1998-99 UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA (No. 1)
The first meeting of the Faculty Senate for 1998-99 was convened in the Whiting Proscenium Theatre, Rarig Center, Minneapolis campus, on Thursday, October 15, 1998, at 1:45 p.m. Coordinate campuses were linked by telephone. Checking or signing the roll as present were 112 voting faculty/academic professional members, 5 ex officio members, and 3 nonmembers. President Mark Yudof presided.
President Yudof announced that there would be a brief Twin Cities Campus
Assembly meeting during the recess of the University Senate meeting.
Other 1998-99 meetings of the Faculty Senate are scheduled as follows:
--------------------------------------------------------------------
CONSENT AGENDA
Action
Agenda Items III. through V. are considered to be noncontroversial or "housekeeping" in nature and are offered as a "Consent Agenda" to be take up as a single item with one vote. Any item will be taken up separately at the request of a Senator. A majority of those members present and voting is required for approval.
The Faculty Senate minutes are available on the Web at the following URL:
IV. FACULTY SENATE OFFICERS
The chair of the Faculty Senate recommends the following officers for 1998-99:
V. COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES
Committees of the Faculty Senate, 1998-99
MOTION:
To approve the following Faculty Senate committee memberships for 1998-99:
FACULTY AFFAIRS - Faculty: Kent Bales (chair), Josef Altholz, Gary Balas, Avner Ben-Ner, Carole Bland, Carol Chomsky, John Fossum, Eville Gorham, Roland Guyotte, Cleon Melsa, Marcia Pankake, James Perry, Anne Pick, Richard Purple, Geoffrey Sirc, Caroline Turner, Thomas Walsh. Academic Professional: Gerry Baldridge. Ex Officio: Carol Carrier, Robert Fahnhorst, Harlan Smith, 2 to be named. Students: 2 to be named.
JUDICIAL - Faculty: Edwin Fogelman (chair), Susan Brorson, William Brustein, John Dahler, Amos Deinard, Timothy Dunnigan, Arthur Erdman, James Farr, Bart Finzel, Ilene Harris, Joan Howland, Sally Keeney, Helen Longino, Takashi Okagaki, Phyllis, Pirie, Marty Rossmann, Michael Sadowsky, George Sheets, Alan Sinaiko, T. Michael Speidel, Auke Tellegen, Carolyn Tubbs, Billie Wahlstrom, Carol Wells, Robert Yahnke.
FOR INFORMATION:
FACULTY CONSULTATIVE - Faculty: Sara Evans (chair), Linda Brady, Mary Dempsey, David Hamilton, Roberta Humphreys, Michael Korth, Fred Morrison, V. Rama Murthy, Matthew Tirrell, 1 to be named. Ex Officio: Kent Bales, Gary Davis, Stephen Gudeman, M. Janice Hogan, Len Kuhi, Marvin Marshak, Judith Martin,.
SALLY GREGORY KOHLSTEDT, Chair
COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES
DISCUSSION:
The Consent Agenda was approved with no discussion.
APPROVED
[End of Consent Agenda]
VI. REPORT OF THE HEALTH PLAN TASK FORCE
Information
Background
The University's health benefit package is determined by the State of Minnesota through collective bargaining between the State Department of Employee Relations and the unions representing organized employees. State statute spells out this process and gives the University the option of joining the resulting group insurance program.
The State Labor Management Committee is charged with monitoring existing plan performance and studying the possibilities for modifying the plan designs. the committees recommendations are used as the basis for collective bargaining. Although the University does not participate in the collective bargaining, the University has traditionally had representation on the State Labor Management Committee.
1998 Accomplishments
RICHARD MCGEHEE, Chair
HEALTH PLAN TASK FORCE
DISCUSSION:
Professor Richard McGehee, chair of the Health Plan Task Force, discussed the report that was distributed. He said that the task force has made progress during the past year, and the outlook is positive for the upcoming year. The task force does need to continue to study the possibility of different options. He concluded by reporting the task force's URL: http://www.geom.umn.edu/usenate. It contains information that can not be obtained through other sources, such as the physician and clinic reimbursement plan under the current health plans. There is also a message to communicate with the task force or with other members of the University community.
