MEETING OF THE UNIVERSITY SENATE

Crookston – Joe Linder said that a new member was elected two weeks ago to CSA and a new treasurer is also needed. Campus is helping with Winter Wonderland in downtown Crookston. CSA will be looking into issues for commuter students.

Duluth – Timothy Tangen noted that new senators will be elected to UMDSA next semester. He is working on a University-wide housing policy that he will bring to Senate next semester. An RFP has been signed for Duluth taxi program.

Morris – Nathan Hilfiker stated student legal services held a workshop for students on renters’ rights and MCSA is starting an on-line landlord rating system. Technology fee allocation is starting and the chancellor search is progressing.

GAPSA – Tony Kouba said that GAPSA recently dealt with resolutions on the Higher Education Affordability and Equity Act, cage-free egg use by UDS, encouraging the University to continue negotiations with its unionized employees, and support of the University’s Capital Request. There were 78 applicants for the student fees committee, of which 20 were graduate students. A program is also being started to transport international students to local stores. Lastly, a Duluth Pharmacy representative has been added to GAPSA.

MSA – Rick Orr said that MSA also supported GAPSA’s union resolution and is discussing the cage-free egg use issue. All campus election rules were approved. President Bruininks spoke to forum about the Rochester proposal and a city council ordinance regarding unruly housing. MSA then passed a resolution opposed to the ordinance,

Action Strategy 1: Recruit, educate, challenge, and graduate outstanding students.
Student Quality Quality of the Student Experience Student Success/Educational Quality Outcomes	Student Diversity Instructional and Curricular Management Affordability and Accessibility
Action Strategy 2: Recruit, monitor, reward, and retain outstanding faculty and staff.
Research Funding and Productivity Faculty Distinction and Quality Technology Transfer	Faculty and Staff Diversity Workplace Satisfaction Outreach
Action Strategy 3: Enhance and effectively utilize our resources and infrastructure.
Research Funding and Productivity Enrollment Management Instructional and Curricular Management Financial Resources	Facilities Management Affordability and Accessibility Quality of Academic Support Resources
Action Strategy 4: Communicate clearly and credibly with all our constituencies and practice public engagement responsive to the public good.
Research Funding and Productivity Quality of Academic Support Resources Economic Impact of the University on the State	Financial Resources Technology Transfer Outreach
Action Strategy 5: Promote an effective organizational culture that is committed to excellence and responsive to change.
[Consultation in progress]

Linda Thrane, Vice President, University Relations
Steve Cawley, Chief Information Officer
Craig Swan, Vice Provost, Undergraduate Education
Tim Mulcahy, Vice President, Research
Gail Dubrow, Vice Provost, Dean, Graduate School
Jerry Rinehart, Vice Provost, Student Affairs
Mike Volna, Associate Vice President, Finance, Controller
Bruce Gildseth, Vice Chancellor, University of Minnesota Duluth
Terry Roe, Professor of Applied Economics, Faculty Consultative Committee Member
Peter Radcliffe, Senior Analyst, College of Liberal Arts
Abu Jalal, Ph.D. Student in Finance, Carlson School
Eric Ling, Undergraduate Student, Institute of Technology

SEND US YOUR COMMENTS: The Metrics and Measurements Task Force invites your comments and suggestions. Visit the “Transforming the U” Website at www.umn.edu/systemwide/strategic_positioning and click on “Feedback to Task Forces.” Then click on “Metrics and Measurement” (see end of list).

FOR MORE INFORMATION ON UNIVERSITY MEASURES: For a summary of the University’s current performance and measures, see the 2004-05 University Plan, Performance, and Accountability Report at: http://academic.umn.edu/accountability. This report is submitted annually to the Board of Regents and the Minnesota Legislature.

John Ziegenhagen noted that most people want to know how the University will be able to assess when it is a top three institution. The way most people phrase the question, most emphasis is put on rankings and which one will be used. Any ranking system that is used must be done in conjunction with other measures. Twenty-two measures are now being considered, but none is without fault.

The task force will identify basic measures to be tracked, while local units can track other measures that are meaningful to that unit. The likely measures to be used are the none currently used for the University of Florida annual survey, plus a few others designated by the University.

The University has an obligation to the state to increase graduation rates and compete for the best students, faculty, and staff. A progress report is due December 12, with a comment period to follow. He invited students to submit their comments on this and other reports. A final report from this task force is due in May, although an annual accountability report is due to the Regents for action in March before being forwarded to the state,

The point of this task force is to keep an eye on aspirational goals towards improvement and to not settle for the status quo.

