University Senate††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† Proposed: May 6, 2005

††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† Adopted:




President Lee Bollinger, the chairman, called the Senate to order shortly after 1:15 pm in 501 Schermerhorn. Sixty-four of 98 senators were present during the meeting.


Adoption of the agenda: Sen. Paul Duby (Ten., SEAS) suggested that the Senate take up the by-laws amendments proposed by the Research Officers immediately if and when three-fifths of all incumbent members are present. With this understanding the agenda was adopted as proposed.


Adoption of the minutes: The minutes of February 25 were adopted as proposed.


Presidentís report: The president thanked Ad Hoc Arts and Sciences Committee on Grievances, which had released its report the day before on recent charges of classroom intimidation against some faculty members in the Department of Middle East and Asian Languages and Cultures (MEALAC), He also thanked people who had participated in the committeeís inquiry, as well as the community at large for its handling the issues fairly and seriously.


The president said the committee has a number of findings of Columbiaís grievance procedures. The administration has already been studying these procedures for some time and expects, within the next two weeks, to announce revised grievance procedures.

Among other issues the University must address over time, the president mentioned academic freedom, on which he had lectured a week before, and on which the ad hoc committee and others have made statements as well. He stressed the importance to the Columbia community, and to higher education as a whole, of conducting this discussion repeatedly.


Executive Committee chairmanís report: Sen. Duby reminded senators that the last regular meeting of the year had been moved from April 29 to May 6 and invited them to join the annual Senate procession at Commencement.


Interaction with Trustees: In recent years Senate representatives have not been included in the March Trustee meetings, which have been part of retreats. But this year, after a useful meeting between the Senate and Trustee executive committees and a group of Trustees on February 10, he and Sen. Matan Ariel (Stu., GS) were invited. Trustee Joan Spero said Trustees had established a subcommittee for the purpose of improving communications with students. Board chairman David Stern introduced both Senate representatives, and ran an informative and interestingmeeting.


The Executive Committee devoted most of its March 25 meeting to a discussion of the work of the ROTC TF with its co-chairs, Sens. James Applegate (Ten., A&S/NS) and Nathan Walker (Stu., TC). The group decided to proceed with a broad discussion at the present plenary, which will inform efforts to prepare a resolution for the last Senate meeting.


Sen. Duby determined that 61 of 98 senators were present, two more than three-fifths of the full Senate, and asked the Senate to take up the by-laws amendments proposed by the Research Officers Committee right away.


Resolutions to Add Researchers to Six Senate Committees (Structure and Operations): Howard Jacobson, Senate parliamentarian and a member of Structure and Operations, presented the resolutions in the absence of the committee chair, Sen. Vielka Holness (Admin.), and Sen. Jeremy Waldron (Ten., Law). He said the resolutions had been before the Senate at previous meetings, and presented an amended version of the one on the Rules of Conduct. He said Structure and Operations believes that researchers should be on all six committee. Mr. Jacobson pointed out that the resolutions are identical, except for the ones on the Education and Executive committees, which included slightly different eligibility requirements for researcher members.


After brief discussion, the Senate decided to vote on all the resolutions separately or in a group.


Structure and Operations: Without further discussion the Senate then voted, by asking for negative votes and absentions first, on the resolution to add one research officer to the Structure and Operations. There was no dissent, so the resolution was determined to have passed.


Budget Review: By the same method, the Senate, with 62 members now present, voted without dissent to add one research officer to the Budget Review Committee.


Rules of Conduct: By the same method, the Senate favored the amended resolution to add one research officers to the Committee on the Rules of University Conduct.


Education: In response to a question, Mr. Jacobson noted that the resolution to add one research officer to the Education set a different requirement for the researcher member. requirement for Is there a difference between education, the wording on who the officer of research is?The rank of senior professional officer.Is that different than the other one?Is that the reason?


Jacobson:Yes.Yes.The intention was that the officer of research would have a title equivalent to a tenured faculty member.


Another voice:Just for education.


Jacobson:For education and I think for executive as well.


Another voice:Mr. Chairman, Iíd like to vote against this.Iím chair of the education committee.I wish to report that the number of members of the education committee were in principle against this particular resolution.We feel that the researchers do not have as part of their mandate education, and that because of that they probably should not be represented there.Fully recognizing that some, and itís a really a small subset of the researchers, are in fact participating in education, I feel that those researchers should be rewarded by being made members of the faculty, and not.I donít think this is the forum where they should be.


Another voice:Hi.My name is Lisa [?] and Iím a graduate student in the biology department, and Iíve served in six labs, three of which I was directly under a post-doc who was the person I went to for training, for technical issues in the lab, who got in my project.These are all partly as an undergrad and as a grad student, and so as far as the natural sciences, I feel post-docs really do play an integral part in the learning experience of graduate students in the lab.Especially in big labs.You might be in your whole graduate career really dependent upon post-docs.And you might seldom see your PI.


Another voice:I also would like to speak in support of this, and Iíll speak in terms of the social sciences.Any major research that weíll deal with like social surveys of this kind, I would say somewhere about 80% of it is learned in practice.Itís not taught in the classroom.Itís learned in practiceI also think we proudly speak about this as a research university, and I think the researchers both play a role in the training of the social sciences as well as the natural sciences, and I think they also add to the distinction of this university.So Iím in support of this.


Jacobson:Just.This was an issue that was before the structure committee, as well as one other.It was pointed out that if you look at the current membership of the education committee, in addition to students and faculty, there are two administrators, one alumnus, and one library staff.†† And structure at least felt that whatever the merits of the degree to which researchers are or arenít in teaching, that these other groups are represented on the committee, and therefore that researchers should be as well. That was the thinking of our committee.


Another voice:Iíd like to further support the inclusion because I think that the marriage of the teaching and the service because most of us here at Columbia benefits from the close interaction of what the senator pointed out, the interaction of the providers of services at all levels.


Another voice:Without in any way suggesting the work at an educational level performed by research people, technical people and support of the research and so on continues, the fact is that I think I must agree with Lettie on this and her committee that these are distinguishable, and that the fact that our computer science people who support our research teach our students how to use the machines that theyíre involved in using, or that the electronics people teach people how to use the MRI machines, this is a fact, but it does not really connect to this issue, and Iím consequently will have to vote with the education committee.


Another voice: I hate to disagree with the chair of my committee, and I might even part company with Lettie on this one.Itís really true in my department, the astrophysics lab, that the officers of research do some classroom teaching, a rather small fraction of what we do.They do, however, play a very large role in mentoring of graduate students and mentoring of undergraduates in research projects, and I think those who would like to spend more time in the classroom teaching than they do.However, mentoring of graduate students is not something that normally comes up before the education committee a lot, but it is a significant part of education, and so I would like to support the research officers.


