The fourth meeting of the University Senate for 2000-01 was convened in 25 Law Building, Minneapolis campus, on Thursday, April 19, 2001, at 2:34 p.m., as a joint meeting of the University Senate, Faculty Senate, and Twin Cities Campus Assembly. Coordinate campuses were linked by telephone. Checking or signing the roll as present were 102 voting faculty/academic professional members, 21 voting student members, and 6 ex officio members. President Yudof presided.

There will be a meeting of the Faculty Senate on Thursday, May 31, 2001, starting at 2:30 p.m.

MOTION:

To approve the University Senate, Faculty Senate, and Twin Cities Campus Assembly minutes, which are available on the Web at the following URLs. A simple majority is required for approval.

http://www1.umn.edu/usenate/u_senate/010222sen.html
http://www1.umn.edu/usenate/faculty_senate/010222fac.html
http://www1.umn.edu/usenate/tcca/010222tcca.html

DISCUSSION:

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

3. TRIBUTE TO DECEASED MEMBERS OF THE UNIVERSITY COMMUNITY

FACULTY/ACADEMIC PROFESSIONALS/STAFF

John R. Borchert
Professor
Geography
1918 - 2001

Robert L. Borg
Associate Professor
Music
1923 - 2001

Nengqian Chen
Research Associate
Pediatrics
1939 - 2001

Theda Hagenah
Professor
Academic Counseling
1917 - 2000

Thomas R. Hamilton
Professor
Microbiology
1911 - 2001

Albert F. Hayes
Professor
Obstetrics and Gynecology
1912 - 2001

John D. Hurrell
Professor
English and Liberal Arts
1924 - 2001

John J. Jurkovich
Assistant Professor
College of Education and Human Service Professions - Duluth
1912 - 2001

Kerry R. Kelts
Professor
Geology & Geophysics
1947 - 2001

Mary K. Klaurens
Professor
Education and Human Development
1924 - 2001

R. John Rath
Professor
History
1910 - 2001

John F. Roby
Senior Buyer
Purchasing
1926 - 2001

Yoshio Sako
Professor
Surgery
1918 - 2001

Charles T. Theisen
Associate Professor
Medical School
1947 - 2001

Helen J. Yesner
Professor
Social Work
1911 - 2001

E. W. Ziebarth
Dean
College of Liberal Arts
1910 - 2001

STUDENTS

Annie M. Hagen
University of Minnesota - Morris

Christine Orzechowski
University of Minnesota - Morris

Jonathan Thielen
General College


4. ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSES TO SENATE AND ASSEMBLY ACTIONS
Information

University Senate

Amendments to the Grievance Policy

Approved by the:

University Senate February 24, 2000 Modified by the: Administration July 20, 2000; discussion PENDING Approved as modified by the: Board of Regents NOT YET SUBMITTED

Interpretation to the Uniform Grading and Transcript Policy

Presented for information to the:

University Senate February 22, 2001 Approved by the: Administration - no action required Board of Regents - no action required

2002-03 and 2003-04 Calendars

Approved by the:

University Senate February 22, 2001 Administration March 29, 2001 Board of Regents - no action required

Amendment to the Financial or Business Conflict of Interest Policy

Approved by the:

University Senate February 22, 2001 Administration - March 29, 2001 Board of Regents - PENDING APPROVAL at May 11, 2001 meeting

Faculty Senate

Amendments to Faculty Tenure (Sections 5.3 and 11)

Approved by the:

Faculty Senate April 22, 1999 Administration July 29, 1999 Board of Regents March 9, 2001

Interpretation of Faculty Tenure (Section 15)<

Approved by the:

Faculty Senate April 22, 1999 Administration July 29, 1999 Board of Regents March 9, 2001

Amendment to the Judicial Committee Rules of Procedure (Addition to Rule 2b: Vice Chair)

Approved by the:

Faculty Senate April 22, 1999 Administration July 29, 1999 Board of Regents March 9, 2001

Amendment to the Judicial Committee Rules of Procedure (Revision of 6b: Attorney)

Approved by the:

Faculty Senate May 20, 1999 Administration June 13, 2000 Board of Regents March 9, 2001

Amendments to the Administrative Procedures for the Interim Regents Policy on Faculty Development Leaves

Approved by the:

Faculty Senate February 22, 2001 Administration March 29, 2001 Board of Regents - no action required

Declaration on Faculty Salaries

Approved by the:

Faculty Senate February 22, 2001 Administration - *See Response Board of Regents - no action required

* The Administration has publicly stated that University of Minnesota faculty salaries are not yet competitive. The administration continually voices public and private support for increased faculty salaries for the reasons stated in the resolution, among others. The President has clearly noted that it is a priority objective to increase faculty salaries on the Twin Cities campus at a rate above the level of inflation with decisions on use of funding related to salaried to be based on market and merit. This institutional commitment also extends to the coordinate campuses as appropriate. The Administration agrees that the Legislature and the Governor must be made aware that addressing the issue of competitive faculty salaried is of the utmost importance to the long-term economic health of the state, It must be noted that the need for additional state support for faculty compensation is a critical component of our biennial budget submitted to the State of Minnesota. In our effort to promote that importance of the state's support of the institutional biennial budget we have enlisted the aid of key business and community leaders, previous government officials (in particular, Governors Anderson and Carlson), alumni, and current students and employees to take our message to citizens and legislator. The faculty's strong support for the total biennial budget is needed and appreciated.

FOR INFORMATION:

In the recent election to fill vacancies on the Assembly Steering/Senate Consultative Committee, Professors Arthur Erdman, Candace Kruttschnitt, and Judith Martin were elected to three-year terms (July 1, 2001 through June 30, 2004). The Faculty Consultative Committee membership for 2001-02 will be:

Muriel Bebeau, School of Dentistry
Susan Brorson, University of Minnesota - Crookston
Arthur Erdman, Institute of Technology
Daniel Feeney, College of Veterinary Medicine
Candace Kruttschnitt, College of Liberal Arts
Judith Martin, College of Liberal Arts
Joseph Massey, College of Natural Resources
Paula Rabinowitz, College of Liberal Arts
Jeff Ratliff-Crain, University of Minnesota - Morris
Billie Wahlstrom, College of Agricultural, Food, and Environmental Sciences

Professor Fred Morrison, Chair of the Senate Consultative Committee (SCC), noted that this is the last University Senate meeting at which he will be SCC Chair. He said that SCC has been dealing with the proposed stadium, health benefits, faculty salaries, and the University budget. He emphasized that each person should contact his or her legislators within the next week to ensure support for the University budget.

On February 18, 1999, in adopting a policy on "Collection and Reporting of Grade Data and Syllabus Requirements," the Senate Committee on Educational Policy was required to provide to the Senate "data on the mean grade point average by designator and course level, on the percentage of As awarded by course level, and overall collegiate grade point averages . . . for grades awarded each Fall Semester." The policy also provides that "data should be reported for all undergraduate students."

COMMENT:

These data were distributed at the meeting.

FOR INFORMATION:

Interpretation of the POLICY ON EVALUATION OF TEACHING CONTRIBUTIONS by the Committee on Educational Policy (new language is underlined):

1. The teaching performance of all faculty, regardless of their academic rank or tenure status, must be subject to evaluation. The frequency and intensity of this assessment will vary. Probationary faculty are already subject to an annual retention review that includes an evaluation of their teaching. All tenured faculty who wish to be considered for a salary increase based on teaching must submit for review evidence of their recent contributions to teaching, including items of information listed below for peer review (Recommendation 2). In addition, faculty to be considered for a teaching-based salary increase must submit written student evaluations for at least one section of each of the courses taught during the previous year; a more accurate assessment of a faculty member's overall performance would include evaluations for at least one offering of each of the courses taught by the instructor during the period since his/her last teaching-based salary review, and all offerings of a course if it was significantly modified from one quarter to another.

Students must be made aware that their ratings will be used in making personnel decisions. A small number of questions common to all courses throughout the university will be used in the student evaluations of instructors. The use of common questions provides one means of making judgments on teaching effectiveness university-wide, and allows calculation of statistical norms. It is important to stress that this type of information can be used with other types to identify very good instructors who deserve rewards as well as instructors who may need assistance in improving their classroom effectiveness, but does not have the resolution necessary to allow fine discrimination between instructors in intermediate categories. In addition to questions that request a numerical score, survey forms must include provisions for written comments by students.