Professor Sara Evans, chair of the Faculty Consultative Committee (FCC), mentioned that at the FCC meeting earlier, the committee acknowledged how much work Professor McGehee has done and the leadership he has provided. She then led the senators in a round of applause.
Report of the Joint SCFA and FCC Subcommittee on Academic Appointments
Membership
Kent Bales, Chair -TC, Karen Alaniz -TC, Carole Bland -TC, Lucy Carlone -TC, Eville Gorham -TC, Gordon Hirsch -TC, April Knutson _-TC, Katherine Kolb -TC, Michael Korth -UMM, Roberta Humphreys -TC, Kathleen Newell -TC, Cleon Melsa -UMC, Richard Purple -TC, Palmer Rogers -TC, Kyla Wahlstrom -TC, Victor Bloomfield -TC (ex officio)
Impetus for this Subcommittee
This would likely mean the creation of new non-tenure track faculty appointment types.
The AAUP recommends no more than 15% of the faculty of the university be
non-tenure/tenure track, and no more than 25% of a college or similar unit be
non-tenure/tenure track. In addition, we would suggest there be exceptions to the
25% limitation with approval of the Executive Vice President and Provost with
concurrence of the SCFA and SCEP.
1987 (number) |
1997 (number) |
% Change | |
Tenure/tenure track Faculty |
3208 |
2828 |
-11.8 |
Non-regular
Faculty |
392 |
473 |
+20.7 |
Total |
3600 |
3301 |
-8.4 |
1989 (number) |
1996 (number) |
% Change | |
Professional Academic Appointments |
2175 |
2792 |
+28.4 |
KENT BALES, Chair
ACADEMIC APPOINTMENTS SUBCOMMITTEE
DISCUSSION:
Professor Carol Bland, Ms. Kyla Wahlstrom, Professor Michael Korth, and Regents' Professor Eville Gorham, members of the Academic Appointments Subcommittee, presented the motion on behalf of Professor Kent Bales, chair of the subcommittee.
Professor Bland explained that the subcommittee is composed of members of the Faculty Consultative Committee (FCC), the Faculty Affairs Committee (SCFA), and the Educational Policy Committee (SCEP), as well as members from the Academic Staff Advisory Committee (ASAC). She said that the information being presented today is only a progress report, and they are hoping to return at the next meeting with resolutions to be voted upon. She then highlighted the information being presented in the handout.
Ms. Wahlstrom spoke regarding the proliferation of faculty-like personnel at the University who have no sense of their future. The mission of the University is to ensure quality research and addressing the needs of undergraduate and graduate students. Therefore, there needs to be some sense of accounting for what is happening with the faculty and students. She then stressed the need for comments and concerns.
Professor Korth emphasized that in the subcommittee's deliberations there has been a concern for teaching P & A who may be affected by reclassification, such as loss of fringe benefits, and that in any reclassification these same people should be the ones hired into the reclassified positions.
Regents' Professor Gorham expressed his concern for working conditions. Faculty not on the tenure track need to have a clear picture of what these conditions might be from the time of their initial appointment. The University needs titles that are clear and unambiguous as well as being attached to a promotion ladder with a sequence of increasing salary and benefits based on their time in service. Also needed is a clear picture of teaching loads and research expectations, including the right to initiate independent research proposals. Lastly, the options for change should be laid out from the start. There is a need to engage all the people who are teaching and researching in defining where the University is going.
Professor M. Janice Hogan, vice chair of the Faculty Senate, took over for President Yudof and announced that with the shortage of time, she would note any questions or comments to be given to the subcommittee after the meeting. The floor was then opened for comments and questions.
Q: Has the committee thought about the distinction between a new category of faculty and tenured and tenure-track faculty? Would the only difference be the security of the job or are there special responsibilities that tenure and tenure-track faculty would have?
A senator then asked people to remember September two years ago when the Regents began to rethink tenure. There were two goals. One was to revise the Tenure Code, and the second was to change the ratio of tenured to non-tenured faculty from 80-20 to 50-50. This second goal was lost in the tenure debates. The Senate needs to understand that a threat to tenure comes in many forms, one of which is an increase in non-tenure-track faculty.
MOTION:
Be it resolved that the Faculty Senate adopts the policy on Faculty Development Leaves and forwards it to the President for presentation to the Board of Regents.
Be it further resolved that the policy will remain in effect until June 30, 2002, or until a replacement for it has been adopted, whichever event is the sooner.
