1995-96 UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA No. 6
FACULTY SENATE MINUTES
MAY 30, 1996
The sixth meeting of the Faculty Senate for 1995-96 was convened in 25
Law Building, Minneapolis campus, on Thursday, May 30, 1996, at 3:20 p.m.
Checking or signing the roll as present were 138 voting faculty members, 2 ex
officio members, and 3 nonmembers. Professor Roberta Humphreys, Vice Chair of
the Faculty Senate, presided.
I. FACULTY AFFAIRS COMMITTEE
JUDICIAL COMMITTEE
TENURE SUBCOMMITTEE
Regulations Concerning Faculty Tenure
Action
MOTION:
To approve the following amendments to the "Regulations Concerning
Faculty Tenure":
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 Motion A.]
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.] A "SENIOR ACADEMIC ADMINISTRATOR" IS AN
OFFICER WHO HAS FINAL REVIEW AUTHORITY ON ACADEMIC PERSONNEL DECISIONS,
AND WHO REPORTS DIRECTLY TO THE PRESIDENT AND REGENTS, SUCH AS A VICE
PRESIDENT, CHANCELLOR, OR PROVOST. THE PRESIDENT WILL DESIGNATE ONE OR
MORE SENIOR ACADEMIC ADMINISTRATORS 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.)
Footnote 3: Revised by the Tenure Subcommittee--May 17, 1996
DISCUSSION:
Professor Daniel Feeney, chair of the Faculty Affairs Committee, briefly
recapped the tenure review process noting that motions A through G and
Interpretation 1, after being presented for information at the May 16 Faculty
Senate meeting, were now being presented for action. A second set of
amendments (H-K) and an Interpretation 2 were being presented for discussion
with action scheduled for June 6. All of the motions were reviewed by the
Faculty Affairs Committee, the Tenure Subcommittee, and the Judicial Committee
and the approval of each of those committees is noted, where appropriate, in
the amendments. Professor Feeney thanked members of the three committees for
their extraordinary efforts in responding to the Regents request to review the
Tenure Code, to senators, and particularly to Professor Fred Morrison for his
guidance and counsel. He then introduced Professor Mary Dempsey, chair of the
Tenure Subcommittee, to present the motions.
Before turning to the specific motions, Professor Dempsey also expressed
appreciation to the many individuals who have participated in the tenure
review process.
Motion A was described by Professor Dempsey as a "housekeeping"
amendment that will accommodate the chancellor and provostal structure at the
University. It will provide not only for the current administrative structure
but other structures that may come about in the future and it allows the
President to appoint one or more "senior administrative officers" who will
have final authority regarding the granting of tenure. In the present
structure the officers would be the three chancellors, the three provosts and,
in certain instances, the Vice President for Academic Affairs.
With little discussion Motion A was approved on a voice vote by a
majority of members present and voting.
APPROVED
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. The statements of 1938
and 1963 are retained in the appendix because of their importance in the
interpretation of academic freedom at this University.
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)
Comment: Revised by the Tenure Subcommittee--May 17, 1996
DISCUSSION:
Motion B incorporates into the Tenure Code the most recent statement of
the Board of Regents with regard to academic freedom. The other two
statements of 1938 and 1963 will be retained in the appendix because of their
importance in the interpretation of academic freedom at the University.
In response to questions concerning specific language in the academic
freedom statement, Professor Morrison clarified that the statement itself was
not on the agenda for debate. The current statement, he reminded senators,
was developed and approved by the Faculty Senate last year and subsequently
approved by the Board of Regents. Motion B simply calls for the insertion of
the statement into the Tenure Code.
With no further discussion Motion B was approved on a voice vote by a
majority of members present and voting.
APPROVED
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 ACTIVITIES OR BY
DISCIPLINE-RELATED SERVICE (new footnote *).
[(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)
Section 3.4: Revised by the Tenure Subcommittee--May 17, 1996
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.
"Will there be annual reviews for individuals with 'term' appointments?"
inquired a senator. Professor Feeney said there currently is no system in
place to govern 'term' appointments, but if the amendment is approved, the
Faculty Affairs Committee has already discussed the importance of placing that
item as a priority on its agenda
next year.
With little further discussion Motion C was approved on a voice vote by
a majority of members present and voting.
APPROVED
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
BASE salary and except for action expressly authorized by these regulations,
no changes of [any of the] items (1) THROUGH (8) 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.
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. IN GENERAL, IT IS EXPECTED THAT
SALARY INCREASES WILL BE ADDED TO THE BASE. 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 ADDITION 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 GUARANTEED UNDER THESE REGULATIONS AT THE TIME
THIS AMENDMENT TAKES EFFECT.) 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. INCREASES WILL BE PRESUMED TO BE IN BASE SALARY UNLESS
OTHERWISE IDENTIFIED.
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. Base salary may only be changed as expressly provided in
these Regulations. Other provisions permit reduction of base salary in case
of financial exigency or disciplinary action.
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)
Sections 4.3, 4.4 Revised by the Tenure Subcommittee--May 17, 1996
and Comment:
DISCUSSION:
Motion D, explained Professor Dempsey, 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, she said. For further
clarification of the motion, she drew senators attention to the comment
following the motion.
"What is a tenured faculty member's status if s/he is funded by an
external endowment?" asked a senator. Professor Morrison responded that every
faculty member who has a regular appointment has a base salary which the
University guarantees no matter how it is paid. The motion does not address
where the money comes from but rather what the minimum guaranteed salary is.
The purpose of the motion is to reinforce that guarantee. It also allows for
supplements, which are outlined. Whatever the base salary is now is
guaranteed into the future. Finally, Professor Morrison said, there has been
discussion to allow a cut in some base salaries, but that has been firmly
rejected.
A suggestion was made to include a cross-reference to sections where a
decrease in salary is permissible because a naive reader may not realize by
reading Section 4.4 that a decrease can occur. A member of the Tenure
Subcommittee said that could be accomplished with an addition to the comment.
However, the cross references cannot be done until the section which allows
for salary decreases is approved and that is not scheduled for action until
June 6. Amendments can be offered at that time.
"What is the status of the comments and do they appear in the Tenure
Code as such?" asked another. The comments, replied Professor Morrison, are a
reference to legislative history. They are recorded in the Regents office and
the Judicial Committee also has access to them. They are not, however,
printed in the Code. Many people have complained that the University of
Minnesota has one of the longest Tenure Codes in the country and including the
comments would make it even longer. They do, however, provide some
illustration and help if there is a controversy.