Bollinger:I wonder actually for purposes of debate whether people can hear in the back when people talk.You can hear?Great.


Another voice:We talk to each other.[Laughter]


Bollinger:Nothing interesting was said anyway so donít worry about it.[Laughter]Iím just kidding.Okay.What else?


Another voice:Iíd just like to reiterate one more time.So itís a five year program.The first two years I take in classrooms, and the rest of my real training comes from people in the lab, and thatís where post-docs I work with.Those are the people I go to to find out, you know, whatís going on with my project, what I should try next.


Another voice:Call the question.


Bollinger:No.No.We got some more.


Another voice:Iím chairman of the research officers committee.I just wanted to point out that part of the education committee is to seek ideas, recommendations, and plans for educational [?].Members of the research officers community have been providing these kinds of services to the university.For instance the masters in [?], science [?] was developed by research officers.Recently there was a new course in and graduate level biology that was by research officers.Youíve heard from other people about how research officers mentor students in education outside of the classroom.I myself have an undergraduate student that Iím working with.I think that research officers do, and I hope you will vote in favor of this, provide an important but somewhat unappreciated component of the education that goes on at this research university.We hope that youíre willing to favor this and will recognize the contribution that we make and want to continue to make to this university.


Duby:Iíd like to add that Iím in agreement with Lettie, and I certainly recognize the contribution ofthe researcher to the university, but there are many other people who are contributing to the university.There are a lot of people who are adjunct professors, there are a lot of clinical professors uptown, theyíre teaching everybody, and I think that the mission of the university is really in the hands of the faculty as far as the teaching is concerned.I think that the medical school has the title of tenure of title, and I think this is what the, some of the senior researchers should strive to obtain within the university, and then they will indeed be part of the faculty.


Another voice:If I may respond.I think your confusing the issue slightly.Some of the constituencies that you mentioned are not actually part of the Senate.And we are a senate constituency.And as part of the Senate, we are asking to be part of the education committee.We cannot speak for adjunct faculty whether or not they should be on this committee, or whether or not they should be part of this Senate. So I think that really confuses the issue.I do appreciate your comment about getting tenure of title. Thatís something the committee is working towards, and we hope in the coming academic year to make progress on that aspect.


Another voice:I just want to also.With regard to your [?], I understand the clinical professors are actually officers of instruction. They are part of, they are represented on this committee by the faculty members that are on the committee.A lot of the adjunct faculty are in fact officers of research.Thatís true with all the adjunct faculty among [?].So we are asking for those other people that you are referring to to have representation as well.Weíre asking for that entire group.But I just add that I think the mission of the university is education, itís also the primary mission of the university, so I think that all of us, the whole university community, has education as our mandate. And finally Iíd like to ask the people who oppose this if they can explain, given that we do clearly have a significant contribution to education, how much it is or how many of us do, but Iíd like to understand why you think we have less of a contribution to the education than the other non-faculty representatives on the committee.


Bollinger:Ready for a vote.So the question is whether or not to have research officers, one research officer, on the education committee.Thereís a motion and a second.I think we should this regularly.


Tom:There are 64 senators.


Bollinger:There are now 64.Youíve counted them.


Another voice;How many do you need to pass?




Bollinger:All opposed.[Pause]It doesnít pass.


Tom:I count nine.


Bollinger:Right.So the motion to add one research officer to education does not pass.Does not pass.The motion does not pass.


Jacobson:There were nine negative votes.


Bollinger:So you have to have 59.Right?


Jacobson:No, you have to have super.Three-fifths of all the.


Duby:You need 59.


Jacobson:You needed 59 votes in favor.Nine from sixty-two, I think.


Bollinger:64.Someone will do the math.I just know itís in the ball park.Yes, thatís right.So that motion does not pass.And now we move to the executive committee.Is there a motion?Second?We have to have a second if itís going.


Another voice:Second.


Bollinger:Open for discussion.


Jacobson:Could I just note again that this also has the requirement that the officer of research be from whatís called the senior professional ranks of research which are again tenured faculty equivalent positions.




Another voice:Iíd like to say that adding a research officer to the executive committee is a natural extension of the research officer representation having been increased by two senators several years ago.When it was first created it was primarily faculty, student and administration with minor representation by other groups.Research officers were recognized a few years ago as no longer [canít hear him] and that recommendation gave them the additional senate seats.Voting to elect a research officer to the executive committee is a natural and logical progression of the vote of the Senate took several years ago to expand research officer representation.


Bollinger:Further discussion.


Another voice:A question comes to mind.What is the gender balance for research scientists versus faculty consider membership in a committee, and whether exclusion of research officers would be biasing the committee away from including women.Do you want those figures?


Another voice:Of the nine members who sit on the research officers committee, seven of them are women, and two of them are men.So I feel slightly underrepresented.


Another voice;On the executive committee, the growth in numbers, how does that work in practice as far as people attending meetings and people taking votes and having quorums and all that.Is there any sense of the ideal size for the executive committee, or any downside to increasing?


Duby:Yes.I will answer that.Now Iím speaking for myself, although we had some discussion in the executive committee and there was some difference of opinion.So other people may also take part in the discussion now.I think the present number 13 is in my opinion a very good one.We most of the time have at least 12 people there.So the attendance in the executive committee is better than in any other committee Iíve served for.So at least eleven, twelve, and very often thirteen.Now I, again my from point of view, I think that the executive committee should represent the faculty and the students, and plus the representation from the central administration, the president and the provost of course.And I think that the, when this senate was set up, it was set up as mainly representation of faculty.It was set up in such a way that the tenured faculty would be close to a majority.Tenured and non-faculty faculty would have a majority, but there was a significant representation of the student.And that was indeed in my opinion the purpose of the senate.So personally I feel that the size of the executive committee should not be increased.I think that, if we do increase it with researcher, there will be demand for increasing for other constituencies of the senate, and Iím, thatís my personal feeling and thatís why Iím voting against it.


Another voice:†† Iíd like to speak in favor of the addition of the research scientists, the research officers to the executive committee.I think particularly from the health sciences perspective, they are a very important part of our enterprise.[Voice fades out]


Another voice:I hesitate to take issues with chairman of the executive committee.[Laughter]My thought is that the senate is no longer a menís club including faculty.We have expanded, and I think the right word to use here is inclusive.We are an inclusive representative of the community at Columbia.If we allow students in, we should certainly allow the researchers in.And I speak as a faculty member.If we allow, oh Iím not going to go on with these analogies.I want to vote very strongly, and I propose that we all vote strongly for the addition of a researchers to the executive committee of the senate.


