MOTION:

To approve the following Faculty Senate committee memberships for 1997-98:

FACULTY AFFAIRS - Faculty: Kent Bales (chair), Josef Altholz, Gary Balas, Carol Chomsky, Mary Dempsey, Richard Goldstein, Eville Gorham, Roland Guyotte, Richard McGehee, Anne Pick, Richard Purple, Geoffrey Sirc, Caroline Turner. Academic Professional: Judith Gaston. Ex Officio: Carol Carrier, Robert Fahnhorst, Harlan Smith, Georgina Stephens, Delane Welsch. Students: Shenoa Simpson, 1 to be named.

JUDICIAL - Faculty: Edwin Fogelman (chair), Susan Brorson, Laura Cooper, John Dahler, Timothy Dunnigan, James Farr, Bart Finzell, Shirley Garner, Ilene Harris, Curtis Hoard, Joan Howland, Sally Keeney, David Lykken, Jack Mandel, Takashi Okagaki, Marty Rossmann, Michael Sadowsky, Alan Sinaiko, T. Michael Speidel, Billie Wahlstrom, Carol Wells, Robert Yahnke.

FOR INFORMATION:

FACULTY CONSULTATIVE - Faculty: Victor Bloomfield (chair), Carole Bland, Mary Dempsey, Gary Gardner, Virginia Gray, David Hamilton, Russell Hobbie, Michael Korth, Harvey Peterson, Matthew Tirrell. Ex Officio: Kent Bales, Gary Davis, M. Janice Hogan, Laura Coffin Koch, Marvin Marshak, Fred Morrison.

Emily Hoover, Chair
Committee on Committees

DISCUSSION:

The Consent Agenda was approved with no discussion.

APPROVED

Professor Kent Bales, chair of the Faculty Affairs Committee, reviewed the "Procedures for Comprehensive Reviews for System and Campus Officers" that were mailed to all senators for information. He said their development came from a process of collaborative governance with representatives from the administration and Faculty Affairs Committee. The document, he added, also received endorsement by the Faculty Consultative Committee. No questions were raised concerning the procedures.

Second, FCC is focusing on major issues facing the University. It has taken on a coordinating role for faculty governance and established three task forces: 1) Task Force on Faculty Consultation to review the alignment of faculty governance mechanisms under the new administrative structure, 2) Health Plan Task Force to look at short and long term health care options and alternatives, and 3) task force to consider the balance of tenure-track and term/academic professional appointments. All are joint committees with members from FCC, Faculty Affairs, and Educational Policy. The Health Plan Task Force also involves collaboration with the AAUP.

One item the FCC took action on concerned the Alumni Association study of the Regent selection process. They came up with some good recommendations on how the process could be de-politicized. FCC voted unanimously to support their recommendations. The FCC is also concerned with the long-term intellectual future of the University and is organizing a series of forums for faculty and students to discuss issues central to this theme. These may include such topics as how to balance departmental and interdisciplinary work, distance education and life-long learning, undergraduate education at a research university, the civic mission of land-grant universities, etc. The first in this series, although not a University forum, will be the upcoming AAUP conference on faculty governance. Finally, he distributed a Questionnaire on Resource Allocation which will serve as a pilot study to gain faculty input into how the University should be allocating its resources. He asked senators to fill out the form and return it to the Senate Office.

The 1996-97 academic year for the Senate Committee on Faculty Affairs was again dominated by the tenure code revision process as it was in 1995-96. The tenure revision process for 1996-97 started off with a bang when the Board of Regents disclosed the Hogan and Hartson version of the Tenure Code at the University of Minnesota-Morris in early September, 1996 (so-called Morris Code). This was considered far afield from an appropriate code for a research institution, at least one that wished to remain competitive for talented faculty. Among the Tenure Subcommittee, SCFA as a whole, and the Judicial Committee, much of the year was spent on reviewing editing, proposing, and negotiating on what became known as the "Sullivan I and Sullivan II" versions of the code. These were submitted for consideration by Law School Dean Sullivan in response to the Morris Document and what seemed to be impending action by the Board on the Morris version. In the final phases of the tenure jockeying with the U-MN Administration and the Board of Regents, a "Committee of 8" (which represented both Senate Governance structure and the AAUP) worked with the Faculty Affairs, Tenure and Judicial Committees to bring closure on controversial issues that sprung from the "Morris Code". The issues discussed centered around:

1. department or collegiate salary reductions vs. system-wide in situations of "financial stringency",
2. terms of lay-off, retraining or reassigning when program closures occurred,
3. options and process for minor disciplinary actions against faculty members, and
4. the concept of "base pay" for tenured faculty members. Fortunately, by early July 1997, both the Faculty Senate and the Board of Regents approved a new Tenure Code.