SECTION I. DEFINITIONS.
Subd. 1. Academic Year of Service. An "academic year of service" means the equivalent of two full-time (66% or greater appointment) semesters of employment as a member of the faculty at the University. Time taken for a single-semester leave is credited toward accrued academic years of service, but time taken for a sabbatical leave is not.
Subd. 2. Department. "Department" means a department or division within a college.
Subd. 3. Department Administrator. "Department administrator" means a chair or head of a department or division, as appropriate, within a college.
Subd. 4. Faculty. "Faculty" means those holding regular tenured or probationary appointments as defined in the Board of Regents Policy: Faculty Tenure.
Subd. 5. Salary. "Salary" means recurring salary from any source for performing regularly assigned duties as a faculty member.
SECTION II. ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES.
The president, in consultation with the faculty senate, shall develop administrative procedures to implement this policy. Each department and college with eligible faculty shall develop unit procedures to implement this policy and the administrative procedures. All procedures are subject to approval by the president.
SECTION III. SABBATICAL LEAVE STANDARDS.
Subd. 1. Eligibility. A faculty member is entitled to the privilege of a sabbatical leave of up to one year after six academic years of service.
Subd. 2. Prior Service. Prior academic service at another university in which sabbatical or other developmental leaves are granted may be credited toward academic years of service in consideration of a sabbatical leave.
Subd. 3. Accrued Credit. No more than six years of credit may accrue toward a sabbatical leave. Such credit is for the purpose of a sabbatical leave and cannot be cashed out or traded for other benefits.
Subd. 4. Length of Leave. A sabbatical leave may be granted for one or two semesters for faculty on academic year appointments or five and one-half months or eleven months for faculty on fiscal-year appointments.
Subd. 5. Approval Process.
(a) The review and scheduling of a sabbatical leave is conducted at the
department and collegiate levels subject to the approval of the dean. The dean
shall report annually to the president regarding sabbatical leave
actions.
(b) The department administrator and dean shall determine if the work proposed by the applicant is worthy of a sabbatical leave.
Subd. 6. Salary and Benefits.
(a) A sabbatical leave is compensated at one-half salary and full
benefits.
(b) Faculty taking a sabbatical leave for nine months or longer may compete
for supplementary funding, with review by the department administrator and
dean. Supplementary funding is granted by the president, upon the advice of
the dean.
Subd. 7. Income Augmentation. Faculty members on sabbatical leave may augment their sabbatical income approximately to the level of their regular University salary, provided that the activities yielding the additional compensation are consistent with the purpose of the sabbatical leave. Permission must be obtained from the department administrator and dean. In establishing the level of permissible sabbatical income, University-approved consulting activities that do not conflict with the purposes of the leave shall not be considered. Expenses related to the purposes of the leave may also be taken into account in determining the level of permissible income.
Subd. 8. Delaying and Restructuring. Although worthy sabbatical leaves may not be denied for administrative convenience, deans may delay and restructure them for up to one year in order to relieve constraints upon departmental or collegiate budgets or to ensure that key courses remain available to students. Such delay reduces by same time the period of eligibility for a subsequent leave.
Subd. 9. Grievances. The administrative procedures shall provide a process for faculty to grieve repeated denials of a sabbatical leave or the delay of a sabbatical leave for longer than one year.
SECTION IV. SINGLE-SEMESTER LEAVE STANDARDS.
Subd. 1. Eligibility. Probationary faculty are eligible for a single-semester leave after two academic years of service. Tenured faculty are eligible for a single-semester leave after four academic years of service. Subsequent single-semester leaves may be taken after four additional academic years of service.
Subd. 2. Approval Process. The review and scheduling of a single-semester leave is conducted at the department and collegiate levels subject to the approval of the dean.
Subd. 3. Allocation. The number of single-semester leaves and allocation among colleges is determined by the president. Competition for these leaves takes place at the department and college levels.
Subd. 4. Salary and Benefits. A single-semester leave is at full salary and benefits.
SECTION V. CONDITIONS.
Subd. 1. Return to Service. A single-semester or sabbatical leave shall be granted and accepted only with the condition that the recipient, immediately following the leave, return to University service for a period at least equal to the period of the leave. A delay may be granted by the dean, with concurrence of the department administrator, for a period without pay not longer than the period of the leave.
