FACULTY SENATE MINUTES
NOVEMBER 16, 2000
The third meeting of the Faculty Senate for 2000-01 was convened in 25 Law Building, Minneapolis campus, on Thursday, November 16, 2000, at 2:33 p.m. Coordinate campuses were linked by telephone. Checking or signing the roll as present were 112 voting faculty/academic professional members, 1 ex officio member, and 2 nonmembers. President Yudof presided.
The November 30, 2000, Senate meetings have been cancelled.
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.
ROBERTA HUMPHREYS, 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 July 29, 1999 Board of Regents NOT YET SUBMITTED |
| Approved by the: | Faculty Senate April 22, 1999 Administration July 29, 1999 Board of Regents NOT YET SUBMITTED |
| Approved by the: | Faculty Senate April 22, 1999 Administration PENDING Board of Regents NOT YET SUBMITTED |
| Approved by the: | Faculty Senate May 20, 1999 Administration PENDING Board of Regents NOT YET SUBMITTED |
Professor Fred Morrison, Chair of the Faculty Consultative Committee (FCC), noted that deans and vice presidents are non-voting members of the Senate, and therefore letters have been sent encouraging them to participate. He also directed the senators' attention to two brochures available, one on the biennial request to inform all students, staff, and faculty on the University's needs and the other which lists the successes of the University as a whole.
Professor Morrison then introduced Carolyn Chalmers, the new University Grievance Officer, and Betty Hackett, the new Academic Integrity Officer and gave each a chance to talk about their offices.
Ms. Chalmers said that she was schooled at the University of Minnesota and has been an employment lawyer for over 20 years. She served as a litigator in employment cases and then spent time as a mediator. She began at the University in October. The Grievance Office is for employment disputes. For faculty members, it compliments the Senate Judicial Committee. She noted that the office is available for pre-grievance counseling. Her goal for the office is to provide orderly processing of complaints, do outreach to University constituencies, and incorporate more mediation in the informal stages of the processes.
Ms. Hackett said that it is an honor to assume this role for the University after serving as the University's Student Judicial Affairs Officer. She has received counsel from the National Center of Academic Integrity on establishing an honor code. She also recognizes that there are several working models available from colleges at the University. She looks forward to working closely with the Student Academic Integrity Committee and students in general.
Recommendation 1. The University should establish a standing Benefits Advisory Committee to monitor the benefits packages available to employees and to advise the University administration. The committee membership should include representatives of all affected groups.
Recommendation 2. The University administration should continue the recently-initiated negotiations with the State Department of Employee Relations (DOER) to acquire a management flexibility that has not been available through the state up to now. The flexibility should include:
Recommendation 3. The University should maintain a diverse and stable set of health and dental plans, as well as group policies for long-term care, to meet the needs of its diverse set of employees, retirees, and graduate assistants.
RICHARD McGEHEE, Chair
HEALTH PLAN TASK FORCE
DISCUSSION:
Professor McGehee, Chair of the Health Plan Task Force (HPTF), said that nothing has changed in the final report, except that the full report is now available on-line. The material today is just the executive summary, the final recommendations, and a proposed charge for the Benefits Advisory Committee (BAC).
Of the four recommendations, there has been some controversy regarding establishing a BAC. The HPTF feels that this type of committee is important since it is the only mechanism for non-union employee input into the process. In a discussion regarding the charge, the task force felt that the BAC should be jointly appointed by the Faculty Senate, Civil Service Committee, and the Academic Staff Advisory Committee. The task force also advises that graduate students have representation on the committee, and that their role be determined by their involvement in the employee health plans. Unions should also have representatives, but with non-voting positions. The name was also chosen to reflect the scope of benefits that the committee would need to deal with should the University separate from the state.
Professor Morrison, Chair of the Faculty Consultative Committee (FCC), said that the University had not been represented in the formation of health benefits prior to the appointment of the HPTF. The task force has given the University's employees a greater voice in developing benefits with the state, and this needs to continue.
Therefore, the Faculty Senate would like to ask the HPTF members to continue as the interim BAC, with a charge limited to health care and related benefits, until the charge is approved by the Faculty Senate, Civil Service Committee, and the Academic Staff Advisory Committee. This proposal would allow the people with experience, HPTF members, to continue working on the issues from the final report and negotiating changes with the state.
Another concern has been the graduate students' position. He has been told that graduate students are interested observers in this process and have no plans to eliminate their separate insurance plan at this time. They should remain as non-voting members on the BAC. If at some point graduate students decide to join the employees' health coverage, then they should have voting positions on the BAC.
