The fourth meeting of the Faculty Senate for 1999-00 was convened in 25 Law Building, Minneapolis campus, on Thursday, April 20, 2000, at 2:05 p.m., as a joint meeting of the University Senate, Faculty Senate, and Twin Cities Campus Assembly. Coordinate campuses were linked by telephone. Checking or signing the roll as present were 116 voting faculty/academic professional members, 1 ex officio member, and 4 nonmembers. President Mark Yudof presided.

MOTION:

To approve the University Senate, Faculty Senate, and Twin Cities Campus Assembly minutes, which are available on the Web at the following URLs. A simple majority is required for approval.

VIRGINIA GRAY, Clerk
UNIVERSITY SENATE/
TWIN CITIES CAMPUS ASSEMBLY

DISCUSSION:

With no discussion, a vote was taken and the motion was approved.

APPROVED

Faculty Senate

Amendments to Faculty Tenure

Approved by the:

Faculty Senate April 22, 1999 Administration December 3, 1999 Board of Regents PENDING

Interpretation of Faculty Tenure

Approved by the:

Faculty Senate April 22, 1999 Administration December 3, 1999 Board of Regents PENDING

Amendment to the Judicial Committee Rules of Procedure

Approved by the:

Faculty Senate April 22, 1999 Administration December 3, 1999 Board of Regents PENDING

Amendment to the Judicial Committee Rules of Procedure

Approved by the:

Faculty Senate May 20, 1999 Administration PENDING Board of Regents PENDING

Resolution Concerning Retention of Faculty Lines

Approved by the:

Faculty Senate September 30, 1999 Administration PENDING Board of Regents - no action required

Professor Fred Morrison, Chair of the Senate Consultative Committee (SCC), the Faculty Consultative Committee (FCC), and the Assembly Steering Committee (ASC), said that these three committees have been busy during the past few months. The ASC is currently working on establishing a task force on University Bookstores, for the Twin Cities, regarding concerns being raised about the availability of non-course books and is addressing remaining issues relating to athletics. The appointment process will also begin soon for the new Faculty Academic Oversight Committee and, in consultation with the President, for the Advisory Committee on Athletics. The committees are also concerned with next year's budget and the following year's biennial budget development regarding the issue of compensation and salaries.

Professor Morrison said that there will be a heavy University Senate agenda next year so three University Senate meetings per semester are being planned. In the fall, there will be the President's State of the University address in September, an October meeting devoted to the final report of the Health Plan Task Force, and then a November meeting. In the spring, meetings will be set for February, March, and April.

Finally, Professor Morrison extended thanks to Professor Virginia Gray for two years of service as Clerk of the Senate and her guidance as Chair of the SCC/FCC during the tenure debates, since she is leaving the University at the end of the semester. The University Senate extended a round of applause.

Professor Marti Hope Gonzales was elected Vice Chair of the University and Faculty Senates and Khaled Dajani was elected Vice Chair of the Twin Cities Campus Assembly.

FOR INFORMATION:

Background

A majority of the universities that were surveyed offered tuition benefits. Many remitted 50% with a few (mostly privates) offering 100%. In the Big Ten, 7 of 14 offered tuition remissions with Northwestern offering 85%; Penn State, 75%, and all others at 50%. Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin do not offer a tuition benefit for dependents of employees.

The analysis performed by Employee Benefits (appended to this report) suggests that the cost of a 50% tuition remission, when fully implemented with students in all four years, would be between $1.2 and $1.7 million. (See appended report.) Assuming that dependents are equally distributed across employment categories, this would mean that 44% of eligible dependents are associated with Civil Service/Bargaining Unit staff while 56% are associated with Faculty and Professional Administrative Staff. Using $1.45 million as the full cost (halfway between $1.2 and $1.7 million estimates), the added percentage fringe benefit increase would be .25% for CS/BU and .21% for Faculty/PA.

New Analysis

Employers design benefit plans to influence employee behavior--particularly with relation to attraction and retention to the organization. A benefit program that has certain features is more attractive to some segments of the labor force than others. For example, health care subsidies for dependents increases the attractiveness for applicants and employees with dependents. A retirement program with a service requirement for vesting of benefits encourages retention.

