UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA
The seventh meeting of the Faculty Senate for 1995-96 was convened in 25 Law Building, Minneapolis campus, on Thursday, June 6, 1996, at 2:00 p.m. Checking or signing the roll as present were 126 voting faculty members, 3 ex officio members, and 10 nonmembers. Professor Roberta Humphreys, Vice Chair of the Faculty Senate, presided. 1995-96 FACULTY SENATE MINUTES (No. 7)
JUNE 6, 1996
I. FACULTY AFFAIRS COMMITTEE JUDICIAL COMMITTEE TENURE SUBCOMMITTEE MOTION:Regulations Concerning Faculty Tenure
Action
To approve the following proposed amendments to the Regulations Concerning Faculty Tenure:
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 OR METHODS 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 ESTABLISHED UNDER SECTION 7A.1. THIS REVIEW IS USED FOR SALARY ADJUSTMENT AND FACULTY DEVELOPMENT. THE FACULTY MEMBER WILL BE ADVISED OF ANY STEPS THAT SHOULD BE TAKEN TO IMPROVE PERFORMANCE AND WILL BE PROVIDED ASSISTANCE IN THAT EFFORT.
IF THE HEAD OF THE UNIT AND AN ELECTED PEER MERIT REVIEW COMMITTEE WITHIN THAT UNIT BOTH FIND A FACULTY MEMBER'S PERFORMANCE TO BE SUBSTANTIALLY BELOW THE GOALS AND EXPECTATIONS ADOPTED BY THAT UNIT, THEY SHALL ADVISE THE FACULTY MEMBER IN WRITING, INCLUDING SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVING PERFORMANCE, AND ESTABLISH A TIME PERIOD (OF AT LEAST ONE YEAR) WITHIN WHICH IMPROVEMENT SHOULD BE DEMONSTRATED.
7A.3. SPECIAL PEER REVIEW IN CASES OF ALLEGED SUBSTANDARD PERFORMANCE BY TENURED FACULTY. IF, AT THE END OF THE TIME PERIOD FOR IMPROVEMENT DESCRIBED IN THE PREVIOUS PARAGRAPH, A TENURED FACULTY MEMBER'S PERFORMANCE CONTINUES TO BE SUBSTANTIALLY BELOW THE GOALS AND EXPECTATIONS OF THE UNIT AND THERE HAS NOT BEEN A SUFFICIENT IMPROVEMENT OF PERFORMANCE, THE HEAD OF THE ACADEMIC UNIT AND THE ELECTED PEER MERIT REVIEW COMMITTEE MAY JOINTLY REQUEST THE DEAN TO INITIATE A SPECIAL PEER REVIEW OF THAT FACULTY MEMBER. BEFORE DOING SO, THE DEAN SHALL INDEPENDENTLY REVIEW THE FILE TO DETERMINE THAT SPECIAL PEER REVIEW IS WARRANTED.
THE SPECIAL PEER REVIEW SHALL BE CONDUCTED BY A PANEL OF FIVE TENURED FACULTY MEMBERS OF EQUAL OR HIGHER RANK, SELECTED TO REVIEW THAT INDIVIDUAL. THE FACULTY MEMBER UNDER REVIEW SHALL HAVE THE OPTION TO APPROVE ONE MEMBER. THE REMAINING MEMBERS SHALL BE ELECTED BY SECRET BALLOT BY THE TENURED FACULTY OF THE UNIT. THE MEMBERS OF THE SPECIAL REVIEW PANEL NEED NOT BE MEMBERS OF THE ACADEMIC UNIT. THE SPECIAL REVIEW PANEL 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 TENURE SUBCOMMITTEE MAY ADOPT RULES AND PROCEDURES REGULATING THE CONDUCT OF SUCH REVIEWS.
