Disposal

The person having custody of the controlled substance shall dispose of it according to federal regulations. Individual arrangements can be made with companies that dispose of pharmaceuticals. If there is difficulty with disposing of the substance, it shall be transferred to DEHS.

Oversight

DEHS or Regulatory Affairs will periodically review each registration holder's purchasing process, inventory and security measures.

Policy Library
http://groups/secure/documents/index/process.cfm - Policies by Process

Comments: process@tc.umn.edu

© 1998 by the Regents of the University of Minnesota Policy and Process Development Office.

All Rights Reserved
The University of Minnesota is an equal opportunity educator and employer.

http://www.fpd.finop.umn.edu/groups/ppd/documents/Procedure/cs_store_dispose.cfm

Updated:

June 26, 1998
Revised January 27, 2000

COMMENT:

Regent's Faculty Committee on Research
February 21, 2000

Current Policy	Proposed Changes
Scope Only explicitly covers controlled substances used in research	Scope Covers controlled substances used in research and non-clinical teaching activities
Responsibilities Department of Environmental Health and Safety has oversight	Responsibilities Department of Environmental Health and Safety and Office of Regulatory Affairs have oversight The Research Subjects Protection Program and Sponsored Projects Administration will assist in collecting information on controlled substances use
Registration Requirements Each registrant or Department chooses if they want an individual or Unit registration	Registration Requirements Requires that controlled substance purchases be made through a Unit DEA registrant, unless the investigator qualifies for an exemption Each investigator or laboratory using controlled substances will be registered with the State Board of Pharmacy Exemptions allowing individual licensure will be made for certain activities that would present excessive risk to the Unit registrant
	General Changes Clarifies definitions and responsibilities, and consequences for failure to comply with the policy Modification of "Procedures" section to clarify issues Implementation of the revised policy will include a commitment to training and auditing

LEONARD KUHI, Chair
RESEARCH COMMITTEE

DISCUSSION:

Professor Len Kuhi, Chair of the Research Committee, said that these policy changes are being introduced in response to problems that occurred in the Academic Health Center (AHC). The proposed changes tighten the regulations for the use of controlled substances and thereby reduce the risk to the University.

Q: There is wording in the policy which refers to the responsible officer. The two responsible offices are the Department of Environmental Health and Safety (DEHS) and the Office of Regulatory Affairs. Therefore, which office serves as the responsible officer according to this policy?

A: Both offices must approve all forms.

Q: If a department investigator has their own DEA registration, they can petition to be allowed to maintain this registration. It is unclear whether the DEA or the location registrant, that is the department's registrant, has authority over that investigator's activities or reports. Are there three responsible parties to which an exempt DEA registrant would need to get approval from in terms of purchasing, location, and inventory?

A: The DEA has overriding authority. An exempted investigator would control the location registrant. Registration is done with the DEA and the Minnesota Board. An investigator is then responsible to the oversight functions of the Office of Regulatory Affairs and the DEHS. There would not be recurring approval from the DEA and the Minnesota Board.

The senator then said that the proposed policy includes this complexity which may be hard for some people to understand.

It was noted that these complexities would be dealt with in the implementation procedures.

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

APPROVED

COMMENT:

As an amendment to the Constitution, this motion requires a 2/3 majority of all voting members (117) at one meeting for approval, or a majority (89) of all members at two successive meetings. This is the second meeting at which this motion is being presented. It did not receive a majority of all members at the February 24, 2000 meeting. Therefore, it requires a 2/3 majority of all voting members (117) at this meeting for approval.

MOTION:

To amend the Twin Cities Campus Assembly Constitution, Article III, Section 1, as follows (language to be deleted is struck-out; language to be added is underlined).

Twin Cities Campus Assembly Constitution - Article II. Twin Cities Campus Assembly

1. Membership

The Assembly shall be composed of the following voting members: (a) the president of the University; (b) the Twin Cities campus members of the Senate Consultative Committee, who shall serve as ex officio voting members; and (c) the elected faculty, academic professional, and student representatives of the various institutes, colleges, and schools of collegiate rank, and the Graduate School. Only elected faculty/academic professional representatives or properly designated faculty/academic professional alternates shall serve as the Faculty Assembly; the elected student representatives shall serve on the Minnesota Student Association Forum, or the Graduate and Professional Student Assembly, as designated by the Student constituency in the electing college. Each member of the Assembly shall represent the Twin Cities campus as a whole. The Twin Cities campus deans, vice presidents, provosts, the University Librarian, and the General Counsel shall serve as ex officio nonvoting members. The student body presidents shall, if not otherwise elected, serve as an ex officio nonvoting members.

COMMENT:

In the course of reviewing a bylaw change for the Twin Cities Campus Assembly, it was discovered that the Twin Cities Campus Assembly Constitution states that there is only one student body president that is an ex-officio member of the Assembly when, in fact, there is currently more than one. The Student Senate Consultative Committee recommends that the requirement be changed.

JASON REED, Chair
STUDENT SENATE CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE

DISCUSSION:

With no discussion a vote was taken and with only 107 in favor and none opposed the motion was not approved since it required 117 votes in favor. The motion will return to the Assembly in the fall.

NOT APPROVED

COMMENT:

As an amendment to the Constitution, this motion requires a 2/3 majority of all voting members (144) at this meeting for approval, or a majority (109) of all members at two successive meetings. This is the first meeting at which this motion is being presented.

MOTION:

To amend the University Senate Constitution, Article III, Section 4, as follows (language to be deleted is struck-out; language to be added is underlined).

ARTICLE III. UNIVERSITY SENATE

4. Election of University Senate Members

• Academic officers with class titles 9302-9329 Deans, vice presidents, chancellors, provosts, the University Librarian, and the General Counsel shall not be eligible for election to the Senate as members of the faculties under "a" hereof.

At its February 24 meeting, the University Senate approved an amendment to the constitution that redefined ex officio membership status. The proposed amendment listed above should have been included with that motion but was inadvertently omitted. It is now presented for action.

FRED MORRISION, Chair
SENATE CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE

DISCUSSION:

With no discussion a vote was taken and with only 124 in favor and none opposed the motion was not approved since it required 144 votes in favor. The motion will return to the Senate in the fall.

NOT APPROVED

COMMENT:

There are two motions listed under this item. Part A is an amendment to the bylaws. The motion requires either a majority of all voting members of the Senate (100) at one regular or special meeting, or by a majority of all members of the Senate present and voting at each of two meetings. This is the first meeting at which this motion is being presented. Part B is an amendment to the rules. It requires a simple majority for approval. However, since Part A and Part B are tied, Part B, even if approved, will not be implemented unless Part A is also approved.

MOTION (Part A):

To amend Article III of the University Senate bylaws, creating a new Senate Committee on Equity, Access, and Diversity, and abolishing two existing committees (Equal Opportunity for Women and Disabilities Issues) (language to be deleted is struck-out; language to be added is underlined). Note: existing sections within Article III will be renumbered appropriately if this amendment is approved.

6. EQUITY, ACCESS, AND DIVERSITY COMMITTEE

Membership

The Equity, Access & Diversity Committee shall be composed of at least 7 faculty members, 2 professional and academic staff members, 2 civil service staff members, 6 students, and ex officio representation as specified by vote of the Senate. Each coordinate campus shall have at least 2 representatives. Members should reflect the racial and ethnic diversity of the campus, women, people with disabilities, and differing sexual orientations, as well as other protected classes under the University's equal opportunity policy. Campuses are encouraged to maintain or develop campus committees on related issues. The committee may form standing or temporary subcommittees or task forces on specific issues as appropriate.

Duties and Responsibilities

a. To advise the president and administrative offices on the impact of University policies, programs and services on equal opportunity, affirmative action and diversity from a system perspective.

b. To promote compliance among the University community with equal opportunity, affirmative action and diversity laws and policies relating to students and staff. c. To review policies, programs and services related to equal opportunity for and the diversity of students and employees, and recommend any changes.

d. To bring concerns to the Senate, as appropriate.

e. To recommend to the Senate Consultative Committee such actions or policies as it deems appropriate.

f. To submit an annual report to the Senate.

g. The role and performance of the Equity, Access, and Diversity Committee will be reviewed during the 2002-2003 academic year, with a special emphasis on the extent to which the work of the two existing committees (Equal Employment Opportunity for Women and Disabilities Issues) has been carried forward.

