The second meeting of the University Senate, Twin Cities Campus Assembly, and Faculty Senate for 2002-03 was convened in 25 Mondale Hall, Minneapolis campus, on Thursday, October 31, 2002, at 2:34 p.m., as a joint meeting of the three bodies. Coordinate campuses were linked by telephone. Checking or signing the roll as present were 137 voting faculty/academic professional members, 32 voting student members, and 3 ex officio members. Vice Chair Marti Hope Gonzales presided.

Vice Chair Marti Hope Gonzales announced that today’s musical prelude was performed by Lindsey King, a junior in the School of Music.

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/021003sen.html

DISCUSSION:

A senator made a motion that the minutes be changed to reflect that in the vote for item 43 on the agenda, the nay vote was not taken. The language should read that the amendment was approved with 137 votes in favor.

The motion was seconded. The amendment was then approved by a majority.

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

3. TRIBUTE TO DECEASED MEMBERS OF THE UNIVERSITY COMMUNITY

FACULTY/ACADEMIC PROFESSIONALS/STAFF

Robert G. Robinson
Professor
Agronomy and Plant Genetics
1920 – 2002

STUDENTS

Alexander J. Galle
College on Continuing Education

Jerrold Hartke
College of Liberal Arts

Tyler A. Jensen
College of Liberal Arts

Justin A. Knebel
University of Minnesota – Crookston

In addition to this list, Vice Chair Marti Hope Gonzales added the following names to the tribute, due to the recent plane crash: Paul Wellstone, Sheila Wellstone, Marcia Wellstone Markuson, Will McLaughlin, Tom Lapic, Richard Conry, and Michael Guess.

Interpretation of Policy on Examinations for Credit and Proficiency (language to be deleted is struck out; language to be added is underlined).

The University of Minnesota offers "proficiency examinations" and "special examinations for credit" to currently registered undergraduate degree-seeking students which are given at the discretion of the appropriate academic department. In addition, the University, with the concurrence of the appropriate academic department, also recognizes and awards credits based on examinations which are taken as a part of the Advanced Placement program, the International Baccalaureate Program, and CLEP program. Once special exam credit has been awarded, the credits will remain on the student’s transcript unless the credit was awarded in error.

1. Proficiency Examinations shall be administered by the appropriate academic department, require no fee, and yield no credit or grade but may fulfill prerequisites for advanced courses or satisfy requirements. Proficiency examinations may be taken at any time, and if the student’s work is of passing quality, a notation shall be made on his/her transcript saying "Course X satisfied by proficiency examination." A student may not first take a University of Minnesota course and earn a grade, subsequently take a proficiency exam for that course content, and then request that the original course grade be bracketed from the transcript.

2. Examinations for Credit shall be without fee if taken during the student’s first term in residence or the first term after an absence of a year or more, otherwise a fee will be charged. Credits earned by examination shall not count as residence credits. A student may not first take a University of Minnesota course and earn a grade, subsequently take an examination for credit for that course content, and then request that the original course grade be bracketed from the transcript.

A student must do "C-" quality work on an "examination for credit" to earn credit, and a notation shall be placed on the transcript showing the course and credits earned. The department awarding the credit by examination shall determine whether or not a grade is to be assigned. Effective fall 1999, examinations for credit earn the letter "T." These credits will be included in the cumulative credits (but not term credits) but the "T" grade will not be reflected in either the term or cumulative grade point average. If the student fails to do "C-" quality work on the examination, no notation shall be made on the transcript.

The "examination" administered by a department may be typical final examination, an oral test, written papers or projects, or any other combination of work which will satisfy the examiners that the student has adequately achieved the values of the course."

Minimum standards for awarding credits by examination shall be determined by the academic department giving the examination. Minimum standards for awarding credits on nationally-administered examinations shall be established by the appropriate academic department. The national examinations shall be reviewed every five years to determine whether the minimum standards remain appropriate.

No department shall be required to give examinations for credit or to offer credits for nationally-recognized tests.

Credits may be awarded for a particular course if the academic department reviewing the national examination determines that the material in the test is substantially similar to that of an existing course; if the material is judged to be of college level but not substantially similar to an existing course, general departmental credits are assigned.

3. Procedures for handling examinations shall be established by the Office of the Registrar.

FOR INFORMATION:

The procedures that will be used by the Registrar (but are not part of the policy) are these:

Procedures for proficiency exams: Proficiency exams will be noted via a student group in PeopleSoft. This will not appear on the transcript. Proficiency exams other than for second languages must be entered as an exception in the degree audit system in order for the credit to be included in the degree audit. Waiver or exemption from a course must be entered in the degree audit system and will not display on the transcript.

