1993-94 UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA
FACULTY SENATE MINUTES
DECEMBER 2, 1993
The second meeting of the Faculty Senate for 1993-94, was convened
in 25 Law Center, Minneapolis campus, on Thursday, December 2,
1993, at 2:00 p.m. Coordinate campuses were linked by telephone.
Checking or signing the roll as present were 144 voting faculty
members. Professor Judith Garrard, Chair of the Faculty
Consultative Committee, presided.
I. MEETING SCHEDULE - Information
Other 1993-94 meetings of the Faculty Senate are scheduled as
follows:
Thursday, February 17, 1994
Thursday, April 14, 1994
Thursday, May 19, 1994
------------------------------------------
CONSENT AGENDA - Action
Agenda items II. and III. are considered to be noncontroversial or
"housekeeping" in nature 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. A majority of those
members present and voting is required for approval.
II. MINUTES FOR MAY 20, AND JUNE 3, 1993
III. COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES
Committees of the Faculty Senate, 1993-94
FACULTY AFFAIRS - Faculty: Carl Adams (chair), Carole Bland, Rose
Brewer, Daniel Canafax, Mary Dempsey, Ann Erickson, Daniel Feeney,
Roger Feldman, Audrey Grosch, Morris Kleiner, Richard McGehee,
Michael Sadowsky, Bernard Selzler, W. Donald Spring, James Stone,
Yang Wang. Academic Professional: Judith Gaston. Ex Officio:
Carol Carrier, Dianne Mulvihill, Roger Paschke, George Seltzer.
Students: Phuong Phan, 1 to be named.
JUDICIAL - Faculty: David Ward, Jean Bauer, Hyman Berman, David
Born, Susan Brorson, Jonathan Chaplin, Amos Deinard, Patricia
Ferrieri, Edward Foster, David Frank, Shirley Garner, Susan
Gerberich, Hillel Gershenson, Jack Imholte, Shirley Johnston,
Tarald Kvalseth, Barbara Loken, Larry Miller, Steve Nickles, Carla
Phillips, George Ruth, Joel Samaha, Sharon Satterfield, Harold
Schwartz, David Smith, Roderick Squires, Patricia Tomlinson, Billie
J. Wahlstrom, Carol Wells, Frank Wilderson.
MICHAEL STEFFES, Chair
Faculty Committee on Committees
DISCUSSION:
The Consent Agenda was approved without discussion.
APPROVED
----------------------------------------------------------
IV. FACULTY CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE
Strategic Planning - Action
MOTION:
That the Faculty Senate approve the following resolution:
RESOLUTION
The Faculty Senate strongly endorses the need for a strategic plan;
The Faculty Senate endorses the five strategic directions
identified in "U2000: Mission, Vision, Strategic Directions, and
Performance" (research, graduate and professional education,
undergraduate education, outreach and access to the University, and
a user-friendly University community);
The Faculty Senate expresses appreciation for the consultation
which has gone into the current draft of the "U2000" documents;
The Faculty Senate emphasizes the need for increased participation
by members of the faculty, as well as by staff and students, in the
continued planning and the implementation of "U2000"; and
The Faculty Senate calls for:
1. a continuation of active consultation with the faculty
governance structure (1) of the Senate and (2) of the
colleges;
2. a clearer elaboration of University College and the
cluster planning process in the very near future; and
3. further clarification of the steps remaining in the
planning process this year, including identification of
the tasks to be accomplished, the participants, the
deadlines, and the expected outcomes.
Judith Garrard, Chair
Faculty Consultative Committee
DISCUSSION:
Professor John Adams, vice chair of the Faculty Consultative
Committee (FCC), presented the resolution which represents FCC
endorsement of the need for a strategic plan yet raises important
concerns. The FCC, he noted, has consulted extensively with
faculty, senators, and others throughout the University during the
past several months regarding the U2000 proposal.
