1995-96 UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA No. 1
FACULTY SENATE MINUTES
NOVEMBER 16, 1995
The first meeting of the Faculty Senate for 1995-96 was convened in the
Whiting Proscenium Theater, Rarig Center, Minneapolis campus, on Thursday,
November 16, 1995, at 12:50 p.m. Checking or signing the roll as present were
124 voting faculty members, 6 ex officio members, and 7 nonmembers. Professor
Roberta Humphreys, Faculty Senate Vice Chair, presided.
I. MEETING SCHEDULE
Information
Other 1995-96 meetings of the Faculty Senate are scheduled as follows:
Thursday, February 15, 1996
Thursday, April 18, 1996
Thursday, May 16, 1996
II. ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSE TO FACULTY SENATE ACTIONS
Information
A. Addendum to the Faculty Workload Task Force Report
Approved by: the Faculty Senate on April 20, 1995
the Administration on June 19, 1995
the Board of Regents - no action required
B. Interpretation of Sections 3-9 of the Regulations Concerning
Faculty Tenure re Promotion and Tenure Decisions at the
Provostal and Chancellor Level
Approved by: the Faculty Senate on June 8, 1995
the Administration on June 19, 1995
the Board of Regents on October 13, 1995
C. Amendment of Sections 14.1 and 14.2 (including an
Interpretation) of the Regulations Concerning Faculty Tenure re
Timely Responses in Cases of Unrequested Leave of Absence,
Termination or Suspension
Approved by: the Faculty Senate on May 19, 1994
(amendments) and June 8, 1995
(interpretation)
the Administration on June 19, 1995
the Board of Regents on October 13, 1995
D. Interpretation of Sections 14 and 15 of the Regulations
Concerning Faculty Tenure re Clarification of the Term "Days"
Approved by: the Faculty Senate on June 8, 1995
the Administration on June 19, 1995
the Board of Regents on October 13, 1995
------------------------------------------------------
CONSENT AGENDA
Action
Agenda Items III. through V. are considered to be noncontroverial or
"housekeeping" in nature and are offered as a "Consent Agenda" to be take 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.
III. MINUTES FOR APRIL 20, MAY 18, and JUNE 8
IV. FACULTY SENATE OFFICERS
The chair of the Faculty Senate recommends the following officers for
1995-96:
Parliamentarian--Karen Brown
Abstractor and Clerk--Martha Kvanbeck
V. COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES
Committees of the Faculty Senate, 1995-96
FACULTY AFFAIRS - Faculty: Daniel Feeney (chair), Carole Bland, Carol
Chomsky, Mary Dempsey, Judith Gaston, Richard Goldstein, Roland Guyotte,
Kinley Larntz, Willard Manning, Richard McGehee, Carol Miller, Samuel Myers,
Ken Roering, Bernard Selzler, James Stone, Yang Wang. Academic Professional:
Judith Gaston. Ex Officio: Carol Carrier, Cheryl Coryea, Robert Fahnhorst,
George Seltzer. Students: Samar Barakat, Kevin O'Laughlin.
JUDICIAL - Faculty: Edwin Fogelman (chair), Ron Akehurst, Jean Bauer, David
Born, Susan Brorson, Vincente Cabrera, Laura Cooper, Timothy Dunnigan,
Genevieve Escure, Edward Foster, David Frank, Shirley Garner, Hillel
Gershenson, Ilene Harris, Curtis Hoard, Joan Howland, Jack Imholte, Edward
Kaplan, Candace Kruttschnitt, David Lykken, Jack Mandel, John (Kim)
Munholland, Takashi Okagaki, Angelita Reyes, Sharon Satterfield, Harold
Schwartz, Oriol Valls, Billie J. Wahlstrom, Carol Wells.
INFORMATION:
FACULTY CONSULTATIVE - Faculty: Carl Adams (chair), John Adams, Carole Bland,
Victor Bloomfield, Virginia Gray (vice chair), James Gremmels, Robert Jones,
Geoffrey Maruyama, Harvey Peterson, Michael Steffes. Ex Officio: Roberta
Humphreys, Daniel Feeney, Laura Coffin Koch, Lester Drewes, Fred Morrison.
W. ANDREW COLLINS, Chair
Committee on Committees
DISCUSSION:
The Consent Agenda was approved without discussion.
APPROVED
-----------------------------------------------------
VI. FACULTY CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE
Conflict of Interest Policy
Action
MOTION:
To approve revisions of the Conflict of Interest Policy.
(deleted language is in [brackets])
CONFLICT OF INTEREST POLICY
Approved by Board of Regents April 8, 1994
Administratively Revised September 27, 1995
1. STATEMENT OF GENERAL POLICY
The University of Minnesota actively encourages and participates in
interaction with both the public and private sectors as an important
component of its research, education, and public service activities.
The University encourages the recruitment, retention, and recognition
of individuals with creative abilities who can contribute to
technology transfer and interactions with BUSINESS(1) and public
entities consistent with their primary commitment to the University.
ACADEMIC EMPLOYEEs involved in such interactions may receive personal
financial compensation in accordance with the principles and
guidelines provided in this policy. Research activities supported by
grants, contracts, or GIFTs from public and private entities as well
as individuals provide a valuable source of funds, equipment, and
topics for University research. Professional interactions, including
consulting arrangements, between ACADEMIC EMPLOYEEs and public
entities and private BUSINESSes advance the University's ability to
provide a high-quality research and educational experience for
students and enhance employment opportunities for students.
University licensing of technology, ACADEMIC EMPLOYEE's consulting,
assisting in new BUSINESS start-ups, and other forms of technology
transfer to both public and private entities are critical to meeting
society's needs. The University is committed to fostering the welfare
of the State of Minnesota through interaction by the University with
other public entities and the private sector.
At the same time, the University and its employees are committed to
conducting themselves and University activities in accordance with the
highest standards of integrity and ethics. This includes the
identification of the potential for conflicts of interest and the
assurance that they do not improperly affect University activities.
It is the purpose of this policy to set forth the principles for
identifying such potential for conflicts and the procedures for
reviewing and addressing the potential for conflicts that occur.
2. CONFLICT OF INTEREST AND EXTERNAL RELATIONSHIPS
A conflict of interest occurs when an ACADEMIC EMPLOYEE compromises
his/her professional judgment in carrying out University teaching,
research, outreach, or public service activities because of an
external relationship that directly or indirectly affects the
FINANCIAL INTEREST of the ACADEMIC EMPLOYEE, any FAMILY(2) member, or
any ASSOCIATED ENTITY.
The potential for conflicts arises because of the nature and scope of
activities engaged in by the University and its employees. The
University assumes that potential for conflicts will occur regularly
in the normal conduct of activities. However, it is essential that
the significant potential for conflicts be disclosed and reviewed by
the University. After disclosure the University can then make an
informed judgment about a particular case and require appropriate
oversight, limitations, or prohibitions on the activity in accordance
with this policy. ACADEMIC EMPLOYEES may not engage in activities in
which an actual conflict of interest occurs.
ACADEMIC EMPLOYEES are encouraged to PARTICIPATE in technology
transfer activities and interactions with other public entities and
with BUSINESS. Such activities, referred to in this document as
external relationships, may have the potential for conflicts of
interest. However, no wrongdoing is implied by the existence of
external relationships.
SIGNIFICANT COMBINATIONS OF ACTIVITIES AND EXTERNAL RELATIONSHIPS
The potential for a conflict interest arises when certain behaviors on
the part of the ACADEMIC EMPLOYEE occur and are coupled to the
existence of certain external relationships. Some combinations
(Category I below) are assumed to not represent a conflict of
interest. Other combinations represent sufficient potential for
conflict of interest (Category II below) that they require review and
prior approval by the University before the ACADEMIC EMPLOYEE can
engage in the activity. Category III below addresses an activity
combined with an external relationship that is presumed to be a
conflict of interest and is therefore not allowed.
