The second meeting of the Faculty Senate for 1998-99 was convened in 25 Law Building, Minneapolis campus, on Thursday, November 5, 1998, at 3:07 p.m. Coordinate campuses were linked by telephone. Checking or signing the roll as present were 115 voting faculty/academic professional members, 2 ex officio members, and 2 nonmembers. President Mark Yudof presided.

Agenda Items I. through II. are considered to be noncontroversial or "housekeeping" in nature and are offered as a "Consent Agenda" to be taken up as a single item with one vote. Any item will be taken up separately at the request of a senator. A simple majority is required for approval.

The Faculty Senate minutes are available on the Web at the following URL:

MOTION:

To approve the following additions to Faculty Senate committee memberships for 1998-99:

FACULTY AFFAIRS - Students: Janet Holdsworth.

FOR INFORMATION:

FACULTY CONSULTATIVE - Faculty: Marilyn Grave.

SALLY GREGORY KOHLSTEDT, Chair
COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES

DISCUSSION:

The Consent Agenda was approved with no discussion.

APPROVED

MOTION:

To approve the Administrative Procedures for the Interim Regents' Policy on Faculty Development Leaves (additions are underlined, deletions are struck out):

1. Purpose. The continuing development of a university depends upon having a faculty that grows ever more knowledgeable, that is better able to communicate its knowledge to students and to society alike, and that creates new uses for the knowledge that it has made available. To assist in such professional growth and renewal, to attract and retain a faculty dedicated to fulfilling these missions, and thus to ensure the future vitality and quality of the University of Minnesota, the Regents have established Academic Development leaves for the faculty. The policy Faculty Development Leaves and these procedures for administering it supersede those concerning sabbatical and single quarter leaves for the faculty.

During recent years, rapid changes in the nature and number of tasks to be carried out by faculty members in their teaching, research, creative and outreach activities have made it all the more necessary for them to acquire new skills and knowledge in order to discharge their duties in the best possible manner. It is therefore in the interest of the University of Minnesota to provide better means for faculty development, including wider use of faculty development leaves.

Members of the faculty receive academic development leaves so that they can pursue more intensively already fruitful work or begin new studies, investigations, research, scholarly writing, and artistic projects. Leaves also may be used for curriculum development and other improvements to teaching. The professional development enabled by these leaves benefits students, citizens of Minnesota, and all who are affected by the research, teaching, creative activity, and service to society that are the University's missions.

2. Kinds of Leaves

Sabbatical Leaves are described in Section III of the policy Faculty Development Leaves; single-semester leaves are described in Section IV. These procedures should be read in conjunction with the policy, not as a substitute for it.

A. Single-Semester Leaves

Unless the president or regents decide otherwise, up to four percent of the faculty at the tenured rank of instructor, and probationary and tenured ranks of assistant professor, associate professor, and professor can be authorized for single-semester leaves during one fiscal year. This formula is taken from the Regents Policy Single-Quarter Leaves, no longer in effect with the adoption of the policy Faculty Development Leaves.

B. Sabbatical Leaves

Section I. Accrual of Credit. Credit toward these leaves is accrued during continuous terms of service to the University and is lost by any interruption in that service, other than by an approved leave of absence, except as described below. For any sabbatical leave of a semester's duration, the second semester (or second half of the year, as appropriate) shall be credited toward future single semester and sabbatical leaves. Thus, by choosing the single semester sabbatical option, the privilege to the second semester (or second half of the year) is waived.

Credit is not accrued during approved leaves such as these:

(1) a sabbatical leave;
(2) appointment to University-sponsored research programs for more than half-time,
resulting in a faculty appointment of less than half-time;
(3) a leave of absence without pay, including leave to accept a fellowship or grant, to accept a visiting or other appointment in another university, college, or business, or to serve elsewhere on a teaching or technical assistance project not administered by the University;
(4) a leave of absence with pay other than an academic development leave;
(5) summer research or teaching.

Credit is accrued during any approved single-semester leave.

Section II. Prior Service. For new faculty hires, normally no more than three years of credit will be granted for service at another institution.

Section II. III. Application, Review, and Funding.

Subd. 1. Declaring Eligibility. When sufficient eligibility credit has accrued, or will do so in the succeeding year, a member of the faculty may present a detailed proposal of work to be done during the leave. Normally, the department or college will call for such proposals early in the academic year, for leaves to be taken the following year. As specified in Section II, Subd. 8 of the Regents' policy, worthy sabbatical leaves may be restructured or delayed for up to one year to relieve departmental or collegiate constraints.