THE SPECIAL REVIEW PANEL SHALL PREPARE A REPORT ON THE TEACHING, SCHOLARSHIP, SERVICE, AND (WHEN APPROPRIATE) OUTREACH PERFORMANCE OF THE FACULTY MEMBER. IT WILL ALSO IDENTIFY ANY SUPPORTING SERVICE OR ACCOMMODATION THAT THE UNIVERSITY SHOULD PROVIDE TO ENABLE THE FACULTY MEMBER TO IMPROVE PERFORMANCE. DEPENDING ON ITS FINDINGS, THE PANEL MAY RECOMMEND:
(A) THAT THE PERFORMANCE IS ADEQUATE TO MEET STANDARDS AND THAT THE REVIEW BE CONCLUDED;
(B) THAT THE ALLOCATION OF THE FACULTY MEMBER'S EXPECTED EFFORT AMONG THE TEACHING, RESEARCH AND SERVICE FUNCTIONS OF THE UNIT BE ALTERED IN LIGHT OF THE FACULTY MEMBER'S STRENGTHS AND INTERESTS SO AS TO MAXIMIZE THE FACULTY MEMBER'S CONTRIBUTION TO THE MISSION OF THE UNIVERSITY;
(C) THAT THE FACULTY MEMBER UNDERTAKE SPECIFIED STEPS TO IMPROVE PERFORMANCE, SUBJECT ONLY TO FUTURE REGULAR ANNUAL REVIEWS AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 7A.2.;
(D) THAT THE FACULTY MEMBER UNDERTAKE SPECIFIED STEPS TO IMPROVE PERFORMANCE SUBJECT TO A SUBSEQUENT SPECIAL REVIEW UNDER SECTION 7A.3, TO BE CONDUCTED AT A SPECIFIED FUTURE TIME;
(E) THAT THE FACULTY MEMBER'S PERFORMANCE IS SO INADEQUATE AS TO JUSTIFY LIMITED REDUCTIONS OF SALARY, AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 7A.4;
(F) THAT THE FACULTY MEMBER'S PERFORMANCE IS SO INADEQUATE THAT THE DEAN SHOULD COMMENCE FORMAL PROCEEDINGS FOR TERMINATION OR INVOLUNTARY LEAVE OF ABSENCE AS PROVIDED IN SECTIONS 10 AND 14; OR
(G) SOME COMBINATION OF THESE MEASURES.
THE PANEL WILL SEND ITS REPORT TO THE DEAN, THE HEAD OF THE ACADEMIC UNIT, AND THE FACULTY MEMBER. 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 7.7).
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 annual. That review involves establishment of departmental standards by the faculty of the unit and annual review of individual faculty members. 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 those deficiencies continue, the department can ask the dean to initiate special review. Before doing so, the dean will independently review the case.
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. The Tenure Subcommittee 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:
Comment: Revised by the Tenure Subcommittee--May 31, 1996
DISCUSSION:
Professors Daniel Feeney and Mary Dempsey presented the final series of tenure amendments for the Faculty Senate's consideration.
Motion H, explained Professor Dempsey, makes formal provision for review of faculty performance. It provides for two forms of review: annual review of every faculty member and special review of faculty whose performance is substantially below the goals and expectations adopted by the faculty of the department. Professor Dempsey reviewed the commentary following the motion which outlines the proposal and the rationale behind it. The Tenure Subcommittee reviewed the motion extensively after the May 30 Faculty Senate meeting, said Professor Dempsey, and numerous changes were made in response to the discussion that day. With respect to post-tenure review, the Subcommittee felt there were two choices: 1) to conduct a substantial review of all faculty every 5 to 7 years or 2) to conduct a special review in instances where the annual review reveals serious deficiencies in a faculty member's performance. The Subcommittee thought the first option would require unnecessary effort to review people who are known to be performing adequately. The second option, a special or intensive review, would be conducted if it was found necessary. Examples of things that might trigger such a review include a lack of publications over a certain period of time, teaching below a certain mark on the teaching evaluation, etc.
Some people, Professor Morrison added, have asked whether it would be sufficient to rely completely on the removal-for-cause process to deal with inadequate performance. The Subcommittee, however, believes there should be an appropriate proactive, positive, encouraging review process; not one that starts with an accusation and moves forward in a charge and denial way. Thus, the decision was made to build on the existing annual review system and to use it as a trigger mechanism to identify candidates for the special review.
The Subcommittee was also concerned about the potential for abuse and believed that clarifying the annual review practice as well as decoupling it from the Compensation Policy should alleviate those problems. It should also be noted that the proposal calls for an "elected" committee to participate in the special review. The Faculty Senate's concern about small departments was dealt with, as well as the suggestion that decisions be reviewed by the dean. The academic freedom portions of section 7A.1 were also strengthened by adding scientific methodology. There was little change in the remedies and at the end there is a provision for review of the final outcome by the Judicial Committee in a manner analogous to tenure decisions, which means the Judicial Committee will not be asked if something is a good piece of scholarship, but rather whether there was discrimination, the procedures were fair, or there was a violation of academic freedom.