An employee's total compensation consists of cash payments and economic benefits designed to reduce risk (insurance), pay in kind (recreation subsidies), pay during nonworking periods (vacations and holidays), and provide for retirement (pensions). The mix of cash payments and benefits reflects the joint interests of employers and employees. In turn, public policy has favored employers providing benefits for employees rather than the employees purchasing benefits themselves due to the nontaxability of benefits, but not cash payments.

A tuition remission program for dependents of employees that includes a service requirement would be expected to increase attractiveness of employment for those who have dependents who will likely be admissible to the university. It would also reduce turnover because sustained service would be necessary to make use of the benefit.

If cost savings from reduced turnover exceed increased costs of a tuition reduction benefit, then the benefit would be costless--actually improving the efficiency of the university.

Assumptions

We begin with the following enrollment assumptions which are largely similar to those used in last year's proposal:

The current proposal requires some additional assumptions:

Analysis

With these assumptions in place, the present value of the 100% tuition remission for four years to an employee with 10 years of service is $5,568 (at 50%, $2,784). If we were to calculate the present cost of providing this benefit to the proportion of employees (by classification) who would be expected to accrue 10 years of service (under reduced turnover expectations), the cost would be $2,968 for P/A, $4,043 for faculty $2,537 for civil service, $2,443 for Teamster members, and $2,014 for AFSCME members. (Keep in mind that these figures are approximate.) However, if turnover were reduced by 10%, the net (cost) saving for the university from providing this benefit, after turnover cost reductions, for a 10 year service employee would be ($137) for PA, $929 for faculty, ($577) for civil service, ($1,594) for Teamsters, and ($1,077) for AFSCME. The overall weighted cost would be $23.73 per year for each 10 year employee. If a 50% remission is applied, the savings would be $112.13 per employer per year.

If the university were to implement a 100% tuition remission program, with vesting starting at 50% in year 5 and increasing by 10% per year until full vesting at year 10, and if turnover declined by 10% in each employee group as a result, the following conservative estimate would apply. Assuming that all employees work for up to 20 years, and that there are about 5% of employees in each year of service between 1 and 20, then the annual cost savings, net of tuition costs, per employee is about $89 and the annual savings across the employee population would be in excess of $1,200,000.

Spreadsheets on which this analysis is based are available upon request from the Senate office.

Resolution

Whereas: The University of Minnesota, as a land grant institution, has as one of its central missions the education of highly qualified undergraduate students, and

Whereas: The University of Minnesota benefits from the efforts and commitment of all of its employees, and

Whereas: University of Minnesota employees, especially as employees of an institution of higher learning, understand the benefits of higher education and seek to make them available to their children/dependents, and

Whereas: The University of Minnesota desires to improve the effectiveness of its workforce and reduce employment costs by reducing employee turnover, and

Whereas: The faculty of the University of Minnesota seeks a stronger sense of community among all employee groups, each of which contributes to the mission of the university, and

Whereas: It can be demonstrated that the inclusion of a partial tuition remission benefit would reduce employment costs under relatively conservative assumptions, therefore

Be it resolved: That the Faculty Senate strongly recommends that the children/dependents of all university employees having accrued 5 or more years of uninterrupted university service be granted a 50% tuition reduction upon being regularly admitted to an approved undergraduate program leading to a bachelor's degree, that the tuition reduction will be applied to half of the tuition for the first four year's of a child/dependent's enrollment, during periods in which the child/dependent student is in good academic standing; and that the percentage of tuition reduced be increased by 10% for each additional year of uninterrupted service through year 10.

COMMENT:

The SCFA Benefits Subcommittee, under the direction of its chair, Professor John Fossum, has developed the above-mentioned resolution and supporting information. It has been presented to and approved by both the Senate Committee on Faculty Affairs (SCFA) and the Faculty Consultative Committee (FCC).

RICHARD GOLDSTEIN, Chair
FACULTY AFFAIRS COMMITTEE

DISCUSSION:

Professor Richard Goldstein, Chair of the Faculty Affairs Committee (SCFA), said that this subject has been considered for a long time, but was finally worked on by the SCFA Benefits Subcommittee. There are a number of reasons that this policy is being considered. First, it will provide an important benefit in hiring at all levels in the University. Second, it will play a role in retention. Third is the impact on employee morale. Lastly, it will increase interest in undergraduate education by all employees.