2. The required evaluation of teaching for tenure and promotion decisions must have two major components, peer review and student surveys. Academic units must make provisions for peer review for faculty being considered for tenure and promotion. This is to be supplemented by information from student evaluations of all their courses, as described in Recommendation 1. Faculty peers must evaluate course objectives and syllabi, handouts, assignments and tests, theses and dissertations, and examples of graded student work in order to measure their quality and appropriateness. Peers must also assess the instructor's knowledge of the subject matter, contributions to departmental teaching efforts, and any other teaching contributions, such as development of new courses or innovative instructional materials, authorship of texts or laboratory manuals, or publications on discipline-specific teaching techniques. Peer review could also include assessment of student performance on certification exams (if appropriate to the discipline), survey of the extent of mentoring and participation in other activities related to instruction, or assessment of an instructor's classroom performance via personal visit or videotaping of the class. It is to a faculty member's benefit to prepare and regularly update a teaching portfolio that contains materials that will be considered during his/her evaluation.

It is essential that the information collected to evaluate teaching effectiveness for personnel decisions remain confidential. The results must be shared with the faculty member being reviewed, but general access to information on a specific instructor must be restricted to those responsible for decisions on promotion, tenure, and salary adjustments.

Interpretation by the Committee on Educational Policy: This policy applies to all instructors regardless of whether they are tenure-track/tenured, term/P&A, or adjunct faculty or hold any other kind of teaching appointment at the University.

COMMENT:

SCEP received an inquiry about the application of this policy to those who hold teaching appointments of some kind (e.g., teaching specialist, education specialist, adjunct faculty, and others who hold faculty or faculty-like appointments but who are not on tenure-track appointments as defined by the tenure code). The language of the policy provides that it applies to "all faculty, regardless of their academic rank or tenure status" but there apparently has nonetheless been a question about its applicability to those who do not have tenure-track or tenured appointments.

This interpretation is intended to make it as clear as possible that the policy applies to everyone who teaches at the University.

Intellectual Property: Disclosure of Potential Conflict of Interest

PROCEDURE x.x.x.x

Responsible University Officer
Vice President for Research

Responsible Office
Office of the Vice President for Research

---

Intellectual Property: Disclosure of Potential Conflict of Interest

---

General Principles

The University and the University community have a strong interest and responsibility for preserving the University as an institution free of conflicts of interest that could cloud scientific and scholarly judgments, could improperly influence the distribution of resources within the University, and could undermine the public’s confidence in the University as an institution of high integrity. The University's early review of potential conflicts of interest is especially important when licensing to business or commercial interests in which the Creator is an officer or holds an executive position or has significant financial interests. The University and the University community then have as a goal the elimination of actual and the management of potential conflicts of interest.

A Creator's business or financial interest (be it as a shareholder, partner, or other holder of an present or future ownership interest, or as a director, officer, employee or consultant) in or with a company, does not constitute, standing alone, a conflict of interest. However, because of the potential for both personal and institutional financial benefit, transactions involving University-based intellectual property require careful consideration and review to ensure that potential conflicts of interest do not rise to the level of actual conflicts. The Board of Regents’ Policy on Conflict of Interest (the "Conflict of Interest Policy"), as well as the Procedures for implementing the policy, applies to potential and actual conflicts of interest arising from University-based Intellectual Property. The procedures presented below provide a supplementary framework for intellectual property-based potential conflicts of interest.

Procedures

1. Creator's Disclosures. A Creator shall disclose to the University all of the Creator's business and financial interests reportable to the University under the Conflict of Interest Policy (i) when the Creator submits an Invention Disclosure Form to Patents and Technology Marketing ("PTM"), (ii) when the University enters into an agreement to license or otherwise transfer some or all of its rights in the Development disclosed in the Invention Disclosure Form, and (iii) when the University agrees to waive its rights in the Development to the Creator, the Creator shall make these disclosures using the Report on External Professional Activities ("AREPA") form. At each reporting juncture, the Creator should review his or her most recently submitted AREPA and determine if it accurately and completely discloses all the Creator's reportable business and financial interests. The Creator shall submit an updated AREPA if the most recently submitted version is inaccurate or incomplete. The staff of PTM will review with each Creator the accuracy and completeness of the disclosures in the Creator's AREPA. During this review, the Creator shall disclose to and discuss with PTM any additional business or financial interests of the Creator that could potentially create a conflict of interest. If such additional interests exist, the Creator shall update her AREPA and shall ensure it is reviewed by her departmental and collegiate administration so that adequate management of the potential conflict will occur.

2. Prohibition on Licensing. The University will not enter into any license or other agreement to transfer some or all of its rights in an intellectual property until (i) after each Creator of that property has submitted to the University an accurate and complete AREPA, disclosing all of each Creator's business and financial interests reportable to the University under the Conflict of Interest Policy as of the date of or a date just before the date of such license or agreement; (ii) after each Creator's departmental and collegiate administration has reviewed the updated AREPA(s); (iii) after the development and implementation of a plan to manage any reportable conflicts of interest, and (iv) in those instances in which the Provost’s or the Senior Vice President for the Academic Health Center’s Conflict Review Committees (CRCs) approval is required, after such approval has been given and is subsequently reviewed by the Creator's collegiate administration.


Intellectual Property: Clarifying Definitions

PROCEDURE x.x.x.x

Responsible University Officer
Vice President for Research

Responsible Office
Office of the Vice President for Research

---

Intellectual Property: Clarifying Definitions

---

Definition of “Course Requirement”

“Course Requirement,” as defined in the Board of Regents' Policy on Intellectual Property, means "[i]ntellectual property created solely for the purpose of satisfying a course requirement . . . . " (Section VI, Subd. 2). The term refers to intellectual property created solely as a requirement for completion of a formal organized course offered and conducted by the University of Minnesota. The term does not apply to work required in individual studies or research courses. In particular, the term does not apply to work conducted in order to complete a thesis or a dissertation.

Definition of "Other Intellectual Property"

“Other Intellectual Property,” as defined in the Board of Regents' Policy on Intellectual Property (the "Intellectual Property Policy "), is "intellectual property disclosed to and licensed or otherwise transferred by the University's technology transfer unit and not covered by [Section VIII] subdivision 1 and 2 . . . . " (Section VIII, Subd. 3). For example, if the University required an employee, as part of his or her employment duties, to write a software application program, the program would be "Other Intellectual Property" and net income from a sale or licensing of it would be governed by Section VIII, Subd. 3 of the Policy on Intellectual Property. The term does not refer to, and expressly excludes, intellectual property which is the result of Academic Research or Scholarly Study or intellectual property created by a member of the faculty, staff or student body of the University or any other individual subject to the Intellectual Property Policy pursuant to and in conformance with the terms of the Board of Regents' Policy on Outside Consulting, Service Activities and Other Work.

Definition of “Out-of-Pocket Expenditures”

Net Income, as defined in the Board of Regents’ Policy on Intellectual Property, is the "gross monetary payments the University receives as a result of transferring rights in intellectual property less the University’s out-of-pocket expenditures (including legal fees) directly attributable to protecting, developing and transferring that intellectual property." (Section III, Subd. 3) The term means cash or other consideration paid to entities not owned by the University, including the fees and expenses of consultants and lawyers. In addition, expenses for levels of service and support provided by a University of Minnesota unit that are well beyond that customarily provided to support Patents and Technology Marketing or Sponsored Projects Administration in the process of protecting, developing and transferring that intellectual property may be treated as out-of-pocket expense. Such payments will be made with the approval of the Vice President for Research and will be subject to review by the President. In no case will service provided by a unit reporting to the Vice President for Research be considered for payment as an out-of-pocket expenditure.


Intellectual Property: Handling Net Income Derived from “Other Intellectual Property”

PROCEDURE x.x.x.x

Responsible University Officer
Vice President for Research

Responsible Office
Patents and Technology Marketing

---

Intellectual Property: Handling Net Income Derived from “Other Intellectual Property”

---

General Principles

The Board of Regents' Policy on Intellectual Property (the "Intellectual Property Policy") distinguishes intellectual property created as part of Academic Research or Scholarly Study from Other Intellectual Property owned by the University under Section V of the Intellectual Property Policy or law. The Board of Regents authorized the administration of the University to develop rules for determining if or how the University would distribute to Creators a share of the moneys earned from Other Intellectual Property. The University is under no obligation to distribute to Creators any portion of the moneys earned in connection with Other Intellectual Property. This Procedure sets forth the process under which the University shall determine the amount of any distribution to Creators of Other Intellectual Property.