One person inquired about the legal status of the comments and suggested
that if they have no legal standing, the statement "that tenured or tenure-
track faculty whose appointments are partially supported by grant
(substituting 'external' for 'grant') funds will continue to hold their full
base salaries" be referenced in a footnote rather than in the comment in order
to make it clear to the reader that this is, in fact, the case. Professor
Morrison replied that he believes the language is clear in that no matter how
the base salary is funded it is still the base salary.
Motion D was then approved on a voice vote by a majority of members
present and voting.
APPROVED
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 FACULTY ASSEMBLY OF A COLLEGIATE UNIT MAY
PROPOSE TO ALTER THE MAXIMUM PROBATIONARY PERIOD FOR ALL OF THAT COLLEGE, OR
FOR CERTAIN UNITS WITHIN IT, TO NO MORE THAN NINE YEARS. THE TENURED FACULTY
OF A COLLEGE, BY SIMPLE MAJORITY VOTE TAKEN BY SECRET BALLOT, MAY ADOPT SUCH A
CHANGE, WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE DEAN AND OF THE SENIOR ACADEMIC
ADMINISTRATOR. ANY SUCH CHANGE IN THE MAXIMUM PROBATIONARY PERIOD APPLIES TO
ALL PROBATIONARY FACULTY HIRED IN THAT COLLEGE (OR THOSE UNITS) AFTER THE
DECISION, BUT ANY INCUMBENT PROBATIONARY FACULTY MEMBER MAY 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-year maximum, 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 proposal to extend the probationary period would be made by the
faculty assembly or similar body, and 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.
A college could later decide to return to the general six-year pattern,
following the same procedures. Again, incumbent probationary faculty could
choose to be governed by the old system or the new one.
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)
Section 5.1 Revised by the Tenure Subcommittee--May 17, 1996
and Comment:
DISCUSSION:
Motion E, if approved, 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.
One person asked whether the probationary period could be decreased as
well as increased and the answer was "yes," but senators were reminded that
under the current Code a faculty member can be called up for a tenure review
at any time and that units can use special contracts to shorten but not
lengthen the maximum probationary period.
With no further discussion Motion E was approved on a voice vote by a
majority of members present and voting.
APPROVED
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 allows for independent counsel for the Judicial Committee and
confirms what is already the practice, said Professor Dempsey. A friendly
amendment to substitute the word "may" for "shall" in the second sentence was
accepted and hearing no further discussion Motion F was approved on a voice
vote by a majority of members present and voting.
APPROVED
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 (new footnote **) 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 OR TO TEMPORARY OR PERMANENT REDUCTION IN SALARY OR RANK. 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 91 consult
with them on questions of general policy.
The President may impose the action recommended by the Committee, or any
lesser measure which appears to 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 places administrative responsibility for pursuing the
case in the hands of the dean. While retaining overall responsibility for the
conduct of the case, the dean may delegate to others the duty of presenting it
before the tenured faculty and the Judicial Committee.
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)
Section 14.1 Revised by the Tenure Subcommittee--May 17, 1996
and Comment:
DISCUSSION:
Motion G simplifies the process for unrequested leaves of absence,
suspensions, or terminations but still protects the rights of the faculty
member. Currently, said Professor Dempsey, there are five steps involved and
the proposal eliminates two of those. She then called senators attention to
the comment following the motion which describes the proposal in greater
detail.
A friendly amendment to change the words "will" to "must" in the first
two sentences of Section 14.2 was accepted by the Tenure Subcommittee, after
which Motion G was approved on a voice vote by a majority of members
present and voting.
APPROVED
INTERPRETATION 1:
The Tenure Subcommittee proposes to adopt the following formal
Interpretation of Section 10.2. It does not require formal Faculty Senate
action.
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 AND OTHER POLICIES ADOPTED BY
THE FACULTY OF THAT UNIT. A FACULTY MEMBER MAY CHALLENGE AN ASSIGNMENT BY
SHOWING THAT IT IS UNREASONABLE. AN ASSIGNMENT IS UNREASONABLE IF: (A) TAKEN
AS A WHOLE, IT 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 GRIEVANCE OR 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 equivalent officer) 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 department head has the duty and responsibility to
distribute equitably the workload among all faculty members in accordance with
the policies formally adopted in the unit. A faculty member has the
obligation to teach the courses assigned, 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, explained Professor Dempsey, 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 or outreach. It also reaffirms
that the faculty member has the responsibility to comply with a teaching
assignment unless he/she can show that it is unreasonable.
Professor Dempsey reminded senators that while action by the Faculty
Senate is not required on interpretations to the Tenure Code, the Tenure
Subcommittee would welcome faculty input on this item. Hearing no discussion
of Interpretation 1, Vice Chair Humphreys moved to the next item of business.
II. FACULTY AFFAIRS COMMITTEE
JUDICIAL COMMITTEE
TENURE SUBCOMMITTEE
Regulations Concerning Faculty Tenure
Discussion
MOTION H:
To add a new section 7A and amend Section 15.1, as follows: (New
language is in CAPS)
SECTION 7A. PEER REVIEW OF FACULTY PERFORMANCE
----------------------------------------------
7A.1. GOALS AND EXPECTATIONS. THE FACULTY OF EACH ACADEMIC UNIT
ESTABLISHES GOALS AND EXPECTATIONS FOR ALL FACULTY MEMBERS, INCLUDING GOALS
AND EXPECTATIONS REGARDING TEACHING, SCHOLARLY PRODUCTIVITY, AND CONTRIBUTIONS
TO THE SERVICE AND OUTREACH FUNCTIONS OF THE UNIT. THE FACTORS TO BE
CONSIDERED WILL PARALLEL THOSE USED BY THE UNIT IN THE GRANTING OF TENURE, BUT
WILL TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE DIFFERENT STAGES OF PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT OF
FACULTY. THE GOALS AND EXPECTATIONS WILL BE ESTABLISHED IN ACCORDANCE WITH
STANDARDS ESTABLISHED BY THE UNIVERSITY SENATE. THEY CAN PROVIDE FOR
FLEXIBILITY, SO THAT SOME FACULTY MEMBERS CAN CONTRIBUTE MORE HEAVILY TO THE
ACCOMPLISHMENT OF ONE MISSION OF THE UNIT AND OTHERS TO THE ACCOMPLISHMENT OF
OTHER MISSIONS. THE GOALS AND EXPECTATIONS MAY NOT VIOLATE THE INDIVIDUAL
FACULTY MEMBER'S ACADEMIC FREEDOM IN INSTRUCTION OR IN THE SELECTION OF TOPICS
FOR RESEARCH. THEY SHOULD INCLUDE REASONABLE INDICES OF ACCEPTABLE
PERFORMANCE IN EACH OF THE AREAS (E.G., TEACHING CONTRIBUTIONS AND
EVALUATIONS, SCHOLARLY PRODUCTIVITY, SERVICE AND OUTREACH ACTIVITIES). THE
DEAN REVIEWS THE GOALS AND EXPECTATIONS OF EACH UNIT AND MAY REQUEST CHANGES
TO MEET THE STANDARDS OF THE UNIVERSITY AND OF THE COLLEGIATE UNIT.
