The fourth meeting of the University Senate, Twin Cities Campus Assembly, and Faculty Senate for 2001-02 was convened in 25 Mondale Hall, Minneapolis campus, on Thursday, March 28, 2002, at 2:33 p.m., as a joint meeting of the three bodies. Coordinate campuses were linked by telephone. Checking or signing the roll as present were 115 voting faculty/academic professional members, 32 voting student members, and 3 ex officio members. President Yudof presided.

President Yudof announced that today’s musical prelude was performed by the Ted Mann Woodwind Quintet, whose members are Sonja Feig, Michelle Fiore, Greg Kajiwara, Anna Urang, and Michael Stish.

MOTION:

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

http://www1.umn.edu/usenate/u_senate/011206sen.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

Barbara Barker-Warner
Associate Professor
Theatre Arts and Dance
1938 – 2002

Northrop Beach
Associate Professor
Pediatrics
1912 – 2002

James F. Berry
Professor
Neurology
1927 – 2001

Victor Caliandro
Adjunct Associate Professor
Architecture
1944 – 2002

Nina E. Drazten
Assistant Professor
Literature, Speech, and Writing
1903 – 2002

Michelle P. Eckart
Lecturer
Educational Psychology
1947 – 2002

Haike K. Friedrichsdorf
Instructor
Foreign Languages
1969 – 2002

Alice I. Goacher
Associate Professor
Design, Housing, and Apparel
1910 – 2001

Paul S. Hagen
Professor
General College
1919 – 2001

Jean L. Harris
Director
Medical Affairs
1931 – 2001

Linda R. Hilsen
Associate Professor
Instructional Development
1946 – 2002

Clara Kanun
Professor
Sociology
1914 – 2001

William C. Kubicek
Professor
Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
1913 – 2002

Russell V. Lucas
Professor
Pediatrics
1928 – 2001

Thomas Morley
Professor
Biology
1917 – 2002

Lura M. Morse
Professor
Human Ecology
1913 – 2002

Elizabeth Nissen
Professor
French and Italian
1898 – 2001

Magnus Olson
Professor
Ecology, Evolution, and Behavior
1909 – 2002

Theodore A. Olson
Professor
Public Health
1904 – 2002

Louis T. Safer
Professor
General College
1913 – 2002

Raymond H. Shove
Professor
Library Science
1906 – 2001

Francis A. Spurrell
Professor
Clinical and Population Sciences
1919 – 2001

Elizabeth C. Taylor
Professor
Communication – Duluth
1969 – 2002

Helen M. Tuchner
Associate Professor
Dentistry
1923 – 2002

P. Theodore Watson
Medical Director
Boynton Health Services
1918 – 2002

STUDENTS

James Berglund
General College

Adam M. Dailey
College of Liberal Arts

James Ellison
Medical School, Mortuary Science

Aleta M. Fischer
College of Liberal Arts

Charlene M Guasasco
Graduate School


4. ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSES TO SENATE AND ASSEMBLY ACTIONS
Information

*The Administration will advise the appropriate administrative offices that this interpretation has become policy.

Faculty Senate

*The Administration supports the principles and objectives outlined in the Senate’s resolution. Executive Vice President and Provost Robert Bruininks and Vice President Carol Carrier have been charged with the responsibility to review the proposal, including the financial impact of implementation, and will make a recommendation to the President by March 15, 2002. The President will respond to the Senate proposal for a change to the Faculty Retirement Policy by March 31, 2002.

*The administration has reviewed this resolution and agrees with the Senate that the administration should continue its practice of consultation with the FCC and other committees and subcommittees on issues related to the delivery of salary increases. The resolution is accepted in the spirit and practice of appropriate cooperative governance of the University of Minnesota.

*The administration has reviewed this resolution and appreciates the sense of the Faculty Senate on this issue. The Vice President and Chief of Staff has presented a report on the current and future financial challenges facing the intercollegiate athletics department to the Board of Regents, and to several administrative, faculty, and student groups. The purpose of the report was to determine how these financial challenges fit into overarching University priorities given the larger financial challenges being faced by the University as a whole. It is the University’s philosophy that the success of an athletics program is measured by the value it adds to college athletes and to the campuses, not solely by championships. The administration continues to explore policy and practice options that would support this philosophy. As these issues continue to be discussed and changes to or development of procedures and polices result, the administration will continue to consult and seek the views of faculty and input from faculty governance.

FOR INFORMATION:

In the election to fill vacancies on the Assembly Committee on Committees, Professor Jean Bauer, Professor Carol Chomsky, Mr. Randy Croce, Professor Thomas Fletcher, Professor Thomas Mackenzie, Ms. Lynne Schuman, and Professor Deon Stuthman were elected.

February 19, 2002

President Mark Yudof
President's Office
202 Morrill Hall

Dear President Yudof:

At its meeting on February 14, the Senate Consultative Committee, acting on behalf of the University Senate, heard recommendations from the Senate Research Committee concerning two requests for exceptions to the Research Secrecy policy of the Board of Regents. I attach to this letter the minutes from the meetings of the Senate Research Committee and that of the Senate Consultative Committee.

As you know, the Regents' policy bars the University from accepting research funding from any source when that funding includes restrictions on publication rights. The policy also provides, however, that exceptions to the policy may be granted: the Senate Research Committee is to make a recommendation to the University Senate; the Senate, in turn, is to review the recommendation and make its own additional recommendation to the President. I convened the Senate Consultative Committee to exercise its authority to act on behalf of the Senate in these cases because it was undesirable to wait to resolve them until the next Senate meeting on March 28.

The details of the Senate Consultative Committee deliberations are contained in the minutes from the meeting. I can, however, provide you a brief summary of the two cases. (The minutes will make clear the complexities that developed in the actual casting of votes.) In the first case, there were 12 voting members of SCC present (out of 20), of whom 11 cast votes. In the second, there were 11 voting members present, of whom 9 cast votes. I did not cast a vote in either case.

In both of these cases, the Senate Research Committee had voted unanimously to recommend that the exception to the Research Secrecy policy be granted. The minutes from those discussions are attached.

The first case involved work that has already been completed. The University was a subcontractor to Network Computing Services, Inc., a company that had a contract with the Army. For a number of years, the University was the prime contractor and the company was the subcontractor; there was a long working relationship between the two. In January, 2001, however, the roles were reversed. While there are few instances when the University will conduct research without a signed contract, in this case the University agreed to work on the basis of a Letter of Understanding, assuming that the terms of the past working relationship would remain unchanged.

When the University finally received the contract, after the work had been completed, it included language requiring Army review of any publications flowing from the research. The amount of money offered to the University for this project is $934,827. (The actual expenses the University has incurred may be less than the contract amount, but the University will have to sign a contract in order to be reimbursed.)

After deliberating the issues, the Senate Consultative Committee voted 6-5 against recommending that the exception to the Regents' policy be approved and that the contract not be signed. (The day after the meeting, however, one Committee member expressed a desire to change her vote, in which case the motion would have failed on a 5-6 vote.)

The second case was prospective: the University (Professor Kumar Tamma) would be a subcontractor to Mississippi State University, which has a large contract with the Navy. Professor Tamma's work would be a continuation of research he has conducted for a number of years. Under the subcontract, Professor Tamma will be collaborating with a scientist from the Army Research Labs, as he has for years. The contract that Mississippi State has with the Navy, however, includes a clause requiring approval ("clearance") of any publications. The University has labored diligently to have this clause removed (two other objectionable clauses in the proposed contract have been removed, but the University has been unable to persuade the Navy to remove this one, even though it is freely acknowledged that Professor Tamma's work is not classified and not even in the area of "sensitive but unclassified" work that can cause concern).

After deliberating the issues, the Senate Consultative Committee voted 3-6 against a resolution recommending that the exception to the Regents' policy be granted. I should report that the maker of the motion to recommend that the second request for an exception be approved (Professor Judith Martin) had to leave the meeting shortly before the vote was taken. Even if she had been present to vote in favor of her motion, however, it would have failed.

As we read the Regents' policy, the decision about these two cases is now in your hands. Given the unanimous vote at the Senate Research Committee in favor of granting these exceptions, and given the divided vote at the Senate Consultative Committee, it would appear that it would be appropriate for you to exercise your judgment without worrying that you are contradicting recommendations from the governance system. I trust that you will apprise us of your decision in these two cases.

Cordially,

Joseph Massey, Chair
Senate Consultative Committee

cc: The Senate Consultative Committee
The Senate Research Committee
Professor Kumar Tamma
Professor Vipin Kumar
Vice President Christine Maziar
Mr. Mark Bohnhorst, Office of the General Counsel
Mr. Ed Wink, Sponsored Projects Administration

The University Senate has the authority to reverse this action, if it wishes.

STATEMENT ON TWIN CITIES INTERCOLLEGIATE ATHLETICS

Faculty Consultative Committee
Senate Committee on Finance and Planning
December 6, 2001

The Faculty Consultative Committee (FCC) and the Senate Committee on Finance and Planning (SCFP) have reviewed carefully the financial data concerning the Twin Cities campus intercollegiate athletics programs. Both committees wish to applaud the spirit of consultation brought to the presentation by the administration. We especially thank Vice President Tonya Brown for the candor and honesty she demonstrated in speaking with us. We appreciate her having asked us to provide advice in an effort to assist the institution in dealing with a deeply troubling problem.

