University Senate

Proposed: November 20, 2014



Lee Bollinger, the president, called the Senate to order shortly after 1:15 pm in 104 Jerome Greene Hall. Forty-seven of 97 senators were present during the meeting.

Minutes and agenda. The president announced a new procedure for adopting the minutes and agenda. Henceforth, he said, the agenda will be understood to have been adopted unless a senator raises a hand to object; the same procedure will apply to the minutes of the last meeting. There was no objection.
Seeing no hands raised on the agenda or the minutes, he declared them approved unanimously.

President’s remarks.
Ebola. The president said he would speak briefly, and carefully, about New York City’s first Ebola victim. He said he would not take questions on this subject. He repeated what he had said in an email the night before—that Craig Spencer, a Columbia faculty member in the Department of Emergency Medicine at New York Presbyterian, had gone to West Africa to work with Doctors Without Borders in the battle against the Ebola epidemic. Since his return, he has been diagnosed with the disease, and is being treated in Bellevue Hospital, the city’s designated place for such patients.

The president said the university values people who take their expertise and go out in the world to help other people, especially those at risk. That is part of being a great university. The president gave thanks to all of those people here and elsewhere. He also said he had no reason so far to think any member of the Columbia community was at risk. He said the University cares about everybody in New York City, in the country, and in the world, but he wanted to focus for the moment on the Columbia community.

Executive Committee chair’s remarks. Executive Committee chair Sharyn O’Halloran (Ten., SIPA) asked Rules Committee chair Christopher Riano for an update on the current review of the Rules of University Conduct.

Mr. Riano said the Rules Committee had completed two town hall meetings, one on the Morningside campus and one at the Medical Center. After the third one, scheduled for November 10 in the Law School, the committee will decide whether to recommend changes to the Rules.

Sen. O’Halloran said the Senate would take up a new proposed policy on institutional conflict of interest at the November plenary. External Relations will sponsor the resolution. She also welcomed a half-dozen new senators elected since the previous meeting.

Sen. O’Halloran mentioned the passing on October 16 of Frank Grad, a law school professor who in 1968-69 led a team in drafting by-laws for a new university senate. She asked the parliamentarian, Howard Jacobson, to speak about Prof. Grad.

Mr. Jacobson recalled that when he was a law student at Columbia, Frank Grad was director of the Legislative Drafting Research Fund at Columbia, which produced many important documents, ranging from environmental statutes to housing policy statements. After the events of 1968, Prof. Grad played a major role in putting together the documents that resulted in the chapter of the University Statutes that deals with the Senate, as well as the Senate By-laws. Then he became a senator, serving on the Executive Committee and also as parliamentarian for a number of years. He prevailed upon Mr. Jacobson to substitute for him as parliamentarian a few times, and when he stepped down, he asked Mr. Jacobson to succeed him. He was always friendly, positive, and helpful, whether it was about Senate procedure or almost anything else. Prof. Grad died at the age of 90. He will be missed, Mr. Jacobson said.

Committee reports.
Campus Planning and Physical Development. Sen. Ronald Breslow (Ten., A&S/NS), the chair, presented the committee’s annual report for 2013-14, sticking closely to the text.

Sen. Daniel Savin (Research Officers) said the façade of the Northwest Corner building tends to accumulate snow, which can be dangerous when it melts and falls to the ground. Last year the sidewalk on Broadway had to be closed because of falling snow, forcing pedestrians into the street. He asked two questions: What plans are under consideration to modify the NW Corner façade? And has this problem been considered for buildings now going up in Manhattanville?

Sen. Breslow said this problem might indeed arise in Manhattanville, where the campus buildings will be surrounded by streets. He acknowledged that Sen. Savin had raised this issue with the Campus Planning Committee, and the only helpful suggestion then was that the committee should pass it on to EVP for Facilities Joe Ienuso.

Sen. Savin directed his questions to the president.
The president said he could answer other questions Sen. Breslow had raised in his report, but not this one. He said he could find out, and provide an answer later. He said it was clear early on that Columbia would never get approval for the necessary rezoning of Manhattanville unless it agreed to keep nearby streets open, and to provide a setback for buildings, so that surrounding communities would feel comfortable with a campus in their midst. Columbia made a commitment not to do what it did with the Morningside Heights campus 100 years ago—building buildings with their backs facing out, with gates and guards at the gates, and no on-the-street retail presence. So the philosophy of Manhattanville, as he presented it from the outset, was to do as much as possible to integrate the campus into the surrounding communities, provided that, at the end of the day, Columbia could retain the sense of a true campus, and not just an urban setting with lots of different buildings.