Lastly, the University needs to proceed on two tracks. On one hand, one group will need to handle the administrative matters involved with carrying out the recommendations. President Yudof has designated Senior Vice President Cerra to chair this administrative group. On the other hand, a committee, such as the BAC, will need to continue to represent the employees' interests.
President Yudof then thanked Professor McGehee and the HPTF members for the years of work on this issue. If these recommendations are approved, he will adhere to them. He did note that there is no conflict of interest because the University does not plan to offer its own health plan, although University providers will continue to provide services through other health plans. In closing, he noted that the work of both groups will not be easy as the University is faced with rising employee and employer health benefit costs, although the state seems to be open to changes for University employees.
Q: Recommendation 3, part 2 calls for the University to cross-subsidize plans to provide stability. Would the cross-subsidy allow for plan stability?
A: There are two ways to look at subsidy. First, if all employees were in a single risk pool, then the healthy would subsidize the sick and the young would subsidize the old. Most people do not think of this since they consider themselves lucky when they are well. When risk adjustments are needed, it can look like a subsidy, but these adjustments are needed to keep plan prices lower even though these plans might have all the higher cost employees. The right amount of adjustment is a delicate question, but if diverse plans are desired, then the question needs to be answered.
Q: Is there a possibility that higher-income and higher-cost employees would choose the higher cost plan and then be subsidized by the poorer employees who choose the lower cost plans?
A: This situation could happen if the situation is not managed closely. The University would need to have costs at the actuarial level, not at the experience cost of the plan.
Q: Why do employees need to carry University insurance if they are covered somewhere else?
A: The HPTF has looked at this question and posed it to the state. The main reason is a subsidy issue. From the view of the state, if they allow employees with other insurance to opt-out, then the price will increase for everyone remaining. If the University decides to separate from the state, then this situation can be rectified; if the University remains with the state, then more negotiations will be needed.
Q: What is the definition for domestic partners, all couples or only same sex?
A: The definition was purposely left vague. The intent is to comply with Regents policy, however there is a movement through MnSCU to have domestic partners, defined as same and opposite sex, covered at the state level.
With no further discussion, a vote was taken and the four recommendations were approved.
A motion was then made to ask the HPTF to continue to serve in an interim basis as the HBAC until a permanent charge is established.
Q: Will the students continue on the HBAC?
A: Yes.
Q: What will be the duties of the interim HBAC?
A: The HBAC will focus on working with the state on the elements in recommendation 2.
Q: Will the HBAC be looking at long-term care insurance and defined contributions versus defined benefits?
A: These issues will need to be addressed at some point.
With no further discussion, a vote was taken and the motion was approved.
A final motion was then made to express a debt of gratitude and recognize the efforts of the Health Plan Task Force members throughout this process. With no discussion, a vote was taken and the motion was approved with a round of applause.
APPROVED
COMMENT:
At the April 20, 2000, Faculty Senate meeting Faculty Emeriti Administrative
Procedures were approved. In October 2000, the procedures were approved by
Executive Vice President and Provost Bruininks with one linguistic change. The
deleted language in the Faculty Senate policy is struck out
and the additional language in the Executive Vice President and Provost policy
is [bracketed]. This change is being reported to the Faculty Senate for
information.
...
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[; or a promotion
can be made in the emeritus rank].
...
RICHARD GOLDSTEIN, Chair
FACULTY AFFAIRS COMMITTEE
COMMENT:
In light of suggestions from the Senate Committee on Educational Policy and the Senate Committee on Faculty Affairs, the "Principles Regarding Instructional Personnel" have been modified since the preparation of the Senate docket. Both the committees have endorsed the statement as revised.
PRINCIPLES REGARDING INSTRUCTIONAL PERSONNEL
In order to provide a sound program of instruction for its students at all levels, undergraduate, graduate and professional, the University must rely on its regular faculty to take principal responsibility for developing and teaching courses carrying degree credit. Academic staff and adjunct faculty support this mission of the University through their important contributions in the fields of their special qualifications.
The tenured and tenure-track professors are the regular faculty of the University. They participate in all three missions of the University: teaching, research, and service. The core instruction in every discipline should be provided primarily by these members of the faculty. This is especially true in courses in the major and at the graduate level. These faculty have responsibility for recommending the establishment of courses of study and have teaching duties at all levels. These responsibilities for instruction may be shared with visiting and temporary faculty. In circumstances in which the Regents Policy on Faculty Tenure precludes regular appointments, contract faculty may also share in this responsibility. All faculty members must be carefully selected and reviewed by a process that includes peer review.