4. DISABILITIES ISSUES COMMITTEE

The Disabilities Issues Committee recommends University policies, procedures, and services concerning faculty/academic professionals, students, and staff with disabilities.

Membership

The Disabilities Issues Committee shall be composed of at least 7 faculty/academic professional members, 2 students (at least one graduate and one undergraduate), 2 civil service staff members, and ex officio representation as specified by vote of the Senate. Faculty, academic professional, and student members shall be nominated by the Committee on Committees with the approval of the Senate. Civil service members shall be appointed by the president in consultation with the Civil Service Committee.

Duties and Responsibilities

a. To advise the president and administrative offices, including the Disability Services Office and the University ADA Coordinator, on policies, programs, and services for students and employees.

b. To promote compliance with laws relating to students and staff with disabilities.

c. To review policies and practices in light of legal compliance aspects, deployment of resources, and effectiveness in meeting the needs of the University community, and to recommend changes.

d. To inform the University community to the special concerns of its members with disabilities and of the available resources.

e. To bring concerns to the Senate, as appropriate.

f. To recommend to the Senate Consultative Committee such actions or policies as it deems appropriate.

g. To submit an annual report to the Senate.

...

6. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY FOR WOMEN COMMITTEE

The Equal Employment Opportunity for Women Committee was established pursuant to and for the duration of the court decree in the case of Rajender v. University of Minnesota. Upon expiration of the decree (January 1, 1991), the committee continues in accordance with the "Women Academic Employees Policy Statement" of the Board of Regents.

Membership

The Equal Employment Opportunity for Women Committee shall be composed of 7 faculty members, 2 members of the academic professional staff, and ex officio representation as specified by vote of the Senate.  The committee shall be selected to reflect the general interest of the University in the pursuit of excellence in teaching and research as well as the special interests of women.  The faculty members shall be nominated by the Committee on Committees with the approval of the Senate.  The academic professional staff members shall be nominated by the Committee on Committees in consultation with the chair of the Academic Staff Advisory Committee with the approval of the Senate.

Duties and Responsibilities

a. To promote compliance with the "Women Academic Employees Policy Statement" approved by the University Senate on April 19, 1990 and adopted by the Board of Regents on July 13, 1990.

b. To recommend policies that guarantee equal employment opportunity for all women faculty and academic staff of the University.

c. To propose approaches for assuring that the University has an active affirmative action program for women in all of its academic units.

d. To encourage active measures to expand and strengthen the diversity of the academic community in accordance with the Regents' "Women Academic Employees Policy Statement."

e. To examine policies of the University to determine whether they would have a disparate impact on women and make recommendations to the University president or senior academic officers or to the University Senate if they do.

f. To work with the University's Equal Opportunity Officer to implement the Regents' policy statement on women academic employees.

g. To advise the University president and senior academic officers.

h. To recommend to the Senate Consultative Committee such actions or policies as it deems appropriate.

i. To submit an annual report to the Senate.

COMMENT:

Rationale for the creation of a Senate Committee on Access, Diversity, and Equity:

The Vision

The University Senate is committed to diversity among faculty, students, and staff and sees this as a common good. We seek to build a community that actively opposes discrimination, that welcomes and celebrates differences of identity and of viewpoint, and that is fully accessible. The journey toward such goals will be greatly enhanced by a strong Senate voice which is committed to this vision and which builds lively links to the many communities touched by it. We believe it is essential to have a committee within our structure charged with furthering this vision of equity, diversity, and access. Only such a committee will allow us to fulfill our responsibilities to provide a faculty voice in support of this vision within a system of shared governance.

Numerous Senate committees and groups have come and gone over the years, each of which addressed portions of this concern. There are, moreover, numerous advocacy groups, offices, and departments within the university that speak for these groups and that are available for consultation. Two of them are Senate Committees that have created models of advocacy on which this proposal builds. The Senate Committee on Equal Opportunity for Women - created in response to the Rajender Class Action Settlement - has a long and honorable history of advancing the interests of women on campus. As a result of their efforts, women are far more numerous, more visible as leaders, and more equitably paid than they were 25 years ago. More recently the Senate Committee on Disabilities has advocated for proactive compliance with legal requirements for accessibility. In addition, temporary committees, such as the GLBT subcommittee of the Social Concerns Committee have performed specific tasks and then faded from existence. On the other hand, the Senate has no body that is charged with consultation on issues of racial discrimination, the promotion of racial and ethnic diversity, or concerns related to sexual orientation.

Therefore, we propose the creation of a Senate Committee on Access, Diversity, and Equity in order to provide for consultative participation on the full breadth of diversity and equal opportunity issues affecting faculty, students, and staff at the University of Minnesota. Our proposal would replace the two existing committees with a single committee that has a broader charge. This committee will be empowered to create subcommittees or task forces on an as needed basis to work on specific issues that may arise or in behalf of specific constituencies that might feel the need for a distinctive voice.

Why now?

1. It is simply not tolerable to have such important concerns unaddressed by any Senate committee.

2. Furthermore, neither of the administrators charged with responsibility for these issues (Rusty Barceló, Associate Vice President for Multicultural Affairs, and Julie Sweitzer, Director of Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action) has a clearly delineated consultative body linked to the Senate. EEOW has tried valiantly to fill this role, but its charge is far narrower than the responsibilities that these administrators bear.

3. We need to coordinate our work in a way that recognizes the intersection of identities and interests, and that creates a strong voice to consult directly and clearly with the administration on the full range of issues regarding diversity, equal opportunity, and access. This effort would underscore the University-wide responsibility for these issues.

4. As we enter the 21st century we also note that conditions today are considerably different than they were 30-40 years ago and solutions must be framed in response to new realities. The proliferation of constituency based groups, departments and programs, resource centers, and the like signal new positions within the University. The committee we propose would not replicate these groups, but instead would reach out to them and provide an environment in which to find the areas of common ground and overlapping interests.

5. It would also be built on the recognition that most individuals have multiple, overlapping identities.

6. We believe that it is essential to recognize the importance of working together within a broad vision and building on the strengths that would have been unimaginable only three decades ago.

* The new committee should include members of the current committees that will be dissolved.

MOTION (Part B):

To amend Article III, Section 2, of the University Senate Rules in order to remove reference to ex officio members on the Equal Opportunity for Women Committee and on the Disabilities Issues Committee and to identify ex officio members of the new Equity, Access, and Diversity Committee (language to be deleted is struck-out; language to be added is underlined).

- Disabilities Issues--Office of the Executive Vice President and Provost (one from the Disability Services Office and the University ADA coordinator)

- Equal Employment Opportunity for Women--Office of the Executive Vice President and Provost (two representatives, including one from the Office of Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action)

- Equity, Access, and Diversity--Office of the Executive Vice President and Provost (two representatives, including one from the Office of Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action and one from the Office of the Associate Vice President for Multicultural and Academic Affairs)

COMMENT:

This amendment identifies the ex officio members of the new Equity, Access, and Diversity Committee and removes the reference to the two committees that have been abolished with the bylaw amendment previously approved by the Senate.

FRED MORRISON, Chair
SENATE CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE

DISCUSSION:

Professor Naomi Scheman, past Chair of the Equal Employment Opportunity for Women Committee (EEOWC), said that this motion would establish a new Senate Committee on Equity, Access, and Diversity. The proposal for this committee has evolved over several years and started by people talking about there not being a Senate Committee which looks at issues of racial and ethnic diversity as well as access and equity along these lines. The first thought was to create a new committee, but this would complicate the structure. The second idea was that the issues involved with equity, access, and diversity are complex and interrelated.

From these discussions, the idea of an umbrella committee, which would attend to issues of access to the University, equity once at the University, and compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act in an interrelated manner, was created. The drafting committee wanted to place the emphasis on diversity and its value at the University, since issues of access and equity are necessary to fulfill a diversity mission.

The proposed committee consists of members committed to access, equity, and diversity across a range of differences and then active subcommittees which address themselves to particular aspects. As a consequence of this motion, two standing Senate Committees, the EEOWC and the Disabilities Issues Committee, would be dissolved. The work of these committees would then be placed on two subcommittees of the umbrella committee. The rationale is that an overarching committee would bring visibility and clout to issues and that concerns from constituencies will continue to be represented through the subcommittees.

