1995-96 UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA No. 5
FACULTY SENATE MINUTES
MAY 16, 1996
The fifth meeting of the Faculty Senate for 1995-96 was convened in 25
Law Building, Minneapolis campus, on Thursday, May 16, 1996, at 2:55 p.m.
Checking or signing the roll as present were 130 voting faculty members, 3 ex
officio members, and 5 nonmembers. Professor Roberta Humphreys, Vice Chair of
the Faculty Senate, presided.
I. ELECTION OF VICE CHAIR FOR 1996-97
Action
Professor W. Andrew Collins was elected Vice Chair of the Faculty Senate
for 1996-97.
APPROVED
II. TENURE DISCUSSION
PREAMBLE TO MOTION A:
The following proposed amendments are considered to be "housekeeping" in
nature. The 1985 Tenure Regulations provided that the Senior Vice President
for Academic Affairs would be the final decision-maker on most individual
cases relating to tenure. The 1995 reorganization of the University
administration split that authority among the several chancellors and
provosts, although the Vice President retains authority with respect to the
units that report directly to him. The amendments in Motion A accommodate
that reorganization, but do so in a way that will permit future presidents of
the University to create new administrative structures. It allows the
President to appoint one or more "senior administrative officers," who will
have final authority regarding the granting of tenure, and to define the scope
of their authority (one or more colleges, campuses, etc.) In the present
structure these officers would be the three chancellors, the three provosts,
and (for University Libraries and a few other special cases) the Vice
President for Academic Affairs. The Vice President for Academic Affairs will,
however, retain University-wide authority for the development of tenure
policy, although not for its administration in individual cases. If approved
by the Faculty Senate and accepted by the Board of Regents, these amendments
will replace the current interpretation of this topic which expires June 30,
1996.
MOTION A:
To amend the Regulations Concerning Faculty Tenure as follows: (new
language is in CAPS; language to be deleted is in [brackets])
PLEASE NOTE: Additional amendments to Section 3 are being proposed; only the
"housekeeping" amendments are included under this motion.
Section 3. Faculty Ranks and Types of Appointments
3.3 Non-regular Appointments. A non-regular appointment is date-
specific; that is, the appointment terminates at the end of a period specified
in the appointment without further notice to the appointee. The [Vice
President] SENIOR ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER FOR THE CAMPUS OR AREA (footnote 3)
must give every person appointed to a non-regular faculty position a statement
in writing setting forth the conditions of the non-regular appointment,
including the fact that it terminates without further notice. . . . .
3.4 Limitation on Use of Non-Regular Appointments.
(j) . . . . A regular faculty member on a probationary appointment may
transfer to non-regular status during enrollment in such a program if the
faculty member and the [Vice President] SENIOR ACADEMIC ADMINISTRATOR agree.
. . .
3.6 Special Contracts
. . . . It must be signed by the faculty member concerned, by the dean
of the collegiate unit in which the faculty member will be employed and by the
[Vice President] SENIOR ACADEMIC ADMINISTRATOR and must be authorized by the
Board of Regents or its expressly authorized delegate. In addition, the [Vice
President] SENIOR ACADEMIC ADMINISTRATOR will annually report to the Tenure
Committee the terms of all special contracts and the reasons for their use. .
. . .
Section 7. Personnel Decisions Concerning Probationary Faculty
7.12 Departmental Statement
. . . . Each such document is subject to review by the dean or other
appropriate academic administrator, by the [Vice President] SENIOR ACADEMIC
ADMINISTRATOR AND BY THE SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT FOR ACADEMIC AFFAIRS. . . .
7.63 Final Administrative Action
The University may not act contrary to the recommendation of the
academic unit which made the initial recommendation except for substantive
reasons which must be stated in writing by the [Vice President (or a person
designated by the Vice President)] SENIOR ACADEMIC ADMINISTRATOR to the
faculty member . . . . The [Vice President] SENIOR ACADEMIC ADMINISTRATOR
takes the steps necessary to make the necessary appointment or to give notice
of termination.
Section 11. Fiscal Emergency
11.53 Allocation of Shortfall
. . . . The colleges and campuses return their plans to the [Vice
President] SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT FOR ACADEMIC AFFAIRS, who prepares a
comprehensive plan for the University . . . The recommendations of the
Senates and the SENIOR Vice President's plan will be presented to the
President and the Board of Regents for action.
11.62 Priorities
(b) . . . . The SENIOR Vice President FOR ACADEMIC AFFAIRS must insure
that for the University as a whole the plan which is submitted does not reduce
the proportion of appointments with indefinite tenure held by women and
minorities entitled to affirmative action, . . . .
Section 13. Judicial Committee
13.2 Procedures
. . . . In every case before the Judicial Committee the [Vice
President] SENIOR ACADEMIC ADMINISTRATOR may designate the academic
administrator who will represent the University as respondent. IF THE CASE
INVOLVES TWO OR MORE CAMPUSES OR AREAS, THE PRESIDENT OR THE SENIOR VICE
PRESIDENT FOR ACADEMIC AFFAIRS MAY DESIGNATE THE RESPONDENT.
Section 15. Appeals to the Judicial Committee
15.2 Procedure for Securing Review
. . . . Within 30 days of filing, the Chair of the Judicial Committee
must send copies of the request to the head of the academic unit concerned and
to the senior [Vice President] ACADEMIC ADMINISTRATOR.
15.6 Actions Requiring Reconsideration . If the Judicial Committee
recommends reconsideration of an action, that reconsideration will be
undertaken under the supervision of the [Vice President] SENIOR ACADEMIC
ADMINISTRATOR, unless otherwise specified. . . . .
15.7 Recommendations for Changes in University Policies and Procedures
. . . . As a result of Judicial Committee proceedings, the Judicial
Committee, the Tenure Committee or the SENIOR Vice President FOR ACADEMIC
AFFAIRS may initiate steps to clarify or improve the University rules or
policies involved. . . .
Section 16. Tenure Committee
16.1 Membership
The [Tenure Committee] TENURE SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE SENATE FACULTY AFFAIRS
COMMITTEE (REFERRED TO ELSEWHERE IN THESE REGULATIONS AS THE TENURE COMMITTEE)
is composed of at least seven members of the faculty and such other persons as
the University Senate Bylaws shall provide. . . . .
16.2 Interpretations
The SENIOR Vice President FOR ACADEMIC AFFAIRS and the Tenure Committee
may propose formal interpretations of these regulations, consistent with their
terms. . . . .