The following is a representative, though not inclusive, list of
activities and external relationships covered by this policy. The
categories are general guidelines, and application of appropriate
review and oversight will always be in accordance with maintaining the
full integrity or reputation of the University and its employees
within the context of academic freedom.
Any combination of activity and external relationship not specifically
represented in Categories I-III that an ACADEMIC EMPLOYEE reasonably
believes constitutes a potential conflict of interest must be reported
in writing to the ACADEMIC EMPLOYEE's department head.(3) The
department head will determine whether the relationship represents an
activity requiring further review.
CATEGORY I - Allowable combinations of activities and external
relationships: The following are not considered conflicts of interest
and do not require disclosure. They are allowable, if they are
consistent with other policies of the University including the
Consulting and Patent and Technology Transfer policies:(4)
a) An ACADEMIC EMPLOYEE receiving royalties and honoraria
for published scholarly works, occasional lectures, and other
writings or creative works.(5,6)
b) An ACADEMIC EMPLOYEE receiving honoraria for serving as a
special reviewer or serving on review panels for academic,
governmental, or not-for-profit entities.
c) An ACADEMIC EMPLOYEE receiving royalties under the
University's or another academic institution's royalty-sharing
policies but the employee does not have any other relationship
with the royalty-granting entity as specified in Category II.
d) An ACADEMIC EMPLOYEE participating in a Private Practice Plan
pursuant to policies adopted by the Board of Regents.
CATEGORY II - Combinations of activities and external relationships
that have the potential for conflict of interest: The following
combinations range from those that are considered to have minimal to
moderate potential for conflict of interest (Section A) to those that
have a moderate to high potential for conflict of interest (Section
B). The activities in Section A are ordinarily allowable following
disclosure and, where necessary, the implementation of oversight or
other management procedures. The activities and external
relationships listed in Section B require case-by-case review and only
some of the specific relationships may be approved. Special oversight
or management procedures are likely to be required (see Section 3 for
disclosure and approval procedures).
SECTION A - Combinations of activities and external relationships in
which there is a minimal to moderate potential for conflict of
interest.
RESEARCH ACTIVITIES
a) An ACADEMIC EMPLOYEE participating in research on a
technology, process, or product developed in whole or in part
by that ACADEMIC EMPLOYEE in which the employee, a member of
his/her IMMEDIATE FAMILY, or an ASSOCIATED ENTITY is entitled
to receive royalties from an existing agreement with a
BUSINESS under the University's or another academic
institution's royalty-sharing policies, but has no other
FINANCIAL INTERESTs in the project.
b) An ACADEMIC EMPLOYEE assigning students, postdoctoral fellows,
or other trainees to research projects in which the ACADEMIC
EMPLOYEE, a member of his/her IMMEDIATE FAMILY, or an
ASSOCIATED ENTITY is entitled to receive royalties from an
existing agreement with a BUSINESS under the University's or
another academic institution's royalty-sharing policies, but
has no other FINANCIAL INTERESTs in the project.
INSTRUCTIONAL ACTIVITIES
c) An ACADEMIC EMPLOYEE assigning students or other trainees to
instructional projects, for example, design projects, in which
the ACADEMIC EMPLOYEE, a member of his/her IMMEDIATE FAMILY,
or an ASSOCIATED ENTITY has A FINANCIAL INTEREST.
SECTION B - Combinations of activities and EXTERNAL RELATIONSHIPS IN
WHICH THERE IS A MODERATE TO HIGH POTENTIAL FOR CONFLICT OF INTEREST.
RESEARCH ACTIVITIES
a) AN ACADEMIC EMPLOYEE participating in clinical trials or
evaluation or development of a technology, process, or product
owned or controlled by a BUSINESS in which the employee, a
member of his/her FAMILY, or an ASSOCIATED ENTITY has a
FINANCIAL INTEREST.
b) An ACADEMIC EMPLOYEE assigning students, postdoctoral fellows,
or other trainees to projects supported by a BUSINESS (through
SPONSORED RESEARCH or a GIFT) in which the ACADEMIC EMPLOYEE, a
member of his/her FAMILY, or an ASSOCIATED ENTITY has a
FINANCIAL INTEREST, other than royalty income or the
entitlement to future royalty income under university royalty-
sharing policies.
c) An ACADEMIC EMPLOYEE receiving University-supervised SPONSORED
RESEARCH support or GIFTS (whether in dollars or in kind) for
research from a BUSINESS in which he/she, a member of his/her
FAMILY, or an ASSOCIATED ENTITY has a FINANCIAL INTEREST, other
than royalty income or the entitlement to future royalty income
under university royalty-sharing policies.
BOARD MEMBERSHIPS
d) AN ACADEMIC EMPLOYEE receiving research support (SPONSORED
RESEARCH or a GIFT) from a BUSINESS in which the employee or a
member of his/her FAMILY serves on the board of directors or
advisory board.
EXTERNAL ACTIVITIES
e) AN ACADEMIC EMPLOYEE holding an EXECUTIVE POSITION in a
BUSINESS engaged in commercial or research activities directly
related to his/her University responsibilities.
ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSIBILITIES
f) AN ACADEMIC EMPLOYEE taking administrative action on behalf of
the University with respect to the University or any
University-affiliated organization that is beneficial to a
BUSINESS in which he/she, a member of his/her FAMILY, or an
ASSOCIATED ENTITY has a FINANCIAL INTEREST.
g) An ACADEMIC EMPLOYEE taking administrative action on behalf of
the University with respect to any supported research activity
(SPONSORED RESEARCH or a GIFT) in which the ACADEMIC EMPLOYEE,
a member of his/her FAMILY, or an ASSOCIATED ENTITY has a
FINANCIAL INTEREST in the sponsor or donor.
PROFESSIONAL REFERRALS
h) WITH THE EXCLUSION OF CONSULTING ACTIVITIES THAT CONFORM TO THE
CONSULTING POLICY, AN ACADEMIC EMPLOYEE while acting in the
context of his/her University duties making professional
referrals to a BUSINESS in which he/she, a member of his/her
FAMILY, or an ASSOCIATED ENTITY has a FINANCIAL INTEREST of
which the ACADEMIC EMPLOYEE is aware or reasonably should be
aware.(7)
CATEGORY III - A COMBINATION OF AN ACTIVITY AND AN EXTERNAL
RELATIONSHIP THAT IS PROHIBITED: THE FOLLOWING ACTIVITY CREATES A
CONFLICT OF INTEREST AND IS NOT ALLOWED FOR ACADEMIC EMPLOYEEs:
PURCHASING GOODS OR SERVICES
a) ACADEMIC EMPLOYEES involved with or who may influence purchasing
decisions or contracting on behalf of the University must comply
with Minn. Stat. § 15.43, Acceptance of Advantage by State
Employee, which is fully set forth in Appendix [D]E.
3. IMPLEMENTATION - CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Successful implementation of this policy assumes a shared responsibility by
all ACADEMIC EMPLOYEES and the administration of the University. ACADEMIC
EMPLOYEES are expected to comply with all the disclosure requirements
described below. Once proposed activities have been administratively reviewed
with a plan of action completed and approved, University administration has
the responsibility to vigorously defend the activity so long as the ACADEMIC
EMPLOYEE complies with the plan of action, the disclosure requirements, other
University policies, and the law.
