council with simultaneous reporting to the Twin Cities Assembly Committee on Educational Policy.
Step 5: Review and approval by the Office of the Executive Vice President and Provost.
Step 6: Review and approval by the Board of Regents and, as appropriate, simultaneous review and approval by the MnSCU Board of Trustees.
For Further Information:
Dr. Darwin D. Hendel
Office of the Executive Vice President and Provost
234 Morrill Hall
University of Minnesota
100 Church Street S.E.
Minneapolis, MN 55455
Phone: (612) 625-0129
FAX: (612) 624-6057
E-mail: hendel@mailbox.mail.umn.edu
COMMENT:
The Senate Committee on Educational Policy reviewed these guidelines over the course of several meetings, made a number of suggestions that were incorporated, and approved them on October 21, 1998. They are presented for information to the Senate.
JUDITH MARTIN, Chair
EDUCATIONAL POLICY COMMITTEE
DISCUSSION:
Professor Judith Martin said that this policy has been developed to monitor the programs in collaboration between the University and the MnSCU system. Currently, there are four degrees which have been put into place with what has seemed to some as inadequate faculty oversight. This policy is proposed for future partnership degrees.
Agenda Items III. through IV. are considered to be noncontroversial or "housekeeping" in nature and are offered as a "Consent Agenda" to be taken up as a single item with one vote. Any item will be taken up separately at the request of a senator. A simple majority is required for approval.
The University Senate minutes are available on the Web at the following URL:
MOTION:
To approve the following additions to University Senate committee memberships for 1998-99:
DISABILITIES ISSUES - Students: Amanda Perlman.
EDUCATIONAL POLICY - Students: Shumaila Anwer, Martin O'Hely, Tina Rovick.
FACILITIES MANAGEMENT - Students: Shawn Elison.
FINANCE AND PLANNING - Students: John Schmit, Laura Taken.
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES - Students: Kevin McDowell, Ben Metzler, Andy Rotering.
LIBRARY - Students: Amy Gregoret, Jesse Grenz, Mark Zell.
RESEARCH - Students: Jesse Grenz, Peter Reichert, Barbara Van Drasek.
SOCIAL CONCERNS - Students: Sabeen Altaf, Nicholas Dehnert, Stephanie Eckroth, Thomas Haakenson, Jenny Nate, Jennifer Watts.
STUDENT AFFAIRS - Students: Sabeen Altaf, Jesse Berglund, Thomas Haakenson, Brittany Leigh, Laura Taken, Hillary Walters, Jennifer Watts, Britta Ylikopsa.
FOR INFORMATION:
ALL-UNIVERSITY HONORS - Students: Stephanie Eckroth, Amy Kudronowicz, Peter Reichert.
CONSULTATIVE - Faculty: Marilyn Grave.
SALLY GREGORY KOHLSTEDT, Chair
COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES
DISCUSSION:
The Consent Agenda was approved with no discussion.
APPROVED
V. STUDENT SENATE CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE
Eligibility Requirements for Student Senators
Action
MOTION:
To amend the University Senate Constitution, Article III, Section 4b, as
follows: (language to be deleted is struck out; new language
is underlined)
ARTICLE III. UNIVERSITY SENATE
4. Election of University Senate Members
...
b. The elected representatives of the students to the University Senate shall
be chosen by secret ballot by the student constituency enrolled in the several
institutes, colleges, or schools as specified in the bylaws. Only
full-time students in each institute, college, or school shall be eligible to
vote. Each institute, college, or school shall establish its own procedures to
determine qualification as a full-time student. of those
students eligible to vote.
There shall be one student member for each initial 1,000 full-time students or fraction thereof in each student constituency plus one additional student senator for each additional 1,000 full-time students or major fraction thereof in such constituency. At Morris and Crookston there shall be two student senators for each initial 1,000 full-time students or fraction thereof in each student constituency plus one additional student senator for each additional 1,000 full-time students or major fraction thereof in such constituency.