An analysis was done by Professor John Fossum which found that there are savings to the University by retention of employees since new employee training is not needed. The reason that this policy is not being presented for action now is that the administration wants to conduct its own study of costs versus savings with this proposal. Currently, seven of the Big Ten universities offer tuition benefits, as does MnSCU.

Q: Will this benefit be rolled into fringe benefits so that employees will end up paying for it anyway?

A: If the gross tuition cost for this benefit is considered, the analysis indicates that it would be a fringe benefit of .2%, which does not take into account any savings to the University.

MOTION:

To approve the Faculty Emeriti Policy and Administrative Procedures. A simple majority is required for approval.

COMMENT:

The proposed policy is available in the Senate Office and the proposed administrative procedures are as follows:

1. Purpose. In recognition of years of valued service and contributions to the University of Minnesota, the Board of Regents has established the title of "emeritus" to be awarded to those who meet the standard of a faculty emeritus defined in section I, subdivision 1 of the policy Faculty Emeriti. The objective of this policy is to honor the past affiliation and encourage and maximize the inclusion of emeritus faculty as participating members of the University of Minnesota community. The principle guiding this policy is that faculty emeriti shall have the opportunity and are encouraged to continue as active members of the University community to the extent they are willing and able. The policy, Faculty Emeriti, and the procedures for administering it supersede those concerning "Emeritus Title for Faculty"(adopted January 9,1969). Furthermore, the policy and these administrative guidelines specify the expectations of the University and its academic and service units in implementing this policy and the privileges and services that are expected to be provided to faculty emeriti. These administrative guidelines and procedures should be read and interpreted in conjunction with the policy, not as a substitute for it.

2. Conferment of the Emeritus Title and Notification. The emeritus title is automatically conferred to a faculty member (regardless of gender) upon retirement from the University under honorable circumstances as specified in Sections I, III, and IV. It may also be granted by the Board of Regents, on recommendation of the president, under special circumstances when the above conditions are not met as described below and in Section III, subd. 2. The conferment of the faculty emeritus title shall be at the faculty member's rank at the time of retirement; however, it does not confer any employment status, rights, or associated entitlements.

Formal notification of emeritus status. Each college shall issue a letter to the eligible retiring faculty member within one month of their retirement, conferring the emeritus title.

Special circumstances. As provided in the policy, Section III, subdivision 2, the emeritus title can be awarded or promotion in rank made for a faculty member not meeting the definition of faculty to emeritus as set forth in the policy, Section I, subdivision 1.

In such case, the recommendation must be initiated at the departmental level and the following is required: a statement of the rationale and other documentation (i.e., letter of support) providing justification for the action proposed, approval by a 2/3 majority of the tenured faculty in the unit, and subsequent approval of the department head/chair as well as the dean of the college.

The awarding of the emeritus title or promotion within the emeritus rank is granted upon approval of the Board of Regents after recommendation by the Executive Vice President Provost and the President.

3. University Services and Privileges. In order to facilitate the maintenance of a significant connection with faculty emeriti, the University shall provide faculty emeriti, who desire them, with the following privileges and services equal to those provided to regular faculty:

1. e-mail accounts (including internet access);
2. library privileges;
3. listing in the University directory and mailservice;
4. faculty discounts for computer software, recreational facilities, athletic events, and other performances and exhibitions;
5. continuation of parking privileges at faculty rates subject to space limitations (in such case, the next best alternative space should be offered);
6. auditing of graduate or undergraduate level courses, subject to the instructor's approval and relevant University policies and procedures;
7. access to University and state policies governing the continuation of health insurance, but at their own expense;
8. participation in academic processions (graduations, convocations, etc.) in a position of honor; and
9. represent the University (upon appointment by the president) at academic ceremonies of other institutions.

4. Academic Unit Services and Privileges. Subject to cost and availability, academic unit administrators are encouraged to provide active emeritus faculty the following privileges, services, and facilities as are warranted by the nature of the continuing

1. office space;
2. access to laboratories, computers, or comparable facilities requisite to the continued engagement in scholarly work or mutually agreed upon task whether on a contractual or volunteer basis;
3. access to mail, telephone, and other routine office services (e.g. copying, secretarial); and
4. the privilege to submit proposals for sponsored research and to advise graduate students or postdoctoral research associates, subject to University rules and policies.