Subd. 2. Application Contents. The application shall be made upon on a form to be provided by the collegiate unit and concerning consisting of, at the least, the following items:

(1) name, rank, and department;
(2) dates leaving and returning;
(3) statement of successive changes in rank and salary;
(4) reason for taking leave, place where leave will be spent, and an outline of the program of studies or other work that the applicant proposes to follow;
(5) statement dates of any all previous leaves granted, and the results of that grant; a copy of the summary report of the most recent leave;
(6) a definite statement of commitment to devote the leave to the program outlined and afterwards to continue service to the University for at least one year; on the same pay, though with no prejudice to receiving any advance that would have been paid had the applicant not been absent on leave;
(7) the date (within three months of returning) on or before by which the applicant agrees to file a summary report with the departmental unit and college concerning the results of the work done while on leave.

Subd. 3. Review. Both departments and colleges shall devise procedures for assessing whether the work proposed by applicants is worthy.
(1) The department administrator (as defined in Section 1, Subd. 3, of the policy), subsequent to whatever review has been devised by the department, describes in writing to the dean and to the applicant the extent to which the work proposed for the period of the leave will advance the career of the applicant and how it will further the work of the department or otherwise change it for the better. The departmental administrator also will describe what arrangements can be made for carrying on the work of the department in the applicant's absence.

(2) The dean, informed by whatever review is required by the college and satisfied that the work proposed for the leave will advance the applicant's career and, secondarily, improve the department or the college, will confer with the departmental administrator concerning arrangements to be made for continuing the work of the department during the applicant's leave. If necessary, the collegiate administrator will arrange for additional funding for the applicant's department or for transfer of effort from other departments.


Subd. 4. Salary. The salary during the leave is based upon the faculty member's recurring salary at the time of the leave.

Subd. 5. Supplementary Funding. For sabbatical leaves of more than one semester, or more than five and one-half months for those on fiscal-year appointments, there will be a competition for supplementary funding. The funding expected for this competition by 2002-2003 is $1,500,000 and includes what formerly was called "Bush" money. The $310,000 annual Bush Salary Supplement Program will be discontinued upon implementation of the interim policy and will be replaced by an expanded salary supplement pool jointly funded by the Office of the Executive Vice President and Provost (2/3) and the colleges (l/3). A total of $750,000 is expected to be available for those taking sabbaticals during the 1999-2000 academic year and $1,500,000 for each of the subsequent years that the interim policy remains in effect. For sabbatical leaves of two semesters, or 11 months for those on fiscal-year appointments, faculty may request (using procedures established by the college) salary supplementary funds to cover an additional 25% of their recurring salary (not to exceed $20,000). Candidates are encouraged to seek funding from non-University sources to cover the salary supplement. The college administrator shall provide the Office of the Executive Vice President and Provost an annual report of the faculty granted salary supplement funds.

Section III. IV. Scheduling. Sabbatical leaves and single-semester leaves for faculty on academic year (B) appointments shall begin and end so as to coincide with the beginnings and endings of semesters; sabbatical leaves and single-semester leaves for those on fiscal-year (A) appointments shall be scheduled at times reasonable and convenient for the department or unit. A leave of more than one semester normally is taken in consecutive terms.

Section IV. V. Grievances. As provided in Section III, Subd. 9 of the Regents policy Faculty Development Leaves, administrative delays of more than one year, denials of proposals found to be worthy by the procedures established within the departmental, collegiate, or administrative units, or violations of these procedures are grievable. The grievance must allege that the delay, denial, or violation was not made in accordance conflicts with a relevant University rule, regulation, policy, practice, procedure or criterion, and that it constitutes a clear abuse of discretion. Grievances may be filed with the University Grievance Office, which will assist in the process of filing a formal grievance. Should a grieved denial be found to have merit, the consequences are these: in addition to the leave in question, which shall be granted, the period of time during which the leave was inappropriately denied shall be subtracted from the eligibility period required for any succeeding leave, unless the grievance panel rules otherwise.

Section V. VI. Loss or Suspension of Eligibility. Credit toward single-semester leaves and sabbatical leaves is lost by any interruption in continuous service to the University other than an approved leave of absence. Retirement and severance from service are such interruptions. All credit toward eligibility is lost by an individual given notice of non-reappointment or termination of appointment. (Such credit is restored, however, in the event that the notice is successfully grieved.) 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. 1. Transferring Accrued Credit. Up to six years of credit towards a sabbatical can be transferred under the new policy, so that for 1999-2000 this accrued credit and a worthy proposal make one eligible for a year's sabbatical leave. Up to four years of credit toward eligibility for a single-semester leave may also be transferred. However, during the year 1998-99 those with three years of credit towards eligibility may apply without prejudice for a single-semester leave in 1999-00. In other words, the procedures for awarding single-quarter leaves will remain in effect for applications made during this transitional year for leaves to be taken during the first year of single-semester leaves.

Subd. 2. Converting Credit. For faculty members on academic-year (B) appointments, three quarters equals two semesters or one year. A remainder of one quarter does not count, but a remainder of two quarters counts as one semester.