Other reports
            --Update on the new sexual assault policy announced on August 15 (Gender-based Misconduct Policy for Students  and the September 23 report providing aggregate data on sexual assault at Columbia (Gender-based Misconduct Prevention and Response Report), from Suzanne Goldberg, Herbert and Doris Wechsler Clinical Professor of Law and Special Advisor to the President for Sexual Assault Policy, and Melissa Rooker, Title IX Coordinator for the University and Associate Provost for Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action.

Sen. O’Halloran introduced the next speakers, noting that Donna Fenn of the General Counsel’s Office was also on hand to answer questions. Sen. O’Halloran said Prof. Goldberg and Ms. Rooker would provide their updates, as well as a sense of where the President’s Advisory Committee on Sexual Assault (PACSA) is headed. She added that a public PACSA roster was in the Senate packet.

The president also provided some background. He said the administration had spent a lot of time on the policy that was announced on August 15, and he had made some decisions about its basic structure—for example, that the University would continue to have panels, not just an investigator, to make judgments about responsibility. But the new policy required a major effort that began last spring, taking in the comments of many people, including students. Because the policy had to be in place before the beginning of the school year, the University had to announce it in July and early August. As a result, there couldn’t be the full range of last-minute consultations that would have been preferable.

The president said the new policy is one of a number of actions the University has taken to address sexual assault. He said Columbia was extremely fortunate to have Suzanne Goldberg in the role of special advisor to the president on sexual assault. One of the complaints raised a year ago was that there was no single person in the university whom people could turn to for suggestions, advice, and criticism, and no place where comprehensive, university-wide planning could take place. He thought this was a reasonable criticism, and he asked Prof. Goldberg to take on this role; he said she has carried it out superbly. He said everyone who has worked with her immediately senses her compassion and sensitivity to these issues. This also happens to be Prof. Goldberg’s field in the Law School, where she’s widely admired for other good reasons. But he said the human element she brings is particularly important.

The president said Melissa Rooker has also been involved with these issues for some time, and has also done a splendid job.

Prof. Goldberg said this was her first Senate meeting, and she was delighted to be here. Before going into the particulars of the new sexual assault policy, she proposed to put the policy in the context of both prevention of and response to sexual assault and other kinds of gender-based misconduct on campus. She said a policy is as good as its environment, its implementation, its role in transforming the context.

She began with prevention. This connection may not be obvious, she said, because most people associate disciplinary policies with the response to sexual assault—What are the procedures for handling an incident? What are the prohibited forms of conduct? But the policy is an essential part of the conversation about these issues on a university campus. The way to transform the way that people relate to each other—and understand their responsibilities to each other as part of a university community—is , in part, by having a policy that communicates with people. The policy must explain how to handle an incident, but also how to be part of this university community in a respectful and responsible way.

Prof. Goldberg said the policy must do more than set up the disciplinary process. It must also communicate the resources available to students who have experienced gender-based misconduct. Many people don’t know these resources. She asked senators, if they are aware of these resources, to serve as ambassadors for them, not only as senators, but also as colleagues and classmates. No amount of university-sponsored publicity or events can achieve as much as single person telling people he or she knows.

Prof. Goldberg enumerated the main resources provided by the new sexual assault policy. First is the Office of Sexual Violence Response, which not only has an office on Barnard’s campus, but also a new space the 7th floor of Lerner, and soon will have a new assistant director at CUMC. She added that in most universities, including huge state schools, there is one person in the counseling and psychological services office who is trained especially to deal with sexual trauma. At Columbia there is trained professional staff as well as peer advocates and educators, who are state-certified and available to the student community 24/7/365. They’re available for extended office hours in person, and then available afterwards on the phone. If you call them and want to see them, they will come and meet you. One of the requirements for the Sexual Violence Response staff is that they must live no more than a certain number of minutes from campus, so they can show up and accompany a student to the ER, if that is necessary, or just be with them to provide support.

So in addition to the Rape Crisis Anti-Violence Support Center, the University has multiple trained staff throughout the university. Those are confidential resources. Other confidential resources include the ombuds office, the chaplain’s office, and Health Services.