The issue of post-tenure review has generated perhaps the most concern from the administration and Regents. The Subcommittee believes it has developed a proposal that is protective of faculty rights while still dealing with legitimate concerns. It focuses upon the inquiry, protecting academic freedom, and insisting upon peer participation at all points of the process.
Before opening the discussion, Professor Morrison asked that a series of "friendly" amendments, editorial in nature, be accepted. The amendments were accepted and were incorporated into the original motion.
During a lengthy discussion, the following issues were raised:
"There is no compelling evidence that institutions have been ill-served by traditional tenure systems. Conventional wisdom to the contrary, tenure does not appear to undermine productivity. A 1991 study by the National Center for Educational Statistics, a study of 8400 faculty in more than 400 institutions concluded the data provide no evidence of a decline of research productivity with increasing rank or achievement of tenure. In the 2 years preceding that study, the professors produced more refereed articles, books and monographs than assistant professors or non-tenured faculty. In the same two-year period, as well as over entire careers, tenured faculty produced equivalent or greater numbers of all kinds of publications than tenure-track and non-tenure track faculties. A similar study in 1968-69 reached similar conclusions. Those who were producing, kept producing. And, those who weren't, continued in a similar way. The results of a broader study in 1974 provide further evidence. A relationship of productivity with respect to time is not a linear function of age nor is it negatively correlated to career stage. The producers and contributors maintain output quite independent of rank and age. Hence, tenure does not seem to be a causal factor. The evidence does not support the invective that faculty with tenure cease to produce."
A short presentation showing data obtained from the Legislative Library was provided by a senator. The data provided a comparison, on a percentage basis, of support to the University by the State Legislature. The senator noted a significant drop in the curve during the 1950s and 1960s which, he said, was attributed to the increase in the tax base for K-12, vo-tech schools and community colleges. However, from 1973-on, there is no clear justification for the decline in support. A second graph plotted the same information for the University of Wisconsin. The results showed a 27 percent decrease for the University of Wisconsin compared to a 50 percent decrease for the U of M. The UW Madison campus, he noted, receives more support, percentage-wise, from the State of Wisconsin than the entire University of Minnesota system.
Amendments/Motions
1. the following "friendly amendments" were accepted:
"The faculty member will be advised of the evaluation and, if appropriate, of any steps that should be taken to improve performance and will be provided assistance in that effort."
2. A motion to suspend the rules to consider the following amendment was approved:
However, the motion failed to received approval by a majority of members present and voting.
3. A motion appearing in the printed handouts was not considered because it failed to be moved onto the floor for discussion.
4. Motion H, as amended, was then approved by a majority of members present and voting.
APPROVED
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 (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) THE MISSION OF THE UNIVERSITY INCLUDES, WHERE APPROPRIATE, OUTREACH ACTIVITY THAT EXTENDS A 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 RESPONSIBILITIES.
(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 asthe 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
Section 7.11 and Footnote 1: Revised by the Tenure Subcommittee--May 31, 1996
DISCUSSION:
Motion I formally recognizes the outreach mission of the University and includes it in the qualifications for tenure.
With no discussion, Motion I was approved by a majority of members present and voting.
APPROVED
MOTION J:
To add the following paragraphs at the beginning of the document: (The entire item is new.)
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. 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
Preamble: Revised by the Tenure Subcommittee--May 31, 1996
DISCUSSION:
Motion J, explained Professor Dempsey, adds a preamble to the Tenure Code 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.
With little discussion, Motion J was approved on a voice vote by a majority of members present and voting.
APPROVED
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 A DIVISION, SCHOOL OR COLLEGE THAT 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
Section 2.3: Revised by the Tenure Subcommittee--May 31, 1996
DISCUSSION:
Motion K, explained Professor Morrison, is considered "housekeeping" in nature and places the definitions in the text.
With little discussion, Motion K was approved on a voice vote by a majority of members present and voting.
APPROVED
MOTION L:
To add the following footnote at the end of the first sentence of new section 4.4 approved by the Faculty Senate on May 30, 1996: (new language is in CAPS.)
4.4 FACULTY COMPENSATION. Each faculty member shall receive a base salary, which shall not be decreased except as expressly authorized in these regulations. (FOOTNOTE *) 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 amendment 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.