Before we make specific responses to the substance of the report from Vice President Brown, we affirm that intercollegiate athletics can play a positive role at a university. The Committees also endorse a guiding principle that the University should meet, or exceed, the requirements of Title IX with respect to gender equity. Further, the Committees recognize and endorse the variety of benefits that athletics offer to the institution. The question for us is not about the legitimacy or appropriateness of intercollegiate athletics on campus; it is about the cost.

The Committees are deeply disturbed by the financial situation of the Twin Cities intercollegiate athletics programs. An annual subsidy that has now become more than $10 million from institutional operating funds is inappropriate and casts into stark relief the issue of institutional priorities.

The current practice of providing an annual subsidy to intercollegiate athletics from institutional operating funds should be evaluated in the context of other institutional priorities, financial obligations, and opportunity costs. University priorities are not in the right order when $10 million is allocated to athletics while improvements related directly to the core mission languish because of a lack of funds.

We recognize that the University, with the best intentions, has tried with the subsidy to assist the athletic programs to reach a level of excellence. The review sponsored by Vice President Brown, commendable for its realism, can only lead to the conclusion that it is time to change course; institutional resources no longer permit this magnitude of institutional financial support to intercollegiate athletics.

As alarming as anything about the financial situation in intercollegiate athletics is the trajectory. Even with the $10-million annual subsidy from institutional funds, the athletics programs are projected to have an additional annual deficit of $9 million in five years owing simply to increases in fixed costs. There is no indication that new revenues will be available to cover that deficit, much less to reduce the current level of subsidy. Quite to the contrary: The administration has been frank in acknowledging that it cannot identify any potential source of sufficient new revenues.

All departments of the University face constraints in a time of financial difficulties and are unable to do all that they want or need to do. All departments must live within their budgets. In our judgment, the intercollegiate athletics programs must do the same. Given the extraordinarily bleak financial prospects facing athletics, we do not believe the University can continue to honor all five of the guiding principles for athletics outlined by Vice President Brown.

We recognize that reducing the institutional investment might mean curtailing opportunities for students in intercollegiate athletics. At the same time, we believe strongly that an annual institutional subsidy of approximately $10 million cannot be continued. Because the subsidy comes from institutional funds, which include tuition, non-athlete students are contributing money to the operation of the athletic programs. We also recognize that students have been asked to pay double-digit tuition increases for 2001-02 and probably for 2002-03; we cannot justify continuation of this level of support for athletics when students' cost of education is increasing at this rate. If one believes it difficult to ask students to pay increased tuition in order to help support needed faculty and staff salary increases, it is simply impossible to justify using tuition revenues to help pay the operating costs of intercollegiate athletics.

Any pullback in institutional support will be painful for the University as well as for the individuals in the programs. But the University is at the point where it must get its priorities in order; as it does so, spending decisions must follow.

We conclude that we have no alternative to a recommendation that the University take action to scale back the use of institutional funds for intercollegiate athletics. We believe that the administration and the Advisory Committee on Athletics should consult with those responsible for the management of the intercollegiate athletics programs on what alternatives might be available. But we firmly believe the University must do whatever is necessary, in the very near future, to reduce its present and projected financial commitment to athletics.

Adopted unanimously by the Senate Committee on Finance and Planning December 4, 2001.
Adopted unanimously by the Faculty Consultative Committee December 6, 2001.

The Senate Committee on Finance and Planning (SCFP)
And Intercollegiate Athletics

Charles E. Speaks, Chair
January 22, 2002.

University Senate Bylaws, Article III, Section 8, provide that “The Finance and Planning Committee serves as the consultative body to the president and senior academic officers on all major issues of budget and planning, including the capital request.” One of the duties and responsibilities of the SCFP is, “to consult with and advise the president and senior academic officers on the development of the biennial request and the annual budget and to review the implementation of the annual budget.” It is therefore within the purview of the SCFP to advise the president and senior academic officers concerning whether or not it is appropriate for the University to provide an annual subsidy to intercollegiate athletics from institutional operating funds, and to render that advice in the context of other institutional priorities, financial obligations, and opportunity costs.

The Statement on Twin Cities Intercollegiate Athletics adopted by the SCFP on December 4, 2001, and the Faculty Consultative Committee on December 6, 2001, focused on a narrow financial issue: Institutional support for intercollegiate athletics. That issue is within the purview of the SCFP, and the Committee affirms its position that

With respect to institutional subsidization of intercollegiate athletics on the Twin Cities campus, the SCFP recommends that

The Committee has not been provided with information about institutional subsidies that might be flowing to intercollegiate athletic programs on the other campuses of the University. It believes, however, that such subsidies probably exist and that, if so, they deserve the same serious scrutiny that has been given to the subsidy on the Twin Cities campus.

Adopted unanimously by the Senate Committee on Finance and Planning January 22, 2002.

The Senate Committee on Finance and Planning (SCFP) has read and discussed the document, Improving our Graduation Rates: The Report of the Graduation and Retention Subcommittee of the Council of Undergraduate Deans (August 13, 2001). The Committee concludes that the University must establish and communicate an explicit expectation that, upon admission, most students will be full-time students and will be expected to graduate within four-to-five years of matriculation. In reaching that conclusion, the SCFP strongly endorses the comments and recommendations prepared by the Council of Undergraduate Deans and sent to the President and Provost on January 22, 2002. In addition, the SCFP offers the following additional recommendations for undergraduate students in all colleges of the Twin Cities campus.

Adopted unanimously by the Senate Committee on Finance and Planning February 12, 2002.
Endorsed unanimously by the Assembly Committee on Educational Policy February 20, 2002.
Endorsed unanimously by the Faculty Assembly Steering Committee February 21, 2002.

The Senate Committee on Finance and Planning urges the central administration to move the data network to a common goods model of financial management in which the full recurring cost of the network is paid centrally.

Adopted February 18, 2002, 8-0 with one abstention.

Whereas, the University of Minnesota Twin Cities campus proposes to implement a 13-credit minimum policy; therefore

Be it resolved, the University should make every effort to ensure clear communication to students, advisers, and other staff about the 13-credit minimum rule, the differences between full-time and part-time status, and the implications for being a full-time versus a part-time student; and

Be it resolved, allowances will be made for students with legitimate exemptions and students will be informed of those legitimate exemptions; and

Be it resolved, an assessment, reporting and evaluation of student advising resources will be critical to the success of the implementation of a 13-credit minimum for a full-time student status policy; and

Be it resolved, the Senate Committee on Student Affairs insists that all discussions and decisions surrounding the implementation of the 13-credit minimum policy include significant student input; and

Be it resolved, the University must ensure that college units, advisers, and other University staff have the proper and sufficient resources to ensure efficient policy processes around the implementation, the evaluation, and the monitoring of compliance to the 13-credit minimum for full-time student status; and

Be it resolved, program plans will be developed for all students at the University of Minnesota.

Mt. Graham Telescope Project and the University of Minnesota

Social Concerns Committee Position Report

March 2002

Executive Summary:

The conflict between the interests of research science and those of indigenous culture centering on the Mt. Graham project are perhaps irreconcilable. Central to the complication is that the opposing groups bring incompatibly different systems of politics, knowledge, belief and history to bear, and as a result, are incapable of either understanding or compromise. And complicating matters further is the provenance of the protest itself: virtually all the opposition has been organized by one group, the Mt. Graham Coalition, whose background and interests are unknown. Having read an extensive body of material (much of it prepared and distributed by the Mt. Graham Coalition, other taken from web research and personal inquiry), taken testimony from Professor Leonard Kuhi, Chair: Department of Astronomy, members of the University's American Indian Affairs Committee, local activists, members of the Mt. Graham Coalition, and two native elders from the Apache Survival Coalition (brought here by the Mt. Graham Coalition), the Committee found the issue structurally irresolvable. We chose to outline the competing cases as clearly as possible and provide advice on a course of action. This advice is not a claim to a single truth in regard to the complex history of litigation and conflict around Mt. Graham. Rather, it interprets and presents the situation as we see it at this historical moment.

That advice: for the University to join the Mt. Graham Observatory / Large Binocular Telescope places us in clear danger of allying ourselves against the interests and beliefs of native people. This strikes us as a choice with clear consequences in regard to the University's ethical reputation—should we join the MGIO/LBT project, we need to be prepared for considerable, strong and organized opposition and a great deal of media attention. Thus far, the University has not managed its interests in this matter skillfully, has not articulated the case for the science involved, nor for its care in protecting the interests of native people, and as a result faces formidable public opposition. More to the point in the view of the Committee, we would explicitly reject a multi-vocal, passionate appeal from many groups of native people to respect their heritage—symbolic and material.

Significantly, what is at stake here is not historical, economic, scientific, or legal 'reality'; rather, this is a question of how we are to be seen, of the symbolic power and violence of actions, and of the relationships we wish to set with our communities in this particular moment in history.

Details follow.

Findings:

• Thanks to a 5-million-dollar grant from the Hubbard Foundation, the University is able to buy a share in the nearly-completed Large Binocular Telescope, one of several now present at the Mt. Graham International Observatory complex in Arizona. This is a small share in terms of available time, but offers a significant research advantage to our astronomers.

• The legal record is complex and conflicted. The dispute ranges over decades of changing environmental law and policy, several changes in national government, changes in Bureau of Land Management policy, and changes in tribal government in the local Apache nations. The history of litigation and fact can be (and has been) read to support various conclusions. But we found no violations of law or procedure in the process that lead to approval of the telescope project.

• The claims for astronomy / science are not subject to reasonable dispute; while cases have been offered for other possible sites, this one seems the obvious choice on both economic and scientific grounds.