When not occupied with the tenure issue and the overall tenure controversy, the Senate Committee on Faculty Affairs discussed a number of issues. These included discussion and approval of 1) a jointly developed (SCFA and Human Resources Administration) review procedure for senior U-MN Administrators (e.g. Deans --President); 2) a revised Sexual Harassment Policy which contained a clear and enforceable statement on consensual relationships; and 3) review and approval of the revised Academic Misconduct Policy. The Nonretirement Benefits Subcommittee explored and, in a collaborative effort with Employee Benefits, set up a faculty/staff discount program for items such as tickets to various entertainment options in the Twin Cities. This program will be implemented through the Student Unions. The Health Plan Subcommittee was relatively quiet until late May when it was determined that one of the current employee health plan options (Medica Premier in which ~ 30% of the U-MN employees were enrolled) would be discontinued effective Fall, 1997. In conjunction with Employee Benefits, advance notice was sent out in early June so U-MN employees would not be in for a nasty surprise when school began in Fall, 1997. SCFA was also involved in the off-campus, modem access fee controversy. We lent support to concerns expressed by the Senate Committee on Academic Computing and Information Technology regarding fees charged to faculty for over 30 hours per month of modem connection time. Arguments were made regarding adequate consultation, potential stifling effects on World Wide Web-based courses on campus, and the possibility of "mixed messages" being received by faculty (e.g. be creative, but do it at your own expense). Unfortunately, this was yet another issue on which faculty input, if sought at all, was ignored much as it was for the biweekly payroll decision and the Summer Session Class (and compensation) Cancellation Policy. Both of these issues were vigorously addressed by SCFA, but to no avail. Further investigation on the Summer Session Class Cancellation Policy was conducted, concerns were expressed to the Acting Senior VP for Academic Affairs (e.g. faculty morale, faculty willingness to commit in the future, quality of sessions, etc.), but a response has to date not been received.

A number of items were begun or continued during the 1996-97 academic year in SCFA. The least controversial was the ongoing development of an Employees Guide to Interpretation of the Minnesota Data Practices Act. This was a joint effort of SCFA's ad hoc Subcommittee on Administrative Review & The Minnesota Data Practices Act and the General Counsel's Office. A near final draft was developed and will undergo final deliberation and probable approval in Fall, 1997. With the pending conversion to Semesters, B-based faculty appointment starting and ending dates were discussed in an effort to advise the Semester Conversion Group. This discussion is still ongoing.

Two issues were identified for high priority attention by SCFA in 1997-98. These were 1) Faculty Indemnification, and 2) Intellectual Property. Both issues were discussed in SCFA during the Late Winter and Spring of 1997, but were not brought to conclusion. An interpretive draft on the Regents Indemnification Policy and the Regents Policy on General Counsel's Use of Outside Counsel has been requested from the U-MN General Counsel's Office following a discussion between General Counsel Rotenberg and selected SCFA members on these issues. It is anticipated that there will be a discussion between SCFA as a whole and the General Counsel's Office on Faculty Indemnification in 1997-98 (once the pending interpretive drafts are reviewed). Mr. Rotenberg has been both cordial and open so productive (and hopefully comforting) discussions should take place early in Fall, 1997. The Intellectual Property issue is, however, another matter. This issue was discussed at only one SCFA Meeting. However, the depth of controversy on the relative rights of the institution versus individual faculty was obvious. The preliminary draft presented to SCFA from the VP for Research Office was sent back for intense remodeling following a vigorous discussion.

SCFA had a busy, but productive year. The decisions made and projects undertaken by SCFA and its Subcommittees represent the input received from our Campus colleagues. SCFA's approach was to depend on the collective wisdom of the faculty (including its members, other Senate Committees, the Senate, and the faculty at large). The 1996-97 SCFA members thank the faculty for their tolerance and consideration during the difficult times inflicted on all of us during the tenure review.

Daniel A. Feeney, Chair

Although there were 7 cases initially filed during the 1996-97 academic year (two complaints were settled, and another withdrawn), Senate Judicial Committee Panels held prehearing and/or hearing conferences for four (4) cases. Three were tenure denial and one was termination, which is still in progress.

Issues

* Discussions were held regarding the appropriate administrator to be assigned as Respondent in different units of the University.
* The committee continued to review proposed revisions in the Tenure Code.
* Changes were made to the rule regarding panel member challenges in order to minimize the length of time allotted for this procedure.
* The committee met with President Mark Yudof to discuss issues and recommendations, including a workshop for University administrators.
* Revisions made by committee members to the SJC Rules of Procedure were forwarded to the Tenure Committee for approval.

Membership of the Senate Judicial Committee

The Judicial Committee is an all-faculty committee. Its members in 1996-97 were: Professor Edwin Fogelman, Chair, Ron Akehurst, Jean Bauer, David Born, Sue Brorson, Laura Cooper, Tim Dunnigan, Genevieve Escure, James Farr, David Frank, Shirley Garner, Hillel Gershenson, Ilene Harris, Curtis Hoard, Joan Howland, Jack Imholte, David Lykken, Sally Kenney, Jack Mandel, Takashi Okagaki, Marty Rossman, Michael Sadowsky, Sharon Satterfield, George Sheets, Michael Speidel, Oriol Valls, Billie Wahlstrom, and Carol Wells. The committee also has two legal advisers, Karen Schanfield and Jan Halverson, from the Felhaber, Larson, Fenlon & Vogt law firm in Minneapolis.

Members who served as hearing officers were Professor Laura Cooper, David Lykken, Sharon Satterfield, and George Sheets.

Assignment to the Senate Judicial Committee involves important work on issues that arise under the Tenure Code. Membership entails a significant commitment of time. The Chair would like to commend members of the 1996-97 Committee for their conscientious dedication to a vital University responsibility.

Edwin Fogelman, Chair

Martha Kvanbeck
Abstractor