Procedures

1. After the Creator's disclosure to the University of the Other Intellectual Property, the Creator's supervisor and the Assistant Vice President for Research of PTM (or his or her designee) shall jointly author a letter to the Creator's departmental personnel file that describes the Creator's role in developing the Other Intellectual Property and commends the Creator.
2. After the submission to PTM of an Invention Disclosure Form for the Other Intellectual Property and a determination by PTM that the Other Intellectual Property is commercially marketable, the Creator's immediate supervisor shall recommend to PTM how much, if any, of the Net Income from the University's granting of a license or otherwise entering into an agreement to transfer its rights in the Other Intellectual Property should be distributed to each Creator.
3. The University may distribute to a Creator a portion of the Net Income from the University's granting of a license or otherwise entering into an agreement to transfer its rights in the Other Intellectual Property. In deciding whether and, if so, how much to remunerate a Creator for the creation of the Other Intellectual Property, the University shall consider (i) the general importance of recognizing the contributions of employees who develop Other Intellectual Property; (ii) the difficulty of the work, (iii) the potential to generate significant net income, (iv) the level of innovation in determining the type of recognition, and (v) other appropriate factors. The University shall make such a determination each academic year the University expects to receive significant Net Income from the Other Intellectual Property.
4. The University may allocate to the unit or department of the Creator a portion of the Net Income from the University's granting of a license or otherwise entering into an agreement to transfer its rights in the Other Intellectual Property.
5. After PTM's receipt of the supervisor's recommended income distribution, the Vice President for Research, in consultation with PTM, shall decide how much, if any, of the Net Income from the University's granting of a license or otherwise entering into an agreement to transfer its rights in the Other Intellectual Property should be distributed to each Creator and to each Creator's department or unit.
6. The Vice President for Research's decision as to the distribution of Net Income from Other Intellectual Property shall be final and non-grievable. No provision of these Procedures shall cancel, limit or otherwise affect the right to grieve the University's failure to adhere to the notice and related procedural terms of these Procedures.


Intellectual Property: Waiver of University Rights or Acknowledgement of No University Rights

PROCEDURE x.x.x.x

Responsible University Officer
Vice President for Research

Responsible Office
Patents and Technology Marketing

---

Intellectual Property: Waiver of University Rights or Acknowledgement of No University Rights

---

General Principles

The University will waive intellectual property claims to the Creator if the University determines not to protect and attempt to license that intellectual property. The University will also waive intellectual property to the Creator if it determines to abandon all efforts to protect and commercialize that intellectual property. The University will grant no waiver of intellectual property to the Creator if there are any contractual or other legal requirements that prevent the waiver. The University will acknowledge that it does not have rights to intellectual property at the request of the Creator if the factual circumstances of the development of the intellectual property support such conclusion and are verified. Patents and Technology Marketing (PTM) shall be the responsible office for such waivers and acknowledgements.

Procedures

1. University Waiver. A Creator if only one individual created the intellectual property or all the Creators if two or more individuals created the intellectual property may submit to PTM a written request the University waive its rights and interests. This request may be submitted at any time after the University has determined the Invention Disclosure Form for the intellectual property is complete and after the University has delivered to each Creator a written notice of the University's intention not to commercialize the intellectual property.

The University may waive its rights and interests in a properly disclosed intellectual property if the University determines that the intellectual property cannot be commercialized because the property cannot reasonably be adequately protected by law, the property is not expected to deliver a reasonable return to the University and the Creators, or for other appropriate reasons. If the University waives its rights in an intellectual property, the University shall also assign its intellectual property rights existing at the time of the waiver, such as patent applications, or copyrights, to the Creator. PTM will cooperate with the Creator to effect such assignments.

The University will generally not grant waivers to intellectual property that is simply an idea with no associated proof of principle or significant test result. The University will also have discretion to determine the form and jurisdiction for pursuing protection for the intellectual property, and will not waive other forms or jurisdictions of protection. The University will not grant partial waivers, waiving to a Creator some but not all of the University's rights in a Development. For example, the University may pursue copyright protection only but will not waive any patent rights or the University may pursue patent rights in the U.S. only but will not waive European patent rights.

PTM shall promptly inform each Creator in writing if PTM determines to abandon all efforts to protect or maintain protection for the intellectual property. This written notice shall include an offer to waive if there are no contractual or other legal requirements preventing waiver (a decision to abandon some forms or some jurisdictions of protection while maintaining others shall not require an offer to waive). If a Creator requests the waiver, PTM shall promptly provide them a suitable written form and specify any known obligations to which the waiver is subject.

2. University Acknowledgment of No Rights. A Creator may request in writing to PTM that the University confirm that it does not have rights to specific intellectual property. Such request must explain the circumstances of the creation of the intellectual property in sufficient detail for PTM to determine that the intellectual property either does not fall within the scope of Section V of the Intellectual Property Policy or that it falls within one of the exceptions detailed in Section VI of the policy. A form for making such a request is available at www.ptm.umn.edu. PTM need not evaluate a Creator's request for acknowledgment of no rights until after the Creator's department head or other relevant supervisor has certified the accuracy and completeness, to the best of the department head's or supervisor's knowledge, of the representations in the Creator's request. Promptly after receipt of such request and certification, PTM will evaluate the information contained in the request and, if appropriate, generate a written acknowledgment that the University does not have rights in the intellectual property. Such acknowledgment will be contingent upon the accuracy of the information contained in the request.

3. Routine requests from publishers. Increasingly, publishers are requesting that the University provide documentation that it will make no claims on copyrighted materials such as scholarly papers and monographs be provided prior to publication (or even review). As this practice has becomes more widespread, the process described clearly does not scale for the very high volume of scholarly production of the University of Minnesota faculty. A form letter acknowledging that the University of Minnesota exercises no claims to rights or ownership in intellectual property created as a Regular Academic Work Product (unless assigned in writing)is available at www.ptm.umn.edu. Regular Academic Work Product is defined in the Regents’ Policy on Intellectual Property in Section III, Subd. 4.


Intellectual Property: Notifying Sponsors

PROCEDURE x.x.x.x

Responsible University Officer
Vice President for Research

Responsible Office
Patents and Technology Marketing

---

Intellectual Property: Notifying Sponsors

---

General Principles

The principal investigator on a grant has the responsibility of knowing and understanding the sponsor’s requirements for reporting intellectual property. The principal investigator shall promptly disclose to Patents and Technology Marketing (PTM) any intellectual property subject to reporting to the sponsor. PTM shall be responsible for making the appropriate report to the sponsor.

Procedures

Specific procedures for principal investigators to make disclosures to meet sponsor requirements may be found at www.ospa.umn.edu.


Intellectual Property: Material Transfer Agreements

PROCEDURE x.x.x.x

Responsible University Officer
Vice President for Research

Responsible Office
Patents and Technology Marketing
Office of Sponsored Projects Administration

---

Intellectual Property: Material Transfer Agreements

---

General Principles

The University encourages the transfer of biological and research materials. It is important that such transfers do not violate the terms of any contract or law. The University's Office of Sponsored Projects Administration (OSPA) and Patents and Technology Marketing (PTM) are responsible for ensuring the University meets these goals. A member of the faculty, staff or student body of the University who intends to receive biological or other research materials from a source that requires the University enter into a written material transfer agreement should route that request to the Office of Sponsored Projects Administration (OSPA). A member of the faculty, staff or student body of the University who intends to deliver biological or other research materials that they believe ought to be covered by a material transfer agreement should contact Patents and Technology Marketing (PTM).

Procedures

In consultation with the member of the faculty, staff or student body of the University or the other individual subject to the Intellectual Property Policy who proposes to deliver biological or other research materials, PTM shall determine whether it is required or desirable for the University and the proposed recipient to enter into a written material transfer agreement. PTM is responsible for determining the appropriate written agreement to use (the Uniform Biological Materials Transfer Agreement is used whenever possible) and for negotiating appropriate terms as applicable. In order to fulfill contractual requirements concerning the material or in order to evaluate the material for purposes of determining appropriate means to handle the transfer, the University may require a Creator to submit to PTM an Invention Disclosure Form for the material.


Intellectual Property: Resolution of Disputes

PROCEDURE x.x.x.x

Responsible University Officer
Vice President for Research

Responsible Office
Office of the Vice President for Research

---

Intellectual Property: Resolution of Disputes

---

Procedures

Disputes or unresolved questions may arise concerning the application of the Board of Regents' Policy on Intellectual Property and related procedures. Such disputes or questions should be raised with the Vice President for Research. The Vice President shall consult with the Office of General Counsel, the Senate Committee on Research and others as may be appropriate in order to resolve the dispute or question. The Vice President for Research will annually report to the Senate Research Committee on the number, nature and resolution of such disputes and questions. Consistent with University policy and state or federal law, other policies and procedures for addressing grievances arising from application of the Intellectual Property Policy (and its related procedures) may be invoked.


Intellectual Property: Intellectual Property Policy Acknowledgment

PROCEDURE x.x.x.x

Responsible University Officer
Vice President for Research

Responsible Office
Patents and Technology Marketing
Office of Human Resources

---

Intellectual Property: Awareness of the Intellectual Property Policy

---

General Principles

The federal government mandates (Part 37 of the Code of Federal Regulations Section 401.14) that the University require, by written agreement, employees to disclose intellectual property created under federal sponsorship and that employees cooperate in the execution of paperwork necessary to protect that intellectual property.

