1995-96 UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA No. 4
FACULTY SENATE MINUTES
MAY 2, 1996
The fourth meeting of the Faculty Senate for 1995-96 was convened in
Mayo Auditorium, Minneapolis campus, on Thursday, May 2, 1996, at 3:15 p.m.
Checking or signing the roll as present were 110 voting faculty members, 4 ex
officio members, and 7 nonmembers. Professor Roberta Humphreys, Vice Chair of
the Faculty Senate, presided.
I. TENURE DISCUSSION
In keeping with the Resolution approved by the Faculty Senate on April
18, Professor Daniel Feeney, Chair of the Faculty Affairs Committee (SCFA),
outlined the process the SCFA, Tenure Subcommittee, and Judicial Committee
will follow for the tenure review between now and the end of the academic
year. He also announced the selection of Professor Fred Morrison (Law School)
to serve as the legal counsel for the committees. Preliminary draft
amendments have been prepared, he said, and will be presented for discussion
at the May 16 Faculty Senate meeting. Additional Faculty Senate meetings have
also been scheduled for May 30 and June 6 in the hope that the faculty can
complete the tenure review before the end of spring quarter as requested by
the Regents.
Professor Fogelman, Chair of the Judicial Committee, told senators that
his committee will be attentive to proposed amendments it receives but is
concerned about the timelines that are being imposed and, as a result,
approved the following statement:
Depending upon the extent of the proposed changes and
the moment at which they are available, the Senate
Judicial Committee may or may not have time to complete
a responsible and thoughtful review by May 30.
Professor Morrison added that a decision has been made by the three
committees not to publish proposed amendments until they have been routed
through the committees. He assured senators that there is no proposal for
anything other than University-wide tenure, for anyone to be assigned
research, or for anybody's base pay to be reduced.
Professor Savage said he was pleased to hear Professor Morrison's
statement about University-wide tenure and reductions in base pay, but
wondered whether it will hold true. He was skeptical that the new Tenure Code
will look anything like the current Tenure Code as has been promised by the
chair of the Tenure Subcommittee on several occasions. For example, the
current Code does not include a section on post-tenure review and that in
itself represents a major change. He asked the three committees to justify
any changes they propose because to date there has been no justification for
modifying the Tenure Regulations.
Senator Peter Robinson, former Chair of the Senate Judicial Committee,
said that in the past the majority of cases brought before the committee came
from the Academic Health Center and he thought as a collective community they
should make sure the Tenure Code is implemented in a way that they can believe
in.
Senator Wells expressed concern over the seemingly opposite goals of the
Tenure Subcommittee and CSC Index Group regarding tenure. Professor Dempsey,
Chair of the Tenure Subcommittee, responded that they are not allowing the
Index Group to influence their decisions and their recommendation to retain
system-wide tenure will stand.
Another senator said that while he favored the concept of post-tenure
review, he wondered about the circumstances that would trigger it. For
departments that are highly politicized, academic freedom becomes endangered.
He encouraged the Tenure Subcommittee to keep the section on post-tenure
review specific, limited, and universal.
Hearing no further discussion, the chair moved to the next item of
business.
II. OLD BUSINESS
NONE
III. NEW BUSINESS
NONE
IV. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 3:50 p.m.
Martha Kvanbeck
Abstractor