Purdue University Senate Meeting Agenda, Lecture notes of Corporate Finance

Download Purdue University Senate Meeting Agenda and more Lecture notes Corporate Finance in PDF only on Docsity!

~ PURDUE UniversitySenate

t:.....I-' UNIVERSITY®

Fourth Meeting, Monday, 24 January 2022, 2:30 p.m. Zoom Meeting

AGENDA

1. Call to order
2. Statement of Land Use Acknowledgement
3. Approval of Minutes of 15 November 2021
4. Acceptance of Agenda
5. Remarks of the Senate Chair
6. Remarks of the President
7. Question Time
8. Memorial Resolutions
9. Résumé of Items Under Consideration by Various Committees
10. Consent Agenda

a. Senate Document 21- 12 Proposal for a Medically Excused Absence Policy for Students (MEAPS) to be added to Purdue University Main Campus Academic Regulations

b. Senate Document 21- 13 Mental Health Action Week to be recognized on Official Purdue University Calendar

c. Senate Document 21- 17 Nominees for Committee Vacancies

Professor Stephen P. Beaudoin

Professor Stephen P. Beaudoin

Professor Stephen P. Beaudoin

President Mitchell E. Daniels, Jr.

For Information Professor Elizabeth A. Richards

For Action

Professor Thomas Siegmund

PSG President Shannon Kang and PGSG President Madelina Nuñez

Professor Robert Nowack

1

11. Purdue Student Government Update
12. Purdue Graduate Student Government Update
13. Shared Governance Task Force Update
14. Senate Document 21- 14 Opposition to an Attempt at Restructuring/Dissolution of the Purdue University Senate
15. Senate Document 21- 16 Honors College Member on the Undergraduate Curriculum Council
16. New Business
17. Adjournment

For Information PSG President Shannon Kang

For Information PGSG President Madelina Nuñez

For Information Professor Deborah Nichols

For Action Professor David Koltick

For Discussion Professor Thomas Siegmund

2

Fourth Meeting Monday, 24 January 2022, 2:30 p.m.

Zoom Meeting

Present: Manushag N. Powell (Secretary of Faculties and Parliamentarian), Stephen P. Beaudoin (Chair of the Senate), Colleen Brady (Vice-Chair of the Senate), Dulcy Abraham, Jay T. Akridge, Bradley J Alge, Paul A. Asunda, Alan Beck, Peter A. Bermel, Ximena Bernal, Bharat Bhargava, Thomas H Brush, Eugene Chan, Min Chen, Yingjie (Victor) Chen, Laura J. Claxton, Matt Conaway, Todor Cooklev, Chittaranjan Das, Ariel de la Fuente, Abigail S. Engelberth, Edward A. Fox, Jennifer Freeman, James P. Greenan, Lori A. Hoagland, Stephen Hooser, Shannon S. Kang, Signe Kastberg, Erika Birgit Kaufmann, Yuan H. (Brad) Kim, Neil Knobloch, Jozef L. Kokini, Klod Kokini, David Koltick, Nan Kong, Lata A. Krishnan, Janice Kritchevsky, Eric P. Kvam, Douglas LaCount, Brian J. Leung, Andrew L. Liu, Julie C. Liu, David J. Love, Angeline M. Lyon, Oana Malis, Rose A. Mason, Shannon C. McMullen, Michael McNamara, Terrence R. Meyer, Lin Nan, Deborah L. Nichols, Larry Nies, Robert Nowack, Madelina E. Nuñez, Jan Olek, Alice Pawley, Rodolfo Pinal, Bob Pruitt, Li Qiao, Vanessa S. Quinn, Elizabeth (Libby) Richards, Brian T. Richert, Mark C. Rochat, Sandra S. Rossie, Chris Ruhl, Yumary Ruiz, Antônio Sá Barreto, David Sanders, Dennis Savaiano, Steven Scott, Juan P. Sesmero, John W. Sheffield, Thomas Siegmund, Joseph B Sobieralski, Qifan Song, John A. Springer, Kevin Stainback, Rusi Taleyarkhan, Vikas Tomar, Tony J. Vyn, Eric N. Waltenburg, Jeffrey X. Watt, Ann B. Weil, Kipling Williams, Rod N. Williams, Steve Yaninek, Yuan Yao, Jane F. Yatcilla, Dabao Zhang, Haiyan (Henry) Zhang, Mark D. Zimpfer, Megha Anwer, Heather Beasley, Michael B. Cline, Keith Gehres, Melissa J. Geiger, Peter Hollenbeck, Lowell Kane, Carl T. Krieger, Lisa Mauer, Beth McCuskey, Jamie L. Mohler, Jenna Rickus, Alysa C. Rollock, Katherine L. Sermersheim, and Stephanie L. Dykhuizen (Sergeant-at-Arms)

Absent: President Mitchell E. Daniels Jr., Charles A. Bouman, Sabine Brunswicker, Michael A. Campion, Daniel H. Frank, Alan M. Friedman, Alexander V. Kildishev, Cara Kinnally, John J McConnell, Erik Otárola-Castillo, Pete E. Pascuzzi, Felicia Roberts, and Amanda J. Emmons.

Guests: Dave Bangert (Based in Lafayette Newsletter), Spencer Deery (Office of the President), Jason Fish (Purdue Online), Meredith Hackler (WLFI), Laurie Hitze (CSSAC), Dee McNamara (Purdue Global), Malini Nair (Purdue Exponent), Abbey Nickel (Purdue Today), Carol Shelby (Environmental Health and Public Safety), Joseph Strickler (Student Success Programs), Marion Underwood (Health and Human Sciences), Randall Ward (Disability Resource Center), Jennifer William (Liberal Arts), and Robert D. Wynkoop (Auxiliary Services).