A. DISCLOSURE OF FINANCIAL INTERESTS REQUIREMENTS
REQUIREMENTS FOR DISCLOSURE OF FINANCIAL INTERESTS: ANY TIME AN ACADEMIC
EMPLOYEE PLANS TO INITIATE AN ACTIVITY THAT MAY BE CLASSIFIED UNDER CATEGORY
II OF THIS POLICY, THE ACADEMIC EMPLOYEE must obtain approval of the proposed
activity before commencing the activity. For the purposes of this policy,
disclosure OF FINANCIAL INTERESTS is required when [the interest in] THE
AGGREGATED ANNUAL INCOME BY AN ACADEMIC EMPLOYEE AND IMMEDIATE FAMILY MEMBERS
FROM a BUSINESS OR ANY OTHER ENTITY IS EXPECTED TO [by an ACADEMIC EMPLOYEE or
by an IMMEDIATE FAMILY member] exceeds $[5,000]10,000 [in annual income of all
types], WHEN equity or ownership interest IN ANY SINGLE ENTITY IS valued at
$10,000 OR MORE, OR [1]5 percent or more (DETERMINED THROUGH REFERENCE TO
PUBLIC PRICES OR OTHER REASONABLE MEASURES OF FAIR MARKET VALUE), or WHEN
THERE IS A commitment for [any] future royalties. Disclosure OF FINANCIAL
INTERESTS is also required when an EXTENDED FAMILY member holds an EXECUTIVE
POSITION in a BUSINESS, or holds equity or ownership interest valued at ten
percent or more in a BUSINESS. DISCLOSURE OF FINANCIAL INTERESTS IS NOT
REQUIRED FOR AN OWNERSHIP INTEREST IN A SMALL BUSINESS INNOVATION RESEARCH
(SBIR) PROGRAM (PUB. L. 97-219) OR A SMALL BUSINESS TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER
PROGRAM (PUB. L. 102-564).
DISCLOSURE AT THE TIME OF SUBMITTING A PROPOSAL FOR SPONSORED RESEARCH OR
RECEIPT OF A GIFT: ALL ACADEMIC EMPLOYEEs must disclose relevant FINANCIAL
INTERESTs to their department heads at the time of their application for
research support (from internal or external funding sources) or technology
transfer, or upon receipt of a GIFT if the proposed falls under the provisions
of this policy. Funding for the project will not be accessible to the
ACADEMIC EMPLOYEE until the disclosure of FINANCIAL INTEREST is reviewed and
approval is given, and other appropriate measures have been implemented in
accord with this policy.
ANNUAL DISCLOSURE: All ACADEMIC EMPLOYEEs are required annually to complete
and submit to their department heads the Disclosure Form reporting all
FINANCIAL INTERESTs related to research activities and consulting activities.
Whenever substantial changes occur that the ACADEMIC EMPLOYEE believes may
alter the FINANCIAL INTERESTS previously disclosed, an updated form must be
submitted within thirty (30) days.
DISCLOSURE WHEN INVOLVED WITH REVIEW OR ADVISORY ACTIVITIES: All ACADEMIC
EMPLOYEES must temporarily excuse themselves from any University committee or
review process that is considering an activity in which they have a FINANCIAL
INTEREST.
In addition, ACADEMIC EMPLOYEES must also disclose to committee chairs or the
appropriate administrator any interest (BUSINESS, FINANCIAL, OR FAMILY) that
might cause the employee to compromise his/her judgment while serving as a
committee member or making administrative decisions. An example is serving in
an EXECUTIVE POSITION for any organization that does business with the
University or sets policies or rules that affect the University's activities.
DISCLOSURE WHEN INVOLVED WITH TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER: When ACADEMIC EMPLOYEES
are involved with transferring technology through patents or licensing to a
BUSINESS in which the employee has a FINANCIAL INTEREST, the employee must
disclose the FINANCIAL INTEREST to the Associate Vice President, Office of
Research and Technology Transfer.
DISCLOSURE TO EXTERNAL ENTITIES: ACADEMIC EMPLOYEEs must disclose relevant
FINANCIAL INTERESTs to sponsors of research and in reporting by either written
or oral communication research results.(8) Disclosure must also be made by
any employee who makes an appearance, either in person or by way of a written
communication, before any public body, commission, group, or individual, to
present facts or to give an opinion respecting any issue or matter up for
consideration, discussion, or action.(9)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: When considering approval of Category II activities
or monitoring Category III activities, the department head, dean, or
appropriate [academic vice president]PROVOST/vice chancellor may require the
ACADEMIC EMPLOYEE to submit additional clarifying information pertinent to the
activity under review. This supplemental information will be treated as non-
public information to the extent allowed by law.
WAIVING THE REQUIREMENT FOR DISCLOSURE OF FINANCIAL INTEREST: IN SPECIAL
SITUATIONS, ACADEMIC EMPLOYEES may request a waiver of the requirement to file
a financial disclosure to participate in a specific activity if they can
document that they are not in a position to influence the accuracy of the
outcome of the research or the timely and accurate dissemination of the
results of the research. A request for a waiver must be submitted to the
ACADEMIC EMPLOYEE's department head. The administrative review process should
follow the procedure described below for Category II - Section A activities.
If the request for the waiver is denied, then the ACADEMIC EMPLOYEE must
either comply with the disclosure requirements or not participate in the
proposed activity.
B. REVIEW OF APPLICATIONS FOR EXTERNAL SUPPORT OR RECEIPT OF GIFTS
REVIEW PROCESS: The general purpose of reviews is to assist employees and the
University in avoiding or controlling risks to integrity and reputation
engendered by such relationships, while at the same time protecting and
furthering the interests of employees, the University, and society in the
activities supported by SPONSORED RESEARCH and GIFTs (see Appendix B,1,b for
general guidelines for the review process).
CATEGORY II - SECTION A: The department head is the responsible administrator
for this section. When a department head receives the disclosure form, he/she
will consider the appropriateness of the activity and will determine a course
of action that will be reported in writing to the dean to whom the department
head reports. The dean will either approve the department head's action or
submit the disclosure for review following the Category II - Section B
procedure. In those instances when the dean does not concur, the activity may
not proceed until approval is obtained by the Category II - Section B review
procedure. Review and decisions on proposed activities for this section must
be completed within twenty (20) working days after the department head
receives the written disclosure.
CATEGORY II - SECTION B: The dean is the responsible administrator for this
section. When a department head receives the disclosure form, he/she will
consider the appropriateness of the activity and will recommend a course of
action that will be submitted to the dean to whom the department head reports.
The dean will refer the proposed activity to the appropriate Conflict Review
Committee (described below) with or without his/her specific recommendation.
The Conflict Review Committee will either endorse the dean's recommendation or
suggest to the dean a course of action. The dean will then determine the
course of action for the proposed activity and submit the decision to the
[academic vice president] PROVOST or vice chancellor to whom the dean reports.
The [vice president]PROVOST/vice chancellor will either concur or return the
plan of action to the dean for revision. For those proposed activities that
would benefit from an additional perspective, the [vice president]PROVOST/vice
chancellor will forward a request to the Vice President for Research to refer
the activity to the Public-Private Partnership Committee (PPPC). The advice
from the PPPC will be submitted to the dean, who will determine the course of
action and submit the decision to the [vice president] PROVOST or vice
chancellor to whom the dean reports. The [vice president]PROVOST/vice
chancellor will either concur or return the plan of action to the dean for
revision. Review and decisions on proposed activities for this section must
be completed within thirty (30) working days after the department head
receives the written disclosure except for those activities referred to the
PPPC. The proposed activities that are reviewed by the PPPC must be completed
within an additional thirty (30) working days.
CONFLICT REVIEW COMMITTEES (CRCS): Each [academic vice president] PROVOST or
vice chancellor will determine whether the review committee(s) should be
organized at the collegiate level or by area (multiple colleges) and, in
consultation with appropriate deans, will be responsible for appointing review
committee members (see Appendix B). ACADEMIC EMPLOYEEs will have the
opportunity to meet with the CRC to discuss the situation and possible
actions.
APPEAL/RECONSIDERATION PROCESS: If an ACADEMIC EMPLOYEE believes the
determined course of action is inappropriate, the employee may appeal or ask
for the decision to be reconsidered by the dean. The dean will then refer
the appeal to the Conflict Review Committee to have the activity reconsidered.
Upon completion of the review, the dean will act on the recommendation.