COMMENT:

The Senate Committee on Faculty Affairs (SCFA) presents these leave procedures for action to the Faculty Senate, developed by the Benefits Subcommittee of SCFA. We note that they are procedures for the interim policy on leaves.

One train of thought was that SCFA should take time to write all new procedures to accompany the new leave policy adopted by the Faculty Senate on October 15. We believe, however, that it was better for SCFA and FCC quickly to review and approve these (which it did)and recommend action to the Faculty Senate on November 5. We recommend this speedy action in order that procedures would be in place so that our colleagues have a way in which to apply for leaves for 1999-2000; because the policy to which they apply has only interim status, we believe that action is appropriate. If problems in the procedures become known, we shall return promptly to the Faculty Senate with proposal for change (or, if any delay will harm the ability of faculty members to obtain leaves, FCC will use its executive authority to conditionally approve changes, subject to confirmation by the Faculty Senate at its next meeting).

FCC and SCFA thus recommend that the Faculty Senate approve these procedures.

KENT BALES, Chair
FACULTY AFFAIRS COMMITTEE

DISCUSSION:

Professor Kent Bales, chair of the Faculty Affairs Committee (SCFA), said that much of the drafting of these procedures had been done by the Benefits Subcommittee of SCFA and then reviewed by the Faculty Consultative Committee (FCC). The procedures were also shown to the Council of Deans. The Council of Deans, at times, sees things that the subcommittee did not see, and at other times, recommends changes that the committee can or cannot live with. The changes in this draft are few and include:

• Addition of creative activities in the purpose
  
• Section II, Prior Service has been added and displaces the other sections
  
• Subdivision 5 was rewritten to make more explicit where money comes from and how it can be spent
  

Q: Please clarify Section II.

A: This new language was meant to be a clarification of what was previously there. The point is that if a faculty member needs to be two-thirds time, of that time no more than half-time can be on a non-faculty appointment, such as a research appointment.

Q: If a faculty member has a research grant that pays three-fourths of their salary, does sabbatical now not accrue?

A: If the grant was University sponsored, then this would not affect the faculty member.

Q: Will the faculty decide how the money is distributed?

A: The funds will be decentralized and the units will decide how to distribute the funds according to their own procedures. The purpose section of this policy states that sabbatical leaves may be granted for curriculum improvements.

With no further questions, a vote was taken and the motion was approved.

APPROVED

Putting the House in Order: A Report of the Joint Committee on Academic Appointments

I. Executive Summary

Both the composition and the duties of university faculty have changed radically over the past half century, sometimes by rational choice but often by the acquiescence of faculties, administrators, and trustees to what seemed brute economic and political force. The changes in the composition of the faculty often have been for the better when viewed from the perspective of social diversity, but they have been for the worse when seen from almost all others. Tenured and tenure-track faculty proportionally are fewer and in some instances absolutely so. In their places are sometimes those who do nothing but research, sometimes teachers hired by the term, which varies from a quarter or semester to several years in length. Recently, university faculties and professional associations have taken special note of these changes in what seems to be jointly a crisis of conscience and a recognition that reform must come now or never, that we are near the end of a road. We propose resolutions concerning both crises. The principal one would modify Minnesota's job classifications and hiring practices so that all of those whose work is "faculty-like" are classified as such. Other resolutions concern setting appropriate ratios of tenured and tenure-track faculty and non-tenured faculty and improving our treatment of the latter.

II. The Charged Duties

This committee was created from members of the Faculty Consultative Committee, the Senate Committee on Educational Policy, and the Senate Committee on Faculty Affairs and charged with three general tasks. The first is to describe and investigate the current varieties of academic appointments at the University of Minnesota and the policies and practices concerning them. The second is to propose whatever revisions are necessary in the current classifications, policies, and practices so that these may be regularized and published as a single policy. The third is to devise ways of ensuring that hires within each category are made according to needs identified by the bodies charged with establishing educational policy (The Senate and the Senate Committee on Educational Policy), and further that members of each academic classification participate in forming and implementing educational policy in their units. Soon after its formation, the committee sought representation from the Academic Staff Advisory Committee and from the ranks of temporary and part-time teachers.

