1995-96 UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA No. 2
FACULTY SENATE MINUTES
FEBRUARY 15, 1996
The second meeting of the Faculty Senate for 1995-96 was convened in the
Cowles Auditorium, Humphrey Center, Minneapolis campus, on Thursday, February
15, 1996, at 4:15 p.m. Checking or signing the roll as present were 124
voting faculty members, 7 ex officio members, and 6 nonmembers. President
Nils Hasselmo presided.
I. MINUTES FOR NOVEMBER 16, 1995
Action
APPROVED
II. TENURE DISCUSSION
Professor John Adams, chair of the Tenure Working Group, reviewed the
activities to date of the various committees involved in the tenure review,
outlined a tentative timeline, and described some of the issues under
discussion, including:
- the inclusion of a new introduction to the Tenure Code which will
serve an educational purpose for both internal and external
audiences
- procedural adjustments to reflect the existence of the provostal
system
- the reemphasis of system-wide tenure
- the need to distinguish between base salary and temporary
augmentations
- the need to clarify the consequences for an employee refusing to
accept new assignments in the face of programmatic change
- improving and streamlining the judicial process
- post-tenure reviews
- review of academic classifications
- extending the probationary period in some units
Professor Adams added that some members of the Board of Regents and
legislators have expressed an interest in knowing more about how tenure is
awarded. This is not very well understood outside the institution, he said,
and is another issue the Working Group is addressing.
One senator commented that suspension without pay during termination
proceedings is contrary to the presumption of innocence until proven guilty
theory and asked Professor Adams to explain the rationale behind the
suggestion. Currently, when termination proceedings are under way, responded
Professor Adams, there is no incentive on the part of the person being charged
to settle because his/her pay continues. The Working Group believes
suspending an employee's pay during the proceedings would provide that
incentive.
Another person noted that in termination cases when the "cause" is
academic there is a procedure of peer review before administrative discipline.
However, when the "cause" is non-academic there isn't a peer review. Because
of this the only opportunity for peer review in these instances comes after a
person has been terminated and then appeals to the Judicial Committee. If the
proposal states that at a certain point pay can be suspended, it would mean
that the processes referred to have been entirely administrative processes
that do not allow the accused faculty member to respond or to have an
opportunity before a jury of his/her peers.
Professor Dempsey, chair of the Tenure Subcommittee, thanked the senator
for the comment and said the committee will take this issue into
consideration.
Another senator said he was pleased to hear that the location of tenure
appeared to be resolved and that it would remain at the University level.
What are the anticipated next steps?
Professor Adams said the Working Group will be meeting soon with
representatives from the Academic Health Center to discuss their specific
needs. Also, two additional Faculty Senate Forums on Tenure have been
scheduled for March 6 and March 14. By mid-March, the Tenure Subcommittee
expects to have some amendments prepared with the expectation they will be
brought to the Faculty Senate for review and discussion in April with possible
action in May. Proposed amendments will be widely circulated, he assured
senators.
Responding to a question concerning performance goals, Professor Adams
explained that the issue of performance is related to the Legislature's desire
to know how public dollars are being spent and what are reasonable
expectations from a public university. The administration is addressing this
in a variety of ways, he said, including the development of critical measures
and performance goals and the review of human resources and other University
policies.
There has been some discussion about the willingness of faculty to
accept reassignment when programmatic change is necessary, observed a senator,
but one issue that has not been raised in connection with this is a faculty
member's professional code of ethics concerning teaching something he or she
does not feel qualified to teach. There should be some provision in the Tenure
Code to address this issue.
When asked to elaborate on the triggering mechanisms for post-tenure
reviews and to identify what determines a special case, Professor Adams
replied that the committee is still working through those issues and is
gathering information from other universities around the country. An example,
however, of a trigger mechanism might be if someone has not received a merit
raise in five years.
Before closing, Professor Adams encouraged senators to attend the March
forums and to continue to submit comments to the Working Group, Tenure
Subcommittee or Faculty Affairs Committee.
III. OLD BUSINESS
NONE
IV. NEW BUSINESS
NONE
V. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 4:50 p.m.
Martha Kvanbeck
Abstractor