7A.2. ANNUAL REVIEW. EACH ACADEMIC UNIT, THROUGH ITS MERIT REVIEW
PROCESS (ESTABLISHED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE STANDARDS ADOPTED BY THE SENATE),
ANNUALLY REVIEWS WITH EACH FACULTY MEMBER THE PERFORMANCE OF THAT FACULTY
MEMBER IN LIGHT OF THE GOALS AND EXPECTATIONS OF THE ACADEMIC UNIT. THIS
REVIEW IS USED FOR SALARY ADJUSTMENT, PROMOTION, AND OTHER DECISIONS WITHIN
THE UNIT. THE FACULTY MEMBER WILL BE ADVISED OF ANY STEPS THAT SHOULD BE
TAKEN TO IMPROVE PERFORMANCE TO MEET EXPECTATIONS AND WILL BE PROVIDED
ASSISTANCE IN THAT EFFORT. IF THE HEAD OF THE UNIT AND AN ELECTED PEER MERIT
REVIEW BODY BOTH FIND THE FACULTY MEMBER'S PERFORMANCE TO BE SUBSTANTIALLY
BELOW EXPECTATIONS, THEY SHALL ADVISE THE FACULTY MEMBER IN WRITING, INCLUDING
SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVING PERFORMANCE.
7A.3. SPECIAL PEER REVIEW IN CASES OF ALLEGED SUBSTANDARD PERFORMANCE.
IF A FACULTY MEMBER'S PERFORMANCE IS SUBSTANTIALLY BELOW THE GOALS AND
EXPECTATIONS ESTABLISHED AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 7A.2, AND THERE HAS NOT BEEN A
SUFFICIENT IMPROVEMENT IN PERFORMANCE WITHIN THE NEXT ACADEMIC YEAR, THE HEAD
OF THE ACADEMIC UNIT AND THE PEER REVIEW BODY OF THE UNIT MAY JOINTLY INITIATE
A SPECIAL REVIEW OF THE FACULTY MEMBER'S CONTINUING PERFORMANCE. THE SPECIAL
REVIEW SHALL BE CONDUCTED BY A COMMITTEE CONSISTING OF FOUR TENURED FACULTY
MEMBERS ELECTED BY SECRET BALLOT BY THE TENURED FACULTY OF THE UNIT TO REVIEW
THAT INDIVIDUAL AND ONE TENURED MEMBER SELECTED BY THE FACULTY MEMBER UNDER
REVIEW, IF THE FACULTY MEMBER SO CHOOSES. THE MEMBERS OF THE SPECIAL REVIEW
COMMITTEE MUST BE OF EQUIVALENT RANK OR HIGHER, BUT NEED NOT BE MEMBERS OF THE
UNIT. THE SPECIAL REVIEW COMMITTEE SHALL PROVIDE ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY FOR THE
FACULTY MEMBER TO PARTICIPATE IN THE REVIEW PROCESS, AND SHALL CONSIDER
ALTERNATIVE MEASURES THAT WOULD ASSIST THE FACULTY MEMBER TO IMPROVE
PERFORMANCE. THE SPECIAL REVIEW BODY SHALL PREPARE A REPORT ON THE TEACHING,
SCHOLARSHIP, SERVICE AND OUTREACH PERFORMANCE OF THE FACULTY MEMBER. IT WILL
ALSO IDENTIFY ANY SUPPORTING SERVICE OR ACCOMMODATION THAT THE ACADEMIC UNIT
SHOULD PROVIDE TO ENABLE THE FACULTY MEMBER TO IMPROVE PERFORMANCE. IT WILL
SEND THE REPORT TO THE HEAD OF THE ACADEMIC UNIT AND TO THE FACULTY MEMBER.
DEPENDING ON ITS FINDINGS, THE COMMITTEE MAY RECOMMEND (A) THAT THE
PERFORMANCE IS ADEQUATE TO MEET STANDARDS AND THAT THE REVIEW BE CONCLUDED,
(B) THAT THE FACULTY MEMBER UNDERTAKE CERTAIN STEPS TO IMPROVE PERFORMANCE
SUBJECT ONLY TO FUTURE REGULAR ANNUAL REVIEWS, (C) THAT THE FACULTY MEMBER
UNDERTAKE CERTAIN STEPS TO IMPROVE PERFORMANCE, SUBJECT TO A SUBSEQUENT
SPECIAL REVIEW TO BE CONDUCTED AT A SPECIFIED TIME, (D) THAT THE PERFORMANCE
IS SO INADEQUATE AS TO JUSTIFY LIMITED REDUCTIONS OF SALARY (AS PROVIDED IN
SECTION 7A.4), OR (E) THAT THE PERFORMANCE IS SO INADEQUATE THAT THE UNIT
ADMINISTRATOR SHOULD REQUEST THE COMMENCEMENT OF FORMAL PROCEEDINGS AS
PROVIDED IN SECTIONS 10 AND 14. WITHIN 30 WORK DAYS OF RECEIVING THE REPORT,
THE FACULTY MEMBER MAY APPEAL TO THE JUDICIAL COMMITTEE WHICH SHALL REVIEW IT
IN A MANNER ANALOGOUS TO THE REVIEW OF TENURE DECISIONS (SEE SECTION 17).
7A.4. SALARY REDUCTIONS. IF THE SPECIAL REVIEW PANEL RECOMMENDS THAT
THE FACULTY MEMBER'S PERFORMANCE IS SO INADEQUATE AS TO JUSTIFY LIMITED
REDUCTIONS OF BASE SALARY, THE HEAD OF THE ACADEMIC UNIT, WITH THE APPROVAL OF
THE DEAN, MAY REDUCE THE FACULTY MEMBER'S BASE PAY, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING
LIMITATIONS:
(A) THE AMOUNT OF THE DECREASE WILL NOT EXCEED 10% OF THE FACULTY
MEMBER'S BASE SALARY ON THE BASIS OF ANY ONE SPECIAL REVIEW;
(B) BASE SALARY MAY NOT BE REDUCED BY MORE THAN 25% FROM THE
HIGHEST LEVEL OF BASE PAY EVER HELD BY THE FACULTY MEMBER;
(C) AT LEAST SIX MONTHS' NOTICE OF THE DECREASE MUST BE GIVEN.