1. The meeting was called to order at 2:36pm.
2. Chair Beaudoin read the following Statement of Land Use Acknowledgement, as per Senate Document 20-55:

The Purdue University Senate acknowledges the traditional homelands of the Indigenous People which Purdue University is built upon. We honor and

3

appreciate the Bodéwadmik (Potawatomi), Lenape (Delaware), Myaamia (Miami), and Shawnee People who are the original Indigenous caretakers.

The minutes of the 15 November 2021 Senate meeting were entered as read.

The agenda was accepted by general consent.

Chair Beaudoin made remarks about the need for compassion during the continued pandemic. He stated that many of the rituals, activities, and relationships that would normally be a source of comfort have been subject to extended disruption. It has become difficult to gauge what makes a successful or productive day at work, and as our nerves become strained and we miss the ability to rebalance outside of work, we become more demanding and less considerate of each other. This creates a cycle of worsening discontent. He encouraged all faculty, staff, and students to show compassion to each other, and to themselves. He suggested that saying thank-you more often and acknowledging the work of others would help lower the collective stress level just a bit. The more the Purdue community is able to normalize a culture of self-care and community care, the better off everyone will be.

President Daniels was unable to attend the Senate meeting due to a longstanding previous obligation, but recorded a short video in which he introduced presentations on two topics [Appendix A]. The first was an update on the action items detailed in the 2014 Senate Security Report, which had been compiled under the leadership of then-Senate Vice Chair Patricia Hart following tragic 2014 murder of Andrew Bolt by another undergraduate, Cody Cousins. The report made recommendations in the areas of physical facilities, infrastructure, communication, mental health, safety education, and public safety responders. Carol Shelby, Senior Director of Environmental Health and Public Safety, reported that the University has since taken action in all areas, and maintains ongoing campus and community safety efforts. The second presentation was on an opportunity to create a faculty club area in the Sagamore Room in Purdue Memorial Union; President Daniels emphasized his desire for the Senate’s guidance on whether and how to move forward with plans for the club. Rob Wynkoop, Associate Vice President of Auxiliary Services, discussed the services and possible fee levels for a faculty club, which could include a lounge area with refreshments and a private bar area open for twice-weekly service, and showed some preliminary images of the form it might take.

Question Time: Answers to pre-submitted questions for President Daniels were made available in written form and can be found on the Senate website [Appendix B]. Following the presentations, there were some questions about the impetus for the faculty club, and whether it could be used for hosting visitors. In addition, Professor Alice Pawley asked Director Shelby why the safety drills implemented since 2014 were mostly optional rather than mandatory. Director Shelby explained that while there are multiple forms of safety education and training available to students, faculty, and staff, it is difficult to find the right timing for drills, since they can disrupt class and research, which is why the general policy has been to offer information and

4

education rather than mandatory emergency response training.

8. The Senate observed a moment of silence in recognition of the Memorial Resolution for Dr. Harrison Leigh Flint, Professor Emeritus of Horticulture [Appendix C].
9. Professor Elizabeth Richards, Chair of the Steering Committee, presented the Résumé of Items Under Consideration by Various Committees [Appendix D]. Professor Thomas Siegmund noted that the Educational Policy Committee, along with the Faculty Affairs Committee, was continuing to work with Vice Provost Kris Wong Davis and Dean Marion Underwood on the winter flex proposal. Professor David Sanders added that some of the students on the Student Affairs Committee had initiated a discussion of the “Where are all the men?” section of President Daniels’ annual open letter to the Purdue community (5 January 2022).
10. Documents 21 - 12 , 21 - 13 , and 21 - 17 were introduced as a consent agenda. However, Professor Pawley requested to have Document 21-13 pulled out for debate and separate consideration. Professor Julie Liu requested to have Document 21- 12 pulled out for debate and separate consideration. Document 21- 17 Nominees for Committee Vacancies was adopted by general consent of the body.

Discussion on Document 21- 12 Proposal for a Medically Excused Absence Policy for Students (MEAPS) to be added to Purdue University Main Campus Academic Regulations began. Professor Liu stated that she found the wording of the proposed regulation ambiguous, because one portion states that the instructor will allow students to make up work where possible, and another implied that the instructor must allow missed work to be made up. Professor Siegmund reminded the Senate that the Document had been presented previously and had already been extensively revised in response to feedback. The Document now reflects the input of Vice Provost Rickus, the Office of the Dean of Students, the Disability Resource Center, and Vice President Rollock, and is now in the form of an implementable academic regulation. There are situations where making up work may not be exactly possible and other solutions might need to be found. Vice Provost Rickus explained that the overarching language of the absence policy as currently structured shows a basic expectation that instructors will allow work to be made up when possible, and then delineates specific cases wherein students must be excused with no penalty: bereavement, military duty, jury duty, and parental leave. The EPC’s work adds a fifth type of officially excused absence where no penalty may be attached to the student. Further discussion followed, and Professor Liu maintained that the language of the policy was unclear, while Professor Siegmund stated that the EPC was working within existing absence policy. Vice Provost Rickus suggested that the policy was written to allow flexibility, and that specific work might not be possible to make up but alternative assignments could substitute, for example. Professor Pawley moved to amend the document by adding the words “when possible” to the clause following the words “course work as defined in the course syllabus.” The amendment was seconded. Vice Provost Rickus expressed concern that this could then take the language on medically excused absences out of alignment with the other protected types of absences. Professor Min Chen proposed a secondary amendment to further

5

clarify that no penalty would be applied only in the case of medical need, and not in the case of the other categories. The secondary amendment was seconded. Professor Siegmund pointed out that there was other language not included in the Senate Document for reasons of space, so the change proposed in the secondary amendment would potentially further confuse the issue. Professor Pawley offered to withdraw her amendment in response to Vice Provost Rickus’s point. Professor Sanders reminded the Senate that a Standing Committee Chair can request a month- long deferral of a motion. Chair Beaudoin asked whether Professor Siegmund was amenable to a delay request. Professor Siegmund agreed to delay action on the Document, but also reminded the Senate that the EPC had repeatedly requested feedback on its contents, and asked the Senate to please be in touch with the Committee regarding their input prior to the next meeting, in order to avoid additional delays over wording.