• The history of opposition is conflicted. Early opposition was on familiar environmental grounds, focused on the sub-species of the Mt. Graham Red Squirrel and its delicate relation to the high-altitude conifer forest atop Mt. Graham. Later opposition was mounted in the name of the Apache Nations, some of whom, at various times, have both acquiesced to and opposed the project. Current opposition takes both the environmental and native-rights positions. Charges and counter charges of lobbying, environmental policy and law violation, and appropriation and manipulation of the native people abound. In letters received by the Committee Chair, opposition was also raised in terms of anti-war sentiment (1 letter, suggesting the technology involved had military origins), and religious freedom (1 letter, claiming that the Vatican's involvement violated separation of Church and State).

• Mt. Graham is not a wilderness, nor is it virgin forest. Its long history is one of logging, settlement, recreation, summer-home building and road construction. It is not a protected area. It is large, accessible, and the telescope complex represents a small part of the summit ridge.

• The telescope complex and its access roads are complete, awaiting only the installation of the lenses for the Large Binocular Telescope. The University's commitment does not involve additional building or forest clearing.

• The project has been variously supported and rejected by other institutions. Status of current affiliations is singularly unclear.

• Science in regard to the Red Squirrel is inconclusive: its population naturally fluctuates, and is radically influenced by available food supplies—which are in turn affected by tree diseases and fire. Large, connected areas of forest seem to be important–thus having a relation to the patterns of clearing and construction around the telescope complex—but that evidence is mixed. Whether or not the squirrel is presently in danger (after the telescope complex is complete) is not clear. Certainly the long history of logging and development has affected the squirrel population, but details of that trajectory are uncertain.

• The place of native opposition is unclear. The history of protest against the project is a typical mix of American activism of the late century—largely initiated and led by non-native students. At various times different bands have tentatively supported and opposed the project. Since tribal governance is typically conflicted and not commensurate with Anglo systems of democratic process, we could not determine the source or support of the native opposition. Taken as a whole, there seems to be far more opposition than support, and allegations of complicity of the University of Arizona in soliciting native support abounds in the native press. But it is critical to recognize that Apache government is not Anglo government. There is no tradition of unified, univocal representation for these native people, so that they have not 'spoken as a whole' cannot be taken as either confusion or tacit approval (note below).

• That Mt. Graham is a sacred space for the Apache people is beyond question. Anthropologist Keith Basso, perhaps the world's foremost Anglo authority on Apache culture, has submitted a long essay / affidavit detailing the significance of the mountain, its plants and springs and its presence for the Apache people. He also details how the long history of development and exploitation by white culture has become a standing symbol of racism and oppression to the Apache. He further explains the epistemological / political incompatibility of the two nation systems.

Two Apache elders who visited Minneapolis and met with the Committee (Ola Cassadore Davis and Michael Davis, of the Apache Survival Coalition), confirmed this, point for point, in what our Minutes accurately describe as 'passionate testimony.' In their view, this is sacred space, still in use as a spiritual site, and seen as desecrated by the telescope project—by its very presence, and by additional support for that presence. They made clear that if the University allies itself with the project, they will take it as a direct affront to their culture—as a violence. The committee wishes to acknowledge, with respect, the information shared regarding Mt. Graham by Ms. and Mr. Davis. The perspective offered a valuable opportunity for the committee to hear oral history and the impact of decisions, past, present and future, that affect us globally as universal citizens. Their last words, tellingly, were 'we will not go away.'

• We do not know whom the Mt. Graham Coalition represents, nor do we know its systems of support or interests. Their efforts have been largely polite, careful, principled and helpful, but neither they nor their materials (printed or web-based) make clear where their interests lie. They are highly skilled at forming and directing public opinion, and simply said, they have taken over the narrative of Mt. Graham.

Our Committee Chair received 17 e-mail and paper letters of protest to University involvement. All but one contained identical language and structure. The Chair asked each e-mail correspondent to identify him or herself and to explain their interest in the project. One did, a retired Anthropology professor from the University of Maryland, offered detailed reasons for his opposition from 30 years of work with the Apache. His case confirmed Keith Basso's. The rest—some writing from academic e-mail addresses, but the majority from commercial servers—declined to say who they were.

Thus we have no reason to suspect the motives behind this very well-organized and somewhat costly opposition. But neither do we know where it comes from.

Discussion / Recommendation:

While it may have been possible early on in this dispute to present a principled defense of affiliation with the Mt. Graham / LBT project, it clearly is not now. We did not handle this well by simply repeating that the opposition had mis-constructed the facts, and that we met all legal responsibilities—true, but strikingly irrelevant. We failed to make the case for science, for the spiritual dimensions of science, for the service science can provide to all people, for our own stewardship, for our commitment to native culture and rights, or for ways in which we might work for compromise.

We argued the case for science and the fairness of our involvement in terms of facts and the truth. We are faced, conversely, with a situation that must be read in terms of meanings or symbols. Mt. Graham is sacred space for the Apache people, and the various violations of that space—summer homes, telescopes, road races, Bible camps and so on—are seen as part of a legacy of violence. Though the University is not proposing to build or change the landscape, our participation is clearly read as symbolic violence, and an alignment with a history of oppression. In the view of the Social Concerns Committee, symbolic violence is real violence. And it is out of keeping with the ethical stance the University tries to take.

Mt. Graham has long been sacred ground. It has now become a symbol of indigenous culture and a marker of the ugly history of native oppression as well. We lack the means to change these meanings, to alter that history. But we counsel that we do have a choice for ethical action in the present moment. On ethical, material, political and cultural grounds, we cannot afford to join the MGIO project.

Professor Joseph Massey, Chair of the Senate Consultative Committee (SCC), began by welcoming two visitors from Penn State, Professor John Nichols, Chair of the Faculty Senate, and Professor Susan Youtz, Executive Secretary of the Faculty Senate.

He reminded senators that ballots have been sent to elect members to the Faculty Consultative Committee (FCC). The new leaders for the 2002-03 FCC are Professor Dan Feeney as chair and Professor Judith Martin as vice chair.

One issue that SCC will be addressing is the grievance policy as it pertains to emeriti faculty. Currently, the grievance policy is being reviewed by the Drafting Committee.

Another item is the 13 credit minimum. FCC endorsed this efforts as an administrative implementation.

A small group of faculty have been meeting with the President to discuss issues regarding athletics, and another group of faculty and students have been meeting with Vice President Pfutzenreuter regarding the University’s budget situation.

MOTION:

That the Senate adopt the following policy:

Instructors in all 1-XXX courses shall provide a mid-term alert for students who, on the basis of performance in the course through the sixth week of the semester, appear to be in danger of receiving a grade of D, F, or N. Such notification to students will not be a part of their transcript. The University shall be responsible for developing and administering the system for collecting the mid-term alerts and distributing them to the student and to the student's advisor.

Colleges and campuses that have implemented mid-term alert systems that provide this information, or its equivalent, will be considered to have met the provisions of this policy.

The system for collecting mid-term grade alerts should be similar to that used to collect final grades.

COMMENT:

The Senate Committee on Educational Policy has received a number of recommendations from the Office of the Executive Vice President and Provost concerning retention and graduation rates; this motion proposes to implement one of those recommendations.

This policy, if approved, will allow students in 1-XXX courses to be alerted when they are in academic difficulty. Instructors are NOT required by this policy to assign mid-term grades (although any system set up should allow for the option of award mid-term grades to all students, should an instructor wish to do so). Instructors are required, however, to notify students whose grade could be expected to be D, F, or N because of the work completed thus far in the term.

In some instances, instructors in 1-XXX courses may need to adjust the timing of assignments, quizzes, and tests in order to provide a mid-term alert based on work through the sixth week of the semester. This is a good practice in any event because timely feedback to students, especially those new to university-level work, enhances student learning.

The policy would apply to upper division students who enroll in 1-XXX courses.

DISCUSSION:

Professor Wilbert Ahern, Chair of the Senate Educational Policy Committee (SCEP), noted that SCEP, as well as the Finance and Planning Committee, have been devoting much of their attention this year to issues of retention and graduation rates. These discussions were triggered by a report on the Twin Cities campus earlier this year. Morris and Crookston are also planning their own reports.

SCEP realizes that while retention and graduation rates are issues at every campus, many policies considered this year are focused on the Twin Cities. SCEP only has one recommendation as an all-University policy, which is the implementation of mid-term alerts. Several colleges and campuses already issue alerts, so no changes would be needed for these units.

For the faculty, this policy requires that feedback be provided to students by the sixth week of the semester. SCEP realizes that this will be a change to some faculty, but the majority are already able to provide feedback in this timeframe.

Professor Ahern noted that of the other nine Big Ten institutions, five already have a mid-term alert policy in place.

Q: Why is this being called a mid-term policy when the sixth week is not the middle of the semester?

A: SCEP defined mid-term in a broad sense, noting that students can only withdraw up to the eighth week. Therefore, for this policy to help students, an alert needs to be issued before the option to withdraw has been eliminated.

Q: How can faculty issue an alert for classes that do not have any graded materials until after the sixth week?

A: This policy does not require that grades have been issued prior to the sixth week. It asks that faculty determine which students are not performing satisfactorily.

A senator commented that SCEP should consider having grades for freshmen by the middle of the semester.

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

MOTION:

To amend Article III (2) of the Senate Rules, as follows (new language is underlined):

ARTICLE III. RULES FOR COMMITTEES OF THE UNIVERSITY SENATE

. . .

2. Ex Officio Members of Senate Committees

. . .

