University of Alabama at Birmingham

The Faculty Senate

Minutes of Faculty Senate Meeting

 May 11, 2004

Location: Administration Building – Penthouse CR1

7:30-9:30 a.m.



Officers Present: Dr. John Smith (Chair), Dr. Theodore Benditt (Chair Elect), Dr. Tim Heaven (Past Chair), Dr. Pat Greenup (Secretary)


Ex Officio Senators Present:  Dr. Carol Garrison (President), Dr. Eli Capilouto (Provost)


Senators Present: Dr. Peter Anderson, Dr. Alison Chapman, Dr. Edwin Cook, Dr. Susan Davies, Dr. Jeffrey Engler, Dr. Daniel Givan, Dr. Adam Gordon, Ms. Sara Grostick, Dr. Timothy Kraft, Ms. Jennifer Long, Dr. Joe March, Dr. Warren Martin, Dr. Jiri Mestecky, Dr. Jacqueline Moss, Dr. Beverly Mulvihill, Dr. William Ogard, Dr. Linda Reed, Ms. Martha Verchot, Dr. Joe Walker


Alternate Senators Present: Dr. Madelyn Coar, Dr. Zoe Dwyer, Ms. Debra Laken, Dr. Pam Murray, Dr. Cheryl Palmer, Dr. Jay Smith, Dr. Joseph Telfair


Guests Present: Dr. Pam Bounelis, Dr. Shen En Chen, Dr. Chris Klug, Dr. Rose Scripa, Dr. Michael Wyss



Agenda Items



1.      Call to Order


Chair John Smith called the meeting to order at 7:30 a.m. A quorum was present.


2.      Recognition of Guests


Chair Smith recognized the guests/visitors listed above. These guests are all members of the UAB community.


  1. Adoption of Minutes of April 13, 2004 Meeting


The minutes of the April 13, 2004 Senate meeting were approved as distributed.


4.   Chair of the Faculty Report – Chair John Smith addressed the Faculty Senate

      outlining an overview of Senate activities for the year and encouraged the Senate

      to continue to seek unity, fraternity and creativity opportunities among Faculty

      across all schools and libraries. Chair Smith thanked members of the Senate for

      their active support and participation with the Senate activities throughout the

      year. Chair Smith encouraged all Senators to continue to foster progress towards

      UAB’s goals as a key role of the Faculty Senate.


5.   Senate Standing Committee Annual Reports


a.      Curriculum & Research (Senator Pam Murray)


                  Major activities:


1.      Review & discussion of main parts of the UAB Strategic Plan (as

      developed by May 2003 & outlined on the official UAB website),

      namely: undergraduate education, graduate & professional education,

      research & scholarship, and enabling activity-work environment.


2.      Developed recommendations for each of the above-named parts of the

      Plan . The purpose of this exercise was to articulate faculty views and

      concerns on issues addressed in the Plan as well as to make Plan

      objectives more realistic via clarification/revision of  accompanying



3.      Endorsed CRC chair’s effort to obtain reinstatement of the Provost’s

      Faculty Development Program (now, the UAB Faculty Development

      Grant Program).




1.      Formal memo summarizing committee’s recommendations to the

      various parts of the Strategic Plan and entitled : “Recommendations to

      the UAB Strategic Plan”. The first four parts of this summary were

      presented to President Garrison and Provost Capilouto in early

      February. The completed version (five parts) was presented to the

      Faculty Senate at the Senate’s March 13 meeting.


2.      Reinstatement of the UAB Faculty Development Grant Program for

      2003-04 (with $60,000 commitment from the Provost’s office). This

      includes CRC responsibility for coordinating the program’s review

      panel under oversight of  Graduate School Dean Dr. James

      McClintock, the program’s new administrator. 


                     Activities To Be Continued During 2004-2005


1.      Phase I items – research activities; grants & contracts needs of faculty; researcher retention and rewards

2.      Phase I items – needs for TA and RAs – numbers and funding

3.      Phase I items – teaching infrastructure as to space, equipment, graduate quality, web-based strategies and semester scheduling concerns


b.       Faculty Affairs (Senator Joseph Telfair)


                   The Faculty Affairs Committee (FAC) engaged in two primary activities

                   during the year covered by this report. These activities involved: 1) the final

                   planning and execution of the administrator evaluations for the Academic

                   Deans; and 2) completing its assigned work to address the Phase I faculty

                  concerns relevant to the committee. The FAC met three times as a whole and

                  three times as a working subgroup on activity two. The chair of the committee

                  met twelve times with members of the Faculty Senate Executive committee

                  and other relevant personnel on activity one, one meeting was with the whole

                  FAC to review the detailed proposed evaluation plan. The latter was necessary

                  because of the nature of the project and the anticipated need for rapid

                  decision-making, all requiring an overall vetting by the FAC.