The non-confidential resource for students is the Gender-Based Misconduct Office, which has two functions. One is to provide case managers, whose role is to explain the resources available to students, including the disciplinary process, and to help them secure accommodations if they need them. But they can go to this office without engaging the disciplinary process. Most people don’t formally report experiences of sexual violence—sometimes for good reasons, sometimes not for good reasons. There remains a stigma attached to this experience. Sometimes it takes people a long time to even absorb what happened to them. Sometimes people don’t want to do that, or to engage the disciplinary process, because the person who may have violated the policy is in their social circle, or maybe was a friend, or remains a friend in some measure.

There’s also no time limit on engaging the disciplinary process. In addition, the GBMO houses investigators who are all newly hired and deeply trained. Prof. Goldberg said she has sat in on some of the training, as well as the training for hearing panelists.

Prof. Goldberg paused before her review of the policy itself to ask how many senators had read the policy. A majority raised their hands. She said the answer she often gets in other forums is zero.

The first feature of the policy that Prof. Goldberg mentioned is that it is written for students. She hoped senators agreed with her that the policy is accessibly written. It is designed to be read not by lawyers, but by people without legal training. It sets out clearly what kinds of accommodations students can receive, whether they choose to engage the disciplinary policy or not. Sometimes, if they’ve experienced sexual violence, they need to change an exam, change housing, change a course, or get an extension on a paper or a no-contact order.

Because the law, Title IX, talks about “confidential” and “non-confidential” resources, many students may worry that since the Gender-Based Misconduct Office is a non-confidential office, their information will suddenly appear on the university website, or in some report.

But non-confidential does not mean non-private here. The GBMO recognizes its obligation to protect students’ privacy. So if they’re seeking an accommodation for somebody, they don’t reveal what happened. In addition, the university will never comment on an individual student’s case, even if the student is public about their experience of sexual violence. There are federal privacy laws about this situation, but more fundamentally, at least from her perspective, no student should ever feel that if they engage the process, the university might one day comment on their case.

Prof. Goldberg said PACSA endorsed the new policy in August. The committee has since met once in person, and meetings for the rest of the semester are scheduled. A subcommittee on communications has already met, and is designing ways to receive input from the community, and advice that can be presented to President Bollinger.

Sen. Raimondo Betti (Ten., SEAS), co-chair of the Faculty Affairs Committee, said he generally agreed with Prof. Goldberg, but admitted he hadn’t read the policy. He brought up an issue that the committee had discussed at length. He said policies on gender-based misconduct should make clear in detail who does what, and who is responsible for what. He said there is a risk that in solving one problem the University is creating another one.

A grievance that came to the committee involved a professor who was suspended from teaching last spring largely on the basis of an anonymous claim in a Courseworks teaching evaluation that he made inappropriate sexual comments in class.

This professor had the good fortune to have his lectures recorded for the Columbia Video Network. The Title IX investigators went through the videotapes and found no evidence of inappropriate comments. But he had already been suspended before he was found guilty—or, in this case, innocent. So the dean’s office said, “We asked the Title IX coordinator, and they said suspending the professor from teaching is an ‘option.’” But the result was to mark the professor’s name. Sen. Betti doubted that people later went around saying, “Those allegations against the professor weren’t true.” What’s done is done.

Sen. Betti that it should be very clearly spelled out in the policy who is responsible for what. He said he understood the need for confidentiality, but anonymous comments on Courseworks should not be used as the basis for investigations of faculty. This issue needs to be carefully addressed in the policy.
Prof. Goldberg first made clear that the policy she had been discussing—covering misconduct perpetrated by students—was separate from the policy Sen. Betti had raised, which addresses violations committed by faculty and other employees. She said she did not know the case Sen. Betti had raised, but said Sen. Betti’s bigger point was the importance of a process that is fair to all. She said the student policy is designed with two ultimate goals in mind. One is sensitivity to the students involved, because issues of sexual violence can be sensitive all the way around, and the same is true for faculty and staff. And the second is fairness to both accuser and accused, who are both Columbia students or employees. Are some situations complicated because there’s a balance to be struck in protecting the rights of both accuser and accused? Yes, she said. In life these issues are complicated.

Sen. Paige West (Fac., Barnard), a fellow member of Faculty Affairs and member of the Barnard Anthropology Dept., appreciated Prof. Goldberg’s presentation, as well as the work the University had done on this issue—particularly its rapidity.