Procedures for exams for credit: Special examinations for credit do not count toward the University residence requirement. The academic record will show the following:

--Effective fall 1999, special examinations will be recorded in PeopleSoft as test credits. These test credits will be included in the cumulative credits (but not term credits), and will carry a grade of "T"--this grade will not be reflected in either the term or cumulative grade point average.

--For examinations that were taken prior to fall 1999, special examinations with grades other than a "T" grade will be recorded on a student's transcript with a special examination notation. Letter grades from special examinations will not be included in the term or cumulative grade point average.

--For examinations that were taken prior to fall 1999, those examinations with no grades will be recorded in PeopleSoft as test credits. These credits will carry a grade of "T" that will not be included in the term or cumulative grade point average.

COMMENT:

The Committee on Educational Policy was informed by the Office of the Registrar that there were minor problems with the Senate's policy on examinations for proficiency and for credit. A number of proposed changes were suggested; the Committee itself made other changes. The Council of Undergraduate Deans, the Registrar's Advisory Committee, and representatives of the coordinate campus registrars have all approved the changes; the Committee on Educational Policy concurs. After reviewing and discussing them, the Committee unanimously approved the changes as an Interpretation of the policy and reports them to the Senate for information.

The first change, requiring that students be currently registered, is because non-degree-seeking students enroll just to obtain the credits, which they then transfer to another institution. The colleges do not want this.

The second change is proposed because sometimes advisors want to remove special exam credit from a student's transcript because the student is approaching the maximum number of credits he or she may take and still receive financial aid (184 semester credits).

There have been cases when a student fails a course, subsequently takes a special examination to pass the course (or could take an examination for credit to achieve a better grade), and then asks that the F (or lower grade) be bracketed. This change would not allow that to occur.

Eliminating the option of awarding a grade for an examination for credit is an attempt to ensure consistency across the colleges and campuses. This has been the practice for the last three years.

Finally, the policy will not allow students to take a course and receive an F, other low grade, or an I, and then use either a proficiency examination or examination for credit as a way to have the first grade bracketed.

Interpretation of the Awards for Outstanding Contributions to Education Policy (language to be deleted is struck out; language to be added is underlined)

III. Policy

1. The Committee on Educational Policy shall annually appoint two nominating committees: one shall review nominees for the Morse-Alumni award and recommend to the Committee on Educational Policy those individuals whom should receive the award, and the other shall review nominees for the Graduate/Professional award and recommend to the Committee on Educational Policy those individuals who should receive the award. In both instances, the number of recipients will be dependent on the funding available.

2. No individual may receive the Graduate/Professional award and the Horace T. Morse-Alumni Association award in the same year.

3. Each recipient of each award shall receive a continuous augmentation in their salary, the amount to be recommended by the Committee on Educational Policy and approved by the President.

4. The department of each recipient of either award shall be provided non-recurring funding for three years for the use of the award recipient for the development of teaching materials and training in order to promote excellence in teaching among all of the faculty, the amount and duration to be recommended by the Committee on Educational Policy and approved by the President.

5. The winners of each award shall, for a period of five years beginning the academic year after they received the award, serve as members of the Academy of Distinguished Teachers.

6. The Committee on Educational Policy shall have the authority to establish operational details associated with the granting of the Morse-Alumni awards and shall report annually on those details to the Senate for information.

FOR INFORMATION:

Operational Guidelines

1. The salary of each award winner shall be increased by a continuous augmentation of $3,000.

2. The annual award ceremony shall be a large public event to which the students and colleagues of the winners will be invited. This event would be in addition to a smaller event with the President and the Alumni.

3. Each award shall include, for each winner, an appropriate, well-publicized lecture, seminar, or exhibition in the individual's specialty.

4. All faculty who have been awarded Morse-Amoco or Morse-Alumni, or the Graduate/Professional, teaching awards shall be designated throughout their careers at the University of Minnesota as "Morse-Alumni Distinguished Teaching Professor of [field]" or "Graduate/Professional Distinguished Teaching Professor of [field]," as appropriate. This title can be used in correspondence, on business cards, and wherever else appropriate.

5. Any faculty member who has received either award shall be designated by an asterisk and accompanying footnote in the appropriate college catalogues and bulletins for the duration of the recipient's academic career at the University of Minnesota.