Broad dissemination of the Board of Regents’ Policy on Intellectual Property ( the "Intellectual Property Policy") is necessary not only to comply with federal regulations but also to protect the interests of the University and members of its community. Faculty, including visiting faculty, scholars and researchers, and all employees of the University are governed by the Intellectual Property Policy.

Procedures

COMMENT:

The procedures for the Regents Policy on Intellectual Property were approved in draft form by the Faculty Consultative Committee in June, 2000. It was intended that the draft policies would be brought to the Senate’s meeting in the Fall of 2000, but because of issues identified in the Office of the General Counsel it was necessary to delay them until this meeting of the Senate. The procedures have been approved by the ad hoc working group and by the Senate Committee on Research.

DISCUSSION:

Professor David Hamilton, Chair of the Research Committee, said that these procedures concern the previously approved Intellectual Property policy and clarify the policy’s implementation. The procedures were written by a faculty group and then revised by the Office of the General Counsel. The reason for the multiple procedures is to separate each by the circumstance to which it pertains. Two issues not addressed by these procedures are the distribution of equity and the procedure for acknowledging awareness of the Intellectual Property Policy. Professor Hamilton then read through each section division.

Q: Under what conditions is course work the property of faculty or the student, whether graduate or undergraduate?

A: Materials created by an undergraduate for a course are the property of the student. A thesis is the property of the graduate student, but anything patentable within the thesis is the property of the University.

Q: What happens if a student applies for a patent on their independent work and then uses the work in a thesis?

A: There is a procedure for disputer resolution, but in this case the University would not make a claim on intellectual property developed elsewhere.

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

MOTION:

To approve the following guidelines.

University Network Management Guidelines

Purpose: To preserve Internet access and campus network capacity for core mission applications. This guideline outlines how the Office for Information Technology will administratively manage the data network bandwidth and prevent any one application from monopolizing this limited and valuable resource.

Every year the University contracts for a finite amount of aggregated Internet access. In order to provide the expected service level to traffic related to core institutional activities, choices must sometimes be made regarding traffic priorities. Goal: No one application will affect the total network usage by consuming an inordinate amount of the University internet/intranet network bandwidth. OIT will intercede in normal traffic routing and flow as little as possible. It is not the goal of OIT to inhibit general use of the Internet or campus networks. Implementation: OIT will set time-dependent rate limits, when needed, on any application or protocol which exceeds established parameters. In order to set differentiating guidelines, we have classified applications into two separate categories. One (Primary) are those applications which have general consensus as having merit and purpose to the core mission of the University of Minnesota (teaching, education and research) and Secondary applications are those which may prove to have significant bandwidth requirements and as such impede core mission applications.Primary applications include:HTTP (web browser)SMTP, POP, IMAP (e-mail)DNS (address information)Other applications that use less than 7% of total internal or external network capacity.Secondary bandwidth priorities include:Applications not listed above that use more than 10% (or an updated percentage determined by the CIO) of total internal or external network capacity with provisions for specific exceptions (e.g. research requirements) that may be made by approval of the CIO.
Consultation and Notification: When intervention measures are necessary, every effort will be made to work with campus populations who utilize the said application(s) to arrive at mutually agreeable methods of controlling or minimizing campus resources impact. When rate-limiting methods are determined necessary, these will be put into place and approved by the CIO, who will then notify the appropriate faculty governance committees.

COMMENT:

Network applications are created, practically, every day. Frequently these new application have a major negative impact on the university's computer network. The Office of Information Technologies and the Senate Committee on Information Technologies felt strongly that some guidelines should be in place to assist OIT in managing our internal and external bandwidth. The guidelines were jointly developed by OIT and the 2000-01 Senate Committee on Information Technologies.

DISCUSSION:

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

Professor James Carey, Chair of the Disabilities Issues Committee, read the following statement to the Senate:

As Chair of the University Senate’s Disability Issues Committee, I come before you to make a statement of objection. The goal is not to belittle the University but to improve it by making this governing body aware of a problem and, if perhaps too late to correct it now, to at least prevent its recurrence in the future.

The problem is the inadequate access for people with disabilities, the elderly and the ill to the Boynton Health Service and the Academic Health Center from the River Road Parking Garage that is under construction. The current plans include a bank of elevators near the center of this large garage with a walkway to Coffman. In order for these people to gain access to Boynton, without traversing the Delaware St. hill on the north side of Boynton, they would have to walk north from their parking spot, through Coffman, then outside to Washington Ave, east to Church street and finally backtracking south to the Boynton main entrance. The total distance would be a mile. This distance, however, could be reduced to a few feet and would be entirely indoors if elevators and an entrance were constructed at the east end of the garage, which abuts Boynton. In fact, one of the earlier plans included this pathway but was eliminated because of 1) the rising cost of the garage, and 2) it would divert pedestrian traffic away from Coffman, which could jeopardize the success of the retail shops planned for Coffman.

Access to Boynton is important because 1) it is a health care facility used by the disabled, the elderly and the ill, and 2) it represents a critical indoor link to other areas of the Academic Health Center, that are in desperate need of improved public access.

The Disability Issues Committee is acutely aware of the financial difficulties that befall this University and the $3.5 million dollar cost needed to accomplish the desired and previously planned link. But neither this problem nor the retail interests of Coffman should block the rights of people with physical impairments to gain access to needed areas of this University. Indeed, the stated mission of this University, under the Outreach and Public Service section, includes “making the knowledge and resources created and preserved at the University accessible to the citizens of the state, the nation, and the world.”

We find it unacceptable that the University plans to address the needs of these individuals with added handicapped parking spots on Church Street. Although this plan may satisfy the letter of the law of the Americans with Disabilities Act, it does not satisfy the spirit of the law or the mission of this University. Dedicating more on-street parking to people with disabilities may be a reasonable alternative solution to making expensive renovations to buildings that are old. But the important point is that we are now at the beginning of a new century and the beginning of a new building. Yet, and despite our stated mission, we continue to give the disabled, the elderly and the ill the same second-class attention, respect, and access to resources that caused the Americans with Disabilities Act to be legislated in the first place. The Disability Issues Committee simply does not want to see any campus construction fail to meet the needs of its intended users, and efficient on-campus transportation is an important need for these individuals.

Finally, the Disability Issues Committee has met with the Academic Health Center's Finance and Planning Committee and also the Faculty Consultative Committee on this topic. The meeting minutes with both these groups indicate support for the desired access, yet there is nothing more they can do as decisions have already been made. It is at this point that I, and other members of the Disability Issues Committee, express our frustration. Because in an institution that is centered on faculty governance, we sadly observe that a major decision affecting this University for years to come has been made by a few without substantive faculty input. As well, student organizations including the Student Health Advisory Committee, the Council of Graduate Students, and the Minnesota Student Association would like more input into these important decisions. Regardless of whether or not the construction of this garage is too far along now to accomplish the desired access, the Disability Issues Committee believes that the University Senate, Faculty Senate, and Twin Cities Campus Assembly should be aware of this problem for the future.

A senator commented that this is an important issue since many areas of campus are hard to maneuver through, even in new buildings. It is important that plans are seen and concerns are raised before being approved.

Eric Kruse, Vice President of University Services, showed a campus map to the Senate, illustrating that there is currently a tunnel to Boynton and the Basic Science Building. The pathway was also not eliminated for funding reasons, but because Boynton did not want a direct connection when planning started. The Disabilities Services Office has been involved throughout the planning and accepted the proposed concept. Future plans have also been proposed to Boynton, but it is now a funding issue for them.

Professor Morrison, Chair of the Senate Consultative Committee (SCC), said that this issue was brought to the SCC in January, but he is not sure what other faculty or student input there was prior to this date. The issue was raised with the administration but there is little to be done now.

Q: With Boynton being primarily a student health service, are there plans to provide patient parking in the new ramp?

A: The ramp will hold 1900 spaces, of which two-thirds will be contract parking. The rest will be daily and hourly parking, mostly for students attending class, not going to Boynton.

Professor Carey noted that there is a difference of opinion, since many people do not feel that the underground tunnel is satisfactory. Boynton has also provided a different story to the Disabilities Issues Committee in that they are not willing to fund a connection. Lastly, it remains to be seen how many patients and disabled faculty and staff use, and then complain about the ramp and connection.

Professor Marti Hope Gonzales was elected Vice Chair of the University and Faculty Senates and Mr. Ryan Osero was elected Vice Chair of the Twin Cities Campus Assembly.

COMMENT:

As an amendment to the Senate Bylaws, the motion requires either a majority of all voting members of the Senate (105) at one regular or special meeting, or 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 I, Section 1, as follows (language to be deleted is struck-out; language to be added is underlined).