Any student who has twenty-four credits in residence at the University
and at the time of voting is carrying at least nine credits in his or her
institute, college, or school shall be eligible for election as a student
representative to the University Senate. Graduate School students shall be
eligible for election if they have nine credits in residence at the University
and are full-time students at the time of voting or are certified as the
equivalent of full-time students by the Graduate School. Continuing Education
and Extension students shall be eligible for election if they have earned
twelve credits in residence during the previous five years and are carrying
three credits at the time of voting. Full-time students in each institute,
college, or school shall be eligible to vote. Each institute, college, or
school shall establish its own procedures to determine qualification as a
full-time student.
To be eligible for election to the University Senate, a student must have earned the required number of credits in residence at the University, as described below:
The above amendments to the Senate Constitution were approved by the Student Senate at its May 14, 1998, meeting and are presented for consideration by the full Senate. If approved, the amendments will lower the Senate eligibility requirements allowing students to be eligible to serve as senators earlier in their college careers. This would allow more students to be involved in University governance and, hopefully, result in fewer vacant student seats. As a constitutional amendment 135 affirmative votes are required at one meeting or 102 at each of two consecutive meetings. The motion received 102 affirmative votes at the October 15, 1998, meeting.
RYAN FALK, Chair
STUDENT SENATE CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE
DISCUSSION:
A senator asked if this motion pertained to quarters or semesters.
Ryan Falk responded that the first paragraph, which refers to University College students, pertains to quarters, while the second paragraph works under both systems. The first paragraph will be revised when the rest of the changes are made to the University Senate Constitution.
A vote was then taken and the motion was approved with 108 votes in favor and none opposed.
APPROVED
COMMENT ON ITEMS VI. and VII.:
The Senate adopted the Nepotism and Consensual Relationships Policy and the Sexual Harassment Policy in slightly different form on April 16, 1998. In the process of preparing them for action by the Board of Regents, changes were made in their format and wording. The original drafters believe that the changes do not alter the intent of the Senate. The Senate Consultative Committee decided that the revised text should be resubmitted to the Senate for its approval. The Senate Consultative Committee recommends approval.
MOTION:
To amend the Nepotism and Consensual Relationships Policy, as follows:
[additions are underlined; deletions are struck out]
Subd. 1. Philosophy. The University of
Minnesota acts in accord with the public policy to encourage and foster, to the
fullest extent practicable, the employment of properly qualified persons
regardless of their age, race, religion, creed, color, disability, sex, marital
status, public assistance, veterans status, sexual orientation, or national
origin.
Subd. 2. Prohibition. Except as authorized in
writing by the senior vice president for academic affairs, the University does
not permit persons who are related through blood, marriage or other committed
relationships to participate in decisions to hire, retain, promote or determine
the salary of the other person, or to be responsible for the evaluation,
supervision, or assignment of the work of the other person. Any employment
relationship with contravenes the requirements of the previous sentence must be
identified and submitted in writing to the senior vice president for academic
affairs.
Subd. 3. Exceptions. The senior vice president
for academic affairs may authorize reporting arrangements which prevent
violations of this policy and/or authorize exceptions from this policy after a
written determination that it is in the best interest of the University, there
is no reasonable alternative, enters into a written agreement with the involved
persons, and provides for annual monitoring.
SECTION I. DEFINITIONS.
Subd. 1. Member of the University Community. "Member of the University community" or "University member" shall mean any University of Minnesota faculty member, student, or staff member, or other individual engaged in any University activity or program.
Subd. 2. Personal Relationship. "Personal relationship" shall mean marital or other committed relationship, significant familial relationship, or consensual sexual or romantic relationship.
SECTION II. EMPLOYMENT AND ACADEMIC ACTIVITIES.
Subd. 1. Prohibited Activities. A member of the University community may not directly influence the University employment or academic progress of a University member with whom he or she has a personal relationship. Prohibited activities include, but are not limited to, hiring, promotion, supervision, evaluation, determination of salary, grading, and advising.
Subd. 2. Noncompetitive Appointments. This policy does not prohibit noncompetitive appointments of spouses and partners otherwise authorized by University policy.
Subd. 3. Relationships With Current Students. Personal relationships between faculty members or advisors and their current students are very unwise and may violate other University policies, even when prohibited activities have been avoided, because of the trust accorded to faculty members and advisors by students, the power differential inherent in academic associations, the difficulty of making alternative arrangements for grading and evaluation, and the risk of real or perceived favoritism toward the student in the personal relationship and the potential harm to this student and other students.
