|
|
|
|
Stanford Report, May 5, 2004 |
|
|
Faculty Senate minutes April 29 meeting TO THE MEMBERS OF SUMMARY OF ACTIONS At its meeting on Thursday, April 29, 2004, the Thirty-sixth Senate of the Academic Council heard reports and took the following actions: 1. By unanimous vote Senate recommended that the Committee on Research shall reconsider the changes that it recommended in the Proposal to Revise Faculty Policy on Conflict of Commitment and Interest.
EDWARD D. HARRIS, JR., M.D. Academic Secretary to the University MINUTES
I. Call to Order As a quorum accumulated, Chairman Wasow called the meeting to order at 3:17 p.m. II. Approval of Minutes http://facultysenate. The minutes of the April 15th meeting were approved as submitted by the Academic Secretary. III. Action Calendar This was empty. Standing Reports A. Memorial Resolutions Chairman Wasow welcomed Rush Rehm, Professor of Drama, to present a memorial statement in honor of Martin Esslin, professor emeritus of Drama. Also present today were members of the committee, professor emeritus Carl Weber, professor emeritus Wendell Cole, and Mrs. Cole, close friends of professor Esslin. The full memorial resolution was included in the Senate packets and will be published in next week's Stanford Report. Professor Rehm began, Martin Esslin, professor emeritus of Drama died on February 24th, 2002, at the age of 83, in London. He served at Stanford from 1977 until 1988. He received many honorary degrees and was awarded the Order of the British Empire. He was born as Julius Pereszlenyi in 1918 in Budapest and was educated in Vienna when the approach of the Nazis drove him into exile. Arriving in England and changing his last name to Esslin, Martin worked for the BBC, rose to head of European productions in 1955, and eventually was named head of Radio Drama in 1963. Under his leadership, the BBC commissioned hundreds of radio plays each year, including works by avant-garde dramatists such as Samuel Beckett, John Arden, Harold Pinter, Tom Stoppard, and others. Martin's ground-breaking books included Brecht: A Choice of Evils, The Theater of the Absurd, The Genius of the German Theater, and Pinter: the Playwright, Artaud, The Age of Television, and a host of others. Martin's many talents and tireless energy reflected a marvelous mix of wunderkind, artist, journalist, scholar, raconteur, and ultimately, survivor. Although a very learned man, he had no time for intellectual obfuscation He tackled big topics, and wrote about them clearly in an intellectually compelling fashion. His lectures had comparable depth and clarity, even when fashioned on the spot. While in no way religious, Martin did like to tell the story of a Catholic society in a small university town. He gave his talk, and the chairwoman of the society came up afterwards and said, "You are just the kind of man we need in the Church." Martin last came to Stanford in the summer of 2001, seven months before his death. Although fighting Parkinson's disease, he delivered a memorable address for the Continuing Studies Program conference on Eugene Ionesco, an old friend of his, and Ionesco's classic play, The Chairs, a classic piece of theater of the absurd. Not only did the occasion allow Martin to revisit a topic he had made into a household word, but it brought him back to Stanford, where, as he told us that day, he had lived the happiest years of his life. Mr. Chairman, it is an honor on behalf the of the committee to lay before the Senate of the Academic Council a resolution in memory of the late Martin Julius Esslin, professor of Drama. Chairman Wasow thanked Professor Rhem and asked the senate to stand for the traditional moment of silence. Then he welcomed "Professor Ann Weinacker, Department of Medicine, to present the memorial resolution in honor of Professor James Theodore. The full memorial resolution was included in Senate packets and will be published in next week's Stanford Report." Professor Weinacker said, Thank you for the opportunity to do this. Dr. James Theodore, former chief of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, former director of the Stanford University Heart, Lung, and Lung Transplantation program, and a very active professor emeritus since his formal retirement in 2001, died at his home on August 17th, 2003, surrounded by family and very close friends at the age of 67 after a short but quite fierce battle with cancer. Jim was a nationally and internationally recognized leader in heart, lung, and lung transplantation. He graduated from the University of Pittsburgh in 1958 and from the University of Pittsburgh Medical School in 1962. He was also very proud to have been an All-American football player in high school and a star halfback at Pitt with an eight-year full scholarship to both undergraduate and medical school. His internship and residency in internal medicine were spent at the University of Pittsburgh and at Barnes Hospital at Washington University in St. Louis. He was an NIH research fellow in Pulmonary Medicine for three years at the University of Pittsburgh. His early Research was focused on basic lung biology, bioenergetics, and ion transport. Following his residency and fellowship, he was a major in the United States Air Force for two years, from 1968 to 1970. Jim came to Stanford as an assistant professor in 1970 and he spent the next 33 years helping to build a strong division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine and a world-renowned heart, lung, and lung transplantation program. He served from 1973 to 1982 as the chief of the division of Pulmonary Medicine and received tenure in 1977. Jim Theodore was the first investigator to describe obliterative bronchiolitis as the principal rejection syndrome associated with lung transplantation. His scholarship earned him NIH support and numerous other grants, including a pulmonary academic award, a pulmonary division fellowship training program, and two program project grants in critical care of heart and heart/lung transplantation patients. He wrote 200 papers, book chapters, and editorials during his career and was an invited lecturer nationally and internationally. Dr. Theodore's curriculum vitae can attest to his academic and professional accomplishments. Those of us who were fortunate to know him, however, will remember him for his compassion, generosity, his sense of humor, his sense of fairness, his gruff but truly caring manner, and his love of medicine. He was a wonderful physician and teacher who taught by example and he was beloved by the hundreds of patients and students he influenced during his years at Stanford. He was a role model and an inspiration, and he played an active role in pulmonary and critical care medicine and the heart/lung transplantation program until shortly before his death. It is an honor on behalf of a committee consisting of Dr. Thomas Raffin, Jose Maldonado, and myself, Ann Weinacker, to lay before the Senate of the Academic Council a resolution in memory of the late James Theodore, M.D. Professor of Medicine in the Stanford University School of Medicine. Chairman Wasow thanked Dr. Weinacker and asked the senators to stand for the traditional moment of silence. B. Steering Committee The Chair warned the Senate that the meeting on May 29th or 27th (whichever date is a Thursday...the ASO gave him - by mistake - these two to choose from) could be a long one in order to listen to the requisite number of reports scheduled for that day. He then reminded the Senate that there would be "...an informal executive session downstairs in the Moot Courtroom to hear a report from the Planning and Policy Board." C. Committee on Committees No report today, it was noted, but by next meeting it was likely that all its work for this spring would be completed. D. Reports from the President and the Provost Neither the President nor Provost had a report to deliver, which prompted Professor Hastorf to ask, "What are you guys doing?" The President assured Hastorf that he did not want to know the answer to that one! The Provost, in wistful jest, said that he had been on vacation. E. Open Forum Professor Gardner said "I'll comment that Robin Mamlet and her colleagues in the Admissions office did a phenomenal job on the "Admissions weekend." And, as seen from the vantage point of high school students, I know her reputation is just soaring. I had an interesting encounter in the eucalyptus grove with a parent whose daughter fell in love with our school. And it was a very interesting conversation, because it's very clear that this university's admission weekend stands out. I think that we should express great gratitude to Robin Mamlet, and everybody else in her office." Professor Gardner added the disclaimer that not until next year would her daughter be applying to college. Dean Bienenstock explained the details about the summer TAs and the FICA tax issue that was not explicated sufficiently at the April 15th meeting of the Senate. "We have, in the past, allowed graduate students who are teaching assistants to register as 100 percent full time students over the summer. They have also enrolled in a special course, 501. Recently, there's been a change in IRS regulations requiring that if a student is employed full time during the summer, his or her earnings would become subject to the FICA tax, whereas, in the past, that hasn't been the case. We reviewed the situation and have proposed that students who might otherwise be employed 100 percent time register for three units and be employed for 90% full time during summer term. Under these circumstances they will lose only $80 over the summer. The institution will give them a tuition grant. It's the best deal all around. Of course, many faculty employ their students at less than full time now and less than 90 percent time over the summer. This option remains." He assured the Senate that notification of this recommendation would be sent to each dean. Provost Etchemendy, agreeing with Dr. Gardner's praise of the Admissions office, reminded the Senate that this weekend, "...actually, beginning tomorrow, we have a Minority Alumni Weekend reunion, to which each of you is invited. There are some fantastic events that are going to go on." V. Other Reports A. Committee on Research: Proposal to revise the Faculty Policy on Conflict of Commitment and Interest (CCI). (SenD#5580) Presenting the recommendation from her seat in the top row was Professor Elisabeth Paté-Cornell, chair of the Committee on Research. Also in attendance were Dean of Research Arthur Bienenstock and Senior Associate Dean Ann Arvin, and legal counsel Tom Fenner. The Faculty Senate approved the CCI in April, 1994. Today, the Committee on Research recommended the adoption of "clarifying language, as shown on the attached red-lined version" (accomplished by use of the Tracking tool on Word). Professor Paté-Cornell began. "The Committee on Research was asked to review this policy particularly for the thresholds for significant financial interests in light of our practice over the years since its original adoption. Starting at the beginning of the policy, these are the points that I would like to highlight for you." The first recommendation was to revise "1. Faculty must maintain a significant physical presence on campus (main or overseas) throughout each quarter [that] they are on active duty." Professor Paté-Cornell explained. "While some 'virtual presence' is certainly acceptable, reliance on e-mail and electronic connections to satisfy the 'full presence on campus requirement' was, in the committee's view, unacceptable. In other words, a professor cannot vanish in cyberspace." It was obvious to the Senate that no one, in 1994, would have foreseen the need for this change. On page 6 the following sentence was inserted near the end of the Section 2. titled "Limitations on Outside Professional Activities". It reads: " Normally, it will be necessary for faculty to take a full leave of absence from University responsibilities in order to take on a significant management role in an outside entity; doing so while on sabbatical is not appropriate." Paté-Cornell added the comment that "... the proposed sentence being added here is not new policy. It's added as a clarification to address a frequent question to deans and the provost. Faculty may not take on a significant management responsibility in a company unrelated to Stanford while on sabbatical. That is not what sabbatical is for." The next change was in Section 6 titled "Faculty Involvement in Outside Entities that have Relations with Stanford." Paté-Cornell noted that "the proposed policy redefines 'significant financial interest.' As written in 1994, the policy requires a faculty member who is accepting funding from, or is involved in, an agreement with an outside entity to disclose his or her financial interest in that entity only when there is an equity interest valued at 0.5 percent ownership or more than $100,000." This section, defining "significant financial interests" was replaced with: For this purpose, "significant financial interests" means: - any current or pending ownership interests (including shares, partnership, or derivative interests such as stock options), in a privately-held entity, e.g., in a "start up" company. - Any current or pending ownership interests (including shares, partnership stake, or derivative interests such as stock options), amounting to at least one-half percent (0.5%) of a publicly-traded company's equity, or at least $10,000 in ownership interests (except when the ownership interest is managed by a third party such as a mutual fund.) - Any licensing or other income amounting to at least $10,000 per year. Professor Paté-Cornell said, "The committee would like to point out that this threshold comes into play whenever a faculty member is involved with gifts, sponsored projects, procurements, or technology licensing agreements with an outside entity, or when a faculty member has a financial interest in that entity. "Now, let's talk a little bit about procurement. We added the distinction that a faculty member's financial interest must be disclosed when that faculty member is involved with procurements reaching $5,000 or more over the course of a year. This is to avoid technical noncompliance in cases where a faculty member who has shares of 3M, for example, is involved in a decision to buy Post-Its. We are also anticipating in this policy the rollout of the electronic format for disclosure. You will remember that I described this in the C-RES annual report to the Senate two years ago. We expect it will be operational this fall. Other changes to this policy were suggested by the General Counsel's office." Near the end of Section 6, the following paragraph was revised (additions underlined): Common sense must prevail in the interpretation of these provisions. That is, if an independent observer might reasonably question whether the individual's professional actions or decisions are determined by considerations of personal gain, it should be disclosed and approval sought for the propose arrangement. Questions and Discussion The Leave vs. Sabbatical Issue Professor Kreps asked about a colleague who was at Stanford half time, and in management responsibilities for a company the other half. Does the dean have "wiggle room" to approve this arrangement, he asked? Professor Bienenstock said, "Yes, that was the intent of the committee... one would seek approval." Provost Etchemendy agreed, and emphasized that there was no real change in University policy in this wording or its intent. Professor Simoni asked for explanation on exclusion of sabbatical time for certain kinds of activities. "I suspect I know what the response will be. But I can also imagine a circumstance where, in fact, going off and doing something in industry is consistent with professional growth, professional advancement and will, in fact, bring something back to one's duties at Stanford quite in a way we commend for other activities." Professor Paté-Cornell said, "We had very interesting discussions and animated discussions about this. It took us back to the purpose of sabbatical. We decided that, on balance, the management role that one would have in a company like this was not fully satisfied in terms of the sabbatical time, which is to refresh one's knowledge of one's field and to do further publication of research findings. We concluded that getting involved in the management and commercial aspects of a company did not satisfy the intent, on the whole, of a true sabbatical as defined by Stanford. I agree with you that, occasionally, faculty who take these management positions do learn something that they can bring back." Professor Arvin added that "...in fact, when one is on sabbatical, the faculty member is still an employee of the University. So the point here is to discourage employment in a management role as an employee, not to discourage useful sabbatical effort in a company." Professor Gardner harkened back in memory to her time away in a company. "I remember my own first sabbatical, where I had complete permission from the president of the University to do a sabbatical in a management role, that taught me an enormous amount which I have been able to share with students through the years since then. I can imagine so many kinds of sabbatical in the medical field, for example. There are so many things you learn in industry about regulatory affairs, about clinical trials, that you could never learn in the academic world." The provost reemphasized that the change in wording was not a change in our policy. "It's a clarification of our policy. It's always been our policy. During a sabbatical one is an employee while on sabbatical. Sabbaticals are designed for renewal and professional development, not for having another job. Now it may be that having another job is also a very educational experience and helps in professional development, but if that's the case, the faculty member needs to ask for an exception." Etchemendy agreed with Gardner that if a management position was part of sabbatical time, the only extra salary that one could make would be the equivalent of twenty percent of Stanford salary allowed for consulting. Professor Simoni needed "...one small clarification. If I wanted to go off and do management of a company or something, what kind of leave would I take? It says 'full leave, right? Is there full leave with salary? Is there such a thing?" That provoked laughter, and everyone told him, "NO!" After this prelude, he continued. "My worry is that eliminating the sabbatical option will, in fact, really push violation of the 13 days per quarter rule. Because for people who can't do this without some salary, there would be no option." Professor Simoni was also interested in the frequent changes in the document that changed "which" for "that". [To Professor Simoni from the Academic Secretary: "If you come across the need to use 'which' or 'that'... always use 'that'. As examples, ' He asked me which stocks I bought.' One would never consider using 'that' in this sentence. But, in the heading in this set of recommendations (page 9) 'Faculty involvement in outside entities that have relations with Stanford', you would consider use of 'which'...but don't do it. All clear?]. The $10,000 limit issue Professor Fortmann asked, "How was the threshold of $10,000 chosen I take conflict of interest and conflict of commitment very seriously and try to remain in compliance, and I have to deal with this a lot, being in the medical field, since whenever I give a lecture, I have to disclose similar issues. The thresholds aren't usually this low, which I find to be difficult in the arena of owning stock in publicly traded companies. It is not difficult to own $10,000 worth of stock in a publicly traded company. I don't know what stock I own at any given time, because someone else manages it for me. In addition, it would be easy for my group could buy $5,000 worth of equipment from Hewlett-Packard in some given year, and I might very well own some shares of Hewlett-Packard. I found it rather refreshing that Stanford's threshold was a reasonable one, at $100,000. I guess that's too high. But I would give the opinion that $10,000 is too low." Professor Paté-Cornell responded that C-RES had researched this and came to this number from what it thought was consistent with other institutions, and what C-RES thought was consistent with common sense. She emphasized that the restrictions apply only to those companies in which faculty are involved actively, and not retirement funds. Senior Associate Dean of Research Ann Arvin noted that " ...the $10,000 number is the one that's used by NIH. The other point is that the disclosure is required only when the activity involves your Stanford program or programs. It is not a blanket disclosure." Much discussion followed, with contributions by many senators and administrators. Some of the major points were: * It would be a substantial amount of work to know, with fluctuating market values of stocks, whether one's portfolios -- perhaps managed by an investment broker -- could contain a stock related to one's research and have it slip up over the $10,000 limit. * That NIH probably hasn't revised its limits for decades * That there should be a clear distinction made between "active" and "passive" investment. * That a faculty member would have to tell his or her investment advisor not to buy stock in any company from which one might procure high-priced equipment * The limits that most corporations use are $100,000, or 0.5 to 1.0 percent of equity positions. * In the medical center, where many varied opportunities for clinical trials arise, not only would it possibly take much time to check on one's investment holdings, but, as Professor Gardner put it, "I feel that it might be regressive to our own effective entrepreneurial activity, the ability to translate our research into good help and health for society, which I happen to think is a very positive thing, not a negative thing." * Professor Eric Roberts focused attention on page 12 that states that faculty should "...disclose information about relationships with outside organizations that are potential sponsors of our teaching and research. So that means that I have to be able to guess what companies our Development Office may be able to persuade to give money that might support my research. That's completely impossible." Professor Bienenstock, Dean of Research, defended the $100,000 limit. "I was very uneasy about this at first. I shared the feelings of the speakers before, and yet, in the end, decided that this $10,000 limit was wise in terms of relations with the government." Provost Etchemendy pointed out that although he agreed with the intent of the $10,000 limit, there needed to be more explicit wording in the Policy. "If we keep that change and if, in fact, we understand the exclusion to mean third parties such as a mutual fund or investment advisor, then I would actually like to see that somehow reflected in the policy, because there will be faculty who don't see that interpretation from the current wording. If we keep the $10,000 limit, we really should make it clear that we do not mean this to apply to individuals who have a separate financial advisor and don't know what they are investing in. I am taking a position on wanting clarity of wording." President Hennessy added, "I think there's a bigger problem here. I think the combination of the $10,000 limit and the procurement laws are simply unenforceable. We will create a situation where there are lots of incidental violations. Imagine this scenario: You have $10,000 worth of Dell stock, a very small amount for a company the size of Dell. You buy some computers. In reality, you don't buy them, the procurement office buys them for you. You don't even know what model they will buy. All of a sudden, they buy that last computer that takes you over the $5,000 limit. You didn't report this to the dean and even though you did not know what happened, you've now violated University policy. "I guarantee you, this will not work. We are setting up a rule that faculty will innocently violate. Imagine... Yahoo has a great earnings report. Stock goes up. Boom, you've got to disclose! Then we will have the auditing problems, both internal and external." He felt, in contrast to Dean Bienenstock, that this wording of the policy would invite more, not less, government surveillance. At this point, Professor Gelber moved, and Professor Gardner seconded, a motion to ask the C-RES to reconsider the changes that it recommended in the policy. Since this was not a direct motion to table the recommendation, discussion of the Gelber motion was permitted. Inevitably, however, comments about the recommendation itself spilled out from an animated Senate. After a few minutes, however, the motion was voted upon, and was passed unanimously. B. Report on the Overseas Study Program (OSP) (SenD#5533) Professor Wasow was pleased to welcome "...Professor Amos Nur, who is the director of OSP. Our Senate colleague, Hester Gelber, serves as the academic associate director of the program." Professor Nur began. "I'm sorry that Mac Beasley isn't here, [Beasley is in Korea] because he got me into this job, and he told me four years ago that it's a 40 percent time job, two days a week, and one or two months in the summer. It turns out that it is a 140 percent-time job and four months in the summer!" "I will try to give you a concise and quick summary of what OSP has done during the last four years and where we think we'd like to go. Unlike the previous discussion, OSP works only with undergraduates. One of the first things we did four years ago is we tried to sort of formulate a mission statement. It is as follows: The goal of Stanford's Overseas Studies Program is to provide through education abroad as profound an experience as possible for as many undergraduates as possible In order to enable more students to go abroad, OSP has added to the traditional quarter-long experiences at Stanford centers two other types: (1) Seminars that are 2 and 1/2 to 3 weeks long, led by Stanford faculty (modeled after the Sophomore College seminars), and (2) Seminars led by faculty for an entire quarter. He went on to list the student enrollment over the past three years, increasing from 477 in '01-02 to 506 in '03-'04. Oxford is the favorite site (138 students this year) while, because of diminishing student interest, the Buenos Aires and Puebla (Mexico) sites will be closed after this year. Paris, Santiago, and Florence are the next on the popularity list, followed by Berlin, Kyoto, Moscow, and a new one, Australia's barrier reef [which will, no doubt, become increasingly popular]. Centers in the past in Austria, Spain, Poland, and Israel ran for a few years and were closed. Moscow, [for some unknown reason] is not very popular in the winter term, and this component of it will probably be closed down. Majors that OSP students are enrolled in at Stanford are International Relations (130, two years ago), followed by Economics, English, History, Political Science, and Computer Science. The percentage of total majors that have students in OSP (two years ago)is highest for English and International Relations, and lowest (~25%) for Computer Science and Biological Sciences. "Our goal," said Professor Nur, "is to have 40% of all Stanford students have an OSP experience." Professor Nur was excited about the opening of a center in China. "We are about to open the Beijing program in September 2004, a few months from now." And as for Australia, "Last year, for the first time, we opened an Australia program. It's based on the Great Barrier Reef. The curriculum is more broad than the expected ecology and biology. It is fully subscribed, 48 students. That's our capacity there now. In the future, we could add another quarter if we wanted to. We began an Australia program because of the low participation by biology students. On the Barrier Reef, the students spend six weeks doing research on islands and three weeks in the rainforest. But they actually work extremely hard. I went to the final presentations they made in Brisbane at the end of the quarter. Each one of them did a term project for the entire quarter. And they said 'No one at Stanford works as hard' as they did over those ten weeks. I asked them, 'Should we reduce the workload?' And they said, absolutely not!" Another goal will be to have the cost/student decreased to ~$12,000 per quarter, about the amount that students pay to go to the Stanford campus for a term. The cost/student at Kyoto and Moscow is now $20,500 and $18,500, respectively...and these must come down. Australia is much less, ~$9,000 [ perhaps because the students don't need many clothes]. Professor Nur was encouraged to move quickly through his slides because the Senate would be compelled to leave soon for Executive Session, so he hurried through slides on his budget. Fifty-five percent of funding from OSP comes from the General Fund, 13 percent from the President's fund, 21 percent from the students' room and board fund, and 14 percent from gifts. He closed by noting that "...two days ago, New York Times, it was reported that Harvard finally has decided that maybe they need to have seminars for undergraduates, more science and overseas studies, while Stanford has been doing that at least for many years!" Questions and Discussion Professor Eric Roberts said, "I shared this with Amos earlier. I'm on the Committee of Visitors for Harvard College. At our last meeting we talked about overseas studies. The word was that this fall they wanted to have more overseas opportunities. Since I had just returned from the Oxford program last year as a faculty member, I was able to give them the Web site of how they should do it. I think that they are looking at Stanford's Overseas Study Program as the model for Harvard." Professor Gardner asked about the curriculum at OSP centers. Who determines the class content overseas? Is it put forward by professors? If a professor wanted to organize courses for biology students from a base in medicine, who would design that?" Nur answered that it is the faculty applying for OSP positions who submit what they wish to present, and the students' desires about what they want to learn are also considered. Professor Nur added, "I'll give you an example. We closed the program in Mexico simply because it wasn't working. But I have been talking to people in the School of Medicine and in Mexico about the possibility of opening a program that will be focused on public health together with faculty in the School of Medicine." Professor Polhemus asked, "What are you most worried about in the overseas studies program? What do you think your biggest problems are?" Professor Nur admitted, "Security. Of course, general overall safety in the entire world is an issue. So far, we haven't had any problems. But it's easy to imagine that international travel and living will get more difficult." Professor Simoni noted that, "The low participation by science students generally and biology students in particular prompted a visit to our faculty meeting on Wednesday by Hester Gelber. And we talked about things that might help make it easier for some of our students to utilize OSP. There are two real obstacles. One is that faculty have research lab responsibilities; to leave for a quarter is difficult. Second, to create a new course for what might be only one quarter is an awful lot of work. So we have talked about some possibilities of team-teaching a course overseas. Also, it was suggested, we could even include courses that biology students, for example, might be able to use towards their degree requirements. This would be complicated, but that might lower the barrier for some of the students and faculty to think about going...and of course one of the conditions for faculty to get involved is that one of us would have to go supervise things each quarter!" When asked who would decide which faculty would go to the Barrier Reef, Simoni pointed out that he chairs the department, but President Hennessy immediately suggested that this decision be made at the decanal, even presidential level. Chairman Wasow thanked Professor Nur and the senators applauded him enthusiastically. VI. Unfinished Business -- None VII. Old and New Business -- None VIII. Adjournment The Senate adjourned to the Moot Courtroom for a discussion of the Planning and Policy Board in Executive session at 4:30 pm. Respectfully submitted,
Edward D. Harris, Jr., M.D. George DeForest Barnett Professor, emeritus Academic Secretary to the University
|
||
