1. Context(s)Updates Next Steps

2.   Task Force created to develop draft (C. Taylor & M. Lee chaired)  Faculty Senate recommends revision to President in S11 (FS 10-71/Ex. )  President Gonzalez responds (memorandum)  Provost prepares revision based upon the President’s memo (draft)  President requests Senate response by mid- September Context: Revision of the 1991 Document (09-11)

3.   Revised 1991 Policy: (FS 10-71/Ex. )  President Gonzalez’s memo  Provost’s draft applying the President’s recommendations 3 Documents

4.   Editorial Revisions designed to improve clarity and flow  Other Academic Programs: Section “V. Priorities Within Other Academic Programs” has been deleted.  Prioritization Criteria: Section III and IV need to be more intentional and explicit with regard to the university’s core mission – quality instruction and student progress toward graduation. Provost’s Draft- Main Features (response to President’s memorandum)

5.  Designed to improve clarity and flow without altering the original recommendation, for example: Quartile placement, which originally took place later in the document is moved up to the second paragraph. Editorial (these appear throughout)

6.   The proposed criteria do not apply very well to “non-degree granting units” such as the Library, et al.  Evaluation of “non-degree granting units” should occur under a separate policy and separate criteria “Section V :Non-Degree Granting Units” Deleted

7.  Criteria now categorized as to Primary and Secondary Primary Criteria : those addressing university’s core mission Secondary Criteria : all others, including those in original Senate recommendation Weighted Criteria 60% Core Mission Criteria 40% Secondary Criteria Proposed criteria to be used for prioritization (Section III and IV)

8.   Discussion here and EC  EC forwards draft response to Senate  Senate reviews and acts  President reviews Next Steps—by Mid- September