A meeting of the Faculty Senate may be held on Thursday, May 31, 2001, if needed.

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

Amendments to Faculty Tenure (Sections 5.3 and 11)

Approved by the:

Faculty Senate April 22, 1999 Administration July 29, 1999 Board of Regents NOT YET SUBMITTED

Interpretation of Faculty Tenure (Section 15)

Approved by the:

Faculty Senate April 22, 1999 Administration July 29, 1999 Board of Regents NOT YET SUBMITTED

Amendment to the Judicial Committee Rules of Procedure (Addition to Rule 2b: Vice Chair)

Approved by the:

Faculty Senate April 22, 1999 Administration PENDING Board of Regents NOT YET SUBMITTED

Amendment to the Judicial Committee Rules of Procedure (Revision of 6b: Attorney)

Approved by the:

Faculty Senate May 20, 1999 Administration PENDING Board of Regents NOT YET SUBMITTED

Health Plan Task Force Recommendations

Approved by the:

University Senate November 16, 2000 Administration January 19, 2001* Board of Regents - no action required

*Central Administration has accepted the recommendations of the Health Plan Task Force and has charged a joint faculty/administration task force to carefully review and implement or modify, as appropriate, the recommendations of the Task Force.

Principles Regarding Instructional Personnel

Approved by the:

University Senate November 16, 2000 Administration January 19, 2001* Board of Regents - no action required

*The Resolution of Principles Regarding Instructional Personnel has been received and reviewed by Central Administration. It has been shared with the Council of Deans and other administrative bodies. The administration is in agreement that the Principles support the newly developed policy on academic appointments. The Principles were reported to the Board of Regents by a joint panel of administrators and faculty at their December 2000 meeting. Training sessions for Human Resources personnel and department heads are currently being implemented. The Principles are supported in these training sessions.

Professor Fred Morrison, Chair of the Senate Consultative Committee (SCC), said that the principal items that the committee has been dealing with include faculty salaries and health benefits, both of which are agenda items for today.

MOTION:

That the Faculty Senate approve the following amendments to the Administrative Procedures for the Interim Regents' Policy on Faculty Development Leaves. New language is underlined; language to be deleted is struck-out. A simple majority is required for approval.

...

2. Kinds of Leaves

...

b. Sabbatical Leaves

...

Section III. Application, Review, and Funding

...

Subd. 5. Supplementary Funding. The $310,000 annual Bush Salary Supplement Program will be has been discontinued upon implementation of the interim policy and will be has been replaced by an expanded salary supplement pool jointly funded by the Office of the Executive Vice President and Provost (2/3) and the colleges (l/3). A total of $750,000 is expected to be was available for those taking sabbaticals during the 1999-2000 academic year and $1,500,000 for each of the subsequent years that the interim policy remains in effect. For sabbatical leaves of two semesters, or 11 months for those on fiscal-year appointments, faculty may request (using procedures established by the college) salary supplementary funds to cover an additional 25% of their recurring salary (not to exceed $20,000). Candidates are encouraged to seek funding from non-University sources to cover the salary supplement. The college administrator shall provide the Office of the Executive Vice President and Provost an annual report of the faculty granted salary supplement funds.

...

3. Transition from Quarters to Semesters

Subd. 1. Transferring Accrued Credit. Up to six years of credit towards a sabbatical can be transferred under the new policy, so that for 1999-2000 this accrued credit and a worthy proposal make one eligible for a year's sabbatical leave. Up to four years of credit toward eligibility for a single-semester leave may also be transferred. However, during the year 1998-99 those with three years of credit towards eligibility may apply without prejudice for a single-semester leave in 1999-00. In other words, the procedures for awarding single-quarter leaves will remain in effect for applications made during this transitional year for leaves to be taken during the first year of single-semester leaves.

...

COMMENT:

This motion is to recommend extension of the current Interim Regents' Policy on Faculty Development Leaves for one year. The additional year will enable a more complete analysis of faculty use of the current policy in order to have more information on which to make recommendations to the Senate for a permanent policy next year. It should be noted that the Bush Salary Supplement Program that provided $310,000 in supplementary salary support has been replaced by an expanded salary supplement pool of $1,500,000 for the coming year. Faculty members should note that applying for supplemental funding does not affect positively or negatively the likelihood that a requested sabbatical will be granted.