                        This report will cover the details to-date of the FAC’s work over the past

                  year and what is left to be accomplished.

                  Work on Academic Deans Evaluation

                  Our committee had been given the responsibility to develop and conduct the

                  review and evaluation of the Academic Deans and Library Directors. Given

                  the enormity of this task the FAC divided the task into two phases that took

                   place over two years, 2002-2003 and 2003-2004. Phase One was the

                   assessments for Deans and Library Directors and Phase Two was the

                   assessment of the President, Provost and Vice Presidents. Beginning in the

                  latter part of the 2002-2003 the FAC outlined a proposed set of tasks for each

                  phase, however due to a number of internal and external logistical demands

                  and limitations the FAC had to modify the proposal to accomplish only Phase

                  One and carry out the tasks as follows:

1.                  The FAC defined Phase One as involving all tasks necessary (from development to reporting) to conduct the evaluation of Deans and Library Directors. Originally we planned for Phase One to be conducted during the 2002-2003 school year, covering the period from December 1, 2002 to May 1, 2003. Unfortunately the FAC was only able to begin the planned set of tasks. These included the following:

a.                   UAB Faculty Senate FAC reviewed and provided feedback on the proposal for a modified administrative evaluation process.

b.                  The proposal was revised based on feedback from the FAC. This review and feedback process was repeated twice until a mutually agreed upon final proposal was developed and approved for forwarding to the UAB Faculty Senate Executive Committee (FSEC)

c.                   Review and feedback and review by the UAB FSEC were received, but modifications were added.

d.                  Based on approval of the FAC, the FAC chairperson took primary responsibility for leading the implementation effort that was a combination of the recommendations from the FAC and the  FSEC:

1.      A timeline for administrative evaluations distribution, return, analyses and report development was developed.

2.      A cover letter to the faculty explaining the process and request to faculty to participate was developed and approved by the FSEC and the UAB President.

3.      An email letter that was to precede the mail out of the cover letter began development in the 2002-2003 period, but was completed during the 2003-2004 period.

4.      The original plan was to repeat the Scranton mail out as in the previous year. However, it was suggested by the FSEC to explore the use of an external source to conduct the assessment. The Individual Development and Educational Assessment Center (IDEA) of the University of Kansas was recommended as a credible entity to collaborate with in the conduct of the assessments. The FAC chairperson contacted the IDEA and through a series of teleconference exchanges, a revised proposal was developed.

5.      The revised proposal suggested that the totality of the assessments be conducted via email. The revised proposal was forwarded to the FSEC for approval. The revised proposal was submitted at the end of the 2002-2003 period to be picked up in the 2003-2004 period.

6.      At the beginning of the next period the FSEC requested a feasibility assessment prior to signing off on the IDEA proposal. The faculty senate Secretary (Dr. Pat Greenup) and assistant (Stephanie Belcher) assisted with the feasibility assessment. The work involved the securing and checking of email addresses for faculty (Stephanie Belcher assisted in the process of completing this work), the review and piloting of the IDEA Dean and Library Directors forms, efforts to clarify and assure the secure and anonymous reply to the assessment form, and a cost comparison (email vs. Scranton). The results of the feasibility assessment indicated that the revised approach had the most promise. It was agreed that the use of the email system would be the best course.