ARTICLE I. UNIVERSITY SENATE MEMBERSHIP, ELECTIONS, AND OFFICERS

1. Voting Units

...

TWIN CITIES (1) Agricultural Experiment Station, (2) Agricultural, Food, & Environmental Sciences, (3) Architecture and Landscape Architecture (4) Biological Sciences, (5) Dentistry, (6) Education & Human Development, (7) General College, (8) Graduate School, (9) Human Ecology, (10) Law, (11) Liberal Arts, (12) Libraries, (13) Management, (14) Medical School, (15) University of Minnesota Extension Service, (16) Natural Resources, (17) Nursing, (18) Pharmacy, (19) Public Affairs,(20) Public Health, (21) Technology, (22) University College College of Continuing Education, (23) Veterinary Medicine

COMMENT:

This amendment adjusts the Bylaws to reflect the changed name of the college.

DISCUSSION:

With no discussion, a vote was taken and the motion was approved with 107 in favor and 0 opposed.

COMMENT:

As an amendment to the Senate Bylaws, the motion requires either a majority of all voting members of the Senate (105) at one regular or special meeting, or 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 15, as follows (language to be deleted is struck-out; language to be added is underlined).

15. STUDENT AFFAIRS COMMITTEE

...

Duties and Responsibilities

...

e. To provide for a Student Services Fee Subcommittee composed of two faculty representatives, five student representatives (one each from Crookston, Duluth, Morris, Twin Cities graduate/professional, and Twin Cities undergraduate), and four voting ex officio staff members (one each from Crookston, Duluth, Morris, and Twin Cities with the coordinate campus representatives appointed by the Vice Chancellor of each campus and the Twin Cities representative appointed by the Office of Student Development). The student and faculty membership of the Subcommittee shall be taken from the membership of the Senate Committee on Student Affairs unless there is no representative meeting the designated criteria. In such case, the seat in question shall be filled by a member of the Senate Consultative Committee, or their designee, meeting the designated criteria. The chair of the Student Affairs Committee shall serve as the chair of the Subcommittee and will fill one of the designated seats as appropriate. Staff support for the Subcommittee will be provided by the Senate Office. Duties and Responsibilities of the Subcommittee include:

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

f. g. To submit an annual report to the Senate.

COMMENT:

The Student Services Fees Task Force has recommended the formation of a standing subcommittee within the University Senate structure to serve as the primary consultative body for policy and procedural issues regarding the student services fee. Currently, no consultative body exists to oversee this system-wide student, faculty, and staff process, and there is a clear need for such input and oversight. Given the nature of the services and activities funded by the fee, it was determined that such a subcommittee would most appropriately fall under the auspices of the Senate Committee on Student Affairs.

The proposed bylaw change was developed in consultation with the Senate Committee on Student Affairs and was approved by the Student Senate Consultative Committee. The language of the proposed bylaw change sets the membership so as to ensure system-wide representation as well as appropriate student, faculty, and staff representation. The subcommittee is charged with reviewing and recommending changes to fees policies and procedures on each campus in addition to helping to develop changes in Regent’s Policy on the student service fee should the need arise.

DISCUSSION:

Jason Reed, Chair of the Student Senate Consultative Committee (SSCC), stated that a system-wide Student Service Fees Task Force was created to address issues from last year’s Supreme Court ruling on mandatory student service fees. One recommendation of the task force involves amending the charge to the Student Affairs Committee (SCSA).

Paul Enever, Chair of the Student Service Fees Task Force, noted that oversight is needed at a system-wide level. Issues frequently arise, but have been handled though an ad hoc process. This amendment was approved by the SCSA and the SSCC, and calls for a formalized standing subcommittee.

With no discussion, a vote was taken and the motion was approved with 109 in favor and 0 opposed.

COMMENT:

As an amendment to the Assembly Bylaws, the motion requires either a majority of all voting members of the Assembly (91) at one regular or special meeting, or a majority of all members of the Assembly present and voting at each of two meetings. This is the first meeting at which this motion is being presented.

MOTION:

To amend the Twin Cities Campus Assembly Bylaws, Article III, Section 2, and Article III, Section 7, as follows (language to be deleted is struck out and new language is underlined); if approved, the existing bylaw would be renumbered appropriately:

ARTICLE III. TWIN CITIES CAMPUS ASSEMBLY COMMITTEES

...

2. COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES

...

Membership

...

A special faculty/academic professional nominating committee, appointed by the Faculty Steering Committee and approved by the faculty/academic professional representatives of the Assembly, shall nominate twice as many faculty/academic professional candidates for the committee as are to be elected each year. These candidates shall be announced in the Assembly docket for the last meeting of the academic year. Additional nominations, certified as available, may be made by the petition of 12 faculty/academic professional representatives of the Assembly, provided that the petition is in the ands of the clerk of the Assembly the day before the Assembly meeting. At the last Assembly meeting of the year, the faculty/academic professional representatives of the Assembly shall elect by secret ballot two members of the committee for three-year terms. No faculty/academic professional member is eligible to serve more than two consecutive full terms. In the case of a tie, the chair of the Assembly shall cast the deciding vote.

...

ARTICLE III. TWIN CITIES CAMPUS ASSEMBLY COMMITTEES

...

7. STEERING COMMITTEES

...

Faculty Steering Committee

Membership

A special faculty nominating committee, appointed by the faculty members of the Assembly Committee on Committees and approved by the faculty representatives of the Twin Cities Campus Assembly and those faculty from the Duluth campus eligible to vote in Senate elections, shall nominate and certify as available twice as many faculty candidates as are to be elected each year from the Twin Cities campus and from those faculty from the Duluth campus eligible to vote in Senate elections to the University Senate Consultative Committee. These candidates shall be announced in the Twin Cities Campus Assembly docket for the first meeting of the spring semester. Additional nominations, certified as available, may be made by: (1) petition of 12 voting members of the faculties, provided that the petition is in the hands of the clerk of the Assembly the day before the Assembly meeting; (2) nomination on the floor of the Assembly. The faculty representatives of the Assembly shall by vote reduce the slate to twice the number to be elected, and shall forward the results to the clerk of the University Senate.

...

6. NOMINATING COMMITTEE

The Nominating Committee is responsible for identifying candidates for the Committee on Committees and for the Faculty Steering Committee and for overseeing elections to those two committees.

Membership

The Nominating Committee shall consist of seven tenured or tenure-track faculty and two academic professional staff members. Both the faculty and the academic professional members must have served in the Senate within the last ten years and shall serve for three-year terms.

The Faculty Steering Committee shall nominate and certify as available twice as many tenured or tenure-track faculty members as there are faculty seats available seats on the Nominating Committee. The Academic Staff Advisory Committee shall nominate and certify as available twice as many academic professional staff members as there are academic professional seats available on the Nominating Committee. The nominations will be presented at the first Assembly meeting of spring semester. Additional nominations, certified as available, may be made by: (1) petition of 12 voting members of the faculty (for faculty members) or 12 voting members of the academic professional staff (for the academic professional members), provided that the petition is in the hands of the clerk of the Assembly the day before the Assembly meeting; (2) nomination on the floor of the Assembly. In the event there are additional nominations, the Assembly shall by vote reduce the slate to twice the number to be elected, and shall forward the results to the clerk of the Assembly.

The Assembly shall then vote on the slate by secret ballot at the first meeting of spring semester.

Duties and Responsibilities

a. The faculty members of the Nominating Committee shall nominate and certify as available twice as many faculty candidates as are to be elected each year from the Twin Cities campus and from those faculty from the Duluth campus eligible to vote in Senate elections to the University Senate Consultative Committee. These candidates shall be announced in the Twin Cities Campus Assembly docket for the first meeting of the spring semester. Additional nominations, certified as available, may be made by: (1) petition of 12 voting members of the faculties, provided that the petition is in the hands of the clerk of the Assembly the day before the Assembly meeting; (2) nomination on the floor of the Assembly. The faculty representatives of the Assembly shall by vote reduce the slate to twice the number to be elected and shall forward the results to the clerk of the University Senate. Election procedures shall be in accordance with Article III, Section 4, of the University Senate Bylaws.

b. Both the faculty and academic professional members of the Nominating Committee shall nominate and certify as available twice as many faculty/academic professional candidates for the Committee on Committees as are to be elected each year. These candidates shall be announced in the Assembly docket for the last meeting of the academic year. Additional nominations, certified as available, may be made by: (1) petition of 12 voting members of the faculty or academic professional staff eligible to serve in the Assembly, provided that the petition is in the hands of the clerk of the Assembly the day before the Assembly meeting; (2) nomination on the floor of the Assembly. At the last Assembly meeting of the year, the faculty/academic professional representatives of the Assembly shall elect by secret ballot members of the Committee on Committees for three-year terms. No faculty/academic professional member is eligible to serve more than two consecutive full terms. In the case of a tie, the chair of the Assembly shall cast the deciding vote.

c. To oversee the conduct of the elections of the members of the Committee on Committees and the members of the Faculty Steering Committee.

d. To report to the Faculty Steering Committee any issues or problems it encounters which require the attention of the Assembly.