SPECIAL REPORTING REQUIREMENTS TO SPONSORING AGENCIES: SOME FUNDING AGENCIES
(E.G., PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE) REQUIRE NOTIFICATION OF POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF
INTEREST BEFORE FUNDS MAY BE EXPENDED IN SUPPORT OF THE ACTIVITY THAT HAS THE
REPORTED INTEREST. TO FULFIL THIS REQUIREMENT, THE DEAN OF THE UNIT IN WHICH A
POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST HAS BEEN IDENTIFIED WILL INFORM THE VICE
PRESIDENT FOR RESEARCH OF THE POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST AND HOW IT WILL
BE MANAGED, REDUCED, OR ELIMINATED. THE VICE PRESIDENT FOR RESEARCH WILL
NOTIFY THE FUNDING AGENCY ENTITY ABOUT THE POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST AND
PROVIDE ASSURANCE THAT THE INTEREST HAS BEEN MANAGED, REDUCED, OR ELIMINATED.
OTHER AGENCIES (E.G., NSF) REQUIRE NOTIFICATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST THAT
CANNOT BE MANAGED OR ELIMINATED. ONLY THOSE AGENCIES THAT HAVE THESE SPECIFIC
REQUIREMENTS WILL BE NOTIFIED.
RECORD RETENTION: Each dean will maintain records of all financial disclosure
statements filed and all actions taken by the institution, on an award-by-
award basis, for at least three (3) years beyond the termination of the award
or until resolution of any action by the University or governmental agencies
involving the records. All records will be maintained in a manner to protect
confidentiality.
C. REPORTING OF PREVIOUSLY APPROVED RELATIONSHIPS
Each dean annually will submit a written report to the appropriate [academic
vice president]PROVOST/vice chancellor summarizing all requests and actions
regarding Category II external relationships. In addition, the dean must
report on ongoing Category II relationships to ensure that management and
oversight activities are being carried out as required. These reports will be
forwarded by the [vice president] PROVOST or vice chancellor to the Vice
President for Research for transmission to the Public-Private Partnership
Committee, which will review activities for consistency and make suggestions
for modification of operating principles and procedures. On behalf of the
committee, the Vice President for Research will communicate its
recommendations in writing to the [vice presidents] PROVOSTS and vice
chancellors, who in turn will communicate in writing with their deans. The
Vice President for Research also will consult with appropriate faculty
governance committees regarding proposed changes in the operating principles
and procedures.
4. COMPLIANCE
The University expects ACADEMIC EMPLOYEEs to comply fully and promptly with
all the requirements of this policy. Breaches of this policy include, but are
not limited to, failure to file, intentionally filing an incomplete,
erroneous, or misleading disclosure form, 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 and the Academic Professional and Administrative
Staff Policies and Procedures. The potential sanctions may include, but are
not limited to, the following:
* Letter of admonition;
* Ineligibility of the ACADEMIC EMPLOYEE for grant applications,
Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval, or supervision of
graduate students;
* Suspension;
* Nonrenewal of appointment;
* Dismissal.
IF AN ACADEMIC EMPLOYEE WHO IS INVOLVED WITH SPONSORED RESEARCH FAILS TO
COMPLY WITH THIS POLICY AND HAS BIASED THE DESIGN, CONDUCT OR REPORT OF
RESEARCH DUE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST, THEN THE DEAN OF THE UNIT MUST PROMPTLY
INFORM THE VICE PRESIDENT FOR RESEARCH. THE VICE PRESIDENT FOR RESEARCH WILL
THEN NOTIFY THE SPONSORING AGENCY OF THE CORRECTIVE ACTION TAKEN OR TO BE
TAKEN.
5. OTHER APPLICABLE POLICIES AND LAWS
The statement of principles contained in this policy complements the
provisions of other applicable policies, regulations, and laws. These include
Regents' policies on "Patent and Technology Transfer"; "Consulting and Outside
Affiliations: Outside Consulting, Service Activities and Other Outside Work";
and the "Faculty and Staff Grievance Procedure." Other relevant guidelines
include the "Regulations Concerning Faculty Tenure"; Purchase of Services
Policies and Procedures, and applicable state and federal law. This policy is
intended to help implement and expand upon these other related requirements.
This policy AND THE APPENDICIES A - E ATTACHED HERETO AND INCORPORATED HEREIN,
supersedes all others with respect to matters covered herein.
APPENDIX A - OPERATING DEFINITIONS
THE ITEMS APPEARING IN SMALL CAPITAL LETTERS SHALL HAVE THE FOLLOWING
MEANINGS:
A) ACADEMIC EMPLOYEE means any person possessing either a full-time (any
employee holding an appointment of more than 66 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. Also
included in this category are those individuals, whether salaried or not
salaried, who on behalf of the University are responsible [for writing and
submitting grants.] THE DESIGN, CONDUCT,OR REPORTING OF RESEARCH.
b) An ASSOCIATED ENTITY of an ACADEMIC EMPLOYEE means any trust, organization,
or enterprise over which the employee, alone or together with his/her FAMILY,
exercises a controlling interest.
c) 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.
d) EXECUTIVE POSITION refers to any position that includes responsibilities
for a significant segment of the operation or management of a BUSINESS.
e) EXTENDED FAMILY of an ACADEMIC EMPLOYEE includes children who do not
qualify as dependents for tax purpose, parents, and siblings.
f) The FAMILY of an ACADEMIC EMPLOYEE includes both IMMEDIATE FAMILY and
EXTENDED FAMILY.
g) A FINANCIAL INTEREST is an interest in a BUSINESS consisting of: (1) any
stock, stock option, or similar ownership interest in such BUSINESS, but
excluding any interest arising solely by reason of investment in such BUSINESS
by a mutual, pension, or other institutional investment fund over which the
ACADEMIC EMPLOYEE does not exercise control; or (2) receipt of, or the right
or expectation to receive, any income from such BUSINESS whether in the form
of a fee (e.g., consulting), salary, allowance, forbearance, forgiveness,
interest in real or personal property, dividend, royalty derived from the
licensing of technology or other processes or products, rent, capital gain,
real or personal property, or any other form of compensation, or any
combination thereof. For the purposes of this policy, disclosure OF FINANCIAL
INTERESTS is required when [the interest in] THE AGGREGATED ANNUAL INCOME BY
AN ACADEMIC EMPLOYEE AND IMMEDIATE FAMILY MEMBERS FROM a BUSINESS OR ANY OTHER
ENTITY IS EXPECTED TO [by an ACADEMIC EMPLOYEE or by an IMMEDIATE FAMILY
member] exceeds $[5,000]10,000 ]in annual income of all types], WHEN equity or
ownership interest IN ANY SINGLE ENTITY is valued at $10,000 OR MORE, OR [1]5
percent or more (DETERMINED THROUGH REFERENCE TO PUBLIC PRICES OR OTHER
REASONABLE MEASURES OF FAIR MARKET VALUE), or WHEN THERE IS A commitment for
[any] future royalties. Disclosure OF FINANCIAL INTERESTS is also required
when an EXTENDED FAMILY member holds an EXECUTIVE POSITION in a BUSINESS, or
holds equity or ownership interest valued at ten percent or more in a
BUSINESS. DISCLOSURE OF FINANCIAL INTERESTS IS NOT REQUIRED FOR AN OWNERSHIP
INTEREST IN A SMALL BUSINESS INNOVATION RESEARCH (SBIR) PROGRAM (PUB. L. 97-
219) OR A SMALL BUSINESS TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER PROGRAM (PUB. L. 102-564).
h) GIFT means an unrestricted donation of assets to the University or any
portion of the University. The donor may specify the general purpose for
which the gift may be used, but there may be no other terms and conditions
concerning the use of such assets. Assets may be in the form of cash,
securities, tangible personal property, partnership interests, or pledges for
acceptable assets that are assigned to the University. For the purposes of
this policy, disclosure is required when (a) a GIFT is from a BUSINESS in
which an ACADEMIC EMPLOYEE has a FINANCIAL INTEREST or (b) the value of the
GIFT exceeds $1,000 in a given year.