SECTION III. ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTIVES.
Subd. 1. Procedures Required. The president shall adopt procedures for the implementation of this policy. The procedures must contain the provisions outlined in subdivisions 2-5.
Subd. 2. Consultation. Consultation shall be mandatory for University members who are or will be in a position to engage in an activity prohibited by section II.br>
Subd. 4. Power Disparity. When a power disparity exists in the employment or academic association of the individuals in the personal relationship, the employment or academic interests of the subordinate must be protected when structuring the association to avoid the prohibited activity.
Subd. 5. Exclusions. In exceptional circumstances an exclusion from section II, subd. 1 may be granted when eliminating the prohibited activities would unreasonably disadvantage one or both of the University members involved in a personal relationship. In the event that an exclusion is granted, safeguards must be implemented to help ensure that any employment or academic decisions regarding the involved University members are made impartially.
SECTION IV. DISCIPLINARY ACTION.
A violation of section II, subd. 1 may lead to disciplinary action up to and
including termination of employment or academic dismissal. Participation in
and adherence to the consultation process may mitigate disciplinary action.
SARA EVANS, Chair
SENATE CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE
KENT BALES, Chair
FACULTY AFFAIRS COMMITTEE
DISCUSSION:
Professor Carol Chomsky talked about the process by which this policy, and the one following, reached the Senate. She recalled that two years ago the Senate adopted different versions of the Sexual Harassment and Consensual Relationships Policy. At that time, the previous administration had some concerns about the policy, so a committee was set up to produce a new draft for the Senate. This new draft was approved by the University Senate last April. At that time, the committee informed the Senate that the Regents' office intended to look at the policy and do some editing to put it into regental format. When the drafting was completed by the Regents' office, there were more changes made than just removing the purpose language from the policy. This resulted in a series of meetings between the Regents' staff and the drafting committee to put the policy in a new format, but that left it substantively the same as what the Senate adopted in April. These policies were then presented to the Senate Consultative Committee (SCC) for their approval. While the SCC, as well as the drafting committee, felt that the policies are substantively the same as those adopted in April, the SCC felt that it was not their role to make that determination in place of the full Senate. She concluded that the Senate needs to vote whether or not they are substantively the same as what was adopted in April. She then opened the floor for questions.
Professor Fred Morrison, Vice Chair of the SCC, said that he insisted that these policies be returned to the Senate, because the SCC should not be in the routine of substituting its judgment for that of the full Senate. He agreed that the intention of the Senate is being carried out and urged the senators to vote in favor.
A senator asked whether the last sentence of the policy, "All such discipline shall be in accordance with the appropriate University employment policies" could be reinserted in the Regents' version of the policy.
Professor Chomsky responded that the committee was satisfied with omitting this language because it is true that any action must be in accordance with those other policies.
With no further questions, a vote was taken and the motion was approved.
APPROVED
MOTION:
To amend the Sexual Harassment Policy, as follows: [additions are
underlined; deletions are struck out]
SECTION I. DEFINITION.
Subd. 1. Sexual Harassment. "Sexual harassment" means
unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and/or other verbal or
physical conduct of a sexual nature when:
SECTION II. POLICY.
Subd. 1. Prohibition. Sexual harassment by or toward a member of the University community is prohibited.
Subd. 2. Responsibility to Report. Department heads, deans, provosts, chancellors, vice presidents, and other supervisors and managers must take timely and appropriate action when they know or should know of the existence of sexual harassment. Other persons who suspect sexual harassment should report it to an appropriate person in their unit or to the University equal opportunity officer.
Subd. 3. Administrative Responsibility. Each campus must adopt procedures for investigating and resolving complaints of sexual harassment in coordination with the director of equal opportunity and affirmative action.
Subd. 4. Disciplinary Action. A violation of this policy may lead to disciplinary action up to and including termination of employment or academic dismissal.
SARA EVANS, Chair
SENATE CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE
KENT BALES, Chair
FACULTY AFFAIRS COMMITTEE
DISCUSSION:
The policy was approved with no further discussion.
APPROVED