She raised the subject of the comments section at the end of Spectator articles as an example of the current social world of the University. She said the word “stunning” understates the impact of these comments on her. She understood that undergraduates live in a world that faculty don’t inhabit, but asked if the university is doing anything, systematically, to help students understand the social consequences of the way that they talk about sexual assault publicly and privately and anonymously, on the internet. A number of students, from both Barnard College and Columbia College, have come to her office and spoken of “triggers” in these comments. She asked for a conversation about survivors of sexual assault, and how they’re working through their time at Columbia, with this issue so much on a public stage.

Prof. Goldberg said that Above the Law, a blog for law students, also exhibits a stunning level of racism, misogyny and anti-gay sentiments. The comments about sexual assault there are sometimes not only cavalier, but also aggressive, suggesting that sexual assault is a punishment for certain statements or actions. She also mentioned recent rape threats against women in the gaming world.

Prof. Goldberg said one approach the university is taking to this problem is to frame some of the prevention and education work on sexual violence in broader terms—of community standards, and our responsibility to one another. All new undergraduates will be going through what’s called Step-up Training, a program from the University of Arizona about bystander intervention. But what is particularly valuable about the way it has been presented at Columbia, is the connection it makes between stepping up and being part of a community. The way people speak about gender dynamics and interact with other members of the university is a critical part of who they are, and what it means to part of this community. This issue is vital, too, for, for many of students who don’t want to have this conversation, either because they think they’ve already heard too much of it, or because it’s so challenging.

Prof. Goldberg said the problem of triggering for students who have survived sexual violence is a challenge. She said there is debate in the academic world now about the appropriateness of trigger warnings, with some saying that trigger warnings are themselves traumatizing. This is not a simple conversation. Her quick answer is that Columbia at least has tremendous resources for survivors. She said most survivors are not public in the way a very small number choose to be. The University can at least reinforce the idea that there are many different ways of being a student here, and of assimilating one’s own or a friend’s experience of sexual violence.

Sen. Lisa Northrop (Fac., Barnard) asked, first, about the qualitative difference in the training that new investigators have undergone, and, second, about the discontent that some Harvard law faculty have expressed about their university’s new sexual assault policy, and how that might relate to Columbia’s new policy.

Prof. Goldberg said she began her current role in mid-July and couldn’t speak to the training investigators had received previously. But she could say confidently, after sitting in on some of the trainings, that the new investigators are deeply trained. Some of the training is conducted by members of the law firm of former heads of the sex crimes prosecution units in the Manhattan DA’s office, which is famous for its handling of sexual assault. Other trainers are non-lawyer experts in the dynamics of sexual assault, including the complex task of figuring out what happened between two students, particularly if drinking or drug use was involved. A careful, sensitive, step-by-step inquiry often finds that the situations are not just a matter of “he said/she said” or “everybody was drunk.” She said the trainings (and she has worked in this field for a while) are excellent.

On the Harvard policy, Prof. Goldberg said there is concern that its investigation roles and adjudication roles are combined in the same unit, even in the same people. The Columbia policy—like most other policies, actually—clearly separates these roles. So Harvard’s approach is unusual, and she could say, after participating in a teach-in there for faculty a few weeks ago, that the Harvard policy is actively in development.

Prof. Goldberg’s final comment on the Columbia policy was that it’s probably the best in the country. She had not looked at every single policy in the country, but had seen many, and none of them were as good as Columbia’s. When she sent Columbia’s policy to colleagues at some peer institutions, more than one responded that their policy offers nothing like the resources Columbia has. She said Columbia’s policy could certainly be improved—and it actually invites suggestions for improvement going forward--but it is now a national model.

Sen. O’Halloran thanked both Prof. Goldberg and Susan Glancy, the president’s chief of staff, for chairing PACSA. She said PACSA will monitor the new policy as well as the collection of aggregate data, and produce an annual report to the Senate. She introduced Melissa Rooker to speak about the September 23 release of aggregate data on sexual assault.

Ms. Rooker’s remarks. Ms. Rooker said the data release was really a look backward, at the experience of a policy that has now been superseded. It includes information on reports of violations of gender-based misconduct policies during the 2013-14 academic year. But it also summarizes the steps to enhance its prevention and response efforts that Columbia has already taken (and that Prof. Goldberg had discussed).

Ms. Rooker said the point of releasing the data was to improve community understanding of sexual violence and how the university is addressing it, to encourage efforts to prevent gender-based misconduct, and to support the creation of a campus environment that rejects this behavior. The data release is one contribution to an ongoing conversation on gender-based misconduct.