i) IMMEDIATE FAMILY includes the ACADEMIC EMPLOYEE's spouse or domestic
partner, and children who qualify as dependents for tax purposes.
j) PARTICIPATE means to be part of the described activity in any capacity,
including, but not limited to, serving as the principal investigator, co-
investigator, research collaborator, or provider of direct services or patient
care. The term is not intended to apply to individuals who provide primarily
technical support or who are purely advisory, with no direct access to the
data (e.g., control over its collection or analysis) or, in the case of
research with human subjects, to the study participants, unless they are in a
position to influence the study's results or have privileged information as to
the outcome.
k) SPONSORED RESEARCH means research, training, and instructional projects
involving funds, materials, or other compensation from outside sources under
agreements that contain any of the following: The agreement binds the
University or an affiliated institution to a line of scholarly or scientific
inquiry specified to a substantial level of detail; a line-item budget is
involved; financial reports are required; the award is subject to external
audit; unexpended funds must be returned to the sponsor at the conclusion of
the project; or the agreement provides for the disposition of either tangible
or intangible properties that may result from the activity.
APPENDIX B - CONFLICT REVIEW COMMITTEES
1) CONFLICT REVIEW COMMITTEES
(A) FORMATION AND MEMBERSHIP
[Academic vice presidents] PROVOSTS and vice chancellors will form one
or more Conflict Review Committees (CRCS) for their areas to review the
potential for conflicts of interest respecting SPONSORED RESEARCH,
funding and GIFTs. Committees may be organized by area (multiple
colleges) or for particular colleges where the number of such cases or
their nature justify a separate committee. Three-quarters of the
voting member-ship of each CRC will be faculty members from the area or
college(s) to be served. The remaining one-quarter of the voting
members will include faculty from outside the college(s) and
representatives from outside the University. Some of the members
should be individuals who have participated in approved external
relationships. Each CRC will also include nonvoting staff representa-
tion from the Office of Research and Technology Transfer. The
[academic vice president]PROVOST/vice chancellor will decide on the
composition of each CRC and select its members in consultation with the
appropriate deans.
(B) GUIDELINES
The principal objective for the review committees and responsible
administrators is to help guard ACADEMIC EMPLOYEEs and the University
from engaging in activities where the risk to integrity and reputation
as a result of an external relationship outweighs the value of the
activity to academic and societal goals. Relevant factors for the
review committees and responsible administrators to consider are the
size of the FINANCIAL INTEREST, when the relationship commenced,
whether the conditions of the relationship have changed during the past
year, the likelihood of actual conflict (will the results of the
activity likely be affected by or affect the FINANCIAL INTEREST),
mechanisms to ensure integrity (peer review, other independent research
sites, and independent monitors or controls), the importance of the
proposed activity, and the availability of alternatives to avoid the
conflict or apparent conflict.
One possible recommendation as a result of the review is approval of
the activity as proposed if it is concluded that the potential for
conflict is so remote or inconsequential that there is minimal
probability for biasing the objectivity of the activity. Other
possible recommendations are to require periodic peer review of the
activity (oversight) by individuals independent of the ACADEMIC
EMPLOYEE, outside monitors for the activity, divestiture of the
FINANCIAL INTEREST, modification of the plan of work, or assignment of
different ACADEMIC EMPLOYEEs without a FINANCIAL INTEREST to control
the activity. To the extent possible and reasonable under the
circumstances, and in light of the importance of the activity, the
review committees and responsible administrators will work with ACAD-
EMIC EMPLOYEEs to develop means for the activity to take place while
protecting the integrity and the reputation of the ACADEMIC EMPLOYEEs
and the University. In special circumstances upon receiving advice
from the PPPC, the [academic vice president]PROVOSt/vice chancellor may
approve the activity for a limited period of time due to the
potentially great benefit from the activity even though there is a high
potential for conflict of interest.
2) PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP COMMITTEE
(A) FORMATION AND MEMBERSHIP
The Vice President for Research will form a Public-Private Partnership
Committee (PPPC) to advise the University administration on complex
ethical issues that cannot be resolved by direct application of
existing policies. Although some members of this committee will be
drawn from within the University to provide relevant information and
guidance, the majority will represent a broad spectrum of contituencies
outside the University.
(B) GUIDELINES
The PPPC will provide advice on how to handle proposed activities that
require an additional perspective beside that provided by the CRC. The
PPPC will also annually perform a retrospective review of all decisions
involving Category II relationships and provide advice on how policies
and procedures might be modified to maintain the integrity of the
institution. The Vice President of Research will serve as the liaison
between the PPPC and the [other vice presidents]PROVOSTS/vice
chancellors. The Vice President for Research also will confer with
appropriate faculty governance committees regarding proposed changes in
the operating principles and procedures.
APPENDIX C - EXISTING RELATIONSHIPS
This policy takes a broader view of the potential for conflict of interest and
contains more stringent guidelines than the policy it replaces. As a result,
it is expected that certain existing realtionships of ACADEMIC EMPLOYEEs will
have to be modified. In order to implement the policy, ACADEMIC EMPLOYEES
must disclose all existing external relationships to department heads for
review as specified in Section 3. This provision also applies to all new
ACADEMIC EMPLOYEEs hired after this policy is adopted. The following section
sets forth transitional rules for removing identified conflicts. They apply
to activities department heads and deans have determined to be unallowable.
APPENDIX D - MECHANISMS FOR REMEDIATION
If a department head or dean decides an existing combination of an activity
and external relationship is unallowable, [the ACADEMIC EMPLOYEE can do any of
the following to remove the potential for conflict of interest] THE FOLLOWING
CONDITIONS OR RESTRICTIONS MIGHT BE IMPOSED TO MANAGE POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF
INTEREST, BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO:
* DIVESTITURE OF FINANCIAL INTERESTS in publicly traded BUSINESSEs:
within three months following the administrative decision, the ACADEMIC
EMPLOYEE must divest at least 75 percent of relevant stock holdings; 100
percent of the stock must be divested by the end of the sixth month.
* DIVESTITURE OF FINANCIAL INTERESTs in privately held Businesses: The
ACADEMIC EMPLOYEE will be required to divest himself/herself of his/her
interest at the earliest reasonable time in the judgment of the
department head or dean. The University must be assured that the
ACADEMIC EMPLOYEE will not be obligated to future activities or
responsibilities for the BUSINESS.
* RETAINING FINANCIAL INTERESTS but withdrawing from University activity:
In lieu of divestment of a FINANCIAL INTEREST, an ACADEMIC EMPLOYEE may
retain the interest and instead discontinue the University activity in
question. In such circumstances the ACADEMIC EMPLOYEE may continue to
participate in the research for a period not to exceed six months
following notification that the combination of activities and external
relationships is not approved. Under such circumstances, the
implementation of appropriate monitoring procedures may be warranted
during such period.
* RESIGNING OR TAKING A LEAVE FROM AN EXECUTIVE POSITION in Business
related to an ACADEMIC EMPLOYEE'S University activity: A full-time
ACADEMIC EMPLOYEE with an EXECUTIVE POSITION in a BUSINESS that is
deemed unallowable must resign or take a leave of absence from the
position within a period determined to be reasonable under the
circumstances. In no case will this period exceed six months from the
determination that the relationship is not acceptable. In making these
arrangements, efforts will be made to minimize the disruption the change
might create for the parties involved.