(D) ANY DECREASE IN SALARY MAY BE RESTORED BY THE ANNUAL REVIEW
PROCESS AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 7A.2.
WITHIN 30 WORK DAYS OF NOTICE OF THE DECREASE, THE FACULTY MEMBER MAY APPEAL
THIS ACTION TO THE JUDICIAL COMMITTEE, WHICH SHALL REVIEW IT IN A MANNER
ANALOGOUS TO THE REVIEW OF TENURE DECISIONS (SEE SECTION 7.7). THIS REVIEW
MAY NOT RECONSIDER MATTERS ALREADY DECIDED BY THE JUDICIAL COMMITTEE UNDER
SECTION 7A.3. ANY DECREASE IN BASE PAY BEYOND THE LIMITS SPECIFIED IN THIS
SUBSECTION CAN ONLY BE IMPOSED PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 10 AND 14.
Section 15. Appeals to the Judicial Committee
----------------------------------------------
15.1. Right to Review. Any faculty member who claims that his or her
rights or status under these regulations have been adversely affected without
his or her consent may seek review before the Judicial Committee. Cases
arising under Sections 7, 7A (new), 10, or 11 may be brought directly to the
Judicial Committee. In other cases the faculty member must exhaust all other
available University remedies before bringing the case to the Judicial
Committee; the Judicial Committee will not proceed with such a case until the
appropriate University body has either decided it or has refused to consider
it.
Comment
This amendment makes formal provision for review of faculty
performance. The section provides for two forms of review: annual review of
every faculty member and special review of faculty members whose performance
is substantially below the goals and expectations adopted by the faculty of
the department.
This system of post-tenure review builds on the existing system of peer
review described in the current Compensation Policy. That review involves
establishment of departmental standards by the faculty of the unit and peer
review of individual faculty members in conjunction with the head of the unit.
This system of annual review may be further elaborated by the Senate and
University administration. It is a critical element of this process and must
be carefully followed in all units.
Under this proposal, this regular annual review will be the basic post-
tenure review. More intensive special reviews will be reserved for those
instances in which - the regular review process reveals serious deficiencies
in the faculty member's performance and the deficiencies are not corrected.
If such special review is necessary, the faculty member will be notified
and given an opportunity to name a member of the review panel and to
participate in the review. The review will be conducted by a panel of faculty
elected by the tenured faculty of the unit, together with one member selected
by the faculty member under review. Appropriate Senate committees can
establish more detailed procedural guidelines for such special review
committees. The review could reaffirm the quality of the faculty member's
performance or could identify shortcomings which the faculty member ought to
address. It may also identify assistance or accommodation that may be
necessary to enable the faculty member to provide the best service possible to
the University. The review is intended as a positive and proactive measure
that can assist faculty members in realizing their full potential.
This form of review is intended to deal primarily with cases of
substandard, but not totally inadequate, performance. In cases of substandard
performance, the post-tenure review could lead to a salary reduction for the
individual, subject to some limitations. In response to a special review
recommendation, the department could begin proceedings to terminate the
appointment for "failure to perform reasonably assigned duties adequately" as
provided in sections 10 and 14. This provision does not, however, limit the
direct applicability of sections 10 and 14 without resorting to special
review, if the facts justify that action.
The regularity of the review is subject to appeal to the Judicial
Committee under section 15. As in tenure denial cases, the Judicial Committee
will review the proceedings to ensure procedural regularity, absence of
discrimination, and the protection of academic freedom, but will not
substitute its judgment on the merits.
Committee action
----------------
Approved by the: Tenure Subcommittee--May 17, 1996
Faculty Affairs Committee--May 23, 1996
Judicial Committee--May 23, 1996
DISCUSSION:
Professors Feeney and Dempsey introduced motions H-K and reminded
senators that they were on the agenda for discussion with action scheduled for
June 6.
Motion H makes formal provision for review of faculty performance by
providing for two forms of review: annual review of every faculty member and
special review of faculty members whose performance is substantially below the
goals and expectations adopted by the faculty of the department. Professor
Dempsey detailed the proposal and reviewed the comments following the motion.
The Tenure Subcommittee was asked whether they had reviewed the
practices of other institutions and one member responded that they had;
however, it was found that peer review is not well developed in a number of
places. It is actively under consideration at many institutions and is
currently being implemented in some. There appear to be two different
patterns. One involves a periodic review for the entire faculty. The sense
of the Subcommittee is that that approach would inefficiently consume a lot of
resources as well as a lot of faculty time and energy and would not be
productive. The solution was then to take an alternate approach which would
involve identifying problem cases and limit intensive reviews just to those
cases. The other part would build on annual review, which is already in place
at the University.
"Is this proposal then designed for problem cases?" asked a senator.
Professor Morrison replied that Section 7A.2 builds on the annual review for
everyone. Section 7A.3 is designed for problem cases which are identified in
the annual review for those people who are significantly below the norm and
require some special attention. The assumption is that this will involve a
small number of individuals, but there is still some kind of intervention and
assistance if it is needed.
Some faculty expressed concern about the enormous time and energy that
will be required to evaluate all faculty. However, a member of the Tenure
Subcommittee pointed out that this is already the practice under the
Compensation Policy.
"Would this eliminate a need for post-tenure review since the annual
reviews would trigger substandard performance?" asked one individual. Again,
a member of the Subcommittee replied that the annual review is intended to
serve as the basic post-tenure review and that more extensive review will be
reserved for those instances in which the regular review process reveals
serious deficiencies in the faculty member's performance.
The Subcommittee was encouraged to examine the University of Wisconsin
policy in which reviews are conducted every five years rather than on an
annual basis, and to consider including a safeguard mechanism to prevent
misuse of reviews. Instead of inserting a punitive sanction for misuse of
reviews, said Professor Morrison, a gate mechanism was inserted that would
mean the department head's claim of substandard performance could not stand by
itself. Two years of questionable performance must take place before there is
a review of this type. The elected faculty body must approve this twice
before an intensive review occurs. That kind of a gate-keeping mechanism is
better than a threat that a false allegation of substandard performance will
lead to sanctions against the department head.
Clarification of the meaning of the phrase "substantially below the
goals and expectations" in Motion H was requested and senators were directed
to Section 7A.1 in which the meaning of goals and expectations are addressed.