COMMENT:

Although this looks (and is) complicated, the intent of these amendments to the bylaws actually is to simplify the process by which members of the Committee on Committees and the Steering Committee (the Twin Cities and Duluth members of the Faculty Consultative Committee) are nominated.

At present there are two different processes used to appoint the members of these two committees.

(1) For the Committee on Committees, there is annually an ad hoc committee nominated by the Faculty Steering Committee and approved by the Faculty Assembly. This ad hoc committee identifies candidates to serve on the Committee on Committees for three-year terms and presents a slate to the Faculty Assembly in the spring. The Faculty Assembly then votes on the slate. The ad hoc committee then dissolves. (The reason this process was devised was because it was thought inappropriate for the Committee on Committees to nominate its own members.)

(2) For the Faculty Steering Committee (this is even more complicated), the faculty members of the Committee on Committees nominate a special nominating committee (to be approved by the Faculty Assembly), which in turn develops a slate of candidates for the Faculty Steering Committee and presents it to the Assembly for approval. Once the Assembly has approved the slate, the Twin Cities and Duluth faculty vote to elect new Faculty Steering (FCC) members.

What these amendments do is abolish the two foregoing processes and establish a standing Nominating Committee that will nominate members for both the Committee on Committees and the Faculty Steering Committee (FCC). Twin Cities faculty and eligible P&A staff will nominate Committee on Committees members; the faculty subset of the Nominating Committee will nominate Steering (FCC) members. The actual election process for the Twin Cities FCC members would be unaffected and is prescribed by the University Senate.

The members of the Nominating Committee will be nominated to the Assembly: the faculty by the Faculty Steering Committee, the P&A staff by the Academic Staff Advisory Committee. The Assembly then votes on the nominees; the bylaws provide for additional nominees.

DISCUSSION:

With no discussion, a vote was taken and the motion was approved with 92 in favor and 0 opposed.

COMMENT:

As an amendment to the Constitution, this motion requires a 2/3 majority of all voting members (140) at this meeting for approval, or a majority (105) of all members at two successive meetings. This motion received 119 votes when it was presented at the February 22, 2001, meeting and this is the second 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

...
e.
...

All student representatives shall be elected for one-year terms and may be re-elected. No student representative may serve more than three four consecutive one-year terms, or any part thereof, in any six year period.

...

Footnote: * The Senate Parliamentarian ruled in April, 2000, that any student who has served three consecutive terms, or any part thereof, in the Senate must sit out for an academic year before being eligible for re-election to the Senate.

COMMENT:

The Student Senate Consultative Committee has recently reviewed current student senator term limits. We believe balancing adequate student representation with turnover is a necessary step towards ensuring the future of student involvement in the University Senate and the Student Senate.

DISCUSSION:

With no discussion, a vote was taken and the motion was approved with 107 in favor and 0 opposed.

President Yudof noted that the House and Senate have set their budget targets for MnSCU, financial aid, and the University. The House has recommended $165 million and the Senate has recommended $233 million in recurring funding and $50 million in one-time investments. Conference committees will begin the first week of May to reach an agreement. The House figure is an improvement over the Governor’s budget, but it still inadequate. The Senate figure is more positive, and closer to where the final amount should be.

He noted that the University has been successful in influencing legislators because of the continuous show of support by students, faculty, staff, alumni, and two former governors. Announcements and advertisements to support the University from business leaders will also appear in the next few weeks. A 20,000 person mailing is planned and phone-a-thon by the Alumni Association continues.

Q: A continuing challenge is presented to faculty in University units that depend on partnerships with the private sector for core academic programming. This challenge is intensified when the economy creates financial pressures for the private sector partner. As you are well aware, this issue is particularly acute in the Medical School which has affiliation agreements with corporate entities that permit faculty to practice medicine and students to study/apprentice at their facilities. What mechanisms are in place to ensure that the University’s interests under existing affiliation contracts are being honored? What dispute resolution mechanisms are/should be triggered when a faculty member or student believes a violation of the agreement is occurring that threatens or actually impedes the academic mission? Please frame your answer recognizing the budgetary stresses faced by department heads and deans which create strong financial incentives not to confront corporate partners on the premise that half a loaf is better than no loaf at all - a real problem for faculty and students whose academic activity is in the wrong half. Thank you

A: Dr. Frank Cerra, Senior Vice President for the Academic Health Center, said that the Academic Health Center has partnerships with the private sector for all core academic programs, of which the Medical School has the most. There are currently 350 affiliations across the state with hospitals, clinics, and private practices. These are educational performance sites with academic and clinical faculty present.

The University has 6500 professional students, which is 70% of the health professionals in the state. There are three reasons for these alternate sites. One is that while learning starts in the classroom, experience in the field is greatly needed. The second reason is that the University does not own enough sites to train all these students with its own regular faculty. These sites also contribute $50 million per year in cash and $65 million per year in pro bono support of the education program. The University then contributes $230 million per year for training. $3 million per year is also paid to sites for training. The third reason is that clinical training has to occur in a variety of settings in order that students learn about the roles of cultural diversity and have exposure to different care delivery systems.

Quality at these sites is by an affiliation agreement with the University which undergoes periodic review. There are also accreditation standards which must be met, many times by external reviews. Each program has a faculty program director and each site has faculty and staff to support the educational program. Students also perform evaluations on each site for program review. Complaints are directed to the college for appropriate action. Lastly, Dr. Cerra is involved in all stages.

There are four major challenges to training health professionals. The first is that managed care and recent government acts have made funding for health professional education a challenge. Second, managed care makes it difficult to find performance sites which actually want to teach because of productivity criteria. Third, this distributed system makes quality control a challenge. Fourth, each site has its own negotiated contract which requires time and resources to complete.

Q: People are feeling financial pressure in the core programming areas by these affiliations. How is this managed when the University cannot walk away? Is there a dispute resolution mechanism for this?

A: These types of problems, both financial and ethical, have been seen more this year than any year in the past. The University does not have all the answers, but it does have communication pathways to identify these problems and find solutions. As time passes, the University will likely see these problems increase, which may prompt new structures to deal with them.

The following resolution, approved by the Faculty Consultative Committee (FCC) on March 22, is included for information.

STATEMENT ON THE STADIUM PROPOSAL

1. The Minnesota Vikings announced today a proposal for a joint Vikings-Gophers stadium on the University campus. Many Minnesotans, including many faculty members, would like the Vikings to stay in Minnesota. In considering its potential role in such a venture, the University should focus on its own primary mission–education.

2. Financial resources provided to us by students and taxpayers must be directed toward education. The governor and legislature are calling upon us to focus on priorities. A stadium is not currently on the list of University priorities.

3. Although the present Gopher football facilities at the Metrodome may be less than ideal, they are adequate for immediate needs. The University cannot now afford to divert resources or fund-raising activities to a new stadium.

4. In reviewing this proposal, the University should consider the relationship of this proposal to its priorities. If those priorities are met, the University should consider the following factors in evaluating the stadium proposal:

–No University direct or indirect contribution to capital or infrastructure costs.
–No increase in operating costs over present Metrodome rents.
–Stadium activities must be compatible with University operations and values.
–The University must be insulated from future liabilities and responsibilities.

5. There must be appropriate consultation with the University community. We would welcome an opportunity to review the proposal.

6. Our educational mission of teaching, research, and service must remain our primary commitment.

DISCUSSION:

Professor Fred Morrison, Chair of the Senate Consultative Committee (SCC), stated that there was publicity in March about a potential stadium being built. Since the Senate was not meeting, the Faculty Consultative Committee (FCC) considered the issue and passed this statement. The Student Senate Consultative Committee (SSCC) passed a similar statement at the same time.

The Regents considered this matter in April. The President made a cautious statement, warning against endorsing anything besides educational matters. The Vikings made a presentation, which was followed by presentation of the FCC and SSCC statements. Several Regents then noted that it was not appropriate to be considering building a stadium at this time.

The filing date for a stadium bill at the state has passed. There is a bill to study stadium financing, although its status is questionable.

Q: How did the FCC determine that the current facility is inadequate?

A: The opinion from the athletic department is that it serves the purpose, but that it is not what they would prefer.

MOTION:

That the Twin Cities Campus Faculty Assembly approve the following slate of nominees to fill two 2001-04 Twin Cities faculty/academic professional vacancies on the Committee on Committees. A simple majority is required for approval.

