The third meeting of the Faculty Senate for 1998-99 was convened in 25 Law Building, Minneapolis campus, on Thursday, February 18, 1999, at 3:25 p.m. Coordinate campuses were linked by telephone. Checking or signing the roll as present were 122 voting faculty/academic professional members, 1 ex officio member, and 1 nonmember. President Mark Yudof presided.

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

APPROVED

FOR INFORMATION:

The administration recommended that a provision of the Administrative Procedures for the Interim Regents' Policy on Faculty Development Leaves be deleted. The Committee on Faculty Affairs and the Faculty Consultative Committee both agreed that the provision was not friendly to the faculty, and concurred that it should be deleted. In accord with authority granted by the Senate Constitution, the Faculty Consultative Committee exercised its authority to act on behalf of the Senate between Senate meetings and approved the change recommended. That action is now reported to the Faculty Senate for information, and the Faculty Senate may vote to overrule the action.

The change was as follows: (the language deleted is struck out):

2. Kinds of 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;
(2)(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;
(3)(4) a leave of absence with pay other than an academic development leave;
(4)(5) summer research or teaching.

COMMENT:

Under the provisions of the leave procedures, changes can be made by the Committee on Faculty Affairs and the Faculty Consultative Committee with a report to the Senate. The revision was approved by the Faculty Consultative Committee on December 17.

SARA EVANS, Chair
FACULTY CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE

DISCUSSION:

Professor Kent Bales, chair of the Faculty Affairs Committee (SCFA), presented the item.

The floor was then opened for questions.

Q: With regard to when credit does not accrue, if a faculty member receives a grant that would allow them to buy-out one year of teaching, then does time this no longer count towards accrual?

A: This only applies if the faculty would leave campus to accept the grant.

Q: What is an academic development leave? Who determines this?

A: An academic development leave is defined within the policy as something in addition to a single semester sabbatical leave.

Professor Fred Morrison said that an easy rule is that if faculty continue to receive a paycheck from the University, then the time counts towards leave. If faculty go off payroll, and receive money from an outside source, then the time does not count towards leave.

Q: Would Interagency Agreements (IAPs) with the Federal Government, which are held off campus and the University bills the agency for a faculty member's salary, be included in accrual?

A: This would be covered since it is University-sponsored research.

Q: Was there any discussion of extended leave of absence for childcare?

A: Extended time off would not count towards accrual.

Q: In the first line of Section 1, it states that credit is lost by any interruption. Does this mean that accrued credit is lost?

A: Accrued credit is not lost. This comment will be taken under advisement.

FOR INFORMATION:

The Faculty Consultative Committee, the executive committee of the Faculty Senate at the University of Minnesota, has read the draft AGB Statement on Institutional Governance and offers the following comments.

The missions of a university are instruction, research, and service, or the conservation, production, and transmission of knowledge. No matter what words one chooses, the inescapable fact is that those missions are carried out almost exclusively by the faculty or under the supervision and guidance of the faculty, and institutional reputation rests on the quality of the faculty. Therefore, any statement on the governance of universities which does not recognize that fundamental faculty role will be both incomplete and flawed.

The faculty of the University of Minnesota recently experienced a crisis brought on by corporate notions of hierarchical structure and top-down management. We know now where that road leads. There was little consultation, the University began to lose faculty, research funding leveled out, and the quality and future of the institution was in considerable danger. Virtually all of the "stakeholders" in Minnesota advised the Board of Regents that this was not an appropriate way to run a university.

We believe that the primary lesson both the faculty and the Board of Regents took from that crisis was that cooperation and shared authority and responsibility were critical to a healthy university. We have spent the last year rebuilding relationships and reaffirming the joint responsibilities we have in conducting the affairs of the University. The faculty do not wish to pre-empt the proper role of the regents or administrative officers, nor do we oppose appropriate participation of the many constituencies noted by the AGB; we do seek appropriate recognition of the unique and powerful faculty role in achieving the missions of the institution.

We believe the term "stakeholders" is imprecise and obscures the reality of the university. Because of the role that the faculty must play if the university is to function, we believe the AGB report stumbles when it seeks to stretch the umbrella of governance to include others such as staff and students on a par with faculty, administration, and trustees. Faculty bear primary responsibility for curriculum, instruction, research and scientific advances, faculty status, and educational aspects of student life. Faculty set requirements for degrees, determine when they have been met, and authorize the president and trustees to grant those degrees. Instead of recognizing that role, however, the AGB report seems to perpetuate the image of the faculty as the obstacle to accomplishment rather than the experts essential to it. Administrators and trustees cannot perform faculty tasks, but when they do their own jobs well, they create the environment within which those tasks can be carried out and the institution made great. This collaboration is what we mean when we refer to shared responsibility and decision-making.

We recognize, and indeed we share, the frustrations of many trustees with the lack of timeliness in creating and implementing academic policies and change. We agree with the AGB that timelines for decision-making are necessary and desirable.  We would point out, however, that such delays also occur in administrative decision-making and even in board deliberation.  (We note in our own recent crisis, for example, that when the faculty were asked to produce, they did so with dispatch.) If timelines are set for decision-making, they must give reasonable opportunity to all participants in the process to participate meaningfully.

Academic freedom, essential to the free flow of innovative ideas, only exist only when governance is shared. Shared governance provides the kind of participation that our common enterprise requires. Shared governance gives trustees the kind of information that they need to make truly informed decisions.

COMMENT:

The Faculty Consultative Committee reviewed a draft statement prepared by the Association for Governing Boards (the professional organization for boards of trustees and regents) on the governance of universities. The AGB invited comment. This is the comment FCC provided. What disposition AGB made of the comment, or the draft statement, is not known. No mention of it can any longer be found on the AGB web site.

SARA EVANS, Chair
FACULTY CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE

The meeting was adjourned at 3:32 p.m.

Rebecca Hippert
Abstractor