Professor Garrard next welcomed President Hasselmo to the
discussion. The President emphasized that the process has just
begun and that it is his intention to continue working with
faculty, staff, and students throughout the planning process. The
President clarified what he believes the Faculty Senate is voting
on--a reaffirmation of 1) certain fundamental values that underly
the University, 2) what it means to be a land grant institution,
and 3) quality expectations and aspirations. Moreover, five
strategic directions have been identified: research, graduate and
professional education, undergraduate education, outreach and
access, and user-friendliness. If approved, the next step will be
to develop specific plans and actions to be taken. Each of those
plans and actions, he assured members, will be brought through the
governance structure.
Senators first turned their attention to three amendments that had
been submitted in advance of the meeting:
AMENDMENT 1
To amend the first item in the fifth paragraph, as follows: (new
language is CAPITALIZED)
1. a continuation of active consultation with the
faculty governance structure (1) of the Senate and
(2) of the colleges; AND WITH APPROPRIATE
REPRESENTATIVES FROM THE STAFF AND STUDENT BODY;
The amendment was accepted as a friendly amendment by the Faculty
Consultative Committee and, therefore, was incorporated into the
original resolution without further consideration.
AMENDMENT 2
To add the following as paragraph six: (new language is
CAPITALIZED)
PASSAGE OF THIS RESOLUTION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE
ENDORSEMENT, EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, OF ANY
SPECIFIC PLAN FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF THE U2000
VISION. FURTHER, THE SENATE CALLS UPON THE
ADMINISTRATION TO SUBMIT TO IT FOR APPROVAL
THE FINAL STRATEGIC PLAN PRIOR TO ITS
SUBMISSION TO THE BOARD OF REGENTS.
Before the amendment was discussed, the maker of the motion asked
that it be modified as follows:
To move the first sentence of the amendment to the fourth
paragraph of the Resolution as follows:
The faculty Senate emphasizes THAT PASSAGE OF
THIS RESOLUTION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE
ENDORSEMENT, EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, OF ANY
SPECIFIC PLAN FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF THE U2000
VISION. AND FURTHER EMPHASIZES the need for
increased participation by members of the
faculty, as well as by staff and students, in
the continued planning and the implementation
of "U2000"; and
To withdraw the second sentence (in consideration of
amendment 3)
The parliamentarian ruled in favor of the modification.
Some argued that inclusion of the language in amendment 2 was
inappropriate in that the resolution does not identify other areas
of non-endorsement.
Others, however, expressed misgivings about the planning process
and were concerned that passage of the resolution will be
interpreted as "approval in advance" or the granting of carte
blanche.
Amendment 2, as modified, was then approved on a voice
vote.
AMENDMENT 3
To add the following as number 4 in paragraph five: (new
language is CAPITALIZED)
The Faculty Senate calls for:
. . .
4. THE ADMINISTRATION TO SUBMIT,
THROUGH THE REGULAR GOVERNANCE
STRUCTURE, MAJOR MATTERS OF
IMPLEMENTATION OR ACTION PRIOR TO
THEIR SUBMISSION TO THE BOARD OF
REGENTS FOR APPROVAL.
The FCC asked that the amendment become paragraph six of the
resolution and that it be modified as follows:
THE FACULTY SENATE ALSO CALLS FOR THE
ADMINISTRATION TO SUBMIT, THROUGH THE REGULAR
STRUCTURE, INCLUDING THE SENATE, MAJOR MATTERS
OF IMPLEMENTATION OR ACTION PRIOR TO THEIR
SUBMISSION TO THE BOARD OF REGENTS FOR
APPROVAL.
The parliamentarian again ruled the modification in order.
One senator expressed concern about the lack of clarity in the
proposed amendment, particularly who has approval authority. After
considerable debate, the following amendment was proposed (new
language is CAPITALIZED, language to be deleted is [bracketed]
The Faculty Senate also calls for the
administration to submit FOR ACTION, through
the regular governance structure, including
the Senate, major matters of implementation or
action prior to their submission to the Board
of Regents [for approval].
Amendment 3, as modified, was then approved.
Hearing no further amendments, the chair next turned to discussion
of the main motion (the amended resolution).