Professor Scheman noted that while the EEOWC endorsed the structure proposed in this motion, the Disabilities Issue Committee did not endorse this proposal out of concern that the loss in status from committee to subcommittee would be problematic and that their specific issues would not receive adequate attention. She noted that there is a proposal for review of this committee to make sure that the structure is working and fulfilling the function of increasing attention to issues.

Professor James Carey, Chair of the Disabilities Issues Committee, then presented the dissent from that committee regarding the effectiveness of this change. The Disabilities Issues Committee has 14 members from across the campuses, of which one-third either have disabilities themselves or have children with disabilities. Past activities include: parking and transportation in terms of the Paratransit service offered; the cultural diversity theme language which now exists yet is void of mention of physical or learning disabilities, so discussions are being held with the Council on Liberal Education to add more courses on other types of disabilities; PeopleSoft issues; Facilities Management construction; and adequate documentation of disabilities.

While the Disabilities Issues Committee agrees with the value of forming a new body on diversity, it disagrees on how this should be accomplished. Specifically, the committee is concerned that an umbrella committee would not be as concerned with disabilities issues or be an effective advocate for all the issues it will represent, and that a subcommittee will not provide needed continuity. The Disabilities Issues Committee therefore asks that the current committees remain and a diversity council be formed to deal with these other issues.

A senator stated that he, and the Crookston disabilities committee, agreed with Professor Carey since his campus is concerned that their needs will not be met with this new structure.

Professor Scheman responded that review of the new committee has been included in the proposal so that if needs are not being met, the new committee will be dissolved and the old structure will be reinstated. Also, disabilities would be considered a standing subcommittee and not ad hoc. Subcommittees would include membership from the umbrella committee, but would then be augmented by other people from the University who have a interest and expertise in the subcommittee's specific charge. The creation of several new committees also raises the issue of staff support.

Another senator said that while she appreciates the desire to create a cultural umbrella, the Disabilities Issues Committee is specifically focused on physical issues which would be in direct contrast with the umbrella committee's much broader, social agenda. Because of the work that needs to be done, she would worry that specific concerns would not be addressed.

Professor Marti Hope Gonzales, current Chair of the Equal Employment Opportunity for Women Committee (EEOWC), stated that even though there is a risk involved in changing a structure which is working, there was consensus the change was being made for the good of the University as a whole. To guarantee this, an annual evaluation was included for the first three years. She also mentioned that it will be easier for the administration, whose charge it is to address policies and procedures of equity, access, and diversity, to consult with one committee.

With time expired, a vote was then taken and Motion A failed with 52 in favor and 57 opposed. Motion B was then withdrawn from consideration.

MOTION A NOT APPROVED
AND MOTION B WITHDRAWN

COMMENT:

As an amendment to the bylaws, this motion requires either a majority of all voting members of the Senate (100) at one regular or special meeting, or by a majority of all members of the Senate present and voting at each of two meetings. This is the first meeting at which this motion is being presented.

MOTION:

To amend the University Senate bylaws, Article III, Section 8, as follows (language to be deleted is struck-out; language to be added is underlined).

8. FACULTY AFFAIRS COMMITTEE

The Faculty Affairs Committee is concerned with policies and procedures that influence the personal and professional welfare of the faculty and academic professional staff.

Membership

The Faculty Affairs Committee shall be composed of at least 10 members of the faculty, one member of the academic professional staff, one graduate assistant and one undergraduate student, and ex officio representation as specified by vote of the Senate. The academic professional staff member shall be nominated by the Committee on Committees in consultation with the chair of the Academic Staff Advisory Committee with the approval of the Senate. All other members shall be nominated by the Committee on Committees with the approval of the Senate. The chair (or his/her designee) shall serve as an ex officio nonvoting member of the Faculty Consultative Committee.

Duties and Responsibilities

a. To examine all policies and procedures of the University which influence the professional and personal welfare of the faculty and academic professional staff, and to recommend improvements in the design and implementation of faculty and academic professional personnel policies, including such matters as tenure and promotion, salary and benefits, faculty development, and hiring and retirement alternatives.

b. To recommend to the Faculty Senate additions, to and modifications, and interpretations, and implementation of policies on of Faculty Tenure.

c. To examine and propose University policies and programs associated with faculty and academic professional staff development.

d. To examine and propose benefit options and benefit option counseling available for current and retired faculty and academic professionals (with the assistance of the Employee Benefits Department) and suggest alternatives when appropriate.

e. To review the options, performance, and reporting of the Faculty Retirement Plan, with the assistance of the University's Assets Management and Employee Benefits Offices and an independent consultant retained by the Faculty Senate, and recommend appropriate changes.

f. To monitor any legislation and other policies affecting faculty and academic professional welfare including such matters as tenure and promotion, salary and benefits, and faculty and academic professional staff development.

g. Interact with the Academic Staff Advisory Committee (ASAC) on all items that jointly impact academic staff and faculty, such as benefits and retirement.

g h. To recommend to the Faculty Consultative Committee such actions or policies as it deems appropriate.

h i. To submit an annual report to the Faculty Senate.

RICHARD GOLDSTEIN, Chair
FACULTY AFFAIRS COMMITTEE

DISCUSSION:

With no discussion, a vote was taken and the motion was approved with 108 in favor and none opposed.

APPROVED

MOTION:

To accept in principle the following report and that preparation of implementing actions be presented to the University Senate at the first meeting of fall semester, 2000, by the Senate Consultative Committee. A simple majority is required for approval.

April 6, 2000

Professor Fred Morrison, Chair
Senate Consultative Committee
385 Law Center

Dear Fred:

I attach Part II of the report of the Special Senate Committee on Student Academic Integrity. This part of the report responds to the first and second charge in your letter of appointment of 15 July 1999:

The Committee met over several months, talked with a number of individuals, and read a voluminous amount of material. This report is our view of how the University of Minnesota can best address questions of academic integrity.

I will join the Senate Consultative Committee on April 6 to discuss the report.

Cordially,
Tom Clayton, Chair
Special Senate Committee on
Student Academic Integrity

cc: President Mark Yudof

The primary purposes of a research university, whether private, public, or of public land-grant status like the University of Minnesota, are the discovery, advancement, and dissemination of knowledge by all apt and available means. This compound effort includes the teaching of students enrolled for the purposes of learning and of taking degrees that certify the fields and quality of their academic achievements. As one of the nation's leading research universities, the University has an obligation to communities not only local but national and international to ensure the integrity of its research and scholarship, and of its instruction and certification by degree. The integrity of a university depends especially upon the integrity of its faculty members, but necessarily also on that of its regents or trustees, administrators, and civil-service staff, and emphatically of its students.

I. CHARGES TO THE COMMITTEE

The Special Senate Committee on Student Academic Integrity was appointed by letter dated 15 July 1999 from the Chair of the Senate Consultative Committee, Fred Morrison. It was given three charges, two concerned with all students in the University, the third charge with the athletic programs of the Twin Cities Campus. We addressed the third charge first because it seemed most pressing and most readily addressed, and submitted our report on 1 November 1999. This is the second and final report, addressing the first two charges.

On these two charges we met fourteen times and consulted extensively by e-mail between meetings. We are gratefully indebted to the persons we interviewed for sharing their expertise and experience with us: Associate Dean Jean Cameron, College of Liberal Arts; Professor Virginia Gray, Political Science; Dr. Darwin Hendel, Institutional Research and Reporting; Associate Dean Peter Hudleston, Institute of Technology; Associate Dean Meredith McQuaid, Law School; Ms. LeeAnn Melin, New Student Programs; Ms. Jan Morse, Student Dispute Resolution Center; Associate Dean Gerald Rinehart, Carlson School of Management; Associate Dean Wendy St. Peter, College of Pharmacy; Ms. Barbara Shiels, Office of the General Counsel; and Professor George Spangler, College of Natural Resources.

Under charge 1 we were asked specifically to "review the policies and standards regarding student academic integrity and make recommendations for improvement of University policies. The task force should examine the standards in the Code of Student Conduct and in the various college policies." We have reviewed, examined, and recommended in response, not point by point according to the charges, but in the report as a whole. Under charge 1 we were also asked the following questions--to which we give (italicized) answers in brief here; we address them in effect in various parts of the report, not always directly in these terms.

The second charge, to "review the procedures for enforcement of the student academic integrity standards," asked six representative questions that are too complex to be answered in brief (except for no. 3, Yes) but are given here for the record and because all are addressed in effect in this report.