16.3 Procedures
The SENIOR Vice President FOR ACADEMIC AFFAIRS and the Tenure Committee
may jointly adopt the procedures provided by Sections 7.4 and 7.61. . . . .
Footnotes
2 . . The "academic administrator" or "dean" of a collegiate unit is
a dean[, provost,] or similar officer.
3 [As used in these Regulations, "Vice President" means the Vice
President for Academic Affairs.] THE PRESIDENT WILL DESIGNATE ONE
OR MORE SENIOR ACADEMIC ADMINISTRATORS (VICE PRESIDENTS,
CHANCELLORS, PROVOSTS, ETC.) TO HAVE RESPONSIBILITY FOR ACADEMIC
MATTERS FOR ALL OR PART OF THE UNIVERSITY, AND WILL DEFINE THEIR
RESPECTIVE JURISDICTIONS.
10 Because of the special mission of the Crookston [and Waseca]
campus [es], disciplined inquiry in [their] ITS field of endeavor
may be substituted for research in appraising faculty members
there.
Committee Action
Approved by the: Tenure Subcommittee--May 3, 1996
Faculty Affairs Committee--May 9, 1996
Judicial Committee--May 11, 1996
(NOTE: Judicial Committee approval is subject to review by
members who were unable to attend the May 11 meeting.)
DISCUSSION:
Professor Daniel Feeney, chair of the Senate Committee on Faculty
Affairs (SCFA), introduced the proposed tenure amendments and expressed
appreciation to the members of the SCFA, Judicial Committee, Tenure
Subcommittee and Professor Fred Morrison, who has served as counsel to the
committees, for their outstanding work in developing the tenure amendments.
He explained that two sets of amendments will be submitted to the Faculty
Senate for consideration, both of which will be submitted for discussion at
one meeting followed by action at a second. The first set was then presented
for discussion.
Motion A, explained Professor Dempsey, chair of the Tenure Subcommittee,
is housekeeping in nature. Its purpose is to accommodate the chancellor and
provostal structure at the University. It will provide for the current
administrative structure and other structures that may come about in the
future.
In response to a request to clarify the word "etc" in footnote 3,
Professor Morrison said the Senior Academic Administrator is the officer who
reports directly to the President and Regents. In the former University
structure that was the Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs, but in the
present structure there are seven such individuals--three provosts, three
chancellors and the Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs. He agreed to
clarify that in the footnote.
Professor Morrison was also asked to clarify why the phrase "Senior Vice
President for Academic Affairs" was necessary if a definition is given for
Senior Academic Administrator. He explained that for some purposes a
University-wide policy-making individual is necessary. In this section the
term is there for two reasons. First, in the present structure, there are
some academic personnel in the libraries who report to the Senior Vice
President and not one of the Provosts. Second, a future President might
choose to go back to a system in which there is a single Senior Vice President
in charge and the committees do not want to have to continually make revisions
in the Code in response to administrative reorganization.
Hearing no further discussion of Motion A, Chair Humphreys moved to
Motion B.
PREAMBLE TO MOTIONS B-G:
The Subsequent motions are presented to you on the assumption that
Motion A is approved. If it is not, the words "vice president" should be
reinserted in the appropriate places.
MOTION B:
To amend section 1.1 as follows: (new language is in CAPS; language to
be deleted is in [brackets].)
Section 1. Academic Freedom
1.1 Principles. Every member of the faculty is entitled to due process
and academic freedom as established by academic tradition and the
Constitutions and laws of the United States and the State of Minnesota and as
amplified by Resolutions of the Board of Regents. The Board of Regents hereby
reaffirms its [policies concerning] COMMITMENT TO academic freedom and tenure
AS REFLECTED [announced] in its resolution of January 28, 1938, and IN the
statement of December 14, 1963, which are set forth in the Appendix to these
regulations. THE POLICIES OF THE BOARD OF REGENTS REGARDING ACADEMIC FREEDOM
ARE CURRENTLY STATED IN THE BOARD'S STATEMENT OF SEPTEMBER 8, 1995, WHICH
PROVIDES:
THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA REAFFIRM THE
PRINCIPLES OF ACADEMIC FREEDOM AND RESPONSIBILITY. THESE
ARE ROOTED IN THE BELIEF THAT THE MIND IS ENNOBLED BY THE
PURSUIT OF UNDERSTANDING AND THE SEARCH FOR TRUTH AND THE
STATE WELL SERVED WHEN INSTRUCTION IS AVAILABLE TO ALL AT
AN INSTITUTION DEDICATED TO THE ADVANCEMENT OF LEARNING.
THESE PRINCIPLES ARE ALSO REFRESHED BY THE RECOLLECTION
THAT THERE IS COMMUNE VINCULUM OMNIBUS ARTIBUS--A COMMON
BOND THROUGH ALL THE ARTS.
ACADEMIC FREEDOM IS THE FREEDOM TO DISCUSS ALL RELEVANT
MATTERS IN THE CLASSROOM, TO EXPLORE ALL AVENUES OF
SCHOLARSHIP, RESEARCH AND CREATIVE EXPRESSION AND TO SPEAK
OR WRITE AS A PUBLIC CITIZEN WITHOUT INSTITUTIONAL DISCIPLINE
OR RESTRAINT. ACADEMIC RESPONSIBILITY IMPLIES THE FAITHFUL
PERFORMANCE OF ACADEMIC DUTIES AND OBLIGATIONS, THE RECOGNITION
OF THE DEMANDS OF THE SCHOLARLY ENTERPRISE AND THE CANDOR TO
MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THE INDIVIDUAL IS NOT SPEAKING FOR THE
INSTITUTION IN MATTERS OF PUBLIC INTEREST.
Comment
This item incorporates into the Tenure Code the most recent statement of
the Board of Regents with regard to academic freedom. While that statement
technically supersedes those of 1938 and 1963, they are retained in the
appendix because of their historical importance.
Committee Action
Approved by the: Tenure Subcommittee--May 3, 1996.
Faculty Affairs Committee--May 9, 1996
Judicial Committee--May 11, 1996 (See note to Motion A)
DISCUSSION:
Motion B incorporates the Academic Freedom Statement approved by the
Faculty Senate and Board of Regents last year into the Tenure Code, explained
Professor Dempsey. The 1938 and 1963 statements will be retained in the
appendix because of their importance in the interpretation of academic freedom
at the University.
A brief discussion about the status of the 1938 and 1963 statements and
the impetus for rewriting the statement last year took place after which
senators moved to a discussion of Motion C.
