The second meeting of the Faculty Senate was convened in 25 Mondale Hall, Minneapolis campus, on Thursday, December 4, 2008, at 2:35 p.m. Coordinate campuses were linked by phone. Checking or signing the roll as present were 117 faculty/faculty-like academic professional members. President Bruininks presided.

Alfred Aeppli
Professor
Mathematics
1928 – 2008

Sharon Beckes
Academic Professional
University of Minnesota Extension
1946 – 2008

Peter W. Firchow
Professor
English
1937 – 2008

Helene Horwitz
Associate Dean
Medical School
1942 – 2008

Paul J. Maupin
Academic Professional
Health Sciences Building Projects
1932 – 2008

Lawrence C. Merriam
Professor
Forest Resources
1923 – 2008

Chester Schultz, Jr.
Professor
Dentistry
1931 – 2008

Allan H. Spear
Professor
History
1937 – 2008

John B. Eckholdt
College of Liberal Arts

Kelly L. Preusse
College of Continuing Education

The Committee on Academic Freedom and Tenure cannot endorse the personnel plan proposed by the senior administrators at the University of Minnesota, Rochester. The Committee believes that the proportion of tenured and tenure-track faculty is too low to provide the kind of liberal-arts education that merits awarding a University of Minnesota baccalaureate degree to the students who will matriculate at this campus.

The proposed plan has two groups of personnel participating in the teaching mission, tenured and tenure-track faculty as one group and "student-based" instructors (i.e., lecturers and teaching specialists) as the other, a large proportion of each group to be hired at the outset. The high proportion of personnel not tenured or on the tenure track in the plan represents a threat both to tenure and to academic freedom at the University of Minnesota, since non-tenured faculty cannot fully exercise academic freedom without some fear that their jobs may be in jeopardy, and many if not all would be reluctant to exercise it fully. Furthermore, a large proportion of personnel who are not tenured or on the tenure track whose primary responsibility is teaching (85%) would appear to provide an insufficient regular-faculty cohort to ensure that the research mission of a large research university is carried out and embodied in the instruction provided to the students. The Committee recommends that at least 75% of those hired be tenured or on the tenure track.[1]

Approved November 21, 2008

If the University is faced with a situation that requires budget cuts, the Faculty Consultative Committee strongly urges that any percentage cuts in academic budgets be matched by comparable cuts in the non-academic units.

Approved October 16, 2008

The Faculty Consultative Committee voted to approve the proposed bylaws for the Coalition on Intercollegiate Athletics, of which the Faculty Senate is a member. Copies of the bylaws will be available at the meeting and are available on the web at: http://www.neuro.uoregon.edu/~tublitz/COIA/COIA%20draft%20bylaws%2005%20Nov%2008.pdf

Approved November 19, 2008

The Faculty Consultative Committee (FCC) recommends that the President adopt at least on a trial basis the proposal of the Senate Committee on Faculty Affairs Subcommittee on Faculty Ombuds Services, made on September 8, 2008, to establish a Faculty Ombuds Service for the Twin Cities campus. (While the service might be available to faculty on all non-bargaining-unit campuses, the coordinate campus faculty members of FCC have expressed doubt that any of their colleagues would use a service based on the Twin Cities campus.) FCC suggests creating the service for a period of three years, after which its effectiveness will be evaluated by the Vice Provost for Faculty and Academic Affairs, the Office for Conflict Resolution, and the Vice President for Human Resources, in concert with the Senate Committee on Faculty Affairs.  FCC believes the need for such a service is substantial and that the cost of establishing it will be relatively small, especially compared to the benefits to be gained. Given the likely economic conditions facing the University in the near future, FCC accepts the proposition that establishment of the service should be cost-neutral so would be prepared to see funds drawn from some other fringe benefit program (e.g., Wellness) to fund this for the pilot period.

The subcommittee report did not address the administrative details of how to implement the recommendations, and FCC recommends they be worked out by a small group jointly appointed by the President (or his designee) and the Senate Committee on Faculty Affairs.