II. PRINCIPLES AND OBSERVATIONS

This report is intended to be the response of the University of Minnesota to a problem perceived as nationwide and very serious if not epidemic in American institutions of higher learning. It is concerned first and foremost with promoting academic integrity as the rule and only secondarily with detecting and punishing academic dishonesty as the exception, which is serious enough, however, to require addressing.

Integrity has become a buzzword more often conjured with than understood. Its essential meaning is "something undivided; an integral whole," wholeness, soundness. It has a special application in relation to humans that is succinctly expressed by the Oxford English Dictionary as "soundness of moral principle; the character of uncorrupted virtue, esp. in relation to truth and fair dealing; uprightness, honesty, sincerity" (OED2 3b). Integrity is more than what is left when cheating has been eliminated, and it is not passive. It is perhaps easiest recognized by its manifest distance from self-interest, and at its best it is ethical excellence in action. Not every institution, program, person, or act can be instantly assessed as having or lacking integrity; but these qualities constituting it are widely, not to say universally, recognized as of inestimable value in human relations and essential for a civil and orderly society. Without such qualities and corresponding actions, there is no "integrity."

Academic integrity is integrity in academia, and like integrity (or the lack of it) everywhere else, it is recognizable not as a passive state or attitude but by actions characterized by it. Student academic integrity is vital to the integrity of both the research and the instructional and degree-granting missions of the University. And it is essential if honest students are to have the benefit of due recognition of their own work uncompromised by the dishonest practices of students who cheat. Cheating undoubtedly hurts the cheater, because "he that is unjust in the least is unjust also in much"; but cheaters most hurt other students, first in their individual courses, and on their projects and written work from freshman composition to doctoral dissertations; and again by devaluing and discrediting a university's degrees. That society as a whole is affected for the worse by such practices is obvious.

All acts of academic dishonesty are forms of cheating, which means essentially "to deal fraudulently, practice deceit" (OED2 4a). For students in the University that means to gain unfair advantage over other students--most often by plagiarism or by copying or sharing answers on examinations. Other ways to cheat include depriving others' work of credit by preventing its reaching the instructor, for example, or falsely claiming a personal hardship to gain extra time on examinations. The present resources of the World Wide Web are only the beginning of sophisticated means of cheating that will continue to increase, multiply, and become more subtle with the advances of technology. But cheating is cheating, whatever the means, and it should be well understood by anyone capable of functioning in society, not to mention qualified to be a member of the University community. Anyone who has the slightest doubt about what cheating is should at once make the effort to find out, as by consulting the Office of Academic Integrity (OAI; see III.A). Instances of cheating will not be condoned when detected, whatever the explanation; and ignorance of what constitutes cheating is no excuse for cheating.

We have no compelling reason to think that cheating is epidemic at the University of Minnesota, but students have reported in surveys that they "saw another student cheat on a quiz or test in a University course" and "knew a student who handed in someone else's work as their own (on a take-home test or assignment)." From a survey of freshmen we know also that for nearly 70% it was important or very important for "the University to take firm action to protect academic integrity and hold those who cheat responsible" (Cooperative Institutional Research Program Freshmen Survey, conducted 1999). And for only 3% was it "not at all important." Most cheating tends to be of two kinds: impulsive or "opportunistic" cheating; and calculated and deliberate, sometimes habitual, cheating. Neither kind can be tolerated, but the former is plainly less grave than the latter; it can probably be reduced or even eliminated by instructors' taking reasonable precautions to limit the opportunity, and by the President's and the University Senate's regularly reminding all students to refrain from cheating in any form, for the sake of their fellow students, their university, and their own integrity. Deliberate and persistent cheating is an antisocial and destructive practice much more serious, and the University must make every effort to detect instances and their perpetrators, penalize them appropriately, and, if they offend egregiously or repeatedly, expel them.

The University assumes integrity as the norm of its students' behavior. But even where there is thought to be no cheating, prudence argues for the precautionary benefit of an integrity code and a declaration of academic integrity to be signed by all students. This declaration should be signed during the academic part of their initial orientation to the University, as freshmen, transfer students, or entering graduate or professional students, or on an appropriate equivalent occasion in units where there is no formal orientation. Making such a declaration will alert students to their personal responsibility to their fellow students and the University as a whole, and to the penalties imposed for cheating when detected and proved. Ideally, this would confer lifelong immunity from cheating upon the signer; but because there are and will be exceptions, efforts to inform and prevent must be supplemented by those to detect and to punish as necessary.

In accordance with the foregoing discussion, we recommend that all students of the University sign this declaration upon their admission:

We also recommend that as a reminder and reaffirmation students sign and date the following statement to be printed on blue books and other examination forms:

Finally, we recommend that students sign the following statement for out-of-class written papers or projects:

III. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CREATING A CULTURE OF ACADEMIC INTEGRITY

The Committee firmly believes that civility and mutual respect, and the practice of academic integrity, are reciprocal. Although the University cannot strictly legislate and enforce civility and respect as such, it has a primary obligation to profess, practice, and promote academic integrity; to actively discourage violations; and to ensure that proven violations are suitably penalized. In some smaller and less complex institutions, these ends are accomplished by an honor system, which we considered but rejected as inappropriate in an institution as large, diverse, and complex as the University of Minnesota, where long experience has assured us all that there will be some cheating irrespective of steps taken to prevent it (on honor codes and systems, see further in Appendix B). We therefore give, in the Penalties section of the report (V), recommendations related to specific principles, policies, procedures, and infrastructures that we think need to be instituted (or reinforced where already existing) to facilitate investigation and take punitive measures as appropriate.

A. OFFICE OF ACADEMIC INTEGRITY

The Committee strongly recommends the creation of an Office of Academic Integrity (OAI). OAI should (1) be a central repository of resources to aid members of the University community in promoting academic integrity, (2) sponsor discussion across the University of reasons and ways and means to promote and defend academic integrity, and (3) develop and disseminate resource materials that promote academic integrity and condemn cheating. A primary purpose of this office should be to help the faculty by easing the burden of pursuing cases of suspected cheating, which in the past has been sufficiently onerous, time-consuming, thankless, and counterproductive that it has been less and less often undertaken. We assume that the office will not be involved in a case unless the faculty member chooses to involve it, but that it will be ready, willing, and able to help when consulted.

OAI should be headed by an Academic Integrity officer reporting to the office of the Executive Vice President and Provost (with the Academic Health Center reporting to OAI on these issues). The Committee does not believe that the title and responsibilities of the office should be added to those of an existing position because there would be too much for anyone to do who already has a full-time position, and the responsibilities would not receive adequate attention as a consequence. We envision that the responsibilities of the academic integrity officer, if carried out fully and well, may consume more time than one person can give them. It will be essential to provide adequate staffing and resources for OAI; otherwise the effort will appear a mere façade and induce further skepticism about the University's commitment to academic integrity. The responsibilities of the Office of Academic Integrity should include at least the following:

The Committee also recommends the creation of an advisory committee for the Office of Academic Integrity that would be composed of faculty, P&A staff, and students, the Academic Integrity officer as an ex-officio member, and at least one undergraduate adviser from one of the larger colleges. The specific bylaw recommendation we propose for submission to the University Senate is Appendix A of this report.

OAI materials might include but should not be limited to the following on an OAI Web site and otherwise (with OAI logo and telephone number wherever appropriate):

Our initial recommendation is that OAI serve the Twin cities campuses, because we did not have representatives from the other campuses on our Committee or have time to consult with those campuses. We believe, however, that they should be actively involved in the discussions and invited to advise the Senate, perhaps through the Committee on Educational Policy, on how they might best be integrated into the office and practices we have recommended. We believe that a revised set of recommendations, intended to embrace the coordinate campuses in whatever way they believe would work best for them, should be brought back to the Senate in Spring 2001.

B. OTHER STEPS TO PROMOTE ACADEMIC INTEGRITY AND PREVENT ACADEMIC FRAUD

The Committee recognizes that the entire University community has a role to play in preventing cheating. We can publicly, explicitly, and frequently assert that academic integrity is important. Discuss it at every opportunity. Say WHY it is important. And we can carry these efforts into our every activity. For example, the President should discuss academic integrity in his annual address and at least briefly at Convocation. The University should mandate printing the affirmation-of-honesty statement (end of II, above) on all blue books and other examination forms. Other ways to communicate this message include the following.

