1994-95 UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA No. 5
FACULTY SENATE MINUTES
JUNE 8, 1995
The fifth meeting of the Faculty Senate for 1994-95 was convened in 25
Law Center, Minneapolis campus, on Thursday, June 8, 1995, at 2:00 p.m.
Checking or signing the roll as present were 94 voting faculty members, 3 ex
officio members, and 2 nonmembers. Professor Sheila Corcoran Perry, Faculty
Senate Vice Chair, presided.
I. FACULTY CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE
FACULTY AFFAIRS COMMITTEE/TENURE SUBCOMMITTEE
Regulations Concerning Faculty Tenure
Action
MOTION:
That the Faculty Senate concurs with the following interpretations of the
Regulations Concerning Faculty Tenure presented by the Faculty Consultative
Committee, the Faculty Affairs Committee, and the Tenure Subcommittee:
Proposed Interpretations to the Regulations Concerning Faculty Tenure
I. Interpretation of Sections 3-9: Promotion and Tenure Decisions
Permitted by Provosts and Chancellors during 1995-96
To accommodate current restructuring of the central administration,
final review and related aspects of the promotion and tenure process
may occur at the level of provosts and chancellors during the 1995-96
academic year. Provosts and chancellors will receive consultation
regarding proper procedures from the Dean of the Graduate School.
COMMENT: The Tenure Subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Faculty Affairs
was recently requested by the administration to propose amendments to the
Regulations Concerning Faculty Tenure (Tenure Regulations) to accommodate
current restructuring of central administration. The immediate desire of the
administration is that final recommendations for promotion and tenure occur at
the level of provosts and chancellors, rather than centrally by the senior
vice president for academic affairs (the present procedure). While
considering appropriate amendments to the Tenure Regulations, the Tenure
Subcommittee concluded that changing aspects of the Tenure Regulations
pertaining to promotion and tenure will impact on other aspects of the
Regulations (e.g. fiscal emergencies, termination for cause), which are now
responsibilities of central administration. Reassigning these administrative
responsibilities described in the Tenure Regulations from central
administration to provosts and chancellors could have major effects on the
academic affairs and freedom of faculty. Without appropriate regulations in
place, a lack of system-wide consistency may occur with the undesirable
possibility that future faculty will be employed in one of six different
universities.
In order to allow time for broad consultation with faculty and administrators
and the preparation of carefully considered amendments to the Tenure
Regulations, the Tenure Subcommittee proposes the above Interpretation to the
Regulations. This Interpretation permits promotion and tenure decisions to
occur at the level of the provosts and chancellors for the coming academic
year. During this time the Tenure Subcommittee requests all faculty to
consider the implications for their units or departments of the requested
changes in the Regulations. We welcome your comments and suggestions
regarding the development of necessary new procedures and the revision of
specific sections of the Tenure Regulations.
II. Interpretation of Sections 14 and 15: Working Days
The word "days" is interpreted to imply working days, not calendar
days.
COMMENT: The use of the word "days" in the Tenure Regulations is unclear and
is now defined as working days.
III. Interpretation of Amendments to Sections 14.1 and 14.2: Timely
Responses in Cases of Unrequested Leave of Absence, Termination, or
Suspension
The timelines for responses by either the involved faculty member or
the administrator(s) may be extended by agreement of the parties to
the proceeding or for extraordinary circumstances. An agreement of
the parties to extend the time limit shall be in writing, signed by
both parties or their representatives. If the parties do not agree,
either party may apply to the chair of the Senate Judicial Committee
for an extension of the time in which to take the steps required in
this section. If the faculty member has failed to act within the time
limits prescribed in these sections, the responsible administrator may
request the chair of the Senate Judicial Committee to set a specific
date by which the faculty member must take action; if the faculty
member fails to do so, the petition for review will be dismissed
without further proceedings and the requested disciplinary action (or
any lesser sanction) may be taken. If the responsible administrator
has failed to act within the time limits prescribed in these sections,
the faculty member may request the chair of the Senate Judicial
Committee to set a specific date by which the administrator must take
action; if the administrator fails to do so, the proceedings shall be
dismissed and further action can be taken only by reinitiating the
entire proceedings.
COMMENT: At the Faculty Senate meeting of May 19, 1994, amendments to the
Tenure Regulations providing for a timely response by administrators to
reports of Preliminary Proceedings and for sending notices of Formal Actions
(Sections 14.1 and 14.2) were approved. The Tenure Regulations currently
provide for a timely response by a faculty member to a formal notice of
actions to be taken by the administration following the report of a
Preliminary Proceeding (Section 14.1). The amendments approved by the Faculty
Senate in May 1994 were not presented to the Regents for formal approval. The
administration considers the time limits to be difficult to follow under
unusual circumstances; for example, when an outside legal counsel for a
faculty member has limited availability or when a faculty member on a 9-month
appointment wishes to suspend the proceedings during the summer.
FOR INFORMATION:
Following are the amendments approved by the Faculty Senate May 19, 1994:
1. To amend Section 14.1 of the Regulations Concerning Faculty Tenure,
as follows: (additions are in CAPS; deletions are in [brackets])
Section 14.1 Preliminary Proceedings
Only a dean . . . .
. . . .