ELLEN BERSCHEID: Regents' Professor of Psychology, College of Liberal Arts. University Senate member: 1996-2000. Committee participation (past and present): All University Honors, 1991-94 (Chair: 1992-94); Committee on Committees, 1989-90; Consultative, 1985-88 (Chair: 1986-87); Faculty Affairs, 1981-84.

EDWIN FOGELMAN: Professor of Political Science, College of Liberal Arts. University Senate member: 1992-95. Committee participation (past and present): Judicial, 1994-99 (Chair: 1995-99).

RICHARD POPPELE: Professor of Physiology, Medical School. University Senate member: 1981-84, 1988-91. Committee participation (past and present): Judicial, 1980-83 (Chair: 1982-83); Research 1998-01.

SUSAN ROSE: Associate Professor of Educational Psychology, College of Education and Human Development. University Senate member: 1993-96. Committee participation (past and present): Committee on Committees, February 2001-June 2001; Disabilities Issues, 1986-89 (Chair: 1988-89); Intercollegiate Athletics, 1993-96; University College Assembly, 1995-96.

INFORMATION:

The Twin Cities Campus Assembly Bylaws specify that the Assembly shall elect by written ballot at its spring semester meeting faculty/academic professional members to fill vacancies on the Assembly Committee on Committees from a slate of candidates provided by a special nominating committee. Other candidates may be nominated by petition of 12 members of the Assembly. Petitions to nominate candidates not on the slate must be in the hands of the Clerk of the Assembly on the day before the meeting at which the election is to be conducted. The elected Twin Cities faculty/academic professional members of the committee whose term continue at least through 2001-02 are:

Carl Adams, Carlson School of Management
Catherine French, Institute of Technology
Francisco Ocampo, College of Liberal Arts

DISCUSSION:

With no discussion, a vote was taken and the motion was approved. Ballots were then distributed for voting. Regents’ Professor Ellen Berscheid and Professor Richard Poppele were elected for three-year terms.

Professor Fred Morrison, Chair of the Health Benefits Advisory Committee (HBAC), said that the HBAC is proposing plans to introduce co-pays and possibly premiums for some coverages. This is in response to the projected 15 – 18% increase in health insurance costs. In response to the RFP, eight proposals were received, of which six dealt with the general health plans and two with specific aspects of it. A selection committee is reviewing these proposals and will issue a report to the Faculty Senate on May 31. The HBAC also continues to review the option of staying with the state if SEGIP can be modified comparable to the plans through the RFP. The timetable is tight, with a decision by early June to be prepared for open enrollment in the Fall.

Q: Was self-insurance considered the only alternative?

A: Today’s paper includes a story on the state of California personnel system increasing co-pays for all public employees. This is a pattern across the country, with 56% of 30 universities like the University already being self-insured. Insurance through the state is also self-insured at this time.

A senator commented that any faculty raise will be obliterated by a health care change to co-pays and increased premiums.

Professor Morrison noted that there is a concern about the impact of this change on low-paid employees. The HBAC is considering ways to minimize this impact.

Another senator commented that there is a rumor that the Bush administration is close to establishing a national health insurance because the health system is broken and drives business prices up.

The meeting was adjourned at 4:07 p.m.

Robert L. Borg

The School of Music, and the cause of music in Minnesota, has lost a friend, colleague and gentle soul in the passing of Robert Borg. Bob came to Minnesota in 1959 as the first professor of music education who specialized in elementary music. His work, for 37 years, helped create one of America's most vibrant and respected corps of elementary music teachers, respected nationally for its depth and excellence. Bob provided a legacy of many new generations teachers and students who have valued music and made it an indispensable part of the educational and cultural fabric of life in Minnesota schools, homes and communities. His gentle personality, wit, sensitivity and deep concern and commitment to the University, the School of Music, and music teaching in Minnesota typify a generation of faculty professionals we will be difficult to replicate in the future. Along the way Bob stopped to love his family, friends and his home, cherish his relationships at his church, and play a mean hand of bridge. We will miss him, as will Minnesota.

Thomas R. Hamilton

Thomas R. Hamilton, Emeritus Professor and Head, Department of Microbiology and Immunology, Medical School Duluth, died March 3,2001 at the age of 90.

He was born in Kansas City Missouri and was educated at the University of Missouri receiving an AB degree in 1932 and an MD in 1935.After an internship at Univ. Hospital, University of Iowa, he completed a residency at St. Joseph Hospital in Kansas City Missouri. The MS degree was completed in 1941. He was certified in anatomical pathology and clinical microbiology by the American Board of Pathology.

In World War 2, he served for 3 years in North Africa, Sicily and France with the 77th Evacuation Hospital and the Harvard Red Cross Unit.

After the war, he returned to his position as Professor of Pathology at the University of Kansas Medical School. In 1948 he began a sabbatical with Professor J.T. Syverton in the Department of Microbiology, University of Minnesota, His research interests involved the pathogenesis and prophylaxis of rheumatic fever and granulomatous diseases.

He served as a member of the Training Grant Committee, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and was a consultant to the Children's' Cardiac Center and Mercy Hospital, Kansas City Missouri. He was a member of the American Society for Microbiology, American Society of Clinical Pathology, Society for Experimental Biology and Medicine and the American Association of Pathology.

When the Medical School in Duluth was established, he was appointed Professor and Head of the Department of Microbiology and Immunology. His appointment assisted greatly in obtaining the Medical School's accreditation. After his retirement, he returned to his native Missouri where with his wife Bette's professional assistance continued his first love, teaching microbiology and immunology to medical students at the University of Missouri Medical School. The course was very popular as manifest by his selection as the outstanding teacher of the year both by his colleagues and medical students. Last year he was invited to be Marshal by the students at their graduation. Because of his illness he was not able to attend.

He is survived by his wife Bette, a daughter Anne, a son Tim and six grandchildren. His eldest son Tom died of a heart attack in December, 2000.

Tom will be deeply missed by his family and especially by his many students and colleagues.

Kerry R. Kelts

The N.H. Winchell School of Earth Sciences lost a colleague and friend when Kerry R. Kelts passed away on February 8, 2001 at the age of 54, after a long and courageous battle with Hodgkin’s disease. Kerry joined the Department of Geology and Geophysics at the University of Minnesota as a professor in 1990, and was also the director of the Limnological Research Center from 1990-1999.

Kerry received his PhD in 1978 from the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Zurich (ETH). He was a post-doctoral scholar with the Deep-sea Drilling Project at Scripps Institution of Oceanography from 1978-1980, a lecturer at ETH-Zurich from 1980-1985, the director of the geology group at the Swiss Federal Institute of Water Resources (1985-1988), and the director of the Swiss Institute of Climate and Global Change (1988-1990). During the 1980s Kerry initiated what was to be one of his scientific passions: the global study of modern and ancient lake basins. His research interests lead to the development of the new field of “limnogeology.” Kerry was a founder and first president of the International Association of Limnogeology (IAL), and one of the conveners of the first International Limnology Congress, held in Copenhagen in August 1995. Kerry received the first IAL medal in recognition of his pioneering role in defining and promoting the science of limnogeology.

Kerry was a strong supporter of the Past Global Changes (PAGES) Project which was created by the international geoscience community in response to the critical demand for information on how the Earth's natural systems have functioned in the past. He was the co-founder of the International Decade for the East African Lakes (IDEAL), a program dedicated to the retrieval of a long, high resolution record of climate change in tropical East Africa, and the establishment of a comprehensive training program for African students and scientists in a research partnership between African and northern hemisphere scientists.

Kerry authored more the 80 publications and co-edited Lacustrine Petroleum Source Rocks (1988), The Phanerozoic Record of Lacustrine Basins and their Environmental Signals (1989) and Lake Basins through Space and Time (2000). His enthusiasm for science was infectious and inspired students and colleagues to think globally in pursuit of their professions.

Kerry is survived by his wife Johanna who resides in Kilchberg, Switzerland, two brothers, Donald I. Kelts and David W. Kelts, and his mother, Beverly O. Kelts. The family has established a memorial fund in Kerry’s name that will be used to support the attendance of graduate students at professional meetings. Kerry felt it was very important for students to go out and present their results and develop broad collegial contacts at an early stage in their careers.

Morris E. Nicholson

Professor Emeritus Morris E. Nicholson passed away January 30, 2001 at the age of 84.