Approved November 17, 2008

The report of the Subcommittee on Faculty Ombuds Services is available on the web at:
http://www1.umn.edu/usenate/scfa/ombudsreport.pdf

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

http://www1.umn.edu/usenate/usen/081002sen.html

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

Professor Emily Hoover, Chair of the Faculty Consultative Committees (FCC), said that FCC has been meeting regularly with senior administrators, such as President Bruininks, Provost Sullivan, and Senior Vice Presidents Jones and Cerra. Topics for these meetings have included the budget, issues of academic freedom and tenure, and updates on strategic positioning. A conversation was also held with Chancellor Lehmkuhle, from the Rochester Campus, to discuss development of that campus. Discussions also continue with the Twin Cities Deans Council on issues of mutual interest. FCC also spent time this fall listening to department leaders regarding on-going challenges within their units.

University leadership in consultation with Senate governance has been working on establishing a protocol for creating and reviewing University policies. The first group of these policies, from the Educational Policy Committee (SCEP), will be brought late today for discussion. Educational policies will continue to be looked at throughout the year. Research, financial, and human resources policies are also being looked at to consider their path of review.

Twice each year, FCC holds a discussion on the intellectual future of the University. The first for this year was held in November and dealt with the intellectual future of the public research university. Members read an article titled, 'The research university in transition," which described the attributes of the merging global model for universities and how the University fits into that model. This topic merits deliberate and sustained deliberation by faculty, administrators, and anyone else in the state who cares about higher education.

Lastly, FCC continues to discuss the University's financial situation and the steady slide in state resources. Faculty might be called upon this year to support the University's legislative request.

Professor Martin Sampson, a Faculty Legislative Liaison, referred senators to the blue handout which reports the news that the state economist delivered today, which is a substantial shortfall and implications for monies that were already appropriated for this fiscal year.

He expects that, as a result of the budget issues, this session will have unprecedented debate about the nature of the University, its priorities, and its organization. He believes that this level of inquiry is fair, but the problem is that society looks at higher education in the same way as the auto industry – that there are huge inefficiencies.

The reality is that the United States' higher education system is the envy of the rest of the world. It is deeply important that higher education maintains this status, while improving the model under unwanted budget circumstances. Vigorous support must also be given to the values and practices in this system.

Agenda Items 10. and 11. involve the same change to the same committee and are offered as a “Consent Agenda” to be taken up as a single item with one vote. Any item will be taken up separately at the request of a senator. As Item 10. is an amendment to the Faculty Senate Bylaws, the motion requires either a majority of all voting members of the Faculty Senate (84) at one regular or special meeting, or a majority of all voting members of the Faculty Senate present and voting at each of two meetings. This is the first meeting at which this motion is being presented.

To amend Article IV, Section 5(E) of the Faculty Senate Bylaws as follows (new language is underlined):

...

...

...

...

The Director of Academic Counseling, the Director of Academic Support Resources, and the Director of Compliance are ex officio members, without vote. The Committee will hold at least one meeting each semester without the presence of the ex officio members.

...

Currently the director of the McNamara Academic Center for Student-athletes and the director of Compliance serve as ex officio. The members of the Faculty Academic Oversight Committee on Intercollegiate Athletics (FAOCIA) believe that it would be appropriate and helpful to have the Director of Academic Support Resources, formerly the Registrar, at the table on a regular basis since she/he has the responsibility of the certification of eligibility of students who participate in varsity athletics programs.

Note: The FAOCIA is responsible for the oversight of the certification of the eligibility of student-athletes.

To amend Article IV, Section 1 of the Faculty Senate Rules as follows (new language is underlined):

...

- Faculty Academic Oversight Committee for Intercollegiate Athletics--Director of Academic Counseling; Director of Athletic Compliance; Director, Academic Support Resources

...

Currently the director of the McNamara Academic Center for Student-athletes and the director of Compliance serve as ex officio. The members of the Faculty Academic Oversight Committee on Intercollegiate Athletics (FAOCIA) believe that it would be appropriate and helpful to have the Director of Academic Support Resources, formerly the Registrar, at the table on a regular basis since she/he has the responsibility of the certification of eligibility of students who participate in varsity athletics programs.