One person noted the potential for having an even number of members on
the special review committee outlined in Section 7A.3 if the faculty member
chooses not to appoint someone and urged the Tenure Subcommittee to correct
that possibility.
Another senator suggested the Tenure Subcommittee clarify in Section
7A.2 which merit review is to be used for salary adjustment and for promotion
and tenure decisions because in some units there are two completely separate
review processes, an annual review that determines the merit salary
adjustment, which does not require external letters, and another more
extensive review used for promotion and tenure decisions. The Subcommittee
agreed to make that clarification.
It was further suggested that the Tenure Subcommittee include
appropriate timelines in Section 7A.3.
There were varying opinions expressed about whether annual reviews were
an appropriate means of measuring faculty performance, some urging endorsement
of the proposal and others not.
One senator suggested including in Section 7A.3 the options for
flexibility included in Section 7A.1.
In response to a question about the "election" of the annual merit
review committees, Professor Morrison explained that that language came from
the Compensation Policy approved by the Faculty Senate in February 1993. It
reads in part ". . . With the administrator of each unit, the faculty must
have the opportunity to develop the criteria for, and the format of, the
process which annual salary increases are determined.2 (footnote 2: The
process determined through consultation may include faculty participation in
the judgments regarding compensation changes as a committee of the whole or
through a salary committee consisting in whole or in part of elected members."
In response, several senators commented that the processes used in their
departments do not appear to adhere to University policy.
It was then clarified that Section 7A.3 applies to tenured faculty only.
Given that, some senators thought that should be noted in the heading.
One person argued that the proposed system has great potential for abuse
in departments that are highly politicized. Goals and expectations can be
written which have hidden meanings so not all will be met and tying this to
the annual review makes it worse. More safeguards should be inserted. For
example, the words "or methods of research" could be inserted in the fourth
sentence of Section 7A.1.
"If someone does receive a salary decrease, where does that extra money
go?" inquired one individual. Professor Dempsey said the money should stay
within the department in case the salary is restored as provided for in
Section 7A.4.
Several senators asked for further clarification of the trigger
mechanism for a special review. Professor Feeney responded that it involves
the finding in year one by the department head and the elected peer review
committee that a faculty member's performance is substandard and requires
improvement. Next, there must be another finding in year two that the
performance is still substandard and has not improved. At that point, the
department head and the peer review committee may, but need not, trigger the
special review mechanism. There are many reasons for not triggering the
review mechanism, including valid efforts made by the individual to improve
his/her performance. It narrows the focus onto those who are having problems
rather than on the majority who are performing up to standard.
One person pointed out that in the Compensation Policy it states
". . .for the purposes of salary discussion and determination, the relevant
academic unit is the departmental or budgetary unit, whichever is smaller" and
wondered if a budgetary unit becomes a focus group how salary will be
determined. Professor Morrison replied that the Tenure Regulations define
academic unit as the department. If that is the case, responded the senator,
there should be better clarification in the documents.
Some senators wondered how the AHC would be affected by the changes
since some of the schools in the AHC are eliminating their departments.
Professor Morrison said there would be consequences because the school then
becomes the tenure unit and tenure decisions must be voted upon by all tenured
faculty in that school.
The Tenure Subcommittee was asked to elaborate on the relationship
between the goals and expectations document and section 7.12 noted in the
Compensation Policy which is the guide for merit review. A member of the
Subcommittee responded that the goals and expectations should be similar.
"If a department chair conducts a review by him/herself, does he/she
have to establish an elected committee to establish the same findings of
substandard performance?" Yes.
In order to ensure fairness, particularly in a situation where a
department head and a faculty member do not get along, it was recommended that
the dean be asked to independently review the file to determine that a special
review is warranted. The Subcommittee agreed with the suggestion and will
incorporate it into the proposal.
"If the head of the unit and the elected review committee both find
substandard performance, is the special peer review committee to be an elected
group?" asked a senator. Professor Dempsey replied that it was and that,
again, the Subcommittee will clarify that in the proposal.
MOTION I:
To amend section 7.11 as follows: (New language is in CAPS; language to
be deleted is in [brackets]. Footnotes will be renumbered to conform to the
remainder of the Regulations.)
Section 7. Personnel Decisions Concerning Probationary Faculty
---------------------------------------------------------------
7.11 General Criteria. The basis for awarding indefinite tenure is the
determination that the achievements of an individual have demonstrated the
individual's potential to continue to contribute significantly to the mission
of the University, INCLUDING OUTREACH (FOOTNOTE 1), and to its programs of
teaching, research, and service, over the course of the faculty member's
academic career. (footnote 2) The primary (footnote 3) criteria for
demonstrating this potential are effectiveness in teaching (footnote 4) and
professional distinction in research (footnote 5); outstanding discipline-
related service (footnote 6) [contributions] will also be taken into account
where they are an integral part of the mission of the academic unit. The
relative importance of the criteria may vary in different academic units, but
each of the criteria must be considered in every decision. (footnote 7)
The individual's participation in the governance of the institution and
other services to the University and service to the academic unit may be taken
into consideration, but are not themselves bases for awarding tenure.
Indefinite tenure may be granted at any time when the candidate has
satisfied the requirements. A probationary appointment must be terminated
when the appointee fails to satisfy the criteria in the last year of
probationary service and may be terminated earlier if it appears that the
appointee is not making satisfactory progress toward meeting the criteria
within that period.
Footnotes
---------
(1) "OUTREACH" IS AN ACTIVITY THAT EXTENDS FACULTY MEMBER'S TEACHING,
RESEARCH AND SERVICE BEYOND THE CAMPUS OR TO NONTRADITIONAL GROUPS OF
STUDENTS AND CITIZENS. NOT EVERY FACULTY MEMBER WILL HAVE OUTREACH
ACTIVITIES.
(2) For interpretation and possible applications, see the interpretative
comment that will be provided in accordance with the provisions of
Section 16.2.
(3) Criteria other than those expressly listed in this sentence must be
explicitly stated and justified in terms of the mission of the
University. Such additional criteria may not impinge upon the academic
freedom of the probationary faculty member.
(4) "Teaching" is not limited to credit-producing classroom instruction. It
encompasses other forms of communication of knowledge (both to students
registered in the University and to other persons in the community) as
well as the supervision or advising of individual graduate or
undergraduate students.
(5) "Research" is not limited to the publication of scholarly works. It
includes activities which lead to the public availability of products or
practices which have a significance to society, such as artistic
production or the development of new technology or scientific
procedures.