MOTION C:
To amend sections 3 and 8 of the Tenure Regulations (new language is in
CAPS; language to be deleted is in [brackets]
Amend section 3 of the Tenure Regulations to read as follows:
Section 3. Faculty Ranks and Types of Appointments
3.1 In General. The faculty ranks are Professor, Associate Professor,
Assistant Professor, and Instructor. FACULTY APPOINTMENT IS APPROPRIATE ONLY
IF THE INDIVIDUAL IS ENGAGED IN TEACHING OR RESEARCH AS DEFINED IN SECTION
7.11. Appointment at these ranks are either regular TENURED OR TENURE-TRACK
APPOINTMENTS or [non-regular] TERM APPOINTMENTS. An appointment must be
designated AS A regular or [non-regular] A TERM APPOINTMENT when it is made.
3.2 Regular TENURED OR TENURE-TRACK Appointments. A regular
appointment is either with indefinite tenure or is probationary leading to a
decision concerning indefinite tenure within a specified period of time. A
faculty member with indefinite tenure is entitled to retain that position
until retirement in accordance with University regulations or until the
appointment is terminated pursuant to the provisions of Sections 10 or 11. A
faculty member on probationary appointment (a) is entitled to consideration
for indefinite tenure, and (b) is entitled to timely notice of termination in
accordance with Section 6. A regular appointment may only be held in an
academic unit(footnote 1) of a degree-granting college(footnote 2), or similar
unit. A regular appointment must be for two-thirds time or more over the
academic year.
3.3 [Non-regular] TERM Appointments. A [non-regular] TERM appointment
is date-specific: that is, the appointment terminates at the end of a period
specified in the notice of appointment without further notice to the
appointee. The [Vice President] SENIOR ACADEMIC ADMINISTRATOR FOR THE CAMPUS
OR AREA (FOOTNOTE 3) must give every person appointed to a [non-regular] TERM
faculty position a statement in writing setting forth the conditions of the
[non-regular] appointment, including the fact that it terminates without
further notice. No number of renewals of a [non-regular] TERM appointment
creates a right to further renewals or to a decision concerning tenure. Every
renewal of a [non-regular] TERM appointment for the seventh or succeeding year
must be reported to the Tenure Committee with a justification of the reasons
for [non-regular] THE CONTINUATION OF TERM status.
3.4 [Limitation on Use of Non-Regular Appointments.] APPROPRIATE USES
OF TERM APPOINTMENTS. [Faculty appointments must be regular (either
probationary or with indefinite tenure) unless one or more of the following
conditions is met, in which case the appointment may be classified as non-
regular] TERM APPOINTMENTS ARE APPROPRIATE AND MAY BE USED PROVIDED ONE OR
MORE OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS IS MET:
(a) The duration, the percentage of time, or both require less than
service for two-thirds time for the academic year.
(b) The appointment is designated as a Visiting appointment because
the faculty member is from another educational institution or
is a qualified professional from a government or private agency
on a leave of absence to accept a temporary assignment at this
University.
(c) The appointment is designated a Clinical appointment because
the faculty member is a clinician in the community who gives
service to the University part-time;
(D) THE APPOINTMENT CONCERNS A FACULTY MEMBER WHO PRINCIPALLY IS
ENGAGED IN AND PRIMARILY IS SUPPORTED BY CLINICAL OR
DISCIPLINE-RELATED SERVICE (new footnote *) ACTIVITIES.
[(d)](E) The appointment is designated an Adjunct appointment because
the faculty member's primary employment is outside the
University or is in another unit of the University.
[(e)](F) The appointment extends courtesy faculty rank without salary.
[(f)](G) The position is subject to the joint control of the University
and another institution.
[(g)](H) The specific funding for the position is subject to the
discretion of another agency.
[(h)](I) The funding for the position is for a limited time.
[(i)](J) The appointment is in a unit or program that is experimental or
otherwise restricted in duration.
[(j)](K) The person is enrolled in a University of Minnesota degree
program. A regular faculty member on a probationary
appointment may transfer to [non-regular] TERM status during
enrollment in such a program if the faculty member and the
[Vice President] SENIOR ACADEMIC ADMINISTRATOR agree. This
transfer suspends the running of the maximum period of
probationary service, but the faculty member retains other
rights of regular appointment, including annual review, the
right to timely notice and a terminal appointment period as
provided in Section 6.
3.5 Administrators' Appointments. Academic administrators may hold
regular or [non-regular] TERM faculty appointments. Administrative titles and
duties are distinct and severable from such individual faculty appointments.
Removal from an administrative position does not impair any rights the
individual holds as a faculty member. UPON LEAVING AN ADMINISTRATIVE
POSITION, THE INDIVIDUAL RETURNS TO FACULTY STATUS, WITH SALARY AND TERM OF
APPOINTMENT REDUCED BY THE AMOUNT OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE AUGMENTATION, IF ANY.
Footnotes
(1) As used in these Regulations, "academic unit" means a department or
other basic unit in which tenure is held. It may be a division, school,
or college which is not further subdivided. The "head" of an academic
unit is the academic administrator immediately responsible for it, such
as a chair, head, or director.
(2) As used in these Regulations, "collegiate unit" or "college" means a
major academic entity of the University. It may be a college, school,
institute or campus. The "academic administrator" or "dean" of a
collegiate unit is a dean [, provost,] or similar officer.
(3) [As used in these regulations, "Vice President" means the Vice President
for Academic Affairs.] THE PRESIDENT WILL DESIGNATE ONE OF MORE SENIOR
ACADEMIC ADMINISTRATORS (VICE PRESIDENTS, CHANCELLORS, PROVOSTS, ETC.)
TO HAVE RESPONSIBILITY FOR ACADEMIC MATTERS FOR ALL OR PART OF THE
UNIVERSITY, AND WILL DEFINE THEIR RESPECTIVE JURISDICTIONS.
(*) NEW FOOTNOTE TO ITEM 3.4(D): "SERVICE" MEANS PERFORMANCE WITHIN THE
FACULTY MEMBER'S EXPERTISE, OTHER THAN TEACHING AND RESEARCH AS DEFINED
IN SECTION 7.11.
And amend the title and introductory language of section 8 as follows:
Section 8. Improper Refusal of a New Appointment to a [Non-Regular] TERM
Faculty Member
A person holding a [non-regular] TERM faculty appointment who has been
refused a renewal of that appointment or has applied for and been refused a
regular or a different [non-regular] TERM faculty appointment within six
months of the end of that appointment may petition the Judicial Committee to
review the refusal, but only on the ground that the decision was based in
significant degree on one or more of the following: . . .