COMMENT:

The Senate Committee on Educational Policy (SCEP) was recently asked by the Office of the Executive Vice President and Provost to make minor changes in the policy governing teaching awards. Several were approved by the Committee as a matter of interpretation:

--The actual duration of the funds for the department, to be used by the award-winner, has been five years, not three. The Committee concluded that it would be best not to stipulate any particular period but to consult with the Office of the Executive Vice President each year if any change is warranted. The Committee was assured by Vice Provost Craig Swan that no changes in the five-year provision are contemplated and that any change would be brought to the Committee for consultation before being adopted. These funds are non-recurring.

--Although initially it was thought that award winners would only serve in the Academy of Distinguished Teachers for five years, the decision was later made that they would be members for as long as they remain at the University, with participation dependent on level of interest.

Interpretation of Degrees with Distinction and Degrees with Honors Policy (new language is underlined)

I. Degrees with Distinction

a) The initiative in establishing degrees with distinction shall lie with the colleges and campuses concerned and must be approved by the chief academic officer on the campus.

b) To graduate "with distinction," a student must have a cumulative grade point average of 3.750 or higher at the time the student graduates. To graduate "with high distinction," a student must have a cumulative grade point average of 3.900 or higher.

...

II. Degrees with Honors

...

4. The minimum grade point average in upper division (i.e. after the completion of 60 semester credits) required for achievement of a degree "cum laude" shall be 3.500, that for a degree "magna cum laude" shall be 3.666, and that for a degree "summa cum laude" shall be 3.750.

COMMENT:

On recommendation from the Office of the Registrar, the Senate Committee on Educational Policy has approved a change in the Degrees with Distinction and Degrees with Honors Policy that adds digits to the requirements for the degrees in order that the requirements in the policy conform to the calculations of student grade-point averages performed by PeopleSoft. This avoids any ambiguity that might arise as a result of rounding numbers from three digits to the numbers set forth in the policy.

Vice Chair Marti Hope Gonzales made the following introductions to the University Senate: Christine Maziar as the new Executive Vice President and Provost, and Wendy Lougee as the new University Librarian. They were given a round of applause by the senators. Vice Chair Marti Hope Gonzales then noted that Kathryn Brown, the Interim Chief of Staff, was unable to attend today’s meeting.

Professor Daniel Feeney, Chair of the Faculty Consultative Committee (FCC), asked senators for their feedback on the administrative introductions conducted at today’s meeting. He noted that many people do not know who the administrators are since their only contact is through letters and emails.

He said that the FCC has been busy with several issues, one of which is the legislative effort. Another is an academic governance document which will be presented to many governance groups on campus. The document is relatively controversial. The goal is to bring the document to the Faculty Senate is February for approval.

A joint administrative-faculty committee has been established on the accountability of service units. The committee is co-chaired by Vice President Kathleen O’Brien and Professor Tom Clayton.

Some faculty have expressed concerns with the animal care group and the Institution Review Board (IRB). FCC has had discussions with administrators to foster ease and user-friendliness within the system.

Other FCC items appear on today’s agenda, including a discussion of the proposed stadium and housekeeping matters in the Senate Constitution.

MOTION:

To amend the 2004-05 and 2005-06 Morris calendars as follows (new language is underlined, language to be deleted is struck out).

Morris 2004-2005

Fall Semester 2004 (74 class days)

DISCUSSION:

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

MOTION:

To approve the 2004-05 and 2005-06 Twin Cities Campus calendars.

Twin Cities 2004-2005

Fall Semester 2004 (70 class days)

(MWF class days - 42 TTh class days – 28)

Spring Semester 2005 (74 class days)

(MWF class days – 44 TTh class days – 30)

May Session 2005 (14 class days)

COMMENT:

The Senate Committee on Educational Policy debated over several meetings about the calendar for the Twin Cities campus. As Senators who have served for a number of years will know, this has been a thorny issue ever since the change to semesters.

The State Fair is an intractable factor in setting the calendar; our colleagues on the St. Paul campus assure us that it would be impossible for them to conduct business during the Fair; the Minneapolis campus is also affected because a number of the University's parking lots, and the transitway, are leased to the Fair.

At the same time, the Committee was gravely concerned about the implications of scheduling a final examination period that does not end until December 22 or 23 in years when Labor Day (the last day of the State Fair) is late. The Committee was concerned that many instructors would choose not to have a final examination.

As a result, the Committee has voted to approve, as standard practice, 70-day semesters in the fall and 74-day semesters in the spring. Although this may make for some awkwardness when the same course is offered both semesters, it appears to be a compromise that we can live with. It does not completely obviate the problem of final examinations running late into December but it does mitigate it somewhat.

The only other choice the Committee believed it had was to adopt semesters shorter than 70 days (which only one Big Ten university has). This was even less palatable, so the Committee adopted the 70-day rule for fall semester and thus recommends the calendars presented in the docket.