III. Caveat

Because we recommend changes in whom the University classifies as "faculty" and how such colleagues as these are appointed, two mistaken inferences have been drawn in. One is that we want to dilute the faculty by removing all distinctions between the "regular" (tenured and tenure-track) faculty and the various kinds of "non-regular" (non-tenure-track) faculty. The other is that we do not value those who do the work of faculty, though often without recognition that they do so, and want to remove them from our midst. Our recommendations are intended to strengthen the regular faculty. Yet we acknowledge the valuable contributions throughout the years of full-time non-regular faculty, especially in the professional schools, and of adjunct faculty throughout the university. They bring expertise to the teaching and often to the research and scholarship that are the University's reasons for being. We also acknowledge the need for the temporary and part-time teachers who help departments to survive unusual circumstances. It is hard to imagine a university without such members, nor do we want to work in such a place. Instead, we would like to count them as colleagues-to identify them as "faculty" in some sense-and also to regulate their employment. For we are convinced that the current situation endangers the vitality of this research university and that the manner of employing such teachers, and in some instances what has become an unhealthy reliance upon them, are major aspects of this danger.

IV. The Major Issues

1. The Decimation of the Tenured and Tenure-Track Faculty (TTTF). There has long been a trend in American colleges and universities to employ more temporary, part-time, or what have come to be called loosely "adjunct" faculty (who often are full-time and effectively permanent except in hard times). In some instances the TTTF has grown more slowly, in others it has been reduced, and in many places it has remained the same in size-hence proportionally smaller. Between 1975 and 1995, TTTF fell from 45% of university and college teachers to 35%, while non-tenure-track (NTTF) and part time faculty increased from 34% to 47%. The remainder in these data are graduate assistants, whose share of the whole fell from 20% to 19%.ⁱ What it took the aggregate of American colleges and universities twenty years to accomplish, the University of Minnesota accomplished in ten. Between 1987-88 and 1997-98, TTTF were reduced by 12%, from 3,208 to 2,828, while term appointments of NTTF increased by 21&.ⁱⁱ Beyond that the picture is incomplete, because the data often do not exist.

2. The Increase in Non-Tenure-Track Faculty (NTTF). The rest of those teaching our students, some of them also doing research and service exactly as though they were TTTF, are hard to count because they do not count as faculty. Among those countable are the "term" faculty defined in the tenure code, and their numbers have increased in some parts of the university, declined in others. The Academic Health Center has turned to making a number of clinical appointments in a new kind of term appointment, a practice now described in the tenure code. Most other term classifications, however, have lost ground to the hard-to-count and easy-to-fire Professional Academic Staff, who by regental definition are professionals "not engaged in full-time teaching and scholarly work, as are faculty, but rather are assigned to duties enhancing the research, teaching, and service functions of the University."ⁱⁱⁱ

3. The Proliferation of Uncounted Faculty-Like Appointments. Yet within the sub-classifications of the category "Academic Staff: Professional" are the Teaching Specialists, the Education Specialists, and the Lecturers who do almost nothing but teach--usually many students. Their numbers are ascertainable only locally, because employment practices vary from unit to unit, and because, like term faculty employed at less than 67%, they are statistically invisible. In addition, we know personally and anecdotally of Professional Academic Staff members appointed within other sub-classifications who teach, do research and scholarship, and perform service or outreach just as though they were faculty. Others act in place of the faculty, doing the unacknowledged work of faculty, such as the Clinical Professors of the Law School, who, despite their title, are Professional Academics. But officially, by University policy, they are not counted as faculty. Yet they and the T Specs, Ed Specs, and Lecturers are the ones filling in the decimated faculty ranks. A similar loss of civil service personnel to Professional Administrative classifications is evident. Civil servants and the TTTF share one significant attribute: job security. That is not granted to most Academic Staff. Each year they are notified of their "non-reappointment" and then (most of them) later rehired in a legality-driven ritual that humiliates and makes anxious the affected members of the Academic Staff (some 75% of the total) and that disgraces our university.

4. What's Wrong with This Picture. It is badly askew from about every angle. The loss of TTTF has weakened the quality of education afforded graduate and undergraduate students alike. It endangers as well the university's reputation for the cutting-edge research that contributes so much to the economic, social, and artistic well-being of the citizens of Minnesota, both by reducing grant income and by making it more difficult to recruit distinguished older faculty, promising younger faculty, and graduate students of the highest quality. From another perspective, reliance upon temporary and part-time hires removes from decision-making about the curriculum (by TTTF) the very people most intimately knowledgeable about it (the NTTF who staff the basic courses). The key link between policy planning and practical suggestions for change is broken, since those teaching do not set educational policy for the very courses they teach. On occasion such hires may put into the classroom teachers inadequately prepared and supervised. Most important to well qualified NTTF in all this is the frustration of their hope to realize their potential as professional educators. Finally, from the perspective of policy-making and planning for the University as a whole, there is the paucity of information available about who does what-and this in the "information age"!