[remainder of text unchanged]
Comment
This proposal changes terminology in the Tenure regulations and also
permits the University to employ clinical faculty on term contracts.
Many have felt that the terminology "nonregular" appointment carried a
derogatory connotation. In order to eliminate that implication, the word
"nonregular" has been changed to "term" throughout the Regulations. Term
appointments are those which have a fixed duration and do not lead to
probationary or tenured appointments.
Section 3(d) permits such appointments to be made for faculty whose
principal commitment is to clinical or service duties and who are primarily
supported by funds generated by those activities. This recognizes the
variable funding of such clinical activities and does not commit the
University to maintaining the income of future clinicians if the clinical
revenues will not support them.
This section is prospective only. Faculty currently holding tenured or
tenure-track appointments cannot be shifted to term appointments without their
consent.
Committee action
Approved by the: Tenure Subcommittee--May 3, 1996
Faculty Affairs Committee--May 9, 1996
Judicial Committee--May 11, 1996 (See note to Motion A)
DISCUSSION:
Motion C changes the title of "non-regular" appointments to "term"
appointments and permits the University to employ clinical faculty on term
contracts. Term appointments are those which have a fixed duration and do not
lead to probationary or tenured appointments.
A suggestion was made to incorporate the language in the proposed new
footnote into Section 3.4 (D) in order to avoid any misunderstanding about
appropriate uses of term appointments.
"Was it the committees intent that faculty with clinical activities only
(no teaching or research responsibilities) be on Term appointments?" asked a
senator. The response was yes, however, if an individual is engaged in
teaching or research even if it is not his/her predominate responsibility,
he/she would be given an academic appointment. Professor Feeney said the
committees believe it is important to differentiate between an individual
appointed on a professional administrative appointment versus a faculty
appointment. Therein was the tie to teaching and research.
One senator expressed confusion about discipline-related service in a
faculty appointment. Perhaps, she said, because Section 7.11 says,
"...outstanding discipline-related service contributions will also be taken
into account where they are an integral part of the mission of the academic
unit," yet oftentimes a faculty member encounters contention when his/her
position description calls for a significant amount of discipline-related
service.
Offering a historical perspective, Professor Feeney explained that when
the Code was revised in the early 1980s, a case was made that discipline-
related service should not be ignored as part of a faculty appointment and
that it should be included in the criteria for promotion and tenure.
Another senator said he believes there is an inherent ambiguity and
conflict within departments and colleges in the definition of service.
Percentages, prominence, and weights are some of the things in a University
this complex that cannot be reduced to a formula.
Turning to Section 3.4, one person wondered whether faculty would be
placed on Term appointments if the conditions outlined in Subsections (H) and
(I) were met. Allowing that to occur, she argued, is not the solution.
Instead regular appointments should not be made when they are inappropriate
and the funding is unpredictable.
MOTION D:
To amend sections 4.1 and 4.3 and add a section 4.4, as follows: (new
language is in CAPS; language to be deleted is in [brackets])
Amend section 4.1 as follows:
Section 4. Terms of Faculty Employment
4.1 Written notice of appointment. Each faculty appointment or change
of status is specified in a written notice of appointment issued by or on
behalf of the Board of Regents. The notice must specify the following:
(1) whether the appointment is regular or [non-regular] TERM;
(2) whether it is full or part-time and the percentage of time
involved;
(3) if for a fixed term, its expiration date;
(4) if regular, whether it is probationary or with indefinite tenure;
(5) whether it is on a twelve-month, academic year or other specified
annual basis;
(6) the rank of appointment;
(7) the academic unit or units to which the individual is being
appointed; [and]
(8) the BASE salary; AND
(9) OTHER COMPENSATION OR AUGMENTATION AS DESCRIBED IN SECTION 4.4.
Amend section 4.3 as follows:
4.3 Changes in Terms of Appointments. Except for raises in rank [or
salary] and except for action expressly authorized by these regulations, no
changes of [any of the] items (1) THROUGH (7) listed in Subsection 4.1 may be
made during the term of an appointment except with the agreement of the
faculty member and the Board of Regents or its authorized delegate. CHANGES
IN BASE SALARY MAY BE MADE ONLY AS PROVIDED IN SUBSECTION 4.4.
Add a new subsection 4.4 to read as follows:
4.4 FACULTY COMPENSATION. EACH FACULTY MEMBER SHALL RECEIVE A BASE
SALARY, WHICH SHALL NOT BE DECREASED EXCEPT AS EXPRESSLY AUTHORIZED IN THESE
REGULATIONS. THE BASE SALARY SHALL CONSIST OF THE INITIAL BASE SALARY PLUS
ANY SUBSEQUENT INCREASE IN BASE SALARY. INCREASES WILL BE PRESUMED TO BE IN
BASE SALARY UNLESS OTHERWISE IDENTIFIED. THE UNIVERSITY MAY ALSO PROVIDE A
FACULTY MEMBER WITH ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION THAT IS NOT PART OF THE BASE
SALARY. THE ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION MAY BE FOR SPECIAL AWARDS OR FOR
ACTIVITIES IN ADDTITION TO REGULAR FACULTY RESPONSIBILITIES SUCH AS CLINICAL
PRACTICE, ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICE, OVERLOAD DUTIES, SUMMER SCHOOL TEACHING, AND
SUMMER RESEARCH SUPPORT. THE FACULTY MEMBER DOES NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO
CONTINUATION OF THIS ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION BEYOND THE TIME FOR WHICH IT IS
GRANTED.
AT THE TIME AN APPOINTMENT IS MADE, THE OFFER AND WRITTEN NOTICE OF
APPOINTMENT SHALL SEPARATELY STATE THE BASE SALARY AND ANY ADDITIONAL
COMPENSATION, AS DESCRIBED ABOVE, THAT THE FACULTY MEMBER WILL RECEIVE. (FOR
FACULTY MEMBERS EMPLOYED AT THE TIME THIS SECTION TAKES EFFECT, THE INITIAL
BASE SALARY SHALL BE THE SALARY THEN GUARANTEED UNDER THESE REGULATIONS.) IN
EACH SUBSEQUENT YEAR, THE FACULTY MEMBER SHALL BE PROVIDED WITH A WRITTEN
NOTICE SEPARATELY STATING ANY INCREASE IN BASE SALARY AND ANY CHANGES IN THE
ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION FOR THE FOLLOWING ACADEMIC YEAR.