RICHARD GOLDSTEIN, Chair
SENATE FACULTY AFFAIRS COMMITTEE

DISCUSSION:

Professor Richard Goldstein, Chair of the Senate Committee on Faculty Affairs (SCFA), stated that traditionally there were two types of the faculty leaves, single-quarter leave and sabbatical leave. With the change to semesters, the single-quarter leave was changed to a single-semester leave. An interim policy was created to address this issue. These amendments change future tense to past tense for the policy. He then noted that a permanent leave policy will be brought to the Faculty Senate for approval in the Fall.

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

APPROVED

The Senate Committee on Faculty Affairs and the Senate Committee on Finance and Planning, after meeting in joint session on December 19, 2000, express their deep concerns about the disparity in faculty salaries between the University of Minnesota and its peer institutions and about the impact of this disparity on the quality of teaching and research at the University. We note with dismay that according to recent AAUP salary data, the University ranks 73^rd in the nation, not only behind most of the top 30 research universities but also behind schools such as Babson College, Georgia State, Fordham, the University of Connecticut, the University of Delaware, Colby College, Southern Methodist, Hofstra, and Wake Forest. Although these are worthy institutions, their ability to pay higher salaries threatens our ability to remain a distinguished research university. In turn, this threat to the University of Minnesota is a threat to the continued economic well-being of the State of Minnesota.

The disparity in salaries is having a significant and negative impact on recruitment and retention of faculty. All of us on the two committees know of repeated instances where our colleagues have been recruited to other institutions, sometimes to places that lack the intellectual reputation or academic standing of the University of Minnesota. We are also aware of departments that are unable to recruit their top choices for new faculty. These incidents bode ill for the intellectual future of the University.

The University must make a firm commitment to invest in its human capital with the same vigor that it is investing in its physical capital. The recent economic summit made this point clearly and strongly. As officers of the faculty governance system, and on behalf of our colleagues throughout the University, we strongly support the University's biennial request for 4% competitive salary increases for each of the next two years, in addition to the requested 3% inflationary increases. We urge the administration to make every effort to obtain the full increase requested. The State of Minnesota must be continually reminded of the University's contribution to the State's economy. The technology and training provided by the University allow Minnesota to compete successfully in a global marketplace that spans from information technology to agriculture to health care. The Legislature and the Governor must be made aware of the threat posed to the University and must be convinced that addressing this disparity is of the utmost importance to the long-term economic health of the State.

Adopted unanimously by the Senate Committee on Faculty Affairs and the Senate Committee on Finance and Planning January 10, 2001. Endorsed unanimously by the Faculty Consultative Committee January 18, 2001.

COMMENT:

The Faculty Consultative Committee endorsed this declaration on January 18, 2001.

RICHARD GOLDSTEIN, Chair
SENATE COMMITTEE ON FACULTY AFFAIRS

CHARLES SPEAKS, Chair
SENATE COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND PLANNING

DISCUSSION:

Professor Richard Goldstein, Chair of the Senate Committee on Faculty Affairs (SCFA), stated that this declaration is for support of faculty salaries at the legislature. A joint task force was created to study the salary issue in comparison with other institutions. This declaration was produced by the task force, along with other salary suggestions at a later Faculty Senate meeting.

A senator objected to the mention of institutions by name in the first paragraph since this appears gratuitous and snobbish. He suggested that the wording be changed to "..but also behind other colleges and universities whose research missions do not match Minnesota's in scale or scope. Their ability..."

Professor Goldstein accepted this as a friendly amendment.

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

APPROVED

Health Plan Issues For the University of Minnesota

Issues for the University

• Coverage and Eligibility Issues
  • From employee surveys and Task Force report
• Rising Costs
  • Estimated 18%-20% cost increase

• Cost (to the University and to you)
  
• Coverage
  • Mental Health Coverage
    
  • Out-of Area Coverage
    
  • Out-of Network Coverage
    
  • Complementary and Alternative Medicine
• Eligibility
  • Domestic partners

• Continuity of providers
  
• Stay with State SEGIP, if possible

• Create 2 working groups
  • Employee-based Interim Committee (old task force)
    
  • Administrative-based Working Group
• Continue to work with State DOER
  
• Ask for alternative bids through RFP

• Does not exclude continuing with state
  
• Gives us options and prices
  
• Decision points

A. Limited HMO
B. Traditional HMO
C. Point-of-Service
D. New Plan

• HMO with limited clinics
  
• Small co-pay ($5)
  
