1995-96 UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA No. 3
FACULTY SENATE MINUTES
APRIL 18, 1996
The third meeting of the Faculty Senate for 1995-96 was convened in 102
Fraser Hall, Minneapolis campus, on Thursday, April 18, 1996, at 3:35 p.m.
Checking or signing the roll as present were 144 voting faculty members, 10 ex
officio members, and 31 nonmembers. Professor Roberta Humphreys, Vice Chair
of the Faculty Senate, presided.
I. MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 15, 1996
APPROVED
II. TENURE DISCUSSION
Before moving into a discussion of tenure, a senator called for a
suspension of the rules to consider a resolution not included in the printed
agenda. The motion to suspend the rules was seconded and approved 119 to 9.
Vice Chair Humphreys asked for the Faculty Senate's consent to step down
as chair of the meeting since she was a signatory on the resolution to be
presented. The senators gave their consent and Professor Victor Bloomfield
assumed the chair position.
The following motion was then introduced by Senator Charles Campbell:
MOTION:
To approve the following Resolution:
RESOLUTION
RATIONALE
The purpose of this resolution is to alert the leadership of the faculty
governance, the administration, and the Regents that the Faculty Senate has
grave concerns about the process and progress to date of the revision of the
Tenure Code. This resolution is the result of meetings among senior faculty
from academic units throughout the Twin Cities campus. The purpose of these
meetings has been to define the focus of growing faculty confusion,
discomfort, and dissatisfaction about the way in which the revision of the
Tenure Code is being handled. This resolution was considered to be a moderate
and appropriate first step in communicating this faculty concern.
WHEREAS
1. The Tenure Code review process has been flawed from the beginning.
This has not been faculty initiated or faculty led as has been claimed
by central administration, the Chair of the FCC and the Chair of the
Tenure Working Group.
2. Final reports and recommendations of the proposed revisions are not
available in writing at this Senate meeting from the three required
faculty governance committees, i.e., the Tenure Subcommittee, Judicial
Committee, and the Senate Committee on Faculty Affairs (SCFA). The
recommendations by these three committees may be quite different from
the lawyer-prepared document of March 20 (consisting of 13 amendments)
that the Faculty Senate has been given.
3. No information has been provided by the central administration nor by
the Regents of the extent and cause of the financial crisis that
justifies drastic changes in the Tenure Code. The reasons for the
revision have not been given. If there are reasons other than
financial, then these have not been given. In summary, there is no
explanation of why the current Tenure Code is inadequate.
4. There is a growing negative impact of the process and actions
concerning revision of the Tenure Code on the University of Minnesota.
There is also evidence of increasing national concern by faculties at
other universities throughout the U.S. about the revision of the Tenure
Code at the University of Minnesota as shown by the attached resolution
from the University of California at Berkeley. The negative impact has
had serious ramifications for the prestige of the University of
Minnesota which have begun to make faculty recruitment and retention
difficult.
5. There is increasing lack of faculty confidence in the faculty
governance leadership.
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE FACULTY SENATE THAT
1. The Faculty Senate has no confidence in the process of revision of the
Tenure Code as it has been carried out thus far. The Faculty Senate
mandates that the present process be stopped.
2. The Faculty Consultative Committee (FCC) direct the Judicial Committee,
the Committee on Tenure, and SCFA to present in writing to the Faculty
Senate at the May 2 meeting a revised plan for proceeding with
consideration of the Tenure Code revisions, in accordance with the
Regents' rules in Section 19 of the current Tenure Code.
3. The ad hoc Tenure Working Group be disbanded immediately and its
functions be assumed by the three faculty governance committees, i.e.,
the Tenure Subcommittee, Judicial Committee, and the Senate Committee
on Faculty Affairs.
DISCUSSION:
Senator Campbell explained that the intent of the resolution was to
alert the leadership of the faculty governance, the administration, and the
Regents that the Faculty Senate has grave concerns about the process and
progress to date of the revision of the Tenure Code, and to restore
consideration of the Tenure Code revisions to the proper procedure as detailed
in Section 19 of the current Tenure Code. He emphasized that the resolution
was not intended to stop the tenure discussion.
Several senators expressed frustration with the establishment of the
Tenure Working Group and the fact that lawyers had been brought into the
process, noting that there is no provision in the Tenure Code for such
involvement. Section 19 of the Tenure Code clearly identifies the procedure
for amending the Regulations. Responsibility for proposing amendments rests
with the Faculty Senate after soliciting recommendations from the Tenure,
Faculty Affairs, and Judicial Committees. The resolution calls for the Tenure
Working Group to be disbanded and its functions assumed by the appropriate
Senate committees noted above.
Other senators said they are displeased with the lack of information
that has been provided to date, that senators have been asked to discuss
issues without seeing specific language, that lawyers are drafting the
amendments rather than the Tenure Subcommittee, that there appears to be a
lack of involvement by the three appropriate Faculty Senate committees
(Tenure, Faculty Affairs, and Judicial), and that timelines have been set that
do not allow for appropriate debate to take place.
Professor Daniel Feeney, chair of the Faculty Affairs Committee (SCFA),
then spoke about the effects of the resolution, if approved. It would disband
the Tenure Working Group, a committee that the SCFA and Tenure Subcommittee
have been working closely with throughout the tenure review process. In fact,
he said, the three committees hold their meetings jointly. Professor Feeney
praised the work of the Tenure Working Group because its members have helped
the Tenure Subcommittee and SCFA identify important issues. Professor Feeney
said he believes there has been some misunderstandings about the Tenure
Working Group's role in the process. In any event, he assured senators that
the SCFA, Tenure Subcommittee, and Judicial Committee, will prepare the draft
language for the Faculty Senate's consideration. It is the position of these
three committees, added Professor Feeney, that it would be a mistake to stop
the process now.
Professor Mary Dempsey, chair of the Tenure Subcommittee, reinforced
Professor Feeney's comments and urged senators not to support the motion.
Professor Edwin Fogelman, chair of the Judicial Committee, added that he
does not question the motives of the Tenure Working Group. It was intended to
accomplish something constructive, but somehow along the way the process got
confused. The important issue now, he believes, is that the faculty clearly
assert its own voice which has been compromised as a result of the way the
process has unfolded. It appears the only way to correct that is to halt the
current process and resume the discussions in the way that is prescribed in
the Tenure Code, a process that all faculty can hopefully have confidence in.
If at the end of the process the faculty doubts that this is in fact the voice
of the faculty, that will be a most unfortunate outcome.
Senator Hy Berman commented that in the 35 years that he has been at the
University of Minnesota he has never seen the mood of the faculty so negative,
so questioning, or so suspicious. These feelings are real and need to be
faced, he said. The faculty must also face the fact that a problem exists
with the political establishment and the public. He acknowledged that some of
the tenure rules may need to be modified but said it must be done under
faculty control and jurisdiction and in a way that holds credibility with the
faculty. For whatever the reason, there is a belief that the faculty do not
currently have control of the process and that it is being driven by other
factors. The only way to correct this perception and regain credibility is to
adopt the resolution and begin fresh.
At this time the question was called and the motion was overwhelmingly
approved on a voice vote by a majority of members present and voting.
APPROVED
V. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 4:00 p.m.
Martha Kvanbeck
Abstractor
[An open forum on tenure followed the meeting.]