Another voice:Weíre asking for the addition of one seat.One, going from thirteen to fourteen, we think is numerically an insignificant change to the committee.Another point that Iíd like to make is that this a university senate.When it was founded, it was founded as a university senate, not as a faculty senate as other universities have founded it.And while we recognize that the faculty should maintain a majority on executive, that we agree with, we believe that we have a complimentary perspective to the work of the university which can provide an important contribution to improving the senate and the university in the future.


Bollinger:Ready to vote.So the motion is to add one research officer to the executive committee.We have how many senators here now?Still 64?




Bollinger:All opposed please raise your hands.This motion fails.




Bollinger:So this motion also fails for lack of getting 59 votes.Well, thank you very much.That concludes that.Now everybody can leave.We can get the real business done here.So are we going to the committee reports, Paul?


Duby:Yes.Maybe we can have the [?[ first because itís going to be a short one.


Bollinger:All right.Christia, are you?Is Christia Mercer here?Yeah, Christia come down.


Tom: Thereís a mike hereChKristai.


Mercer:You can hear me right?Okay.Iím pleased to represent the Commission on the Status of Women, but I also have to tell you that Iím a spy.Iím on the executive committee for the faculty of arts and sciences, and when I told my colleagues on that committee that I was gonna be here, they asked me to report back about all the interesting things that you do.So I will do that next week.

††††††††††† I think youíve gotten our one page summary of the case for day care here at Columbia, which if you havenít looked at, please look do so now.Let me tell you just a couple of facts about what weíve been doing this year, and then tell you whatís, the very good news that I have to report.

††††††††††† The main item on the agenda of the commission this year was to look into the problem of day care.As many of you know, anyone with children connected with Columbia knows how difficult it is to negotiate the day care situation. And itís especially hard I think for junior faculty.So our main goal this year was to assess the child care need in and around Columbia, and also to make proposals to the university about how to satisfy the needs as we identify those.We asked a couple of day care experts to join our commission this year.Iíll just mention one name, Cynthia Pollack, whoís been in charge of Thompkins Hall Day Care for a number of year, and she had a very nice additional insight to make, to give us on the situation here for people with children.

††††††††††† And our main questions were as follows.We decided to collect as much data as possible on how many children were actually in the area.Itís surprising how little data there was on that.We asked ourselves, so we wanted to know how many pre-school children there were.We wanted to know how many places were available.We wanted to know how much day care cost.We also wanted to know what kind of other options were available.Letís say part-time day care for graduate students, things like that.And we also looked into what our peer institutions were doing:Harvard, MIT, Princeton, such places.

††††††††††† Now the data we collected.I wonít go into too much of this, but it would actually really surprise you probably.For example, two interesting facts.As far as we can tell, there are 333 children of officers living in and around Morningside Heights.Notice this doesnít count graduate students; this doesnít count the children of staff.These are officers.There are only 174 places available for children, and so thatís one fact.So thereís only about three children, only about a hundred and fifty places really to put it simply, give or take a few mistakes in terms of our calculations.

††††††††††† Now, whatís very interesting is that there are only twenty places available for children between the ages of one month and fifteen months.Twenty places.And virtually all of those places go to people working at Teachers College.So if you have a baby, just have a child, youíre a professor, an officer of any sort, thereís virtually no care available for children of that age.So we were concerned about exactly what to do in terms of getting more data, and also being able to make projections about exactly how many children would show up at the door of a new day care center were it to be created.

††††††††††† So when we began sort of looking into what other universities have done, we discovered an organization called Bright Horizons, which has been hired by MIT, Yale, recently by Princeton and so on.And what Bright Horizons does is do a full day care needs assessment, make projections as they put it of how many children will show up at the door. So what they do is they interview people, they do a survey, they find out exactly how many children are in the relevant neighborhoods, they note the income paid the officers, and on the basis of vast experience Ė they have about a ten year track record Ė they project how many children will show up at the door of different day care models.So we made a recommendation to Allen Brinkley about a month ago that Bright Horizons be hired to do this full survey.Also one of the things that Bright Horizons does is they project and predict how much a day care center will cost.They actually run a, this group actually runs a day care center for example at United Nations.They have a lot of experience with the various restrictions, regulations concerning day care in New York City.

††††††††††† And Iím very happy to report that as of this week the provost has signed the contract with Bright Horizons, and Iím very pleased to report that though we actually asked for a slightly smaller package, Allen had the good sense to decide that it would be, that it behoove us to have the fuller package.So weíre having, as Bright Horizons people call it, the bells and whistles.So in about six months time we will have the data that they will have collected for us, and at that point we will be able to go to the university, ask that some of these day care needs be met.

††††††††††† And also, I mean if youíre not convinced by the way by our one page account here, though who could not be convinced by this.For those of you who are around to hear the president of Princeton speak last week, she put it very simply.If you want to attract the best and most talented women especially to your campus, she had three words, day care, day care, day care.Are there any questions.Yes.


Another voice:†† I have a question.From General Studies.As a representative from a school that has many, many parents, Iím sure many of the graduate students are also parents, why is this proposal only looking at recruiting faculty, not only have day care for students.


Mercer:Right.You have the old copy of our proposal.We originally went to the administration and asked for Bright Horizons to analyze day care for officers, thinking it would be best to get that information in our first step, and then we had every intention of going to look at the assessment, to assess the needs of graduate students, students generally and staff as our next step.I should have made this clear. Allen Brinkley and his office saw how much more sensible it would be to do all of this at the same time.So Bright Horizons is coming in and doing the whole.The whole bells and whistles in other words involves graduate students.Theyíre going to be looking at the medical school, the health sciences, so every, anyone who works at Columbia will be analyzed in these terms.Yes.


Another voice:Along those same lines because of the face of the student in America is changing.Theyíre becoming older.The shape of families is changing. There are many, many students with children, and I would like to just sort of remind this process that the children born to students donít choose whether theyíre born to students or faculty, and therefore should not be in their position in a school situation should not be based on whether or not they are studentsí children or faculty children.They should be given equal opportunity to enter into whatever day care or schooling opportunities are there for them.


Mercer:Absolutely.I completely agree.Yes.


Another voice:I served on the Commission of the Status of Women a number of years ago and am one of the authors of the pipeline report that was produced under Jean Howardís leadership.One of the striking things found during our work was that thereís a precipitous drop in the percentage of women in applicant pools in all fields, natural sciences, social sciences and [microphone is dropped].A very large number of women who we may well like to have our colleagues leave an academic pipeline when they receive a Ph.D. and entering the junior faculty pool at a place like Columbia by applying for a job.Now you donít have to be very good at math to figure out that if you enter graduate school at age 22 and how up in the faculty hiring pool about eight years later, you are thirty and are about to enter the prime years of your life to start having children in todayís world.And I suspect that no small amount of this precipitous drop with the women in the pipeline is a result of inadequate day care, either real or perceived, and people thought that they could in fact come to Columbia as a tenured track faculty member, have the children that they wanted, and if we succeed here we would see a lot more applicants from women.