Resolution 1. All appointments for which the assigned duty is teaching or for which the assigned duties consist of teaching in conjunction with other traditional academic work of the faculty (research and scholarship, service and outreach) shall be made within the "Academic" category "Faculty" (94xx), except for full-time employees who teach or do research for no more than 25% of their time. Any appointments of either nature currently made within other categories shall be changed to an appropriate Academic Faculty category (94XX), without any loss of benefits to those so reclassified. A new policy on "Academic Appointments" shall be written by the Tenure Subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Faculty Affairs, with participation by members of the Academic Staff Advisory Committee and temporary and part-time teaching staff. Appointments for research and scholarship or for service and outreach shall continue to be classified as they are now.

Comment. This reform of the appointment categories for "non-regular faculty" (i.e., for term faculty not tenured or on tenure track) and for "P & A" personnel who spend most of their time doing faculty work is intended to simplify the often bewildering categories of personnel who perform the duties of teaching and research that characterize membership in a university faculty and to make the numbers of TTTF and NTTF easily ascertainable. We recommend that Academic Professionals (AP) be defined as practicing professionals not primarily doing teaching or conducting research. The work that they do is related to a specific degree, without which they would not be qualified to do their work (Examples: psychologists, physicians, lawyers.) Professional Administrators (PA) do administrative work for which an advanced degree may or may not be required. Moreover, when one is required, the degree itself may not be directly related to the performance of one's administrative duties. (Examples: directors of programs or centers, presidents.) Personnel within these categories whose work is primarily not that of faculty would remain as they are. Currently employed P & As who do faculty-like work as teachers and researchers, however, would be re-classified into new categories for non-regular faculty. Such classifications represent more clearly current reality and would facilitate accounting-and provide accountability-for the work of academic personnel. Such reclassification of P & A who do faculty work would not lessen their fringe benefits or other entitlements. (We use here the loose term "P & A" because both Academic Professionals and Administrative Professionals turn up on the teaching rolls, when these can be created.)

While realizing that our recommendation to redefine the classifications Academic Professional and Administrative Professional lies beyond the scope of our charge, we hope that the Academic Staff Advisory Committee and the Office of Human Resources will find its intent to be friendly and consider doing something like it. The professional integrity of these useful colleagues seems to us to be compromised by current practice within some units.

Resolution 2. No more than 15% of the faculty of the university may be NTTF, and no more than 25% of the faculty of a college or similar unit may be NTTF. Exceptions to the limitation placed upon schools, colleges, and departments may be granted by the Executive Vice President and Provost (or other presidential designee), but only with the concurrence of the Senate committees on Educational Policy and Faculty Affairs. The decision will be based upon written justification for the exception and evidence that teaching and research of high quality will be maintained or improved within the unit requesting the exception. By a majority vote of the regular faculty, schools, colleges, and departments may reduce the proportion of non-regular faculty allowable within their units, except that any non-regular term faculty and re-assigned Academic Professional personnel within the unit may not be dismissed as a consequence of this decision.

Comment. This resolution draws upon a recommendation of the AAUP and limits the number of NTTF by limiting their proportion within the university, colleges, and departments. Administrators and TTTF will then be accountable for observing these limitations. Calculations of these proportions may be by FTE. By permitting variances from the AAUP's 15%/25% model, however, the committee would enable professional schools and other possibly worthy employers of professional NTTF to represent their interests in a non-prejudicial manner.

Resolution 3. In order to increase the quality of education and to improve work conditions in the employment of temporary and part-time faculty such as Teaching Specialists and Education Specialists, departments employing such Academic Professional "faculty" immediately should hire by the year rather than by the term and reward the best of such NTTF by granting, after an appropriate probationary period, two- or three-year contracts. The Statement from the Conference on the Growing Use of Part-Time and Adjunct Faculty, September 26-28, 1997 provides good guidelines for responsibly treating these junior colleagues. (See appendix.) These personnel will be appointed within the new non-regular faculty classifications called for in 4 below. While this change will assure more appropriate treatment in review, promotion opportunities, and the like, the number of NTTF who are temporary and part-time, and the impact of their employment upon the quality of the institution, will still need to be addressed. The Faculty Senate authorizes the creation of a committee reporting to the Senate Committees on Educational Policy and Faculty Affairs that shall recommend to the Senate ways of regulating the employment of temporary and part-time faculty at Minnesota.

Comment. The annual needs of most departments using temporary and part-time faculty are predictable enough that most such appointments at present need not be term-to-term. Professional associations are now recommending to their membership ways to do right by temporary and part-time faculty, within whose ranks are greater proportions of women and minorities than within the TTTF. (See the October 1998 issue of PMLA for the Modern Language Association's recommendations.)

Resolution 4. The Senate directs the Joint Committee on Faculty Appointments to devise a coherent and uniform system for non-regular faculty appointments outside the tenure system, one that will be congruent with the tenure code. The committee will integrate its proposals with those of the Tenure Subcommittee (as charged in 1 above) and will consult more widely than it has been able to do so as best to meet the needs of departments and colleges and to respect their traditional practices.