(6) "Service" means performance within the faculty member's academic
expertise and the mission of the academic unit. It does not include
performance of quasi-administrative functions such as membership on
faculty or Senate committees or other similar activities; those
activities are relevant only to the limited extent set forth in the
following paragraph OF THE TEXT.
Where service is not an integral part of the mission of the academic
unit, a faculty member's service may be considered, but is not a
prerequisite to the awarding of tenure.
(7) Because of the special mission of the Crookston [and Waseca campuses]
CAMPUS, disciplined inquiry in their field of endeavor may be
substituted for research in appraising faculty members there.
Other exceptions may be made only in exceptional circumstances by means
of special contract, as provided in section 3.6.
Comment
This amendment formally recognizes the outreach mission of the
University and includes it in the qualifications for tenure. As the footnote
indicates, outreach can be part of the teaching, research, or service
functions of the University. It is important to note that our mission is not
only campus-based, nor is it limited to our traditional academic environments,
but can also involve communication of teaching, research, and service
throughout the community that we serve.
While this amendment recognizes the outreach mission of the University,
it does not require any faculty member to add outreach to other functions
performed. Many faculty members have outreach activities and will continue to
do so; others will continue to function entirely in more traditional teaching,
research, and service.
Committee action
----------------
Approved by the: Tenure Subcommittee--May 17, 1996
Faculty Affairs Committee--May 23, 1996
Judicial Committee--May 23, 1996
DISCUSSION:
Motion I formally recognizes the outreach mission of the University and
includes it in the qualifications for tenure.
A suggestion was made that the Subcommittee clarify in Section 7.11 that
involvement in outreach may not be appropriate for all faculty. Currently,
it was noted, the language in the motion and the comment conflict.
MOTION J:
To add the following paragraphs at the beginning of the document: (The
entire item is new.)
PREAMBLE
THE BOARD OF REGENTS ADOPTS THESE REGULATIONS WITH THE CONVICTION THAT A
WELL-DEFINED STATEMENT OF RULES IS ESSENTIAL TO THE PROTECTION OF ACADEMIC
FREEDOM AND TO THE PROMOTION OF EXCELLENCE IN THIS UNIVERSITY. A WELL
DESIGNED PROMOTION AND TENURE SYSTEM ENSURES THAT CONSIDERATIONS OF ACADEMIC
QUALITY WILL BE THE BASIS FOR ACADEMIC PERSONNEL DECISIONS, AND THUS PROVIDES
THE FOUNDATION FOR ACADEMIC EXCELLENCE.
TENURE IS THE KEYSTONE FOR ACADEMIC FREEDOM; IT IS ESSENTIAL FOR
SAFEGUARDING THE RIGHT OF FREE EXPRESSION AND FOR ENCOURAGING RISK-TAKING
INQUIRY AT THE FRONTIERS OF KNOWLEDGE. BOTH TENURE AND ACADEMIC FREEDOM ARE
PART OF AN IMPLICIT SOCIAL COMPACT, WHICH RECOGNIZES THAT TENURE SERVES
IMPORTANT PUBLIC PURPOSES AND BENEFITS SOCIETY. THE PEOPLE OF MINNESOTA ARE
BEST SERVED WHEN FACULTY ARE FREE TO TEACH, CONDUCT RESEARCH, AND PROVIDE
SERVICE WITHOUT FEAR OF REPRISAL AND TO PURSUE THOSE ACTIVITIES WITH REGARD
FOR LONG TERM BENEFITS TO SOCIETY RATHER THAN SHORT TERM REWARDS. IN RETURN,
FACULTY HAVE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF FURTHERING THE INSTITUTION'S PROGRAMS OF
RESEARCH, TEACHING, AND SERVICE, AND ARE ACCOUNTABLE FOR THEIR PERFORMANCE OF
THESE RESPONSIBILITIES. ADDITIONALLY, A WELL-DESIGNED TENURE SYSTEM ATTRACTS
CAPABLE AND HIGHLY QUALIFIED INDIVIDUALS AS FACULTY MEMBERS, STRENGTHENS
INSTITUTIONAL STABILITY BY ENHANCING FACULTY MEMBERS' INSTITUTIONAL LOYALTY,
AND ENCOURAGES ACADEMIC EXCELLENCE BY RETAINING AND REWARDING THE MOST ABLE
PEOPLE. TENURE AND PROMOTION IMPLY SELECTIVITY AND CHOICE; THEY ARE AWARDED
FOR ACADEMIC AND PROFESSIONAL MERIT, NOT FOR SENIORITY. THE LENGTH AND
INTENSITY OF THE REVIEW LEADING TO THE GRANT OF TENURE ENSURES THE RETENTION
ONLY OF WELL-QUALIFIED FACULTY COMMITTED TO THE UNIVERSITY'S MISSION.
THE IDEAL ATTRIBUTES OF THE COLLECTIVE FACULTY OF ANY UNIT ARE SCHOLARLY
CREATIVITY, PROFESSIONAL COMPETENCE AND LEADERSHIP, INTELLECTUAL DIVERSITY,
THE ABILITY AND DESIRE TO TEACH EFFECTIVELY AND THE WILLINGNESS TO COOPERATE
WITH OTHER UNITS IN PROMOTING THE WORK AND WELFARE OF THE UNIVERSITY AS A
WHOLE. THE ADMINISTRATION AND FACULTY SHOULD ENSURE, WITHIN EACH UNIT, NOT
ONLY A PROPER BALANCE AMONG THESE ACTIVITIES BUT ALSO THE MAINTENANCE OF EACH
AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL, TOGETHER WITH ACCOUNTABILITY AND SUITABLE RECOGNITION
OF INDIVIDUAL ACHIEVEMENT AND SERVICE.
THE TENURE REGULATIONS PROVIDE A COMPREHENSIVE SET OF POLICIES DEALING
WITH THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE UNIVERSITY AND ITS FACULTY. THE REGULATIONS
CLASSIFY THE FACULTY AS TENURED, PROBATIONARY AND TERM CATEGORIES. THEY
PROVIDE FOR ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS OF ALL FACULTY, AS WELL AS ESPECIALLY
THOROUGH REVIEWS BEFORE THE GRANTING OF TENURE, ON PROMOTION IN RANK, AND WHEN
THE PERFORMANCE OF A TENURED FACULTY MEMBER IS ALLEGED TO BE SUBSTANDARD.