-- Research--Office of the Executive Vice President and Provost (two representatives, including the Director of Agricultural Experiment Stations); Office of the Treasurer; Office of the Senior Vice President for Health Sciences; Vice President for Research and Dean of the Graduate School; University Librarian (his or her designee); Director of Research Compliance

COMMENT:

The Committee on Committees, in identifying candidates for the newly-expanded Senate Research Committee, contemplated appointing someone from the Libraries. It concluded that rather than appoint someone to one of the voting positions, which would be a haphazard presence for the libraries on the Senate Research Committee, it would be better to have an ex officio representative.

Tom Shaughnessy, the outgoing director of the libraries, expressed support for this proposal in the following way:

"There are so many research committee issues that are relevant to the Libraries . . . from questions of licensing and scholarly publishing to ICR allocations and grants/SPA matters. While it is true that members of the Libraries' faculty and P/A librarians may volunteer for the Research Committee, having an ex officio membership would guarantee our representation. I strongly endorse this proposal."

The Research Committee also believes that it would be helpful to include someone responsible for overseeing University adherence to research rules, since the committee often deals with rules compliance.

The amendment also corrects the title for the Vice President for Research and Dean of the Graduate School.

DISCUSSION:

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

______________________________________________
MOTION A – BYLAWS CHANGES
Action by All Bodies

Agenda Items 16. through 19. are offered as a one motion to be taken up as a single item with one vote. Any item will be taken up separately at the request of a senator.

As an amendment to the Senate bylaws, a motion requires either a majority of all voting members of the Senate (111) at one regular or special meeting, or a majority of all members of the Senate present and voting at each of two meetings. As an amendment to the Assembly bylaws, a motion requires either a majority of all voting members of the Assembly (95) 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 these motions are being presented.

To amend Article II of the Senate Bylaws, as follows (new language is underlined) by adding a new section 1 and renumber existing sections accordingly:

b. No individual holding an academic administrative or professional title may serve on a Senate committee which includes among its ex officio members the University officer to which the individual directly reports.
c. The term "academic professional" shall be interpreted in these bylaws to mean all individuals holding academic administrative or academic professional appointments who are qualified to serve on Senate committees as provided in Section II (1)(a) and (b) of these bylaws.

...

COMMENT:

This implements new eligibility for academic professionals membership on Senate committees.

To amend Article II of the Assembly Bylaws, as follows (new language is underlined) by adding a new section 1 and renumber existing sections accordingly:

...

COMMENT:

This implements for the Assembly the academic professional eligibility for on committees that has been proposed for the University Senate.

MOTION:

To amend the Senate Bylaws as follows (new language is underlined; language to be deleted is struck out):

ARTICLE III. SENATE COMMITTEES

1. ALL-UNIVERSITY HONORS COMMITTEE

...

Membership

The All-University Honors Committee shall be composed of no more than 8 faculty/academic professional members (including one from each coordinate campus), 2 academic professionals, 3 students, 5 alumni, and ex officio representation as specified by vote of the Senate. . . .

...

3. CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEES

...

Senate Consultative Committee

Membership

The Senate Consultative Committee shall be composed of 10 elected members of the faculty, 9 elected students, 1 academic professional, and the vice chair of the University Senate. [The faculty representatives shall serve as the Faculty Consultative Committee; the 8 elected student representatives and the chair and vice chair of the Student Senate shall serve as the Student Consultative Committee; the 8 elected student representatives and the vice chair of the Student Senate shall constitute the 9 voting student members of the Senate Consultative Committee.] The academic professional member shall be designated by the Council of Academic Professionals and Administrators.

...

4. DISABILITIES ISSUES COMMITTEE

...

Membership

The Disabilities Issues Committee shall be composed of at least 7 faculty/academic professional members, 2 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.

...

...

The Educational Policy Committee shall be composed of 12 faculty/academic professional members, 6 students (including one from a coordinate campus), and ex officio representation as specified by vote of the Senate. Members shall be nominated by the Committee on Committees with the approval of the Senate. The chair of the committee shall serve as an ex officio, nonvoting member of the Senate Consultative Committee. Academic professional members must also be eligible to serve in the Senate.

...

7. FACULTY AFFAIRS COMMITTEE

...

Membership

The Faculty Affairs Committee shall be composed of at least 10 members of the faculty, one member two members 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.

...

8. FINANCE AND PLANNING COMMITTEE

...

Membership

The Finance and Planning Committee shall be composed of 8 10 faculty/academic professional members, 2 academic professional members, 4 students, 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. All terms (except student terms) shall be for four years. The Committee may, on its own authority, add to its ex officio membership by requesting that faculty or student chairs and/or other members of standing subcommittees serve on the Committee.

...

9. INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES COMMITTEE

...

Membership

The Information Technologies Committee shall be composed of 10 8 faculty/academic professional members (with at least 7 of these members being regular teaching/research faculty), 4 academic professional members, 1 civil service staff member, and 3 student members (with at least one undergraduate and one graduate student). The membership shall be selected to represent the University broadly, including the colleges, coordinate campuses or research institutes. The Chief Information Officer, or his/her designate, shall serve in an ex-officio capacity. Other designated representatives of University departments or agencies with strong information technology interests are also encouraged to participate. These include equivalent committees at the college or campus level, the University Librarian, and the directors of distance education and administrative systems. Members shall be nominated by the Committee on Committees with the approval of the Senate. The terms of members shall be staggered so as to provide continuity in the activities of the committee.

...

...

The Library Committee shall be composed of 12 faculty/academic professional members, 4 students, and ex officio representation as specified by vote of the Senate. Members shall be nominated by the Committee on Committees with the approval of the Senate. Academic professional members must also be eligible to serve in the Senate.

...

12. RESEARCH COMMITTEE

...

Membership

The Research Committee shall be composed of 15 faculty/academic professional members, 2 academic professional members, 3 students, one civil service staff member, 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. Academic professional members must also be eligible to serve in the Senate. The civil service staff member shall be appointed by the president in consultation with the Civil Service Committee.

...

13. SOCIAL CONCERNS COMMITTEE

...

Membership

The Social Concerns Committee shall be composed of 7 faculty/academic professional members, 3 academic professional members, 7 students, 3 civil service staff members, 3 alumni representatives, 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. The civil service members shall be appointed by the president in consultation with the Civil Service Committee. The alumni members shall be appointed by the president in consultation with the director of alumni relations.

...

...

The Student Academic Integrity Committee shall be composed of 8 faculty/academic professional members (including at least one each from Crookston, Morris, and the Twin Cities), at least 4 of whom must be members of the tenured or tenure-track faculty and 5 students (at least one of whom shall be a graduate or professional student and at least one of whom shall be an undergraduate student from each of the Crookston, Duluth, Morris and Twin Cities campuses). The chair of the committee shall be a member of the tenured faculty. Academic professional members must also be eligible to serve in the Senate. The Executive Vice President (or a designee) and the academic integrity officer shall be ex officio members. The chair and committee members will be nominated by the Committee on Committees in consultation with the Executive Vice President and with the approval of the Senate.

...

COMMENT:

The Senate Consultative Committee has concluded, in response to a request from the Council of Academic Professionals and Administrators (the elected body that represents the P&A staff of the University), that it is appropriate to specify P&A representation on selected Senate and Assembly Committees. P&A staff members often serve the University for a very long time, if not their entire career, they bring a level of professionalism and commitment that usually matches that of the faculty, and often have advanced degrees, training, and experience that well suits them to helping the faculty and students provide advice to the administration on the issues of the day.

There are two parts to this recommendation:

1. Enlarging the pool of eligible P&A staff. At present, only P&A staff with faculty-like responsibilities are eligible for Senate membership and for membership on Senate committees. This recommendation allows any P&A staff member who does not hold the stipulated titles (dean, vice president, etc.) to be appointed to certain Senate committees.

The criterion of having faculty-like responsibilities remains for P&A membership in the Senate itself. The expanded eligibility only applies to certain Senate committees, as set out in the bylaw change recommended.

2. Identifying categories of membership by committee. There are three categories of Senate committees vis-à-vis P&A membership: those on which all eligible P&A staff may serve (and the number of seats is stipulated; they are added to the current membership) the student and faculty membership remains the same); those with an academic focus (Educational Policy, Student Academic Integrity, Library, and Research), which retain the requirement that P&A staff have faculty-like responsibilities; and the rest, which leave open the number of P&A seats vis-à-vis faculty seats, as has been the current practice for a number of years. In the third case, all eligible P&A may be considered for membership, not only those with faculty-like responsibilities.

3. The faculty membership on the Finance and Planning Committee has been expanded from 8 to 10 members. It was the sense of the Committee on Committees (which the Finance and Planning Committee itself endorsed unanimously) that the majority of the committee should be faculty. With the addition of the 2 P&A staff members, there would have been 4 students, 2 civil service staff, 2 P&A staff, and 8 faculty. The addition of the 2 faculty restores the faculty majority.

There is another change being recommended, with the endorsement of CAPA (see Item 20. on this agenda): when tenure or Judicial Committee matters come before the Faculty Senate, only faculty members may vote. It occurred to a number of members of the Faculty Consultative Committee, during the late tenure debate, that it was odd that the P&A members of the Faculty Senate were voting on tenure code changes.

MOTION:

To amend the Assembly Bylaws as follows (new language is underlined; language to be deleted is struck out):

ARTICLE III. TWIN CITIES CAMPUS ASSEMBLY COMMITTEES

...

4. EDUCATIONAL POLICY COMMITTEE

...