One individual expressed the sense of the CLA Assembly by reading
a resolution that was unanimously approved on 26 October 1993. The
following is the text of the cover letter and resolution:
November 5, 1993
To: Faculty Senate
From: Kinley Brauer, Chair, CLA Assembly
Re: CLA Assembly Discussion of U2000 Strategic
Plan, 10/26/93
The CLA Assembly met on 26 October 1993 to discuss the
U2000 Strategic Plan. One of the purposes of the meeting
was to provide members of the Faculty Senate with a
better understanding of the views of members of the CLA
Assembly and a sense of the Assembly. I am therefore
forwarding to you minutes of the discussion and a
resolution passed by the Assembly at that meeting.
The Assembly meeting was well attended. The resolution
was warmly seconded by several members late in the
proceedings and was emphatically and unanimously passed.
(A call for opposed votes and abstentions provided no
response.)
_________________________________
CLA Assembly Minutes, October 26, 1993
Chair Kinley Brauer called the meeting to order at 3:30
p.m.
DISCUSSION OF U2000 STRATEGIC PLAN--
The Executive Committee received no information from
Morrill Hall and therefore formulated no resolutions for
the Assembly. The chair noted that this meeting was
called to discuss the U2000 strategic plan in
anticipation of a Faculty Senate meeting on 18 November
in which senators will be expected to vote yes or no on
the plan. The discussion below is a summary by topic
(not in exact order of utterance by Assembly members).
. . . . .
Michael Hancher then offered the following resolution:
The CLA Assembly welcomes the general
initiatives that President Hasselmo has
undertaken to improve the state of the
University ('U2000'), but finds it too vague
to endorse or reject at this point. It urges
Central Administration to work closely with
CLA Administration and the CLA Assembly as it
develops concrete proposals.
The resolution was seconded by several members. After
four members spoke in favor, the question was called.
Vote: Unanimous (and enthusiastic), in favor.
. . . . .
The meeting was adjourned at 5:13 p.m.
Members present: R. Arminzade, W. Babcock, K. Bales, B.
Barnes, K. Brauer, M. Cheng, J. Chipman, T. Clayton, J.
DeMoss, B. Dews, B. Downing, E. Foster, L. Gerlach, M.
Gonzales, M. Hancher, W. Hanson, N. Houfek, J.-I. Hansen,
D. Jackson, R. Jones, M. Kac, N. Krevans, D. Lykken, W.
Malandra, E. Messing-Davidow, J. Mortimer, K. Murray, G.
Peterson for P. Fox, L. Polakiewicz, P. Porter for R.
McMaster, W. Potratz, P. Reed, K. Reyerson, A. Roberts,
J. Robinson, D. Ross, H. Sarles, N. Shank, G. Sheets, C.
Speaks, J. Sullivan, G. Thomas, A. Tims, G. Weiss, W.
Welander.
Visitors present: Dean Davis, P Sellew, T. Cook
Next, a senator from IT read a lengthy statement that praised the
numerous Senate committees for their enormous effort toward
understanding and clarifying the proposal and the Faculty
Consultative Committee for developing a resolution that
incorporated both support for the plan yet raised important
concerns. However, he urged senators to vote against the
resolution because it should not support change without adequate
specification of the planning process and because the plan does not
adequately address the need for economic support for its
implementation. To vote "no," he said, should not be construed to
mean the faculty are against change, but instead would be a vote
against inadequate planning and inadequate economic support for
change. Others echoed the concern that the plan lacks the
necessary financial details for good decision-making.
Other concerns focused on the strengthening of certain disciplines
at the expense of others, the creation of University College, and
the clustering of disciplines. The cost of these changes are not
identified nor are the potential benefits.
It is clear that the University needs to make changes, said one
person, and a vote against the resolution will only be interpreted
as the reluctance and resistance of the faculty to do the things
that need to be done--that is to change. While it is risky to
adopt the resolution, it would be a disaster to turn it down.
Another senator said he believes U2000 is an extension of the
process of trying to rationalize higher education in the State of
Minnesota. A process that was set in motion as far back as 1967
and carried forward through Commitment to Focus, restructuring and
reallocation, and now U2000. It reaffirms much of what the
University is about. It is the logical next step. In some ways,
the Administration is in a "no win" situation. If the plan
contained extensive detail, the faculty would have felt excluded
from the process. Because the plan lacks detail, they are faulted
for lack of leadership. The faculty are right to be concerned
about the process but instead of voting against the resolution, he
challenged the faculty to approve it, work with the Administration,
and "pull up their socks and get on with the job."
The resolution, as amended, was then approved 116 to 14 with no
abstentions [the final text follows]
RESOLUTION
The Faculty Senate strongly endorses the need for a
strategic plan;
The Faculty Senate endorses the five strategic directions
identified in "U2000: Mission, Vision, Strategic
Directions, and Performance" (research, graduate and
professional education, undergraduate education, outreach
and access to the University, and a user-friendly
University community);
The Faculty Senate expresses appreciation for the
consultation which has gone into the current draft of the
"U2000" documents;
The Faculty Senate emphasizes that passage of this
Resolution does not constitute endorsement, expressed, or
implied, of any specific plan for implementation of the
"U2000" vision, and further emphasizes the need for
increased participation by members of the faculty, as
well as by staff and students, in the continued planning
and the implementation of "U2000"; and
The Faculty Senate calls for:
1. a continuation of active consultation with the faculty
governance structure (1) of the Senate and (2) of the
colleges; and with appropriate representatives from the
staff and student body;
2. a clearer elaboration of University College and the
cluster planning process in the very near future; and
3. further clarification of the steps remaining in the
planning process this year, including identification of
the tasks to be accomplished, the participants, the
deadlines, and the expected outcomes.
The Faculty Senate also calls for the Administration to
submit for action, through the regular governance
structure, including the Senate, major matters of
implementation or action prior to their submission to the
Board of Regents.
APPROVED
V. ANNUAL REPORTS
FACULTY AFFAIRS COMMITTEE
Annual Report, 1992-93
The Senate Committee on Faculty Affairs (SCFA) met fourteen times
during the 1992-93 academic year to discuss issues of interest to
the faculty of the University of Minnesota. Included on the
committee were faculty members Carl Adams (chair), Carole Bland,
Daniel Canafax, Mary Dempsey, Ann Erickson, Ann Fallon, Roger
Feldman, Richard Goldstein, Audrey Grosch, Morris Kleiner, Richard
McGehee, Michael Sadowsky, Bernard Selzler, W. Donald Spring,
Michael Wade, Judith Younger; academic professional member Steve
Laursen; student member Derek Jensen; and ex officio members Carol
Carrier, Dianne Mulvihill, Roger Paschke, and George Seltzer. In
order to facilitate its business, the committee established the
following subcommittees:
- Faculty Retirement Program
- Faculty/Academic Staff Advocacy & Grievance Advisory Program
- Faculty Benefits
- Health Care
- Tenure
Additionally, SCFA was represented on the Academic Staff Advisory
Committee and the Senate Finance and Planning Committee.
The committee began its year by establishing a tentative agenda and
set of goals. The following is a summary of SCFA's accomplishments
this year.
FACULTY WORKLOAD TASK FORCE REPORT--
The SCFA reviewed the report of the Faculty Workload Task Force
that was developed in response to a request by the Faculty
Consultative Committee to define and establish principles for
faculty workload at the University. The report was developed
primarily to respond to the increasing demands placed on faculty
time and the general public's demand for accountability from tax-
supported institutions. The Task Force believed, and the SCFA
agreed, that defining faculty workload expectations would help
clarify variations in missions among units, assist individuals in
aligning their activities to the priorities of the University,
facilitate in correcting the behavior of the few faculty who abuse
their professional prerogatives, and improve the University's
ability to relate faculty effort to components of its tripartite
mission. The workload report was endorsed by the SCFA, approved by
the Faculty Senate on November 17, 1992, the Administration on
January 6, 1993, and the Board of Regents on January 8, 1993.
PARENTAL LEAVE--
The Equal Employment Opportunity for Women Committee and the
Faculty Affairs Committee jointly developed a policy statement
regarding stopping the tenure clock for new parents with
appropriate amendments to the "Regulations Concerning Faculty
Tenure." The recommendations, which were subsequently approved by
the Faculty Senate, the Administration, and the Board of Regents,
allow probationary academic employees who are new parents to
request that the academic year in which a birth or adoption takes
place be discounted as a probationary year toward tenure or
continuous appointment.
HEALTH CARE--
The Health Care Subcommittee was appointed as a standing
subcommittee of the SCFA in the fall of 1992 to review and monitor
the health care benefits for University employees. The
subcommittee brought to the SCFA's attention a number of proposals
under discussion by the State management and the labor unions
representing State employees that could have negative consequences
for employees of the University. In response, the SCFA presented
a resolution outlining the issues to the Faculty Senate on June 3,
published an article in FOOTNOTE apprising faculty and staff of the
potential changes, and sent a letter to the President urging the
Administration to exert its influence with State management to
minimize the impact on University employees.
SABBATICAL PROGRAMS--
In response to a recommendation from the SCFA, the Administration
explored various options for making sabbatical programs more
inviting to faculty. The proposal which received the most
endorsement folds under one umbrella the current Faculty Sabbatical
Furlough, Single Quarter Leave, and Academic Professional and
Administrative Staff Professional Development Leaves. The program
would allow qualifying employees to accrue a full paid leave at the
rate of one month per year of service to the institution. Such an
approach permits individuals who might otherwise not be able to
afford to do so, to take extended leaves for professional and
development purposes. While the proposal has received strong
support, implementation problems exist--initially, approximately
1,400 faculty might be eligible for a full nine-month paid
sabbatical, depending on the start-up rules employed. The SCFA
will continue to work with the Administration in the fall of 1993
to develop implementation guidelines.
FACULTY RETIREMENT PLAN--
The Faculty Retirement Plan Subcommittee presented periodic reports
updating the SCFA on the investment performance of the various
options for both the Faculty Retirement Plan and the Optional
Retirement Plan.
FACULTY/ACADEMIC STAFF ADVOCACY AND GRIEVANCE ADVISORY PROGRAM--
In 1989 the Faculty/Academic Staff Advocacy and Grievance Advisory
Program was established, under SCFA's direction, to provide
information and assistance to all academic employees regarding
internal University grievance procedures. With the resignation of
its director in December 1992 and the University Grievance Policy
and Procedures under review, the SCFA recommended the program be
placed on hold pending completion of the grievance review.
Referrals for the remainder of the academic year were directed to
the director of the Faculty Assistance Program and the University
Grievance Officer. The SCFA will make a determination about the
programs continued existence during 1993-94. SCFA also worked with
an ad hoc committee to recommend a joint grievance advocacy office
with civil service, academic professionals, and students.
FACULTY COMPENSATION PLAN--
In May 1992 a plan relating to faculty compensation was approved by
the Faculty Senate and forwarded to the Administration for
consideration. In the fall of 1992, the Administration returned
the proposal to the SCFA for minor clarification and amendment.
After appropriate consultation, the SCFA approved an amended
version of the policy and re-submitted it to the Faculty
Consultative Committee and the Faculty Senate for action. Key
features of the policy include: 1) establishing in each academic
unit clear criteria for annual salary increases; 2) development of
procedures for making salary decisions by the faculty and
administrator of each unit; 3) fixed promotion increases for
promotion to associate and full professor; and 4) establishment of
a standing administrative and faculty compensation committee to
examine and make additional recommendations on salary issues. The
policy was subsequently approved by the Faculty Senate on February
18, 1993, and the Administration on April 26, 1993.
FACULTY SALARIES--
The committee was extremely concerned about the possibility of a
second salary freeze in less than a three year period and, in
response, prepared a position statement in which it requested the
Faculty Consultative Committee to begin immediately to work with
the University Administration to support the University's future
through an adequate faculty compensation plan for 1993-94 and
beyond.
UNIVERSITY GRIEVANCE POLICY--
The SCFA reviewed the proposed revisions of the University
Grievance Policy prepared by the University Grievance Review
Committee. After providing a number of recommendations, the SCFA
endorsed the policy in January 1993. The policy was ultimately
approved by the University Senate on February 18, 1993, the
Administration on April 14, 1993, and the Board of Regents on April
16, 1993.
ACADEMIC INTEGRITY COMMITTEE--
The SCFA expects to maintain an ongoing communication with the
Academic Integrity Committee as it reviews University policies
relating to academic integrity.