Footnotes
(*) SEE SECTIONS 7A.3 (SALARY REDUCTION FOR PERFORMANCE SUBSTANTIALLY BELOW GOALS AND EXPECTATIONS), 11.4 (FORMULA REDUCTION OR POSTPONEMENT OF SALARY IN CASE OF FISCAL EMERGENCY), AND 14 (DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS WITH JUDICIAL COMMITTEE REVIEW).
Committee action
Approved by the: Tenure Subcommittee--May 31, 1996
DISCUSSION:
Motion L, referred to as the "Krislov" footnote, amends action taken the previous week at the suggestion of Professor Samuel Krislov to insert a cross reference in the document. With no discussion, the motion was approved on a voice vote by a majority of members present and voting.
APPROVED
INTERPRETATION 2:
The Tenure Committee proposes to adopt the following Interpretation of Section 12: (The entire text is new.)
SECTION 12.2 OF THE TENURE REGULATIONS RECORDS AN UNDERSTANDING THAT, 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
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 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:
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. The Tenure Subcommittee approved the Interpretation which does not require formal Faculty Senate action.
A senator encouraged the Tenure Subcommittee to include a clear definition of "program" in the Interpretation and suggested the following language: "For the purpose of interpreting this Code, a program is defined as an identifiable programmatic entity listed as such in a University publication with more than one faculty member." Some such language, he said, is necessary to prevent an individual from being defined as a program and then discontinued.
Regulations Concerning Faculty Tenure
Action
To approve the following Resolution:
That, in accordance with Section 19 of the Regulations Concerning Faculty Tenure, the Faculty Senate recommends to the Board of Regents the adoption of these amendments to the Regulations.
FURTHER RESOLVED,
1. That the Faculty Senate appoints the following persons as a committee to present the proposed amendments to the President and the Regents:
and that they be authorized to obtain the assistance of other faculty in this effort.
2. That the Faculty Senate authorizes the above committee, with the assistance of the Senate Clerk, to prepare an engrossed copy of the amendments, incorporating the several amendments to a single section into a single amendment, correcting the numbering of footnotes and cross-references, and correcting any proofreading or grammatical errors that may have occurred.
DISCUSSION:
Professor Virginia Gray, Chair, Faculty Consultative Committee, presented the Resolution.
The following two "friendly" amendments were submitted and accepted:
1. To include Professor Fred Morrison as one of the individuals to present the proposed amendments to the President and the Regents, and
2. To add the following clause in the beginning of the Resolution:
WHEREAS, the Board of Regents requested changes in the Regulations Concerning Faculty Tenure,
The Resolution, as amended, was then approved by a majority of members present and voting.