A. Admissions

Each application packet should include a brief discussion of the integrity code and the declaration to be signed early in the first year.

B. Orientation

Orientation sessions should devote time to explicit discussion and examples not only of cheating but of academic integrity. What does academic integrity look like? Why is it important? These sessions should be interactive, so that students start to internalize the meaning and value of integrity. They should talk about it with each other.

IV. RIGHTS, RESPONSIBILITIES, AND REASONABLE EXPECTATIONS OF ALL PARTIES

After its detailed and ranging investigation, the Committee concluded that the most effective way ultimately to promote academic integrity is to cultivate an environment, or culture, of civility in which acts of mutual respect and responsibility are the daily routine of University life and academic integrity is a natural corollary. To that end we provide here a series of recommendations aimed at promoting rights, responsibilities, and reasonable expectations among all those who make up the University community--faculty, staff, students, administrators, and Regents. In the following sections we have delineated these rights, responsibilities, and expectations for each of the three major groups who are directly responsible for maintaining the academic integrity of the University.

A. THE FACULTY AND OTHER INSTRUCTIONAL STAFF

Faculty vigilance is the most important defense against cheating. Faculty members can create an environment that promotes academic integrity in the classroom, the seminar room, the laboratory, and every other place in the University. And it is they who must take the lead, who can best model academic integrity, and who can best articulate what academic integrity is designed to protect and achieve. The faculty should aim not just for the absence of cheating, but to get students to value integrity and practice it beyond the merely academic because it is an important moral and social value of worth to all.

If faculty members are to be the line of defense against cheating, they need somewhere to turn for help in dealing with students who cheat. They also need support from department heads and deans in making decisions about dealing with cheating. There should also be the help and support from the Office of Academic Integrity that we have recommended above.

The Committee recommends that faculty members report all incidents of cheating to OAI, and that they consult with OAI on penalties. If a faculty member chooses not to consult with OAI and a student later grieves the process, the faculty member bears the burden of proving in any subsequent grievance process that the penalty is appropriate. The concern here is to ensure consistency in decisions and penalties, allowing for appropriate variations for different kinds of offense (e.g., first-time plagiarism by a freshman should not be treated the same as plagiarism by a doctoral student).

Classroom practices that discourage or prevent cheating are the faculty member's

B. STUDENTS

Students have a responsibility not to cheat and to act with integrity generally. They have the right to expect that instructors will provide guidance on academic integrity and cheating, and will use classroom measures that protect students who do not cheat from those who do or might.

Students have the due-process right to be informed in writing when they are accused and of what as soon as the accusation is taken beyond professor-student interaction. And they are entitled to information about the process.

Students must be responsible in particular for academic integrity within their own realm. They should protect their own work from being drawn on without acknowledgment by others. When in doubt, they should take responsibility for asking what constitutes cheating or inappropriate sharing. They should also report others if they are cheating. This is public citizenship. Students can encourage others to maintain academic integrity, and not to cheat. Peer pressure is powerful.

C. ADMINISTRATORS

The administration has a significant stake in the integrity of the institution, and thus has the right to require preventive classroom practices. It can also expect faculty and student cooperation with guidelines and processes to promote academic integrity. The Committee strongly recommends that the administration support funding for OAI staff and associated resources and activities.

The administration's contribution to promoting academic integrity might include most if not all of the following:

The administration can and should set expectations for all, repeat these publicly and often, and establish rules and procedures for meeting them. It should develop guidelines, processes, and procedures for enforcement that are not onerous. It can support, praise, and reward faculty members who are vigilant, responsible, and proactive about academic integrity. It must also defend publicly and explicitly the due-process rights of students.

V. PENALTIES

A. GENERAL PRINCIPLES

In order to minimize cheating at the University, everyone--students, faculty, staff, and administrators--must contribute to creating a culture in which academic fraud is neither committed nor tolerated. The most important step in doing this is to make cheating difficult and thus prevent it in the first place. But, both as part of the prevention effort and in order to maintain publicly our norms of integrity, there must be a system for exacting penalties when cheating does occur. The three major desiderata are:

B. SPECIFIC PENALTIES

We believe that the nature and range of penalties should be developed by the new OAI in consultation with the Senate committee that will be advisory to it. But we lay out here a few specific principles and suggestions that we think should guide OAI in doing this.

C. PROCEDURES

In order to ensure that the basic principle of fairness is maintained (like cases treated alike, different cases treated differently), the assignment of penalties should be done exclusively by OAI. Individual professors cannot know what penalties are being imposed elsewhere in the University, so if they try to assign penalties for offenses they have discovered, the overall result will inevitably be unfair--at least in the sense that a student might receive a penalty very different from that given a roommate for the same offense. The only way we see to achieve consistency is to have this done at one place, in one office.

The general procedure for dealing with an instance of cheating, then, should be:

VI. CONCLUSION

The Committee does not wish to dictate all of the particulars and is only making general recommendations to set in place implementation machinery. We are not recommending an honor code per se (see Appendix B). Moreover, while there are honor codes in place within the University that appear quite effective, they are in small colleges or professional schools. We also recognize that there are different categories of severity of cheating; they need to be linked to the reasons why academic integrity is important and why some are more of an offense against it than others. We recognize that, if the system proposed here functions well, even if there are more reports of cheating, there need not be more hearings; perhaps the existing Campus Committee on Student Behavior (and corresponding bodies on the coordinate campuses) should handle any that are required.

APPENDIX A

DRAFT MOTION:

That the University Senate approve the following amendment to Article III of the bylaws (create a new committee, Academic Integrity). All language is new; existing sections of the bylaws would be renumbered accordingly.

1. ACADEMIC INTEGRITY

The Academic Integrity Committee is an advisory body to the Executive Vice President and Provost and to the administrative officers responsible for education, outreach, and sanctions related to issues of academic integrity.

Membership

The Academic Integrity Committee shall be composed of 6 faculty/academic professional members (including at least one from a coordinate campus and at least 4 of whom must be members of the tenured or tenure-track faculty) and 3 students (at least one of whom shall be a graduate or professional student and at least one of whom shall be an undergraduate student). The chair of the committee shall be a member of the tenured faculty. The academic integrity officer shall be an ex officio member. The chair and committee members will be appointed by the Executive Vice President and Provost with the advice and consent of the Committee on Educational Policy.

Duties and Responsibilities

a. To advise the academic integrity officer on all matters the committee deems appropriate, including but not limited to (1) ways to make academic integrity an abiding concern of the University, (2) the development and dissemination of best practices to ensure academic integrity, (3) processes and procedures for considering allegations of student or faculty academic misconduct, and (4) the nature of sanctions that should be imposed on those who are found to have violated University rules concerning academic integrity.

b. To advise the academic integrity officer on the disposition of specific cases of allegations of academic misconduct, at the discretion of the academic integrity officer.

c. To recommend to the Senate such actions or policies as it deems appropriate.

d. To submit an annual report to the Committee on Educational Policy and to the Senate.

[Note: this bylaw and references to academic misconduct are not to be construed as conflicting with, or superseding, other bylaws or University policies related to research misconduct, conflict of interest, or the ethical conduct of research and scholarship.]

COMMENT:

The Special Senate Committee on Student Academic Integrity recommended the creation of an Office of Academic Integrity and an advisory committee to work with the proposed office. This proposal implements that recommendation.

APPENDIX B

HONOR CODES AND SYSTEMS, AND OTHERS

The Committee began its work by defining its ends--above all to promote academic integrity across the University but also to provide for detecting and penalizing violations--and then considering means to achieve them. Prominent among them was an honor system, which we carefully considered at great length for the University as a whole but rejected in favor of a system combining students' signing declarations of integrity with a streamlined system of administration centering on the recommended new Office of Academic Integrity and fortified by the active participation and leadership of the faculty. Such a system seems optimal for the University of Minnesota. This will no doubt disappoint those who cherish the idea of an honor code, some of whom also have fond recollections of their experience of it. But the venerable term often elicits more nostalgia than understanding, because it may refer to anything from the bare signing of a declaration to "a system (as at a college or prison) whereby persons are trusted to abide by the regulations (as for a code of conduct) without supervision or surveillance" (honor system n, 1904, in Merriam Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, 10th ed., 1994). The Committee was not deterred by the slightly disconcerting association here, and it is in fact noteworthy that one who escapes from prison does not necessarily affect the lot of other trustees (though emulation might be stimulated), whereas a cheating student in a college or university inevitably does, even if he or she is caught.