2.                  After the preliminary work in the 2003-2004, what was left and was completed was to secure the most recent email Blazed ID linked email addresses of the full time faculty. The emails were divided by schools and put into separate MS WORD files. These files along with the request for evaluation documentation (by school) were sent to IDEA in Kansas to begin the electronic assessment process.

a.                   The electronic evaluation process began shortly after October 15, 2003. The evaluation was conducted using an electronic confidential email and response process created by The Individual Development and Educational Assessment Center (IDEA) of the University of Kansas.

b.                  A memo to the Deans explaining the evaluation process went out shortly after October 15, 2003.

c.                   An electronic and hard copy letter to the faculty from the UAB President was sent one week before the email assessment form for the purpose of encouraging faculty participation.

d.                  Eighteen hundred (1800) faculty members were sent the letter and the electronic forms.

e.                   Instructions for completion of the evaluation were provided as part of the log-in process for the IDEA secure and confidential website. This site allowed for additional comments regarding the Dean to be provided.

f.                    Results of the faculty evaluation produced by IDEA went through a rigorous review process that included a subcommittee of the FSEC, Provost and President.

g.                   The aggregated results were shared with the respective Deans and faculty.

h.                   As a last part of the evaluation work, at its second meeting, the FAC briefly discussed the status of the completed Administrative review of the academic Deans. It was noted that the summary of the participation rate results was presented at the Senate meeting on 2/10/2004. It was explained by the chair that the original plan for FAC to be a part of the final vetting process was revised to stop at the level of the Senate Executive Committee. Reasons for this change were discussed and the chair indicated that Dr. John Smith, Faculty Chair, would write a letter to the members thanking them for input in the development and implementation of the administrative reviews and to explain why the Executive Committee took on more of the decision and leadership role. This letter was sent to all FAC members March of 2004.

3.                  Because the Deans of Dentistry, Medicine, Natural Sciences and Math and Joint Health Sciences were of short or expiring tenures. It was agreed that these schools would not receive evaluation requests. The plan is for these units to be evaluated in the 2004-2005 period.


       Work to Address the Phase I Faculty Concerns

      At it February 9, 2004 meeting the FAC discussed the Faculty Senate Phase I 

      Academic Unit Reports Summary prepared by Secretary Greenup. The charge

      to the committee by Dr. Greenup was twofold:

a.       to review the document specific to academic issues presented to the senate that apply to the FAC.

b.      to make recommendation to the Faculty Senate Executive Committee and the Senate as to actions that might be taken to address these issues.

In the review of the document several common themes relevant to the FAC 

emerged. These issues and action to be undertaken by the FAC that would allow

for reasonable recommendation to be made and the actions to be taken were as


a.       Faculty workload, compensation and conflict with promotion and tenure – the FAC members understood that the SACS process would be looking into these issues. However, it was unclear if the specific sub-issues of overload (too much research or too much teaching with out a fair review of equity of expectations), resources and expectations (school wide and within specialty areas) would be covered. It was agreed that the FAC chairperson would check with the appropriate SACS chair and two committee members (Drs. Martin and Kirby) would develop a questionnaire to poll senators regarding the work overload issues of each unit. At the writing of this report both tasks were carried out, however, the FAC chairperson is waiting for promised results from the SACS subcommittee chairperson and Drs. Kirby and Martin are still getting feedback to their survey. It is expected that the results will be tallied and a preliminary report completed by the end of May 2004.

b.      Faculty development and resource issues – the FAC members understood that more information was needed to better document specific issues. It was agreed that two committee members (Drs. Martin and Kirby) would poll the senators concerning the faculty development plans in each of the academic units. At the writing of this report Drs. Kirby and Martin are still getting feedback to their survey. It is expected that the results will be tallied and a preliminary report completed by the end of May 2004.

c.       Metric to evaluate teaching – the FAC members understood that the strategic planning underway for each academic unit will address this issue. For clarity is was greed that the FAC chairperson would contact the SACS subcommittee chair relevant to this issue and ascertain if such a metric exists, what is its configuration and how is it used.  At the writing of this report both tasks were carried out, however, the FAC chairperson is waiting for promised results from the SACS subcommittee chairperson.

d.      Distribution mechanisms to get LHL information about services and resources to faculty and staff – the FAC members plan to follow-up with the LHL senators to clarify this issue and to make sure this is not currently being addressed. At the writing of this report this remains at outstanding task.

e.       Plan for pending faculty retirement trends – the FAC members recognized that this issue as one being worked on by both the senate Finance Committee and FAC or Curriculum and Research Committees. It was agreed that to be assigned FAC committee members will work with these committees, if needed, to draft recommendations for forwarding to the FSEC. Issues of equity will be a part of these recommendations. At the writing of this report both follow-up with the Finance and Curriculum and Research Committees are pending.

