1. Welcome! Reminder: AMS meeting at UNLV on Saturday, April 30 & Sunday, May 1, 2011. Please apply to the AMS to organize a special session. Department Meetings (# 1 & 2) April 16, 2010 9:15 AM – 10:50 AM in CBC C128

2. Elections Meeting 4.3 Elections Meeting……No other items will be considered during this meeting, though a regular meeting can be scheduled to immediately follow the election meeting………… During this meeting, elections will be held to fill upcoming vacancies on the standing committees, and upcoming vacancies for the officers. Since a member is allowed to vote for themselves, it is inappropriate to ask anyone to leave the room during balloting.

3. Meeting #1 Agenda Call to Order Elections Adjournment

4. Order of Elections (From DMS By-Laws) 4.3.2 The order of elections will be as follows: a. Chairperson (if necessary) b. Graduate coordinator (if necessary) c. Undergraduate coordinator (if necessary) d. Advisory Committee e. Personnel Committee f. Merit Committee g. Departmental representative to the College Curriculum Committee (if necessary**). The representative must be a member of the graduate faculty [CoSci, 4.5]. The term is approximately one year [CoSci, 4.7].* h. Graduate Studies Committee i. Undergraduate Studies Committee j. Departmental representative to the College of Science Peer Review Committee (if necessary) [CoSci, 4.5]. This is a 3 year elected position and the representative must have tenure [CoSci, 4.5 and 4.7].* k. Departmental representative to the Committee for Evaluation of the Dean [CoSci, 4.5]. This is a one year term.* *Note that a member cannot serve on more than two college standing committees [CoSci, 4.8]. **If the College representative to the University Curriculum Committee is from our department, then that person is the Departmental representative to the College Curriculum Committee [CoSci, 4.5].

5. Skip a., b., c. d. Advisory Committee (2009-2010: Baragar, Catlin, Ding) 5.6.1 Three Tenured Regular Members e. Personnel Committee (2009-2010: Bhatnagar, Salehi, Shiue) 5.6.2 Three Tenured Regular Members The Personnel Committee’s term begins as soon as elected (at least two weeks before the end of spring classes), and ends on June 30th, a little more than a year later. For the period between election and the beginning of the fall semester, service on this committee will be exempt from the limitations of service outlined above. (The incoming and outgoing Personnel committees might both be active at the same time.) All other committee assignments begin July 1st and end June 30th. f. Merit Committee (2009-2010: Dalpatadu, Ghosh, Ho, Li) 5.6.3 Three tenured regular members and one untenured non-voting member g. Departmental representative to the College Curriculum Committee (if necessary**). (2009-2010: Robinette) The representative must be a member of the graduate faculty [CoSci, 4.5]. The term is approximately one year [CoSci, 4.7].* COS 4.5 & 4.7 no longer exists; now COS 4.4 COS 4.4.3 Term: Approximately one year *Note that a member cannot serve on more than two college standing committees [CoSci, 4.8]. **If the College representative to the University Curriculum Committee is from our department, then that person is the Departmental representative to the College Curriculum Committee [CoSci, 4.5].

6. h. Graduate Studies Committee ( 2009-2010: Burke, Cho, Muleshkov, Robinette, Yang) (5.6.5) Five members: o1. Graduate Coordinator (already selected) o2. Departmental representative to the College Curriculum Committee (already selected) o3. Three or four elected academic graduate faculty members. (It is possible for the Graduate Coordinator to also be the departmental representative to the College Curriculum Committee, in which case we will need four additional members instead of three.) i. Undergraduate Studies Committee ( 2009-2010: Bellomo, Bachman, Robinette) (5.6.4) Three members o1. Undergraduate Coordinator (already selected) o2. Departmental representative to the College Curriculum Committee (already selected) o3. One (or two) elected academic faculty member(s) It may be necessary to elect two instead of one, if the rep to the college and the Undergraduate Coordinator are the same person. Should a member of the department (including officers) be elected to the University Curriculum Committee, then he/she will automatically be the departmental representative to the College Curriculum Committee [CoSci Bylaws, 4.5]. j. Departmental representative to the College of Science Peer Review Committee (if necessary) [CoSci, 4.5]. This is a 3 year elected position and the representative must have tenure [CoSci, 4.5 and 4.7].* The departmental bylaws refer to the CoSci bylaws that existed before the major revision we now have. The duties of the peer review committee were the same as the Faculty Review Committee. Faculty Review Committee (COS 4.4 & DMS 4.3.2.j) ( 2009-2010: Baragar) May 4, 2007 minutes: Departmental Representative to the COS Peer Review Committee. Dr. Baragar is reelected by acclamation. COS 4.3.3 – Three year term with elections staggered by departments k. Departmental representative to the Committee for Evaluation of the Dean [CoSci, 4.5]. (gone) This is a one year term.* *Note that a member cannot serve on more than two college standing committees [CoSci, 4.8].