5. Continued Relationship with the University. An academic department, service, or other administrative unit may enter into a volunteer or contractual agreement with a faculty emeritus to provide services subject to terms of the contract and applicable laws and rules as referenced in Section VI of the policy Faculty Emeriti.

6. Informal Dispute Resolution. Disputes by faculty emeriti that arise from the policy Faculty Emeriti and these administrative procedures shall be resolved via an informal process. If a dispute arises from a decision under the policy Faculty Emeriti and these administrative procedures, the faculty emeritus can request review by the administrative level above the administrator making the decision (e.g. at the college level when the dispute concerns a decision by a department chair/head). Requests for reviews and reviews should be made in a timely manner.

RICHARD GOLDSTEIN, Chair
FACULTY AFFAIRS COMMITTEE

DISCUSSION:

Professor Richard Goldstein, Chair of the Faculty Affairs Committee (SCFA), recalled that two years ago the Faculty Senate passed a Retiree's Bill of Rights. Since that time, SCFA and its Retirement Benefits Subcommittee have been working with the administration to develop a Regents' policy and administrative procedures.

The point of the policy is that emeritus faculty can be of great benefit to the University and their presence on campus is positive. Currently, many departments give many of the rights and privileges that are listed here to their emeritus faculty, but this should not be left to the whim of an administrator. Instead, it should be a uniform minimum across the University. The cost is small and will be outweighed by the benefits.

Q: The policy mentions promotion of faculty in terms of emeritus status. What does this mean?

A: If an associate professor were to retire, his or her title would the Associate Professor Emeritus. If a department wishes to make a promotion in emeritus title for these individuals, which costs no money, the policy provides for the way to do this.

With no further questions, a vote was taken and the motion was approved.

APPROVED

FOR INFORMATION:

Interpretation of Subsections 7.11 and 7.12: General Criteria and Departmental Statement

The faculty of an academic unit are expected to periodically review their criteria for awarding indefinite tenure and reflect any new criteria in a revision of their Subsection 7.12 Statement. The new criteria and Subsection 7.12 Statement must be adopted in accordance with the established procedures of the University, after consultation as required by those procedures. Current probationary faculty in the unit may elect to be evaluated on the criteria in the previous Subsection 7.12 Statement or on the new criteria. This option is also available to current tenured faculty in their evaluation for promotion to the next level. Probationary or tenured faculty must make this decision within one year of the date of administrative approval of the new criteria.

Comment:

This interpretation will replace the second paragraph of existing Interpretation 6. This paragraph now states, "If changes in the program of a unit affect the prospects of probationary faculty members to achieve tenure, these faculty members should be given the earliest possible notice of the potential impact of such changes." The new interpretation will allow probationary faculty members to chose to be evaluated using the previous criteria of the unit for tenure or the new criteria. This option is also available to tenured faculty of the unit who are seeking promotion to the next level, e.g. Associate Professors seeking promotion to full Professors. Although the latter group will be involved in the development and acceptance of the new criteria by the tenured faculty of the unit, they may represent a minority opinion. This interpretation does not change the requirement for review of the new criteria by the dean or other appropriate academic administrator and by the senior academic administrator. Faculty members must make their decision with in one year of the approval of the new Subsection 7.12 Statement by the senior academic administrator.

Required Action:

Pursuant to Section 16.2 of Faculty Tenure, an interpretation of the Code must be approved by the Tenure Subcommittee and Executive Vice President and Provost Bruininks.[*] Once approved, it is forwarded to the Faculty Senate for information and to the Board of Regents for action. The Board must adopt the interpretation before it takes effect.

MARY DEMPSEY, Chair
TENURE SUBCOMMITTEE

DISCUSSION:

Professor Mary Dempsey, Chair of the Tenure Subcommittee, presented for information an interpretation of the tenure code. She noted that interpretations only need to be approved by the Tenure Subcommittee and the Executive Vice President and Provost, which is why it is being presented for information only. Consultation on this interpretation was done with the Judicial, Faculty Affairs, and Faculty Consultative Committees and it was discussed by the Council of Deans.

The meeting was adjourned at 4:50 p.m.

Rebecca Hippert
Abstractor

[*] The interpretation was approved by the Tenure Subcommittee on Friday, April 14, 2000, and Executive Vice President and Provost Robert Bruininks on Monday, April 17, 2000.