Mercer:Exactly.I mean the pipeline report gave us, was our main motivation for looking at that this year.And one of the things, you know, I donít know if itís all great minds think alike or whatever, but itís simply MIT, Princeton, Yale, all of our peer institutions have recognized that one of the major leaks in the pipeline is exactly at that crucial moment.And as a mother of two children who came to Columbia, I was so naÔve.I came here with a three month old child, and thought it was going to be easy to find day care.So that was fourteen years ago so I have battle scars to show you how I survived or didnít very well.But yeah, so itís very important to do this. And one striking thing, one thing that weíve been talking about is the fact that at MIT in response to their recognition of the difficulty that women, especially women in science face at institutions across the country, did something I think profoundly important which is to give the first floor of their brand spanking new computer science building over to day care.Itís by the way run by Bright Horizons.And so they recognize the symbolic importance, and just the importance of this for women.And we are very much hoping that either in the new science building or at one of the areas vacated by the sciences moving into the science building that we can have something like a new day care as a symbolic gesture.So thatís one of the things weíre thinking about as well.Yes.


Another voice:I think one of the things that we talked in the commissionís discussions preparing their recommendations is the importance that the day care be on site.That it be readily accessible.Particularly for junior faculty who are really working very hard to prepare their portfolios to make sure that they are doing everything they can to advance their careers, and have to drop everything at 4:30 so they can dash off and pick up their children from child care isnít the way to help people become productive.[Cross talk]Simply adding more time available because youíre not suffering the opportunity to go get children from somewhere else if theyíre in the building.


Mercer:Itís absolutely important, and also one of the things that my co-chair, Kim Kasten would, if she were here, she would insist on is that for those of us in the humanities Ė Iím in the philosophy department Ė everything you say is true, but for women in sciences who simply cannot take off six weeks.Right?So notice the fact, there is no day care available in and around Columbia campus for babies two, three weeks old to six months old.None available for Columbia faculty.If youíre not at Teachers College, forget about it.So think about one these young, one of these hot shot women we attract to Columbia who suddenly decides to have a baby. Whatís she supposed to do take off six weeks?You canít take off six weeks and leave your lab.So forget about even the four oíclock.So anyway Iíve made my case.Yeah.


Another voice:Can you walk us through how you see this process evolving?In other words, Bright Horizons is going to be giving us essentially sort of a useful thing, which actually sounds like itís really just a more glorified extension of what you sort of did informally.So they can come back and say hereís what the need are.So what do you see the next step being, and what do you see the next step being after that?


Mercer:Theyíre actually gonna do three things.One is do a more complete survey that we had the time to do.We would have taken the time, but theyíll do it quickly.Theyíre also going to work with us and identify sites that might be convertible into day care centers.So for example Knox Hall has been mentioned.Two or three buildings that are coming available have been mentioned.Itís very important to some of us that we try to find a place on Columbia campus, especially one of the places that may be vacated by one of the science departments moving into the science building.So theyíre going to work with us and help us decide which of these spaces is a feasible space.You know, how much will it cost to convert it, how much will it cost to keep running?And then theyíll make very strong.One of the things that we simply canít do is make the projections that they can do because they have this track record.So theyíre take all the data and tell us that if you convert this space and you have toddler room of this capacity, so many children will actually show up at the door.And so we can then go to the administration and tell them that if we convert this space and this space it will almost be enough, but not quite.So on the basis of what they have to tell us we can actually know with some degree of certainty exactly what we need and how quickly we need it.


Another voice:A follow up question and Iím asking this as a member of the development committee, what are the, what interactions are they gonna be [?] say with faculties management or the other sorts of space planning powers within the administration so that the possible recommendations that they are considering are feasible.


Mercer: Feasible.Right.Well my understanding. We have our first planning meeting next week so Iím very happy that you asked exactly that question.I can put that to Allen Brinkley for example.But my sense, I mean Allen has already been quite keen on knowing about the details of which buildings, and letting us know what he thinks will work.And perhaps we should work closely with you folks as well.But my understanding is that Bill Scott, for example, a couple ofthe real estate guys on campus, and Bill for example has been very helpful telling us what buildings may come available when.So weíre trying to be extremely practical.It behooves to be extremely practical about this.

††††††††††† Now let me just make one thing, another thing clear.When their report is finished, then we will have the data, they will have made their projections, and then weíll need to talk to a lot of people about what the first two or three steps will be.I mean Iím sure Columbia is not gonna be able to afford to immediately build day care spaces or make day care spaces available to every single child who needs it.So the question will be well what first step is worth taking as opposed to another.Yes.


Another voice:Can we do it for ourselves without having to do it like the school has to for community.In other words, is this a consideration?


Mercer:It is a consideration.And one of the things we want to do is to. Thatís one of the reasons we really need to know all the facts and figures.And for example one of the things Iíve been pushing very much in thinking about graduate students is that we want to have different kinds of models.So the ideal model is that you have a lovely, pristine day care center that people take their child to.But if it were to be run by Bright Horizons or Thompkins Hall, if Thompkins Hall were to expand or Green House were to expand, the other day care, some of the better day care centers in the neighborhood.Those cost roughly a thousand, twelve hundred dollars a month.Even as an assistant professor, that was hard for me to pay.So one of the things we want to do is get Bright Horizons to work with us to come up with other models.

††††††††††† For example, one model, I was a graduate student in Germany for a while.The Germans are quite good at cooperative day care, where graduate students, people who, you know, faculty can actually do this kind of thing.You can volunteer some ofyour time, a day a week or something, to keep the price down.So we want to make sure that Bright Horizons works with us to look at a variety of different kind of models, and make some day care centers possibly, or some day care options available for some community if they want to participate in this.But we definitely want to make sure we understand the needs of the Columbia community.


Another voice:I respect we call the question.I feel itís very important to the student affairs committee before people leave.


Mercer:Okay. So I should shut up.All right.Yes.


Another voice:The 333 children include Barnard and TC?




Another voice:And all constituencies would include Barnard and TC?


Mercer:Thatís my intention.Okay.


Bollinger:Thank you Christia very much.[Applause]What do you want to do next?


Duby:Maybe we can do the resolution if thatís okay with them.


Bollinger:Letís do the resolution on open access, libraries and computing.Is that?[Background conversation]Whoís presenting the resolution on open access?