Both the administrator and the faculty member may submit their views,
in person or in writing, to the body making the recommendation, but
neither of them may participate in the deliberation or vote. The body
making the recommendation makes a written report to the
administrator WITHIN 40 DAYS OF SUBMISSION OF THE ISSUE TO IT, indicating
the number of votes for and against the proposed action and the reasons
articulated. [After considering] WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER RECEIVING the
report, the administrator makes a written recommendation to the vice
president. The recommendation must include a copy of the report of the
panel or of the tenured faculty, as the case may be. A copy of the
report must be sent to the faculty member.
2. To amend Section 14.2 of the Regulations Concerning Faculty Tenure, as
follows: (additions are in CAPS; deletions are in [bracktes])
Section 14.2 Formal Action
After receiving the administrator's recommendation, and giving the
faculty member an opportunity to comment, the vice president will
decide whether to proceed. If the vice president [decides] DOES not [to]
proceed WITHIN 40 DAYS, the charges are dropped and the faculty
member and the academic unit are so notified in writing. If the vice
president decides to proceed with formal action, the vice president must
give written notice to the faculty member . . . .
If the faculty member does not request a hearing within 30 days, the
President may take the action proposed in the vice president's notice,
without further right to a hearing.
JOHN ADAMS, Chair
Faculty Consultative Committee
DANIEL FEENEY, Chair
Faculty Affairs Committee
MARY DEMPSEY, Chair
Tenure Subcommittee
DISCUSSION:
Professor Mary Dempsey, chair of the Senate Committee on Faculty Affairs
Tenure Subcommittee, presented the three proposed interpretations to the
Regulations Concerning Faculty Tenure. Because the interpretations had been
presented at the previous meeting (May 18) for discussion, she only briefly
summarized them. Their primary purpose, she said, is to provide clarification
to the Tenure Regulations. As interpretations they do not need official
approval by the Faculty Senate, however, the Tenure Subcommittee, Faculty
Consultative Committee, and Faculty Affairs Committee agreed that Faculty
Senate review and endorsement is desirable.
The first interpretation allows promotion and tenure decisions to be made
at the provost and chancellor level during the 1995-96 academic year in order
to allow time for broad consultation with faculty and administrators before
formal amendments to the Tenure Regulations are proposed. Currently, the
senior vice president for academic affairs has final authority on these
matters. The interpretation further calls for provosts and chancellors to
receive consultation regarding proper procedures from the Dean of the Graduate
School. It is the intent of the Faculty Affairs Committee to broaden the
membership of the Tenure Subcommittee to address this issue during 1995-96 and
to prepare the appropriate amendments for Faculty Senate consideration.
The second interpretation simply clarifies the term "days," said
Professor Dempsey, because the current language is unclear. The Tenure
Subcommittee agreed "days" should be interpreted as "working days," to be
consistent with the grievance procedures and other University documents.
The third interpretation addresses concerns raised by the administration
relating to amendments approved by the Faculty Senate on May 19, 1994, and
forwarded to the administration for consideration. The amendments (to
Sections 14.1 and 14.2 of the Tenure Regulations) addressed the issue of
timely responses in cases of unrequested leave of absence, termination, or
suspension. At present, the amendments stand unapproved by the
administration and the Board of Regents. (Refer to the Comment and
Information section of Interpretation III.)
With little discussion, all three interpretations were approved on a
voice vote by a strong majority of members present and voting.
APPROVED
II. FACULTY CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE
FACULTY AFFAIRS COMMITTEE
Professional Commitment Policy
Action
MOTION:
To approved the following Policy on Professional Commitment:
POLICY ON PROFESSIONAL COMMITMENT
(June 7, 1995 Draft)
1 STATEMENT OF GENERAL POLICY
1.1 All ACADEMIC EMPLOYEEs[1,2] are expected to fully and
professionally meet the obligations of their appointments as addressed
under the Workload, Conflict of Interest and Academic Freedom and
Responsibility policies of the University. Their primary
responsibilities within the University are teaching and learning,
scholarship (including research and artistic creation), service to the
University and to the wider community, and/or administration in support
of these activities. Because of their special capabilities, academic
employees are often sought to provide professional expertise for
activities beyond the responsibilities of their academic appointment.
The University encourages EXTRA WORK because it is often complementary
and synergistic with academic employees' primary University
responsibilities if it does not interfere with their University duties.
This policy attempts to clarify what is considered reasonable extra
work, and establishes mechanisms for assuring the accountability of the
University and its academic employees with respect to extra work. The
dual purpose is to protect employees from criticism for participating in
approved extra work and to give the University a means of addressing
instances where employees engage in activities that go beyond acceptable
bounds. Since opinions may differ as to what is acceptable, academic
employees should discuss questions about extra work with their
DEPARTMENT HEADS. This policy supersedes and replaces all prior
policies on this subject except for Private Practice Plans adopted by
the Board of Regents.
2 PROFESSIONAL COMMITMENT
2.1 A full-time academic employee's primary commitment is to
University teaching, research, outreach, and/or administrative
responsibilities, and where applicable to University patient care. Since
demands for the talent and expertise of academic employees may on
occasion affect their responsibilities to the University, guidelines are
needed to define these responsibilities. In general, extra work is in
accordance with this policy unless it:
1) interferes with an academic employee's ability to carry out
his/her responsibilities to the University;
2) competes inappropriately within the area of the academic
employee's field of appointment with the services or
missions of the University; or
3) misuses resources or facilities of the University.