Morris E. Nicholson served as a Professor of Metallurgical Engineering and Materials Science at the University of Minnesota from 1956 to 1985. He received his S.B. degree in Metallurgy in 1939 and his Sc.D. in Physical Metallurgy in 1947 from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He worked three years for Standard Oil Co. in Indiana from 1947-50. He was an Assistant Professor at the Institute for the Study of Metals at the University of Chicago from 1950-55. He joined the University of Minnesota as Head of the Physical Metallurgy Department in 1955. In 1962 he returned to full time teaching and research. He became the Director of the UNITE (University-Industry Television for Education) for the Institute of Technology in 1971. He was active in several professional societies: the ASM INTERNATIONAL, The Metallurgical Society (TMS), NACE and the Continuing Professional Development Division of ASEE. In 1981 he was awarded the Distinguished Service Award by the Division.

In addition to his professional work, Dr. Nicholson was involved with the Boy Scouts of America.

Professor Nicholson is survived by his wife, Norma and his 3 sons, Morris E. Nicholson III, Robert A. Nicholson and Richard A. Nicholson, 8 grandchildren and 7 great-grandchildren.

The faculty of the Department of Chemical Engineering and Materials Science expresses their deep appreciation for Professor Emeritus Morris E. Nicholson is 29 years of dedicated service to the University of Minnesota.

R. John Rath

R. John Rath died on 18 February 2001 at the age of ninety. In his youth he served in the Army in World War II and with UNRRA in 1945-1946 in Germany and Austria. He taught at the Universities of Colorado and Texas and Rice University before he spent the twilight of his distinguished career here at the University of Minnesota after he retired as emeritus Mary Gibbs Jones Professor of History at Rice University in 1980. He was rightly called the doyen of American scholars in the field of Austrian history. John produced two of the three strongest elements in the invigoration of Austrian studies in North America: he founded and edited the Austrian History Yearbook, the forum for the field, during its first twenty years; and he brought together the now-legendary Conference on Nationalism in Central Europe in 1966, which galvanized scholarship in the field.

In 1980 he joined the Yearbook to the third pillar of Austrian studies in the United States, our own Center for Austrian Studies, when he came to continue publishing it here and to serve as a member of the faculty of the Department of History. Of his many publications, The Viennese Revolution of 1848 stands out as one of the best published in English on the subject. Graduate students in his seminars enjoyed his near-paternal attention and were inspired to meet his demanding standards of scholarship.

John was twice decorated by the Austrian government for service to scholarship and to the Republic and was a corresponding member of the Austrian Academy of Sciences.

Even though he came late to our university, he brought us much. His professional distinction enhanced us; his embracing and generous friendship brightened our lives. And, finally, he left a legacy, an endowment for a prize to be awarded to the author of the best article to appear in the Austrian History Yearbook each year, that will endure along with our bright and grateful memories of him.

John was preceded in death by his lovely wife, Isabel, in 1999. He is survived by his daughter, Isabel, and her husband William Stensland, of Austin, Texas, his sister, Clara Lillich of Beatrice, Nebraska, and a host of students, colleagues, and friends whose lives were much enriched for having known him.

Archie S. Wilson

Archie S. Wilson was born in Tekoa, Washington on January 19, 1921, the son of Andrew Hamilton Wilson and Viola Sledge Wilson. Both of his parents' parents had homesteaded land in central Washington east of the Columbia River near Ephrata. At the time of Archie's birth, however, his father was a wheat farmer near Farmington (south of Tekoa), in extreme eastern Washington near the Idaho state line, south of Spokane and north of Pullman. His older brother Andy (Andrew) was born in Ephrata in 1918 before the move to Farmington. After the wheat market collapsed in 1921, their father sold the ranch in Farmington and moved to Portland, Oregon to attend chiropractic school, putting himself through school as a salesman. Archie's younger brother, Milton, was born in Portland in 1923. After completing his Doctor of Chiropractic degree, their father moved the family to Forest Grove, Oregon, a town west of Portland, to start a practice. Archie began first grade in Forest Grove, but signs of the Depression were developing and people did not pay their bills (and there was no health insurance in those days), so Archie's father closed his practice and the family moved briefly back east to Spokane, Washington, where Archie's maternal grandparents managed an apartment house, the Blackstone. His father found some jobs selling cars. Archie finished the first half of second grade in Spokane, and then the family moved back to Portland, where Archie finished second grade at a school in southeast Portland. The family then moved to 49th Street off Prescott in the Beaumont school district. After two more moves, Archie graduated from Beaumont and, ultimately, from U.S. Grant High School, in January 1939. Since his family always rented, he lived in at least 12 houses during this stay in Portland, usually in the northeast part.

During the remainder of the 1939 academic year, Archie enrolled at Washington High School to fill out some math requirements for college entrance in advanced algebra and trigonometry. He had to drop out because he came down with tularemia ("rabbit fever"), which almost did him in, but was diagnosed in time and the antidote administered so that he recovered and was able to start college in the fall of 1939. His Aunt Grace, whose husband was a faculty member, invited him to go to Iowa State College (now University) in Ames and stay with them, which he did. He enrolled in the chemical technician curriculum. He stayed at Iowa State during the summer of 1940, finishing the math requirements for entrance. The summers of the war years of 1941 and 1942 were spent in Portland with his mother. During the summer of 1942 he worked as an assistant welder on a machine welding bottoms, decks, and bulkheads of ships at the Albina Kaiser shipyard. In January 1943 Archie joined the Manhattan Project at the Ames Iowa Laboratory, as a Research Associate, in X-ray diffraction studies of solid structures, and as an assistant to Prof. Robert E. Rundle, a well-known crystallographer. He worked on the crystal structures of uranium, thorium, and their alloys, hydrides, carbides, nitrides, and oxides. The work was initially classified; Archie was a coauthor of four reports, which led to his becoming a coauthor of four journal articles (during 1948-50) after the war was over. The project ended when the atomic bomb was dropped, but Archie was allowed to stay on until he could resume and finish his B.S. degree in Chemistry at Iowa State, in August 1946.

Archie met Ivon Marie Teeter, a Home Economics student at Iowa State, in the fall of 1941, and they became engaged in 1943 and were married on June 11, 1944 in Ames, Iowa. In 1946 Archie was selected as a winner in a nationwide competition in which the awardees attended one of three graduate schools at U.S. Army expense, while on active duty. As a result, he was commissioned a second lieutenant in the Army Quartermaster Corps and entered graduate school at the University of Chicago in the fall of 1946. His daughter, Andrea, was born November 25, 1946. His wife Ivon contracted poliomyelitis in July 1948, during her pregnancy with Ronald, their oldest son. In the same week, Archie passed his written preliminary exams (and his oral exams two weeks later). Fortunately, Ronald was born without complications, on November 12, 1948. Ivon took a while to recover, however, as the polio affected her legs, hip, and back muscles. Archie served daily as her physical therapist, while starting his Ph.D. research. Fortunately, his mother-in-law, Agnes Louise Baird Teeter, came to Chicago and took care of the whole family during the recovery period. Ivon was eventually able to lay aside her crutches and walk some little distance before tiring, but could never run again. Unfortunately, forty years later the post-polio syndrome appeared, the weakness returned, and she now uses a walker for assistance in walking. Archie received his M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in 1950 and June 1951, respectively, under the direction of Prof. Henry Taube, who later moved to Stanford and received a Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1983. Archie's Ph.D. thesis, in the field of physical inorganic chemistry, was entitled "The Stabilities of Chromic Fluoride and Gallium Halide Complexes in Aqueous Solutions." The work was subsequently published with Henry Taube (J. Am. Chem. Soc., 74, 3509 (1952)). Archie was an Instructor in Chemistry at the University of Nebraska from 1950 to 1951 .

Upon receiving his Ph.D. degree in June 1951, Archie took a position as a research Chemist and later became a Senior Scientist at the Hanford Laboratories of the Hanford Works of the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, administered by the General Electric Company, in Richland, Washington. The Hanford Works are on the Columbia River in south central Washington just north of where the Yakima River joins the Columbia from the west. A little further downstream, just below Pasco (northeast bank) and Kennewick (southwest bank), the Snake River joins the Columbia from the northeast, so the Tri-Cities Region is a region of confluence of major rivers. On August 30, 1952, his youngest son, Steve, was born. Archie remained at the Hanford Laboratories for 20 years. In January 1965, the administration of the Hanford Works changed and the laboratory became the Pacific Northwest Laboratories of Battelle Memorial Institute and Archie's title became Research Associate in the Applied Chemistry Section, but his duties remained the same. He specialized in the inorganic chemistry of nuclear fission products, mainly ruthenium, and the actinide elements, especially plutonium and uranium, and in computer techniques for indexing X-ray powder patterns. His work involved aqueous complex ion chemistry, ruthenium chemistry, solvent extraction processes for nuclear fuels, plutonium fuel reprocessing, and amine extraction of anions. Most of the work was classified and applied and was reported in 16 HW (Hanford Works) reports and, later, in 3 BNWL (Battelle Northwest Laboratories) reports. Part of the work was published subsequently, however, in 13 jo