f.        Recruitment and retention of faculty and need for diversity of faculty – the FAC members recognized that these issues are currently being address by the UAB Vice President for Equity and Diversity, Dr. Louis Dale. It was agreed that the assigned FAC committee members will work with Dr. Dale, a representative or documents produced by his office, to draft recommendation to be forwarded to the FSEC. At the writing of this report, the information from Dr. Dale’s office has been passed on to the FSEC.

g.       Issues specific to the SOM – the following issues were those that FAC members agreed they could not comment on or determine how the senate could best address them, at the present time. It was agreed that these issues will be re-reviewed when the SOM member of the committee is present. These issues were:

1.      HSF governance and impact on clinical faculty

2.      Parking facilities and process for clinical faculty

3.      Need for a faculty assembly site

4.      Chief of staff selection process and accountability to clinical faculty

At the writing of this report, it was agreed that these issues were central to decision making in the SOM and any follow-up by the FAC would be as a result of agreed upon relevance to the committee.

Outstanding Tasks for 2004-2005

To be completed at the end of May 2004.


c. Finance Committee – Senator Linda Reed


Members of Finance Committee:  Peter Anderson, Kurt Denninghoff, Timothy Kraft, David Ku, Debra Laken, Warren Martin, Jiri Mestecky, Stephen Moser, Linda Reed, Jay Smith, Ken Tilashalski, Donald Urban


The Finance Committee determined that the following issues would be addressed during the year 2003-2004.


1.  Monitor Faculty Needs Related to Health Care during the coming year and provide input to administration on these topics. 


            Health Insurance Issues:  The Finance Committee Chair reported that the UAB Fringe Benefits Committee was discussing the pros and cons of implementing a three-tiered system of health insurance (single, employee up to 2 dependents, and family-greater than two dependents).  The Committee decided that a survey of the faculty would be appropriate to see how faculty felt about this issue.  An e-mail survey was conducted through the Senators and feedback indicated that a large majority of the respondents were in favor of the three-tiered system of health insurance pricing.  The Finance Committee Chair, as a member of the UAB Fringe Benefits Committee, supported this system of health insurance pricing, and provided information to the Fringe Benefits Committee on faculty views.


            Health Insurance Outcomes: The UAB Fringe Benefits Committee voted to recommened to President Garrison that the three-tiered system be implemented January 2004.  The President supported this recommendation, and faculty will complete the first year on this system at the end of 2004.  To follow up on the implementation of this plan, and other healthcare issues, the Committee decided to develop a formal survey to be circulated via e-mail to all faculty about how they feel the three-tier system is working.  Other questions regarding the three insurance plans; VIVA UAB, VIVA Health, and Blue Cross Blue Shield were also included to continue monitoring how well health insurance needs of the faculty are being met.  Warren Martin and Linda Reed worked on this project.  The survey items were based on informal e-mail surveys done earlier in 2003 regarding support for the three-tiered health insurance plan, Caremark prescription services, access to Ob-Gyn services, and deletion of the United Health Care option.  The Finance Committee members polished the survey, and it was piloted on Senators before being sent to the entire UAB faculty.  All faculty received the survey, and the survey period is finished.  At this time 596 responses have been returned.  Data analysis is pending.  The results will be presented to the members of the UAB Fringe Benefits Committee and circulated to the faculty.


Prescription Issues:  It was noted by the Finance Committee that UAB would complete the two-year contract with Caremark Prescription Services at the end of 2004.  Therefore, the Committee decided to communicate with faculty regarding the quality of this service, and to provide input to administration regarding problem areas identified.


Prescription Outcomes:  Senators were asked to pass on to faculty in their units an e-mail survey about the Caremark Prescription Service.  Following examination of this information, some problem areas were identified by faculty.  It was determined that more detailed information was needed from faculty to pass on to administration during the Annual Fringe Benefits Committee Meetings that would occur during the Spring so that communication with Caremark could occur before UAB signed another contract with this agency.


Deletion of United Health Plan:  Faculty were also surveyed about the deletion of United Health Care, January 2003, as a health insurance option.  The Finance Committee was interested in whether the faculty who had previously subscribed to United Health Care felt they had a smooth transition to another health insurance plan at UAB. 

Deletion of United Health Plan Outcome:  Most of the individuals who subscribed to United Health Care transferred to VIVA Health, and a large majority of the faculty reported that the transition was a smooth one.  There were a few glitches, but overall the changeover went well because the healthcare providers in the United Health Plan remained essentially the same for the VIVA Health Plan. 