DISCUSSION:

Professor Martin Sampson, Chair of the Educational Policy Committee (SCEP), said that SCEP heard concerns from faculty about a final exam week that did not end until December 22 or 23. SCEP finally decided to limit Fall Semester to only 70 class days each year, while Spring Semester will remain at 74 class days.

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

This is the second meeting at which this motion is being presented. The motion received 143 votes in favor at the October 3, 2002, meeting.

To amend Article III, Section 6 of the University Senate Constitution as follows (new language is underlined; language to be deleted is struck out).

ARTICLE III. UNIVERSITY SENATE

...

6. University Senate and Student Senate Officers

a. The president of the University shall chair the University Senate. A vice chair shall be elected by the Senate at its last regularly scheduled meeting in the spring semester of the academic year from among its current members for a term of one year and shall be eligible for re-election. The president, with the consent of the Senate, shall appoint a clerk and a parliamentarian of the Senate (non-members of the Senate), whose duties shall be prescribed in the Senate Bylaws.

...

The Consultative Committee does not believe there is any compelling reason to restrict the choice of Senate or Assembly vice chair from the current members of the Senate or Assembly. The traditional practice for a number of years (although not required by any Senate or Assembly rule) is that the faculty (typically the Faculty Consultative Committee) nominate the vice chair of the Senate and the students (typically the Student Senate Consultative Committee) nominate the vice chair of the Assembly. When the vice chair of the University Senate is a faculty member, that individual has also automatically served as chair of the Faculty Senate (in the event a student were elected vice chair of the University Senate, the Faculty Senate would elect from among its members someone to serve as vice chair). The vice chair of the Senate is a voting member of the Senate and Faculty Consultative Committees (or, if the vice chair of the University Senate were a student, the vice chair of the Faculty Senate would serve as a voting member of the Faculty Consultative Committee).

The Faculty Consultative Committee (FCC), in identifying a nominee to serve as vice chair of the University and Faculty Senates, considers the balance of its membership. To restrict the nominations to current members of the Senate or Assembly restricts the degrees of freedom FCC has to ensure it can adequately represent the interests of faculty from across the University.

The Student Senate Consultative Committee (SSCC), believes this change would provide an opportunity for one more student to become involved in the University and Student Senates. With the small number of student senators compared to the total student population, many student voices and opinions are often left unheard or unknown. If the student elected was a nonmember, one more student prospective would be brought forth, allowing the Student Senate to better represent the student body.

This is the second meeting at which this motion is being presented. The motion received 123 votes in favor at the October 3, 2002, meeting.

To amend Article II, Section 4 of the Twin Cities Campus Assembly Constitution as follows (new language is underlined; language to be deleted is struck out).

...

4. Assembly Officers

The president of the University shall chair the Assembly. A vice chair shall be elected by the Assembly at its last meeting in the spring semester of the academic year from among its current members for a term of one year and shall be eligible for re-election. The president, with the consent of the Assembly, shall appoint a clerk and a parliamentarian of the Assembly (non-members of the Assembly), whose duties shall be prescribed in the Assembly Bylaws and Rules.

...

COMMENT:

See the comment to the previous motion.

This is the second meeting at which this motion is being presented. The motion received 143 votes in favor at the October 3, 2002, meeting.

To amend Article VIII and Article IX of the University Senate Constitution as follows (new language is underlined).

An amendment to this Constitution shall be approved either by a two-thirds majority of all voting members of the University Senate at a regular or special meeting, or by a majority of all voting members of the Senate at each of two meetings, the second of which shall be the next regular meeting; and provided the proposed amendment has been distributed, in writing, to the persons and in the manner provided in Article III, Section 7, for distribution of the Senate agenda, at least ten days prior to the date of the vote on the approval of the proposed amendment. An amendment shall be effective following approval by the University Senate and by the Board of Regents.

If a proposed constitutional amendment has received affirmative votes of 80% or more of those present and voting at a meeting of the Senate, but the number of votes cast is insufficient to adopt the amendment (either a two-thirds majority of all voting members at one meeting or a majority of all voting members at the second of two meetings), the amendment may be submitted electronically to all members of the Senate for a second vote. The votes must be cast no later than three working days from the time of adjournment of the Senate meeting at which the item was considered. The number of votes required for electronic approval will be the same as the number required for approval at the meeting.

The University Senate may enact or amend its Bylaws either by a majority of all voting members of the University Senate at a regular or special meeting, or by a majority of all members of the Senate present and voting at each of two meetings, the second of which shall be the next regular meeting, provided the proposed change has been submitted, in writing, to each member of the Senate at least ten days prior to the date of the vote on the approval of the proposed change.