APPROVED
NONE
IV. NEW BUSINESS
Martha Kvanbeck Abstractor
(fm=forfeiture of membership for nonattendance)
Notified Clerk of Nonattendance or Attended Alternate Attended
FACULTY
Adams, George (resigned 1/96) 0 1 Akehurst, F. Ronald 7 0 Altholz, Josef 7 0 Anderson, Eugene 5 2 Aroskar, Mila 4 3 Bache, Robert 5 1 Bantle, John 2 3 Bar-Cohen, Avram 3 3 Bebeau, Muriel 5 2 Beebe, David 4 1 Ben-Ner, Avner 4 2 Berman, Hyman 6 1 Biesboer, David 4 1 Bitterman, Peter 5 1 Bodley, James 4 2 Bolman, Morton (resigned 1/96) 0 0 Borchardt, Edith 5 2 Bouchard, Thomas 7 0 Bowie, Norman 5 2 Brady, Linda 6 1 Brown, David 2 4 Brustein, William 7 0 Bryson, John 4 2 Buchwald, Henry 4 1 Campbell, Charles 7 0 Cardozo, Richard 3 4 Carter, Clarence 3 3 Chomsky, Carol 7 0 Cohen, Yosef 5 1 Collins, W. Andrew 6 1 Corcoran-Perry, Sheila 6 1 Davidson, Jane 5 1 Deinard, Amos 4 3 Delaney, John (fm 3/96) 0 0 Dempsey, Mary 7 0 Deno, Stanley 5 2 Drewes, Lester 6 0 Dunnigan, Timothy 6 0 Dusenbery, Kathryn 2 2 Ebner, Timothy 5 1 Epley, Richard 6 1 Fall, Bruce 7 0 Fallon, Ann 3 4 Feeney, Daniel 7 0 Ferrieri, Patricia 2 5 Filipovich, Alexandra (resigned 5/96) 0 4 Forster, Jean 6 1 Foster, Edward 6 0 Frank, David 6 0 Gaston, Judith 5 1 Giebink, Scott (resigned 2/96) 0 2 Goetz, Ed 7 0 Goldstein, Richard 2 5 Gonzales, Marti 5 0 Good, David 7 0 Graham, Peter 7 0 Gross, Cynthia 5 2 Gundel, Jeanette 3 4 Guyotte, Roland 1 6 Halley, J. Woods 4 1 Hancher, Michael 5 2 Herther, Nancy 5 1 Hoffman, Marci 4 3 Hogan, M. Janice 2 3 Hostetter, Thomas 6 0 Hunter, David 1 6 Huntley, Thomas 3 0 Ingbar, David 4 0 Jain, Naresh 6 1 Johnson, Thomas 7 0 Jones, Terry 5 0 Kane, Mary Jo 3 2 Kelly, Richard 7 0 Kennedy, William (resigned 4/96) 0 2 Kinney, Larry 6 0 Kittleson, David 6 1 Kohlstedt, Sally 6 1 Krislov, Samuel 5 1 Kuchenreuther, Margaret 5 2 Kuhi, Leonard 6 0 Leitner, Helga 3 2 Leo, Perry 6 1 LeRoy, Stephan 4 0 Lewis, Marsha 5 2 Lubet, Alex 3 3 Lulich, Jody 4 0 Mackenzie, Thomas 0 5 Magee, Paul 3 2 Malandra, William 7 0 Mariash, Cary 4 1 Martin, Judith 7 0 Maxwell, Robert 3 4 McEvoy, Mary 4 3 Miller, Carol 5 1 Moon, Roger 5 1 Mullins, Lynnette 6 0 Nagaraja, Kakambi 5 1 Nantell, Timothy 4 0 Neckar, Lance (apptd. 2/96) 5 0 Nellis, Jennifred 6 1 Nelson, David 7 0 Noland, Wayland 5 2 Nolting, Earl 6 1 Norling, Lisa 7 0 Nystrom, Gene 6 1 Orf, James 7 0 Perry, Cheryl 6 1 Perry, James 3 1 Peterson, Gail 4 1 Pour-El, Marion 6 1 Pusey, Anne 4 3 Quie, Paul 4 4 Reid, Barbara 4 2 Rhodus, Nelson 4 1 Robbins, Kathryn 6 1 Robinson, Peter 6 0 Roe, Terry 6 0 Rose, Susan 5 1 Sadowsky, Michael 4 3 Satkowski, Leon (resigned 12/95) 0 0 Schlein, Stuart 5 2 Sell, George 5 1 Shumway, Sara (fm 5/96) 0 1 Simmons, Michael 5 1 Sirc, Geoffrey 5 2 Sivanandan, V. 4 1 Skurla, James 7 0 Speidel, Thomas 5 1 Stein, Marvin 4 2 Stelson, Kim 6 1 Storvick, David 7 0 Stromberg, Bert 6 1 Strykowski, Paul 4 2 Stutzer, Michael 5 0 Swanson, Bert 2 5 Thomas, Gary 6 0 Tillotson, Richard 5 0 Tracy, James 4 0 Tranquillo, Robert 5 1 Wagenaar, Alexander 6 0 Wagner, Philip 7 0 Wahlstrom, Billie 5 1 Walter, Kenneth 6 1 Wangensteen, Douglas 6 1 Ward, David 5 0 Weisdorf, Sally (resigned 11/95) 0 0 Weiss, Gerhard 6 0 White, Michael 3 4 Wiedmann, Timothy 7 0 Williams, Oliver 4 2 Wolf, Susan 3 2 Yahnke, Robert 5 2 York, Jennifer 4 0 Young, Nevin 6 0 Zaimont, Judith 6 1 Zita, Jacquelyn 4 1