            VIVA UAB Access to OB-GYN Service:  Additionally, survey questions were asked about faculty views on the OB-GYN Department request to close outside access for VIVA UAB subscribers.  Faculty responding were overwhelmingly in favor of keeping this panel open for ob-gyn services and mammograms due to access problems experienced by subscribers


VIVA UAB OB-GYN Service Outcome:  Faculty views regarding the OB-GYN Services were communicated to the UAB Fringe Benefits Committee through the faculty representative, the Finance Committee Chair, and the Fringe Benefits Committee voted to recommend to the President that the panel remain open until such time as the OB-GYN Department could document that adequate access for subscribers could be provided.  The President concurred.  The OB-GYN services remained open to other agencies during the year 2003-2004.


2.  Salaries – What priorities does administration have in this regard.

The Chair, volunteered to talk with John Lyons about obtaining information regard faculty salaries at UAB.


Salary Outcome:  Limited information was obtained from John Lyons Office.  The freeze on salaries for this year diminished interest in pursuing this issue.  However, it is a recommendation of this committee that it be a major focus for the coming year.  Two years of salary freezes could have a very negative impact on faculty morale, retention, and recruitment. 


3.  Faculty Club:  Space for a faculty club to increase faculty collegiality and interactions across campus.  Perhaps a place to meet for lunch could be found. 


Faculty Club Outcome:  This topic was discussed, but no viable option could be identified.  In a year of no or very few raises, it did not seem the time to devote large amounts of resources to this issue.  Perhaps, the climate will change in the future.  Other campuses are able to support a Faculty Club.  Possibly the incoming committee members could explore how other universities are able to provide this faculty service.



The Committee responded to faculty requests to clarify new Flexible Spending Account laws by providing handouts on the topic and answering questions at the December 9, 2003, Senate Meeting. 


The Finance Committee Chair, in response to faculty requests, and a Senate Resolution regarding Sick Leave proposed to the UAB Fringe Benefits Committee that they recommend a change in the current wording regarding use of sick leave to care for family from “anyone who resides in the same household as the employee” to “to attend to an ill member of the employee’s immediate family who does not reside in the same household (parent, spouse, child, sibling, or significant other)” Discussions are ongoing in the UAB Fringe Benefits Committee about this issue.  No decision at this time.


In response to faculty requests for information on a new law effective January 1, 2004 regarding Health Savings Accounts (HSAs), the Chair of the Finance Committee asked that material be presented at the last UAB Fringe Benefits Committee Meeting, May 5th, 2004.  Michael Boyd, Benefits Manager, Human Resource Management presented information on this topic.  It is suggested that he be invited to a future Senate Meeting to explain the implications of this law to the faculty. 


Report Regarding Phase I Academic Unit Issues Assigned to the Finance Committee for Priority Ranking: 

The topics are as follows:

            Salary freeze and grant funded personnel

            Salaries, Recruitment/Retention

            Support to increase grants and extramural funds

            Salaries and use of regional averages and compression issues

            Budget transparency & administrator accountability at school and department


The Finance Committee members were polled and the following recommendations were made as suggestions for the Finance Committee to address during the coming year, 2004-2005.       Prioritizing the above six items was not hard as most of them relate to salaries/compensation.  Therefore the priority for these issues was to:


Examine salaries and devise strategies to get faculty to the median range of their respective scales and to deal with compression.  Also, to examine how funding issues may relate to this problem.  The salary issue overflows into other areas such as faculty productivity, retention, and recruitment.  Various suggestions were made about how to approach this issue; working with individual units to determine their specific issues in this area and working collaboratively with administration to develop strategies and provide input that could be mutually beneficial to faculty and administration in this area. 