Subd. 2. Loss or Suspension of Eligibility. Credit toward a single-semester or sabbatical leave is lost by any interruption in continuous service to the University other than an approved leave of absence. All credit toward eligibility is lost by an individual given notice of non-reappointment or termination of appointment. All credit toward eligibility shall be suspended for an individual when there is strong evidence that the individual's appointment will be terminated prior to what otherwise would be the closing date of the period of leave plus the period of return to service.
Subd. 3. Contemporaneous Compensation. The salary and benefits paid during a single-semester or sabbatical leave are not to be regarded as additional compensation for services already rendered but as a contemporaneous compensation for services rendered by the faculty member in developing professional knowledge and skill for subsequent service to students and the University.
COMMENT:
The Faculty Consultative Committee and the Senate Committee on Faculty Affairs forward to the Faculty Senate an interim policy on Academic Development Leaves, intended to replace the Regents' policies on Sabbatical Leaves and Single-Quarter Leaves. We ask for immediate action on this policy. In the interim, the Committee on Faculty Affairs will continue to work with the office of the Executive Vice President and Provost to create a better policy, a goal shared by all parties.
SARA EVANS, Chair
FACULTY CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE
KENT BALES, Chair
COMMITTEE ON FACULTY AFFAIRS
DISCUSSION:
Professor Rick Purple, member of the Faculty Affairs Committee (SCFA), presented the motion, which was distributed at the meeting. He noted that the motion sent to senators has an amendment to it that the committee has accepted as a friendly amendment. Under Section II, Administrative Procedures, the wording of the first line has been changed to "The President, in consultation with the Faculty Senate, shall develop administrative procedures..." This comes in part from the administration and in part from the Faculty Consultative Committee (FCC).
He noted that this is a substitute interim policy to handle the faculty leave problem as the University moves to semesters. It is an interim policy because SCFA formed a subcommittee which worked for a year with the administration trying to develop a sabbatical policy that would be much more friendly towards the faculty. The problem with the old policy was that few faculty could afford to take a sabbatical leave. Unfortunately, at the end of the year, the administration decided that they still could not fully finance a new policy, so the committee was left with putting an interim policy in place until something better could be developed.
This policy includes two improvements. First, instead of a single quarter leave with full pay, this includes a semester leave with full pay. It is still a competitive system within each college. The second improvement has been a promise from the administration to put money into an augmentation fund such that by 2001 there may be between $1 and $1.5 million in this fund. This would be used to supplement the income of faculty who cannot replace the 50% salary for full-year sabbaticals through grant money or other sources.
SCFA's subcommittee will continue to work on the problem and develop a long-term policy that will include more improvements.
The floor was then opened for questions.
A senator asked if faculty members on an 11 month appointment would be eligible to take a one semester sabbaticals at half-pay.
Professor Purple answered yes.
Another senator asked what would the be the required minimum time between the last quarter leave and the first semester leave.
Professor Purple said that the subcommittee has not been faced with the question. His assumption was that it should be another four years.
A senator stated that under the current policy, if a faculty member takes a single quarter leave, and they meet all the other criteria, one year has to pass in service at the University, before they can take a sabbatical leave. Is this the case under the new policy?
Professor Purple answered yes and pointed to Section V, Subsection 1, Return to Service.
With no further questions, a vote was taken and the motion was approved by a majority.
APPROVED
Professor Sara Evans, chair of the Faculty Consultative Committee (FCC), hoped that all senators had received the statement that FCC wrote in response to the Association of Governing Boards. That association has proposed a new policy which would establish principles for the governance of institutions of higher education. This new statement replaces one written by the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) in 1966. FCC debated this issue this summer, and then sent a response stating its disagreement with a description of universities as consisting of stakeholders, which is corporate language. Faculty were also just one among a long list of other groups, both inside and outside the university. If individual faculty members have an opinion, they are free to submit that also.
FCC is also meeting fairly regularly with senators, department heads, and assistant professors from all parts of the campus to incorporate their viewpoints into issues facing the committee. FCC also wants to initiate a series of discussions on the future of the University to consider questions that have been posed to the FCC.
NONE
XI. NEW BUSINESS
NONE
XII. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 2:30 p.m.
Rebecca Hippert
Abstractor