If a proposed bylaw amendment has received affirmative votes of 80% or more of those present and voting at a meeting of the Senate, but the number of votes cast is insufficient to adopt the amendment (either a majority of all voting members at one meeting or a majority those present and voting at the second of two meetings), the amendment may be submitted electronically to all members of the Senate for a second vote. The votes must be cast no later than three working days from the time of adjournment of the Senate meeting at which the item was considered. The number of votes required for electronic approval will be the same as the number required for approval at the meeting.

COMMENT:

There have been repeated occasions over the past several years when constitutional or bylaw amendments have received unanimous or near-unanimous support from the Senate or Assembly but which were nonetheless not adopted because the required absolute majority vote was not obtained simply because there were not enough people present at the meeting. The Senate Consultative Committee recommends that when an item has received the support of at least 80 percent of those present at a meeting (and most of these items receive 100 percent support), the Senate office be permitted to submit the item to senators electronically for a vote of all members. If members of the Senate or Assembly fulfill their responsibility and respond to the electronic ballot, most of the proposals could then be adopted promptly and the business of the Senate and Assembly could proceed unimpeded.

This is the second meeting at which this motion is being presented. The motion received 123 votes in favor at the October 3, 2002, meeting.

To amend Article VI and Article VII of the Twin Cities Campus Assembly Constitution as follows (new language is underlined).

An amendment to this Constitution shall be approved either by a two-thirds majority of all voting members of the Assembly at a meeting, or by a majority of all voting members of the Assembly at each of two meetings; and provided the proposed amendment has been distributed, in writing, to the persons and in the manner provided in Article II, Section 5, for distribution of the Assembly agenda, at least ten days prior to the date of the vote on the approval of the proposed amendment. An amendment shall be effective following approval by the Assembly and the regents.

The Assembly may enact or amend its Bylaws either by majority of all voting members of the Assembly at a regular or special meeting, or by a majority of all members of the Assembly present and voting at each of two meetings, the second of which shall be the next regular meeting, provided the proposed change has been submitted, in writing, to each member of the Assembly at least ten days prior to the date of the vote on the approval of the proposed change.

If a proposed bylaw amendment has received affirmative votes of 80% or more of those present and voting at a meeting of the Assembly, but the number of votes cast is insufficient to adopt the amendment (either a majority of all voting members at one meeting or a majority those present and voting at the second of two meetings), the amendment may be submitted electronically to all members of the Assembly for a second vote. The votes must be cast no later than three working days from the time of adjournment of the Assembly meeting at which the item was considered. The number of votes required for electronic approval will be the same as the number required for approval at the meeting.

COMMENT:

See the comment to the previous motion.

The motion received 119 votes in favor at the March 28, 2002, meeting was withdrawn from the April 25, 2002, meeting, and received 137 votes in favor at the October 3, 2002, meeting.

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:

A senator commented that she is opposed to the proposed change in item 21. She felt that faculty, other than tenured faculty, could have opinions and input that are relevant to issues of tenure. The proposed change might also lead to a power differential.

Professor Daniel Feeney, Chair of the Faculty Consultative Committee (FCC), said in recent changes to the Senate Constitution, academic professionals were added to committees as well as the Senate. Other University policies dictate who can and cannot vote on items. This change is simply meant to put the Senate Constitution into compliance with these other documents, not to exclude certain groups from voting.

With no further discussion a vote was taken and the Senate motions were approved with 117 in favor, 12 opposed, and 8 abstentions. The Assembly motions were approved with 101 votes in favor, 6 opposed, and 6 abstentions.

_________________________________________________________________
END OF MOTION A


22. INTRODUCTION OF MEDICAL SCHOOL DEAN,
NATURAL RESOURCES DEAN, LAW SCHOOL DEAN, AND
PUBLIC AFFAIRS DEAN

Vice Chair Marti Hope Gonzales made the following introductions to the University Senate: Susan Stafford as the new Dean of the College of Natural Resources, Alex Johnston, Jr. as the new Dean of the Law School, and Brian Atwood as the Dean of the HHH Institute of Public Affairs. They were given a round of applause by the senators. Vice Chair Gonzales then noted that Deborah Powell, new Dean of the Medical School, was unable to attend today’s meeting.

Professor Daniel Feeney, Chair of the Senate Consultative Committee (SCC), said that the University will soon be facing a decision on this issue, and this is the first opportunity for senators to have any discussion. As of this date, several committees have sent a list of concerns to the administration and the Regents as to what can go wrong in this endeavor.