Q: Do these metrics apply to the work of the various task forces or the work being done as a whole?

A: The metrics apply to the work as a whole; individual task forces will develop their own progress checks.

Q: Will these measures be applied to the coordinate campuses?

A: These measures are being created for the Twin Cities and will not have the same relevance due to different missions at each campus. Some measures will be universal, such as graduation rates, but each campus will need to find their own measures that do apply and compare their data to their peer institutions.

Q: What is the vision for technology transfers as part of action strategies two and four? How will this retain staff and improve the relationship with this public?

A: Technology transfers refers to a range of items, such as patents, new business starts-ups, and income from licensing agreements. A metric will need to be used to capture this progress. It will engage the public by creating jobs and increasing the number of faculty and students who want to come to the University.

Q: Many University funding difficulties have to do more with the opinions of average citizens rather than how reports are brought to the legislature. What will be done to change the public mindset?

A: University Relations does an annual citizen survey to gauge the public perception of the University. When most people think about the University they think about the undergraduate colleges, sports, and special events, unless they have had another experience. This leads to misperceptions. The public needs to be informed about the public engagement, service, and outreach being done by the University. There is no easy answer to this issue.

A senator said that it will be very important to see how the University functions in the next 10 years. Students should make sure that they are informed and well-represented throughout this process.

Q: Of the nine measures used in the University of Florida survey, eight refer to work being done by faculty or at the post-graduate level. Before entering the University, what can undergraduate students do to help this effort if all of the items used to measure institutional success do not apply to undergraduates?

A: The reputation of the university can attract students, otherwise the University needs to look at other internal measures.

MOTION:

To approve the following resolution.

The Student Senate recognizes the current strategic positioning efforts may result in the jobs of some University of Minnesota employees becoming redundant or eliminated.

The Student Senate also recognizes that some employees, in anticipation of this, are already seeking other employment opportunities, while others hope to retain their current positions as long as possible.

The Student Senate believes many of these employees would stay at the University of Minnesota if assured of the opportunity as soon as possible, and the Student Senate believes it would benefit the University of Minnesota in many ways if these employees remain.

The Student Senate also believes that current severance policies can cost the University of Minnesota money, and create incentives for professional and administrative (P and A) employees (especially longer term employees) to leave if non-renewed, or if they fear the threat of non-renewal.

Finally, the Student Senate recognizes that the University of Minnesota is interested in doing all it can to provide an opportunity for all employees who may lose their current job to find another suitable one here at the University. Such measures include the New Talent Connection.

In view of the above, the Student Senate recommends the University empower the Office of Human Resources to be proactive in implementing and monitoring extraordinary measures to ensure employees remain at the University. Such measures could include:

DISCUSSION:

Jaki Cottingham-Zierdt, Chair of the Council of Academic Professionals and Administrators (CAPA), said that there are 4600 employees in this group and CAPA is the elected governance body for this employee group. CAPA approved this resolution and is asking for the Student Senate to approve it as well.

She said that academic professionals are in the most diverse classification at the University, but are also offered the least protection since positions can be non-renewed and this action is not grievable. Therefore, these positions are the most affected at times of change. During this strategic positioning process, many employees are worried about their future and have chosen to leave early rather than be non-renewed later.

This resolution deals with employee retention during transition by asking that Human Resources exercises creativity, problem-solving, extraordinary measures, and transition options. This resolution does not ask that all academic professional employees be guaranteed jobs, since the realization is that restructuring will result in an overall decrease for some jobs. CAPA knows that Human Resources is doing a good job, and this resolution supports their efforts, while noting that current services should not be compromised during this process.

Q: What is meant by extraordinary measures?

A: At this time, there is not a need to mandate this. At some future time, it might be necessary to consider a policy similar to the University of Illinois in which a qualified academic professional employee must be considered for open positions, although the policy does not guarantee that they would be awarded the position. This would just offer a chance at continued employment.

Q: What is the New Talent Connection?

A: It is a program from Human Resources Employee Career Enrichment. It allows employees to share jobs by offering someone who wants experience in an area to help out in another department that needs assistance in that same area. It also guarantees the person continued employment in their old position during the job sharing process.

Q: How would this proposed policy merge with current policies on holding searches and internal candidates?

A: The current policy comes from a request years ago that legitimate searches be done for all positions to increase diversity on campus instead of just appointing internal candidates. All employee groups do allow for, in times of change, hiring without searches. This position might create some tension but it will only be done for a short period and in a few number of cases.