7. From COS By-laws COS 4.4.4 Limitation of Service: No member shall serve at the same time on more than two College Standing Committees or Councils nor be chairperson of more than one College Committee or Council. Academic Standards Committee COS 4.4 ( 2009-2010: Bachman) COS 4.4.3 Term: Approximately one year Curriculum Committee (Already Selected?) COS 4.4 & DMS 4.3.2 g ( 2009-2010: Robinette) COS 4.4.3 Term: Approximately one year Financial Aid Committee (No selection/election!!!) (COS 4.4.1 Dean Appoints) COS 4.4.3 Term: Approximately one year Faculty Review Committee (Already Selected?) (COS 4.4 & DMS 4.3.2.j) ( 2009-2010: Baragar) May 4, 2007 minutes: Departmental Representative to the COS Peer Review Committee. Dr. Baragar is reelected by acclamation. COS 4.3.3 – Three year term with elections staggered by departments The departmental bylaws refer to the CoSci bylaws that existed before the major revision we now have. The duties of the peer review committee were the same as the Faculty Review Committee. Undergraduate Affairs Council (COS 4.4) ( Graduate Coordinator ) COS 4.3.3 – Three year term with elections staggered by departments Graduate Affairs Council (COS 4.4) (Undergraduate Coordinator) COS 4.3.3 – Three year term with elections staggered by departments Research Council (COS 4.4) (Westveld; Term ends Spring 2012) COS 4.3.3 – Three year term with elections staggered by departments

8. Continued From COS By-Laws COS 4.2 Personnel Committee (No selection/election) Three year term for department representative and alternate. Costa (DMS Representative): Fall 2008-Spring 2011 Phanord: Alternate for 2008-2009 Marcozzi: Alternate for 2009-2011 Cho: Alternate for the Alternate 2009-2010

9. Old Slide Ignore Other Representatives 1. Department Representative to the COS Academic Standards Committee (Bachman) 2. Department Representative to the COS Research Council (Westveld) 3. Department Representative to the COS Merit Review Committee (Baragar??: maybe ad-hoc?) 4. Department Alternate Representative to the COS Personnel Committee (Marcozzi)

10. 1. Call to Order 2. Announcements 3. Approval of 4/09/10 Departmental Meeting Minutes 4. Committee Reports (Merit, Advisory, Graduate, Undergraduate, Personnel) 5. Any remaining elections of department representatives as outlined in COS 4.4 6. Mid-Tenure Reviews/Reports 7. New Business 8. Adjournment Meeting #2 Agenda

11. NWCCU Accreditation http://provost.unlv.edu/nwccu/ (go to self-study report; in particular standards 2 & 4) http://provost.unlv.edu/nwccu/ Main topic during Chair’s meeting (Friday) and ADS meeting (Wednesday) 10 year accomplishments discussed by President PhD enrollment doubled Largest percent increase in combined PhD/Masters (5 years) COS/COE 4 th largest increase in scholarly/grant activity Bragged about PeopleSoft (he had zero expectation it would work) Etc., Etc., Etc., Etc Persevering our plans (not happening as fast as desired due to over 30% budget cuts, but still moving forward) Main point: We are doing what we should be doing Ahead of other universities in the northwest concerning accreditation (according to “pre-visit” by accreditation team a few years ago) UNR received extremely bad accreditation report (now accreditation team meets with UNR more often). Also, President discussed his very bad accreditation experience at University of Hawaii. Bad accreditation report implies more visits, additional department/college/university reports/assessment/work, etc., Also discussed: Accreditation stick, how we close the loop using past assessments, etc.