Note: The FAOCIA is responsible for the oversight of the certification of the eligibility of student-athletes.

With no discussion, a vote was taken and the motion was approved with 95 in favor and none opposed.

That the Faculty Senate advises the President that it revises its motion of May 1, 2008, which read as follows:

"The Faculty Senate recommends to the President that the University adopt a Health Care Savings Plan for the faculty that uses the 0.5% of the 2.5% faculty contribution to the Faculty Retirement Plan. If there are questions about the details of the plan, the administration will consult with the appropriate Faculty Senate committees and the Faculty Senate."

The Faculty Senate now recommends that the full 2.5% contribution to the Faculty Retirement Plan be retained, as at present, and that an additional 0.5% of salary be deducted for contribution to a Health Care Savings Plan.

The Senate Committee on Faculty Affairs (SCFA) was informed by Jackie Singer, Director of Retirement Benefits, that the Council of Academic Professionals and Administrators (CAPA), the representative governance body for the academic professional and administrative (P&A) staff, had voted to add the 0.5% as an additional deduction from salary, rather than reduce the contribution to the Faculty Retirement Plan (as the Faculty Senate voted to do last spring). While it is legally possible for the University to make different deductions for different classes of employees, there are costs to doing so. There are a fairly large number of people (in excess of 200) who have P&A titles at present but who also hold tenured faculty appointments (e.g., the President, the deans, some of the vice presidents) or who go back and forth between faculty and P&A appointments.

More importantly, however, both SCFA and the Faculty Consultative Committee believe that the proposal from CAPA makes sense. The Health Care Savings Plan is the only fringe benefit program that allows tax-exempt contributions and tax-exempt withdrawals. Rather than reduce our retirement contributions, both FCC and SCFA recommend to the Faculty Senate that it adopt a recommendation that there be an additional 0.5% salary deduction that is a contribution to a Health Care Savings Plan resulting in an increase in the total deduction from 2.5 to 3.0%.

This item was withdrawn from the agenda and will be brought back to the Faculty Senate spring semester.

To amend the Faculty Senate Policy and Protocol on the Student Rating and Peer Evaluation of Instruction as follows (language is underlined):

...

Open Ended Questions

1.  What did the instructor do that most helped your learning?

2.  What could you have done to be a better learner?

3.  Additional Comments.

--The disposition of written comments on student-rating forms shall be decided by each college or campus. In units where all written comments on students' evaluations are routinely sent to the chair and/or to reviewing-bodies and included in the file, unfairly prejudicial comments should be withheld from the file upon request of the instructor concerned. The decision whether particular comments are unfairly prejudicial should be made by the chair, a senior faculty member designated through a process determined by the department, or a standing or ad-hoc committee. This provision is intended to cover scurrilous, racist, sexist, homophobic, and other personal comments, and is not intended to exclude from the file negative comments directly related to the course.

...

The Committee on Academic Freedom and Tenure (AF&T) noted the difference of opinion between the Senate Committee on Educational Policy and the Senate Committee on Faculty Affairs about the disposition of written comments on student-rating forms when the most recent version of the Senate policy was adopted. AF&T concurs with the concern expressed by SCFA about the potential impact of inappropriate comments made about instructors on written or online rating forms used in promotion, tenure, and merit decisions. After reviewing the comments provided to SCFA by Professor Marti Gonzales on the social-psychological research that demonstrates the disproportionate effect of even a single negative comment, AF&T recommends the changes indicated above. Be it noted that this policy does not include the excision of negative comments directed to the content or pedagogy of a course. Speaking not of slurs but of traits, Shakespeare’s Hamlet noted a very similar effect:

So oft it chances in particular men that, . . .
Carrying, I say, the stamp of one defect,
Being nature's livery, or fortune's star,
Their virtues else—be they as pure as grace,
As infinite as man may undergo—
Shall in the general censure take corruption
From that particular fault.