APPENDIX [D]E - MINN. STAT. 15.43, ACCEPTANCE OF ADVANTAGE BY STATE
EMPLOYEE
Subdivision 1. Financial interest of agents. No employee of the state or of
the University of Minnesota in direct contact with suppliers or potential
suppliers to the state or the university, or who may directly or indirectly
influence a purchasing decision or contract by establishing specification,
testing purchased products, evaluating contracted services, or otherwise has
official involvement in the purchasing or contracting process may:
(1) Have any financial interest or have any personal beneficial interest
directly or indirectly in contracts or purchase orders for goods or
services used by, or purchased for resale or furnished to a department or
agency of the state or the university; or
(2) Accept directly or indirectly from a person, firm, or corporation to
which a contract or purchase order has been or may be, awarded, a rebate,
gift, money, or anything of value other than items of nominal value. No
such employee may further accept any promise, obligation or contract for
future reward.
Subd. 2. Textbooks exempted. Textbooks authored by an employee of the
state's education systems or of the University of Minnesota may be used as
required course material upon receipt of written approval from the head of the
department. Instructors in state instutions and at the university may accept
free samples of textbooks and related teaching materials.
Subd. 3. Other exemptions. The commissioners of human services and
corrections, and the chancellors of the state university and community college
systems may by rule prescribe procedure for the acceptance of gifts from any
person or organization, provided that such gifts are accepted by the
commissioner or chancellor, or a desighnated representatice of the
commissioner or chancellor, and that such gifts areused solely for the firect
benefit of patients, inmates, or students under the jurisdiction of the
accepting state officer.
Subd. 4. Penalties. A violation of this section is a misdemeanor.
History: 1973 C 349 S 2; 1973 C 400 S 1; 1975 C 321 S 2; 1982 C 560 S 7; 1984
C 654 ART 5 S 58; 1986 C 444
ENDNOTES
(1) Definitions of terms appearing in small capital letters are listed in
Appendix A.
(2) See definition of FAMILY (IMMEDIATE FAMILY and EXTENDED FAMILY) in
Appendix A.
(3) Department head is used as a generic term for the immediate
administrator, which is normally the department head, department chair,
or director.
(4) This Conflict of Interest Policy does not supersede the consulting
policy, the "Patent and Technology Transfer Policy" or any future
policies on intellectual property.
(5) Products produced for a specific University job assignment are excluded
and remain the property of the University, consistent with applicable
law and policy..
(6) Consistent with the Academic Personnel Policy on "Use of Educational
Materials, the Sale of which Benefits Personally Faculty or Staff
Members," the approval of the appropriate department head or dean is
required when an ACADEMIC EMPLOYEE selects materials for assignment to
University students the sale of which will provide personal income to
the employee.
(7) Only in special situations should full-time ACADEMIC EMPLOYEES be
permitted to engage in this type of activity, for example, when the
function is not generally available from other sources and the employee
fully discloses his/her relevant FINANCIAL INTEREST to prospective
clients.
(8) When submitting a paper for publication, an ACADEMIC EMPLOYEE must
disclose to the editor any FINANCIAL INTEREST that may be affected by
publication. This provision also applies to release of information to
news media.
(9) This is taken from the Regents' Policy on "Presenting Testimony -
Identification of Affiliations." The intention is to replace that
policy by including its basic provisions in the conflict of interest
policy and also in the conflict of commitment policy.
COMMENT:
These revisions were approved by the Faculty Consultative Committee
acting on behalf of the Faculty Senate to meet a Federal deadline.
Confirmation of the Faculty Consultative Committee approval by the Faculty
Senate is requested.
CARL ADAMS, CHAIR
FACULTY CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE
DISCUSSION:
Professor Daniel Feeney, Chair of the Senate Faculty Affairs Committee,
presented and briefly reviewed the proposed revisions to the Conflict of
Interest Policy. Hearing no discussion from the body, the chair turned
immediately to the vote. The amended policy was approved by a majority of
members present and voting.
APPROVED
VII. ANNUAL REPORTS
INFORMATION
Faculty Affairs Committee
Annual Report, 1994-95
The Senate Committee on Faculty Affairs (SCFA) met 15 times during the
1994-95 academic year. Issues discussed where those related to the quality of
faculty life, faculty well-being in general, the protection of faculty rights,
and issues that influence faculty status and tenure. Included on the
committee were faculty members: D. Feeney (Chair), R. Brewer, D. Canafax, C.
Chomsky, M. Dempsey, A. Erickson, K. Larntz, W. Manning, R. McGehee, K. M.
Sadowsky, G. Seltzer, B. Selzler, D. Spring, J. Stone, & Y. Wang;
academic/professional member, J. Gaston; ex officio members: Assoc. Vice Pres.
C. Carrier, D. Mulvihill, & R. Paschke. In order to facilitate its business,
SCFA used the following subcommittees: Faculty Retirement Subcommittee (SCFA
Standing Subcommittee), Health Care Subcommittee (SCFA Standing Subcommittee),
Tenure Subcommittee (SCFA Standing Subcommittee), Subcommittee on
Administrative Review & The Minnesota Data Practices Act, and Faculty Benefits
other than Retirement Subcommittee (SCFA Standing Subcommittee). In addition
SCFA was represented on both the Academic Staff Advisory Committee and the
Faculty Consultative Committee.
During the first meeting, a list of issues facing the Faculty Affairs
Committee were discussed. The following is a summary of the issues and
accomplishments of SCFA for the year 94-95.
SCFA INPUT ON ALL UNIVERSITY POLICIES, RESOLUTIONS, AND SELF ASSESSMENT:
There were 3 documents generated outside this committee on which SCFA
provided input. The first was a jointly sponsored "Research Resolution" which
originated in the Research Committee and was eventually presented to the
University Senate. In this resolution was the provision that within the
missions of all academic units, there should be an allowance for scholarly
activities and appropriate time allocated to faculty wishing to pursue those
endeavors. SCFA also provided input on the revised Regent's statement on
Academic Freedom. This was part of a recurring update of Regent's policies
and a simplification of multiple policies in to one succinct policy. Under
the U-2000 initiative, a series of 18 performance goals and critical measures
are being developed for the institution to assess itself. These are being
grouped and approved in intervals by group. Of those that were approved
during the 1994-95 academic year, SCFA provided the most detailed input on the
development of the segment titled "Faculty & Staff Recruitment, Development,
Satisfaction, and retention". Modification of the draft presented to SCFA was
significant based on the input from the committee. Faculty issues such as
retraining, salary relationships to peer institutions, faculty involvement in
administrative decisions, and the general facilities and teaching environment
were proposed as additional considerations because they were germane to the
quality of faculty life. Further details on these issues are available in the
minutes of the Senate Committee on Faculty Affairs and those of the University
Senate.
SCFA INPUT ON THE REPORT OF THE COMPENSATION WORKING GROUP:
The Compensation Working Group chaired by Professor Carl Adams solicited
input on drafts of their report on 3 occasions from the Faculty Affairs
Committee. Issues were discussed relating to the University of Minnesota
being able to maintain its status as a surviving research institution and what
will be necessary to attract and maintain the necessary faculty into the 21st
century. Discussions centered around competitive compensation packages in
general, options for faculty to supplement their salary while serving our
institution in their teaching, research, and service capacities, and what
nonfiscal aspects of compensation could be used to promote faculty to come to
or stay with this institution. At the end of the discussions, Faculty Affairs
Committee commended Professor Adams and his group for their task and expressed
hope that the compensation report would be implemented by the U of M
Administration and the Board of Regents with enthusiasm.
SCFA INPUT ON THE PROFESSIONAL COMMITMENT POLICY:
Acting Vice President for Research and Acting Dean of the Graduate
School Mark Brenner visited SCFA several times with the continually evolving
draft of the Professional Commitment Policy. The Faculty Affairs Committee
served as a balancing and neutralizing body and presented numerous arguments
as to why certain aspects of the policy should be modified. The underlying
concern of Faculty Affairs was that, although the policy is intended to
provide guidelines to faculty on external activities and serve as a source of
information for those interested in faculty accountability, that the policy
should not have a damaging affect on what was already perceived to be
deteriorating faculty morale. SCFA Input on the Professional Commitment
Policy: (continued) A formal vote from within SCFA was not taken because the
policy "evolved" until it was presented to the Faculty Senate. Among the
members of the Faculty Affairs Committee, there were those who indicated they
would support the policy and there were those who said they would not based
either on general principles or specific clauses. Concerns were expressed by
several SCFA members that the Faculty Senate might not pass the document.