Another voice:Iíll be brief.Iím representing our chair who is unable to be here today, but I think to a large degree our resolution is self-explanatory.Itís for us both a matter of consciousness raising because there are many things that all of us can do in our different capacities to encourage and promote open access for online materials and for various kinds of new media in different forms, and itís also a matter of sort of staking out the traditional high ground for Columbia of saying this is something we ought to be doing.Putting the senate on record, not as committing us to specific policies and behavior in any detailed way, but as making a sort of moral commitment that is something we should do as scholars, and that we should keep in mind the many possibilities open to us to do it.And we are lucky to have in Jim Neil a major player among library people around the country in shaping the new initiatives that are gradually transforming publication relationships between producers and distributors and consumers of all kinds of academic texts.So I know that Jim is ready with a presentation, and Iíd like to invite him to give some brief comments before we have any further discussion that people are interested in.


Jim:Thank you Francis.Iíll be brief.There is a broad movement, a broad international movement around open access to try to reduce the barriers for faculty, students and researchers around the world to secure access, to break through technologies, to break through the economic and price increase pressures that weíre facing, and to break through some of the national legislative initiatives that are really creating, making it much more difficult for people who work in the scholar community to access the fruits of our labor.

††††††††††† So much on the open access movement has revolved around the author pay model.A member of our board of trustees in fact has advanced this through the creation of something called the public library of science.But the open access movement is much, much greater than that.And what weíre endorsing here today in this resolution is not for Columbia to take it as a prescriptive set of measures, but really to set a foundation for action and advocacy around things like what the National Institutes of Health has just done, and said that it is very important that if we as a country invest in research, after a period of time we should make the products of that research available to those who have paid for it, the American taxpayers.

††††††††††† Journal editors are realizing that after a period of time that journal literature that theyíre producing should be not embargoed any longer and should be put out and made available on the public web.Scholars in many disciplines are depositing their research papers on disciplinary pre-print servers.What started in the physics and mathematics community in the late 1980s is not dominating the work of hundreds of disciplines around the world.

††††††††††† Universities like Columbia are putting up institutional repositories where the digital work of our students and our faculty can be made available and searchable on the public web.Individuals should sign contracts with publishers that allow them to put their own individual work up on their own individual web sites, and thus make it available to scholars and students around the world.

††††††††††† And we have to deal with the topic of what I call orphan works.Material that is still in copyright, that is published after 1923, but which no longer has economic viability and in many cases for which we can no longer identify who owns it.That material, even though it may be covered by copyright, can under open access be made available for purposes of education and research.

††††††††††† This open access is not in conflict with peer review.They are totally compatible.Peer reviewed material can be made open access.This is not in conflict with copyright.Copyright ownership remains with the person who produces it and their ability to transfer it where they choose.It is not in conflict with author compensation.Individuals can be compensated under open access, and in fact are.Itís after a period of time that some of that material can be made available for use by scholars and students around the world.

††††††††††† So weíre looking for the Senate to endorse this general and important direction in the scholar community and to provide us, not only those of us in the Senate, but the university at large a broader awareness of this initiative and a foundation for us to take action and to advocate in scholarly and information policy circles, Washington and around the world, that this is important to us in the Columbia community.


Another voice:Can I just, just frame this.Is the, the request is for a vote of endorsing this movement, this.And it doesnít commit the institution to anything at this point.Itís just that itís a good idea, an important idea.We think it should be pursued and.


Jim:Thatís correct.


Another voice:And is this going to be controversial?Because if it is, then I think it would be a good idea probably to return to this at the next meeting unless there is deep need to have this done in early April.Is it okay to?


Jim:We can unless thereís a strong support for it.


Bollinger:Thatís what I.Is there a sense that this, you need extensive discussion about this or is this something on which we want to?


Another voice:Ready to vote.


Bollinger:Great.Great.Then I think, unless thereís really a pressing need to discuss this, weíll just proceed with the vote.


Another voice:I do have one concern.I donít know if I really understand the issue.[Canít hear rest of this]


Jim:Libraries have been paying a lot of money for journals for a long term.Open access enables us to provide them more freely on the web after they have had a period of use and we pay for them.Those who get grants from the Federal government are being asked after twelve months after publication itís made available.Digital rights management systems are locking up a lot of this content unfairly.Material that can be used for purposes of fair use.There are the concerns about new copyright laws in Washington that really are eliminating the public domain and are making it much more difficult for us to provide access to this material to the scholarly and educational communities.Those are the types of things that open access is working against to really open up and make available more of this research which is produced in the academy for use in the academy and not to turn it over to commercial publishers.


Another voiceI have one question.Is it the case that we may place in our own files documents that have been published in peer review journals Ė




Another voice:-- for which the journal asserts owns the copy right.


Jim:That is correct.We have convinced Elsivir for example, one of the major scientific publishers to include in their contracts with authors the rights to put up their individual papers on their personal web sites.Thatís a product of the open access movement.


Bollinger:As someone feels.I produced a fair amount of orphan works in the world.This gives new opportunities for our great ideas to be distributed.Okay. So I think itís probably important that we say that weíre ready to vote on this.Is that agreeable.


Another voice:Move the question.


Bollinger:So the question is to endorse the idea of open access and all that that means as an idea recognizing that there are tradeoffs, and that is not to commit the university to pursue open access to the expense of every other value.Itís an important idea, weíre familiar with it, and we like it.All in favor say aye.




Bollinger:All opposed.Abstentions.Great.Thank you very much.Now what?


Another voice:Thank you very much.There is a resolution in front of you entitled Revised Resolution to Establish a Procedure for Student Grievances, and this would describe how a grievance appeal will be made.This has been revised so that the language accommodates legal issues such as not covering issues covered otherwise by Federal regulations.Language has been slightly amended to the request of administrators and professors, and this is the version in front of you right now.

††††††††††† We would like to stress that this resolution does not in any way go against the procedures that are conceived as the president has said at the beginning of this meeting for quite some time by this institution.The schools will have some new procedure, and appeals will be able to be made.Weíre just trying to.




Student Affairs Committee:Together with the faculty and the student affairs committee, and I think itís very important for this institution to develop such policies together.And it would be a true honor to see if indeed the university Senate accepts that students should be involved in creation of such procedures.Are there any questions that I can answer before we go to a vote?I see some questions.


Bollinger:I think thereís gonna be a fair amount of discussion.[Laughter]


Another voice:I have a question for you Tom.Do we still have 64 people here.


Tom: We donít need it.We donít have 64 people, but if thereís a vote on this measure itís a simple majority of those present.

Another voice:What are we voting on?That students should be involved in such processing that modifies the universityís policies or that we vote on the content of these pieces of paper?


Student Affairs Committee:Weíre voting on the language of the Revised Resolution to Establish Procedure for Student Grievances, and I can read it out loud.I donít want to say something that, the language of this has been worked out in many meetings, and so if you want Iíll read it out loud.




Another voice:You had amendments that sounded like you might be voting on several.


Student Affairs Committee:No, no, no.We had the amendments before this final piece of paper was created, and a word here and a word there has been changed.


Bollinger:Let me just say.As I understand this, and tell me if Iím wrong.The proposal is to create a grievance procedure that is university wide and I, if this passes the Senate, it must come to the university administration.We then have to decide whether to endorse this or not and take it to the Trustees.My view is that the Trustees should sign off on a procedure of this kind.So I think thatís the formal process from here.I think it would be fair to say that, Iíll make the following points.There is extensive work being done on grievance procedures in every school and college across the university.Some of them are done and up on the web.Now some of them are still in the final stages of being revised.At the school or college throughout the university, as well as in many departments, there are procedures for students to file grievances.Some are done, some are being revised still.Faculties in each of those schools and departments, colleges, faculty approve these procedures generally speaking.So itís a faculty driven process.

††††††††††† At this stage, I think itís fair to say that the deans feel a considerable stake in anything that happens at a university level, and very much want to be part of a process that creates this.They are not obviously in this room, although representatives from each school are in this room.But I think the deans feel they have a significant stake in this and want to be part of the discussion, creation of university procedures.So they have told us.

††††††††††† And I think there is some considerable issue, disagreement within the faculty which Iím not endorsing one side or the other, but simply as issue about students on committees for reviewing faculty, claims of faculty misconduct.And thatís just a fact, and thatís all Iím saying about it.In a sense the grievance processes across the university are still a little bit of a work in progress.So as I said, we will know more this next week and perhaps the week after about how grievance procedures at each school and college will sort themselves out.Thatís my understanding of the framing of it right now.


Student Affairs Committee:Can I just make a point of, just to clarify something.This resolution does not tell the school level how to conduct its grievances.


Bollinger:Thatís right.


Student Affairs Committee:It only describes a method of appeal to the president and provost.So there is no, there is no infringement on the rights of the deans at any point.Am I correct?


Bollinger:Well, I think, I donít want to use the term infringement, but I think from some deansí perspectives or some schoolsí perspectives, they.Of course you have a student who makes a complaint about a faculty member.They may go through the school procedures, and then if they have exhausted those remedies, they will then go to.If the system is they would then go to this, then a school may say thatís not what we want our faculty or our students to end up.So whether they call it an infringement or an unwise policy, or whatever, I think thatís the concern on the part of some deans.Is that the right procedure for faculty from that school or college to be reviewed.

††††††††††† I think the other issue Iím a little unclear about in my own mind, thereís something in the Statutes or the by-laws about parallel systems.Iím not sure.Can we, under the Statutes, can we create a system by virtue of a Senate vote and a Trustee approval, letís say Senate vote, that would create an overarching system coming from each school, or thereís something about maybe students have a choice, maybe theyíre parallel systems.


Jacobson:Well, I know in the past that the grievance and discipline issue has been a school by school basis except when for a special reason the Statutes have carved out an exception like whatís known as the Rules of University Conduct having to do with demonstrations, rallies and picketing.There are statutory provisions about that.In the past when, I guess it was.


Bollinger: What about the sexual misconduct?


Jacobson:Sexual misconduct, there was a series of resolutions and those resolutions were passed to each school and each faculty and each dean made a decision as to whether they opted in to participate in that process or not.I believe, I canít speak completely, but I know the Law School, at least I seem to recall, the Law School did not opt in.There may have been others that did not opt in.


Bollinger:So what that means is that the student in the Law School decides to bring a complaint against a faculty member in the Law School for sexual misconduct, that student cannot go to the quote university.


Jacobson:It canít go to the special misconduct rules, but can.


Bollinger:Only go through the Law School.Lisa.


Lisa:The student, not faculty.


Bollinger:Okay.And then how does the system work?Does the system?


Lisa:The Law School manages those complaints.


Bollinger: Exclusively.You have no option if youíre a law student to go through the other.And that was a choice given to each school to decide.


Student Affairs Committee:I think those are all true, but thatís not the precedent for this resolution.The precedent is we have a university rules of conduct, a university rules of conduct.This body appoints a subcommittee to review the conduct of students if we take over your office.[Laughter]


Bollinger:Youíre welcome.[Laughter]


Student Affairs Committee:We also know that the university senate is also the body that reviews faculty grievances.So those are the two models that we have been using to come up with this model, and thereís another very pressing issue.We see now a divided community whereby students are [?] are using media to criticize faculty.Whenan individual goes outside of our community for their grievances to be heard, it shows that there is something wrong with our current grievance system, and I think we all agree.Each school has taken great, great opportunity in making sure that the proposed grievance procedure for each school is articulated and articulated well, and weíre looking forward to those reports on those.

††††††††††† This resolution is not in contradiction of that.Itís actually in support.Itís saying that each school should have the autonomy to do this, and if by chance in a five, ten-year period thereís one case that needs a special need, the executive committee would decide whether or not to take it up.If they decide not to take it, it stays at the school level and thereís not threat.If thereís a question, weíre just building a legitimate system to see that process through.Thereís another reason.This is the only grievance procedure that has been written in the last six months that has included students in the creation.Let me remind you this is a joint faculty affairs committee that unanimously voted in favor of this.Working with the student affairs committee.And so it would make a very old stigma to all students in this university if this bill is killed because then itís saying that students are not only allowed to participate in the building of the university policy of which we are senators, responsible for building that policy.And two itís saying that the student input doesnít matter.Iím hoping that wonít be the result of our deliberations.


Jacobson:Could I just clarify two things.I think citing the rules of university conduct doesnít prove your point.It really doesnít help you because the rules of university conduct were adopted after action, involvement of the senate, but it was adopted as an amendment of the University Statutes and the Trustees are the ones who adopted it.And every little variation of those rules over the years, and there have been some, have gone to the Trustees for adoption.So theyíre a carve out from the normal system.

††††††††††† The other point you made.I think thereís a little problem, and Iím not telling people how it should come out.Iím just pointing out the issue.This process involves the senate executive committee in creating a group.There could be a report to the president about a particular faculty member, even though I think the sight to one of the statutory provisions is not complete, but leave that aside.If a faculty member is accused of something and itís serious enough, that faculty member may want to grieve under the university statutes, and the grievance procedures call for the faculty member to grieve to the faculty affairs committee.Itís coming right back.If in fact the conduct is really serious enough and the decision is made that the faculty memberís tenure should be removed, which is a very rare occurrence obviously, that also goes through a process that involves the faculty affairs committee.So in some ways to me this creates somewhat of a conflict of interest.Itís putting the senate executive committee and the faculty affairs committee on what could be two sides of the same issue, and it just creates some practical difficulties.


Another voice:Two points. First, Mr. President in your remarks you said if this passes, it then goes to the administration and then to the Trustees.Can you clarify this.Because I always understood that senate actions went directly to the trustees without being needed to go through the administration.And then the second point was that regardless of the merits of this particular proposal, you eluded in your report to work that is being done elsewhere in the university having to do with grievance procedures.And I think it is a legitimate concern that you wouldnít want, you know, renovation on the structure happening over here and then another group renovating over here, and acts as sort of missing an opportunity to making sure the pieces are working together.Is there any type of concern along those lines in terms of this particular effort, regardless of what its merits may be in light of other efforts that are happening and making sure that things.


Bollinger:Yeah.Bradley what I meant is that I feel, we would have to have a recommendation to the Trustees.That is we would need to be able to tell the Trustees as the administration what we think of this proposal cause they would expect that of us.So even though it goes directly to the Trustees, theyíd want to know.

††††††††††† On the second issue, I am very concerned with the kind of coordination problem, and I also know that the deans as another body within the institution with significant role to play, I think feel the need, the desire to sort of think through this, and to speak to it as well.It is a very, it is an extremely important thing.I mean I agree with everything thatís been said about the importance of it, and making sure that thereís a kind of community consensus, that this is a procedure, a set of procedures that we really want is something we all really want to try to encourage.

††††††††††† Decision making within the university is necessarily very fractured.I mean thereís no single body that sort of takes up everything.So the Senate I think is entirely appropriately considering, a lot of work has gone into this, and I am grateful for it and admire it.I just know as I talk to people around, try to put together all of this, that I think there is a need for some more university wide sort of consultation about this.And I just would urge, I personally would urge some patience and some reflection and inclusion in the discussion, you know, to make sure that we really do it right.Iíd hate to see a new controversy erupt about the nature of grievance procedures, and the Senate versus the schools, and this and that.So I would not.I think thereís wonderful progress.I think really we should try to find forums in which to take this for significant discussion, but I think itís a lot of progress.Marsha.


Marsha:May I have permission to speak as a non-member.




Marsha:I think the report looks very carefully thought out, but Iím just wondering about a step that maybe puzzles me that seems to be missing which is in arts and sciences traditionally in the chain of command thereís been another step between the dean and the provost, which is vice president for arts and sciences, and similarly the vice president for medical faculties is another step in the grievance procedure.And I was surprised to see that missing.


Student Affairs Committee:May I answer that?This procedure describes it as the dean of the faculty, and in fact, in the arts of sciences the dean of the faculty is the vice president for the arts and sciences.So I think that does include.


Bollinger:Yes, go ahead.


Another voice:Mr. President, you just used phrases like university wide discussion and inclusive process.Perhaps this resolution wouldnít be necessary if the re-design of the grievance processes within the individual colleges included a greater number of people including students.This seems necessary to the students because this is the only place where students are [someone coughing cuts out words], and weíve all been seeing examples that the appearance of impropriety is just as damaging as impropriety itself.And if we are a unique position to say that we are not going to allow improprieties to occur by asking that students be involved either at this level, with this resolution, or that every individual school, even though theyíve spent the last six months quietly behind closed doors working on their re-design of the grievance process, how many of those schools have actually included students in that process.And how many have not only included it in the process of re-design, but have actually built into the design the participation of students.I would render a guess that itís little to none.

††††††††††† I ask that if this resolution does not pass today, that we consider at least that we will design all of these again with students in mind.Not only for the sake of those students in the future who may have grievances, but for the sake of the university as a whole and our appearance to the outside world which is looking very, very, very carefully on our behavior here today.


Bollinger:I appreciate that very much.I mean, I think itís important to realize that the grievance procedures within the schools is lodged with the schools.That is itís not for the university administration.,I take it that we have.Iím assuming that the university administration really has no power to intervene in schools and to shape their grievance procedures.That is really a process for the schools, and they have been doing that.

††††††††††† As far as whether to include students or not, I know thatís a big issue, a big issue for a lot of people, and how I would vote if I were back in the Law School or if I were on a faculty is a different matter, and I think thatís a really important question.

††††††††††† One of the things to think about is whether this process interacting with that process can have some beneficial results on those or other issues over time.I mean I think thereís nothing I think by, thereís nothing as to where we are now that says itís by design that we are where we are.Itís just that we know that schools and colleges have to get their grievance procedures in shape, and thatís been working, and we know that this process has been underway, and Iím just wondering out loud as I think about this now whether some further conversations between the Senate, the schools, the deans, and so on would be helpful.Thatís the suggestion.


Another voice:I think the intention is [cannot hear the question] or the way that itís set up is a university wide policy.I wonder whether in light of your ad hoc committeeís report whether the grievance procedures of the entire university are being redone or just the individual groups.[Cannot hear what heís saying]


Bollinger:YeahWell, I mean in general there is a process now and it goes to the provost and then to the president in some cases.So there is a process, and the question the Senate is raising is whether there should be a kind of intermediary process between that, or a somewhat reshaped process at the university level, which as you know, Iím completely open to.That is Iíve been part of these discussions.I think itís extremely important that every part of the university think about grievance procedures.Iím delighted the Senate is doing it.You know, I think itís a very important thing.


Another voice:When the Senate caucus, would that be the faculty caucus before the Senate, I proposed that in general the efforts in this direction would lead us into a rushed objective that I think is founded on a particular and accidental event associated with the university at this particular moment in time.And I recommended at that time to the faculty that we pause and consider carefully what it is that we really want to do in the long term about taking additional structural measures that would complicate the activities of the deans and so.And as I heard people responding in that discussion, there was generally feelings of agreement with me.Tell me that Iím wrong.[Background voices]

[Cross talk]††† At the meeting today, I thought that there was general agreement that this is something that was prompted by a single event whose consequences are not terribly clear and that this really requires serious thought.I havenít given it the kind of thought I think it deserves, and I challenge it, other than Eugene, whoís undoubtedly been involved in this enormously, I donít think anybody.


Bollinger:I think, let me suggest a way to think about this.Letís suppose thatís there a majority or two-thirds, whatever the vote is, of the Senate that thinks that this is a good idea.The proposition could be voted on that it seems like a good idea, but there are lots of things at work in the university, and that before actually saying this is what we believe and letís go to the Trustees, a delegation from the Senate should be instructed to meet with deans and schools and participate in a process, and to see, and to come back to the Senate and reflect on that, and maybe the choice is that this is where we want to go or this, you know, this is the changes that we think should be made.Or this is how we.But to enter into a conversation with other parts of the university as a way to try to get a consensus if at all possible.Thatís largely what Iím saying.


Student Affairs Committee:So President Bollinger do you propose, can you use your influence to make sure that no new grievance procedures are announced before such a meeting takes place with the deans?


Bollinger:I canít do that.I mean thatís one thing I canít do.But what I can is to say that the schools have come up with their procedures.All grievance procedures are subject to change.So the fact is if a grievance procedure a month from now doesnít look like the way the school wants it after reflection it can change it.I mean thatís clearly open to do, and grievance procedures like all procedures are changed all the time.We really must have schools and colleges announce their grievance procedures.Itís really critical to the institution.


Another voice:I thought weíd want a negative vote on this.


Bollinger:I understand.I understand.


Another voice:Itís a judgment.




Another voice:Can I offer two resolutions.One is a resolution supporting the participation of the student representatives in decisions on grievances at the university level and at the school levels and so forth.And second a vote on the issue of whether this particular resolution is welcomed and accepted today.Iíd like not to be placed in the position of having someone make the accusation that we donít vote on this, weíre voting against students and studentsí rights.There are clearly two separate issues here, and Iíd like to view them separately.


Bollinger:Always open to a motion.So.Yes.


Another voice:I think with respect to the consideration of time, I would like to bring it to the Senateís attention that some form of this resolution has actually been on their agenda for the last three months, four months.It started as a report coming out of both the student affairs and faculty affairs committee, and eventually made its way to the form that hereís today.And so I would like to say that in its original form what students wanted was student representation on the ad hoc committee that just finished its work, and when we presented it, it was killed within the student affairs committee because it was too late to make a change to a committee that had already been established.And with all due respect, Mr. President, what I think that you are proposing proceeds similar consequences.If all schools come out in the coming weeks with new grievance procedures, and then we present our amendments to them, our amendments will fall upon deaf ears because they expect the passage of ours considering now.And to take our versions into account now is something that wonít happen.


Bollinger:I respect that.Consider though the alternative that might happen.Suppose the Senate votes on this to send to the Trustees, and then the schools, many of the schools are very much opposed to it because they feel they havenít had adequate participation in this.And they then oppose this as it goes to the Trustees.


Student Affairs Committee:Create a subcommittee of exec.


Bollinger:For this Iím assuming it has to go to the Trustees.


Jacobson.Section 25 of the University Statutes about the Senate which deals with certain other things.And then it says in all other matters the action of the Senate will be final unless the president shall advise the University Senate not later than the next regularly scheduled meeting that the Trustee concurrence is necessary.


Bollinger:And I just have to say on grievance procedures at the university level, I would just have to include the Trustees given the significance of grievance procedures at this time.Yes.


Another voice:{Cannot hear the comments]If we vote against it, it will be interpreted as anti-student.I think splitting it into parts as Dr. Wharton has suggested is simply going to open up two new lengthy discussions.I therefore rule that a motion on the vote be tabled.


Another voice:Seconded.



Bollinger:Okay.Motions to table are not subject to discussions.





Student Affairs Committee:If you table it, it never comes back.Thatís what table means.


Bollinger:Itís not.Okay, letís not have.Letís just get the clarification.


Jacobson.Itís not debatable, canít be amended, but itís postponing, and itís not saying itís killed.†† Itís saying itís laying on the table so it can come back at a particular moment and the Senate can vote to bring it back and take it up from the table.


Another voice:What do you need to get a vote to bring it back to?


Another voice:What kind of vote.


Duby:Itís simple majority.


Jacobson:It would be a majority.And sometimes, I mean just to clarify the motion.Iím sorry.


Student Affairs Committee:It would be a majority of this body to get it on the agenda for next meeting.


Jacobson:It would be.


Student Affairs Committee:Is that your intent?Would you just like to discuss it in May, or would you like to table it until.


Another voice:I donít know if it should be discussed in May, but itís perfectly clear, itís clear, the caucus meeting, and itís perfectly clear here, that there are a lot of ramifications to this that need to be worked out.Especially as the president said waiting to see what the university does.The time to vote on this proposal.


Bollinger:The question is there a tabling can you make a motion to table for a time definite.I assume.


Jacobson:There is a point of order.


Bollinger: So I assume that it is possible to have the time definite.


Jacobson:Right.Or you can be describing that youíre tabling it in order to allow consideration of whatever.


Bollinger:Thereís a motion to table.Itís not discussable.To bring it back on the agenda requires a majority vote.I take it that can be done at the executive committee, or it brings back the motion in May.We must go to a vote then unless thereís any point of order.All in favor please raise your hands.[Background talk]The motion is to table the resolution on creating a new grievance procedure.All in favor of tabling the motion, please raise your hands.[Pause]


Another voice:With the understanding that this is not an negative vote about this.


Bollinger:I think people understand that.I vote to table.All against tabling, please raise your hands.


Tom:Raise it high please.[Pause]I get twenty-six.


Bollinger:Okay, the motion to table fails.Weíll resume with discussion.


Student Affairs Committee:President Bollinger, may I just say one thing.Iíd like to quote to the Senate the final sentence on the ad hoc committee report.†† We need to reaffirm that sense of collective responsibility which is vital for the well being of every community of scholars and to nurture the mutual respect required to sustain us in our common quest for the promotion of learning and the advancements of knowledge.Collective responsibility.


Another voice:Move the question.


Bollinger:Move the question.So is there a desire for further discussion?No.Weíre ready to vote.So the motion is to a resolution to establish a procedure for student grievances as described in the memo proposed April 1, 2005.Is that right?All in favor please.The resolution.All in favor please raise your hands.[Pause]All opposed, please raise your hands.How many.Okay so the motion passes.What I would propose is that.Any abstentions.




Bollinger:What I would propose is that I try, Iíll use my offices if itís agreeable to the Senate to try to set up some meetings with other constituencies within the institution, but weíre treating this as a choice of the Senate to establish this procedure.And Iíve advised the Senate that this is something that I think must go to the Trustees given the circumstances this time at the university, but if you will accept that it would be a good idea to have some further discussions over the next few weeks.


Student Affairs Committee:Weíll be happy to do so.




Another voice:[Cannot hear what is being said]


Bollinger:Right.I agree.


Student Affairs Committee:Thank you very much.


Bollinger:Thank you very much Mattan.Next is small item, something with the letters ROTC in front of them.[Background talk]What if we called a special meeting.I think, Paul and I think it would be good to try to call a special meeting over the next week perhaps to discuss this.The room seems to have been reserved by other people.And obviously we donít want to have a conflict here.Yeah.Sorry.With that, would you prefer to go to another venue now.Yeah, I canít do it the sixth.Itís only to give it a full discussion. Thatís the irony.Next time it will be the first item.