3 PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES CONSIDERED PART OF AN ACADEMIC EMPLOYEE'S
WORKLOAD
3.1 Professional activities such as the examples listed below (a-f)
can be integral parts of an academic employee's University
responsibilities and are not considered against the time limitation for
extra work (see Section 4). Care should be taken to assure that such
activities fit with agreed-upon teaching, research, outreach, and
administrative responsibilities. These activities, when they occur,
should be part of each academic employee's annual workload plan.
a) Serving as editorial officer or having other duties for a learned
journal
b) Serving on panels for academic, governmental, or not-for-profit
entities
c) Serving on a board of directors or advisory committee of a
scholarly or professional organization
d) Serving as an officer of a scholarly or professional organization
e) Attending professional meetings or professional development
programs
f) Giving occasional public presentations or participating in
colloquia
4 TIME LIMITATION FOR EXTRA WORK
4.1 The extra work of a full-time academic employee must not exceed an
average of one day per seven-day week for the TERM OF APPOINTMENT. For
those with "B" appointments, this amounts to a maximum of 39 days in the
term of appointment; for those with "A" appointments, this amounts to a
maximum of 48 days in the 11 months of active service. A day will be
considered approximately 8-10 hours of extra work and preparation time
regardless of when or where this occurs during the seven-day week.
Preparation time and travel time devoted to extra work are counted
toward the time limit.
4.2 Time limitations for extra work apply only to contractual time.
For example, academic employees with 100% appointments comply with the
time limitations as specified in Section 4.1. Academic employees holding
appointments of 67% to 99% have time limitations adjusted in proportion
to their appointments, e.g., for someone with an 80% appointment, extra
work must not exceed an average of 80% of one day per seven-day per week
for the term of appointment. Academic employees holding appointments of
less than 67% time may engage in extra work ONLY during their
noncontractual time. Reporting requirements apply to all academic
employees with appointments of 67% time or more. Activities carried out
as part of an academic employee's participation within a Regents
approved private practice plan are not counted toward the time
limitations defined in this section.
5 LIMITATION ON ACTIVITIES THAT MAY COMPETE WITH THE UNIVERSITY
5.1 Extra work often elicits greater visibility and recognition for
the University. However, it may also compete with the missions of the
University. Extra work that is within the area of the academic
employee's field of appointment should not draw students, clients, or
patients, or substantial resources from University offerings and
facilities, and the academic employee's connection with the University
should not be exploited for the purposes of another institution or
BUSINESS. Activities carried out as part of an academic employee's
responsibilities within a Regents approved private practice plan are not
competitive with the University. To minimize the potential for
competition, academic units are encouraged to develop and obtain
Regents' approval of private practice plans.
5.2 All academic employees holding appointments of 67% time or more
and planning to participate in extra work or business activities that
have the potential to compete with the missions of the University must
obtain written approval before engaging in the activity unless specified
under the terms of their appointment.
6 EXTRA WORK COMMITMENTS THAT DO NOT REQUIRE PRIOR APPROVAL
6.1 External and Internal Consulting
Engaging in external or internal consulting insofar as the activities
comply with Sections 4 and 5.
7 EXTRA WORK OR BUSINESS COMMITMENTS THAT REQUIRE PRIOR APPROVAL
All of the activities listed in this section (7.1 - 7.5) are endeavors
that may or may not be approved depending upon the specific
circumstances. Academic employees should discuss the proposed activity
with their department heads. Participation in these activities requires
prior approval and is subject to the limitations set forth in Sections 4
and 5.
7.1 Board Memberships
* Serving as a corporate officer or on a board of directors of a
business.
7.2 Competing Business Activities
* Being employed by or consulting for a business related to
his/her professional responsibilities that competes or has the
potential to compete with services provided by the University
that are part of the employee's University responsibilities.
7.3 Research Activities
* Applying for, receiving, and conducting any sponsored research
activities for another organization that ordinarily would be
conducted under the auspices of the University.
7.4 Instructional Activities
All instructional activities outside the agreed-upon workload and
related to the academic employee's appointment require prior
approval of the department head. Department heads will determine
the amount of extra work time to be calculated for extra teaching,
whether external or internal, credit or non-credit. As a
guideline, 8-10 hours of instructional activities (including
preparation, instruction, evaluation, and consultation) will be
considered equivalent to one day of extra work (see Section 4);
however, the ratio may be adjusted upon agreement with the
department head.
* Teaching concurrently for another higher educational
institution during the term of appointment.
* Teaching non-credit courses or performing other non-credit
instructional activities for non-University entities during the
term of appointment.
* Teaching for Continuing Education and Extension for extra
compensation during the term of appointment.
* Performing other teaching or teaching-related activities for
the unit in which an academic employee holds an appointment or
for another unit within the University for extra compensation
during the term of appointment.
7.5 International Projects Administered by the University
* Participating in certain University-sponsored international
activities. Such activities may be treated in one of four ways,
based on arrangements between the academic employee and the
department head.
(1) The activity may be inloaded as part of the agreed-upon
workload.