Apparently these were well-founded. After the final draft of the policy
failed to received Faculty Senate approval, a subcommittee was formed
(including the Chair of the Faculty Affairs Committee) with the charge that a
document which can be accepted by the Senate should be drafted as early as
possible in the 1995-96 academic year.
REESTABLISHMENT OF AN ADVOCACY OFFICE:
The Administrative Director of the Faculty Senate indicated that there
had been some requests for advocacy services from her office. Ms. Kvanbeck
indicated that there had been an Advocacy Office to serve faculty/professional
administrative staff, but its operation ceased when the revised Faculty and
Staff Grievance Policy went in to effect. In an attempt to gather information
on the need for an Advocacy Office, Professor Mario Bognanno, primary drafter
of the existing grievance policy, Mr. Nick Barbatsis, current University
Grievance Officer, and Professor David Ward, 1994-95 Chair of the Senate
Judicial Committee, were interviewed. No decisions were made on the need for
an Advocacy Office. However, it became quite obvious that the scope of such
an office would must be limited and that the applicability of advocates (other
than lawyers) in the formal Judicial Committee proceedings would be quite
limited. Reestablishment of an Advocacy Office: (continued)
There was some sentiment that advocates could serve as sources of
information on options for faculty and staff, but would then not be involved
as formal advisors during a specific grievance or Judicial Committee
proceedings. Additional input will be sought during the 1995-96 academic year
on this issue with the intent of formulating a recommendation to Central
Administration.
SCFA INPUT ON PROPOSED REVISIONS OF THE U OF M SEXUAL HARASSMENT POLICY:
The Sexual Harassment Board, Chaired by Professor R. Poppele, presented
its suggested revisions of the U-MN Sexual Harassment Policy to the Faculty
Affairs Committee. Considerations centered around the change from the
existing policy wherein sexual relationships between members of the University
community (where one may have influence or authority over the other) are
currently "discouraged" to a revised policy wherein such relationships would
be "forbidden". Clarification was requested on the relationship between the
Sexual Harassment Policy and the Regent's Policy on Nepotism regarding
"committed (sexual) relationships". In addition, SCFA requested a statement
on action (e.g. disclosure) that should be taken to protect individuals
pursuing legitimate relationships leading to "committed" (sexual)
relationships, if these relationships that cross university rank or employment
class (including relationships between faculty and students) are forbidden.
Concern was also expressed the tendency for and the motivation of third party
reporting (actual or fictitious) and how malicious versus legitimate reports
would be assessed. A suitably adjusted, revised version of the Sexual
Harassment Policy is anticipated during the 1995-96 academic year.
FACULTY AFFAIRS COMMITTEE DELIBERATIONS ON ISSUES RELATING TO FACULTY MORALE:
The Faculty Affairs Committee discussed at length what issues may be
influencing the perceived decline in faculty morale. Issues such as salary,
administrative policies, perceived worth of the institution in the state and
within the Legislature, relationship between the faculty and the Board of
Regent's, variance in values between the Administration and the Faculty, and
the very status of faculty governance within the stream of administrative
deliberations and evolving policies were considered to have impact (mostly
negative). These issues were discussed both with the Faculty Consultative
Committee and to some degree with President Hasselmo during discussions on the
future of tenure at this institution. While no formal conclusions were
derived, awareness of faculty viewpoint on these issues was heightened. It
was noted that a sense of university community seemed lacking and that the
well being of faculty may be being lost in the barrage of budget problems,
legislative lobbying efforts, unfavorable press, and the numerous other
pressures brought to bear on the Administration. This discussion will be
ongoing in the 1995-96 academic year.
FACULTY AFFAIRS COMMITTEE AND THE ISSUE OF TENURE:
The administrative restructuring into a 3 Provost and 3 Chancellor model
presented the need for revision of the tenure code to the Tenure Subcommittee
of SCFA. Concerns were expressed about the potential variability of tenure
decisions when the decisions were decentralized and the input of the Graduate
School Dean uncertain. Concerns were expressed about equitability across
units and the need for a central broad picture of the ever evolving faculty at
the institution. The future of tenure at U-MN was discussed with President
Hasselmo and Vice President Infante. Faculty Affairs Committee and the Issue
of Tenure: (continued) The goals of these discussions were to make faculty
concerns known and to provide faculty input on evolving tenure deliberations
that are taking place in general among higher education administrators and
their constituents.
Because of the complexity of the tenure issue, a formal revision of the
Tenure Code was postponed. An interim interpretation, that would encompass
the Provost, Chancellor decision models, was put in place for the academic
year 1995-96. During that academic year, formal input from faculty and
administration will be sought by the Tenure Subcommittee with the intent of
making carefully deliberated modifications in the Tenure Code. At the end of
the 94-95 academic year, the Tenure Committee requested a "white paper" or
philosophical overview of where our institution is going in its tenure
posture. This information was solicited from Central Administration with the
intent that it be used in the deliberations on the Tenure Code modifications
that will occur in the upcoming academic year.
ACTIVITIES OF THE SCFA RETIREMENT SUBCOMMITTEE:
The Retirement Subcommittee had several issues which were either ongoing
or resolved during the 94-95 academic year. The first was final deliberations
on an implementation of new subaccount options in the Basic Retirement Plan.
Request for proposals were solicited by the Employee Benefits Group from all
major mutual fund families at the end of the 1993-94 academic year. The
Retirement Subcommittee meet when the proposals were available and had
undergone preliminary screening by the Employee Benefits Department.
Activities of the SCFA Retirement Subcommittee: (continued)
Criteria for acceptance of new fund and fund families were: 1) the
availability of relatively aggressive funds and their track record over time,
the willingness of the fund family to waive fees, the ability of the fund
family to handle both 403b and 401a classified funds, willingness to provide
timely and individualized accounting, and the ability to work with the current
carrier of the general account fund, Minnesota Mutual Life Insurance Company
of St. Paul (MMLIC). After deliberations on the groups that meet these
criteria, the Retirement Subcommittee recommended the adoption of the Fidelity
family of funds from which 3 specific funds would be added to the basic
retirement plan. These were Fidelity Contrafund, Fidelity Asset Manager:
Growth, and Fidelity OTC (over the counter). The logistics of adding funds to
the basic plan were addressed and the funds were available for participants to
begin purchasing early in winter quarter of 1995 and were available for
transfer of existing 403b and 401a basic plan dollars by mid-spring quarter of
1995.
As part of an ongoing effort, The Retirement Subcommittee continued to
monitor the performance of the available options in the Basic Retirement Plan.
Performance was evaluated on a quarterly basis and no further additions or
deletions from the available options were recommended. Attention is
continually directed at the financial health of the basic annuity carrier,
Minnesota Mutual Life Insurance Company of St. Paul. There is a gradual
transition of funds in the "general account" of the Faculty and P & A
Retirement Plan from what was a 50:50 between MMLIC and Northwestern National
Life Insurance Company, to a 100% management by MMLIC. This transition
eliminates one of the safe guards on the general account (the strength of two
independent carriers) and heightens the sensitivity of the Retirement
Subcommittee to any changes in ratings of the Minnesota Mutual Life Insurance
Company. Activities of the SCFA Retirement Subcommittee: (continued)
A somewhat contentious issue within the Retirement Subcommittee was the
offering of "enhanced phased retirement options" that would be available only
during a window in later winter early spring of 1995 and which must be
exercised effective June 30, 1995. Concerns were expressed about using such
vehicles on faculty to promote retirements and the effect that such sporadic
offerings might have on overall faculty retirement planning. After numerous
deliberations, the enhanced phased retirement option was offered but was
presented as a mixed opportunity for faculty interested in retirement and as a
means of gradual faculty down sizing in the face of decreasing federal and
state support.