Professor Tom Clayton, Chair of the Academic Freedom and Tenure Committee (AF&T), said that the only disagreement on this amendment was whether all comments should be forwarded to the appropriate bodies or just those comments that were not unfairly prejudicial. A clear majority of individuals feel that unfavorable, prejudicial comments should be suppressed.

A senator spoke against the amendment. She said that college promotion and tenure (P&T) committees read all student evaluations and then discriminates between evaluations with stigmatizing comments. With these comments redacted, the committee would not be able to see the basis for comments and scores, which could be most harmful in the long-run.

Professor Marti Gonzales, from the Psychology department, said that despite people's best efforts and their beliefs that they are unaffected by negative comments, research shows that negative comments do have an effect, including construing neutral or ambiguous information in a less positive light than it would have been evaluated had they not been exposed to the comments. Another ironic aspect is that the harder people try not to let these comments affect their judgments, the greater the likelihood that their monitoring system will breakdown and will be influenced.

A senator then said that this can be a serious problem but she still supports the P&T committee seeing all the written comments. Without seeing these comments, there is no basis for the numerical rankings.

Another senator expressed concern about the practicality of redacting these comments. The proposal would leave the responsibility for designing procedures to each unit which would lead to questions of fairness and equivalency across the University. Also, if a candidate felt that not enough was redacted, it could lead to legal action.

A senator then noted that the amendment states that comments are only redacted if requested by the candidate, so that person makes the initial determination. If the candidate trusts the P&T committee in their unit, then they might not ask to have comments redacted.

Q: If a college P&T committee requests all the comments on a candidate, would they receive the unredacted version?

A: No.

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

That the Faculty Senate adopt the following statement (new statement, new language since October 4 Senate meeting underlined, language to be deleted struck out):

The Faculty Senate and the President affirm their mutual understanding that, in cases of unpreventable major adversity affecting faculty members, whether due to accident, the weather, building collapse, or any other external cause, the relevant administrations will immediately do all in its their power to enable faculty members affected to resume their professional activities as soon as possible; and will ensure that they will not be held responsible for professional performance to the extent that their professional activities are disrupted through no fault of their own.

The Committee on Academic Freedom and Tenure (AF&T) heard reports about the impact of the collapse of the 35W bridge on research being conducted in a building near the site of the bridge. Our general concern was the potential impact on review of individuals for promotion, tenure, and merit in the case when research facilities are disrupted because of natural disaster or other causes beyond the control of the faculty member. After several discussions, including a discussion with Vice President for Research Tim Mulcahy, we concluded that a general statement, to be embraced by the President as well as the Faculty Senate, would establish expectations without binding anyone to particular solutions. The range of possible problems precludes the adoption of a more specific policy, so AF&T recommends this general statement.

This version reflects a change suggested at the October 4 Senate meeting: the "administration" responsible for responding should include the colleges and departments as well as central administration, and AF&T agrees.

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

To send the following to the Minnesota Congressional Delegation:

The Members of the Faculty Senate of the University of Minnesota write to express their grave concern at the change in Department of Home Security policy that enables Customs and Border Patrol Agents to seize and copy electronic and printed materials at will, without even "suspicion of illegal activity" ("probable cause"), by which their efforts were limited until July 2008. We believe that what today affects only border crossings, tomorrow could spread internally and very likely would. This freely invasive practice is a threat to the integrity of the research of all scientists and other scholars who cross borders and, often, collaborate with scientists and scholars abroad. We urge you to do all you can to restore to Agents’ practice the entirely reasonable requirement of "suspicion of illegal activity" that previously obtained.

The Committee on Academic Freedom and Tenure received the following information from the national office of the American Association of University Professors, and in response, recommends the motion for adoption by the Faculty Senate, to be forwarded to the members of the Minnesota Congressional delegation.

Subject: AAUP Legislative Alert: Border Searches of Electronic Materials

October 14, 2008

Over the past few months there has been a great deal of publicity surrounding the searches of electronic materials at the border. Until recently, Customs and Border Patrol agents could seize and copy electronic and printed materials if they had probable cause to believe that the law was being broken. In July 2008, the Department of Homeland Security revealed that its internal policies no longer require any suspicion of illegal activity to search and seize travelers’ materials. While privacy issues are everyone’s concern, and all citizens should actively defend their civil liberties, faculty members have particular areas of concern about this policy due to their research and collaboration with colleagues around the world. Below, we offer links to press coverage and a congressional hearing on the issue.

Please consider calling your representatives and senators to express your concerns about this issue.
Talking points are directly below.

Obtain the contact information for your elected officials, as well as some general pointers on grassroots advocacy by visiting the AAUP's online advocacy center.

You could also call or e-mail the offices of Senator Russ Feingold and Senator Patrick Leahy to thank them for convening a hearing on this vital issue and encourage them to continue their oversight work.

Talking Points

-- Professors commonly collaborate on research with colleagues in other countries. In places with restrictive governments, researchers and scholars may be taking risks to work on certain projects. Knowing that such collaboration will no longer be kept confidential may have a chilling effect on collaboration across borders.
-- Similarly, faculty working in areas such as human rights may have a much more difficult time making contacts or finding sources, if they cannot guarantee the anonymity of sources of information. This would greatly impede the amount and quality of information obtained about various political and socio-economic situations around the world, of which academics are a vital source.
-- There is little or no information about how information that is copied and kept by Homeland Security will be kept secure, leading to concerns about the protection of original research. This extends to projects that may have patents pending or are in an otherwise precarious stage of development.
-- It is unlikely that the Customs and Border Protection agents conducting such searches at the border would have the specialized knowledge to determine whether or not certain types of data, particularly in areas of science such as engineering or biochemistry, pose a genuine threat.
-- The invasion of privacy may extend well beyond the individual whose possessions are being searched. Many faculty members have outside practices or jobs. An adjunct at a school of law may have confidential client records. An instructor from a psychology department may have patient records. Thus, obligations of confidentiality may be breached through no fault of the professional’s own under these searches.

Press coverage of this issue:

"Expanded Powers to Search Travelers at Border Detailed" Washington Post, 9/23/08

"Search and Replace" [editorial], Washington Post, 8/13/08

"US Border Agency Says It Can Seize Laptops" PC World, 8/3/08

"Travelers' Laptops May Be Detained At Border: No Suspicion Required Under DHS Policies" Washington Post, 8/1/08

Congressional Hearing: Senate Judiciary Committee, "Laptop Searches and Other Violations of Privacy Faced by Americans Returning from Overseas Travel"

Sincerely,
Cary Nelson, AAUP president
Nicole Byrd, AAUP government relations associate

Q: Was the phrase 'suspicion of illegal activity' removed from the current version?

A: Yes.

The following policies were presented for discussion by the Educational Policy Committee (SCEP):

Professor Cathrine Wambach, SCEP Chair, said that a year ago a subcommittee was created to begin looking at educational policies with the goals of rewriting them in a form that was suitable to the new policy library, clarify policies in areas where problems had been reported, and make the policies easier to find amid the verbiage.

The revisions were brought to SCEP at regular intervals for input. Comments were also received from FCC, three open forums, a posting on the policy library website, the Registrar's group, and the administrative Policy Advisory Committee.

She then presented the list of policies for review at today's meeting. The goal is to present the policies to the Faculty Senate in pieces to gather comments and then present the full set of policies spring semester for approval.

There was discussion on the following policies:

Campus-Specific Credits Requirements for Undergraduates (Baccalaureate) Degrees: Twin Cities, Morris, Rochester
Q: Is it a change that a 'D' grade does not count towards a degree?

A: No, this has always been the policy, but it is not always known. There has been controversy on this issue, but the subcommittee is not proposing a change.

Q: Is there a separate policy for AHC units?

A: If there is a policy, or a part of a policy, that does not pertain to the AHC, then it is noted in the policy. If there is no notation, then it does apply.

Credit and Grade Point Requirements for an Undergraduate (Baccalaureate) Degree: Twin Cities, Morris, Rochester
A senator noted that section 8 discusses limits on skills credits, but there is a separate limit at Morris. She asked that this be incorporated into the policy.

Enrolling in Overlapping or Back-to-Back Classes: Twin Cities, Morris, Rochester
A senator noted that a student can be penalized for being late due to overlapping courses, but not if tardiness is their natural habit.

Professor Wambach replied that a faculty member can penalize students in this situation.

Enrollment Limits for Course Sections
Q: Why was the language on 'appropriate academic officer' added? Who would this be besides a dean?

A: There are not departments on all the campuses, so the title of 'dean' is also not used. This language has been changed throughout all the documents to make them more applicable.

A senator said that this new term is unclear, so clarification should be provided.

Professor Wambach said that it could be added to the definition section of the policy.

Q: Is this policy meant to address the micromanaging of courses and sections due to less-than-full enrollment?

A: This was discussed by SCEP, both in terms of offering instruction that is cost-effective and allowing students to make progress towards a degree when a course is required. SCEP tried to address both needs in this statement. Another practice brought to SCEP's attention was the late cancellation of courses. This policy encourages cancellation decisions to be made earlier so students can sign up for another course.

Evaluation of Teaching: Twin Cities, Morris, Rochester
Professor Wambach noted that in Section 4, the restriction for evaluations in small courses has been eliminated. SCEP had heard from several faculty who sent their forms to the Office of Measurement Services at the end of spring semester, but did not get them returned based on the restriction in this policy. SCEP then discussed the loss of confidentiality for students in conjunction with these evaluations being the only mechanism to evaluate courses that might routinely have low enrollment. Without these evaluations, faculty who teach these courses have data missing for the promotion and tenure, and annual merit review processes.

A senator questioned the language in this section, since it seems to imply that all courses must be evaluated, except that a few types of courses, which are listed, cannot be evaluated.

Another senator interpreted the language to mean that the exception courses can still be evaluated, but just not be using the standard form. She suggested that the language be clarified to make this intention clearer.

A senator then commented that while anonymous evaluations are an established practice in the evaluation of faculty, they are not allowed when evaluating administrators.

Another senator stated that evaluations should not be required for classes with a small number of students, especially for Ph.D. students, since many times the faculty member teaching the course is their advisor or writing recommendation letters.

Q: Why does it state that student release questions (SRQs) 'may not' be used for promotion and tenure purposes?

A: SRQs were designed to provide information to students when registering for courses, not to evaluate instruction.

A senator stated that she misses some of the questions that were on the previous form, such as would the student take another course from the instructor.

Another senator said that when the SRQs were redesigned, students were informed that if the questions contained evaluative aspects, then they would be considered private data and only released with faculty consent.

A senator then said that she initially missed the first question from the previous form, but feels that the numerical result from this question is less useful in promotion and tenure cases.

Professor Wambach said that after years of work, the new form was used last spring. She has just seen the analysis, and is pleased at the positive rating of faculty on this form. The question with the highest rating was that the student was treated with respect by the instructor.

Grading and Transcripts: Twin Cities, Morris, Rochester
Q: Section V1, 2c, of the policy states that a student 'may not sit in on a course without registering for it.' How will this be implemented?

A: Faculty are sometimes asked to allow a student to sit-in on a course for the first week to see if the student wants to register for it, and this seems like a reasonable request. However, there is concern when the student is still in the class later in the semester without being registered, but taking exams and doing the work. Many times the student has a financial constraint which prevents them for registering. At the end of the semester, the faculty would try to award a grade, but the student is not on the class roster. This can present legal concerns for the University.

Professor Wambach pointed out some of the new language in this policy. Section II contains new language based on a question from a student ombudsman who wanted to know is a student had a right to know who graded their work. SCEP decided that the instructor of record should be responsible for dealing with a student issue. This change was then added to the policy.

She then stated that Section VII, 6d, also includes a clarification to close a loophole in the grading policy. Currently, if a student retakes a course, the second grade brackets the first grade. SCEP was informed that some students who receive an 'F' in a course reregistering for it under the 'S-N' grading scale. The student has no intention of taking the course, but the 'F' is bracketed by an 'N', which does not count in a student's GPA. Due to tuition banding, the student can reregister for this course without having to pay for it. While this has not been done often, it can be viewed as a form of academic dishonesty.

Q: The new language in Section II deals with a grade appeal. Is this section meant to explain a student not getting any explanation or just an explanation that does not satisfy the student? What is the process and scope?

A: Students cannot appeal a grade. They can only ask questions, try to seek further information, or go to a department chair or dean to complain about grading standards, but the only person who has control over the grade is the instructor. SCEP was trying to write this section in a way that a student would know what to do and the process, but would not imply a grade appeal.

A senator said that this language is confusing and invites any student not satisfied with their grade to go to the Student Conflict Resolution Center. He suggested revising the wording.

Q: Can the department chair override the faculty member's decision on a grade? Is this stated in the document? If not, can it be added?

A: A chair cannot override a faculty member, but it is not stated in this document.

A senator suggested revised language to state that an instructor must provide an explanation, however they need not change the grade.

In closing, Professor Wambach said that any further comments can be forwarded to her and Gary Engstrand.

President Bruininks stated that he finds it disheartening to be talking about the budget in these times, and the global economy, but the University needs to pay attention to the issues that surround it.

He reminded senators of some of the good things that happen at a great academic institution. It was his pleasure to introduce four new Regents Professors to the Regents this fall – Professors Allen Goldman, Steven Ruggles, Eric Sheppard, and Madelon Sprengnether. This program was limited to 20 faculty, but he asked that it be increased to 30 members, which represents about one percent of the faculty. The stipend was also $10,000 per year, which has been increased to $50,000 with increased flexibility for its use.

President Bruininks also said that Doug Arnold and Kathryn Sikkink were awarded McKnight Presidential appointments.

He then addressed what the University is doing to become a more sustainable system. He made a President's climate commitment and the University joined the Chicago Climate Exchange. Today, this is one of the leading carbon-credit exchanges in the country and has earned the University $750,000. The University has been recognized for its institutional sustainability initiatives. A system was developed to evaluate these efforts across institutions, and the University received the highest raking in the Big 10.

Morris also receive a national campus excellence award for outstanding use of renewable energy. A new biomass facility will provide 80 percent of the campus's heating and cooling needs. With a single windmill, the campus also provides 60 percent of its electrical power and makes a small profit by selling the remaining energy to the city.

Through all these efforts, the University saved $8 million last year in fuel costs at a time when these costs were increasing. He is most pleased that faculty and students are doing research on these initiatives.

He said that last month he was able to announce the Promise for Tomorrow Scholarship initiative. Five years ago, the University was way behind its peer groups in raising private funds for fellowships and scholarships. $1.8 billion was then raised in the last capital campaign, of which only $50 million was designated for these efforts.

He said that the University then did two things – told people that this effort was important and announced matching funds availability. Last month, this fund exceeded $250 million, which was the original goal. This allowed the University to double the number and the amount of scholarships and fellowships in five years. He said that he wants to keep fundraising since unless there is better financial support, it will be harder to keep higher education accessible and affordable.

President Bruininks said that a statement is being sent today to faculty and staff, which is available to senators on the blue handout, to announce the current situation, the state's financial crisis, and what this may mean for the University. Today the state issued a revised forecast, which was grim. For the remainder of this budget cycle, there is a $425 million projected deficit which could lead to budget adjustments or a rescission during this year. The proportionate share for the University would be $17 million. He is hoping that the legislature will find other solutions for this year.

The main problem, however, is a $4.8 billion shortfall, which is slightly more than the $4.5 billion shortfall that the state had six years ago. While the University will not know the extent of the problem until the February forecast is issued, a proportionate reduction of 14 percent would be $700 million per year in the biennium. However, when the state needs to cut budgets, higher education usually gets a higher-than-proportionate cut. This is one of the reasons that the University needs to slow down on hiring, why capital projects have been delayed, and executive salaries have been frozen.