     C.   Governance & Operations Annual Report - (Senator Beverly Mulvihill).


I.                    To review and revise, as necessary, the Constitution and By Laws of the Senate

a.       The major work of the Governance and Operations Committee for the 2003-2004 Senate year was to review and revise, as necessary the Constitution and By Laws of the Faculty Senate

b.      No changes were made to the Constitution

c.       Proposed changes were submitted to the Faculty Senate at the monthly meeting in April 2004 and vote upon in May 2004

II.                 To assure that each senate position (Chair, Chair-elect, Secretary, Senator, Alternate Senator, and standing committee chairs) has a job description, including approximate time commitment

a.       The Secretary of the Senate worked with the Governance and Operations Committee and the Chair of the Faculty Senate to create job descriptions for each of the senate positions mentioned

b.      The job descriptions were added as appendices to the Constitution and By laws of the Faculty Senate with references in the By Laws, as appropriate.

c.       These descriptions are now distributed to each candidate for a give office before commitment is made to run for the office

III.               To monitor and address, as needed, attendance and representation for each unit represented in the Senate

a.       This monitoring is done periodically in cooperation with the office assistant assigned to the Faculty Senate

IV.              To review Senate election procedures and to oversee the election process

a.       The Secretary of the Senate and the Office Assistant have computerized the process of voting which went quite smoothly this year.

b.      All ballots were counted and certified and new senators and alternates were notified in a timely manner.



D. Faculty Policies and Procedures Committee – Chair Mike Wyss presented an oral summary of the activities for the FPPC since June 2003.


6.  Faculty Senate Constitution and Bylaws Amendments

 Proposed amendments to the Bylaws were presented to the Senate at the April meeting. The Senate approved the proposed amendments to the Bylaws. The Bylaws document will be revised and distributed to the Senate at the June meeting and the revised Constitution and Bylaws will be posted on the Senate web page. The appendices outlining the standing rules of the Senate and the job descriptions for officers and chairs of standing committees as identified in the amendments will be posted on the Senate web site. The proposed amendments document is attached to these minutes as an appendix.


7.Secretary of the Faculty Annual Report – Secretary Greenup


During the year the Senate has revised the appearance of and updated the Senate web page. The Senate has implemented the use of electronic communications to the extent feasible at this time and this process will continue with the goal to improve Faculty communications and to control expenses. The transition to electronic elections and external agency administration of the administrator evaluations were successfully completed this year. The reports generated by Senators for the academic units in response to Phase I, II and III surveys have been summarized and are posted on the Senate web site. The Standing Committees have been addressing the Phase I issues and the reports for Phase II and III will be addressed during the coming year. The descriptions of responsibilities and time commitment for Senate officers and members have been extracted from the Bylaws and are now available at the web site. This information will be used to enhance Faculty participation and the activities of the Senate during the coming year.


8. Open Forum – President Garrison responded to questions about the salary policy for the coming year. The initial planning for the salary policy for the coming year has just begun and will be announced in the coming months. President Garrison recognized faculty achievements for recent awardees and faculty and staff recognized for their contributions to UAB and the community. President Garrison thanked Faculty who attended the recent Graduation event and encouraged Faculty to participate with the doctoral hooding ceremony and the graduation events in the future. Provost Capilouto expressed thanks to the Faculty Senate for activities during the year and encouraged all Faculty members to complete the Effort Reporting requirements and related educational materials. An audit process is being implemented related to the Effort Reporting activities.


9.Announcements – The next Senate meeting is June 8, 2004 in the Penthouse CR1 and is the first meeting of the newly elected members. Two Senators-at-large positions on the Senate Executive Committee will be filled based on a ballot election process at the June meeting. Senators were reminded to communicate with colleagues to encourage Faculty volunteering to provide input on UAB.EDU website update.


10. Review of Action Items from May 11, 2004 Meeting


a. Secretary Greenup will revise the Bylaws document and prepare for distribution at the June Senate meeting. The revised Constitution and Bylaws document will be posted on the Senate web page. The job descriptions for all officers and members of the executive committee and the senators, alternate senators and senior senator will be posted on the Senate web page.


b. Chair Telfair will update the annual report for the Faculty Affairs Committee outlining the assignments to be carried into the 2004-2005 term for the committee.


11. Review of Action Items from April 13, 2004 Meeting


a. Secretary Greenup prepared the letter and Senate approved recommendation from the Curriculum & Research Committee. This letter was hand delivered to the Provost and President on April 21, 2004.

b. Secretary Greenup prepared the summary of the Phase III reports from the academic units. These reports were available to Senators at the May 11, 2004 meeting.


12. Written Materials Distributed to Senators at Meeting


a.       Agenda – May 11, 2004 Senate Meeting

b.      Minutes – April 13, 2004 Senate Meeting

c.       Proposed amendments to Senate Bylaws

d.      Summary of Phase III reports

e.       Finance Committee Annual Report


Minutes Prepared by Secretary Greenup – May 15, 2004