JUDICIAL - Faculty: Edwin Fogelman (chair), Ron Akehurst, Diane Arthur, Jean Bauer, David Born, Susan Brorson, Vincente Cabrera, Laura Cooper, Timothy Dunnigan, Genevieve Escure, James Farr, Shirley Garner, Hillel Gershenson, Ilene Harris, Curtis Hoard, Joan Howland, Jack Imholte, Edward Kaplan, Sally Keeney, David Lykken, Jack Mandel, Takashi Okagaki, Marty Rossman, Michael Sadowsky, George Sheets, Michael Speidel, Michael Umbreit, Oriol Valls, Carol Wells.

INFORMATION:

FACULTY CONSULTATIVE - Faculty: Virginia Gray (chair), Carl Adams, Carole Bland, Victor Bloomfield (vice chair), Sara Evans, Russell Hobbie, Michael Korth, Harvey Peterson, Michael Steffes, Matthew Tirrell. Ex Officio: W. Andrew Collins, Gary Davis, Daniel Feeney, Laura Coffin Koch, Fred Morrison, Craig Swan.

M. JANICE HOGAN, Chair

APPROVED

To approve the following Resolution:

VIRGINIA GRAY, Chair

DISCUSSION:

Professor Virginia Gray introduced the Resolution to request the appropriate Senate committees to review the Sullivan II tenure proposal as it pertains to the Morris campus and Academic Health Center (AHC). In light of the Faculty Senate action of October 24, the Faculty Consultative Committee (FCC) believed it was important to discuss with the Faculty Senate what, if any, further action should be taken with regard to tenure. At the present time, the Sullivan proposal has been adopted for the Law School and is being considered by the Regents for the Morris campus and AHC. The rest of the Twin Cities campus remains under the Status Quo Order and the status of the Crookston campus is pending.

The Faculty Senate debated the motion for over an hour. Following are excerpts of the debate:

• The Faculty Senate has a responsibility to the faculty who have voted against collective bargaining and are not under the Status Quo Order. This includes nearly one-half of the total faculty at the University. These units need the Senate's help in reestablishing a relationship with the Regents and, at this time, the Faculty Senate must separate the collective bargaining issue from the needs of these units.

• This is not an appropriate way to reestablish communication with the Regents. The Faculty Senate should take a stand against discussing anything related to tenure until after the union election. Furthermore, there is no compelling reason why the Regents need to act on a Code for the Morris campus or the AHC at this time and they should be urged to delay action until the results of the election are known.

• The Senate should not be endorsing a process that allows the adoption of Tenure Codes for individual units, but instead should continue to reinforce its previously stated position that there should be one Code for the entire University.

• While it appears that most faculty look favorably on the Sullivan II proposal, there are some inconsistencies in the document and certain areas that may need modification. At present, it has not received a comprehensive review by any faculty group and if it is the intention of the Regents to enact the proposal for other units that elect not to unionize, it is important that it receive appropriate faculty attention early in the process.

• Faculty from the Morris campus supported the Resolution, while senators from the AHC expressed mixed feelings.

• If the Faculty Senate elects to move forward on the review of Sullivan II, it should at the very least insist that the Regents make a firm and binding commitment to the faculty that tenure will not be reviewed again for a specified period of time once the current tenure matter has been settled.

• The Regents are scheduled to act on the Sullivan II proposal within a week. It is unreasonable to think that the three designated committees can provide a reasoned response within that timeframe. The Faculty Senate should urge the Regents to delay their action to allow for appropriate consultation on the document.

• Faculty seem to want three things: 1) a good Tenure Code, 2) a Code that applies to all faculty, and 3) a Code that was adopted through the proper consultative procedures. The Resolution moves the faculty forward in all three directions.

A motion to amend the Resolution as follows was made and seconded, but failed to receive a majority approval:

		"The Faculty Senate requests the Tenure Subcommittee, Faculty 
		Affairs Committee, and Judicial Committee to review the Sullivan II 
		Tenure Code proposal and to report their recommendations in a 
		timely way with regard to the units affected."

A second motion was then proposed as a friendly amendment:

		"The Faculty Senate requests the Tenure Subcommittee, 
		Faculty Affairs Committee, and Judicial Committee to review 
		the Sullivan II Tenure Code proposal and to report their 
		recommendations by March 1."

The motion was not accepted as a friendly amendment and received no further discussion.

At this time, the vote was taken on the Resolution as presented in the printed agenda. It was approved 47 to 37 with 0 abstentions.

APPROVED

Martha Kvanbeck

Abstractor