Comment
Each faculty member will receive a base salary, but may be given
additional incentive sums to reward temporary assignments, such as overload
teaching, summer school, administrative service. Clinical compensation will
also be outside of the base salary. While the base salary will be guaranteed
from year to year, the additional payments will be subject to review and
adjustment. Apart from raises, adjustments in base pay may be made only
voluntarily or as provided in other sections of the Regulations.
Base salary will be identified in annual appointment documents for each
faculty member.
Tenured or tenure-track faculty whose appointments are partially
supported by grant funds will continue to hold their full base salaries.
The current base salary of faculty members will be guaranteed under this
system. Salary increases would be either permanent (added to base) or
temporary (for one year or a period of years only), as is already permissible.
The change simply clarifies this practice and provides official language to
describe it. New faculty members would have base and temporary elements of
their salaries identified in the letter of offer and in the initial
appointment documents.
The appropriate Senate committees will annually review the methods used
to allocate salary increases between additions to base and temporary increases
and will make necessary recommendations to the Senate and administration.
Committee action
Approved by the: Tenure Subcommittee--May 3, 1996.
Faculty Affairs Committee--May 9, 1996
Judicial Committee--MAY 11, 1996 (Se note to Motion A)
DISCUSSION:
Motion D clarifies what part of an individual's salary is guaranteed
(i.e. base salary). Administrative augmentations, clinical compensation,
incentive sums to reward temporary assignments, and so on are not included in
base salary. Annual salary increases would only be to the base salary.
Professor Morrison said many people have asked how the initial base
salary is determined and explained that it is identified in the annual
appointment documents for each faculty member.
One person asked whether the committees had considered adding language
to Section 4.4 dictating fiscal practice. The committees have struggled with
this issue, said Professor Morrison, and agreed it will be important that the
appropriate Senate committees annually review the methods used to allocate
salary increases between additions to the base and temporary increases.
Professor Feeney reminded senators of the Compensation Policy approved
by the Faculty Senate several years ago which called for the establishment of
a Compensation Committee.
Another senator from the School of Public Health said many faculty from
that school would feel more comfortable if the phrase, "Tenure and tenure-
track faculty whose appointments are partially supported by grant funds..."
was incorporated into the body of the Code rather than being left in the
comment section.
Another person asked for further clarification of Section 4.4,
particularly the phrase "The additional compensation may be for special awards
or activities...". Professor Morrison said that refers to such things as the
Morse-Alumni Teaching Awards and other forms of compensation that would not be
considered part of the base salary.
A senator raised a philosophical question concerning the appropriateness
of protecting salaries in tenure codes which, he argued, are primarily
intended to protect academic freedom. Noting that the proposal does not allow
the University to decrease an individual's salary, he wondered whether there
should be some provision to allow for across-the-board decreases as well as
increases? Professor Morrison referred the individual to Section 11.4 in the
present Code which addresses reduction or postponement of compensation during
a fiscal emergency.
A final comment on Motion D concerned including the source of funds for
base salary on the appointment document. Professor Morrison said the real
issue is not the source of the money but whether the University has committed
itself to the salary over the long term from whatever resources it has, or
whether the University has committed itself only for the single year. It may
commit itself over a long time, but pay the money out of short-term funds.
MOTION E:
To amend section 5.1 as follows: (new language is in CAPS; language to
be deleted is in [brackets])
Section 5. Maximum Period of Probationary Service
5.1 General rule. To give the University ample opportunity to
determine the qualification of those faculty members whom it is considering
for regular appointment with indefinite tenure, the maximum period of
probationary service of a faculty member is NORMALLY six academic years,
whether consecutive or not. THE TENURED FACULTY OF A COLLEGE, BY SIMPLE
MAJORITY VOTE TAKEN BY SECRET BALLOT, MAY, WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE DEAN AND
OF THE SENIOR ACADEMIC ADMINISTRATOR, PRESCRIBE FOR THE COLLEGE A LONGER
MAXIMUM PERIOD, NOT TO EXCEED NINE YEARS. ANY SUCH CHANGE IN THE MAXIMUM
PROBATIONARY PERIOD APPLIES TO ALL PROBATIONARY FACULTY HIRED IN THAT COLLEGE
AFTER THE DECISION, BUT INCUMBENT PROBATIONARY FACULTY MAY ALSO CHOOSE TO BE
CONSIDERED UNDER THE NEW RULE. At the end of this [six-year] PROBATIONARY
period, the faculty member must either be given a regular appointment with
indefinite tenure or a one-year terminal appointment.
Comment
The amendment would formally permit collegiate units to extend the
probationary period from six to nine years by general rule. Many colleges
will wish to retain the current six-yearmaximum, while others may see
advantages in a longer probationary period. It would thus recognize
officially a practice which has been allowed by special interpretation of the
Tenure Committee in the past few years. This recognizes the problems in some
units of the University in which the ability to obtain external research
support is a major consideration in the research element of the tenure
decision. The design of research projects for which the probationary
professor is to be a principal investigator and procurement of funding for
them sometimes requires several years. The six-year probationary period is
felt by many in those colleges to cut short the effective time for evaluation
of the candidate's performance. The extension of time is believed to be
necessary to permit full consideration of the candidates' qualifications.
A decision to extend the probationary period would require approval by
the tenured faculty of the college, by its dean, and by the provost (or
equivalent official). Current probationary faculty members could decide to be
governed by the old or by the new rule.
Other provisions of the current Tenure Regulations for "stopping the
tenure clock," would not be affected. In those cases, the probationary
faculty member would have an addition to the maximum probationary period for
the collegiate unit as established under this section.
Committee action
Approved by the: Tenure Subcommittee--May 3, 1996.
Faculty Affairs Committee--May 9, 1996
Judicial Committee--May 11, 1996 (See note to Motion A)
DISCUSSION:
Motion E, explained Professor Dempsey, would permit collegiate units to
extend the probationary period from six to nine years. Current probationary
faculty would be given the option to choose which system they prefer to
follow.
A suggestion was made to modify the language to allow the probationary
period to be changed in both directions. Current language, argued a senator,
allows only for an extention of the probationary period but it is conceivable
that after extending it a college may determine it was a mistake and want to
change it back.
Another senator said he was troubled by the motion because he doesn't
believe it will benefit the University in the long run. It appears it will
only catch the "late bloomers" which might not be what the University wants to
do. If a candidate cannot attain what needs to be attained in 5-6 years to be
considered for tenure, then maybe the University should be looking for someone
else.
Professor Dempsey reminded senators that extending the probationary
period will be an option for colleges, not a requirement, and that it may not
be appropriate for all units.