• Probably no employee premium

• HMO with broader list of providers
  
• Broader mental health
  
• Possible out-of-area coverage
  
• Moderate co-pay ($10)
  
• Hospital co-pays ($75 outpatient, $200 inpatient)
  
• Low or no employee premium

• POS with broader list of providers, including mental health
  
• Possible out-of-area coverage
  
• Out-of-network with deductible/coinsurance
  
• Higher co-pay ($15) and hospital co-pays
  
• Higher premium

• New plan
  
• Major medical insurance ($1,000 deductible)
  
• Tax-free medical expense account ($500)
  
• Possibly no premium

• Domestic partners eligible
  
• Wellness care at no cost
  
• Emergency care ($50 deductible) worldwide
  
• Urgent care worldwide (with co-pay)
  
• Seek to address CAM issues

• Under Plans A, B, and C
  • Deductibles ($10/$20/$35)
    
  • Pharmacy caps (possibly $500)
• Under Plan D, part of Major Medical

• March-April (RFP response)
  
• May
  • Legislative budget
    
  • Final decision on plans
• June-July--Collective bargaining
  
• October-November--open enrollment
  
• January 2002--new plans begin

A: The bids will determine this. One common form is a $1000 deductible with 80% coverage for the next $5000.

Q: How will out-of-state benefits be covered by each plan?

A: Each plan will include out-of-state benefits for urgent and emergency care, but other benefits will be provided in different ways. Plan A will not have any other coverage. Plan B might have HMO availability in certain locations. Plan C will have some deductibles and co-pays for out-of-state. For Plan D, location does not make a difference.

Q: How much is a person really charged for health insurance?

A: The committees are exploring self-insurance to get actual costs.

Q: Many dentists are withdrawing from current policies. Is dental insurance covered in this package?

A: Dental insurance will continue as is, or very close to as is, since the committee can only deal with one issue at a time.

Q: Under these new plans, will the University still pay the minimum cost for health insurance for every employee?

A: This is possible, although the committees will be considering cost partitioning once the bids are returned. One concern is that rising costs will affect low-paid employees differently.

(Proposed deletions from the current text of the Rules are marked with strike-through, additions in italics. Each item is followed by an explanation for the change proposed.)

(1) Amendment to the Preamble as follows:

. . . .
Examples:
. . . .

4. Sanctions.

An accusation of misconduct is brought against a tenured faculty member. The University administration decides to sanction the faculty member, without a hearing before a grievance body, by placing a reprimand in his or her file. If the faculty member files a complaint alleging a violation of the Tenure Code and it survives a motion to dismiss and/or for summary judgment, the Senate Judicial Committee will provide the faculty member with a full evidentiary hearing to determine whether in its view the action violated the Tenure Code. Based on the record of the hearing, the Senate Judicial Committee will make findings and recommendations to the President of the University.

Reason for Deletion of Example 4 from the Preamble to the Rules. This paragraph is one of four examples that purport to describe typical cases falling within the primary jurisdiction of the Senate Judicial Committee. The example is misleading if not inconsistent with the substance of the Preamble that it purports to illustrate. As stated in the third paragraph of the Preamble: "in cases involving adverse actions other than suspension, nonrenewal, or dismissal, faculty members must first pursue their cases before other grievance bodies when other bodies are provided by the University." That same jurisdictional requirement is set forth in Rule 3 and the comment thereto (see also Rule 2(e) and the comment thereto). In the case suggested by Example 4, the complaint would not survive a motion to dismiss unless the faculty member had first exhausted "all other available University remedies," including whatever remedy might be available through the University Grievance Office. (Comment to Rule 3.) Therefore the Judicial Committee would not have jurisdiction to hear this case "until the appropriate University body has either decided it or refused to consider it." (Comment to Rule 3.)

(2) Amendment to Rule 13(c) as follows:

RULE 13:
Provisional Relief.

Reason for Amendment of Rule 13 (c). The change is intended to clarify actual practice and to remove the inaccurate implication that the SJC can award provisional relief. The SJC's authority regarding provisional relief is limited to making a recommendation to the President. It is the President who awards or denies such relief.

(3) Amendment to Rule 17(f) as follows:

RULE 17:
Procedures at the Hearing.