A true honor system of this sort is nowhere to be found, so far as we know, except perhaps at a prison, especially a country-club prison. In fact, the distinguishing characteristic of the contemporary honor system is less its lack of "supervision or surveillance" than its being legislated, administered, and executed by students elected for the purpose by their peers. We were told by representatives of intra-University units having an honor system that it works well, and we were given good reasons to believe that. But these units--Law, Natural Resources, Pharmacy, and the like--are all relatively small and the student body constituted of majors or professional students unified by their discipline and by close identification with their unit and association with each other. Furthermore, even in these the honor system applies only to courses for majors, not to service courses for non-majors; and we might add (with tongue in cheek) that a law school has a natural affinity for any kind of legal form, apparatus, and activity.

Beyond the University it may be seen that at Caltech, for example, all students are expected to conform to a uniquely brief and binding code (pre-1920): "No member of the Caltech community shall take unfair advantage of any other member of the Caltech community"; but Caltech is an elite and specialized university--and it has a student Board of Control. The University of Maryland's Code of Academic Integrity (1990) is complemented by a student Honor Council of appointed members; "Faculty members remain responsible for the diligent proctoring of examinations, the security of exam questions, grade books, answer sheets, and the like" (Faculty Handbook). Cal Tech has a true honor system, Maryland has not, as the name of its code acknowledges (this observation is of course not meant to fault it).

Many institutions that pride themselves on their honor codes are small and located in the South, like Washington and Lee, whose honor code goes back to Confederate Army General Robert E. Lee's presidency in 1865-70; and whose student body is substantially homogeneous, as is true of most institutions with student-administered honor systems. If not all student bodies in such institutions are economically, socially, ideologically, intellectually, and professionally homogeneous, it seems likely that all are at least one of these and that most are more than one.

By contrast, the University of Minnesota is very large, spread across five campuses, ethnically and otherwise diverse, multicultural at every degree level, and the more complicated for the variety of degrees and levels in themselves. To this already high order of complexity might be added the special problem said to be posed by fraternities and sororities with their alleged files of recyclable papers. Since there is no proof of this process readily available, such allegations must be taken with a grain of salt--but cannot be dismissed out of hand. Nor can the implications be ignored of such a communication as this from a professor in one of the military academies (11-15-99):

In such circumstances, achieving true representation and full responsibility and effectiveness by students elected by and electing their peers would be not just difficult but virtually impossible. Perhaps far more students could be rallied to vote in favor of an honor system and volunteer to participate in it than run for student office or even turn out to vote in the annual elections--on the Minneapolis campus, anyway--but we doubt it. Not running for office or voting for officers in student government, or declining to participate in the designing and administering of an honor system, is not necessarily a sign of apathy; in most cases it may be due to students' concentrating on their studies, which is primarily what they are or should be at the University for. But even if lack of participation were due to alienation, work-schedule conflicts, or for that matter the weather, indifference, or downright sloth, the effect would be the same: too few willing or able to "represent" all too many, and elected by all too few to do so. Appointing student representatives may serve a purpose in lieu, but it is plainly not democratic, while serving no better the demanding and complex purposes that must be served if a university is to discharge its responsibilities fully and equitably. We know of no research university approaching the size of Minnesota that has or has even tried a student-administered honor system for the whole.

We concluded unanimously that in order to promote and protect academic integrity, and to do so with justice, equitability, and efficiency, the University needed a system more comprehensive, sure, and circumspect than a student-administered honor system could possibly be; and we think we found something like the optimal one. We are convinced that with effort and good will--and with modification based on experience over time--this system will work well for everyone, and in due course may indeed transform the ethical environment and our students. If it does, student academic integrity, and with it civility and mutual respect, will have a whole new lease on life at the University of Minnesota.

Tom Clayton, Chair
Betty Hackett
Mary Jo Kane
Judith Martin
W. Phillips Shively
Michael Sweeney
Barbara VanDrasek

DISCUSSION:

Regents Professor Tom Clayton, Chair of the Special Senate Committee on Student Academic Integrity (SAIC), started by listing the committee members and crediting them for their work throughout the process. This report is aimed at cultivating a culture of academic integrity on the campus and encouraging academic integrity in practice and theory.

The committee was encouraged at the start of the process by the fact that 70% of last year's entering freshmen thought that it was either important or very important to do something to prevent cheating and penalize those which are caught.

The two central points in the report deal with administration in this matter. The SAIC recommends that there be a new Office and Officer of Academic Integrity, which would be charged with the dissemination of information to incoming freshmen that the University takes this issue seriously and they will be required to sign a declaration of academic integrity. The Office would also deal with cases of suspected cheating.

Advice has also been included for faculty as to how they can make cheating more difficult, if not impossible, and how they can deal with suspected cases. Punishments will also need to be developed that are appropriate to the severity of the offense and so that similar cases receive equal and equitable penalties. The hope is also that faculty will gather information on cheating and provide it to the Office so that it can be collected centrally to track cheaters across colleges.

Student will need to sign a declaration of academic integrity as soon as they come to the University. The purpose is not a guarantee, but it will make clear that this issue is central to the University and infractions will be punished. It has also been recommended that reminders be placed on all blue books regarding cheating. A phrase was also considered asking students to inform the instructor if they saw any cheating. This phrase has been reworded to encourage students to report cheating, but not mandating that this be done. The purpose of this statement is to ensure that students who do their own work get the benefit without being compromised by the successful cheating of other students.

A senator expressed concern regarding the implication of the oath that students would need to take at various times during their collegiate career. The University should assume that a student is honest unless there is evidence to the contrary. Since the majority are honest, why should the University imply that there is some suspicion about their integrity? While the establishment of a central office is needed, the senator is opposed to the implications behind this oath.

Another senator responded that there are procedures currently in place which can be construed by students as saying that the University expects that they cheat. He would rather sign a statement than comply with assigned seating and checked bags during examinations.

Q: The report recognized that there are many different situations at the University. Was it contemplated to what extent there might be faculty discretion as opposed to a completely uniform policy?

A: This report does not recommend rigid enforcement of anything except the detection and penalization of cheating. If students refuse to sign this form or the blue book, there is no penalty attached. The University is hoping that the students who sign them, do so in the spirit of academic integrity. Faculty should not be penalized or feel obligated to have classes, especially small classes, sign the blue book statements although these students might not mind signing either. The most danger lies in large courses in which the same examination is given each year.

A senator urged that input from a large number of students be utilized to decide how the policy be implemented since students are the ones affected by the policy and know how students cheat.

Professor Clayton said that he would welcome input from any interested student.

A senator said that he attended a college where this same type of signed statement was required. There was not a problem with the statement because it was signed by everyone and therefore not considered personal.

Another senator stated that many examinations that he gives are not taken in a blue book so he would need to distribute an additional statement to sign, which he felt would not be as impersonal as when it appears on the blue book.

A senator agreed that a central office is needed since he has seen students cheat in multiple classes because each different professor treats that cheating as a first offense. He did disagree with the proposed statement for two reasons. First, incoming students should already know that cheating is wrong and therefore should not need to be reminded. If students do not know, then the admissions procedures should be revised. Second, to assume that a student who was going to cheat will now not do so because they have signed a statement is ludicrous.

Another senator said that the statement is simply a reminder that the University takes academic integrity seriously. These procedures are not being put in place to set the students against the faculty or administration. Instead this is a collective effort so all groups work together for the good of the University.

A senator agreed that the purpose of the statement is to establish a culture of academic integrity. While the statement might not stop persistent cheaters, it is good practice to reinforce this view.

Q: International students have a different definition of what constitutes cheating and individual work. For this reason, graduate students in a particular program have been signing this type of statement for almost 20 years. Are all students now going to be required to add this statement to all their papers?

A: Yes they will.

Q: In terms of a new office being formed, how will this be implemented on the coordinate campuses in terms of personnel and funding?

A: The motion is to approve the report in principle, subject to implementing regulations that would be drafted over the summer. These questions would be answered at that time and then be brought back to the University Senate for approval. Funding will need to come from University resources and the office will be located on the Twin Cities campus. Arrangements will need to be made to provide representatives from that office to each of the coordinate campuses.