Ms. Rooker said the structure of the data presentation in the September 23 report was based on recommendations that PACSA made to President Bollinger at the end of the last academic year, and that she reported to the Senate. Specifically, the data includes all reports of violations to Student Services for Gender-Based and Sexual Misconduct, in which a student in any school affiliated with Columbia University, including Teachers College and Barnard College, was the respondent. All of these cases were reviewed under the August 2013 misconduct policies for students. Again, that policy was superseded on August 15 of this year, and the gender-based misconduct office is now being revamped.

Ms. Rooker said it was important to acknowledge that the data in the September 23 report does not provide a complete picture because students sometimes choose not to go through formal processes, preferring to go to confidential sources. But the university is committed to continuing to produce these reports over time. There will also be a "climate" survey, which will provide more detailed data on what is actually happening on campus.

Ms. Rooker invited questions.

Sen. Samuel Silverstein (Ten., P&S) asked whether the reporting regime will show whether the number of incidents is rising or falling. Will confidential data be included somehow in the tally of incidents?

Ms. Rooker said the August 15 policy document explains how confidential reporting is handled. Some confidential sources are obliged to report some non-specific information to Public Safety for Clery reporting purposes. But she said it was important for everyone to consider what information of this kind is available, to understand current trends on campus. The climate survey will help with this effort.

Prof. Goldberg said this is a real challenge, because there are clear limitations on what the confidential sources can report. In addition, some students don’t make use of any of these confidential resources; some go to St. Luke’s Hospital nearby, which has its own crime-victims protection, and medical and counseling services. Prof. Goldberg doubted there will ever be comprehensive data on the number or types of incidents that happen on the campus. But the University is working next semester with people at the School of Public Health and elsewhere to try to track the effectiveness of some of its efforts. This will enhance the information Ms. Rooker had described.

Sen. Silverstein asked if there was a way to get consent from confidential complainants to use some of their information. This would provide a better indication of the success of the university’s efforts.

Prof. Goldberg said there will be many different measures of success. But she said that in general confidential sources would not be able to ask complainants for consent. This is partly because of state certification requirements for counselors who work in sexual violence response, but also because complainants should not even have to think about revealing information that they bring to a confidential resource.

At the same time, Prof. Goldberg said, the University can do more, with climate surveys and the other measures she and Ms. Rooker had discussed, to round out the picture of sexual misconduct on campus. But it is also true that no matter what measures the University puts in place, the number of incidents of sexual violence will not be reduced to zero. We live in a world where this occurs, and Columbia is a microcosm of that world. What can be measured, to some degree, is, students’ sense of their capacity to intervene and to protect themselves and their friends, their sense that this is an important part of their membership in the community.

Sen. O’Halloran said there was no more time for questions. She thanked both speakers for their presentations.

--The officers’ benefits package for 2015. Fiona McLennan, Assistant Vice President
for Benefits, presented a report that was closely based on a PowerPoint presentation that was projected on the screen. The following questions and comments were interspersed throughout her report.
Sen. Breslow asked whether officers now covered by Aetna will have to get new United Healthcare insurance cards and whether their current providers will accept the new cards.

Ms. McLennan said there will be no more Aetna or Cigna cards. She said a key reason why Columbia chose United Healthcare was that the provider-facility match for Columbia officers is 98.5%--higher than Aetna or Cigna. Columbia has made special arrangements for the very few people who will be disrupted: for the office whose preferred provider who has not signed on with the UHC network (despite UHC’s continuing recruiting efforts), Columbia will provide a “transition of care” benefit for the first half of 2015 as if the provider were still in the UHC network. After those six months, officers can either find a UHC provider, or continue with the other provider on an out-of-network basis.

Sen. Greg Freyer (NT, Public Health) asked if coverage for fertility treatments applies to same-sex couples.

Ms. McLennan said the fertility benefit and the surrogacy benefit both cover same-sex couples. According to state law, the actual cost of paying the surrogate is not covered. But the medical expenses are covered.

Sen. Betti raised the issue of coverage for a treatment for autism called Applied Behavioral Analysis, about which he had already written to Ms. McLennan. He said ABA has shown promise, but is extremely expensive. Was there any update on this situation?