ACADEMIC MISCONDUCT POLICY--
The committee reviewed proposed amendments to the Academic
Misconduct Policy that related to stopping the promotion and tenure
process in cases involving individuals coming up for promotion
and/or tenure. The committee agreed with the proposal and assisted
in drafting appropriate language. The amendments were approved by
the Faculty Senate on December 10, 1992, the Administration on
December 22, 1992, and the Board of Regents on January 8, 1993.
TWIN CITIES CAMPUS SMOKE-FREE POLICY--
After reviewing the proposed Twin Cities Campus Smoke-Free Policy,
the SCFA unanimously endorsed it. It was approved by the Twin
Cities Campus Assembly on April 1, 1993, and implemented by the
Administration on August 2, 1993.
PRIVATE PRACTICE PLANS--
Initial discussions of private practice plans at the University
began during spring quarter 1993 and will continue during 1993-94.
DOMESTIC PARTNERS BENEFITS RECOMMENDATION--
The SCFA discussed at several meetings the proposed domestic
partners benefits recommendation to extend to same sex registered
domestic partners the same benefits and privileges that are
provided to married persons. While there was not complete
consensus by the committee, it did approve the recommendation at
its May 6, 1993, meeting. The recommendation was subsequently
approved by the University Senate on May 20, 1993, and forwarded to
the Administration for consideration.
As the report indicates, members of the Senate Committee on Faculty
Affairs and its subcommittees worked very hard this year and I wish
to express my appreciation for their contributions.
Carl Adams, Chair
JUDICIAL COMMITTEE
Annual Report, 1992-1993
During the 1992-93 academic year, panels of the Senate Judicial
Committee concluded four cases. One case, from the Medical School,
involved non-renewal of appointment. The hearing in this case was
completed in May, 1992, and the findings and recommendations were
sent to the President in September, 1992. To date, the President
has not ruled on this case. One case, from the College of
Veterinary Medicine, involved the non-renewal of a probationary
appointment. It was completed in February, 1993. The President
ruled on the case in March, 1993. Two cases were filed which were
not carried to completion. In a case from General College, the
Panel ruled that it did not have jurisdiction. The other case,
from the Medical School at the Duluth campus, was ruled not to have
been filed in a timely manner.
Three other cases, two filed at the end of the 1991-92 academic
year and one filed in February 1993, are presently being heard by
panels. One case, from the Medical School, involves a dismissal
for cause. Two cases were filed involving non-renewal of a
probationary appointment; one was filed by a faculty member in the
College of Liberal Arts, the other by a faculty member in the
School of Management.
During the course of the year, the Committee discussed the
following issues. A problem arose where, in a case completed by
the Judicial Committee in 1991, the President's recommendations
were not followed through by the Provost. The Committee now has a
policy in place for the hearing officer in each case to check up on
his or her case six weeks after the final findings have gone to the
President and the case has been decided to ensure that the
recommendations are carried out. Discussions were held throughout
the year about the need for the new grievance policy to go into
effect to cover cases where there is an allegation of violation of
academic freedom. The Committee voted unanimously that it should
be the body to hear those academic freedom cases. Once again, the
Judicial Committee intends to meet during the summer to move cases
toward completion.
The Judicial Committee is an all faculty committee. Its members in
1992-93 were: David Ward, Chair; Jean Bauer, Hyman Berman, David
Born, Jonathan Chaplin, Amos Dienard, Patricia Ferrieri, Shirley
Garner, Susan Gerberich, Hillel Gershenson, John Imholte, Shirley
Johnston, Tarald Kvalseth, Barbara Loken, Cleon Melsa, Larry
Miller, Steve Nickels, Carla Phillips, George Ruth, Harold
Schwartz, Marilyn Sime, David Smith, Roderick Squires, Petricia
Tomlinson, and Frank Wilderson. Members who served as hearing
officers were Hyman Berman, David Born, Amos Dienard, John Imholte,
Marilyn Sime, and Frank Wilderson.
Assignment to the Senate Judicial Committee involves work on very
important issues and major commitment of the time of faculty
members and the Chair would like to commend members of the 1992-93
Committee for their service in this vital University function.
David Ward, Chair
VI. OLD BUSINESS
NONE
VII. NEW BUSINESS
NONE
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 3:15 p.m.
Martha Kvanbeck
Abstractor