Comment: The subcategories of appointments within the class will have to be amplified, and the titles appropriate to each subcategory defined. Furthermore, for each subcategory, appropriate hiring criteria and procedures, probationary periods, work expectations, and terms of appointment will need to be defined. In consulting with colleges and departments about their traditional practices, the committee will also be able to identify those units most likely to seek an exceptional status and to begin to assess their special needs.

Clearly, the radical changes in who teaches at colleges and universities in the United States will have profound influence upon the future. More specifically, both the system of tenure and the nature of the research university are in danger of being weakened or lost. The Michigan Report is eloquent on both counts: "if present trends continue, the tenure system may simply disappear, without a proper consideration of what would be lost." And again, "One of the hazards of the use of non-TT faculty is that very often, in these cases, the link between teaching and research is broken: the faculty are hired either to teach, or to do research, but not to do both. If such faculty came to dominate this University, that would change the fundamental nature of the institution."

Our spotty evidence suggests that Minnesota may be in a somewhat better position than Michigan to resist these changes-or, more precisely, to manage them effectively. Despite our losses in TTTF, we seem to rely less upon NTTF, at least for teaching. To be sure, this iceberg may be abnormally heavy with ballast, so that the tip that we can see is proportionally smaller than we take it to be.

To know that, however, we have to reform our appointment practices so that we can tell at a glance-or at a computer's run through the data bases-where we stand. And while we are doing that we should put into place mechanisms for guiding decisions throughout the university about how we grow and reconfigure ourselves, whether as units or as a whole.

Respectfully submitted,

Kent Bales (SCFA), Chair; Karen Alaniz (ASAC); Carole Bland (FCC); Lucy Carlone (Italian); Eville Gorham (SCFA); Gordon Hirsch (SCEP); April Knutson (French); Katherine Kolb (French); Michael Korth (FCC; UMM); Roberta Humphreys (FCC); Kathleen Newell (SCEP); Cleon Melsa (SCFA; UMC); Richard Purple (SCFA); Palmer Rogers (SCEP); Kyla Wahlstrom (ASAC)

Appendix: Evidence for Recommendations

The joint committee considered many kinds of evidence. We sought and created for ourselves data concerning the University of Minnesota. We were granted a preliminary report by conference call of a study by Roger Baldwin and Jay Chronister into the use of NTTF at a number of American colleges and universities. We read with care two reports written during the 1997-98 academic year, one The Report of the Study Group on the Changing Nature of the Professoriate at the University of Michigan, the other the Statement from the Conference on the Growing Use of Part-Time and Adjunct Faculty, September 26-28, 1997, participants in which were convened by eight disciplinary associations, the AAUP, and the Community College Humanities Association.

Reliable data about who does what academic work at Minnesota has been hard to obtain, and what we have is as significant for what it cannot tell us as for what it can. Early on, we learned that our employment categories can be a barrier to getting at the reality of a situation, a discovery confirmed by Baldwin and Chronister's observation that Minnesota has one of the most complicated systems of employment categories that they encountered. Consider, for example, the annual recommendation to the Board of Regents of candidates for promotion and tenure. While in one place it purports to represent "the faculty" in a summary table, by this is meant appointments at 67% time or above. Omitted wholly in this accounting, then, is all teaching done by employees appointed outside the Tenure Code and many teaching part-time. It thus reports the clinical faculty of the Medical School and miscellaneous term appointments but excludes the Teaching Specialists, the Education Specialists, and the Lecturers who teach in such greater numbers these days in the College of Liberal Arts. CLA ran the present data for us, giving us a good sense of how much that college has come to rely upon these temporary and part-time Academic Professional teachers (and convincing us of CLA's concern that it treat these personnel better). CLA's is the richest data that we have, but it hardly represents the university as a whole. The most comprehensive data came from the Office of Planning and Analysis, which integrated the course registration system and the academic personnel database to create a report on "Sections Taught by Employee Type for the Academic year 1996-97." In somewhat simplified form, the results were these: TTTF taught 62.3% of courses and sections, NTTF taught 21.1%, and graduate students taught 15.1 %. (1.5% was "missing.")

Three things are wrong with this data, however. 1) Such a report cannot be constructed historically-we can't take a similar "snapshot" of 1987-88-so we can construct no trend-line using these databases. 2) It reports courses taught, so probably under-represents the proportion of regular faculty teaching, since TTTF are likely to have lighter loads than the T Specs, Ed Specs, and Lecturers who probably represent a good one-third of the NTTF's 21.1%. 3) The inclusion of graduate students complicates comparisons with Michigan's report, which excludes them. For purposes of comparison with that report, which counts the heads of TTTF and non-regular faculty on the Ann Arbor campus, we can represent Minnesota's TTTF as teaching 74% of the courses other than those taught by graduate students and the NTTF faculty as teaching 26%. Fudging the TTTF up a bit and the NTTF down a bit may get closer to reality.