With no further discussion, a vote was taken and the motion was approved with 19 in favor, 3 opposed, and 5 abstentions.

DISCUSSION:

Professor Richard McCormick, Chair of the Educational Policy Committee (SCEP), said that last year this topic was discussed at SCEP and Vice Provost Swan noted that it was his understanding that faculty already have this authority. This year the committee felt that it would be good to pass a simple policy that makes this understanding clear.

Q: As a student reading this policy, it seemed to mean that faculty could take away iPods and CD players in class, but the impression now is to ensure integrity during tests. Is this correct?

A: The policy was meant to target devices that could affect an exam, but it would also allow a faculty member to question students about other electronic devices being used during normal class periods.

A senator said that he is concerned about student rights in the classroom, since it should be up to the student to either follow along during class or use an electronic device to do something else during that time. He is worried about the rights of students versus the educational experience that the faculty would like them to have.

Professor McCormick said that this policy simply gives faculty the right to limit use, but does mandate that all electronic devices need to be shut off in class. The policy can be applied at the discretion of the professor, and if a student felt that it was being abused, channels should be established to deal with this issue.

A senator then proposed that language be added that this policy only applies during tests, when a distraction is created, or if use would violate the Student Conduct Code. There is no reason that a student should be limited from educational uses, such as taking notes on a laptop. This policy relies on faculty being reasonable, but at the same time students are adults and can make their own assessment of use. Language should be added to allow reasonable use of electronic devices.

A senator then said that he agreed with the policy as written and felt that it would be applied reasonably.

Another senator said that Duluth is starting a technology initiative, which would seem to conflict with this policy.

A senator noted that if he was told that he could not use a laptop to take notes in class, how easy would it be to talk to someone about an exemption? If that process was easy, he would not hesitate to approve this policy, but if the process is difficult, he would be against the policy.

Q: As someone who had taught classes, students have already been removed from class for reading the newspaper or playing solitaire on the computer because both actions are distractions to the rest of the class. Since this action can already be done, why is a policy now needed?

A: The rationale was to make this authority clear to all faculty.

A senator notes that if the policy is approved, it then opens the door to appeals external to the situation. In reality, the students are in class, not a lounge, and the instructor is in charge.

A senator then suggested amending the policy to add at the end, “This policy does not apply to the legitimate and responsible use of personal electronic devices for pertinent academic purposes in accordance with the Student Conduct Code.”

A senator noted that this amendment could lead to abuse by student who try to justify their need to use an electronic device in class.

Another student said that when she is teaching a class, anything that is distracting she should be able to stop, including typing notes on a laptop. Students should not be able to determine what they feel is or is not distracting.

A senator then noted that this policy is simply clarifying a practice that already exists. He suggested adding language, ‘to preserve the academic integrity of the classroom.” The previous amendment would take judgment away from the faculty and complicate matters.

Another senator thought that some judgment should lie with the student, so that a decision does not solely rest with either group.

A senator then noted that either amendment does not clarify that faculty have the right under any circumstances to prohibit use during tests or quizzes. Faculty should also be able to limit use at any time for electronic devices that are distracting to anyone. He proposed amending the policy to read, “However, the policy holds whenever assessment or when distraction, as defined by the Student Conduct Code, disrupts a classroom.”

This was accepted as a friendly amendment to the first amendment proposed.

A senator said that if ‘distraction’ is used in the policy, then it needs to be defined.

Another senator said that ‘distraction’ is already defined by the Student Conduct Code.

A senator then said that the discussion is being hung up on the most extreme examples. The policy is a reasonable proposal to put in writing what is already being done.

Q: How would conflicts be resolved?

A: They would likely be handled by SCEP, which meets every other week during the year.

A senator said that the examples being given are not extremes since he has seen two professors tell students that they could not use a laptop to take notes in class. Faculty should not be able to tell students how they can best learn in a class.

Another senator then noted that whatever version is approved here, would need to be reconciled with the version that it being proposed to the Faculty Senate.

A senator then noted that this body should not be concerned with what the Faculty Senate will approve, but should instead approve a policy that best protects the students that the Student Senate represents.

The first amendment, with the friendly amendment included, was then moved and seconded. A vote was taken and the amendment was approved with 15 in favor, 9 opposed and one abstention.

With no further discussion, a vote was taken on the policy as amended and the motion was not approved with only 6 in favor, 12 opposed, and 5 abstentions.