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

APPROVED

FOR INFORMATION:

Background

A majority of the universities that were surveyed offered tuition benefits. Many remitted 50% with a few (mostly privates) offering 100%. In the Big Ten, 7 of 14 offered tuition remissions with Northwestern offering 85%; Penn State, 75%, and all others at 50%. Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin do not offer a tuition benefit for dependents of employees.

The analysis performed by Employee Benefits (appended to this report) suggests that the cost of a 50% tuition remission, when fully implemented with students in all four years, would be between $1.2 and $1.7 million. (See appended report.) Assuming that dependents are equally distributed across employment categories, this would mean that 44% of eligible dependents are associated with Civil Service/Bargaining Unit staff while 56% are associated with Faculty and Professional Administrative Staff. Using $1.45 million as the full cost (halfway between $1.2 and $1.7 million estimates), the added percentage fringe benefit increase would be .25% for CS/BU and .21% for Faculty/PA.

New Analysis

Employers design benefit plans to influence employee behavior--particularly with relation to attraction and retention to the organization. A benefit program that has certain features is more attractive to some segments of the labor force than others. For example, health care subsidies for dependents increases the attractiveness for applicants and employees with dependents. A retirement program with a service requirement for vesting of benefits encourages retention.

An employee's total compensation consists of cash payments and economic benefits designed to reduce risk (insurance), pay in kind (recreation subsidies), pay during nonworking periods (vacations and holidays), and provide for retirement (pensions). The mix of cash payments and benefits reflects the joint interests of employers and employees. In turn, public policy has favored employers providing benefits for employees rather than the employees purchasing benefits themselves due to the nontaxability of benefits, but not cash payments.

A tuition remission program for dependents of employees that includes a service requirement would be expected to increase attractiveness of employment for those who have dependents who will likely be admissible to the university. It would also reduce turnover because sustained service would be necessary to make use of the benefit.

If cost savings from reduced turnover exceed increased costs of a tuition reduction benefit, then the benefit would be costless--actually improving the efficiency of the university.

Assumptions

We begin with the following enrollment assumptions which are largely similar to those used in last year's proposal:

The current proposal requires some additional assumptions:

Analysis

With these assumptions in place, the present value of the 100% tuition remission for four years to an employee with 10 years of service is $5,568 (at 50%, $2,784). If we were to calculate the present cost of providing this benefit to the proportion of employees (by classification) who would be expected to accrue 10 years of service (under reduced turnover expectations), the cost would be $2,968 for P/A, $4,043 for faculty $2,537 for civil service, $2,443 for Teamster members, and $2,014 for AFSCME members. (Keep in mind that these figures are approximate.) However, if turnover were reduced by 10%, the net (cost) saving for the university from providing this benefit, after turnover cost reductions, for a 10 year service employee would be ($137) for PA, $929 for faculty, ($577) for civil service, ($1,594) for Teamsters, and ($1,077) for AFSCME. The overall weighted cost would be $23.73 per year for each 10 year employee. If a 50% remission is applied, the savings would be $112.13 per employer per year.

If the university were to implement a 100% tuition remission program, with vesting starting at 50% in year 5 and increasing by 10% per year until full vesting at year 10, and if turnover declined by 10% in each employee group as a result, the following conservative estimate would apply. Assuming that all employees work for up to 20 years, and that there are about 5% of employees in each year of service between 1 and 20, then the annual cost savings, net of tuition costs, per employee is about $89 and the annual savings across the employee population would be in excess of $1,200,000.

Spreadsheets on which this analysis is based are available upon request from the Senate office.

Resolution

Whereas: The University of Minnesota, as a land grant institution, has as one of its central missions the education of highly qualified undergraduate students, and

Whereas: The University of Minnesota benefits from the efforts and commitment of all of its employees, and

Whereas: University of Minnesota employees, especially as employees of an institution of higher learning, understand the benefits of higher education and seek to make them available to their children/dependents, and

Whereas: The University of Minnesota desires to improve the effectiveness of its workforce and reduce employment costs by reducing employee turnover, and

Whereas: The faculty of the University of Minnesota seeks a stronger sense of community among all employee groups, each of which contributes to the mission of the university, and

Whereas: It can be demonstrated that the inclusion of a partial tuition remission benefit would reduce employment costs under relatively conservative assumptions, therefore

Be it resolved: That the Faculty Senate strongly recommends that the children/dependents of all university employees having accrued 5 or more years of uninterrupted university service be granted a 50% tuition reduction upon being regularly admitted to an approved undergraduate program leading to a bachelor's degree, that the tuition reduction will be applied to half of the tuition for the first four year's of a child/dependent's enrollment, during periods in which the child/dependent student is in good academic standing; and that the percentage of tuition reduced be increased by 10% for each additional year of uninterrupted service through year 10.

COMMENT:

The SCFA Benefits Subcommittee, under the direction of its chair, Professor John Fossum, has developed the above-mentioned resolution and supporting information. It has been presented to and approved by both the Senate Committee on Faculty Affairs (SCFA) and the Faculty Consultative Committee (FCC).

RICHARD GOLDSTEIN, Chair
FACULTY AFFAIRS COMMITTEE

DISCUSSION:

Professor Richard Goldstein, Chair of the Faculty Affairs Committee (SCFA), said that this subject has been considered for a long time, but was finally worked on by the SCFA Benefits Subcommittee. There are a number of reasons that this policy is being considered. First, it will provide an important benefit in hiring at all levels in the University. Second, it will play a role in retention. Third is the impact on employee morale. Lastly, it will increase interest in undergraduate education by all employees.

An analysis was done by Professor John Fossum which found that there are savings to the University by retention of employees since new employee training is not needed. The reason that this policy is not being presented for action now is that the administration wants to conduct its own study of costs versus savings with this proposal. Currently, seven of the Big Ten universities offer tuition benefits, as does MnSCU.

Q: Will this benefit be rolled into fringe benefits so that employees will end up paying for it anyway?

A: If the gross tuition cost for this benefit is considered, the analysis indicates that it would be a fringe benefit of .2%, which does not take into account any savings to the University.

MOTION:

To approve the Faculty Emeriti Policy and Administrative Procedures. A simple majority is required for approval.

COMMENT:

The proposed policy is available in the Senate Office and the proposed administrative procedures are as follows:

1. Purpose. In recognition of years of valued service and contributions to the University of Minnesota, the Board of Regents has established the title of "emeritus" to be awarded to those who meet the standard of a faculty emeritus defined in section I, subdivision 1 of the policy Faculty Emeriti. The objective of this policy is to honor the past affiliation and encourage and maximize the inclusion of emeritus faculty as participating members of the University of Minnesota community. The principle guiding this policy is that faculty emeriti shall have the opportunity and are encouraged to continue as active members of the University community to the extent they are willing and able. The policy, Faculty Emeriti, and the procedures for administering it supersede those concerning "Emeritus Title for Faculty"(adopted January 9,1969). Furthermore, the policy and these administrative guidelines specify the expectations of the University and its academic and service units in implementing this policy and the privileges and services that are expected to be provided to faculty emeriti. These administrative guidelines and procedures should be read and interpreted in conjunction with the policy, not as a substitute for it.

2. Conferment of the Emeritus Title and Notification. The emeritus title is automatically conferred to a faculty member (regardless of gender) upon retirement from the University under honorable circumstances as specified in Sections I, III, and IV. It may also be granted by the Board of Regents, on recommendation of the president, under special circumstances when the above conditions are not met as described below and in Section III, subd. 2. The conferment of the faculty emeritus title shall be at the faculty member's rank at the time of retirement; however, it does not confer any employment status, rights, or associated entitlements.

Formal notification of emeritus status. Each college shall issue a letter to the eligible retiring faculty member within one month of their retirement, conferring the emeritus title.

Special circumstances. As provided in the policy, Section III, subdivision 2, the emeritus title can be awarded or promotion in rank made for a faculty member not meeting the definition of faculty to emeritus as set forth in the policy, Section I, subdivision 1.

In such case, the recommendation must be initiated at the departmental level and the following is required: a statement of the rationale and other documentation (i.e., letter of support) providing justification for the action proposed, approval by a 2/3 majority of the tenured faculty in the unit, and subsequent approval of the department head/chair as well as the dean of the college.

The awarding of the emeritus title or promotion within the emeritus rank is granted upon approval of the Board of Regents after recommendation by the Executive Vice President Provost and the President.