Membership

The Educational Policy Committee shall be composed of faculty/academic professional and student representatives from the Twin Cities campus to the Senate Educational Policy Committee. It shall be composed of 10 faculty/academic professional members, 5 students, and ex officio representation as specified by vote of the Assembly. Members shall be nominated by the Committee on Committees with the approval of the Assembly. Academic professional members must also be eligible to serve in the Senate. The chair of the committee shall serve as an ex officio, nonvoting member of the Assembly Steering Committee.

9. STUDENT BEHAVIOR COMMITTEE

...

Membership

The Student Behavior Committee shall be composed of at least 9 faculty/academic professional members, at least 10 students, and ex officio representation as specified by vote of the Assembly. Members shall be nominated by the Committee on Committees with the approval of the Assembly. Academic professional members must also be eligible to serve in the Senate. Unless otherwise requested by both parties or by the defendant in cases where the University is the complainant, each hearing panel of the committee shall consist of a mix of students and faculty/academic professionals. For each case involving a complaint of a code violation against an individual student, the college of that individual's registration may appoint a person to serve as a committee member.

...

COMMENT:

This motion for academic professional eligibility for Assembly committees parallels the previous motion for Senate committees.

DISCUSSION:

Professor Dan Feeney, Vice Chair of the Senate Consultative Committee (SCC), said that the University is a community of faculty and professional administrators. Under the current structure, SCC realized that there are a large number of academic professionals who are not eligible for participation in the Senate. SCC discussed whether this condition was appropriate for Senate committees as well.

Professor Feeney met with Randy Croce, Chair of the Council of Academic Professionals and Administrators (CAPA), to increase academic professional eligibility for Senate committees without changing eligibility for the Senate itself.

Current language has been that seats are reserved for a set number of faculty or academic professionals. While changes have been proposed for many committees, eligibility will remain as is for the Educational Policy Committee, Library Committee, Research Committee, Student Academic Integrity Committee, and the Student Behavior Committee. On other committees, a fixed number of positions will be designated for faculty as well as academic professionals, with the intent of broadening the academic professional eligibility. With increased participation, the hope is that input will improve on Senate committees.

Q: Did SCC consider the impact on student representatives when the number of faculty and academic professional positions was increased?

A: SCC is aware that reorganization might be needed regarding student representation, but this was simply the first step in the process.

Q: Does the title of ‘dean’ make a faculty ineligible to serve in the Senate or on a committee?

A: A faculty member would be eligible as long as their dean appointment is less than 50 percent time.

Q: Language for this change prohibits someone from serving on a committee when a person who they report to serves in an ex officio capacity on the same committee. Will this limit who can serve?

A: The University has a well-established of direct reports which will be used to avoid conflicts of interest within committees. In some cases it might limit a person’s service, but it would also prevent someone from being put into a compromising position.

With no further discussion, a vote was taken and the University Senate motions were approved with 122 votes in favor and 2 opposed. The Twin Cities Campus Assembly motions were approved with 107 votes in favor and 1 opposed.

______________________________________________
END OF MOTION A


20. UNIVERSITY SENATE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT
Allocation of Functions and Powers
Action by the University Senate

MOTION:

To amend the Senate Constitution, Article III (3), as follows (new language is underlined):

3. Allocation of Functions and Powers

...

d. In general, functions allocated to the Faculty Senate shall include but not be limited to accreditation, designation and granting of University honors, policies concerning faculty appointment and tenure, and matters within the jurisdiction of the Faculty Affairs and Judicial Committees. Only those members of the Faculty Senate who hold probationary or tenured faculty appointments may vote on changes in the "Regulations Concerning Faculty Tenure," any matters related to tenure, or any matters related to the Judicial Committee.

...

COMMENT:

As part of a package of bylaw revisions establishing positions on some Senate and Assembly committees for academic professional members, the Faculty Consultative Committee and the Council on Academic Professionals and Administrators agreed that academic professional members of the Faculty Senate should not be voting on tenure or Judicial Committee matters, which are issues of concern exclusively to the faculty.

DISCUSSION:

With no discussion, a vote was taken and the motion was not approved with only 119 in favor and 1 opposed. This motion will appear on the April Senate agenda.

______________________________________________
MOTION B – BYLAWS CHANGES
Action by All Bodies

Agenda Items 21. through 23. are offered as a one motion to be taken up as a single item with one vote. Any item will be taken up separately at the request of a senator.

As an amendment to the Senate bylaws, a motion requires either a majority of all voting members of the Senate (111) at one regular or special meeting, or a majority of all members of the Senate present and voting at each of two meetings. As an amendment to the Assembly bylaws, a motion requires either a majority of all voting members of the Assembly (95) 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 these motions are being presented.

To amend Article II of the Senate Bylaws, as follows (new language is underlined,) to add a new section 8 and renumber existing sections accordingly, and remove language from Article III (5), as follows (language to be deleted is struck out):

3. CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEES

...
Student Consultative Committee

Membership
...

The chair of the Student Consultative Committee shall be elected by the Student Consultative Committee members from among the campus representatives, not including the Student Senate Chair or the Student Senate Vice Chair. The vice chair of the Student Senate shall also serve as the vice chair of the Student Consultative Committee. If the vice chair has already been elected to the Student Consultative Committee as a regular member, he or she must concede his or her prior position to another student, to be chosen as soon as possible by the appropriate student constituency. The chair and vice chair shall serve no more than two consecutive terms. The chair of the Student Senate shall serve as an ex officio, nonvoting member of the Senate Consultative Committee. The vice chair of the Student Senate shall serve as a voting members of the Senate Consultative Committee.

...

COMMENT:

This change would not allow one student to be elected Student Senate Consultative Committee Chair if they had already been elected Student Senate Chair or Student Senate Consultative Committee Vice Chair.

To amend Article II of the Senate Bylaws, as follows (new language is underlined,) to add a new section 8 and renumber existing sections accordingly, and remove language from Article III (5), as follows (language to be deleted is struck out):

ARTICLE II. RULES FOR COMMITTEES OF THE UNIVERSITY SENATE

...

8. A committee of the Senate shall have the authority to issue interpretations of Senate policies that it has previously introduced to the Senate and which the Senate and the administration have approved. The Senate Consultative Committee (for University Senate policies) and the Faculty Consultative Committee (for Faculty Senate policies) may issue interpretations for any policy adopted by those bodies. Those interpretations shall be considered part of the policy (1) once the interpretation has been reported for information at the next Senate meeting following committee approval of the interpretation, and (2) neither the Senate nor the president makes objection before or at that Senate meeting. The Senate may, by simple majority of those present and voting, vote not to approve the interpretation, in which case it is not part of the policy. If the president objects, the interpretation must be brought back at the following meeting for a vote by the Senate.

...

ARTICLE III. SENATE COMMITTEES
. . .

5. Educational Policy Committee

...

a. ...

The committee shall have the authority to issue interpretations of Senate policies that it has previously introduced to the Senate and which the Senate and the administration have approved. Those interpretations shall be considered part of the policy once the interpretation has been reported for information at the next Senate meeting following committee approval of the interpretation and neither the Senate nor the president makes objection before or at that Senate meeting. The Senate may, by simple majority of those present and voting, vote not to approve the interpretation, in which case it is not part of the policy. If the president objects, the interpretation must be brought back at the following meeting for a vote by the Senate.

COMMENT:

A few years ago the Senate granted to the Committee on Educational Policy the authority to issue Interpretations of policies that the Committee had initially brought to the Senate. The Committee on Educational Policy requested this authority because questions often arise about the application of policies which require interpretation of policy language but which do not really require a change in the policy itself.

As questions about other Senate policies have arisen, it seemed to the Senate Consultative Committee that it would be helpful for all Senate committees to have this authority. As is the case with the existing provision for the Committee on Educational Policy, no interpretation would become binding (1) until it had been placed on a Senate docket for information or (2) if the President objects. In the latter case, the proposed interpretation would have to be brought back to the next Senate meeting for a vote. It is presumed that any difference of opinion between the President and the Committee could be resolved before the next Senate meeting.

The new language also authorizes the Senate or Faculty Consultative Committees to issue interpretations of ANY Senate policies (for the respective Senates), in order to ensure that if a Committee cannot meet, or has been dissolved, but an interpretation is needed, action can be taken.

To amend Article II of the Assembly Bylaws, as follows (new language is underlined,) to add a new section 8 and renumber existing sections accordingly, and remove language from Article III (4), as follows (language to be deleted is struck out):

ARTICLE II. RULES FOR COMMITTEES OF THE TWIN CITIES CAMPUS ASSEMBLY

...

8. A committee of the Assembly shall have the authority to issue interpretations of Assembly policies that it has previously introduced to the Assembly and which the Assembly and the administration have approved. The Assembly Steering Committee (for Assembly policies) and the Faculty Assembly Steering Committee (for Faculty Assembly policies) may issue interpretations for any policy adopted by those bodies. Those interpretations shall be considered part of the policy (1) once the interpretation has been reported for information at the next Assembly meeting following committee approval of the interpretation, and (2) neither the Assembly nor the president makes objection before or at that Assembly meeting. The Assembly may, by simple majority of those present and voting, vote not to approve the interpretation, in which case it is not part of the policy. If the president objects, the interpretation must be brought back at the following meeting for a vote by the Assembly.

...

ARTICLE III. TWIN CITIES CAMPUS ASSEMBLY COMMITTEES
. . .

4. Educational Policy Committee

...

a. ...

The committee shall have the authority to issue interpretations of Assembly policies that it has previously introduced to the Assembly and which the Assembly and the administration have approved. Those interpretations shall be considered part of the policy once the interpretation has been reported for information at the next Assembly meeting following committee approval of the interpretation and neither the Assembly nor the president makes objection before or at that Assembly meeting. The Assembly may, by simple majority of those present and voting, vote not to approve the interpretation, in which case it is not part of the policy. If the president objects, the interpretation must be brought back at the following meeting for a vote by the Assembly.

COMMENT:

This language implements for Assembly committees the same authority to issue Interpretations that has been proposed for Senate committees.

DISCUSSION:

With no discussion, a vote was taken and the University Senate motions were approved with 125 votes in favor and none opposed. The Twin Cities Campus Assembly motions were approved with 114 votes in favor and none opposed.

______________________________________________
END OF MOTION B


24. UNIVERSITY SENATE BYLAWS AMENDMENT
Student Senate Consultative Committee membership
Discussion by the University Senate

...

...

Membership

The Student Consultative Committee shall be composed of:

...

COMMENT:

This proposal would be to restructure the Student Senate Consultative Committee to have equal representation from each campus student assembly. The representation on the Faculty Consultative Committee would not be changed by this proposal.

DISCUSSION:

A senator noted that the Student Senate endorsed this motion earlier today.

Another senator commented that it was a close vote at the Student Senate meeting, following much discussion. The current structure is proportional to the number of students at each campus. This motion would change the representation to equals numbers from each campus, regardless of the number of students on each campus. This change would be unfair to the large number of Twin Cities students since their voice on the executive committee of the Student Senate would be reduced. The coordinate campus voice is heard, and listened to, at Student Senate Consultative Committee (SSCC) meetings.

Another senator noted that the student assemblies already exist to advocate for Twin Cities students. It would be redundant to perpetuate proportional representation on the SSCC since it already exists in the Student Senate. Strong support is needed for equal representation.

A senator noted that this motion would provide two Twin Cities undergraduate representatives and two Twin Cities graduate/professional representatives. The Graduate and Professional Student Assembly (GAPSA) is in favor of this proposal since it guarantees two seats every year. At this time, GAPSA’s representation varies from one to two representatives, depending on the year.

A senator stated that there should be one representative, and one vote, per campus, but this proposal is grossly disproportionate as is now being proposed, and therefore recommended disapproval.

Another senator commented that the presidents from the different student associations have discussed this proposal and have noted that there is a different governance structure for students at the University. Each student assembly is culturally distinct and has representation of their own through the student assemblies. This creates redundancy for students. Given the highly vocal nature of these other assemblies, the point of this motion is for SSCC to provide each assembly an equal voice in policy-making and streamline the process.

President Yudof said that the University is facing a $23.6 million budget rescission at a time when the University is doing more with less. Extensive consultation has been conducted with the Finance and Planning Committee (SCFP) and the Faculty Consultative Committee (FCC). The conceptual framework for the new budget will be presented to the Regents in April, with better numbers in May, and final adoption in June.

Some of the particulars of the new budget will include faculty raises at less than 6% this year. Tuition will increase more than the projected 13.8%, although this will be accompanied by a plan for tuition banding. This will allow students to take classes over a set level for no additional cost. The University is one of the few institutions that does not use tuition banding.

He noted that he probably will support a minimum course load for students, although it will be phased-in and subject to many of the caveats noted by the students in their consultation on this issue.

He said that he is pleased with the mid-term alert that was passed. It is fair to students in 1XXX level courses when they begin their time at the University.

He then welcomed John Nichols and Susan Youtz to the meeting.

President Yudof encouraged everyone to visit the renovated Walter Library. It is a wonderful renovation which combines new technologies with historical preservation, while providing a welcoming environment for students.

The University is keeping on eye on the stadium situation. This topic is not something the University is pushing, but its proposal and construction would have a significant impact on the campus. The bill, as it now stands, is favorable to the University. The President expressed this thought that this is the year of a Twins stadium and not much action will likely be taken on a Gopher/Vikings stadium.

The Regents will be discussing intercollegiate athletics at their April meeting. The University is committed to gender equity. One reason for the high investment at the University is that he has made a deliberate effort to add teams and facilities to bring about proportionality. Whatever solution is proposed will conform with law and the strong value of women’s athletics at the University.

President Yudof stated that athletics does have a problem because it requires a $10 million per year investment from the University. Even with this investment, there is a looming deficit over the next five years. He is not opposed to public money supporting non-revenue sports but their subsidy must be weighed against the interests of the University as a whole. The University does not have the unlimited resources to support athletics as it once did.

Regarding the structure of the departments, the pattern for successful departments is random between separate or merged departments, with respect to academic and athletic performance. There are no guarantees in any structure, but success is determined by how the University conducts itself.

Chairs from key committees have formed a group that is meeting with Vice President Brown and himself to consult and share information. The faculty have had significant opportunities to influence the process.

Q: What will the legislative strategy for next year to avoid playing ‘catch-up’?

A: Two articles have been published on changes in higher education across the country. Public education is not being supported nationally. He has theorized that a hybrid institution will be formed by systemic factors, such as an aging population and the tax credit as the only improvement in higher education since the G.I. Bill. In any given year, the University wants to receive as much as possible to keep access high. For next session, the University will identify some additional undergraduate and research priorities, in consultation with the faculty. The University will continue to invest in many of the same areas as the past few years. Tuition will continue to increase by double digits, although he hopes that he is wrong. If appropriations remain flat because of the state budget problem, the University will need to look for other ways to cut expenses and raise additional funds. The University’s strategy will emphasize philanthropy, tuition, strategic hiring for research, accountability and performance, and fiscal management.

Q: Will merging the two athletic departments help the budget shortfall in athletics?

A: Merging the departments will save $1.1 million per year in a budget that is already in deficit.

Q: What is your reaction to the new earthquake center on campus?

A: He likes this project because it is being paid for by other people. This center will research the impact of lateral forces, as in earthquakes, on buildings. He is excited about the research and the people involved in the project.

Q: What is your opinion of the UMD Women’s hockey team?

A: They are a fabulous team and genuine national champions. He was thrilled with the victory and hopes that the campus takes pride in its athletes.

Q: Does the University have an emergency bio-terrorism response team on campus?

A: The University has many people who are experts in certain areas, but they have not been organized in the past. The University will have monitoring and response teams centralized under one unit for rapid responses. The University has experts in some fields, but at other times the University relies on experts from city police and fire departments.

Q: What is the status of the capital bonding bill?

A: The Senate has approved the entire bonding bill, which would be the largest amount ever received by the University. The University will be subject to one-third of the debt service other than what is covered by HEAPR. The House bill is also large but does not cover as many projects. The University has been meeting with many leaders to explain the importance of each project. Differences between the two bills include: Senate funds the Translational Research Building but the House does not; Jones Hall is fully funded by the state in the Senate but the University would need to fund one-third in the House bill; the Duluth Science Building is funded in both bills but the House bill carries a University debt service while the Senate bill does not; Morris renovations are funded in both bills; the Mineral Resources Building is funded in both bills; and the House did not fund the IT Classroom Building, Northrop Auditorium, or Bede Hall.

The Faculty Consultative Committee, at its meeting on November 29, 2001, took action on behalf of the Faculty Senate. The following excerpt from the FCC minutes of that meeting reflects the change:

Professor Goldstein explained that the administration has recommended changes to the procedures for the Faculty Development Leave Policy that are to the benefit of the faculty. The salary supplement available has been increased from 25% of salary (to a maximum of $25,000) to 30% of salary (to a maximum of $30,000). This supplement is available in addition to the 50% salary paid during a sabbatical. It is now also available for those who take half-year leaves (5.5 months for those on A appointments and one semester for those on B appointments), and application for the supplement is completely separate from, and has no bearing on, application for a sabbatical.

The Committee must act on behalf of the Faculty Senate because this item came up too late to be included in the December 6 Senate docket; because the administration wishes to implement the policy immediately, the Committee needs to act to approve it.

The Committee voted unanimously to approve the changes on behalf of the Faculty Senate. Professor Massey said he would report the action to the Faculty Senate on December 6, after which time the Faculty Senate will be considered to have approved the change (if it does not vote to reverse the decision of the Committee).

The Faculty Senate has the authority to reverse this action, if it wishes.

The Faculty Consultative Committee, at its meeting on March 14, 2002, took action on behalf of the Faculty Senate to approve the following slate of names to appear on the Faculty Consultative Committee ballot: Professors V.V. Chari, Thomas Clayton, Mary Jo Kane, Scott Lanyon, Marvin Marshak, and Ben Senauer.

MOTION:

That the Twin Cities Campus Faculty Assembly approve the following slate of nominees to fill two Twin Cities faculty/academic professional vacancies on the Nominating Committee. A simple majority is required for approval. Once the slate is approved, ballots will be distributed for voting.

Academic Health Center Slate
Nelson Rhodus
1 to be named

College of Liberal Arts Slate
2 to be named

DISCUSSION:

Professor Joseph Massey, Chair of the Faculty Consultative Committee (FCC), noted that only the Academic Health Center slate will be voted upon today. The two nominees are Professors Nelson Rhodus and Thomas Shier.

With no discussion, a vote was taken and the motion was approved. Ballots were then distributed for voting.

A senator asked about Item 6., Exemptions to the Secrecy in Research Policy. He noted that the Research Committee had voted unanimously to approve the two exemptions, but the that the Senate Consultative Committee (SCC) was divided in its voting. He asked that the Senate be given the opportunity to vote on endorsing or reversing the two exemptions in an advisory capacity.

President Yudof noted that a two-thirds vote is needed to take action on these exemptions. A vote was then taken and a motion to consider the two exemptions was approved with 85 in favor, 18 opposed, and 4 abstentions. President Yudof then set a 10 minute time limit to consider these exemptions.

A senator then moved approval of the first exemption to the policy. The motion was seconded and the floor was opened for discussion.

A senator noted that the first exemption requires that the Army review all materials prior to publication. The University is a public institution and this exemption violates the principles of free information. He said that he was raised to implicitly not trust the government, and for that reason, this exemption should not be granted.

Professor Scott McConnell, Chair of the Research Committee, provided background on this exemption. The University accepted a contract with Network Computing Services, which included a variety of work duties, many of which occurred off campus. The total grant for this project was quite sizable, but only some of research was conducted by the University. The University did not have a signed contract when the grant began. The group funding the research said that they wanted a restriction on any publications of research from this grant, although there were no publications under this grant. The grant and the work has been completed, and the two investigators have left the University.

Q: Can the University receive any funds without approving this exemption?

A: No.

Another senator stated that the University made a mistake in this case, and cannot afford to lose $900,000 if the exemption is not approved.

A senator expressed concern about the process. The SCC was asked in one meeting, and with a short discussion, to approve a complicated motion. These same motions had received the unanimous support of the Research Committee, which spent much more time understanding these issues.

President Yudof then ended the discussion on the first exemption. A vote was taken and the first exemption was approved.

A senator then made a motion to approve the second exemption. The motion was seconded and the floor was opened for discussion.

Professor Scott McConnell, Chair of the Research Committee, provided background on this exemption. Research on this project has not begun. A professor in the Institute of Technology is interested in accepting a sub-contract from Mississippi State University, which has a contract with the Navy. The Navy has restrictions which would require prior approval of any publications from this grant; it is likely that publishable research might come from this study.

A senator asked why the Navy needs to issue clearance on research that is not considered classified. The United States is moving closer to a police state, and granting this exemption helps that movement. A dollar value should not be placed on ethics.

Another senator noted that the Research Committee spent time on this issue and the professor is already conducting research in this field, so the exemption should be granted.

Another senator questioned the image of the University if it denies this request, simply because funds have not been spent on this research, while the first exemption was granted because the University did not want to lose funds.

A senator then said that because of the number of concerns that have been expressed about this policy in general, a joint committee has been formed to resolve these issues and to review the policy as it now stands.

President Yudof then ended the discussion, A vote was taken and the motion was approved.

The meeting was adjourned at 4:08 p.m.

APPENDIX A


Northrop Beach

Northrop Beach, MD, a Clinical Associate Professor of Pediatrics Emeritus, died on February 10, 2002. Dr. Beach and his family had a long connection with the University of Minnesota. His grandfather, Cyrus Northrop, was the second President of the University. His father, Joseph Warren Beach, was a well-known poet-author-professor and long-time Chairman of the English Department at the University of Minnesota.

Dr. Beach spent a portion of this childhood years in Switzerland and France, where he developed a deep interest in French culture, literature, and language, which was a passion for him throughout his life. After attending Phillips Academy in Hanover Massachusetts, Dr. Beach graduated from Harvard College in 1934 and Harvard Medical School in 1938. He took internships in Pediatrics at the University of Minnesota, and subsequently at Johns Hopkins University from 1938 - 1940. He returned to the University of Minnesota in 1940 as a resident in Pediatrics and a Clinical Assistant at the Washburn Home. He carried out studies on pneumonitis in infants, and as a part-time physician on the University staff, supervised medical student courses. There were comments that none of the part-time faculty have been more faithful in carrying out their teaching responsibilities. Another indicated that Dr. Beach was a willing and inspiring teacher. At the same time he was performing these teaching responsibilities, he was one of the first physicians at the Nicollet Clinic, which subsequently became Park Nicollet Clinic. Because of the demands of practice, he resigned his teaching responsibilities at the University in 1945, although throughout the remainder of his professional career he worked with medical students in his practice. He achieved Emeritus status in 1985. Throughout his career, he was a dedicated, passionate pediatrician who felt a deep obligation to be socially responsible.

He was active in the Minnesota Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics and Northwestern Pediatric Society. In addition to his interest in French literature and culture, Dr. Beach traveled widely throughout the world and was an expert birder.

His survivors include his wife, Myrtle, of Minneapolis, sons, Norris of St. Louis, and Christopher of Irvine CA, a daughter Cecilia of Belmont New York and seven grandchildren.

Victor Caliandro

A dedicated advocate of cities, Victor Caliandro, adjunct assistant professor of architecture at the College of Architecture and Landscape Architecture, died unexpectedly on February 15, 2002, at the age of 58. Victor was a gifted teacher whose studios in urban design have had a long-term benefit to the Twin Cities.

Victor’s love for cities was apparent in his teaching and also in practice. Victor was a principal and director of Urban Studies at Cuningham Group and served on the board of AIA Minnesota. He was named fellow by the Institute for Urban Design and was the recipient of a 2001 presidential citation from AIA Minnesota for leadership of the Urban Design Committee of AIA Minneapolis.

Before moving to the Twin Cities in 1995, Victor had been one of the architects and urban designers who worked on the master plan for New York’s Battery Park City. He worked on housing guidelines and developed the Esplanade Park—this project was the highlight of his career. For 10 years he had his own firm, Caliandro & Associates, in New York.

Shortly after September 11, Victor returned to New York to show his support for the city and the neighborhood he helped create. He returned once again, the weekend before his death, with teaching colleague, Aaron Parker, and University of Minnesota students enrolled in their urban design studio. Students made the trip to the World Trade Center site in search of a redevelopment plan—the students’ semester-long studio assignment.

He has worked internationally on projects in Japan, wining the prestigious Urban Beautification Award from the city of Fukuoka for his work on the Tenjin Galleria, a mixed-use building and outdoor space at the entrance of the Tenjin district, a commercial and civic center. In the Twin Cities, he’s worked on integrating housing with commercial uses—the transformation of the Village North Shopping Center into The Village, and designing a mixed-use urban redevelopment project at Franklin and Portland in South Minneapolis. He also worked on the design of two light rail transit stations and served as an advisor to the city of St. Paul on waterfront development.

He is survived by his wife, Margaret Maria Brozek Caliandro and son Nicholas (Nino). Victor was a accomplished urban designer and will be very much missed not only in this community, but in the urban design community nationwide.

Nina Evelyn Draxten

Nina Draxten, assistant professor of English in General College, died February 14, 2002, in Minneapolis at the age of 98. Draxten was a high school teacher for twenty years before coming to the University as an instructor in 1945. She retired as an assistant professor in 1969. Post-retirement, she wrote two books and embarked on an acting career at age 81. Draxten was also noted for her research and publications on the Norwegian-American community in Minnesota. Professor Emeritus Fred Amram remembers Draxten as “a hugely creative person [who] regularly held court in the Nicholson Hall lunchroom entertaining all who would listen with stories from literature and from her life.”

Draxten was born in 1903 in Minneapolis and graduated from high school in 1920. She earned two degrees from the University of Minnesota, B.S. (1925) and M.A. (1941), and also completed coursework toward a doctorate during the 1940s.

From 1925-45 she taught English and directed plays at high schools in Lester Prairie, Adrian, Willmar, St. Louis Park, and at University High School in Minneapolis. She also taught at Moorhead State Teacher’s College and Hamline University.

She taught English and literature in General College from 1945 to 1969, first as an instructor, and after 1954, as an assistant professor. In the early 1950s she conducted an evaluation of freshman English textbooks and published the results as a pamphlet that received notice at other schools around the country. In 1954 she was on leave to act as consultant and head of the English department at St. Croix Falls, Wis. She reworked the General College literature curriculum in 1958-59.

Her General College department head, Leon Reisman, described Draxten as possessing “an agile intellect and a mordant wit.” He also praised her skill as a teacher. “She is one of the few teachers I know who can induce GC students to ventilate their ideas in depth— they learn quickly that facile and superficial opinions expire with an embarrassing plop under this professor’s Socratic questioning.”

Draxten, who spoke Norwegian, took a sabbatical leave in 1966 to continue her research on Kristofer Janson, a Norwegian poet and Unitarian clergyman who spent 12 years in Minnesota, 1881-1893. She published articles on Jansen’s life and work in Studies of the Norwegian American Historical Association and Minnesota Posten. Her book Kristofer Janson in America was published by Twayne Publishers in 1976. Theodore Blegen, former dean of the Graduate School and a historian of Norwegian Americans, noted Draxten’s “contribution to a fascinating and insightful account of the religious development of the Norwegian American community in Minnesota.”

Draxten’s professional memberships included the National Council of Teachers of English, Conference on College Composition and Communication, and Norwegian American Historical Association. Her community group memberships included the Minneapolis Citizens League, United World Federalists, Sons of Norway, Great Books, American Cancer Society, and Advisory Committee of Aldermen

Draxten retired from the University in June 1969. She wrote a second book, described as a biography of “a Lutheran minister involved in a messy love scandal in turn-of-the-century Minneapolis.”

She took up acting at age 81, as a “distraction” after the death of her brother. Her first acting job was in a training film. She also appeared in newspaper and TV advertisements, including one for Burger King, where she played, appropriately, a teacher. Her biggest role was as a 100-year-old grandmother in Sam Shepard’s movie “Far North,” starring Jessica Lange. Draxten was 85 years old at the time.

Draxten lived in the north Minneapolis house built by her grandfather until the last four years of her life. She had no immediate survivors, but did have numerous nieces and nephews. A private burial service was held in February.

Submitted on behalf of Dean David V. Taylor, General College by Laura Weber, communications coordinator, March 20, 2002

Source for some information in this obituary is “Teacher, actor Nina Draxten dies at 98,” by Steve Brandt, Star Tribune, February 17, 2002, p. B8.

Haike Kristine Friedrichsdorf

Haike Kristine Friedrichsdorf, 33, of Bad Duerrenberg, German, and Duluth, died Thursday, January 31, 2002 at her home.

She was born in Merseburg, Germany to parents Eberhard and Christa Drevin Friedrichsdorf, on January 16, 1969. She was both a German Instructor and Language Student at UMD. Haike was a member of the UMD International Club, Alpha Mu Gamma, UMD German Club and also sang in the Duluth Symphony Choir.

She is survived by her parents, brother Kai (Sabine) Friedrichsdorf, Maternal grandmother Gisela Drevin, Paternal grandmother Frieda Friedrichsdorf, and niece Anne, all of Germany, and many friends.

Celebration: Of Live and Pot Luck will be at the Bull Pub Room in the Kirby Student Center, UMD, Wednesday, 1:00 p.m. In lieu of flowers, family requests memorials to the Foreign Language Department at UMD for the Potsdam Scholarship Program. Arrangements by Williams Lobermeier Funeral Home.

Paul Stoddard Hagen

Paul S. Hagen, associate professor of speech communications in General College, died on November 20, 2001 in Englewood, Florida. He was a faculty member in General College from 1959 until his retirement in 1982. He also taught part-time in the Rhetoric Department from 1946 to 1952 and in the Speech Department from 1955 to 1959. Hagen was a gifted teacher who had a unique rapport with students. Colleague Fred Amram remembers Hagen’s compassion and “absolutely sincere dedication to General College students. His office was always filled with ‘groupies’ who wanted to chat with the guru who helped them to grow, to become.”

Hagen was born in Minneapolis on November 25, 1919. He attended high school and preparatory school in Connecticut, then returned to Minnesota to attend college, first at Moorhead Teacher’s College, then the University of Minnesota (1940-42). He participated in debate, drama, and student government in college, interests that continued throughout his life. His education was interrupted by service in World War II. From 1942-45, he was a sergeant in the U.S. Army, where he served in England, France, and Germany and earned a Purple Heart.

After the war, Hagen returned to the University, completing his B.A. degree in speech and English (minor in history) in 1946. He earned an M.A. in speech in 1949 and did coursework toward the Ph.D. from 1949 through 1952, when he became an instructor of debate, persuasion, radio, and public speaking at Cortland State Teacher’s College, Cortland. NY. He returned to the University in 1955, where he taught speech fundamentals and advanced public speaking part-time in the Speech Department. In 1950, Ralph Nichols, chief of the Division of Rhetoric on the St. Paul campus wrote of Hagen, “The rapport which he develops with students always surprises me a little. They always work very hard and enthusiastically for him and put in many long hours of extracurricular effort for him.” Students and his superiors continued to note Hagen’s superior teaching skills throughout his career.

Hagen was an instructor in General College from 1959 to 1964, when he was made an assistant professor. He was promoted to associate professor in 1972. Hagen taught all courses offered in oral communication in General College, including speech principles, speech dynamics, oral interpretation, group discussion, business speech, interpersonal communication, radio and television, creative speech activities, integrated communication, creative problem solving, film and drama, and the camera in communication. He also taught practical speech for businesspeople via closed circuit television in the early 1960s in the Extension Division (now College of Continuing Education).

Outside the classroom, Hagen participated in the work of the college as chair of textbook selection committee, advising the General College Student Board, and helping establish a General College Alumni Committee.

From October 1969 to July 1970 Hagen traveled around the world on a sabbatical furlough. Its purpose was to look into new ways of using the television and recording equipment then in General College and to develop new courses in film appreciation for the Extension Division and “The Camera as Communication” in General College. Hagen and his wife, Rosemary, began by visiting community colleges in New England, then visited cinematography schools, archives, film boards, clubs, and festivals in Tokyo, Kyoto, Taipei, Manila, Hong Kong, Bangkok, Cheng Mai, Calcutta, New Delhi, Bombay, Nairobi and Malinoi, Kenya, Entebbe, Uganda, Accra, Ghana, Dakar, Senegal, Canary Islands, Madrid, Stuttgart, Rome, Athens, Copenhagen, Oslo, Berlin, and Paris. They also spent a month in England exploring the work in film appreciation in that country.

Hagen’s extraordinary skill as a teacher and mentor were attested to by Professor Leon Reisman, who wrote in a letter recommending Hagen for promotion to associate professor in 1972:
He succeeds because he is secure, almost infallible, in his intuition as a teacher: he steers a path in the classroom that is firm but forever pliant. He empathizes with his students in so limber and sensitive a way...that they respond to him with zest and with trust; and tolerantly he accepts them all... He serves them while they are in school, and after they graduate, they return, former AFDC mothers, Upward Bound and New Careers people, to get help on a senior college assignment, to be coached for a part in an all-University play, to prepare a talk for a political group, or just to talk about themselves and their families. As I have observed before, Professor Hagen is the Pied Piper of Nicholson Hall.

Former colleagues Mary K. St. John and Mary Ellen Gee recalled Hagen’s wry sense of humor and pleasant demeanor.

Hagen was also involved with community activities. Politically, he was active in the DFL, serving as president of the Anoka-area DFL club; as delegate at the county, district, and state level; and as active participant in election campaigns of Senator Hubert Humphrey and Congressman Don Fraser. Hagen was the founder of mental health centers in Anoka County and president of the Anoka Mental Health Association. His membership on the Citizens’ Planning Investigation Committee led to work as a consultant teacher for a KTCA-TV nursing education program. Hagen was also on the board of the Anoka Council of Economic Opportunity, which was useful in the establishment of the Upward Bound program in General College.

Hagen was a member of the AAUP, Speech Association of America, College English Association, National Society of the Study of Communication, and regional speech groups. Hagen was often a judge at regional and state level high school debate clinics and numerous community speech competitions. He was an occasional thespian as well. In 1962, he was the only non-student actor (playing Willie Loman) in the Punchinello Players production of Death of a Salesman. And he was an active member of the Unitarian Church, serving as adult program director for the Fridley society.

Paul Hagen is survived by his wife, Rosemary, of Englewood, Florida. A memorial service was held at the Unitarian Universalist Fellowship of Port Charlotte, Florida, in January 2002.

Submitted on behalf of Dean David V. Taylor, General College by Laura Weber, communications coordinator, March 20, 2002

Jean L. Harris

The University of Minnesota's Academic Health Center lost a friend and colleague when Dr. Jean Harris, former Senior Associate Director and Director of Medical Affairs for University Hospital, died December 14, 2001 at the age of 70.  Dr. Harris was named the hospital's first medical affairs director in 1992.  She was instrumental in establishing systems and processes that evolved into the hospital's continuous quality improvement program for patient care and administration.  Her contributions to the advancement of patient care on a local and national level were numerous.  She was a generous teacher, always helping colleagues to understand the complexities of quality management, cost containment, service improvement and outcomes assessment.  Her gentle and caring nature made her a successful leader and respected administrator.

Dr. Harris is survived by her husband, Leslie Ellis, and three daughters, Cynthia, Soraja, and Pamela.

Linda Hilsen

The University of Minnesota Duluth lost a friend and colleague when Linda Rae Hilsen, associate professor, Instructional Development Service, died on Friday, January 25, 2002.

Hilsen received her B.S. undergraduate degree from the University of Minnesota Duluth in 1968 and her M.A. in 1973. She began working at UMD as an instructor in 1972 and was promoted to associate professor in 1989. She was a doctoral candidate from the University of Minnesota’s educational leadership program. She received the Horace T. Morse/Alumni award in 1994, an award given to the outstanding professors in the University of Minnesota system to recognize contributions to undergraduate education.

Linda also was one of the founding members of the Professional and Organizational Development Network in Higher Education, a national program to help improve teaching in colleges. At UMD, she was the coordinator for the Writing Skills and Reading Skills programs. She was the founding director of the Instructional Development Service, a program to help improve teaching skills of the faculty at UMD. She published numerous articles, secured many grants for UMD and authored The Right Book as well as others throughout her career, and was one of the main authors of the New Faculty Development Book by Ankr Publishing.

Linda is survived by her son Brandon Hilsen; her life partner Norman Mangan; father Henry B. Griffin; brother Kevin (Anne) Griffin; sister Lori (Michael) Luukkonen; several nieces and nephews and many other loving family members and friends. Linda was a devoted mother, friend and sister as well as a beautiful human being, who will be sincerely missed by all of those whose lives she touched.

William G. Kubicek

Dr. William "Bill" Kubicek died Saturday, January 12, 2002, at the age of 88. He died at Abbott Northwestern Hospital from heart failure. He is survived by his wife Rosemary, and two daughters, Carol (Polzin) and Kathy (Haking).

Dr. Kubicek was born January 26, 1913. He was raised in Medford, Minnesota, and graduated from the Medford High School in June 1931. He attended the University of Minnesota and obtained a B.S.E.E. degree in 1942. He went on to get his Ph.D. in Physiology in 1946.

Dr. Kubicek became a prominent researcher who was honored with many awards. He held numerous academic appointments at the University of Minnesota from 1942 to 1981. He was promoted to Professor in 1952, and held that title until his retirement in December 1981. During that time he was involved in many research projects and authored or co-a