1994-95 UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA No. 3
FACULTY SENATE MINUTES
APRIL 20, 1995
The third meeting of the Faculty Senate for 1994-95, was convened in 25
Law Center, Minneapolis campus, on Thursday, April 20, 1995, at 3:16 p.m.
(immediately following the University Senate meeting). Coordinate campuses
were linked by telephone. Checking or signing the roll as present were 122
voting faculty members. President Nils Hasselmo, presided.
I. MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 16, 1995
Action
APPROVED
II. FACULTY CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE
FACULTY AFFAIRS COMMITTEE
RESEARCH COMMITTEE
Workload Policy Addendum
Action
MOTION:
To approve the following Workload Policy Addendum:
WORKLOAD POLICY ADDENDUM
The workload principles and guidelines in all units shall enable its
FULL-TIME TENURED AND TENURE-TRACK FACULTY to devote sufficient time to
meeting their responsibilities as would reasonably be necessary:
(a) for all ranks, to make scholarly contributions expected of their
faculties, and
(b) in the case of assistant and associate professors, to sustain the
quality of continuing contributions required in the respective unit
to achieve tenure and promotion.
This policy establishes a standard applicable to all faculty ranks. It
recognizes that University research is inextricably interwoven with teaching
and often with service, and that the proportion of effort devoted to research
need not be identical for each individual faculty member in a unit, but may
vary around the unit's average. Such activities are to form a part of the
faculty member's normal work effort during his or her term of appointment.
COMMENT:
All baccalaureate and post-baccalaureate units share in the University's
mission of teaching, research, and service, and the research mission includes
research, scholarship, and creative activities and contributions. The
University's research mission is to make nationally and internationally
significant, high-quality contributions to the advancement of knowledge or the
production of creative works in the disciplines of the respective faculties.
Although units vary widely in their distributions of effort among the
University's missions, it is important that all such University units
structure faculty workloads in ways that enable meaningful participation in
the University's research mission.
JOHN ADAMS, Chair
Faculty Consultative Committee
DANIEL FEENEY, Chair
Faculty Affairs Committee
ALLEN GOLDMAN, Chair
Research Committee
DISCUSSION:
Professor Allen Goldman presented the motion concerning the proposed
addendum to the Workload Policy. He reviewed the intent of the motion, which
is outlined in the commentary section, and said the Senate Research Committee
had been working, in collaboration with the Senate Faculty Affairs Committee,
on this issue for sometime. After calling for comments or questions, and
hearing none, the motion was approved by a majority of members present and
voting.
APPROVED
III. FACULTY CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE
COMPENSATION WORKING GROUP
Resolution
Action
MOTION:
To approve the following Resolution:
RESOLUTION
Having accepted and discussed the Report of the Compensation Working
Group, the Faculty Senate wishes to express its support for the general
concepts, principles and positions conveyed in the Report. Further, the
Faculty Senate recommends that the Regents give careful consideration to the
desirability of quickly establishing a long term compensation policy position
for faculty and academic staff and to reinforcing the chosen policy position
with the decisions regarding FY 95-96 salary increases.
JOHN ADAMS, Chair
Faculty Consultative Committee
DISCUSSION:
Professor John Adams introduced the proposed Resolution which endorses
the concepts, principles and positions conveyed in the Compensation Working
Group (CWG) Report recently completed and distributed to Faculty Senate
members. The CWG, he reported, was established during the 1993-94 academic
year by the provost and the chair of the Faculty Consultative Committee to
"analyze the present status of compensation rates and plans for faculty and
academic staff and to explore desireable alternative models and approaches,"
and to ". . . pursue a broader agenda including a more detailed analysis of
how faculty and academic staff salaries compare to peer institutions by rank
and discipline." The CWG was further asked to consider different models for
compensation plans and to address financing scenarios for changes to the
current plan.
In the report, which was presented to the Regents in February, the
Compensation Working Group made some key assumptions. It assumed that 1) the
U2000 agenda aims to place the U of M among the 20-25 major research
universities that survive and prosper in the coming decade, 2) faculty and
academic staff essential to the University's successful competition for
inclusion in the top group are drawn from a national and international
academic labor market, 3) a competitive salary position is essential to
attract and retain needed faculty and staff, 4) interunit salary variations
should reflect market realities but all units should be in the range of
similar units in the set of peer institutions, and 5) individual salaries
should be based on performance.
Professor Adams then briefly reviewed some of the CWG's findings, views
and recommendations, including:
- that the Change magazine list of 30 top research
institutions serve as the appropriate peer set for salary
comparisons for the Twin Cities--appropriate groups were
identified also for Duluth and Morris and an appropriate
peer group should be developed for Crookston
- that the 75th percentile position within each group serve as a
long term critical planning measure and that over the next 5-7
years a realistic target of the 50th percentile be used
- before adjustments to the numbers of faculty and staff, current
annual shortfall from the 75th percentile salary position is
estimated to be $40-50 million per year--achieving the 50th
percentile would cost a little more than half that amount
- some mix of the following adjustments to normal operating funding
will be necessary to finance increased salary rates: 1) increased
State subsidy, 2) increased tuition (rate and/or volume), 3)
increased overhead contribution, 4) improved efficiency, and 5)
appropriate program reductions
- adjustments to gifts and donations are very important, but are not
considered a substitute for normal operating funding
- as a feasibility test at the 75th percentile level, the CWG
considered the following as a possible mix of adjustments over a
5-7 year period for the five areas noted above: 1) subsidy - $5
million, 2) tuition - $10 million, 3) overhead - $5 million, 4)
efficiency - $15 million, and 5) reductions -$20 million
- flexibility should be increased by allowing the expanded use of
temporary adjustments to the basic salary of individuals
- group and individual incentives need to be introduced as a means
of signaling institutional priorities and facilitating needed
structural changes
The CWG has urged the Administration to formalize and distribute the
University's academic compensation policy sooner rather than later and has
asked for a reinforcement of the University's longterm policy position by the
way in which it makes its 1995-96 salary decisions.
With little discussion, the motion was approved by a majority of members
present and voting.
APPROVED
IV. OLD BUSINESS
NONE
V. NEW BUSINESS
NONE
VI. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 3:30 p.m.
Martha Kvanbeck
ABSTRACTOR