3. University Services and Privileges. In order to facilitate the maintenance of a significant connection with faculty emeriti, the University shall provide faculty emeriti, who desire them, with the following privileges and services equal to those provided to regular faculty:

1. e-mail accounts (including internet access);
2. library privileges;
3. listing in the University directory and mailservice;
4. faculty discounts for computer software, recreational facilities, athletic events, and other performances and exhibitions;
5. continuation of parking privileges at faculty rates subject to space limitations (in such case, the next best alternative space should be offered);
6. auditing of graduate or undergraduate level courses, subject to the instructor's approval and relevant University policies and procedures;
7. access to University and state policies governing the continuation of health insurance, but at their own expense;
8. participation in academic processions (graduations, convocations, etc.) in a position of honor; and
9. represent the University (upon appointment by the president) at academic ceremonies of other institutions.

4. Academic Unit Services and Privileges. Subject to cost and availability, academic unit administrators are encouraged to provide active emeritus faculty the following privileges, services, and facilities as are warranted by the nature of the continuing

1. office space;
2. access to laboratories, computers, or comparable facilities requisite to the continued engagement in scholarly work or mutually agreed upon task whether on a contractual or volunteer basis;
3. access to mail, telephone, and other routine office services (e.g. copying, secretarial); and
4. the privilege to submit proposals for sponsored research and to advise graduate students or postdoctoral research associates, subject to University rules and policies.

5. Continued Relationship with the University. An academic department, service, or other administrative unit may enter into a volunteer or contractual agreement with a faculty emeritus to provide services subject to terms of the contract and applicable laws and rules as referenced in Section VI of the policy Faculty Emeriti.

6. Informal Dispute Resolution. Disputes by faculty emeriti that arise from the policy Faculty Emeriti and these administrative procedures shall be resolved via an informal process. If a dispute arises from a decision under the policy Faculty Emeriti and these administrative procedures, the faculty emeritus can request review by the administrative level above the administrator making the decision (e.g. at the college level when the dispute concerns a decision by a department chair/head). Requests for reviews and reviews should be made in a timely manner.

RICHARD GOLDSTEIN, Chair
FACULTY AFFAIRS COMMITTEE

DISCUSSION:

Professor Richard Goldstein, Chair of the Faculty Affairs Committee (SCFA), recalled that two years ago the Faculty Senate passed a Retiree's Bill of Rights. Since that time, SCFA and its Retirement Benefits Subcommittee have been working with the administration to develop a Regents' policy and administrative procedures.

The point of the policy is that emeritus faculty can be of great benefit to the University and their presence on campus is positive. Currently, many departments give many of the rights and privileges that are listed here to their emeritus faculty, but this should not be left to the whim of an administrator. Instead, it should be a uniform minimum across the University. The cost is small and will be outweighed by the benefits.

Q: The policy mentions promotion of faculty in terms of emeritus status. What does this mean?

A: If an associate professor were to retire, his or her title would the Associate Professor Emeritus. If a department wishes to make a promotion in emeritus title for these individuals, which costs no money, the policy provides for the way to do this.

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

APPROVED

President Yudof said that the grand jury investigation into athletic matters on the Twin Cities Campus is pending and the University will cooperate in any way that it can with the federal prosecutory authorities.

In terms of the legislative session, the biggest concern is that there will not be a bonding bill at all since the University cannot tell if this is a tough bargaining strategy or whether a bonding bill will not be produced. The most recent versions have included funding for the new Studio Arts Building, the Genomics Building, the second half of the Molecular and Cellular Biology Building, the Morris Science and Math Building, the Duluth Performing Arts Building, and Kiehle Hall renovations at Crookston.

The Faculty Consultative Committee has been working with him to implement the two newly-approved athletics' committees. The Faculty Academic Oversight Committee has been charged with reviewing the academic records of student athletes, making determinations on athletes' degree progress, and focusing on individuals who are not making significant academic progress or are having other problems. The second committee, the Athletic Advisory Committee, has responsibility for oversight of athletics. If anyone would like to volunteer for either committee, please submit a nomination.

He then discussed the economic development initiative being chaired by Executive Vice President and Provost Bruininks and Vice President Muscoplat. The idea is to focus on certain metrics of the Minnesota economy, determine how well the state is doing in terms of such things as workforce and venture capital, and to bring into the process leaders from the private and public sector to look at potential problems for the state in the future and look at a range of solutions for a long-range economic development plan for the state. As a public land-grant university, it is appropriate for the University to convene these leaders and get the discussion started. Funding for the University would need to be part of any package for economic development in the state.

Q: What are the minimum conditions the Worker's Rights Consortium (WRC) will need to meet if the University is to remain affiliated with the WRC and what amount of time will be provided to achieve these conditions?

A: After consideration of this issue for quite some time, the Social Concerns Committee and a Task Force on Sweatshop Labor both recommended joining the WRC instead of the Fair Labor Association (FLA). As stated in the conditional approval, the 12-member board has only three seats designated for universities, yet since the WRC only represents collegiate apparel, universities should have a more active role in board participation. Second, while there is a conflict of interest in having industry representatives as board members, the WRC needs to have a mechanism to engage industries in their activities. Third, the WRC does not have a monitoring plan in place, and fourth, appropriate financial provisions need to be established. There is no specific timeline since it is a new organization and these are complicated issues to be resolved.

Q: Has anything been done to look into the long-term threat to the University from distance learning?

A: There has been discussion of this topic in the Office of the Executive Vice President and Provost. There is disagreement among people since some see distance learning as a threat and others feel that the University is a residential college. At this time, the technology is ahead of the thinking so discussions should be held in governance on this topic. Applications have increased at the campuses so there is no immediate threat at the undergraduate level. Some professional degrees are being offered electronically to accommodate people who cannot move to attend classes and to reach remote areas.

Q: What is the media now saying regarding the basketball situation in terms of Coach Haskin's contract?

A: There were two Star Tribune editorials which appeared today and are accurate. In the judgement of the University attorneys, the information provided did not amount to grounds for dismissal.

Q: With the completion of the Enterprise project, why is the 1.25% PeopleSoft tax being continued?

A: The University has overhead to cover, but the legislature does not allocate much, so central administration pays as much as it can before it also runs out of funds. This has been a problem with IMG now that the legislative appropriations have decreased and tuition revenue goes directly back to the colleges. In terms of the Enterprise Project, the cost will be the original amount that was first proposed, but not approved. A report was issued by the Dean Rosenstone Task Force which stated that the University needs to pay for overhead and the faculty, staff, and students need to look closely at all expense items to make sure that they are not extravagant.

Professor Judith Martin, Chair of the Educational Policy Committee (SCEP), said that she needed to clarify a few issues regarding the use of the grading report, which was presented for information earlier in the meeting. The grade information is offered in the context of the grade inflation report from last year, which asked that this information be provided to the Senate each year. Second, the intention is that these data will begin to elicit discussions at the departmental and collegiate level about what grades actually mean. Lastly, these data cannot be compared to previous years because of the switch to semesters.

FOR INFORMATION:

Interpretation of Subsections 7.11 and 7.12: General Criteria and Departmental Statement

The faculty of an academic unit are expected to periodically review their criteria for awarding indefinite tenure and reflect any new criteria in a revision of their Subsection 7.12 Statement. The new criteria and Subsection 7.12 Statement must be adopted in accordance with the established procedures of the University, after consultation as required by those procedures. Current probationary faculty in the unit may elect to be evaluated on the criteria in the previous Subsection 7.12 Statement or on the new criteria. This option is also available to current tenured faculty in their evaluation for promotion to the next level. Probationary or tenured faculty must make this decision within one year of the date of administrative approval of the new criteria.

Comment:

This interpretation will replace the second paragraph of existing Interpretation 6. This paragraph now states, "If changes in the program of a unit affect the prospects of probationary faculty members to achieve tenure, these faculty members should be given the earliest possible notice of the potential impact of such changes." The new interpretation will allow probationary faculty members to chose to be evaluated using the previous criteria of the unit for tenure or the new criteria. This option is also available to tenured faculty of the unit who are seeking promotion to the next level, e.g. Associate Professors seeking promotion to full Professors. Although the latter group will be involved in the development and acceptance of the new criteria by the tenured faculty of the unit, they may represent a minority opinion. This interpretation does not change the requirement for review of the new criteria by the dean or other appropriate academic administrator and by the senior academic administrator. Faculty members must make their decision with in one year of the approval of the new Subsection 7.12 Statement by the senior academic administrator.

Required Action: