Faculty Senate minutes - January 24, 2008 meeting
FORTIEth SENATE
Report No. 5
SUMMARY OF ACTIONS, JAN. 24
1At its meeting on Thursday, January 24, 2008, the Fortieth Senate of the Academic Council took the following action:
1. By unanimous voice vote, the Senate conferred baccalaureate degrees on the Fall Quarter candidates listed in SenD#6035, as recommended by the Committee on Undergraduate Standards and Policy (C-USP).
2. By unanimous voice vote, the Senate also conferred the various advanced degrees on the Fall Quarter candidates listed in SenD#6036, as recommended by the Committee on Graduate Studies (C-GS).
3. By unanimous voice vote, the Senate approved the revision of the C-USP (Committee on Undergraduate Standards and Policy) charge, that the Committee on Athletics, Physical Education and Recreation (CAPER) should provide a report annually to C-USP.
4. By unanimous voice vote, the Senate also approved Stanford's representative to COIA should be a member of CAPER. That person could be selected preferentially from CAPER faculty members. If that is not possible, then the CoC will recommend a faculty member to be the COIA representative. This person would be ex officio member of CAPER. The appointment would be for three years.
5. By a substantial majority vote, the motion to drop the honorific term Distinguished from all non-Academic Council appointments at Stanford University was defeated.
REX L. JAMISON
Academic Secretary to the University
Minutes, JAN. 24
I. Call to OrderThe Chair, Professor Eamonn Callan, called the Senate to order at 3:15 PM. In attendance were 36 voting members and 9 ex officio members.
II. Approval of Minutes - (SenD#6032)The minutes of the November 29, 2007 meeting of Senate XL were approved.
III. Action CalendarA. List of Candidates for Baccalaureate Degrees (SenD#6035)
(Moved and seconded by the Committee on Undergraduate Standards and Policy, C-USP). Registrar Tom Black indicated there were no changes. The list of Candidates for Baccalaureate Degrees was approved by voice vote.
B. List of Candidates for Advanced Degrees (SenD#6036)
(Moved and seconded by the Committee on Graduate Studies, C-GS)
Registrar Tom Black indicated there were no changes.
The list of Candidates for Advanced Degrees was approved by voice vote.
IV. Standing ReportsA. Memorial Resolution
Oswald G. Villard (1916-2004) SenD#6039
Chair Callan introduced Professor Antony Fraser-Smith, who presented a memorial statement in honor of his colleague, Oswald Villard, Jr., Professor Emeritus of the Department of Electrical Engineering. The full text of the resolution will appear in the next Stanford Report.
"Oswald Garrison "Mike" Villard, Jr., Emeritus Professor in the Electrical Engineering Department, died of pneumonia in Palo Alto on 7 January, 2004, at the age of 87. Mike, a Yale graduate in English literature, came to Stanford in 1938 to study under Fred Terman. His progress was interrupted by the Second World War, but Stanford awarded him an Engineer degree in 1943 and a Ph.D. degree in 1949.
"Mike" Villard became a full-time member of the Electrical Engineering faculty in 1949 and a full professor in 1955. He was a particularly innovative experimentalist in radio science and he initiated a number of new techniques for transmitting and receiving radio signals. In his lengthy career at Stanford he mentored innumerable students in radio topics, either through research projects or through his long-term association with the Stanford Amateur Radio Club and its station W6YX. Mike's pioneering development of "over-the horizon" radar (OTHR) in the 1960's became so successful that much of the work became classified and in 1970 the OTHR effort was transferred to SRI International in Menlo Park. While he remained on the Stanford faculty and continued to advise graduate students, Mike moved most of his professional work to SRI International, where he served as a Senior Scientific Advisor.
"Mike was a member of the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering, and his awards included the Morris Liebman Memorial Prize from the Institute of Radio Engineers in 1957, the Award for Meritorious Civilian Service from the Air Force in 1975 (the highest honor given to civilians by the Air Force), and the Secretary of Defense Medal for Outstanding Public Service in 1982.
"I will point out that his cousin was Jack Hilgard who was Professor of Psychology and a long-term distinguished member of the Humanities faculty.
"Mister Chair, I have the honor on behalf of a committee consisting of Professor David B. Leeson and myself, to lay before the Senate of the Academic Council a Resolution in memory of the late Oswald Garrison Villard, Jr., Emeritus Professor of Electrical Engineering, in the School of Engineering."
All present stood in silent tribute.
Chair Callan thanked Professors Fraser-Smith and Leeson.
Ralph Paffenbarger (1923-2006) SenD#6038
Chair Callan introduced Alice Whittemore, Professor of Health Research and Policy, who presented a memorial statement in honor of her colleague, Ralph Paffenbarger (1923-2006), Professor Emeritus of the Department of Health Research and Policy. The full text of the resolution will appear in the next Stanford Report.
"Ralph S. Paffenbarger Jr., MD, DrPH, professor emeritus of the Department of Health Research and Policy, died on July 9, 2007, at the age of 84.
"A world-renowned pioneer in understanding the relationship between exercise and longevity, Paffenbarger showed that higher levels of physical fitness were associated with a marked decrease in death rates. He used periodic questionnaires to collect data over several decades about the personal characteristics, physical-activity levels, illnesses and deaths of more than 50,000 alumni from Harvard University and the University of Pennsylvania. He showed that men who burned at least 2,000 calories a week through exercise had death rates one-quarter to one-third lower than those of sedentary men.
"These findings provided the basis for exercise and prevention guidelines throughout the world. They significantly influenced the 1996 Surgeon General's Report on Physical Activity and Health, as well as exercise guidelines from the American College of Sports Medicine and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
"Mister Chair, I have the honor, on behalf of a committee consisting of Phil Lavori, and myself, to lay before the Senate of the Academic Council a Resolution in memory of the late Ralph S. Paffenbarger, Jr., Professor Emeritus of Health Research and Policy in the School of Medicine."
All present stood in silent tribute.
Chair Callan thanked Professors Whittemore and Lavori.
B. Steering Committee
Chair Callan reported the following items placed on the Senate agenda by the Steering Committee:
On February 7th, Bob Reidy, Vice President, Land, Buildings and Real Estate, and Jan Thomson, University Manager for the Office of Faculty and Staff Housing will present an update on future housing plans for students, faculty and staff.
On February 22nd, Dean Richard Saller will report on the School of Humanities and Sciences and the Committee on Undergraduate Standards and Policy will present a recommendation for approval for an experimental project within the Introduction to the Humanities, I-HUM, general education requirement.
On March 6th, at a briefer than usual meeting, the Senate will hear a report on NCAA recertification. Following that report the Senate will to meet in executive session at the Law School lounge to hear a special report.
On April 17th, the Senate will hear a report from the Committee on Research about the research project announced last year for Stanford University to lead the Army High Performance Computing and Research Center consortium. In addition, Londa Schiebinger, Professor of History, will report on the results of the survey on academic couples.
There were no questions for the Senate Steering Committee.
C. Committee on Committees
See below, V.-A.
D. President's and Provost's Report
President Hennessy had no report. Chair Callan invited questions for the president.
Professor Russ Fernald noted that the front page of San Francisco Chronicle, January 24, 2008, had an article about Stanford's 17 billion dollar endowment [third highest among US universities] and the Stanford Daily had recently reported that although Stanford earned $77 million last year, it couldn't spend the money because it was somehow locked up and not really available. Professor Fernald wondered if the president could elaborate about these topics and the $77 million.
President Hennessy replied that the funds include those of the Stanford hospitals, which are preparing to rebuild and will spend their share of those monies and more. Most of the rest of the money was income from endowment earnings that exceeded expenditure of endowment earnings. The value of all accounts in the university that receive endowment income went up as a result. Some of that money will be spent in the near future as Stanford enters a budget situation in which the core general funds budget will be grown much more slowly than it has in the past.
The president asked the provost to comment on this question.
The provost revealed that the university has 36,000 accounts. All have different restrictions and are controlled by different people, like department chairs. The provost added: "It's not sitting at a central place where I can access it. Otherwise I would."
Turning to another topic, the provost commented on an article in the Stanford Daily, January 24, 2008, which expressed concern that Stanford's applications for admission only went up by 3% while Harvard's rose by 19%.
"Historically we counted partial applications that were not finished. This year we are only counting completed applications. And even so, they went up 3%."
V. Other ReportsA. Committee on Committees: recommendation for revision of C-USP charge (SenD#6042 and SenD#6043)
Chair Callan invited Professor Gordon Chang, chair of the CoC, to present his committee's recommendations.
Professor Chang reminded the senators that at the Senate meeting, October 25, 2007, Professor Tom Wasow, Stanford's representative to the Coalition of Intercollegiate Athletics (COIA), reported his experience with COIA for the past several years. COIA has encouraged its member universities to formalize the relationship between their athletic programs and their faculty. The consensus of the Senate was that the CoC should consider how the relationship between the faculty and Stanford athletics could be formalized. The CoC considered the matter and, in consultation with Committee on Undergraduate Standards and Policy (C-USP), proposed the following recommendations:
1. The Committee on Athletics, Physical Education and Recreation (CAPER) should provide a report annually to C-USP.
2. Stanford's representative to COIA should be a member of CAPER. That person could be selected preferentially from CAPER faculty members. If that is not possible, then the CoC will recommend a faculty member to be the COIA representative. This person would be ex officio member of CAPER. The appointment would be for three years.
CAPER is a university committee that reports to the president, so his office will need to be informed of the Senate's action regarding the CoC recommendation. Professor Wasow, however, was appointed by the provost. On the other hand, as President Hennessy noted, the director of athletics reports to the provost.
Chair Callan invited discussion on the two recommendations.
Professor Fernald wondered what issues the report from CAPER to C-USP should address.
Chair Callan clarified the issue: "The academic rationale for integrating these committees [CAPER and C-USP] had to do with making sure that our athletes were making adequate academic progress and were adequately integrated into the academic life of the larger Stanford community. From time to time, issues that might arise within that category would vary…C-USP would focus on whatever issues were current within that broad category.
Professor Mark Zoback, Professor of Earth Sciences, wondered if there was a jurisdictional issue. C-USP is a Senate of the Academic Council committee while CAPER is a university committee. Do we, the Senate representing the Academic Council, actually have the authority to tell any committee that has nothing to do with the Academic Council what we think they ought to be doing and to whom they should be reporting?
Chair Callan turned to the president who replied, "I think you could certainly ask CAPER for a report to C-USP, and I would be surprised if they would turn down the request. They would, I suppose, in a strictly legal sense, have the ability to turn down the request. But I don't think that's a likely happening."
Provost John Etchemendy reminded the Senate that the issue was—who pays attention to what's happening academically to our athletes? The Senate, representing the Academic Council, is in charge of academic programs so it should be responsible for the academic side of the university.
"On the other hand," he went on, "we have an existing committee, CAPER, that pays attention to…the intercollegiate athletic program...Much of what CAPER does is not of interest to C-USP. But having…a member of CAPER report annually to C-USP [would enable] the Senate to exercise some oversight on what's going on academically [in athletics]--the quality of its students, etc. without redoing all of the work that's currently done by CAPER."
Vice Provost John Bravman commented, "Representatives of athletics come to C-USP now when they are seeking clarification or exemption or modification to academic policies, and require C-USP action for those types of items. So there's already an interface that exists. This year, for the first time that I can remember, the committee actually denied an athletics department request that entailed, I believe, the men's basketball team [playing] during dead week or perhaps final's week in 2008…That is an exemption from academic policy which the athletics department has been very good about requesting; other groups have not been good about requesting."
Professor Simoni interjected, "That's the last time they'll come and ask."
[Laughter]
Vice Provost Bravman continued, "There are regular reports from many groups to C-USP with unspecified formats… C-USP can ask whatever it wants and I think this [CAPER report] would be in the same category."
Professor Chang explained that the resolution was prepared in cooperation with the Chair of C-USP, Professor Hester Gelber.
Chair Callan, noting there were no further questions, concluded that the Senate was ready to vote. He reminded the Senate that the resolutions came moved and seconded by the CoC.
1. The Committee on Athletics, Physical Education and Recreation (CAPER) should provide a report annually to C-USP. This is a revision of the charge to C-USP.
By voice vote, with no dissentions, the motion was passed.
2. Stanford's representative to COIA should be a member of CAPER. That person could be selected preferentially from CAPER faculty members. If that is not possible, then the CoC will recommend a faculty member to be the COIA representative. This person would be ex officio member of CAPER. The appointment would be for three years.
By voice vote, with no dissentions, the motion was passed
Chair Callan thanked Professor Gordon and the CoC.
B. Committee on Libraries 2006/07 Annual Report (SenD#5997) and Report from University Librarian and Director of Academic Information Resources (SenD#6048)
Chair Callan called the Senate's attention to the 2007 annual report from C-LIB and a set of slides that were included in your packets. Professor Doug Brutlag will present this report. This will be immediately followed by a report from Michael Keller, University Librarian and Director of Academic Information Resources, on the research library environment at Stanford. Discussion of both presentations together would follow.
Professor Brutlag and the C-LIB Report
Professor Brutlag began by reminding the Senators to read the C-LIB report because he was limiting his remarks to two issues—the "gap analysis" and the consequences of the planned demolition of Meyer Library.
The gap analysis
The "gap" refers to the loss of resources caused by a crises in increased serials costs. The missing resources consist of books, monographs, and digital resources that have been not been purchased for budgetary reasons. These reasons stem from the fact that the rise in library costs has been faster than the rise in library budgets.
In February 2004, in respose to the serials crisis, C-LIB made a proposal to the Senate recommending the library cancel extraordinarily expensive journals and not purchase 'bundles' of less expensive with very expensive journals." [This was recommendation approved by the Senate in SenD5540.]
"We also recommended that the faculty try to support the less expensive and society journals rather than the very expensive commercial journals.
"A couple of years ago, Mike Keller recommended to university librarians that they review their collection to see if there were gaps—journals, monographs or databases—that might be essential to their faculty and students that were missing because of this cut. A year ago, he obtained a report [from each of 45 major library areas and he asked C-LIB to review and validate those reports. We read all the reports. Eleven reports were reviewed in detail by members of the C-LIB who read the report and met with the librarians and looked at the budgetary problems and…in that way validated the "gap analysis."
"The method that the librarians had used was uniformly thought to be a valid approach. The librarians in many cases looked at programmatic needs of the… departments or faculty they served including new faculty hires 'Programmatic' themes like the Korean studies program or South Asian studies program, for example.
"The librarians also systematically examined in which journals our faculty published over the last 20 years. They also looked at what journals the faculty were referencing. If more than ten Stanford faculty published in a journal over the last five years, it was considered to be an important journal. If there were more than 20 references from Stanford faculty to a journal, it was considered important.
Professor Brutlag described a similar approach that examined the courses, textbooks, interlibrary loan or document delivery requests from faculty and students, and specific requests for journals and books that didn't exist.
Professor Brutlag then turned to the budget deficit, owing to the increase in the cost of the journals and the books outpacing the increase in the budget. "Compared to the rise in budgets, between 5 and 5½% annually, monographs increased 3 1/2 - 4 % per year. But the cost of serials went up 10 to 12%. It was impossible to subscribe to all the journals we had subscribed to ten years ago. It also adversely affected investments in newer digital resources. Libraries were reluctant, because of their tight budget and the serials cost, to invest in new e-books or new digital databases the faculty felt were necessary."
Professor Brutlag summarized thusly, "So the current gap amounts to about 5 and a half million dollars. That represents a gap in serials, monographs and digital resources that the faculty felt the library should acquire.
"This gap accumulated over a 10 year period, a half a million dollars per year on the average. Our current proposed budget for the library materials budget is about $15 million, implying that the gap amounts to about a 3% deficit per year.
"We have divided this current gap into two parts. One part we call a 'retrospective gap' that is missing books and digital back files. These are digital copies of electronic journals that go back in time, and databases that were missing. These one-time costs amount to $2½ million. The other part is the 'prospective gap', that is future subscriptions and monographs and digital databases that we should have, which amounts to about $3 million.
"Mike Keller is proposing to close this gap over a five-year period in the current and future budgets."
Consequences of the demolition of the Meyer Library
"The other issue I would like to cover has to do with the applications of the demolition of the Meyer library. For earthquake reasons and other reasons it needs to be demolished. This demolition would occur in the next seven to ten years. This would mean the loss of academic computer resource space and the East Asian reference collection and personnel space. The administration has proposed to build a smaller structure to house the academic computer resource space and to move the East Asian collection reference and personnel into the Green Library. This would represent a net loss of library shelf space for 600,000 to 700,000 volumes.
"Several plans were prepared with differing assumptions about how much of the East Asia library books are retained on campus. It still means 600,000 to 700,000 volumes have to be moved, whether of the East Asian collection or other volumes now in Green Library. It also means a loss of dissertation rooms and reading places.
"C-LIB has appointed a subcommittee to consider the impact of the decreased collection and research space on both the East Asian library and the Green Library users. The subcommittee is called 'The C-Lib Subcommittee on Digital Information Technologies in the Research Library Environment at Stanford.' Professor Michael Marrinan is chairman of the subcommittee." The other members are listed in the handout, as is the charge to the subcommittee.
Professor Brutlag summarized the tasks of the subcommittee. It will obtain the views of departments affected to determine their views on the research environment they have in the library.
A town hall meeting was held, November 28th at Kresge Auditorium. There was concern expressed about moving volumes, either in non-Roman alphabets or not in digital form, indexed and full text searchable off campus. There are many volumes in SAL (Stanford Auxiliary Library) 3 in Livermore that don't meet this criteria. There are also concerns about existing catalogues (Socrates) for non-Roman alphabets.
Another concern stemmed from the concept of the library as a 'research laboratory for the humanities'. Reducing library space [equates to] decreased research space for humanities in general, which will affect recruitment of faculty and students.
Professor Brutlag noted, "One new faculty member in East Asian studies said he would not have come had he known this library was going away. He may have gone to Berkeley that has a new 90,000 square foot East Asian library, for example."
This concluded Professor Brutlag's remarks.
Report of Michael Keller, University Librarian and Director of Academic Information Resources
Librarian Keller had distributed a set of slides at the beginning of the meeting.
Librarian Keller began: "The first thing I want to remark is that we live in both a digital and print world. We live in a world that's still dependent upon print materials. For some disciplines it's still the majority of what we read and what we use to disseminate the findings of our research. In other [disciplines], though, it's very mixed [and in some it's almost all digital. For example,] …Jim Plummer, Professor of Electrical Engineering and I are working together to build a bookless engineering library that's going to be state of the art, really quite amazing. I think the discipline is prepared to be fully engaged [with] its information resources in digital form…
"In the libraries and in academic computing, we need to figure out how to provide to Stanford students and Stanford faculty extraordinary resources--not common resources but unusual ones. How can we go beyond what everyone can get? How can we make your work faster, deeper, better? How can we make it better to be a student here?"
The Digital Library
Librarian Keller continued, "You will see in the handouts the term, 'cybrary'. I learned today from members of C-LIB that cybrary is a frightening word to some people so I have changed all the slides I am going to show you to, "digital library".
"What I wanted to point out is that we have a…design that allows us to correlate content -- we are spending half of our library materials budget…on content; we spend a bunch more from foundation grants to digitize material; and we are getting free from Google a large number of digital books. [This] will enable us to think about a big digital library and to solve some of the problems Doug was mentioning [including] the digital world not quite being ready for monographs."
Librarian Keller enumerated some of the services the Stanford Digital Library (SDL) already provides, for example, management systems and analysis of databases, which he hoped those in the social sciences and the sciences would allow SDL to do. There were exciting programs already under way, particularly in HighWire Press, regarding discovery and digital navigation. People were being given the opportunity to have their articles, books, and even their databases and software deposited in the SDL for a long period for the purpose of digital preservation and for reuse by others that come along.
He observed that while SDL has an infrastructure it needs building out which will enable the digital library to continue to function and to provide these extraordinary services, "…that will make your lives better, faster and easier. Some of these are [outlined] in the… slides. I'm not going to spend time with them…[Instead] I want to go to the Google matter because it will feed this construction. And then I want to show you some pages from Google to…understand what's [available] and how we can complement, those realizations.
"Soon we will have sent about a million books to Google for digitalization. We are already retrieving digital copies of those books and have the basis to do some unusual indexing, provide some unusual searching, and provide some services like linking citations to digital copies of the cited references. [This] will speed your work and [help you] gather information for your teaching and your research."
"Google now has 28 library partners. Several of them are overseas. Most of them are in the U.S., Columbia University is the most recent one to come on board. We know they are talking with a bunch of other libraries, particularly [outside] the U.S., and we think that collection of digital books ultimately will be tens of millions of books covering all kinds of publishing traditions in various countries and lots of different disciplines."
Librarian Keller expressed thanks to the provost for funds that made it possible to expand the store of magnetic media to begin to think about how to index the pertinent [information] subsequent to the findings of Professor Marrinan and his subcommittee.
Librarian Keller continued, "Anybody who can get on the Internet can search Google. It's ubiquitous in higher education in this country and in most of the industrialized world it's widely available. [However] there's only one Stanford…and I don't think it's good enough for Stanford [just] to have what everybody else can have. What I am going to advocate and try to demonstrate is that we can do some things that are better and complementary to…other services that are available.
"I heard today from a young lady who is a sophomore, majoring in international relations. She is having terrible trouble tracking the 100 or so different abstract and indexing databases that would provide her with some ideas about what is available in that field. We have to find a better way than making students go sequentially through 100 different databases to get the relevant articles, essays, anthologies and so forth.
"…We need to provide browsing in the digital library…to make it possible for you to go easily among title pages and among subjects, to find the material that's relevant. We don't want to make you have to bring up an individual e-book, read it, put the e-book down, go to the next e-book, and do all that scratching around--much as we do it now in the physical library. We think we can give you better searching mechanisms so the 40 million hits you get on a Google search resolve to 40 really relevant hits. There are a variety of ways we may do that, including searching by topics that we extract from the books themselves. This is something that HighWire has pioneered. We have now a taxonomy of about 70,000 terms that enables us to precisely match the interest of searchers in the fields that HighWire covers to the articles available in the HighWire file and Pub Med. We know how to do it; the software is ours; we just have to figure out how to scale. Once we can do that, we can show you some better ways to browse by topic."
Librarian Keller turned to "alerts and recommends". "We have several million alerts set up on HighWire. Every week when new articles come into the database, scientists around the world get a link in their e-mail to read what's interesting to them…I find amusing some of the recommendations Amazon makes for me when I buy a book. We think there is a place for recommendations, too, but we will wait for [Professor Marrinan's report].
"HighWire has pioneered graphical navigation which is handy and is used by a lot of people…we can automatically build graphical navigation.
Using the slides, Librarian Keller illustrated a live search on the Internet by Google, using the words, "earthquake palo alto".
The image of a page entitled, "Chapter X. "Great University Wrecked", appeared. "You will see the first hit is a book published in…1906….You will see other books listed including a book with a limited preview, called a 'few view'. The limited preview books are protected by copyrights. They have agreements with the publishers to show a few pages or, if they don't, they show no pages at all."
Professor Ben Barres asked, "Does that include the one that came from the Stanford library?" to which Director Keller replied in the affirmative.
Librarian Keller: "…You can navigate within the book, page after page. Because this is a public domain book you can read the whole book online and download the PDF into your computer.
He was asked if he knew why this book was the first hit, but he did not: "The paging mechanisms and the ranking of hits have a lot of secret sauce in them and they change."
Librarian Keller continued, "We can give you a lot of bibliographical information. There you see the authors, when it was published, the number of pages, and where the original came from. This book actually came from Michigan. They offer you the opportunity to buy this book…and give you links to a used book seller online…They provide you with chapter listings so you have some idea where you might go in the chapter, if you didn't want to read all of the book. They show you some selected pages…They cite passages that have been quoted in other books...and they give you references to Web pages.
"This book happens to be in the Stanford library, but if it wasn't, or if the copy was out…go ahead and search [using] 94305, our ZIP Code…and you see there is a copy in the Stanford libraries, another copy in the Redwood City Public Library and so on down the map. You can enter a place name, Manhattan, Kansas, and [although it might] show you copies of that book hundreds of miles away, you can take this information to the library and say you know the book is in Emporia, Kansas.
Librarian Keller then turned to a "limited preview" book.
"This is the Simon Winchester book just published and he wrote part of it in our library. Once again you see…many of the same features. This time they point you to book sellers selling new books because there aren't too many used copies yet…Instead of producing key words and phrases statistically, they used the public relations blurb from the book to tell you what the book is about. You [also] get the usual bibliographic information and find the book in the library. You see a few selected pages. [But] they are not going to show you more than about ten pages so if you really want to use this book you have to go to the Stanford library and get the book.
"You are also seeing the tremendous power of a very, very good company that has figured out how to make use of this text and other information relevant to this text to make it easier to find a book and indeed find words in the book.
"These are terrific services. They are not the only services.
"The question of what is the first match or the 17th or the four millionth is still a relevant question. We think the indexing project [that] Google is doing for books in copyright is important because it allows us to show you the content of books through the indexing of the books without actually displaying the pages. …It's a way of exploiting the text without displaying it. It's a way of getting a bigger return on the investment in the Stanford collections."
Librarian Keller concluded his comments by thanking the Senate, and was applauded.
Chair Callan thanked Librarian Keller and opened the floor for questions and discussion.
Professor Philippe Buc spoke first.
"Dr. Keller, I do not quite want to be the blade runner for the replicant cyber library [Note: In the movie, 'Blade Runner', in 2019, humans have genetically engineered Replicants, which are essentially humans who are designed for labor and entertainment purposes in colonies off the planet. They are illegal on earth, and if they make it to our planet they are to be hunted down and killed, including by the Blade Runner played by handsome Harrison Ford]... There are many positive things about what is being done. I am not a technophobe, but we have to watch out for ëUtopiasí. I don't want to be anti--Marxist or anti-religious, but there are some things that have been rehearsed, some of which come from the town hall meeting in late November 2007 [see Professor Brulagís comments]. I remind you that the faculty sentiment is—we want to make sure no books are sent to SAL 3 unless they are fully searchable and usable. In the town hall meeting this was called the Baker principle [after Professor Keith Baker]. And this [concern] raises sub-issues. One is the [retrieval] from SAL 3. I was a member of the committee that [oversaw] the building of SAL 3 and wanted to make sure the books [we request] come very fast to us. It's not working ëvery fastí on weekends. There are delays. And for budgetary reasons it's oftentimes shut down during vacations when the faculty can actually work on their research projects.
"So as part of the package deal in Utopia, we want a commitment in stone that this ëretrievalí does not get shut down for budgetary reasons...We want those books and we want them fast.
"[Secondly] some concerns were raised about digitization. Of course [the concern] about non-Roman charactersóthat was evident. But Roman characters are a problem, too, because as part of the infrastructure, the catalogs are woeful. The basic things on which we might build are woeful. A lot of colleaguesÖdon't use Socrates to find books in the Stanford library so they will not be using it in SAL 3. We use Berkeley, and other [sources]. We have to invest in traditional infrastructure if this [off campus storage] is to work, too.
"One of the reasons that gives me pauseÖis the danger of periodic failure. As head of academic computing [Librarian Keller], you have [helped] developed CourseWork [online]. We had a version of CourseWork that worked very well. But now we are experiencing what I would call systemic failures [that have angered] the faculty. In the first and second day of fall quarter, the coursework crashed completely.
"I don't know how many colleagues...or how many students that affected, but it could have affected all the undergraduates taking courses that quarter...On the first day of the Winter teaching quarter I have 180 freshmen students...and the CourseWork crashes...Just because it's technology, we cannot assume it's going to work. [It] has to be severely tested [but] not on me, not on my teaching time or not on the time of my students.
"Second, we want to make sure the consultation is a full processÖI'm glad that the [C-LIB] subcommittee is going to send representatives to departments, but I think we should also monitor [it].
"Third, as was said in the [town hall] meeting, we have to make sure there are no conflicts of interest behind the decision-making. By this I don't mean necessarily the conspiracy theory that some individuals might stand to benefit from thisÖI mean that we are in Silicon Valley and live in an environment which raises optimism about these things. We cannot let the local religion dictate our behavior. We have to be very careful.
"[Fourth, there are] the copyright issues...I know countries in the European Union are not likely to allow full presentation of their books, but I think you provided us today with a solution.
"And fifth, when we were dealing with the question of destroying Meyer [Library] and taking away shelf space and faculty studies...the Provost explained to us eloquently that this is a sum zero game. He would rather keep faculty and staff on campus and send books away. But I want to remind all of us that these [faculty and staff and books] are not the only parameters. There are other users of space on campus. I want us to consider very carefully the question of space for athletics versus space for libraries. Why should it only be a conflict between personnel and books? Why don't we think also about other dimensions in this constrained environment?"
Librarian Keller responded:
"First of all, realize that in characterizing what we have been talking about here...we know very well it's not our Utopia....We know very well that we are taking steps, with consultation, and that we're testing things. I don't know whether you reported your failure of course—"
Professor Buc interjected, "I did. I had very little feedback. I had lame excuses. I asked in September—what are you going to do to make sure this does not happen again. I heard, ëWe're going to do something. We will get back to you.í I never heard back from them and I complained again the first day of the [Winter] quarter, and again I got lame excuses. So I am not happy about that. [Itís] bad public relations. And I am not the only one to be fed up."
Professor Doug Brutlag asked to comment: "There were two different reasons for those two outages of Course Works and they were actually being considered by another committee at the very highest level...to ensure they don't happen again. What's really the problem is that there are certain strategic, mission-critical applications on campus that [C-LIB] felt don't get enough support. [This is being considered by] the Committee on Academic Computing and Information Systems (C-ACIS)...Recommendations have been made to... prevent at least those two types [of failures]. One had to do with bandwidth and the other had to do with testing under high load."
Professor Brutlag continued, "But you're right—computers and networks are fallible, but I think they are less fallible than physical libraries, to tell you the truth. One year we had a whole river run through our library, if you remember, and there was a time when we couldn't even get into the library."
Librarian Keller resumed his response to Professor Buc. "With regard to SAL 3 and the delivery service from SAL 3, presently the number of requests for new books that we [receive] five days a week is 70 books a day. That means when you order a book on Monday, it comes on Tuesday...If you order a book on Friday it comes on Monday. We simply don't have [the resources] to provide daily retrieval service nor did we promise we would."
Professor Buc courteously disputed that assertion.
Librarian Keller responded, "...I don't think it's cost effective to do the [same day retrieval or provide the service during] the holiday season. And as I said to you, if you knew what books you want to read before the holiday season begins, of course we would bring them to you. You had to submit the request before we closed SAL 3."
Professor Stephen Stedman commented, "There are all kinds of crashes. And John [Etchemendy] will remember when Resident Education had to save library books back in 1975 and 1978 with five feet of water in Green and Meyer Libraries. If digitalization can save volumes that might be damaged otherwise, either through flooding or earthquakes, that would be terrific.
"[On another matter] I am just reacting to a report on implications of demolishment of Meyer library, to look at the big picture. One of the implications is [that this is] a terrific decision by the president and provost to get rid of an ugly aircraft carrier in the middle of campus. It is an architectural disaster that's completely dysfunctional in terms of the overall spaceó[there is] actually very little office space and computer capability within it. And it's probably dysfunctional environmentally. [Another] implication is that you are going to get some green space and probably a much more functional and environmentally friendly building that can go a long way to meeting some of the needs that are here."
Librarian Keller replied, "The big picture is [that] the computing spaces within the new building will be as up-to-date and modern and flexible for the future as we can possibly make them, with the given budget. The truth is, though, that the Meyer library contains about 600,000 volumes worth of shelf space, which we are not sure we can keep. And [it has] lots of public service spaces, which I will admit are not prime. I share your view of the dismal nature of [its] architecture, although we have made it as functional as we could.
"[The issue is] how do we cope the continuous growth of the collections in Green and in other campus libraries where the digital revolution...has not yet occurred (as it has in engineering)...without [requiring] continuous increases in the amount of stack space available? [And at the same time, how do we cope] with moving the East Asia library into Green, [which has] implications for the current contents of Green Library? It's logical and likely that those texts which cannot be indexed and delivered with full text searching capabilities online should not go to SAL 3.
"But it's clear that there are going to be some very big changes...We just don't have the capacity on campus to provide all the volumes of a big research library on campus. We have to go to this other solution [digitization and off campus storage]. And it seems to me we have to transcend even the limitations of Socrates by applying what tools we can to the full texts that come back to us or the ones we buy."
Chair Callan recognized Professor Yoav Shoham.
Professor Shoham: "I have a question and comment. You considered various ways to bring value to the libraries and the digital library, in particular. I think it's an opportunity to leverage the Stanford faculty at large in two ways. First of all, some of the problems you mentioned call for rather sophisticated algorithmic solutions. There are people [here] who work on that and I think some of them would love to see their insights manifest in the Stanford system. ...There are a lot of plain data that all generate as a matter of course, typically for our references, BibTEX entries; it would be a no-brainer to create a BibTEX repository...I think the best way to get this done is to have presentations to specific departments and solicit those contributions from the faculty."
Librarian Keller responded, "Good ideas and thank you. We have been in touch with folks both in computer science and linguistics about some of these issues."
Professor Shoham continued, "My question is this: I am struck by the changing and diminished role of publishers in this day and age. And whether it's journals or books we are publishing, they seem to be fighting tooth and nail to preserve their lost bargaining power...I would have found it very useful to get advice from knowledge-able people, such as yourself, 1) as to when journal [editorial] boards I am on are contemplating creating an online version and 2) in understanding how to deal with the challenges that arise. For example, when we're negotiating with the publisher, we should make sure that we [retain] the right to keep publishing [the book] online. So I am just asking what kind of advice can you offer, not necessarily to this body."
Librarian Keller replied, "Subsequent to a motion Doug [Brutlag] mentioned in 2004, we [created], principally through our chemistry librarian, a Web site that has specific advice both on the question of publishers and the question how to reserve your rights through licensing rather than giving away your copyrights. I will see that you get that URL in your e-mail before the close of business tomorrow."
Professor Brutlag added, "The URL is in our annual report for the scholarship committee...Several faculty at Stanford have moved their journals from the expensive for-profit to the not-for-profit publishers.î
Professor Shoham demurred, "I can tell you this. I am publishing a book now and I polled my colleague from computer science. [He replied,] What advice? Nobody pointed me to that URL." Professor Brutlag said he would send it to Professor Shoham.
Chair Callan recognized Professor Gordon Chang.
Professor Chang: "In the long-term what I see as a deficiency at Stanford compared to other research institutions is the absence of a library for rare books and manuscripts. You think of every major public or private research institution, and they have such libraries, which I think are glorious institutions and monuments. We have special collections in Green Library, Hoover archives and so forth, but I wonder if there has been any discussion about the possibility of such a place, especially when you consider the active acquisition of manuscript collections, rare books, Egyptology, personal papers—all the areas in which I think the university is doing a great job. And I foresee that this is somewhat connected to the East Asian study collection."
Librarian Keller acknowledged, "It is absolutely true we do not have a special collections rare book building. At one time we did. It was the Bing Wing in the Green Library. We decided because of the Loma Prieta earthquake, that we needed to turn the libraries as much as possible over to the entire campus population, not just to those who would make good use of rare books, manuscripts and archives. We also began some policies in the early 1990s which in effect turned every selector into a selector for both rare and unusual materials archives, as well as common and published materials—currently available materials. So we have a staff of experts, subject specialists who are responsible for that whole spectrum, which is unusual in the U.S. I think it's really important that all of those information resources, including the digital ones those very same people select, be seen as a single collection with lots of different formats within it.
"Could we afford to build a special collections building? Could we find the space to do it? I don't think we could. I don't think it's possible to build another GUP (General Use Permit) library at Stanford. I think it would take an extraordinary gift and it would take a lot out of the GUP allowance that frankly would not be heavily used by lots of people."
Professor Chang responded, "[But] when you think about what a gem that would be—a library like that."
Librarian Keller was not persuaded: "But I don't want a gem that's empty. I want a library that's full of people reading. We continue to acquire the collections—it's a big emphasis—but I'm not going to be an advocate for a separate rare book room. I'm sorry. We have other things we need to take care of. That would be on the list but farther down the list than these other things."
Chair Callan recognized Professor Baker.
Professor Keith Baker began by commenting, "On the question of the demolition of Meyer library, I have to say that if the goal of the university is to create more green space, there are many buildings that we could demolish to achieve that goal.
"It seems to me very serious issue when one says let's get rid of a library because it takes up green space. Meyer library is a terrible building. It could be replaced. The issue is not whether Meyer should be taken down. The issue is—what are the implications for the community of faculty who depend on the collections in Meyer and on the collections in Green that will be displaced by the collections in Meyer? I think it's terribly important that all senators understand what a serious issue this is for the humanists on the faculty. This change will be a massive disruption of the way in which we have worked. And it's not at all clear what the implications of that change will be.
"Certainly, digitization is terribly important. There are ways in which books can be digitized and made searchable in very effective ways. But we're a long way from that.
"Mike [Keller], I don't know what proportion of the books in Google are now out of copyright, but I ask you to imagine what it would be like if one could not have access in your field to—full access and immediate access to works that are less than—what is it? 75 years old?î
Librarian Keller said that was correct.
Professor Baker continued, "What this means is that we will not have access to more and more books in our field without very significant delays. And it's possible to imagine at sometime in the future that the book library can be replaced by a fully digitized library. But of great concern is—what the pace of digitization will be and what the costs will be to practicing humanists on this campus while we get to that point. So it seems to me it's terribly important that the subcommittee that Michael Marrinan is chairing consider all of the possibilities—including the possibility of another library building. It may be that we can do without a new library building, but I don't think it should be an assumption from the very beginning that we must do without a new library building.
"It seems to me there's a fundamental question here of how we are going to keep humanist research at Stanford as alive and vigorous as possible. And the [Marrinan] subcommittee must, indeed, consider all of the possibilities that will make that happen. There's a great deal riding...on this decision and I do hope that colleagues in other fields will understand how deep a concern humanists at Stanford have about this whole set of decisions."
Professor Brutlag commented, "...One of the things that Mike has done is a survey of how many books in Green have actually been used—that is, checked out or reused—that have to be re-shelved. It's over half the books in Green have actually been used."
Professor Baker cautioned, "What's the definition of, 'actually being used'? Being taken out is not the same as being used. I can use 20 books in the library before I take one out."
Professor Brutlag reminded Professor Baker that the definition was "re-shelved, either checked out or re-shelved. So the idea of having to move 600,000 volumes of books in Green Library to an off campus [site] is an impossibility, I think, for the humanists, because it would, as you say, completely delay your research."
Chair Callan recognized Professor Fire.
Professor Andrew Fire: "...Scientists are not supposed to use the library if they can get everything online, but I find it impossible not to [use the library]. Each of us is assigned an office [but] offices have distractions and the world can find you. Libraries are a wonderful alternative to that [situation]...It seems to be important also for students to have a place to go where they are not distracted in the way they would be in their normal environment. So I think the library provides an important service beyond the books, beyond the electronic searching."
Librarian Keller agreed, "That's a very good point and that especially is being taken into consideration for the bookless engineering library which will be quite a wonderful place, despite the fact that there will be very few books in it (if any) in the long run."
Professor Buc commented, "...When my father, a biologist, has a question he can generate the data in his lab to answer that question. [But] how do humanists and social scientists of a non-quantitative bend find topics? They actually go to documents that haven't been looked at before...What you are doing when you are doing research is—you are looking at precisely those books that have never been used. If they are in SAL 3 that process doesn't occur. For someone who has already written a lot of books, that may not be a problem because [that person] has an instinct as to how one might use these digital resources. But if you are a graduate student or a junior faculty member, you don't have that experience; you find precisely your great topic in books that have never been touched.
"But we have to be very careful about how we decide what goes where, because [it might imperil] research in what has not been touched. [Such books should not go] into deep storage where you can't finger them unless you have a perfect technology, which we don't have yet."
Librarian Keller rejoined, "We live in a world bounded by the laws of physics. I have got a facility that's 95% full right now. Every year we add about 50,000 more books to that facility. Would you have me stack those books on the floor so no one can move and the fire marshal would throw us out? I have to cope with the reality of this world, which you and I know very well is that a great many special collections in rare book libraries call up books for scholars from their dark and dank locations in distant places. We do the very same. We send the least used materials out to SAL 3 first and you have to call those documents and archives and rare books up for use in the field room in order to look at them. They are not very heavily used. We must keep the collections on campus that are heavily used by students and faculty in the course of their everyday research.
"We have to find better ways of making it possible for you to penetrate those contents, better ways to have adequate data so you can retrieve those special materials when you need them. But I don't see the possibility of having everything that we already own, half of which is already in storage, come back to the center of campus."
Chair Callan commented, "I think we have had a very thorough and vigorous discussion. If somebody has something novel to say—[Laughter]—that would be very welcome. At any rate, these are issues which Professor Marrinan's committee will no doubt be wrestling with, and I'm sure we haven't heard the end of this.
(That concluded the discussion about the libraries.)
Proposed resolution of Stanford's appointment process (SenD#6041)
Chair Callan: We now come to two resolutions regarding appointments, which a group of senators have put forward.
1. The honorific term Distinguished will be dropped from all non-Academic Council appointments at Stanford University.
2. The Committee on the Professoriate will examine consistency in appointment processes at Stanford-affiliated institutes such as Hoover, Freeman Spongli Institute and the new Arts Institute and report back to the Faculty Senate.
"The two …proposals are freestanding, so I think it makes sense to treat each of them separately…It's obvious at this late hour that we will not be able to address both proposals at this meeting….If the senators who have brought these proposals forward would wish to defer the discussion until the next meeting, that's certainly something I would be ready to entertain. However, we do have 15 minutes left. If you feel that within 15 minutes we can adequately discuss the first of your proposals, I'll certainly be happy to accede to your wishes.
Professor David Spiegel replied, "Thank you, I would be inclined to proceed with the first one." At Chair Callan's invitation, Professor Spiegel continued, "I am a member of a group of faculty senator members, including Professor Jonathan Bendor who is here, and Professor Debra Satz, the Marta Sutton Weeks Professor of Ethics in Society, and Professor Deborah Gordon, Professor of Biological Sciences, who are not, and I fear I may have left out a couple others. We would like to propose to the Senate that the honorific term, 'Distinguished', will be dropped from all non-Academic Council appointments at Stanford University. We raised this issue before to the Senate, obviously based on the discussion we have had with John Raisian, Director of the Hoover Institution [about the appointment] of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld as a Distinguished Fellow.
"We would like to add more rules of requirement [to use the title, 'Distinguished']. I know the Provost is concerned about having additional rules… to review. But the reason we felt it was important to place this before the Senate is that unlike many other major universities, Stanford University does not give honorary degrees. So…the issue about Secretary Rumsfeld's appointment is the term, 'Distinguished', not that he is an honorary fellow. It's allowing a small group of people with very little vetting throughout the University as a whole to confer a University distinction on someone, which would be analogous to giving an honorary degree at a comparable institution.
"The issue of vetting was raised when John Raisian …was kind enough to come on November 8th to speak to the Senate. [During his presentation] he said…"I really blew it." [By that he meant that] he regretted he had not informed the President and Provost [beforehand] about [Secretary Rumsfeld's] appointment. Academic Council appointments are very carefully vetted. [Candidates] go through a very complex process which means the institution is behind it.
"There is a good reason to have nonacademic Council appointments that are more informal and do not require as much review, but we think that's a different issue from the ability to confer a university distinction upon an individual…For these reasons we ask the Senate to consider the proposal that the honorific term 'Distinguished' be dropped from all non-Academic Council appointments."
Chair Callan thanked Professor Spiegel and recognized Professor Andrew Fire who commented, "I asked the online thesaurus to come up with other terms if we don't use, 'Distinguished', and the top term that came up was 'top dog'.
[Laughter]
Professor Fire continued, "'Not undistinguished' would be another way to put it."
[Laughter]
Professor Fire asked about a "'Distinguished' lectureship": "Do we contact the speaker and tell him or her we have to change the name of the lectureship? It doesn't seem that changing the semantics is really going to address anything. I'm not sure of the value."
Chair Callan recognized Professor Simoni.
Professor Robert Simoni commented, "First of all, the language [of the resolution] has evolved over time and I think it's pretty much relieved my objection. But I still have one--and that is that I don't know where "Distinguished" is used. I can't vote for this resolution until I find out that it's not going to constrain somebody in a way that I think would not be particularly useful. So I will vote against it. I think Andy's [Professor Fire] reasons are actually more compelling than mine. But I offer a solution: in order to find out if ['Distinguished'] is used, where it's used, and whether it's appropriate or not, I think [Resolution Number 1] ought to be merged with Resolution Number 2 and ask the Committee on the Professoriate not only to look at the kinds of appointments [employing 'Distinguished'] and their consistency but the types of titles for such appointments. The committee would report to us…Then I can make a judgment about whether it's something that we should do without or maintain.
"I'm not sure how to offer an amendment given that you have decided to do this in two parts, so my recommendation is that everyone vote 'no' on Number 1 and then we can amend Number 2 in some simple way to capture the intent of Number 1."
Chair Callan commented that Professor's Simoni's suggestion was certainly possible. If Resolution Number 1 were voted down, then Professor Spiegel and his colleagues could entertain the suggestion as a friendly amendment to Number 2.
Professor Spiegel, in a cooperative vein, responded, "I would also accept as a friendly amendment adding 'top dog', as well."
[Laughter]
Professor Simoni: "Then I remove my objection."
[Laughter]
Chair Callan recognized Professor Berman.
Professor Russell Berman, finding himself in the odd situation of agreeing with Professor Simoni, commented, "There is one controversial case we have been discussing and spent two long Senate meetings on already. Now we are entering a third and perhaps a fourth discussion of this intriguing matter…I don't think it's a good idea to legislate on the basis of one exceptional case. So if we are going to pursue this I would want to know where 'Distinguished' and perhaps other ad-jectives are used in honorifics. Is the objection to honorifics as such, in which case I suppose we can begin to address each other as 'citizen' or something like that."
[Laughter]
Chair Callan recognized Professor Fernald who called the question.
Chair Callan asked, "Is there anyone who desperately wishes to speak before I call the question?"
President Hennessy did: "The one thing I want to point out is I'm sure the word 'Distinguished' is encoded in legal documents from donors to the university--from distinguished fellows or distinguished visitors, for example--which will require us to go back to all those donors and try to renegotiate that. I think we have to be a little concerned about how much bureaucracy we create by making this change. That's my only concern."
Chair Callan recognized Professor Bendor.
Professor Bendor said, "First of all, I think empirically it's pretty obvious that the word, 'Distinguished', did cause the problem with respect to [Secretary] Rumsfeld, and I think for the reasons that Professor Spiegel mentioned, [the use of the term is] confers an honorific. In these kinds of matters, related to the president's point, there
are always 'type one' and 'type two' errors. We can confer an honor and in retrospect it turns out--no, that was a mistake and we wished that unit hadn't done it. Or we do not confer it and turns out we made that mistake—[we wished we had done it].
"Right now the present system is pressing toward 'type one'. If they can do it, they can do it, [because] it's not vetted. I guess we have information about only one particular case but there may well be others [that may have been inappropriate but we don't know], simply because they haven't surfaced. With permanent appointments we have a procedure--all institutions have--to suppress both type one and type two errors by a careful system of vetting.
"…In a case law process, we react to the most recent case and say 'wow, that was a type one error' and we wish we hadn't done that and hence the movement. But I think some consideration of the balance [between] type one and type two errors is important in this case. We don't want to strip units of their ability to comply with donors' wishes, i.e., we don't want to make type two errors all over the place. But this recent case of Rumsfeld has raised the attention of a lot of people regarding a type one error that I think is quite a serious issue and certainly is something the committee could take up.
"I agree with the president, anyway."
Chair Callan recognized Michael Keller, University Librarian.
Librarian Keller said, "I understand the motion. If I could vote, I would vote against it. I offer a question. If a fellow is described as 'Distinguished' with a capital 'D', that's a title. Would you object as well to a press release in which the adjective, 'distinguished', was used for a fellow? And how would you legislate against that?
Professor Spiegel responded: "In that particular case, I personally would object to [legislating against it]…We're not here to censor people's ability to make any comment they want to about someone who is appointed to Stanford. I think the problem in this particular case and potentially in others is that it's an official honorary appointment, not simply a description about someone who is given an appointment at Stanford. I wouldn't have minded if somebody said that Secretary Rumsfeld was named a visiting fellow at Hoover Institution and somebody thought he was distinguished. It's when it appears to have the institution conferring an official title that it's trouble."
Vice Provost John Bravman raised a Point of Order. The Question had been called and the Rules of Order required the Senate vote without further discussion.
Chair Callan thanked Vice Provost Bravman and called for a vote to Call the Question.
By voice vote, with no dissentions, the motion was passed.
Chair Callan proceeded to ask the Senate to vote by raising hands on Resolution Number 1,
The honorific term Distinguished will be dropped from all non-Academic Council appointments at Stanford University.
The motion was defeated by a substantial majority.
Chair Callan declared the motion defeated and stated that the second resolution would be taken up at the next Senate meeting, February 7, 2008.
Provost Etchemendy pointed out that there is no 'Committee on the Professoriate'. It is an ad hoc committee called into existence about once every decade. The university has had only three Committees on the Professoriate in its history and that was to determine Academic Council appointment lines. He suggested to Professor Spiegel that in consultation with the Chair, that there might be that there is a better committee for this task.
Chair Callan thanked the provost.
VI. Unfinished BusinessThere was no new business.
VII. AdjournmentThe motion to adjourn was moved, seconded and approved. The Senate adjourned at 5 PM.
Respectfully submitted, Rex L. Jamison, M.D. Academic Secretary to the University