He said that since this is the second time in six years that the University has faced this situation, he is optimistic that the University can find ways to cope, but it will be very difficult. He knows that many units are dealing with the implications of the hiring pause. One reason that the University did not do a hiring freeze is that it ties the hands of the University, makes it difficult to take advantage of opportunities that may exist, and does not allow planning for transitions. He wants units to reflect on whether a replacement is needed, develop an overall personnel plan, and be creative in restructuring the workload. The retirement incentive plan was put into place for the purpose of creating flexibility in units and allowing employees to plan their retirement. It was also a way to avoid layoffs through natural attrition while maintaining the academic progress of the University, maintaining a quality workforce, and keeping higher education accessible and affordable.

President Bruininks said that six years ago, some big changes were made and costs were cut. Cost reduction and efficiency will be a priority again this time, but there is only so much that can be done. He urged units to start working now so a plan is in place in a few months.

He will be meeting with the deans on Monday and the chancellors on Wednesday to talk about positive changes. However, unless the state increases revenues, which the governor opposes, there will be some challenging circumstances ahead.

In closing, he said that the faculty legislative liaisons and the University Relations are constantly working on these issues to position the University in the strongest possible way.

Q: Regarding the hiring pause, it is possible to have the people making these decisions understand that people hired on federal grant funds need to considered separately and quickly so the University does not lose the indirect cost recovery dollars?

A: This situation was brought to the University's attention a few days ago, and it is being fixed. He would ask that if there is an open position, someone else who is already employed be considered for the position that has federal funding, although this will not work for all positions.

A senator stated that the University should publicize its Founder's Scholarship Program since most people in the community do not understand how much funding is available for students.

President Bruininks said that the University will soon be issuing a two-page summary of talking points on this issue and he encouraged faculty to read it and send any comments.

Q: How is the University understanding this budget situation in relation to six years ago? Is it possible to speak about this moment in a different way? Uncertainty exists for graduate students applying for positions and for faculty productivity in an environment where funding does not exist. Will this situation lead to more competition between faculty or should the administration be saying that the faculty need more cooperation and sharing? Faculty need to hear a message about the shape of the new University from the leadership.

A: While there is no one who is able to fully address these concerns, he will be speaking on many of these issues. A more persuasive case needs to be made for public investment in higher education and research and development. Internally, circumstances have dramatically changed and the University needs to convene discussions on these issues for the future of the University, the state, and the nation. The University cannot be defensive or competitive, but needs to do what it has does many times – collaborate, increase partnerships with the community, and be creative with its resources. He said that the nation and the state are on an unsustainable path and they need to realize that private gifts cannot make up this gap in funding. A long-term budgeting prospective and strategy for the University needs to be developed, but he does not see a commitment from the legislature on this topic. He is open to any comments and suggestions from inside and outside the University.

Q: Many administrators in units have taken the retirement incentive plan, which has led to hard times in some units. Does the University envision a time when this situation will improve? Will the administration guarantee that when funding improves, unit deficits will be restored?

A: The University had more administration than it needs, not by the people doing the work, but the administration that is sometimes built into certain processes, which could be simplified to reduce the daily workload for individuals and unnecessary costs. The University needs to look at whether it needs all the administration at all the levels, or are their ways to streamline. He does agree that basic costs need to be restored to departments and colleges. The University is trying to raise funds in other ways, but this is a hard time for private fundraising efforts. The University needs to get people in the habit of contributing each year, to increase the yearly total from $8 million to $50-100 million. He is happy to meet with anyone who wants to know about the University. For this year, there are no simple solutions to cut large amounts and the University cannot have double-digit tuition increases again. Politically, the University will be hard-pressed to even have an increase in the high single digits. After this situation, there will also be a high demand for public resources to solve deep structural issues. He hopes the University will be part of this solution.

The Faculty Senate was adjourned at 4:37 p.m.