In 1996, 66% of the faculty at Ann Arbor were TTTF; in 1987, 77% had been. During that decade the total faculty had increased from 3,446 to 4,402, the largest increases coming in the categories "Clinical" and "Lecturer," the later roughly equivalent to our P & A teachers. Since the number of Michigan's TTTF remained exactly the same during this time, they lost ground proportionally, while NTTF increased their numbers by 50%.

While it is unclear exactly what has happened at Minnesota during these years, 3,208 regular faculty (TTTF) and 392 non-regular faculty (NTTF, but not all of them) were reported to the regents in 1987-88, and 2,828 regular faculty and 473 non-regular were reported in 1997-1998. In ten years, that is, the university had lost 380 regular faculty (12%) and gained 81 non-regular (20%). Since the latter count excludes P & As, the increase in NTTF at Minnesota must be considerably larger than this reported 20%. (This we know from the OPA report, which shows 9.7% of sections taught by P & As, and anecdotally.) We can extrapolate what that increase might be from an analysis of the growth in NTTF within the Academic Health Center, since its non-regular faculty are reported regularly to the regents. In 1987-88, Medicine had 32 recommended for promotion and Public Health 6, and of those numbers 27 were tenured or to be tenured and 11 were non-regular. In 1997-98, however, Medicine recommended 44 for promotion and Public Health 6, and, of these 50, only 18 are tenured or to be tenured, while 32 hold non-regular appointments. In a decade, that is, the proportion of regular faculty has decreased from 71% of the AHC's candidates for promotion to 36% of them. In raw numbers, regular faculty recommended for promotion have decreased from 27 to 18, while non-regular appointments have increased from 11 to 32, or 290%, an increase that dwarfs Michigan's total of 50% but is in line with increases reported there by Medicine, Nursing, and Pharmacy. In short, the 20% gain in non-regular faculty reported to the Regents is attributable probably in whole to the Academic Health Center.

Compared to Michigan, then, our situation is this. Michigan's TTTF has remained the same in numbers but represents a substantially smaller proportion of total faculty. Minnesota's TTTF has been more than decimated in numbers (with a 12% loss in a decade) and is smaller by a proportion that we do not know, since we cannot count the NTTF under the current accounting system. Both Michigan and Minnesota have increased substantially the numbers of NTTF, but they know at Michigan how large that increase has been, while here at Minnesota we do not. That is because we maintain the fiction that "faculty" are only those described within the Tenure Code-all others to us are simply academic personnel.

The Statement on Part-Time Faculty provides a larger description of the changes that beset Michigan and Minnesota. Between 1970 and 1993, the proportion of part-time and adjunct faculty increased from 22% to more than 40% overall. The current mean for four-year institutions is about 29%, a proportion that the Statement implies is lower at institutions with post-baccalaureate programs because of the large number of graduate assistants employed by them. Since neither our study nor Michigan's breaks out these groups,^iv we don't know how we stand on this change, but again we know that our not knowing is a consequence of the way we categorize those who do faculty-like work for us.

ⁱⁱ Source: Annual Promotion and Tenure Recommendations to the Faculty, Staff, and Student Affairs Committee of the Board of Regents. See Section 6, above, for refinement of these data.

ⁱⁱⁱ Board of Regents Policy on Academic Staff Professional and Administrative, subd. 2.

^iv Michigan has current data but none for 1987, so omitted these categories. (Report, note 2.)

COMMENT:

The Academic Appointments Subcommittee, jointly appointed by the Senate Committee on Faculty Affairs and Senate Committee on Educational Policy, prepared the following draft report and has discussed it with the two parent committees as well as the Senate Committee on Faculty Affairs. A number of questions and issues were raised in those committee discussions, and as a result, the Subcommittee wishes to report on the concerns and to seek comment from the members of the Faculty Senate. The discussion should focus on the four resolutions contained in the draft report.

KENT BALES, CHAIR
ACADEMIC APPOINTMENTS SUBCOMMITTEE

DISCUSSION:

Professor Kent Bales, chair of the Faculty Affairs Committee (SCFA), explained that this item was being presented for information in order to elicit the response of the Senate. The handout distributed to the senators was intended as a guide to the report. The current version of the report had several advantages over the previously distributed report; for instance, the evidence was moved to an appendix. One disadvantage was that the committee members' names were buried within the report, appearing just before the appendix. He then opened the floor to questions.

Q: How would this policy affect industry practitioners, often adjunct faculty, or visiting faculty who may be hired to teach a specific course during the quarter?

A: Visiting faculty are hired under the provisions in the Tenure Code for making such term hires. Adjunct faculty are often hired as P & A. The number of visiting faculty over the past decade has declined, possibly due to a decrease in free money to hire such people. The committee agreed that qualified practitioners who bring a unique perspective to the students should be able to continue teaching in those units that have a clear need for their service. However, they should be counted so that everyone knows their number. Provisions have been made for exceptions to the 25% limit to accommodate those professional schools that rely heavily on practitioners. The committee felt that, since there are so few of these schools, exceptions would only need to be granted in a small number of cases.

Q: Would the 15-25% limit be based on a head count, regardless of the number of courses taught by each adjunct faculty member?

A: The head count would be used for part-time hires. The committee was divided on this question but agreed to the view presented in the report.

Q: In reference to Resolution 2, is it true that any program with more than 25% NTTF would have to be granted an exception?

A: Yes. The rationale for this proposal is not to micromanage departments, but to ensure that departments who rely on NTTF have legitimate needs and a clear educational policy regarding the roles of NTTF within the department.

Q: If the percentage of NTTF is calculated by FTE, would departments be punished for hiring health care professionals with expertise that the TTTF faculty cannot offer graduate students?

A: It is important that graduate students be taught by active members of the graduate faculty.

Q: Three years ago a small department lost four faculty members late in the year. They could not be replaced before classes began in fall. By hiring professionals, the department would have been in violation of Resolution 2. Instead, this department would need to go to the Educational Policy Committee (SCEP) for permission to hire. What amount of leniency is permitted for faculty mobility?

A: The committee will consider language to solve this type of problem. As it currently stands, the dean would approach the Provost, who would grant permission in an emergency situation. SCEP and SCFA also meet every two weeks, so a turn-around from these committees would be quick. This point comes from the AAUP, as they want the University to find an appropriate mix.

Professor Sara Evans, chair of the Senate Consultative Committee (SCC), asked the senators whether they were worried about restricting flexibility or the erosion of the proportion of TTTF. There is a national trend with a declining proportion of TTTF who are doing the teaching and research; this is perceived as a potential threat to the tenure system and the tradition of academic freedom. There are legitimate reasons to hire people not in traditional faculty lines, but then their work needs to be defined differently. The faculty must address this issue and advise the administration on what is appropriate. If the faculty duck this issue, then they must live with the consequences.

Q: Was the committee's recommendation tied to IMG and the budget? What about the percentages within IMG?

A: IMG was discussed. One reason that the Faculty Consultative Committee (FCC) and SCFA agreed so quickly last year to the creation of this joint subcommittee was that it was the suspicion that IMG budgeting might accelerate the trend towards the hiring of more NTTF. Percentages were not discussed yet, but they will be.

A senator thanked the subcommittee for raising issues that have been of concern to TTTF in smaller units throughout the University. One issue that has not been raised is that many times quarter-to-quarter hires are made which creates a revolving door within the unit. Second, women have been abused by this system in that they perform all the activities of TTTF on annual basis without any protection or benefits. Finally, the burden of carrying out faculty governance and curriculum development is falling on fewer TTTF.

Another senator commented that this policy should take precedence over IMG concerns since the policy's intent is to restrict or eliminate abuses that people might be tempted to commit under IMG. Also, the administration needs to work with the deans to discourage the excessive use of NTTF personnel.

A senator then commented that the Libraries are no longer able to hire into faculty positions. Since only academic professionals can be hired, this unit surpasses the 25% guideline. Therefore, language should be included to exclude the Libraries.

Q: A distinction can be seen between professionals hired to teach distinct courses or people on a NTT doing the work of faculty on a full-time basis. Perhaps, instead of using a percentage, could another class could be developed similar to the visiting professor class for professionals who would only be teaching one class?

A: The subcommittee has already talked about this issue. An alternative policy, without a check mechanism but simply setting ideal limits, might work.

A senator spoke is favor of the motion by saying that a check is needed. In the Carlson School of Management, part-time faculty are used so frequently that the department chair spends all their time hiring. The school has also had problems with accreditation standards because of part-time faculty. The current incentive structure favors adjunct professors, who are constantly being hired without any system in place to determine standards for these people. This leads to a poor academic community as well as poor instruction.

Professor Bales said that the committee wants input on what would identify a person as being a faculty member. Would this person do the essential job of teaching or do a mix of teaching and research? What about the people who mostly do research while advising a few Graduate Students who they work with? He asked senators to send any answers or suggestions to the subcommittee.

Professor Sara Evans, chair of the Faculty Consultative Committee (FCC), reported that the FCC will be holding several discussions on the Intellectual Future of the University. It has become very clear that discussions of this type need to start in many places and in many different forms to get people talking across disciplines and colleges. FCC has no answers, but hopes that by bringing this issue to the University community, advice can be given to the administration.

The meeting was adjourned at 4:51 p.m.

Rebecca Hippert
Abstractor