Finally, the Retirement Subcommittee annually addresses the status of U
of M Retirees who served as faculty or academic staff prior to 1963. Those
with service prior to that date lacked the opportunity to participate in the
Basic Retirement Plan as it is currently administered and, therefore, can be
at financial disadvantage (particularly during long-term retirement). During
the 1993-94 academic year, the Retirement Subcommittee recommended that the
supplementation necessary to receive a minimum total income (from retirement
annuity, social security, and U of M supplementation) be set at a minimum of
$20,500. That number was proposed for indexing in increments parallel to cost
of living adjustments in social security payments for future years and was
approved by Central Administration to be in effect 7/1/94. While this
approach served those with a minimum level of income, it did little for those
between $20,500-$30,000 minimum total income.
ACTIVITIES OF THE SCFA RETIREMENT SUBCOMMITTEE: (continued)
In the 1994-95 academic year, the Retirement Committee proposed that all
U-MN supplementation be adjusted parallel to social security cost of living
adjustments for those whose minimum total income did not exceed $30,000 and
who had appropriate service prior to 1963. This 1993-94 recommendation was
approved by Central Administration and is slated for implementation during the
1995-96 academic year.
SCFA SUBCOMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW AND THE MINNESOTA DATA PRACTICES
ACT:
The issue of Central Administration and even Senior Collegiate
Administration reviews was discussed in the Faculty Affairs Committee.
Concerns were expressed that reviews were not uniform, review may not be as
effective as possible, and that many of the problems seen in garnering
information for review were hindered by the Minnesota Data Practices Act. On
that basis, a subcommittee was formed to investigate what faculty should know
about the Minnesota Data Practices Act both in their day to day activities as
well as when they provide input on administrative reviews. The subcommittee,
in conjunction with the General Counsel's Office and the Office of Human
Resources, was in the process of developing a report at the end of the 1994-95
academic year. That report will be used when this subcommittee initiates
discussion with a Human Resources-based administrative review subcommittee
when they jointly develop guidelines for administrative review. Promoting
effective data gathering and transmission during the process under the
provisions of the Minnesota Data Practices Act will be a major part of these
deliberations. This subcommittee is ongoing in to 1995-96 academic year.
EXPLORATION IN TO A FACULTY & STAFF PRINTED INFORMATION BULLETIN OR NEWSPAPER:
Discussions on a combination of faculty morale, the need for informed
faculty and staff as major decisions are made (and why they were made), and
the need to provide a forum of exchange of viewpoints precipitated a
discussion of the need for a faculty periodical or what may loosely be called
a "newspapers". The relationship of this periodical to existing U of M
printed materials such as "The Brief", "The U of M Report", the "Minnesota
Daily" and "Footnote" were discussed. Issues of depth of coverage, frequency
of publication, and sources of revenue were all considered. Under the
guidance of Professors Carol Bland and Jim Stone, Vice President for
University Relations, George, and Director of University Relations Fluer, an 8
issue trial of the periodical, "KIOSK", was initiated in late spring of 1994-
95 academic year. Marketing surveys and focus groups were initiated and
conducted throughout the summer of 1995. Further deliberations on the
periodical will be undertaken early in the 1995-96 academic year son faculty
and staff reaction to it can be judged. An interim editorial review board was
appointed and policies and operating parameters evolved, but will continue to
be refined.
ACTIVITIES OF THE SCFA SUBCOMMITTEE ON HEALTH PLANS:
The SCFA Subcommittee on Health Plans provided input to Employee
Benefits regarding areas of improvement of the health plan. Deliberations
were again initiated as to whether the University of Minnesota should remain
as a part of the overall State of Minnesota Health Plan or whether it should
develop its own health plan. These discussions are ongoing. The emphasis in
the discussion is a combination of economic feasibility versus desirability of
the U of M operating its own health plan. Activities of the SCFA Subcommittee
on Health Plans: (continued) No formal decision was made, but the activities
of the committee will become considerably more intense in the upcoming
academic year because the biennial parameters of the State of Minnesota plan
will become available to faculty in the Fall of 95. Changes, some of which
may not be in the best interest of U-MN faculty and academic staff, are
anticipated. Because the U of M has no formal input on the design or
implementation of the State of Minnesota Health Plan provisions or providers,
concern is ever present that needs of the faculty and academic staff may not
be given appropriate or even equitable consideration during the State of
Minnesota deliberations.
SCFA ACTIVITIES RELATED TO U OF M COMPENSATION COMMITTEE:
In ordinary year where sufficient funds are available for recurring
merit or even cost of living salary increases for faculty and academic staff,
a Compensation Subcommittee would be convened by the Associate Vice President
for Academic Affairs. SCFA is represented on this Compensation Committee by
the Chair of Faculty Affairs or his/her designate. The subcommittee was
convened once in the 1994-95 academic year basically to discuss the lack of
funds available for general merit and cost of living raises for faculty and
academic staff. No further deliberations were undertaken because of
insufficient funds for salary augmentation.
As the report indicates, the Senate Committee on Faculty Affairs and its
Subcommittees have had a busy year and anticipate that 1995-96 will be an
equally busy year. I would like to express my appreciation to the members for
their thoughtful contributions and the generous sharing of their time to our
active system of faculty consultation and governance. I would especially like
to thank those who term of service on SCFA ended in June of 1995. It was
fitting that these individuals, as well as returning members, were recognized
at an Assembly held during Spring Quarter of 1995. The tasks of the
Subcommittee Chairs merit particular mention because it is these individuals
who foster the efficient and indepth investigation into specific issues and
improve the efficiency of SCFA as a whole. Many thanks!
Dan Feeney, Chair
Judicial Committee
Annual Report 1994-95
CASE LOAD
During the 1994-95 academic year, panels of the Senate Judicial Committee held
prehearing and/or hearing conferences in six cases (one of which included
proceedings to rehear a case ordered by the Court of Appeals), a prehearing
conference in one case which is on hold pending the outcome of a civil suit,
accepted a case in which all proceedings were concluded after the complainant
resigned, and initiated four new cases.
ISSUES
Due to the increasing complexity of the complaints before this committee, and
the appearance of attorneys from both sides in a majority of the cases,
extensive discussions were held throughout the 1994-95 academic year, and
continue to be held, regarding possible changes in the rules and adjusting
committee procedures to handle these more complicated cases. A major, new
contribution to the committeešs work over the past year has been the
assistance of the committeešs legal counsel, Ms. Karen Schanfield.
MEMBERSHIP OF THE SENATE JUDICIAL COMMITTEE
The Judicial Committee is an all-faculty committee. Its members in 1994-95
were: Professors David Ward, Chair; Ronald Akehurst, Hyman Berman, David
Born, Susan Brorson, Laura Cooper, Jonathan Chaplin, Genevieve Escure, Edwin
Fogelman, Edward Foster, David Frank, Shirley Garner, Susan Gerberich, Hillel
Gershenson, Curtis Hoard, Edward Kaplan, David Lykken, Larry Miller, Kim
Munholland, Steve Nickles, Carla Phillips, Angelita Reyes, Sharon Satterfield,
Harold Schwartz, George Sheets, Patricia Tomlinson, Oriol Valls, Billie
Wahlstrom, and Carol Wells.
Members who served as hearing officers were Professors Hyman Berman, Shirley
Garner, Susan Gerberich, Hillel Gershenson, Edward Foster, Kim Munholland,
Steve Nickles, and Carol Wells.
Assignment to the Senate Judicial Committee involves work on very important
issues and a major commitment of time and the Chair would like to commend
members of the 1994-95 Committee for their service in this vital University
function.
VIII. OLD BUSINESS
NONE
IX. NEW BUSINESS
NONE
X. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 12:55 p.m.
MARTHA KVANBECK
ABSTRACTOR