Discussion began on Senate Document 21- 13 Mental Health Action Week to be Recognized on Official Purdue University Calendar. Professor Pawley spoke in favor of the work the Purdue Student Government and Purdue Graduate Student Government had done to institutionalize the prioritization of mental health. She stated her belief that the way to institutionalize that change would be to modify the regulations governing the academic calendar. She proposed an amendment to the Document to state that

The University Senate changes the academic regulations on the academic year and calendar part A, on the Academic Calendar, to add this text:

8. Additional dates recognized in the academic calendar, including but not limited to mental health or cultural values, can be added by the explicit vote of the Senate.

a) Mental Health Action Week will be scheduled the week before spring break.

The amendment was seconded. Provost Akridge pointed out that the Document as written did not address the Academic Calendar, but rather the University Calendar. The Academic Calendar focuses on critical dates for students with respect to decisions like adding and dropping classes, graduation requirements, etc. while the University Calendar captures events that apply to the campus at large. Mental Health Action Week, while important and supported by the administration, was not directly tied to a student’s academic progress.

Out of concern to avoid a second secondary amendment situation, Chair Beaudoin asked President Kang and President Nuñez to consider delaying action on the Document for another month. Professor Pawley offered to withdraw the amendment to allow for an immediate vote, but President Kang stated that the will of the PSG and PGSG bodies was to attach Mental Health Action Week to the Academic Calendar specifically, and not the University Calendar. President Nuñez concurred. The presidents agreed to re-present the Document in the February Senate meeting, reminding the Senate that Mental Health Action Week takes place annually in March.

6

11.President Kang introduced herself and her vice president, Olivia Wyrick, and presented the Purdue Student Government Update [Appendix E]. She reported on the focus of the PSG for the year, “Leave your mark,” and its several pillars: mental health and well being, diversity and inclusion, involvement, accessibility, and sustainability. The array of activities highlighted included many campus events, as well as several current and pending resolutions undertaken by PSG in service of their goals.

12.President Nuñez delivered the Purdue Graduate Student Government Update [Appendix F]. To familiarize the Senate with PGSG, she described the council’s structure, its long and rich history, and introduced its officers. She outlined the PGSG’s priorities, which focus on three key areas: housing and compensation, mental health, and campus climate. PGSG’s recent major accomplishments included over 50 fall campus events and the distribution of $100,000 in grant awards. She also described upcoming events and hoped that Senators would encourage their graduate students to become involved in the PGSG.

13.Immediate Past Chair and Senator Deborah Nichols presented information on the Shared Governance Task Force [Appendix G]. She explained the history of shared governance at Purdue, which has not seen significant change since 1990, and how the pressures and solutions applied during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic made clear that the university’s shared governance system needs to evolve to become both more responsive and more representative. The task force has been studying how shared governance operates at Purdue, as well as learning about best practices, in order to develop recommendations about how to innovate within the area of shared governance. The task force has developed four main objectives: to engage a wider set of faculty voices, to create opportunities for meaningful participation by groups that have not historically had that (for example, staff), to develop mechanisms that would facilitate the collaboration of campus stakeholders, and to construct multiple opportunities to engage stakeholders to participate in shared governance. She noted that the initial working group had held three listening sessions in the spring and a fourth in the fall, that volunteers had been solicited for five tasked working groups, and that the groups had begun to meet and to do their work. Broad-strokes recommendations would be presented to the Board of Trustees in April, and later steps would include a campus-wide votes and the formation of a subsequent group to develop and implement the proposal further. This process mirrors the 1964 process that was used to form the Senate.

Professor Pawley asked how the Senate would be involved in the process, whether the changes proposed were focused on the West Lafayette campus, and why all stakeholders should be permitted to vote on matters of faculty responsibility. Professor Nichols said that the working idea was to form a council that included representation from administration, faculty, staff, student groups, and potentially others, which is why all stakeholders would be asked to affirm such a model. Faculty would continue to have their own group that would function similarly to the Senate with respect to curricular and calendar matters. The Senate’s role would be to

7

determining how, in transitioning to something like a faculty council, it wished to shape its bylaws, rules, and election components. System-wide participation would be welcome, and was being discussed in the Intercampus Faculty Council.

Professor Terence Meyer asked why most of the models used as examples in the informational documents were pulled from smaller private universities, and whether there were similar proposals at major peer institutions. Professor Nichols said that initial models had been examined because of their high COACHE scores with respect to shared governance satisfaction, and that within the working groups, the list of models being examined had since then broadened to include larger public schools. She also noted that other universities did engage in periodic reexamination of shared governance, with Virginia Tech as an example of a university currently working through a major overhaul.

Professor Tony Vyn said he was new to the Senate, and wanted to know why a review of governance was needed at this particular moment. Professor Nichols said that the need for change had become clear in the first summer of the pandemic, when a leadership group that was put together to meet weekly with administration realized that their work was needed because of the inefficiencies of traditional structures— with the Senate, for example, not meeting over the summer. With leaders of different constituencies (faculty, staff, and students) coming together regularly, transformative change seemed possible. There was no intention to lessen the power of the faculty, who would still retain all of their responsibilities as delegated by the Trustees. While incremental changes have been made in the University Senate in past years, they have not had a significant cumulative effect. Moreover, in the four major Senate surveys completed during the pandemic, many comments in the open-ended portion of the surveys came from staff and students who said they felt they didn’t have other ways to put their voices forward. The shared governance work aligns also with the Trustees’ Equity Task Force, in that it advocates for equitable representation across all groups on Purdue’s campus. She emphasized that having 92 of the 102 members of the University Senate be faculty members is not very equitable.

Professor Leung asked whether the proposed executive group would necessarily need to sit above the Senate, or whether another form were possible. Professor Nichols said that many possibilities were being explored and no final form had been set, nor would having an executive council necessarily mean that its membership could circumvent the work of other constituencies. Currently, though, the only group approaching a model where administration has close contact with leaders from faculty, staff, and students all together is the Advisory Committee, which is both confidential, and faculty-heavy.

Professor Pawley asked what the task force would do to increase the engagement of faculty on Senate Committees, and also wanted to know why the plan was to present to the Trustees prior to presenting a model to the entire campus for affirmation. Professor Nichols said that the group is studying best practices and has engaged a shared governance consultant, both of which show that it is essential to meaningfully incentivize participation. She noted that this is an area where the cultural change

8

committee, of which Professor Pawley was a member, could helpfully make recommendations. She said that because we are constrained by Indiana State Law, the consent of the Board of Trustees is needed to make any large shared governance change.

Professor Meyer asked for more clarification as to what role the faculty would play in curricular decisions. Professor Nichols said that the faculty would maintain the same advisory role with respect to curriculum and calendar that it already has; the purpose of the executive group would be to ensure that all major constituencies were in communication with each other, not to rewrite curriculum.

14. Professor David Koltick presented Senate Document 21- 14 Opposition to an Attempt at Restructuring/Dissolution of the Purdue University Senate [Appendix H]. He said that the work of the Task Force was moving very rapidly, although the Senate has been in existence for nearly sixty years. He said that Purdue had gone through many changes over those years, and that the Senate had been a part of those changes. Professor Koltick referenced a definition of shared governance from Shared Governance: A Practical Approach to Reshaping Professional Nursing Practice©2006 HCPro, Inc. because the medical community makes life-or-death decisions. The definition emphasized partnership, equity, accountability, and ownership at the point of service, and he stated that this that this is compatible with AAUP’s definitions. He said that Purdue’s point of service is its faculty. He then explained that Professor Nichol’s initial proposal looked to him like it intended to create a democratic body, and that if there were an executive council that gave equal weight to all constituencies on campus, decisions might be made by people who were not sufficiently expert. He said that while the Task Force argued that Purdue’s shared governance was structurally broken, its faculty were the brightest minds on the planet, and were highly concerned with fairness, honesty, and providing the best education possible. He said that Professor Nichols’ proposal would create a professional political class if it attempted to reward stakeholders directly for their participation in shared governance. He concluded that the Senate should disavow efforts to dissolve or transform its function, and that the Provost should not support the efforts of the task force because the Senate and administration had worked well together for sixty years. Finally, if the Senate wished to engage reform, such efforts should properly be routed through the Faculty Affairs Committee. He said that Professor Nichols had raised important points about whether the Senate were representing everyone in need of representation, but that those points must be addressed within the Senate.

Professor Sanders proposed an amendment by substitution that substantially reworded Document 21-14 in order to make it responsive to the current language of the task force; to incorporate the AAUP’s definition of shared governance. which includes shared decision making; to revise the content of the Document along more general and less personal lines; to make explicit the Senate’s disavowal of attempts to reduce its authority; to recognize the value of a representative body elected by its constituents; and to show the Senate would be willing to endorse the creation of an elected representative body for staff. The amendment was seconded. Professor Birgit

9

Kaufmann, one of the authors of the original Document, thanked Professor Sanders for his work, but thought that point three might be getting ahead of the game, because it would need to be the outcome of a discussion not yet had by the Senate. Professor Pawley spoke in favor of the amendment because it improved upon language that had been unnecessarily inflammatory. She also stated her intention to bring before the Senate in March a Document that would establish AAUP language as a necessary grounding for discussion of shared governance. Provost Akridge stated that the claim that the Office of the Provost was sponsoring the work of the task force was inaccurate, as the only thing the office had done was to provide a space for a website that would assist in the open and transparent public discussion of the group’s ideas. Beyond that, there had been no involvement whatsoever, and administration regarded the task force as a faculty, staff, and student effort. After some further discussion, Professor Koltick proposed a secondary amendment to strike Item Three from the text of Professor Sanders’ amended Document and replace it with the original Item Three. As a compromise, it was agreed simply to drop Item Three entirely and proceed. The change was affirmed by general consent. President Nuñez addressed the Document’s statement that there is an incorrect assumption that the Graduate student body is not well represented by PGSG. She stated that PGSG had in fact passed a resolution stating their commitment to, and in solidarity with, the goals of the task force. While the graduate students do not feel they are inadequately represented by their own government, they still wish to improve the shared governance system and enhance the level of representation university- wide. The Senate then voted on Professor Sanders’ amendment, which carried, with 49 votes in favor, ten opposed, and two abstentions.

After a quorum check, discussion continued on the amended Document. Professor Nichols stated that even as amended, the Document was not accurate, that the task force was not attempting to institutionalize a structure that would usurp the fundamental educational authority of the faculty. The question on Document 21- 14 was then called. The motion carried, with 40 in favor, 17 opposed, and two abstentions.

15.Professor Siegmund presented Senate Document 21- 16 Honors College Member on the Undergraduate Curriculum Council on behalf of the Educational Policy Committee. The body agreed by unanimous consent to waive the rules and allow action to be taken immediately on the Document. There being no discussion, the question was called, and the Document carried with 47 votes in favor, four in opposition, and two abstentions. This was approximately a 92% margin, clearing the 2/3 threshold required by a suspension of the rules.

16.There being no further business, the meeting adjourned by enthusiastic unanimous consent at 5:36pm.

10

i;--=) PURDUE I UniversitySenate

~ UNIVERSITY ®

Senate Document 2 1 - 12 15 November 2021

To:

From: Subject:

The University Senate University Senate Educational Policy Committee Proposal for a Medically Excused Absence Policy for Students (MEAPS) to be added to Purdue University Main Campus Academic

Reference:

Regulations [1] https://www.purdue.edu/advocacy/students/absences.html [2]https://catalog.purdue.edu/content.php?catoid=13&navoid= 5#a-attendance

Disposition:

[3] https://catalog.gatech.edu/policies/student-absence-regulations/ University Senate for Discussion and Adoption

Rationale: University Senate Document 10-8 (established March 21, 2011) outlines how General Attendance Issues are to be handled by course instructors in the event of absences that are beyond the control of the student (such as illness, family emergencies, bereavement, etc.). The language in this document does not enforce any mandatory arrangements for students experiencing sudden and unexpected medical conditions or events, whether they be physical or mental in nature, and which result in the student missing class or other coursework. Examples of such language include: “Instructors are expected to establish and clearly communicate in the course syllabus attendance policies”, “this work [missed work] may be made up at the discretion of the instructor ”, and “instructors are encouraged to accommodate the student” (italics added for emphasis on non-binding language). From anecdotal experiences and conversations with Purdue instructors, many instructors are accommodating and willing to work with students, but there remains a subset who do not adequately accommodate these burdened students nor provide opportunities for work to be made up for equal credit.

A survey carried out by the University & Academic Affairs committee of the Purdue Student Government in 2019-2020 found that out of 144 students surveyed across all Purdue University – West Lafayette colleges, 60 reported having experienced class absences as a result of medically related conditions/events (Of these 60 students, 48 completed the entirety of the survey and these are the results that are referenced here). 48% reported missing 1-3 days, 23% missed 4- days, and 29% missed over 7 days. 47% of these students reported that professors/instructors did not extend due dates for assignments or projects, and 43% indicated that professors/instructors did not allow

Proposal: (As Revised for 24 January 2022)

for make-up labs, exams, or other graded activities that required attendance. 71% of these students reported their grades being affected by their absence and 21% reported having to retake a class as a consequence of their medically induced absence(s). In addition to these findings, additional statistics and student testimonials are available upon request.

These survey results demonstrate the lapses in arrangement that may occur when instructors are given the ability to provide excused medical absences at their discretion. The current Academic Regulations governing Class Attendance (Reference 2) do not contain language specific to medical absences and the University does not officially recognize medical conditions or situations as “reasons to be granted an excused absence from class”. Adding language explicitly addressing medically excused absences is necessary to ensure arrangements are fairly distributed to those students who are eligible and in order to protect instructors from claims of favoritism or special treatment when granting excused absences.

With the Grief Absence Policy for Students (University Senate Document 10-6, established March 21, 2011), the Office of the Dean of Students reviews cases individually and is able to officially grant students excused absences according to procedures stated within that document, thereby removing the burden from instructors. Providing language specific to arrangements for medical absences would benefit both students and instructors in a manner similar to the Grief Absence Policy, in an effort to maintain uniformity in the granting of medically excused absences and the verification of their legitimacy.

Many universities, including Purdue, have procedures for providing students with the means to withdraw from classes in the event of medical hardship, but few universities feature a policy that protects students during short-term medical absences where a withdrawal may be unnecessary. Reference 3 (given above) provides the link for Georgia Tech’s policy regarding “Student Absence from Class Due to Illness or Personal Emergencies”, which is a stand-out example of an official university policy governing medically excused absences.

It is for the reasons provided above that the following proposal is presented for consideration by the University.

The University Senate calls for the addition of a “Medical Excused Absence” academic regulation. This should be added in the Classes regulation, in section “A. Attendance.” This proposal includes background material and implementation language, and then specific language to be added to the Academic Regulation.

Background: Purdue University recognizes that students may occasionally have to miss class and other academic obligations due to hospitalization, emergency department or urgent care visits, whether physical or mental health related in nature. This Senate Document intends to describe the change in academic regulations that students may follow in requesting a medically excused absence as well as what rights and responsibilities are placed on students, instructors, and the Office of the Dean of Students (ODOS). The guidelines put forth in this Senate Document are designed to protect student privacy and wellbeing while providing instructors and administration with the information necessary to decide what options exist for eligible students to make up missed coursework. An emphasis is placed on balancing student arrangements with academic integrity, and as such, required documentation is outlined below as well.

This regulation change is designed to provide students with minimum protections in cases of a severe medical absence. Students are encouraged to proactively reach out to instructors to see if an agreement can be reached regarding the student making up missed work. This addition to the academic regulations is designed to ensure students are protected during documented and severe illnesses/incidents, and additional leniency from instructors is encouraged.

The phrases “class absence” and “missed coursework” refer to any instance where a student is not present at the time of a scheduled activity, assignment, lab, evaluation, examination, or other relevant academic activity associated with the completion of a course for which the student is enrolled.

In all cases, students are urged to not attend classes while they are ill and/or contagious and to seek appropriate medical treatment. It is recommended that students communicate their absences with professors in a timely manner whenever possible.

Scope: This regulation applies to all full-time and part-time students currently enrolled at the Purdue University Main Campus in West Lafayette, Indiana.

This regulation is not intended to provide extended arrangements for chronic medical conditions. The intention of this policy is to afford arrangements to students experiencing serious and short-term medical situations which cause them to miss coursework and/or exams. Students experiencing a chronic condition or diagnosis may have their initial absences accommodated, but long-term periods of absences will need to be addressed through students registering with the Disability Resource Center (DRC).

Student Expectations, Rights, and Responsibilities: Students who miss class or other coursework due to a hospitalization, or emergency department or urgent care visits and are requesting a Medical Excused Absence should note the following:

1. Students acknowledge that requesting a medically excused absence is a voluntary process and any documentation produced by the student and given to Purdue University administration is done so voluntarily and with the expectation of privacy and adherence to all legal and Purdue policy protections.
2. Students are responsible for providing documentation issued by a licensed medical provider to ODOS that, at a minimum, contains the following information: a. The medical institution or facility where treatment occurred b. Date(s) of the visit and any future visits or treatment (if known and applicable) i. Duration of recommended recovery period also desired (if known and applicable) ii. Indication that class absence was unavoidable or recommended by residing physician; if future absences are required (as part of subsequent treatment or recovery), indication that those are unavoidable or recommended is also desired c. Documentation is to be provided within three instructional days of the medical incident.
3. In the event documentation is unavailable, ODOS staff may evaluate a student’s eligibility for medically excused absences on a case-by-case basis.
4. Students are expected to work with instructors to establish an agreed upon timeline for completing missed work.

This language shall be included on the web-pages of the Office of the Dean of Students discussing course attendance policies: https://www.purdue.edu/advocacy/students/absences.html

Office of the Dean of Students Expectations, Rights, and Responsibilities: When supporting students experiencing medically induced absences, ODOS is subject to the following guidance:

1. Collection, storage, and eventual disposal of student-submitted medical documentation must be handled in a secure manner that is compliant with all legal and Purdue policy protections, such that student privacy and confidentiality is prioritized.
2. Any student-submitted medical documentation will not be shared with instructional staff, faculty, or any entity outside of ODOS.

3. Upon examination of student-submitted medical documentation and any communication with the student, ODOS will serve as the sole authority responsible for indicating if the student’s absences are eligible to be medically excused.
4. Should an absence be deemed medically excused, ODOS will communicate this decision with the appropriate instructors whose coursework coincided, or will coincide, with the student’s absence(s). This communication will also indicate that instructors are compelled to work with students to enable them to make up missed coursework or find alternatives for equal credit, within a reasonable timeframe.
5. Should an absence be deemed medically excused, ODOS will advise instructors to not ask the student for any medical documentation or information.

This language shall be included on the web-pages of the Office of the Dean of Students discussing course attendance policies: https://www.purdue.edu/advocacy/students/absences.html

Instructor Expectations, Rights, and Responsibilities: When supporting students experiencing medically excused absences, instructors are subject to the following guidance:

1. Instructors are expected to not ask students for any medical documentation or information. Should it be provided without a request, instructors are encouraged to return the documents or destroy them in a manner compliant with all legal and Purdue policy protections.
2. Should an instructor be notified by ODOS that a student in their course has experienced, or will experience, a medically excused absence, instructors are expected to work with the student to enable them to make up missed coursework or find alternatives for equal credit, within a reasonable timeframe and without penalty.
3. Instructors are expected to work with students to create a reasonable timeline and time limit for making up missed work.
4. Instructors are advised to direct any questions or concerns relating to the medically excused absence to ODOS and not the student.

This language will be included in the Syllabus Letter to instructors as send by the Office of the Provost prior to a term.

Exception: This Senate Document recognizes that certain programs at Purdue University are regulated by governmental or regulatory agencies who impose strict guidelines for student attendance. In the event a student’s medically excused absence exceeds the number of allowed absences as dictated by the governing agency, this change in

regulations cannot guarantee the student will be able to make up missed work or continue to adhere to the program’s attendance requirements.

Closing Remarks: Students experiencing serious medically induced absences should notify their instructors and the Office of the Dean of Students concurrently. If ODOS is given proper documentation or verifiability of an absence, instructors will excuse students from class and provide them the opportunity to earn equivalent credit (including through a grade of Incomplete) and demonstrate evidence of meeting the learning outcomes for missed assignments or assessments. If the student is not satisfied with the implementation of this policy by a instructor, they are encouraged to contact the Department Head and/or the Office of the Dean of Students for further review of their case. In a situation where grades are negatively affected, the student may follow the established grade appeals process.

Changes to Academic Regulations language [2]:

Existing Language New Language

A. Attendance A. Attendance The resources of Purdue University are The resources of Purdue University are provided for the intellectual development provided for the intellectual development of its students. Courses with defined of its students. Courses with defined schedules are provided to facilitate an schedules are provided to facilitate an orderly and predictable environment for orderly and predictable environment for learning, as well as to provide assurance learning, as well as to provide assurance of a registered student’s right to access of a registered student’s right to access the course. Scheduled courses allow the course. Scheduled courses allow students to avoid conflicts and reflect the students to avoid conflicts and reflect the University’s expectation that students University’s expectation that students should be present for every meeting of a should be present for every meeting of a class/laboratory for which they are class/laboratory for which they are registered. Faculty are responsible for registered. Faculty are responsible for organizing and delivering a course of organizing and delivering a course of instruction and for certifying student instruction and for certifying student accomplishment on the basis of accomplishment on the basis of performance. Coursework is defined as performance. Coursework is defined as the assessment(s) used by the instructor the assessment(s) used by the instructor to determine the student’s grade, as to determine the student’s grade, as outlined in the course syllabus. outlined in the course syllabus. The University recognizes that the The University recognizes that the learning mission can be enhanced learning mission can be enhanced significantly by co-curricular experiences. significantly by co-curricular experiences.

Students participating in University- sponsored activities should be permitted to make up class work missed as a result of this participation. Ultimately students are responsible for all required coursework and bear full responsibility for any academic consequences that may result due to absence. Additionally, the University recognizes that in some circumstances, absence from class is unavoidable or is necessary to fulfill a required obligation. As such, the University has established the following as reasons to be granted an excused absence from class:

• Grief/Bereavement
• Military Service
• Jury Duty
• Parenting Leave

Procedures and remedies for granting these absences for is specified in the sections below. The student bears the responsibility of informing the instructor in a timely fashion, if possible. The instructor bears the responsibility of trying to accommodate the student either by excusing the student or allowing the student to make up work, when possible.

1. General Attendance Issues
2. Conflicts with Religious Observances
3. University Excused Absences

The University Senate recognizes the following as types of absences that must be excused:

• Absences related to those covered under the Grief Absence Policy for Students (GAPS)
• Absences related to those covered under the Military Absence Policy for Students (MAPS)

Students participating in University- sponsored activities should be permitted to make up class work missed as a result of this participation. Ultimately students are responsible for all required coursework and bear full responsibility for any academic consequences that may result due to absence. Additionally, the University recognizes that in some circumstances, absence from class is unavoidable or is necessary to fulfill a required obligation. As such, the University has established the following as reasons to be granted an excused absence from class:

• Grief/Bereavement
• Military Service
• Jury Duty
• Parenting Leave
• Medical Excuse

Procedures and remedies for granting these absences for is specified in the sections below. The student bears the responsibility of informing the instructor in a timely fashion, if possible. The instructor bears the responsibility of trying to accommodate the student either by excusing the student or allowing the student to make up work, when possible.

1. General Attendance Issues
2. Conflicts with Religious Observances
3. University Excused Absences The University Senate recognizes the following as types of absences that must be excused:
   • Absences related to those covered under the Grief Absence Policy for Students (GAPS)
   • Absences related to those covered under the Military Absence Policy for Students (MAPS)

• Absences related to those covered under Jury Duty Policy for Students
• Absences related to those covered under the Parenting Leave Policy for Students

These policies apply to all students currently enrolled on the Purdue University West Lafayette campus and State-Wide Purdue University locations.

4. Grief Absence Policy for Students (GAPS)
5. Military Absence Policy for Students (MAPS)
6. Jury Duty Absence Policy For Students
7. Parenting Leave Policy for Students
8. Procedures
9. Conclusion
   • Absences related to those covered under Jury Duty Policy for Students
   • Absences related to those covered under the Parenting Leave Policy for Students
   • Absences related to those covered under the Medical Excused Absence Policy for Students (MEAPS) These policies apply to all students currently enrolled on the Purdue University West Lafayette campus and State-Wide Purdue University locations.
10. Grief Absence Policy for Students (GAPS)
11. Military Absence Policy for Students (MAPS)
12. Jury Duty Absence Policy For Students
13. Parenting Leave Policy for Students 8. Medically Excused Absence Policy for Students (MEAPS)

Students will be excused, and no penalty will be applied to a student’s absence for situations involving hospitalization, emergency department or urgent care visit and they will be given the opportunity to make up coursework as defined in the course syllabus.

Students experiencing hospitalization, emergency department or urgent care visits can provide documentation to ODOS who will then assess the student’s request for a Medical Excused Absence, and issue notification of the start and end of the absence to the student's instructors. The student should then follow up with the instructor to seek arrangements as per the policy.

The Medical Excused Absence shall not exceed fifteen (15) days per academic year, and no more than ten (10) academic calendar days taken consecutively. Total absences, including any necessary travel, may not exceed 1/3 of the course meetings for any course.

In the event a student’s medically excused absence exceeds the number of allowed absences as dictated by the governing agency, this regulation cannot guarantee the student will be able to make up missed work or continue to adhere to the program’s attendance requirements. Students with long- term or chronic medical needs are strongly encouraged to work with the Disability Resource Center to arrange for needed accomodations.

9. Procedures 10. Conclusion

Committee Votes:

For:

Faculty Thomas Siegmund Alice Pawley Thomas Brush Jennifer Freeman Eric Kvam Erik Otárola-Castillo Vanessa Quinn John Sheffield

Students Janelle Grant Olivia Wyrick

Advisors Jeff Elliott Keith Gehres Jenna Rickus Jeffery Stefancic

Against: Abstained: Absent:

N/A N/A

Faculty Todor Cooklev Li Qiao Libby Richards Antônio Sá Barreto Jeffrey X. Watt

Students Elli DiDonna

Ex-Officio Present, but non- voting members:

Jaclyn Palm John Pearson

i;-=) PURDUE I UniversitySenate

C,__J"-' UNIVERSITY®

Senate Document 2 1 - 13 15 November 2021

To:

From:

The University Senate Purdue Student Government and Purdue Graduate Student Government

Subject:

Reference:

Disposition:

Rationale:

Mental Health Action Week to be recognized on Official Purdue University Calendar Purdue University Student Governments Joint Resolution 21-01 University Senate for Discussion and Adoption WHEREAS , Mental Health Action Week (MHAW), formally known as Mental Health Awareness Week, was established by the Purdue Graduate Student Government (PGSG) and first hosted in February 2018 as an annual event for graduate students; and

WHEREAS , Purdue Student Government (PSG) and PGSG partnered in the Spring of 2019 to establish an annual campus-wide MHAW held in the Spring. This collaboration was created with the intention to highlight the importance of mental health across the Purdue community. In addition to the campus wide MHAW hosted by PSG and PGSG in the Spring, PGSG also continues to offer a graduate student focused MHAW each Fall; and

WHEREAS , MHAW has become a widely successful initiative on Purdue’s campus. With MHAW in March 2021 including over 80 events and featuring 30 different student organizations; and

WHEREAS , the rise of the global pandemic and other national and international points of heightened stress have further highlighted and called attention to unaddressed and underlying mental health concerns in individuals; and

Proposal:

WHEREAS , the attention and maintenance of all Boilermaker’s mental well-being are critical to the continued success of our University community, including academic success and excellence. Therefore, be it RESOLVED , That Purdue University officially recognize Mental Health Action Week (MHAW) by adding it to the University Calendar for the 2021- 2022 school year and for all university calendars after and following; and a. The first official university Mental Health Action Week will be scheduled for March 7-11th, 2022.

Be it also RESOLVED , That the Purdue University community, including faculty, staff, graduate students, and undergraduate students utilize this week to focus on the importance of mental health by sharing mental health resources across and collaborating on MHAW events. This may include, but is not limited to discussing MHAW and sharing resources in courses and other academic and communal spaces; and

Be it further RESOLVED The addition of MHAW to the University Calendar would not interfere with regular University operations and is a commemorative week for the Boilermaker community to focus on mental health and mental health initiatives and resources.

Authors: Shannon Kang, Olivia Wyrick, Madelina Nuñez Sponsor(s): PSG Passage Date: 9/29/2021 PGSG Passage Date: 9/15/2021

PSG President: Shannon Kang PGSG President: Madelina Nuñez PSG Senate President: Olivia Wyrick

i;--=) PURDUE I UniversitySenate

~ UNIVERSITY ®

Senate Document 2 1 - 17 24 January 2022

To: The University Senate

From: University Senate Nominating Committee Subject: Nominees for Committee Vacancies

Reference: Bylaws of the University Senate

Disposition: University Senate for Discussion and Adoption

Proposal: For the committee openings outlined below, the Nominating Committee proposed the following slate of nominees. The faculty members elected are to serve for terms as specified:

Name Andrew Liu

Eugene Chan

Committee Nominating

University Resources Policy

Term January – December 2022 January – December 2022

Department/School Industrial Engineering

Hospitality and Tourism Management

Committee Votes:

For: Against: Abstained: Absent:

Dulcy Abraham Michael McNamara Larry F. Nies Robert Nowack Joseph Sobieralski Qifan Song Vikas Tomar

Jan Olek

~ PURDUE I UniversitySenate

C,__j"-' UNIVERSITY ,.

Senate Document 2 1 - 14 (amended)

To:

From: Subject:

Reference:

Disposition: Rationale:

15 November 2021

The University Senate Concerned Senators: Birgit Kaufmann, David Koltick, Oana Malis Opposition to an Attempt at Restructuring/Dissolution of the Purdue University Senate www.purdue.edu/provost/faculty/initiatives/senate.php https://www.purdue.edu/provost/faculty/documents/rationale-for- restructure.pdf AAUP statement on government of colleges and universities https://www.aaup.org/report/statement-government-colleges-and- universities Shared Governance: A Practical Approach to Reshaping Professional Nursing Practice©2006 HCPro, Inc.. University Senate for Discussion and Adoption A self-constituted Shared Governance Task Force has proposed restructuring the Purdue University Senate.

The task force has stated, “Shared governance does not mean shared decision-making.” This fundamental distortion of the meaning of shared governance and the fact that it appears to be a starting point of the task force undermine its credibility.

The task force has maligned the Senate by making numerous unsubstantiated and inflammatory assertions. The statements of the task force appear to manifest animus against the University Senate.

The starting place for discussions of Shared Governance should be the AAUP statement on government of colleges and universities and specifically its associated FAQ on Shared Governance, including:

Shared governance refers to the joint responsibility of faculty, administrations, and governing boards to govern colleges and universities. Differences in the weight of each group's voice on a particular issue should be determined by the extent of its responsibility for and expertise on that issue.... The role of the faculty is to have primary responsibility for such fundamental areas as curriculum, subject matter and methods of instruction, research, faculty status, and aspects of student life which relate to the educational process. The responsibility for faculty status includes appointments, reappointments, decisions not to reappoint, promotions, the granting of tenure,

and dismissal. The faculty should also have a role in decision- making outside of their immediate areas of primary responsibility, including long-term planning, budgeting, and the selection, evaluation and retention of administrators…. Faculty have special training and knowledge that make them distinctly qualified to exercise decision-making authority in their areas of expertise…. Even though the president and board may possess final authority, they should routinely concur with faculty recommendations made in areas of faculty responsibility and should reject faculty decisions in those areas only in rare instances and for compelling reasons which should be stated in detail. In short, when it comes to academic matters, a faculty decision should normally be the final decision.”

There has been an apparent breach of trust that exists at numerous levels:

(1) There is an attempt to institutionalize a governance structure that usurps the fundamental educational authority of the faculty.

(2) There is the incorrect assumption that the undergraduate student body is not adequately represented by Purdue Student Government.

(3) There is the incorrect assumption that the graduate student body is not adequately represented by Purdue Graduate Student Government.

(4) There is a false narrative that with the changes proposed in the Task Force Rationale for Restructure document there will be more inclusiveness in governance, whereas instead shared governance will, in fact, be highly restricted, and there will be a more authoritarian environment.

(5) There is an apparent attempt to go around the Senate and appeal directly to the Board of Trustees to restructure the Senate.

Proposal: Because the faculty are the point of service for both the educational and research goals of the University, and because the Senate represents the faculty and has the general power and responsibility to adopt policies, regulations, and procedures intended to achieve the educational objectives and the general welfare of those involved in these educational processes.