He reminded senators that the legislature appropriated $500,000 to explore this issue, develop a pre-design, and write a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). The MOU is due to the Regents in December, so there is still some time for the University Senate to express its thoughts and concerns. Discussions have been held regarding a poll of senators, but this plan has not been implemented yet.

In the document sent from the committees, several risks were identified. One of which was the effect on the quality of life on campus by hosting NFL Football. Another was the fiscal responsibility of the University. A third was the legislative perception about a building on University grounds in terms of other academic initiatives.

There are several options that are emerging besides a joint-use stadium on campus. There include a joint-use stadium at an off-campus location or a Gopher-only stadium.

At sometime in the future senators will be asked for input on a more formal basis, but currently senators should feel free to express their thoughts and concerns. The output from this discussion will be shared with the several Senate/Assembly committees which are working on this issue.

A senator said that the finished MOU should adhere to the six guiding principles adopted by the Regents. This MOU should limit the financial risk of the University, should ensure a financial benefit to the University, and should preserve governance control of all aspects of the stadium. There are two principles though, which an MOU cannot adequately address. One regards the academic mission of the University, which is not compatible with the mission of a private corporation. There is great risk that the teaching, research, and service missions of the University will be subordinated and diverted to other objections unrelated to the mission of the University. The second principle regards the integration of the stadium with the campus environment. As currently conceived the stadium would occupy four city blocks and would rise two and one-half times that of Williams Arena. Because the missions of the Vikings and University are incompatible, and because the physical enormity of the proposed stadium is incompatible with the surrounding University and residential areas, he opposed the joint-use stadium.

Another senator stated that he is also concerned with the details and with the fact that no answers are being supplied during the negotiations. There are also problems with the view that the Vikings and Gophers can remain in the Metrodome and just remodel the building. In particular, he has not heard any discussion about mission-related opportunities about bringing people onto campus, even if the reason is to view a Vikings game. Questions to be answered include: Would public relations be improved by having non-University people on campus? Can music and arts be promoted? Who will explore other uses for the stadium?

Professor Feeney said that besides the several Senate/Assembly committees reviewing this issue, there are two joint administrative-faculty committees working on issues related to stadium finance and the other is alternate uses for the stadium. The idea of music and arts exploration has not yet been addressed, but can be. Discussion regarding marketing the campus have been held but not with any great detail.

A senator then said that, from a student perspective, concerns have been raised regarding the displaced Huron Parking Lots. Students currently pay $3.25 per day to park in these lots. Multiplied by five times per week for nine months, a students pays approximately $600. This figure would significantly increase if students needed to park in garages and ramps. On the other hand, students state an unfriendly environment as a top reason that they leave the University. An on-campus stadium would not completely alleviate this problem, but it would keep students on campus for other events.

Professor Feeney said that the goal of the proposal is to not shift the increased parking cost to the students. In order to realize this goal, the projection is that the parking ramp would lose several million dollars each year. Several parking proposals have been circulated, but no decision has been made.

A senator from Morris was concerned about financing the stadium. In light of the state budget situation, how can the University address this proposal knowing that academic funding needs to come first? What will be the funding return to the University in the proposal? This proposal does not support the mission of the University and the discussion should not be taking place at this time.

Q: How would this proposal impact the coordinate campuses financially?

A: One of the Regents’ principles was that the stadium should not have any negative financial impact on the University, but should be a source of revenue. The details of this principles are being addressed in the MOU. There is no recent projection of the annual parking ramp deficit, but the last figure was $3 million per year. This amount would need to be funded from some source. It does not appear that there is any language in the MOU that budget shortfalls would be restricted to the Twin Cities campus. No questions can be completely answered until the MOU is released at the end of November.

A senator said that the University and a joint-use stadium should not be a solution to keeping the Vikings in the Twin Cities. If the stadium is built, and the Vikings leave anyway, then the University would have all the financial responsibility for the joint-use stadium. A better alternative is exploring a Gopher-only stadium.

A senator then stated that in a discussion with students, sentiment was expressed regarding being able to walk to an on-campus football game. However, serious concern was raised about parking. A student also noted that this is a political situation for the University to go against the proposal.

Another senator then said that the academic mission of the University should be the most important consideration. In a meeting with an official from the Vikings, students asked about this issue and the representative agreed that the academic mission is to remain primary in this relationship. Then he was asked what academic benefit would students realize in building the stadium. He could not provide any answer and students could not see an advantage in this relationship. There are several disadvantages, however. One would be the parking situation while the ramps are being built. While shuttles are one solution, the increased time in this scenario does not work for many students. Additionally, many students are on campus on weekends and in the evening, and would therefore be affected by night and weekend events.