Ms. McLennan said that during evaluation of the 2015 benefits package with the leadership (Provost Coatsworth, Senior Executive Vice President Robert Kasdin, and CUMC EVP Lee Goldman), the impact and the cost of offering ABA was considered. Benchmarking against Ivy peers showed that some offer ABA in some form, and some don’t. There was some consultation with the Medical Center. It was agreed that ABA is expensive and would significantly affect health plan costs. The decision was not to provide coverage for other autism therapies in 2015, but not ABA.

Sen. Betti acknowledged the cost of ABA. He said ABA has been found to be most effective with young children, who tend to belong to the families of junior and other nontenured faculty members. The monthly cost of ABA (around $6K) is most onerous for these families. Sen. Betti noted that some states require ABA coverage. He had heard estimates that adding ABA coverage to the health plan might cost each officer about $1 per month in health premiums. He said this benefit might make a big difference for young families joining the university.

Ms. McLennan said final decisions have been made for 2015. She said there will be a chance for her to discuss this matter further with Sen. Betti in the benefits subcommittee of the Faculty Affairs Committee.

In response to another question, Ms. McLennan explained that UHC, at Columbia’s request, was contacting providers—mainly in behavioral health—without knowing which Columbia officers are using them, to encourage them to join the UHC network.

Sen. Silverstein said many officers would be more comfortable if they had been informed of the transition-of-care arrangement.

Ms. McLennan said this information was communicated in a global email announcement of July 10, and it is all available online now.

Sen. Breslow asked about the results of efforts by peer institutions to consolidate health care with a single vendor.

Ms. McLennan said various peer institutions have undergone similar consolidations. The real advantage with UHC was that Columbia was able to negotiate a far better arrangement for its officers, and not just financially. The biggest issue for individuals in using the plan is not the vendor, but the provider network. Many employers, instead of offering a six-month transition period as Columbia has, would offer only three months, or even one month.

Ms. McLennan said UHC also offers a unique way to support the employee population. She had visited a highly integrated service center in Buffalo, which addresses general questions about eligibility as well as detailed claims processing. There is also a dedicated team of nurses on site. Algorithms effectively route callers to the appropriate destination. The clinical person you reach, the nurse, will remain your family’s contact person going forward.

Ms. McLennan anticipated improvements in services, as well as financial benefits, which will be felt in a slower rate of increase in premiums.

Sen. Breslow said he was asking a different question, about the challenge of competing for faculty on all bases, not just salaries but everything, including health care plans. Do peer institutions use UHC?
Ms. McLennan said Columbia designs the plan, so it’s a self-insured plan. All the vendor does, aside from the network issues, is process claims. Every large employer and higher institution now manages their health care plan this way. So there’s no issue of competiveness.

Sen. Pieter Vanhove (Stu., GSAS/Hum) said the Aetna plan for students offers no dental or vision coverage. He asked if the university is also moving students to UHC and, if so, would the new plan provide dental and vision coverage.

Ms. McLennan said she does not manage student health plans. She referred Sen. Vanhove to Health Services.

New Business
Ph.D. in Historic Preservation (GSAPP)--Education Committee. Sen. Mary Byrne (NT, Nursing) presented the degree proposal for the committee. She said the Graduate School of Architecture, Preservation, and Planning has presented a Ph.D. to complement the two doctoral programs in already offers in architecture and in planning. If approved, this will be the first Ph.D. in preservation in the U.S. and the third in the world. The Ph.D. template is typical of U.S. Ph.D. programs, with two years of required course work, followed by three years in residency, during which the dissertation is proposed and produced. Sen. Byrne said the Education Committee had approved the program.

Sen. Breslow raised the hypothetical issue of whether a quorum was needed to vote on the present proposal.

Mr. Jacobson, the parliamentarian, asked for a small edit to the resolution, making clear that though the program is conducted in GSAPP, this Ph.D., like all Ph.D.’s, will be awarded by the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences. As a result, this program will not have to be added to the University Statutes as a new type of degree.

Sen. Moss-Salentijn, speaking for the Education Committee, accepted this amendment as friendly.

Sen. Silverstein suggested, in view of the departure of many senators from the present meeting, that the Senate begin discussion of the proposal now, and vote on it at the next plenary.

Sen. O’Halloran said her decision on the procedural issue was to proceed to a vote now. She asked for further substantive discussion. There being none, the Senate then voted without dissent to adopt the resolution to establish a new Ph.D. in Preservation.

Sen. O’Halloran then adjourned the meeting at about 2:50 pm.

Respectfully submitted,

Tom Mathewson, Senate staff