Another senator observed that people are tenured because of their
scholarly productivity as much as for the promise that they have. There are
some disciplines in which scholarly productivity depends entirely on things
such as grants, which have become increasingly more difficult to obtain in
recent years. An individual may be exceptional but held back on his/her
productivity for reasons not within his/her control. In instances like this,
the amendment would allow that individual more time, ultimately strengthening
the University.
Concern was expressed that the proposed mechanism for making a change
may place a stranglehold on the departments or other units within the college.
Should there be some language that would allow the constitutions of the
colleges to supersede the process suggested in the proposal, namely the
majority vote of tenured faculty with the approval of the dean? Professor
Feeney replied that that issue was discussed by the Tenure Subcommittee. The
Subcommittee did not want to create a situation where the dean could make a
unilateral decision. Therefore, a safeguard was added wherein the faculty of
the unit make the decision.
Another person observed that the proposal does not address how the
process can be initiated or how often the probationary period can be changed
and encouraged the Subcommittee to address those issues in the amendment.
Professor Dempsey thanked the senator for the good suggestions.
There is also a human side to this discussion that has not been
addressed, noted another person. Is it fair to allow someone to work for nine
years only to be denied tenure and then have to go somewhere else to try all
over again? The costs to these individuals is enormous and must be considered
in the discussions.
Others argued that it is not unusual in certain disciplines for an
individual to take a year or two just to set up his/her laboratory, apply for
grants (often two or three times before funding is secured), carryout required
teaching and service, etc. and the idea of a longer probationary period would
be very desireable.
Some senators questioned why the decision is to be made at the college
level rather than at the department level and expressed concern that decisions
might be made to accommodate the interests of a few departments rather than
the unit as a whole. Professor Feeney reminded senators that any unit can
bring someone up for tenure early. The proposal simply offers an extended
maximum for the units which need it.
The Tenure Subcommittee was encouraged to seek the opinions of non-
tenured faculty on this issue. One person thought the majority would oppose
the proposal because of the change in expectations that would come with the
increased period. Others, however, argued the opposite viewpoint suggesting
young faculty would welcome the extra year or two. Many top universities,
said a senator, have extended their tenure periods to encourage their tenure-
track faculty to undertake ambitious projects instead of taking a quick-and-
easy approach. Extending the probationary period might allow the University
to attract those ambitious young faculty that it has always been looking for.
MOTION F:
To add a new section 13.5 as follows: (entire text is new)
Section 13. Judicial Committee
13.5 LEGAL OFFICER. THE JUDICIAL COMMITTEE SHALL HAVE ITS OWN LEGAL
OFFICER, APPOINTED BY THE JUDICIAL COMMITTEE IN CONSULTATION WITH THE
PRESIDENT OR THE PRESIDENT'S DELEGATE. THE LEGAL OFFICER MAY NOT BE A MEMBER
OF THE UNIVERSITY GENERAL COUNSEL'S OFFICE. THE LEGAL OFFICER ASSISTS THE
JUDICIAL COMMITTEE IN THE EFFICIENT CONDUCT OF ITS WORK AND IN THE PREPARATION
OF ITS REPORTS AND PERFORMS ADDITIONAL FUNCTIONS AS AUTHORIZED BY THE JUDICIAL
COMMITTEE. THE LEGAL OFFICER MAY BE PRESENT AND PARTICIPATE IN THE
DELIBERATION OF A PANEL, BUT SHALL HAVE NO VOTE. IN THE CASE OF THE ABSENCE
OR DISQUALIFICATION OF THE LEGAL OFFICER, A DEPUTY MAY PERFORM THE FUNCTIONS
OF THE OFFICE.
Comment
Over the past two decades, parties before the Judicial Committee have
increasingly been represented by attorneys. As a result, the Committee has
consulted with independent counsel to assist it in carrying out its functions.
This amendment recognizes the position of a Legal Officer to assist the
Judicial Committee in its work.
The Legal Officer gives legal advice to the Committee, independent of
the legal advice supplied by the University's General Counsel Office to
administrative officers in the proceedings. At the Committee's discretion,
the Legal Officer may preside at hearings and perform other functions. The
Committee will appoint a Deputy Legal Officer in case of the absence or
disqualification of the Legal Officer.
The amendment makes clear that the Legal Officer does not vote and that
decisions are made by members of the Committee. The function of the Legal
Officer is to advise the Committee in making proceedings fair and efficient.
Committee action
Approved by the: Tenure Subcommittee--May 3, 1996
Faculty Affairs Committee-May 9, 1996
Judicial Committee--May 11, 1996
DISCUSSION:
Motion F, said Professor Dempsey, was prepared by the Senate Judicial
Committee and allows for independent counsel for the Committee, confirming
what is already in place.
In connection with the selection of the legal officer, a clarification
of the phrase "in consultation with the President" was called for. Professor
Morrison responded that the Judicial Committee will appoint the individual
after "consulting" with the President. The authority is given to the
Committee but allows participation by the administration on issues such as
compensation.
Some discussion took place concerning the role of the legal officer and
the source of the individual's compensation. Professor Ed Fogelman, Chair of
the Senate Judicial Committee, explained that the funds are provided by
central administration and administered by the Clerk of the Senate. He added
that the Judicial Committee believes the proposed language gives it all the
protection it needs and that it is important there not be an adversarial
attitude from the beginning between the Committee, the legal officer, and the
President.
MOTION G:
To amend sections 14.1 through 14.5 as follows: (new language is in
CAPS; language to be deleted is in [brackets])
Section 14. Procedures in Cases of Unrequested Leave of Absence or
Termination or Suspension of a Faculty Appointment for Cause
14.1 Preliminary Proceedings. Only a dean or an academic administrator
specially designated by the SENIOR Vice President FOR ACADEMIC AFFAIRS OR BY
THE SENIOR ACADEMIC ADMINISTRATOR may initiate proceedings leading to
unrequested leave of absence or to suspension or removal(new footnote **). The
[administrator] DEAN must first attempt to discuss and resolve the matter with
the faculty member involved.
The [administrator] DEAN must then submit the matter to the tenured
faculty of the academic unit involved for their recommendation. [(The tenured
faculty may decide to submit the issue to the entire faculty of the unit.)]
If the SENIOR Vice President FOR ACADEMIC AFFAIRS and the Faculty Senate
have expressly approved the submission of allegations of the violation of a
specified policy to another body for preliminary recommendation in place of
submission to the tenured faculty of the academic unit, the [administrator]
DEAN must submit the matter to that body for its recommendation.