THEY PROVIDE FOR THE REASSIGNMENT OF FACULTY IN CASE OF THE REORGANIZATION OF
THE UNIVERSITY OR CHANGES IN ITS SCHOLARLY DIRECTION, AND FOR DISCIPLINE WHEN
A FACULTY MEMBER FAILS TO MEET PRESCRIBED STANDARDS OF CONDUCT.
Comment
This amendment adds a preamble to the Tenure Regulations. The preamble
sets forth, in general terms, the purposes and benefits of tenure. This
provides a general introduction to the Regulations and provides members of the
public who read those Regulations with an understanding of the importance of
this institution. (We have heard from many sources that members of the public
do not understand that purpose at present.)
The first two paragraphs of the proposal are drawn from ideas
articulated in the Tenure Regulations of Penn State University; the third
paragraph is adapted from the MIT Code. The final paragraph provides an
introduction and description for these University of Minnesota Tenure
Regulations.
Committee Action
----------------
Approved by the: Tenure Subcommittee--May 17, 1996
Faculty Affairs Committee--May 23, 1996
Judicial Committee--pending
DISCUSSION:
Motion J, explained Professor Dempsey, adds a preamble to the Tenure
Regulations to provide a general introduction and to provide members of the
public who read the Regulations with an understanding of the importance of the
institution.
There were no comments from the floor regarding this motion.
MOTION K:
To add a new section 2.3 and delete current footnotes 1, 2, 3 (as
amended) and 11, as follows: (New language is in CAPS; language to be deleted
is in [brackets])
Section 2. Applicability of Regulations and Continuity of Appointments
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SECTION 2.3 DEFINITIONS. AS USED IN THESE REGULATIONS,
(A) AN "ACADEMIC UNIT" IS A DEPARTMENT OR OTHER BASIC UNIT IN WHICH
TENURE IS GRANTED. IT MAY BE A DIVISION, SCHOOL OR COLLEGE WHICH
IS NOT FURTHER SUBDIVIDED.
(B) THE "HEAD" OF AN ACADEMIC UNIT IS THE ACADEMIC ADMINISTRATOR
IMMEDIATELY RESPONSIBLE FOR IT, SUCH AS A CHAIR, HEAD OR DIRECTOR.
(C) A "COLLEGIATE UNIT" OR "COLLEGE" IS A MAJOR ACADEMIC ENTITY OF THE
UNIVERSITY. IT MAY BE A COLLEGE, SCHOOL, INSTITUTE OR CAMPUS.
(D) THE "DEAN" OF A COLLEGIATE UNIT IS THE ACADEMIC ADMINISTRATOR
IMMEDIATELY RESPONSIBLE FOR IT, SUCH AS A DEAN OR DIRECTOR OR (ON
A CAMPUS THAT IS NOT SUBDIVIDED INTO COLLEGES) A VICE-CHANCELLOR.
(E) A "SENIOR ACADEMIC ADMINISTRATOR" IS AN OFFICER WHO HAS FINAL
ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW AUTHORITY ON ACADEMIC PERSONNEL DECISIONS,
AND WHO REPORTS DIRECTLY TO THE PRESIDENT AND REGENTS, SUCH AS A
VICE PRESIDENT, CHANCELLOR, OR PROVOST. THE PRESIDENT WILL
DESIGNATE ONE OR MORE SENIOR ACADEMIC ADMINISTRATORS AND DEFINE
THEIR RESPECTIVE JURISDICTIONS.
(F) THE "SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT FOR ACADEMIC AFFAIRS" IS THE OFFICER
(OF WHATEVER TITLE) HOLDING PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE
DEVELOPMENT OF UNIVERSITY-WIDE ACADEMIC POLICY. THIS OFFICER MAY
ALSO SERVE AS SENIOR ACADEMIC ADMINISTRATOR FOR SOME OR ALL OF THE
UNIVERSITY, IF SO DESIGNATED BY THE PRESIDENT.
(G) "TENURED FACULTY" ARE THOSE FACULTY WHO HOLD INDEFINITE TENURE.
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 A "Senior Academic Administrator" is an officer who has final review
authority on academic personnel decisions, and who reports directly to
the president and Regents, such as a vice president, chancellor or
provost. The president will designate one or more senior academic
administrators to have responsibility for academic matters for all or
part of the University, and will define their respective jurisdictions.
11 As used in these Regulations, "tenured faculty" means those members of
the faculty who hold indefinite tenure.]
Comment
This housekeeping amendment places the definitions in the text, close to
the beginning of the Regulations, rather than in footnotes. This should make
it easier for readers to understand the Regulations.
Committee action
----------------
Approved by the: Tenure Subcommittee--May 17, 1996
Faculty Affairs Committee--May 23, 1996
Judicial Committee--pending
DISCUSSION:
Motion K is considered "housekeeping" in nature, said Professor Dempsey,
and places the definitions in the text.
One senator asked why the Code states that tenure is granted in the
unit. Professor Morrison replied that the old rules used "held," whereas the
new rules use "granted." The Subcommittee will review that issue as well as
the others that were suggested.
INTERPRETATION 2:
To adopt the following Interpretation of Section 12: (The entire text is
new.)
SECTION 12.2 OF THE TENURE REGULATIONS RECORDS AN UNDERSTANDING THAT
BETWEEN THE UNIVERSITY AND THE FACULTY UNDER WHICH, IN CASE OF PROGRAMMATIC
CHANGE, "THE UNIVERSITY RECOGNIZES ITS OBLIGATION TO CONTINUE THE EMPLOYMENT
OF REGULAR FACULTY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS OF THEIR EMPLOYMENT" AND
"REGULAR FACULTY MEMBERS WHO ARE SO RETAINED HAVE THE RESPONSIBILITY TO ACCEPT
TEACHING OR OTHER ASSIGNMENTS FOR WHICH THEY ARE QUALIFIED." THIS
INTERPRETATION CLARIFIES THE PROCESSES TO BE FOLLOWED TO EFFECTUATE SECTION
12.2.
IN CASE OF PROGRAMMATIC CHANGE THAT LEADS TO THE DISCONTINUATION OF A
PROGRAM, THE ASSIGNMENT OF NEW RESPONSIBILITIES WILL BE MADE BY A UNIVERSITY
OFFICER DESIGNATED BY THE PRESIDENT. THE OFFICER WILL CONSULT WITH THE
FACULTY MEMBER AND THE POTENTIAL RECEIVING UNIT AND WILL SEEK A MUTUALLY
SATISFACTORY ASSIGNMENT.