Other instructional personnel make a valuable contribution to the University, but have more specialized functions. Most of them participate primarily in the teaching mission of the University. Members of the academic professional staff (lecturers and teaching specialists) provide instruction in some multi-sectioned courses, especially at the introductory level, and in skills courses. Adjunct faculty from inside and outside the University and members of the Universityıs non-instructional administrative staff teach in the specialized fields in which they have professional expertise. Graduate assistants provide instruction to other students while obtaining experience for their own future careers. These groups complement, but do not supplant, the regular faculty, who retain primary responsibility at all levels for the instructional programs and their academic standards.
The Regents Policy on Faculty Tenure describes the appropriate use of non-faculty instructional personnel. The Senate urges the Executive Vice President and Provost to issue administrative instructions further detailing these expectations. The administrative policy should be reviewed thoroughly in five years.
The Senate also urges the University to make provision for appropriate employment conditions, including appropriate notice periods and full health and retirement benefits, for individuals who are in the academic professional category.
The Faculty Consultative Committee (FCC) presents the following resolution regarding the principles underlying the use of faculty and non-faculty teachers for consideration.
FRED MORRISON, Chair
FACULTY CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE
DISCUSSION:
Professor Morrison, Chair of the Faculty Consultative Committee (FCC), said that academic appointments have been a subject of debate at the University for over two years, during which time the University has discovered that each college has a different situation.
Through the efforts of a joint committee chaired by Professor Kent Bales, recommendations were made and approved by the Faculty Senate. These recommendations were sent to a second task force chaired by Dean John Brandl. This committee agreed with the recommendations, but made some adjustments.
Following the two reports, there was a conclusion that the University needed some administrative procedures to deal with future planning in terms of limiting and restricting the appropriate use of non-regular faculty. This document is currently being developed, but since it is an administrative document, it will not come to the Faculty Senate for approval. Therefore, a set of principles was created to provide the Senate with a voice in this matter. These principles have been endorsed by the FCC, the Senate Committee on Educational Policy (SCEP), and the Senate Committee on Faculty Affairs (SCFA), and are now being presented for Faculty Senate approval.
Professor Morrison noted that the most recent version was on the one-page handout, but that a friendly amendment had been made to remove the word 'core' from the second paragraph.
Q: In terms of the administrative procedures, will it be reviewed before being implemented and who will conduct the review in five years?
A: The administrative procedures have been and will continue to be reviewed by SCEP and SCFA, but this review is at a level of detail too great for a Faculty Senate meeting. In five years, the policy review will also be conducted by SCEP, SCFA, and possibly the Faculty Senate. The procedures also call for the annual review of appointments by the Tenure Subcommittee.
Professor Kent Bales, Chair of the Academic Appointment Subcommittee, said that this is a negotiated conclusion which he is in favor of. There are still some minor problems in the proposed procedures, but the questions that remain will be worked out in the future. The Faculty Senate will also have the opportunity to review issues once the procedures have been in place.
Professor Wilbert Ahern, Chair of the Senate Committee on Educational Policy (SCEP), noted that SCEP spent three meetings thoroughly reviewing these materials. He expressed special appreciation to Professor Bales and Vice President Carol Carrier. SCEP originally had concerns with three areas: what would trigger creating a special plan for appointments?, what level was permissible before a special report would be made?, and is a statement of principles needed? Each of these questions received an appropriate response from the drafting committee. One continuing concern, which SCEP will watch, is the balance between full-time and part-time non-regular faculty appointments.
Several senators expressed support for the essence of these principles.
Q: Who is creating the details of these procedures and has there been any student input?
A: Each college will develop a plan as well as special plans for departments with over 25% of the instruction from non-regular faculty. These plans are then approved by the collegiate governance organizations, at which point students are included.
Q: The second paragraph refers to many different kinds of faculty. The last sentence notes, "all faculty members." What was the intent of this phrase?
A: The intent is that there should be peer review of all faculty, although the procedures recognize that this might be harder for some faculty, such as visiting faculty.
With no further discussion, a vote was taken and the motion was approved.
APPROVED
NONE
9. NEW BUSINESS
(Senate Agenda Item 18)
NONE
10. ADJOURNMENT
(Senate Agenda Item 19)
The meeting was adjourned at 4:20 p.m.
Rebecca Hippert
Abstractor