Reason for Amendment of Rule 17 (f). Deletion of the last two sentences of the rule removes the apparent unfairness of imposing non-reciprocal obligations on the parties. Ordinarily both parties are granted the discretion to present witness testimony in whatever order each party determines to be most appropriate for its own case. Ordinarily too both parties are present at all testimony given in a case. Deletion of these sentences does not diminish the authority of the Hearing Officer to regulate the course of the proceedings under Rules 14 (d) and 17 (b).

(4) Amendment to Rule 22 as follows:

RULE 22:
Procedure for Compliance with Presidential Decisions in Conditions of Employment Cases.

The Judicial Committee understands that the President will demand compliance with his or her decisions in employment cases and will take timely and appropriate administrative action to enforce those decisions. It is understood that in conditions of employment cases, the President will explicitly state, in his or her letter of decision, an expectation and intention of compliance by all parties concerned, and will request the appropriate administrative officers within the academic unit to send in writing the statement o f their intent and specific actions to implement the corrective actions that the President has requested within three weeks.

In conditions of employment cases, the Chair of the Judicial Committee should check with the parties involved six weeks after the issuance of a Presidential decision accepting the Findings and Recommendations (whether in whole or in part) of a Judicial Committee Panel to see if the decision is being satisfactorily implemented.

If the reports back from the affected parties to the Judicial Committee indicate that there is substantial non-compliance with the Presidential decision, this fact should be immediately transmitted to the President for appropriate action. The President will then convene both parties to the dispute, review the earlier Judicial Committee findings, and his or her decisions with regard to those findings. This meeting should include the appropriate Vice President and Dean as well as the Hearing Officer who presided over the Judicial Committee case and the Chair of the Judicial Committee.

If, after this informal hearing, the President determines that the persons with designated administrative responsibilities at the University are not executing the letter and the spirit of the corrective action, the President will institute appropriate administrative remedies directed against all University persons who may have responsibilities for compliance with the decision. Such remedies will be implemented within a reasonable period of time so that there is one final opportunity for the responsible person to take the necessary corrective actions.

The President will inform the Chair of the Senate Judicial Committee and the Panel that made the initial findings and recommendations of any subsequent instructions he or she has issued or action he or she has the actions taken to implement his or her decisions stemming from the compliance hearing described in the foregoing paragraph. Within a reasonable time thereafter, and as many times as necessary, the procedure described in this Rule may be reinvoked by the Chair in order to ensure compliance with the President's decision and instructions to the parties.

Reason for Amendment of Rule 22. This rarely invoked rule applies to "Conditions of Employment" cases, which are defined under Rule 2 (e). Rule 22 sets forth two sets of procedures. One is the procedure which the Chair of the SJC must follow in checking on compliance with a Presidential decision. This remains essentially unchanged by the proposed amendment. The other part of the rule seeks to impose a specific course of action upon the President when s/he is notified of non-compliance. There is, however, no authority in the tenure regulations for the SJC to limit the President's discretion in such circumstances. The proposed changes remove these unenforceable instructions to the President, while retaining the expectation that the President "will demand compliance with his or her decisions ... and take timely and appropriate action to enforce those decisions."

PART B
One Pending Amendment Previously Reported to the Faculty Senate &
One Editorial Correction to the Current Text of the Rules

(1) Pending Amendment to Rule 6(b) as follows:

RULE 6:
Representation and Attendance at Hearings.

History of Pending Amendment to Rule 6(b). This amendment was reported to the Faculty Senate by the Chair of the Tenure Committee on May 20, 1999. At that time the proposal included an interpretive Comment as follows:

The President, after discussions with the Judicial Committee, has indicated that he will accept the proposed change to Rule 6(b), but he has declined to accept the proposed Comment. The Comment has therefore been deleted. In other respects the pending amendment is unchanged from what was previously reported to the Senate.

(2) Editorial correction to Rule 9(e) as follows:

RULE 9:
Distribution of Complaint: Determination of Jurisdiction; Motions to Dismiss.

Explanation of Correction to Rule 9(e). The correction restores the word "no" to the second line of the paragraph. It is clear from the heading of the paragraph that the provision applies to a determination of "lack of jurisdiction". The word "no" was inadvertently omitted.

GEORGE SHEETS, Chair
SENATE JUDICIAL COMMITTEE

The meeting was adjourned at 3:54 p.m.

Rebecca Hippert
Abstractor