IF AGREEMENT CANNOT BE REACHED, THE UNIVERSITY OFFICER WILL ASSIGN NEW
RESPONSIBILITIES AFTER CONSULTATION WITH THE INDIVIDUAL. THE ASSIGNMENT WILL
BE AS CLOSELY RELATED TO THE ORIGINAL APPOINTMENT AS PRACTICABLE. THE FORMAL
ASSIGNMENT WILL BE IN WRITING AND WILL INDICATE THE CONTINUING NATURE OF THE
FACULTY MEMBER'S TENURE.
FOR FIVE YEARS AFTER THE REASSIGNMENT, THE FACULTY MEMBER WILL BE
INFORMED OF VACANCIES IN HIS/HER ORIGINAL DEPARTMENT (OR IN SUCCESSOR OR
RELATED DEPARTMENTS) AND WILL BE GIVEN PREFERENCE IN FILLING ANY SUCH
POSITIONS FOR WHICH HE/SHE IS QUALIFIED.
EVERY EFFORT SHOULD BE MADE TO SEEK A SATISFACTORY PERMANENT ASSIGNMENT.
IF THIS CANNOT BE ACCOMPLISHED, TEMPORARY ASSIGNMENTS CAN BE MADE.
AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 12.2, THE UNIVERSITY MAY GIVE THE FACULTY MEMBER
"OTHER ASSIGNMENTS" ONLY IF ASSIGNMENTS TO TEACHING IN THE FACULTY MEMBER'S
DISCIPLINE ARE NOT FEASIBLE. FOR EXAMPLE, FACULTY MIGHT BE ASSIGNED
-- TO TEACH IN ANOTHER FIELD IN WHICH THE INDIVIDUAL IS QUALIFIED, BUT
WHICH IS NOT WITHIN THE AREA OF ORIGINAL TENURE.
-- TO PERFORM PROFESSIONAL OR ADMINISTRATIVE DUTIES, INCLUDING
PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE IN A FIELD IN WHICH THE INDIVIDUAL IS
QUALIFIED.
-- TO TRANSFER EFFORT BY ASSIGNMENT IN A SUITABLE PROFESSIONAL
CAPACITY AT ANOTHER EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION OR SIMILAR ENTITY,
WHILE RETAINING UNIVERSITY TENURE, COMPENSATION, AND BENEFITS.
-- TO UNDERTAKE EDUCATIONAL OR TRAINING PROGRAMS TO DEVELOP OR REFINE
SKILLS THAT LATER MAY BE USEFUL TO THE UNIVERSITY; THE COSTS OF
SUCH PROGRAMS WILL BE BORNE BY THE UNIVERSITY.
IF SUCH ASSIGNMENTS ARE MADE, THE UNIVERSITY WILL PROVIDE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR
THE FACULTY MEMBER TO CONTINUE RESEARCH IN THE ORIGINAL FIELD.
IT WILL NOT ALWAYS BE POSSIBLE TO IDENTIFY MUTUALLY AGREEABLE
ASSIGNMENTS. IF THE FACULTY MEMBER BELIEVES (I) THAT HE OR SHE IS UNABLE TO
PERFORM THE ASSIGNED DUTIES OR (II) THAT HE OR SHE IS QUALIFIED FOR SOME OTHER
OPEN POSITION THAT IS MORE CLOSELY RELATED TO HIS OR HER ORIGINAL APPOINTMENT,
THE FACULTY MEMBER SHOULD INFORM IN WRITING THE UNIVERSITY OFFICER MAKING THE
ASSIGNMENT. IF THEY CANNOT REACH AGREEMENT, THE FACULTY 49 MEMBER MAY FILE A
FORMAL GRIEVANCE ON THESE ISSUES.
IF THE ASSIGNED RESPONSIBILITIES ARE LOCATED A SUBSTANTIAL DISTANCE AWAY
FROM THE PREVIOUS WORK LOCATION, THE UNIVERSITY WILL PROVIDE FOR TRAVEL
EXPENSES (IF TEMPORARY) OR MOVING EXPENSES (IF PERMANENT).
THE UNIVERSITY MAY ALSO OFFER INDUCEMENTS TO FACULTY MEMBERS TO SEEK
THEIR VOLUNTARY SEPARATION FROM THE UNIVERSITY. THESE MAY INCLUDE:
-- EARLY RETIREMENT PACKAGES;
-- REDUCED TIME APPOINTMENTS;
-- SEVERANCE AGREEMENTS, INCLUDING CONTINUATION OF BENEFITS.
THE UNIVERSITY MAY MAKE THESE OPTIONS AVAILABLE ON A SELECTIVE BASIS, AND NEED
NOT EXTEND THE SAME OFFER TO ALL MEMBERS OF THE FACULTY.
Comment
This interpretation clarifies the consequences of the understanding
recorded in section 12.2 of the Tenure Regulations. Faculty members make
extensive and long-term commitments to the development of their academic
disciplines. In order to encourage that commitment, the University makes a
similar long-term commitment to the faculty members. Both of them recognize
that scientific and social changes may lead to changes in the programs that
the University can offer. In order to increase the benefit for both parties,
the University agrees to offer other appropriate employment to faculty members
whose programs are discontinued, and the faculty members agree to be flexible
in accepting alternative assignments.
This issue was extensively considered by the Board of Regents when the
Tenure Regulations were adopted. The Board then accepted the importance of
guaranteeing tenure appointments.
This solution presents neither the extreme of abandoning by lay-offs
individuals who have invested heavily in the development of the academic
stature of the University nor the opposite extreme of lifetime employment in
an unwanted field. Rather, it seeks an intermediate solution in which both
parties seek in good faith to accommodate their mutual expectations to
changing circumstances.
The interpretation seeks to clarify the procedures that will be used to
make reassignments of faculty effort in cases of programmatic change.
DISCUSSION:
Interpretation 2 clarifies the duties and responsibilities of both
administrators and faculty in the case of programmatic change.
One person asked how advancements will be made if a department that
eliminates a program to move on to new areas is obligated to hire those from
the old areas. In response, Professor Morrison said the section is parallel
to the protection of financial exigency cases, which means those who have been
laid off from the University have the right to hold another job at the
University as long as they are qualified to fill the position. Those
individuals should have some priority.
Some senators said they would like to see more safeguards added to the
section on programmatic change.
As a final comment, a member of the Subcommittee said that the
interpretation allows for time so that continuation of scholarship may occur
in a faculty member's original field, if they wish. The proposal seeks to
accommodate the mutual expectations of the individual and the institution
during times of change.
III. OLD BUSINESS
NONE
IV. NEW BUSINESS
NONE
V. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 5:00 p.m.
Martha Kvanbeck
Abstractor