A senator then said that Viking events which happen eight times per year would not have much impact on music, arts, and parking on campus. The critical issues are architecture and economic implications, and these are where the discussion should be focused.

Q: It appears that whatever advantages there might be are heavily outweighed by the disadvantages. Therefore, what is fueling the process? How can people have a voice in the process?

A: Consideration of a joint-use stadium was not a University initiative, but was mandated by the legislature. There is a level of frustration among all groups involved in the process in dealing with the impact that a joint-use stadium will have on campus. The Senate has discussed polling faculty, staff, and students, but at this point the discussion is premature. Any input can be forwarded to the Senate Office.

A senator stated two reasons against the stadium. One, this University worked to make campus into more than a commuter school. Any effort that would counter this revitalization would be detrimental. Second, there is no way to measure the long-term impact on the University budget as seen by the public. While the University would not receive revenue from Viking events, would it be possible to separate Viking and University events in the public’s minds?

A motion was then made and seconded to increase the time for discussion for 10 minutes. A vote was taken and the motion was approved.

Q: How is the $500,000 allotment from the legislature being spent? Can it be used to solicit community feedback to the proposal?

A: The state allotment was for a pre-design and an MOU. How the funds are actually being spent is decided by the administration. At some point in the future, polling might be done.

A senator expressed concern that faculty, staff, and students at large still have not had an opportunity to express their views on the proposal.

A senator then said that another public research institution has an on-campus stadium which does not appear to hurt its academic mission. The positive impacts from this arrangement should be researched.

Another senator stated that students at Duluth are adamantly opposed to funding a stadium in the Twin Cities, as well as a parking ramp that is proposed to lose funds each year.

MOTION:

To adopt the following policy. All language is new.

POLICY ON VOTING

--Only tenured full professors may vote on whether to recommend a candidate for promotion to full professor with tenure. The tenured full professors may consult other tenured faculty, non-tenured faculty, P&A and term faculty, adjunct faculty, students, and any others they wish. The meeting at which the final deliberations and vote take place, however, shall be open only to the tenured full professors in that unit.^[1]

--Only tenured associate and full professors may vote on whether to recommend a candidate for promotion to associate professor with tenure. The tenured associate and full professors may consult other tenured faculty, non-tenured faculty, P&A and term faculty, adjunct faculty, students, and any others they wish. The meeting at which the final deliberations and vote take place, however, shall be open only to the tenured associate and full professors in that unit.

--Only tenured faculty may vote on whether to recommend a candidate for tenure. The tenured faculty may consult non-tenured faculty, P&A and term faculty, adjunct faculty, students, and any others they wish. The meeting at which the final deliberations and vote take place, however, shall be open only to the tenured faculty in that unit.

--Only the tenured and tenure-track faculty may vote on whether to recommend hiring a candidate for a tenured and tenure-track faculty position in a unit. The tenured and tenure-track faculty may consult P&A and term faculty, adjunct faculty, students, and any others they wish. Individuals other than tenured and tenure-track faculty members may serve on search committees; however, meeting at which the final deliberations and vote take place shall be open only to the tenured and tenure-track faculty in that unit. It is not required that all tenured and tenure-track faculty in a unit participate in the decision to recommend that a candidate be hired, but the decision to recommend hiring of a tenured and tenure-track faculty member shall be made only by tenured and tenure-track faculty members.

COMMENT:

The Tenure Subcommittee was asked by the Senate Committee on Faculty Affairs to consider issues associated with voting on faculty appointments, promotions, and tenure. The Subcommittee, after discussion over several meetings, recommended a proposed policy to the Committee on Faculty Affairs. The Committee on Faculty Affairs, and the Faculty Consultative Committee, offered a number of suggestions that were incorporated in the policy. The Committee on Faculty Affairs and the Tenure Subcommittee recommend that the Faculty Senate adopt the policy

This policy is intended to be supplemental to the tenure regulations. We believe that the provisions of this policy are implicit in the tenure code but that additional clarification cannot hurt.

DISCUSSION:

Q: In the fourth bullet, regarding hiring, it lists several exclusions for search committees and final voting. If approved, this would result in changes some current practices. Why was this item included?

A: This language was deliberately added to address the problems that some units have had with the hiring of tenure and tenure-track faculty in which the proceedings were dominated by non-tenure and tenure-track people. The feeling of the committee was that these hires should be decided by the tenure and tenure-track faculty.