FACULTY CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE
Adams, Carl 6 1 Adams, John 7 0 Bland, Carol 7 0 Bloomfield, Victor 4 0 Gray, Virginia 5 1 Gremmels, James 7 0 Hobbie, Russell (apptd. 4/96) 4 0 Jones, Robert (resigned 4/96) 0 0 Maruyama, Geoffrey (resigned 3/96) 2 0 Peterson, Harvey 7 0 Steffes, Michael 3 1
STUDENTS
Armstrong, Michael (apptd. 2/96) 5 0 Babvani, Shamez (apptd. 2/96) 3 2 Bogenreif, Ron (fm 5/96) 0 4 Boik, Chris (fm 5/96) 1 1 Calhoun-Lopez, Thomas (fm 5/96) 2 0 Caravello, Tom (apptd. 2/96) 2 0 Chowdhury, Debashis (fm 5/96) 0 2 Clark, Jason (resigned 5/96) 3 1 Connor, Christopher (apptd. 2/96) 4 0 Dixon, Mark (apptd. 5/96) 2 0 Dubany, Robert (fm 5/96) 3 0 Ebba, Yohannes (apptd. 5/96) 1 0 Falla, Jeffrey 4 1 Foster, Tom 4 1 Geyen, Janie (resigned 4/96) 4 0 Giovengo, Susan (apptd. 3/96) 3 1 Golden, Gabe (fm 5/96) 2 1 Grady, George (apptd. 3/96) 0 1 Grams, Nathan (fm 5/96) 3 0 Gromacki, Thomas (fm 5/96) 2 1 Helfritz, Amy (fm 1/96) 0 0 Herzog, Jonathan 6 0 Hogue, Catherine (apptd. 4/96) 2 0 Hudson, Dennis (fm 2/96) 0 0 Isaacson, Jeffrey (resigned 4/96) 3 0 Jaeger, Amber (apptd. 4/96) 2 1 James, Kathy 7 0 Jennings, Adam (apptd. 4/96) 0 0 Jepsen, Andrea (apptd. 5/96) 2 0 Kaya, John (apptd. 2/96) 2 0 Kohlasch, Frank (fm 5/96) 3 0 Lander, Timothy (resigned 4/96) 2 0 Larsen, Jeffrey (fm 5/96) 2 0 Lowing, Craig 6 1 McIntosh, Katie (apptd. 4/96) 0 0 Mertl, Amy (apptd. 4/96) 3 0 Meyer, Renee 3 2 Mielke, Brian (fm 5/96) 0 1 Miller, Rhonda 5 0 Pederson, Richard 6 1 Pluhar, Jeannine 7 0 Poeschl, Tim 5 1 Raddatz, Marlene (apptd. 5/96) 1 0 Rauschl, Chris (apptd. 2/96) 3 0 Reitmeier, Lance (apptd. 5/96) 1 0 Reuss, Scott 5 0 Richards, Marc (fm 5/96) 2 0 Schimek, Eric (resigned 5/96) 2 1 Shen, Wei (apptd. 2/96 fm 5/96) 0 0 Sletten, Dan (apptd. 2/96 fm 5/96) 0 0 Sommerville, Mary Jane (resigned 5/96) 1 1 Sperr, Tonia (apptd. 5/96) 1 0 St. Clair, Ryan (fm 1/96) 0 0 St. Sauver, Andrew (apptd. 4/96) 4 0 Stone, Christopher (apptd. 3/96 fm 5/96) 1 0 Thompson, Barbara (resigned 3/96) 1 1 Van Keulen, Jeff (fm 5/96) 4 0 Voelker, Valerie (fm 5/96) 1 1 Watkins, Eric (fm 5/96) 3 0 Wilda, Marissa (fm 1/96) 0 0 Wiley, Christopher 2 0 Zander, Lynn 4 2
STUDENT SENATE CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE
Bergstrom, Joel 7 0 Bromberek, Bruce 7 0 Davey, Mike (resigned 4/96) 3 0 Duranske, Benjamin (resigned 2/96) 1 0 Geyen, Janie (apptd. 4/96) 2 0 Isaacson, Jeffrey (apptd. 4/96) 3 0 Kluge, Paul 4 0 Kopacek, Corey (resigned 4/96) 3 0 Lind, Melissa 3 0 Phin, Helen 1 2 Shabazz, Malik (resigned 3/96) 1 0 Sommerville, Mary Jane (apptd. 5/96) 2 0 Strack, Amber (resigned 2/96) 2 1 Vanasek, Rob (apptd. 4/96) 3 0 Yungk, Michelle (apptd. 2/96) 1 1