Both the [administrator] DEAN 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 DOES SO BY SECRET BALLOT AND makes a written report to the
[administrator] DEAN within 40 days of the submission of the issue to it,
indicating the number of votes for and against the proposed action and the
reasons articulated. [Within 15 days after receiving the report, the
administrator makes a written recommendation to the Vice President. 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 SENIOR ACADEMIC ADMINISTRATOR AND TO THE faculty member.
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.] WITHIN 40 DAYS AFTER RECEIVING
THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE TENURED FACULTY OR OTHER BODY, THE DEAN WILL DECIDE
WHETHER TO PROCEED WITH FORMAL ACTION. BEFORE TAKING FORMAL ACTION, THE DEAN
WILL CONSULT WITH THE SENIOR ACADEMIC ADMINISTRATOR. If the [Vice President]
DEAN does not 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] DEAN decides to proceed with formal action, the [Vice President]
DEAN must give written notice to the faculty member. The notice must specify
the action proposed, identify the specific grounds upon which it has been
taken, and summarize the evidence in support. It must inform the faculty
member of the right to request a hearing before the Judicial Committee and
advise the faculty member of the applicable time limit for making such a
request.
If the faculty member does not request a hearing within 30 days, the
President may take the action proposed in the [Vice President's] DEAN'S
notice, without further right to a hearing.
14.3 Judicial Committee Hearing. The faculty member may request a
hearing before the Judicial Committee by written request to the Secretary of
the Committee, filed within 30 days of the notice. The Judicial Committee
may extend the 30 day period for good cause. The [Vice President designates
the administrator who] DEAN will [present] BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PRESENTING the
case. The [administrator] DEAN has the burden of proving the case for the
proposed action by clear and convincing evidence and also has the burden of
demonstrating the appropriateness of the proposed action, rather than some
lesser measure.
The Judicial Committee makes written findings of fact, conclusions, and
a recommendation for the disposition of the case. If the Committee finds that
action is warranted, it may recommend action [which] THAT is less severe than
that requested in the written notice, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PERMANENT
OR TEMPORARY REDUCTION IN SALARY OR RANK [including action which does not
involve the termination or suspension of an appointment]. It may not
recommend more severe measures than those proposed in the [Vice President's]
DEAN'S notice.
The Judicial Committee sends its report to the President with copies to
the faculty member [and the administrator], THE DEAN AND THE SENIOR ACADEMIC
ADMINISTRATOR.
14.4 Action by the President. The President must give the faculty
member and the [administrator] DEAN the opportunity to submit written comments
on the report [and to make oral presentations]. In determining what action
to take, the President may consult privately with any administrators,
including attorneys, who have had no previous responsibility for the decision
at issue in the case and have not participated in the presentation of the
matter to the Judicial Committee. The President may not discuss the case with
any administrator who was responsible for the decision at issue or who
participated in the presentation of the matter to the Judicial Committee.
Such administrators may communicate with the President in writing, but only if
the full text of the communication is given to the faculty member and the
faculty member is given a reasonable opportunity to respond to it.
The President shall not take action materially different from that
recommended by the panel unless, prior to the action, the President has
consulted with the committee. The parties and their representatives shall not
be present at any meeting between the president and the committee nor shall
their consent be required for such meeting.
In addition, the President may request the Judicial Committee to make
further findings of fact, to clarify its recommendations or to reconsider its
interpretation. The reconsideration will be made by those who have heard all
of the evidence in the case, but the full Judicial Committee may consult with
them on questions of general policy.
The President may impose the action recommended by the Committee, or any
lesser measure which appearsto be appropriate. The President may impose
action less favorable to the faculty member only for compelling reasons, which
must be stated in writing, with specific detailed reference to the report of
the Judicial Committee, the evidence presented, and the policies involved.
The President's written statement must be given to the faculty member and to
the Judicial Committee. Unless the faculty member requests confidentiality,
its full text must be published in the next docket of the Faculty Senate; if
the faculty member requests confidentiality a summary of the relevant
considerations must be so published without identification of the faculty
member.
14.5 [Appeal] REPORT to the Board of Regents. THE PRESIDENT SHALL
REPORT ANY ACTION WHICH INVOLVES THE TERMINATION OR SUSPENSION OF AN
APPOINTMENT FOR CAUSE OR AN UNREQUESTED LEAVE OF ABSENCE TO THE BOARD OF
REGENTS, AND SHALL INCLUDE THE REPORT OF THE JUDICIAL COMMITTEE. [If the
action involves removal or if the action involves a sanction more severe than
that recommended by the Judicial Committee, the faculty member may appeal to
the Board of Regents. In cases in which the President imposes a sanction more
severe than that recommended by the Judicial Committee, the faculty member and
the President may present to the Board evidence with respect to issues on
which the President differs from the recommendation of the Judicial Committee.
The request for a hearing must be made to the Secretary of the Board within 10
days of the President's action.]
Footnote:
(**) NEW FOOTNOTE TO ITEM SECTION 14.1: THROUGHOUT THIS SECTION THE WORD
"DEAN" MEANS THE DEAN OF THE COLLEGIATE UNIT OR OTHER EQUIVALENT OFFICER
OR AN ACADEMIC ADMINISTRATOR SPECIALLY DESIGNATED FOR THIS PURPOSE BY
THE SENIOR ACADEMIC ADMINISTRATOR OR BY THE SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT FOR
ACADEMIC AFFAIRS.
Comment
This amendment is intended to simplify proceedings for unrequested
leaves of absence, suspensions, or terminations. Many believe that these
proceedings are unduly time-consuming and cumbersome as presently designed.
Under the present policy, before a dean's decision to seek termination
or suspension of a faculty member can be made effective, that decision must be
reviewed by (1) the tenured faculty of the department, (2) the Vice President
(in the future: the Provost or Chancellor), (3) by the Judicial Committee,
(4) by the President, and finally (5) by the Board of Regents. This five-step
procedure builds so many safeguards into the process that serious cases may be
jeopardized.
This proposal eliminates steps (2) and (5).
The new version retains the processes which we believe to be most
important: (1) review of the proposal by the tenured faculty of the unit, (2)
review by the Judicial Committee and all-University panel of tenured faculty
who will hear all of the evidence, and (3) final action by the President. We
believe that three steps of review is sufficient within the University system.
Both of the steps that have been deleted simply contributed to unnecessary
delay.