(2) When participation in a University-sponsored international
activity is done as part of the normal workload but involves
special responsibilities, an academic employee may receive a
salary augmentation and the time committed does not affect the
time limitations described in Section 4.1.
(3) When the activity involves special (difficult) work
environments, approval may be sought to have the activity
considered and compensated as extra work subject to the time
limitations described in Section 4.1, or
(4) When the activity involves special (difficult) work
environments, it may be compensated with funds deposited into a
departmental account to be used to subsidize the faculty or
academic staff member's travel, research program, or other
professional development. Academic employees on nine-month
appointments may, as an alternative, use the compensation
available for such an activity to fund a summer appointment,
assuming they intend to work during the summer period.
8 HOLDING PUBLIC OFFICE OR PUBLIC SERVICE POSITIONS
8.1 Academic employees share with their fellow citizens the right to
campaign for and to hold public office without their employer's prior
approval. The purpose of this section of the policy is to balance public
service of University academic employees with the University's primary
obligations to maintain its teaching programs and foster research and
creative activity. At the same time, it seeks to encourage public
service, including the holding of public office and, in any case, not to
interfere with academic employees' right to participate freely in the
political process. It is desirable, however, that any academic employee
contemplating candidacy for elective political office or appointment to
public office where the duties of a campaign or the holding of the
office would interfere with the fulfillment of University
responsibilities, consult in advance with the appropriate collegiate and
administrative units of the University. Consultation should focus on
the question of whether or not temporary suspension of some portion of
the academic employee's responsibilities can be accommodated without
seriously impairing the function of the department or unit involved.
8.2 When an academic employee is appointed to or elected to public
office, e.g., to the state legislature, requiring absence from
University duties for continuous periods of time of one year or less, it
is anticipated that leave of absence procedures or other appropriate
arrangements such as a special contract or a reduced teaching load with
a commensurate adjustment in salary, for the year or portions thereof,
will be invoked. The academic employee must provide to the unit
administrator as much notice as possible to insure that ample time will
be provided the unit to replace or otherwise arrange to meet the absent
academic employee's responsibilities. Prior written approval by the
Senior Academic Vice President is required for any full or partial leave
of absence.
8.3 When an academic employee is appointed/reappointed to or elected
to public office requiring continuous full-time service for a specified
period of more than two years, it is expected that the Senior Vice
President will determine if the leave is appropriate. In the case of
appointments for an indeterminate period of time, full or partial leaves
of absence may be negotiated annually; if requests for leave extend
beyond reasonable limits, resignation may be expected.
8.4 For certain academic employees, the distinction between
involvement in community activities as a citizen and involvement in such
activities as a professional is difficult to determine. If community
activities are citizen-related rather than professional activities, they
may be exempt from the prior approval and reporting requirements of this
policy.
9 IMPLEMENTATION - PROFESSIONAL COMMITMENT
9.1 Successful implementation of this policy assumes a shared
responsibility by all academic employees and the administration of the
University. Once proposed activities have been administratively
approved, University administration has the responsibility to vigorously
defend the activity so long as the academic employee complies with the
administrative recommendations for the extra work, other University
policies, and the law.
REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
PRIOR APPROVAL
9.2 Prior written approval of the department head must be obtained
annually for those activities specified as requiring such approval. The
academic employee contemplating such activity must initiate the request
for approval. If the academic employee seeking approval for an extra
work activity is a department head or other administrator, the request
must be submitted to the academic employee's immediate supervisor.
9.3 The request form for approval must include the following
information: name of academic employee; name of entity for which
activity will be performed; type of activity involved; whether it is to
be performed on or off campus; period of time during which such activity
is to be performed; estimated amount and distribution of time, in days
or fractions thereof, to be spent on the activity; whether or not this
activity will be compensated (a "compensated" activity is one for which
honoraria, fees, or other benefits over and above expenses are received;
reimbursement for expenses is not to be construed as compensation); and
signature and date. The department head may require the academic
employee to submit additional information about the activity as it
relates to compliance with this policy. This requirement for additional
information may be appealed to the next level of administrator.
9.4 The request for approval must be submitted to the department head.
The department head must respond in writing to the request to
participate in extra work activities within 10 working days of receiving
a request. An activity may be limited or denied approval if it competes
with University missions or interferes with workload agreements. A
specific written explanation of any limitation or denial must be
provided to the academic employee. An academic employee may appeal the
department head's action to the appropriate dean or vice chancellor for
academic affairs. That administrator's decision may be appealed to the
appropriate provost or chancellor if the academic employee believes the
action violates this policy or constitutes an abuse of discretion. The
provost or chancellor will have final authority in this matter.
10 ANNUAL REPORTING
10.1 All academic employees with appointments of 67% time or more must
report to their department head on an annual basis those activities
(specified in Section 4 as requiring such reporting) that occurred
during the previous year.
10.2 Annual reports will be filed in the academic employee's
departmental office or Academic Record File, and will be kept for at
least five years. Copies of these annual reports will be forwarded to
the dean or vice chancellor for academic affairs. The department head
will include a written statement of denied requests and the reasons
therefor.
10.3 The dean or vice chancellor will submit these annual reports and
the statement about denials to the appropriate provost or chancellor and
to the Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs. The dean or vice
chancellor will include a written statement of the denied requests and
the reasons therefor.
10.4 The Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs will maintain these
records and will make this information public in manners consistent with
University procedures, giving proper attention to rights of privacy of
individual academic employees.
10.5 The Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs annually will
present to the Board of Regents aggregate summaries of extra work with
the certification that all requests have been examined and found to
conform to Regents' and appropriate administrative policies relating to
extra work.
11 PROCEDURES FOR MONITORING
11.1 If the University has reason to believe that an academic employee
is engaged in extra work (even if consistent with Section 4) to such an
extent that it compromises his/her ability to carry out University
responsibilities, appropriate University officials may ask the academic
employee to document his/her outside activities and to show that his/her
University duties are being fully met.
11.2 The appropriate provost or chancellor, in cooperation with the
appropriate dean, will periodically review a random sample of individual
and unit reports in order to evaluate the approval and reporting
systems, and will make recommendations regarding the effectiveness of
this policy to the president.
12 COMPLIANCE
12.1 The University expects that academic employees will comply fully
and promptly with all the requirements of this policy. Breaches of this
policy include, but are not limited to, failing to secure prior written
approval for those activities that require it, intentionally filing an
incomplete, erroneous, or misleading request for approval or annual
report, failing to obtain department head's written approval to
participate in service activities as part of the workload, or failing to
provide additional information as required by the approving authority. A
violation of this policy may be the basis for discipline of an academic
employee. If sanctions are necessary, they will be imposed in
accordance with the Regulations Concerning Faculty Tenure, the Academic
Professional and Administrative Staff Policies and Procedures, or the
UEA contract for UMD academic employees. The potential sanctions may
include, but are not limited to the following:
* Letter of admonition;
* Restricting or denying the academic employee's participation in
extra work;
* Reduction of pay or percentage of appointment;
* Suspension;
* Nonrenewal of appointment;
* Dismissal.
13 APPENDIX A - OPERATING DEFINITIONS
13.1 ACADEMIC EMPLOYEE means any person possessing either a full-time
(any employee holding an appointment of at least 67 percent time) or
part-time academic or staff appointment at the University and includes
all persons with the following class numbers: Academic Administrative
93xx; Faculty 94xx; Minnesota Extension Service 96xx; and Academic
Professionals 97xx.
13.2 BUSINESS means any corporation, partnership, sole proprietorship,
firm, franchise, association, organization, holding company, joint stock
company, receivership, business or real estate trust, or any other
nongovernmental legal entity organized for profit, not-for-profit, or
charitable purposes.
13.3 DEPARTMENT HEAD is used as a generic term for the immediate
administrator, which is normally the department head, department chair,
division head, director, principal administrator, or dean.
13.4 EXTRA WORK includes all paid activities that are not part of
workload responsibilities. Not included are income-producing
hobby/recreational activities or managing personal investments (e.g.,
stocks, mutual funds but not a business) unless they interfere with
carrying out normal University responsibilities.
13.5 TERM OF APPOINTMENT is the contract period for academic employees
during the University calendar year (July 1 to June 30). For those with
academic year appointments ("B appointment"), this is a nine-month
appointment (39 weeks with no vacation period). Academic employees with
"A" appointments have an eleven-month appointment (48 weeks plus 22
vacation days in a calendar year).
JOHN ADAMS, Chair
Faculty Consultative Committee
DANIEL FEENEY, Chair
Faculty Affairs Committee
1 Words appearing in capital letters on first use are defined in Appendix A.
2 Academic employees at UMD covered by contract with the University Education
Association shall comply with this policy except to the extent that
provisions of the contract specifically modify the application of or
supersede this policy.
DISCUSSION:
Professor John Adams introduced the Policy on Professional Commitment and
said Dr. Mark Brenner was available to respond to comments and/or questions.
The floor was immediately opened for discussion.
One senator came forward and proposed the following amendments:
Amendment 1: To amend the first sentence in section 1.1 to
read: "All academic employees are expected to fully and
professionally to meet the obligations of their appointments
as addressed under the Workload, Conflict of Interest and
Academic Freedom and Responsibility policies of the
University.
Amendment 1 was accepted as a friendly amendment.
Amendment 2: To amend Section 7.3 by adding the following
sentence at the end of the paragraph: "This does not apply to
secondary participation in collaborative research."
One senator noted that all of Section 7 and most of Section 6 relate to
special cases, either for non-prior approval or for prior approval, and it is
not clear what the general principle is concerning what requires prior
approval and what does not. It appears, said another senator, that the reason
for the confusion and the request for a change reflects to a large extent the
contextual variety across the University. For example, in his department
Section 7.2 and 7.3 are hard to distinguish and certainly there would be great
concern if faculty began to operate as individual contractors and research
collaborators with firms which are also in the research business. With that
said, he wondered how Section 7.3, as amended, would affect someone working as
a consultant (e.g., someone working as a private consultant for a research
firm that is doing research similar to the University or one of its units.)
With no further discussion, amendment 2 was approved.
At this time, Senator JW Halley distributed the following remarks and
alternative proposal:
"The efforts of Vice President Brenner and others to write a
'commitment' policy for faculty are not leading to a satisfactory
document and threaten serious damage to the university. For
background, I refer to the draft policies and also to the minutes of the
June 1, 1995, debate of the Faculty Consultative Committee. I have some
comments and then a proposed further (and much shorter) draft.
"1. The reasons for this discussion at this time are obviously political
and arise as a result of the publicity surrounding the Zahavy case, in
which behavior which was not expressly forbidden aroused widespread
disapproval inside and outside the university.
"2. The attempts to forbid faculty from competing with university
services are clearly inappropriate and appear to constitute an attempt
by the university to establish monopolies. The authors have denied that
this was their intent but the revisions continue to be objectionable in
these terms. For example, it is now said that if the university has
invested in the development of certain expertise, then a faculty member
may not use it for profitable advantage outside the university. But the
university often offers services at extremely inefficient rates, for
example by charging 'overheads' which are vastly in excess of real
costs of offering the service. (These overheads are hidden subsidies
for some very worthwile activities but also for some gross
inefficiencies in administration and maintenance.) The university may
claim that these absurd overheads constitute 'investment' and refuse to
allow the faculty member to proceed. The result is that the public is
denied a service at a reasonable rate because of a monopolistic rule by
the university.
"3. A general problem with this rule-making exercise is the attempt to
anticipate all contingencies. This is the classical error of Roman law.
The Anglo-Saxon tradition, as I understand it, has been precisely to
avoid this by stating general principles and leaving details to a
judicial process. This seems an admirable approach for the present
case, which Professor Adams has attempted to follow, while possibly
falling into some other problems.
"4. For the immediate future and in view of these points and the total
lack of consensus on the Faculty Consultative Committee, the (Faculty)
Senate should reject the draft policy (at the June 8, 1995 Faculty
Senate meeting).
"5. I offer the following possible alternative for discussion:
Faculty members are expected, as a minimum, and
during the months of their fulltime appointment,
to be productive according to the standards of
their field and department (as established by
comparison with peer departments) at a level
consistent with 40 hours per week from a typical
faculty member in those peer departments. This
is a minimum requirement. As long as this
minimum requirement is met, other business and
professional activities by faculty are not
restricted. If such activities make use of
equipment or copyrighted materials developed by
the university or by the faculty member as a part
of his university obligations then the university
must be compensated for such use at market rates.
Enforcement of this policy shall be the
responsibility of department heads and chairs in
the first instance, with the possibility of appeal
to the next administrative level (usually the
dean) and for a final appeal to the Judicial
Committee.
"The rational for this is as follows:
a. The policy requires a level of productivity, not of time
spent. A few people may be able to meet the minimum in a
couple of days, though this is not encouraged. By
explicitly stating a number of equivalent hours, we deal in
part with the political problem at the legislature.
b. By referring to the standards of peer departments, we
avoid the problem of trying to write all the diversity of the
university into the rule in any sensible way. The
standards of peer departments can be established with
reasonable objectivity, and thus can form a basis for
judgement and judicial proceedings when these become
necessary.
c. The unfairness of using materials developed with
university investment for private profit is handled in a
straightforward business way. If the university invested
inefficiently in the development, then it will not recover
its costs at market rates, but there is no reason that it
should. The mechanisms should not encourage
inefficiency."
Senator Halley then moved to substitute his alternative policy for the
proposed policy prepared by the Academic Integrity Committee (AIC) and
referred to as the "AIC proposal" in this summary. A motion to suspend the
rules to consider Senator Halley's alternative proposal was required because
it had not been received at least 48 hours in advance of the meeting. Said
motion was approved. Senator Halley's motion was then seconded and the floor
was opened for discussion of the alternative policy, referred to as the
"Halley proposal."
Senator Halley said the main objective of his proposal was to enunciate a
principle and not to try to meet every contingency that may arise at the
University. He reviewed his rational, as outlined above, and the major
differences between the two proposals. In his there is no reference to time
limitations, just a requirement of productivity. There is no reference to
competition because he believes it is inappropriate for the University to
attempt to establish monopolies. This is not in the public interest, he said.
He concluded by saying he would be willing to amend his proposal by including
reporting requirements because it is appropriate that the University know what
its faculty are doing.
One senator favoring the Halley proposal said he found the section
dealing with prior approval in the AIC proposal particularly disturbing. For
example, if someone wants to teach an extra course through Continuing
Education and Extension he/she would have to obtain prior approval under the
AIC proposal. The AIC document appears to treat faculty like children, he
said, and encouraged support of the Halley proposal.
The chair of the Senate Judicial Committee expressed concern about the
suggestion in the Halley proposal that final appeals be directed to the
Judicial Committee. "What is the basis in the Tenure Regulations for having
appeals go to that committee in the area outlined?" he asked. Senator Halley
responded that he did not have a particular rationale for this and was open to
suggestions. At the present time, said the Judicial Committee chair, the
basis for appeal to the Judicial Committee includes such areas as promotion
and tenure and termination for cause. He suggested this section be amended.
Another person expressed concern that the Halley proposal appears to make
it alright for faculty to work at other places beside the University and that
it seems that an individual should work to the best of his/her ability for the
institution if that is his/her primary job. Senator Halley responded that his
alternative policy was intended to be "a trigger for actions against bad
actors and that those individuals need a minimum requirement established,
which his policy does."
A member of the Academic Integrity Committee said the notion of what a
professional means has been of primary concern to the committee. It really
began with the Workload Policy which addressed the kinds of activities faculty
should be participating in and not how many hours per week they should spend
doing them. The AIC proposal was intended to include faculty involved in
scholarship recognizing that as part of their workload.
Faculty need to realize that they are not free agents, said one senator,
but work for the University and that rules are necessary in order for the
University to function and thrive. The University must also ensure that
departments and units are well led and managed in order to avoid the kinds of
problems the institution has faced in recent years. He supported the AIC
proposal.
Several senators commended Professor Halley for coming forward with very
straightforward and simple principles and praised the way his proposal
addresses productivity and expectations. However, they did not feel certain
aspects of his proposal were workable (e.g. establishing standards of peer
departments with reasonable objectivity).
Another senator spoke about faculty morale which he said is continuing to
decline. Some of that has to do with compensation, he said, but also the
growing feeling that there is a general decline in faculty status compared to
administrators. Faculty are constantly being asked to justify themselves to
those in administrative positions at the same time they are being asked to
encumber themselves with more obligations. Why isn't there a section
outlining the obligations and duties of the administration, including their
duties and obligations in supporting the faculty?
In response to an inquiry concerning whether the Halley proposal included
academic staff, Professor Halley said it did not. There was an expectation
that the academic staff would develop a separate policy.
At this time, there was a call for the question and the motion to
substitute Professor Halley's alternative proposal for the AIC proposal
was approved 45 to 31.
Senator Halley then proposed the following amendment to his document:
To add the following sentence, as follows: (new
language is in CAPS) ". . . As long as this
minimum requirement is met, other business and
professional activities by faculty are not restricted.
IF SUCH ACTIVITIES RESULT IN INCOME OF MORE THAN
5 PERCENT OF UNIVERSITY DERIVED INCOME, THEN THEY
SHOULD BE FULLY REPORTED. . . . "
Senator Halley clarified that he intended this to include all activities
over an entire year and not each individual activity.
Another senator said he failed to see the importance of specifying an
amount if faculty are allowed to do outside work or consulting. If an amount
is specified it could create problems, including negotiations of raises at the
end of a year. He also wondered how the percentage was determined.
Other members expressed concern about endorsing a document of such
importance that has taken form too quickly. Rules and regulations that come
before the University are not there to only punish people, said one senator,
but are there in order to give guidance to faculty and administrators. It
would seem prudent, he said, to return the document to committee for further
review and refinement.
Another senator, who had also served for two years as the representative
of the U of M Faculty Association at the legislature, said he believes it is
important for the faculty to come to agreement on a policy soon in order to
avoid having one imposed on them, perhaps by external sources. He agreed
that neither of the proposals was ready for endorsement at this time, but
urged expediency.
At this time the motion to amend the Halley document as
proposed above failed, and a friendly amendment to add the
phrase: ". . ., when it has jurisdiction" at the of the
document was accepted. The time allocated for discussion of
this item was also extended by 5 minutes.
In the remaining time more questions and concerns were raised about the
(Halley) proposed policy and several more senators encouraged returning the
document to committee for further consideration. One senator said as a
department chair he needed more specific guidelines than what the Halley
policy offered. Another senator said the document should also address the
issue of commitment, both on the part of the University to its faculty and the
faculty to the University and suggested this be included.
A motion to return the document to committee was then
overwhelmingly approved.
III. OLD BUSINESS
Professor John Adams, chair of the Faculty Consultative Committee (FCC),
expressed appreciation to the senators for their active participation in the
discussion on professional commitment. He said further comments may be
submitted to either Dean Brenner or the FCC. It is his hope, he said, that a
document can be developed soon that meets the approval of the Faculty Senate
and the University Administration and Board of Regents. He too expressed
concern about the possibility of a policy being imposed on the faculty if they
do not take the initiative on this issue.
IV. NEW BUSINESS
NONE
V. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 3:45 p.m.
Martha Kvanbeck
Abstractor
APPENDIX A
ATTENDANCE OF MEMBERS, 1994-95
The Faculty Senate met 5 times during 1994-95.
(fm=forfeiture of membership for nonattendance)
Notified Clerk of
Nonattendance or
Attended Alternate Attended
FACULTY
Akehurst, F. Ronald 5 0
Altholz, Josef 4 0
Anderson, Eugene 3 2
Anderson, John 4 1
Arth, Janet (apptd. 12/94) 3 2
Bache, Robert 3 0
Ballou, Mercedes 5 0
Bar-Cohen, Avram 4 1
Bashiri, Iraq 5 0
Beatty, John 3 0
Bebeau, Muriel 3 1
Beebe, David 2 1
Befort, Stephen (apptd. 11/94) 1 3
Bell, John 2 2
Ben-Ner, Avner 5 0
Biesboer, David 3 1
Bloomer, Joseph 1 0
Bohn, Dorothy (resigned 12/94) 1 0
Bolman, Morton 0 4
Borchardt, Edith 2 3
Bouchard, Thomas 3 0
Brady, Linda 4 1
Brown, David 1 3
Brustein, William 5 0
Buchwald, Henry 4 0
Burke, Barbara 3 1
Busta, Francis 1 3
Burns, Kenneth (apptd. 11/94) 2 0
Carr, Peter (resigned 10/94) 0 0
Collins, W. Andrew 3 2
Connett, John 4 0
Copeland, Rita 0 4
Corcoran-Perry, Sheila 5 0
Cummings, Larry 2 1
Davidson, Jane 3 1
Davidson, Kris 5 0
Deinard, Amos 3 2
Delong, Marilyn 3 2
Dempsey, Mary 5 4
Drewes, Lester 3 0
Dunn, David 0 3
Dunnigan, Timothy 4 0
Durgan, Beverly (resigned 1/95) 0 1
Dworkin, Martin 4 1
Eagon, John 2 0
Epley, Richard 3 2
Fall, Bruce 5 0
Ferrieri, Patricia 1 3
Filipovich, Alexandra (apptd. 12/94) 0 5
Fogelman, Edwin 4 0
Francis, Gary 1 3
Frank, David 4 0
Galaskiewicz, Joseph 4 0
Gardner, Gary (resigned 2/95) 1 0
Gaston, Judith 5 0
Giebink, Scott 0 3
Goldstein, Richard 2 3
Graham, Peter 3 1
Gross, Cynthia 3 1
Halley, J. Woods 3 1
Hancher, Michael 4 0
Hatch, Jay T. 2 1
Hawley, Louise 2 3
Hogan, M. Janice 5 0
Hostetter, Margaret 0 5
Hudleston, Peter 4 1
Jernberg, James 5 0
Johnson, Thomas 5 0
Kane, Mary Jo 2 3
Kane, Robert 1 3
Kaplan, Edward 0 4
Karni, Karen 3 0
Kautz, Barbara 4 1
Kelly, Richard 4 1
Kennedy, William 2 1
King, Jean 1 2
Kittleson, David 3 1
Klee, Carol 4 1
Krislov, Samuel 5 0
Kuhi, Leonard 5 0
Kumar, K.S.P. 5 0
Lange, Dale 4 0
Leppert, Richard 5 0
LeRoy, Stephan 4 0
Lewis, Marsha 2 2
Lodge, Timothy 2 2
Lulich, Jody 3 1
Lubet, Alex 4 1
Mackenzie, Thomas 1 2
Malandra, William 3 0
Mariash, Cary (apptd. 12/94) 3 1
Martin, Judith 5 0
Mason, H.E. 1 3
Maxwell, Robert 1 2
McEvoy, Mary 1 4
McKeever, Patrick 3 1
McMurray, Peter 4 1
Melsa, Cleon 3 2
Meyers, Susan (resigned 10/94) 0 0
Miller, Willard 5 0
Moon, Roger 4 0
Morris, C. Robert (apptd. 11/94) 4 1
Mullins, Lynnette 1 2
Murthy, V. R. 3 1
Nantell, Timothy 3 0
Nagaraja, Kakambi 4 1
Nellis, Jennifred 4 0
Nelson, David 2 1
Noetzel, David (apptd. 11/94) 3 0
Nolting, Earl 5 0
Nystrom, Gene 4 0
Orf, James 4 1
Perry, Cheryl 4 0
Perry, James 4 1
Peterson, Gail 4 0
Polla, Dennis 2 2
Pusey, Anne 4 0
Ragsdale, David 4 1
Reyes, Angelita (resigned 3/95) 0 1
Rhame, Frank 2 0
Rhodus, Nelson 4 0
Robbins, Kathryn 4 1
Robinson, Elaine 2 2
Rose, Susan 4 0
Rose, Thomas 5 0
Satkowski, Leon 2 3
Schlein, Stuart 4 1
Schwarzenberg, Sarah (resigned 11/94) 0 1
Sell, George 4 0
Seybold, Virginia 3 0
Shocker, Allan 3 0
Shulman, Yechiel 2 2
Shumway, Sara 1 2
Simmons, Michael 4 1
Sirc, Geoffrey 4 1
Sivanandan, V. 4 1
Skurla, James 5 0
Snover, Dale 1 1
Sparber, Sheldon 3 1
Speidel, Thomas 5 0
Stein, Marvin 3 2
Swan, Craig 4 0
Swanson, Bert 4 0
Takemori, Akira (resigned 6/94) 0 0
Tillotson, Richard 2 1
Tracy, James 3 0
Wagner, Philip 4 1
Wangensteen, Douglas 2 2
Walter, Kenneth 5 0
Ward, David 5 0
Weckwerth, Vernon 5 0
Welsch, Gerald (resigned 1/95) 0 0
White, Michael 3 1
Wiedmann, Timothy 5 0
Williams, Oliver 3 1
Wolf, Susan (apptd. 11/94) 4 1
Wood, Frank 5 0
Zaimont, Judith 3 1
Zita, Jacquelyn 4 0
FACULTY CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE
Adams, Carl 1 0
Adams, John 5 0
Burk, Thomas 0 0
Evans, Sara (Winter Quarter) 1 0
Gremmels, James 5 0
Humphreys, Roberta 2 1
Jones, Robert 1 0
Maruyama, Geoffrey 4 1
Peterson, Harvey 4 1
Steffes, Michael 1 3
Weiss, Gerhard (Fall and Spring) 4 0