Q: In the other bullets, the definition of a candidate being voted upon is clear, but in the fourth bullet the language implies all the steps from announcing the position to completing the hiring process. Was this the intended definition?

A: The intent was not to exclude other groups at the earlier stages of the process, just at the final decision and vote.

A senator commented that while the intent is correct, there are several problems with the actual wording. First, the Tenure Code makes a distinction between rank and tenure, which is not addressed in this policy. Second, most departments have a staff member present at the meeting, in confidence, to take minutes from the meeting, but this policy excludes any staff members. Lastly, a distinction should be made in the policy between search committee recommendations and the final decision to hire.

Professor William Garrard, Chair of the Tenure Subcommittee, noted that the intent of this policy was to formalize a procedure for the University, since currently each department or unit has their own procedures.

A motion was then made and seconded to refer the item back to the committee. A vote was then taken and the motion was approved.

The meeting was adjourned at 4:40 p.m.

^[1] The provision in this and succeeding paragraphs that "the meeting at which the final deliberations and vote take place, however, shall be open only to . . . " explicitly bars all others, including support staff.

APPENDIX A
MEMORIAL STATEMENTS

Joseph C. Olson, Jr.

Dr. Joseph C. Olson, Jr., professor of microbiology in the Department of Dairy Microbiology, died May 3, 2002. He was 89.

Dr. Olson was born on March 15, 1913. He graduated from the University of Minnesota with a B.S. in Dairy Bacteriology in 1935, and served as an instructor until he joined the U.S. Army Medical Service Department. He spent six years in the Army, attaining the rank of Colonel. When World War II ended, he returned to the U of M and earned a Ph.D. in Dairy Microbiology in 1948. Dr. Morse joined the faculty of the University of Minnesota, in the Department of Dairy Microbiology, and was promoted to Professor, with a joint appointment in the Microbiology Department of the Medical School.

In 1967, Dr. Olson accepted the position of Director of the Department of Food and Cosmetic Biology of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, and he held that office until his retirement in 1989. While at the FDA, he served on numerous international food regulatory committees.

Dr. Olson was co-author of Microbial Ecology of Foods, which became the standard textbook in university dairy microbiology courses., and Evaluation of Microbial Criteria for Food and Food Ingredients. During his career he received numerous national and international honors and citations, and held memberships in professional organizations such as the International Association of Milk, Food, and Environmental Sanitarians.

His research focused on raw milk quality, thermal destruction of non-sporeforming bacteria in milk, and the microbiology of dry milk. Many domestic and international food safety standards and regulations are a direct result of his influence and research findings in dairy microbiology.

Dr. Olson is survived by his wife, Irene, and his son, Joseph C. Olson III, of Sun City, Arizona.

Robert G. Robinson

Professor Emeritus Robert G. Robinson was born in Minneapolis, MN, on January 26, 1920, and died on September 13, 2002, at his home in Falcon Heights, MN.

Robert Robinson received a B.S. degree in Vocational Agriculture from Iowa State University in 1941 and M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in Agronomy and Soil Science, respectively, from the University of Minnesota in 1947 and 1948. He was appointed assistant professor in the Department of Agronomy and Plant Genetics in 1948 and, after a 38-year career, retired in 1986. Professor Robinson worked tirelessly to educate students and to increase crop production options for Minnesota and the Upper Midwest region.

Professor Robinson headed a research program known as “new, uncommon or little-researched crops” and over the years studied more than 200 plant species. By testing a wide variety of potential crop species, Professor Robinson determined which were suitable for production in Minnesota’s environmental conditions. His goal was to find or develop new crops that could be produced profitably. For many of these possible crop species, he initiated the first production and management studies in the State. He laid the groundwork for development of sunflower as a commercial crop in Minnesota – first as an edible seed crop and then as an oil-seed crop. Many of his publications are landmarks for plant breeders and agronomists and cover research on crop management, weed control, crop physiology, crop morphology and the registration of 20 crop varieties in 10 different species.

Professor Robinson had a keen and abiding interest in the education and well-being of students – especially undergraduates. Over the years, many undergraduate students worked side by side with Professor Robinson; however, it was a notable achievement when a student could work as long and as hard as he did. During retirement, Professor Robinson established substantial endowments to provide scholarships for students in the College of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Sciences, and to provide fellowships for students in the Department of Communication Disorders.

Robert G. Robinson was preceded in death by his brother Barton Hoxie Robinson and sisters, Elizabeth Graham Robinson and Helen R. Petersen. He is survived by niece Marilyn Petersen Powell (John) of San Marino, CA, and grandnieces Beth McCluney of Fullerton, CA, and Jennifer Berry of San Francisco, CA.