The new version also clarifies the authority of the Judicial Committee
to recommend sanctions less severe than suspension or removal, if it finds
that a faculty member charged with misconduct is culpable, but that the
extreme sanctions of removal or suspension are disproportionate to the
offense.
Committee action
Approved by the: Tenure Subcommittee--May 3, 1996.
Faculty Affairs Committee--May 9, 1996
Judicial Committee--May 11, 1996 (See note to Motion A)
DISCUSSION:
Motion G, Professor Dempsey explained, simplifies the process for
unrequested leaves of absence, suspensions, or terminations but still protects
the rights of the faculty member. Currently, there are five steps involved
and the proposal eliminates two of those.
Discussion turned to Section 14.3 which relates to Judicial Committee
hearings. "Is it possible to have a mechanism whereby the dean can name a
delegate to present a case?" asked an individual. Professor Morrison pointed
out that the dean is "responsible for presenting the case." This, he said,
does not mean that he/she would necessarily be the person to actually present
it. It is implied that the dean can delegate that responsibility to someone
else. If that is not clear, he said, the committee will clarify the language.
In the same section, it states "The Judicial Committee makes written
findings of fact, conclusions, and a recommendation for the disposition of the
case. If the Committee finds that action is warranted, it may recommend
action that is less severe than that requested in the written notice,
including, but not limited to, permanent or temporary reduction in salary or
rank... ". One senator inquired whether those same options are available to
the Senior Administrative Officer. Professor Morrison replied that those
options could be requested as an equivalent of suspension or termination. The
model of the present Code permits administrators to impose certain kinds of
sanctions and for those sanctions, other than suspension or removal, to be
tested not by this elaborate removal-for-cause procedure, but by a more
summary kind of Judicial Committee procedure addressed in Section 15. The
committees wanted to emphasize that in instances in which the Judicial
Committee finds there was wrong-doing but it was not serious enough to warrant
a permanent dismissal, other sanctions might be appropriate and the Judicial
Committee could move in that direction.
INTERPRETATION 1:
The Tenure Subcommittee approved the following formal Interpretation of
Section 10.2 on May 3, 1996. (The entire text is new.)
FACULTY MEMBERS ARE FREE TO CHOOSE TOPICS FOR RESEARCH OR OUTREACH AND
TO DISCUSS ALL RELEVANT MATTERS IN THE CLASSROOM, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
PRINCIPLES OF ACADEMIC FREEDOM AND RESPONSIBILITY. THE HEAD OF THE ACADEMIC
UNIT WILL ASSIGN INDIVIDUAL FACULTY MEMBERS TO TEACH SPECIFIC COURSES IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE ACADEMIC WORKLOAD STATEMENT ADOPTED BY THE FACULTY OF THAT
UNIT. A FACULTY MEMBER MAY CHALLENGE AN ASSIGNMENT BY SHOWING THAT IT IS
UNREASONABLE. TO ESTABLISH THAT AN ASSIGNMENT IS UNREASONABLE, THE FACULTY
MEMBER MUST SHOW THAT: (A) TAKEN AS A WHOLE, THE ASSIGNMENT EXCEEDS THE
WORKLOAD EXPECTED IN THE WORKLOAD STATEMENT OF THAT UNIT, (B) THE FACULTY
MEMBER LACKS THE BASIC QUALIFICATIONS TO TEACH THE COURSE, OR (C) THE
ASSIGNMENT WAS MADE IN VIOLATION OF THE FACULTY MEMBER'S ACADEMIC FREEDOM OR
IN VIOLATION OF ANOTHER SPECIFIC UNIVERSITY POLICY. THE FACULTY MEMBER SHOULD
CARRY OUT THE TEACHING ASSIGNMENT PENDING RESOLUTION OF ANY GRIEVANCE, UNLESS
THE RESPONSIBLE HEARING OFFICER OR PANEL INDICATES THAT PROVISIONAL MEASURES
ARE APPROPRIATE.
Comment
This interpretation is intended to reinforce the common understanding
that faculty members must cooperate in the ongoing work of the department or
other academic unit. The department head (or chair) has the responsibility to
assign faculty members to particular teaching assignments. In doing so the
skills, experience, and interest of faculty members should be taken into
account, but the chair (or head) has the duty and responsibility to distribute
equitably the workload among all faculty members. A faculty member has the
obligation to teach the courses assigned by the department head (or chair), as
long as the assignment is reasonable.
Disagreements about assignment should be resolved informally, if
possible. Otherwise, a formal grievance may be filed. The faculty member
should carry out the assigned duty pending resolution of that grievance,
unless provisional measures are indicated.
DISCUSSION:
Interpretation 1 reinforces the understanding that the head of the
academic unit has the responsibility to assign individual faculty members to
teach specific courses but that faculty members are free to choose topics for
research and outreach.
One senator was disturbed by Interpretation I, particularly its
restriction of authority to assign teaching. Many units, he said, have an
academic workload statement, departmental policies, a constitution, etc.,
which are not taken into consideration in the proposal. He suggested the
language be amended to read, "...in accordance with the academic workload
statement and other relevant departmental policies...". The Subcommittee
agreed to review the language.
In some instances, it was noted, the dean also serves as the department
head and, therefore, it was further suggested that the language be amended to
reflect those situations.
III. OLD BUSINESS
NONE
IV. NEW BUSINESS
1) Professor Carl Adams, Chair of the Faculty Consultative Committee
(FCC), read the following resolution approved by the FCC earlier in the day.
Resolution
The Faculty Consultative Committee commends efforts to
improve informal communication between the faculty and the
Board of Regents. The Faculty Consultative Committee very
much regrets that Regent Keffeler gave a public report to
the Faculty, Staff, and Student Affairs Committee of the
Board of Regents, and distributed a letter, BOTH summarizing
part of the discussion that had been held at an informal
luncheon she had initiated to "improve communication and
dispel mistrust." These give the appearance of an attempt
at unwarranted interference in the prescribed process for
tenure review. The Faculty Consultative Committee feels
that the chairs of its committees acted appropriately, and
it joins with the committees of the Senate in reaffirming
that the faculty governance system will continue its
deliberations and makes no commitments on the outcome until
the process is completed by the Faculty Senate.
2) A motion to suspend the rules to consider the following Resolution was
approved:
MOTION:
To approve the following Resolution:
Resolution
We [University of Minnesota Faculty Senate] thank the
faculty at the University of California at Berkeley for
their support during these difficult times.
With no discussion, the Resolution was approved.
APPROVED
V. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 4:30 p.m.
Martha Kvanbeck
Abstractor