12. Meetings Info Continued President hopes that reflecting on the last 10 years will be a rallying point. Believes community support is very high (legislators in “shock and awe” by support from community/student/faculty) Possibly over 100 million dollars in gifts vs. annual average of 30 million dollars in gifts.

13. Chair’s Meeting Friday President’s vision also discussed Seems to be down playing differential tuition and vertically cutting out Nevada State College Proposing UNLV trasformed into the elite/choice state university, giving a larger role to Nevada State College. Possibly increasing tuition from $6000 to $9000 but with many $3000 scholarships available to good students. Possibly decreasing enrollment from 26,000 students to 22,000 students

14. Meeting #2 Agenda 1. Call to Order 2. Announcements 3. Approval of 4/09/10 Departmental Meeting Minutes 4. Committee Reports (Merit, Advisory, Graduate, Undergraduate, Personnel) 5. Any remaining elections of department representatives as outlined in COS 4.4 6. Mid-Tenure Reviews/Reports 7. New Business 8. Adjournment

15. Choice Voting Procedure Introduction to Choice Voting Choice voting (e.g., "single transferable vote" or "preference voting") is a form of limited voting in which voters maximize their one vote's effectiveness through ranking choices. Choice voting is very likely to provide fair results, can be used in both partisan and non-partisan elections and does not require primaries. It is recommended as the best system for local government elections. To vote, voters simply rank candidates in order of preference, putting a "1" by their first choice, a "2" by their second choice and so on. Voters can rank as few or as many candidates as they wish, knowing that a lower choice will never count against the chances of a higher choice. To determine winners, the number of votes necessary for a candidate to earn office is established based on a formula using the numbers of seats and ballots: one more than 1/(# of seats + 1). In a race to elect three seats, the winning threshold would be one vote more than 25% of the vote -- a total that would be mathematically impossible for four candidates to reach.

16. Choice Voting Cont. After counting first choices, candidates with the winning threshold are elected. To maximize the number of voters who help elect someone, "surplus" ballots beyond the threshold are transferred to remaining candidates according to voters' next-choice preferences: in the most precise method, every ballot is transferred at an equally reduced value. After transferring surplus ballots until no remaining candidate has obtained the winning threshold, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated. All of his/her ballots are distributed among remaining candidates according to voters' next-choice preferences. This process continues until all seats are filled. Computer programs have been developed to conduct the count, although the ballot count often is done by hand. Choice voting has been used for city council elections in Cambridge (MA) since 1941 and is used for Community School Board elections in New York and for national elections in Ireland and Australia. Cambridge's 13% African-American community has helped elect a black candidate in every election since the 1950s; choice voting in other cities -- like New York in the era of Mayor Fiorello La Guardia -- also resulted in fair racial, ethnic and partisan representation. Example: The chart below illustrates choice voting in a partisan race with 6 candidates running for 3 seats: Jones, Brown and Jackson are Democrats; Charles, Murphy and Stevens are Republicans. With 1000 voters, the threshold of votes needed to win election is 251: (1000/4) + 1. Note that Democrats Brown and Jones and Republican Charles win, with over 75% of voters helping directly to elect a candidate. Having won 60% of first choice votes, Democrats almost certainly would have won three seats with a winner-take-all, at-large system. (They also would have won three seats with a limited vote system -- and likely with cumulative voting -- because of "split votes" among the Republicans.) Despite greater initial support, Murphy loses to Charles because Murphy is a polarizing candidate who gains few transfer votes. Finally, 45 of 345 voters who help elect Brown in the fourth count chose not to rank Charles and Murphy, which "exhausts" their ballots.

17. Choice Voting Cont. 1st Count2nd Count3rd Count4th Count5th Count CandidateJones wins Jones' surplus transferred Smith's votes transferred Jackson's votes transferred Brown's votes transferred Brown (D)175+10 = 185+ 10 = 195+150 = 345- 94 = 251 Jones (D)270-19 = 251--- Jackson (D)155+ 6 = 161+ 6 = 167- 167 = 0- Charles (R)130+ 2 = 132+ 75 = 207+ 14 = 221+ 44 = 265 Murphy (R)150+ 0 = 150+ 30 = 180+ 3 = 183+ 5 = 188 Smith (R)120+ 1 = 121-121 = 0-- Exhausted----+ 45 = 45