This is a concurrent meeting of the University Senate, Faculty Senate, and Twin Cities Campus Assembly. There are 240 voting members of the University Senate, 182 voting members of the Faculty Senate, and 199 voting members of the Twin Cities Campus Assembly. A simple majority must be present for a quorum. Most actions require only a simple majority for approval. Actions requiring special majorities for approval are noted under each of those items.

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/usen/020220sen.html

3. TRIBUTE TO DECEASED MEMBERS OF THE UNIVERSITY COMMUNITY

FACULTY/ACADEMIC PROFESSIONALS/STAFF

Phillip P. Allen
Professor
Horticultural Science – Waseca
1922- 2002

Kinley Brauer
Professor
History
1935 – 2003

William S. Hays
Professor
Surgery
1964 – 2002

Ralph L. Hossfeld
Professor
Forest Resources
1914 – 2003

Andrew Hustrulid
Professor
Biosystems/Agricultural Engineering
1905 –2003

Ralph H. Hopp
Director
Wilson Library
1915 – 2003

Albert B. Matongo
Professor
Social Sciences – Morris
1957 – 2003

Paul E. Meehl
Professor
Psychology
1920 – 2003

Carol J. Pederson
Professor
Nursing
1939 – 2003

Charles J. Scott
Professor
Mechanical Engineering
1929 – 2003

STUDENTS

Brent Hendrickson
College of Liberal Arts

Christopher Jenkins
Carlson School of Management

Troy A. Sikkink
Medical School

Aaron I. Sinykin
College of Liberal Arts


4. ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSES TO SENATE AND ASSEMBLY ACTIONS
Information

FOR INFORMATION:

In the recent election to fill vacancies on Nominating Committee, Professor W. Andrew Collins and Mr. Michael Darger were elected to three-year terms (July 1, 2003 through June 30, 2006).

The Faculty Consultative Committee of the University of Minnesota Faculty Senate thanks the members of the Regent Candidate Advisory Council for their outstanding work in reviewing and interviewing candidates for the University of Minnesota Board of Regents. The Committee expresses its strong support for the work of the Council and the process that relies upon the Council to identify future Regents. The Committee commends the work of the Council to the Legislature.

Student Protest Resolution

Whereas the University of Minnesota encourages students to become active participants in the democratic process, and

Whereas the University of Minnesota seeks to internationalize the curriculum and encourage students to become conscious actors in the world community, and

Whereas demonstrations and protests are a fundamental aspect of political involvement and expression in a democracy, and

Whereas some political issues are so significant that they supersede the content of a single lecture, discussion, or lab in importance in the student's life and learning

Be it resolved that the faculty at University of Minnesota will not penalize students who miss classes, discussions, or labs as a result of participating in a potential, one day student protest on the first day of a United States invasion of Iraq, should the United States invade Iraq in 2003. Nor should those who choose to attend classes be in any way penalized for doing so.

Faculty Sponsors who brought the statement to the Committee on Social Concerns:

Adopted unanimously by the Senate Committee on Social Concerns on March 3, 2003

MOTION:

To amend Section 5A of the "Standards for the Semester Conversion" as follows (new language is underlined):

SECTION 4A: The Senate affirms the standard (first adopted by the University Senate on February 16, 1922, and reaffirmed subsequently) that one semester credit is to represent, for the average University of Minnesota undergraduate student, three hours of academic work per week (including lectures, laboratories, recitations, discussion groups, field work, study, and so on), averaged over the term, in order to complete the work of the course. Enrollment for 15 credits in a semester would thus require approximately 45 hours of work per week, on average, over the course of the semester. All grades for academic work are based on the quality of the work submitted, not on hours of effort. It is expected that the academic work required of graduate and professional students will exceed three hours per credit per week or 45 hours per semester.

Instructional units should periodically review course syllabi to determine whether the course credit is appropriate.

All courses proposed for the semester calendar shall include a student workload statement demonstrating how the course conforms to this policy. College and campus curriculum committees and other approving bodies (e.g., the Council on Liberal Education) must consider the student workload statement in reaching a decision on whether to approve a proposed semester course, and should normally reject any course which does not meet, or significantly exceeds, the requirement of three hours of academic work per week for each course credit.

It is understood that professional norms and the nature of the activity may in some cases require more than three hours of work per week or 45 hours per semester per credit. Clinical experiences, some laboratory work, and some studio activities may be unable to adhere to this three-hour-per-credit standard; with college approval and with appropriate notification to the student of the amount of work expected for the course or educational experience (e.g., in class schedules, bulletins, or syllabi), demands on the student in excess of the 45 hours per semester credit are permissible.

SECTION 5A: The hours of contact time for a course normally shall equal at least the number of credits for the course times the number of weeks the course is offered. In the majority of cases, this would mean the number of contact hours per week would equal the number of credits for the course, but the contact hours need not be spread out evenly by week.

A contact hour is defined for these purposes as formal instruction by an individual appointed for that purpose by the department or faculty member, including faculty members, graduate teaching assistants, teaching specialists, or, in unusual instances, advanced undergraduates. This standard applies to all enrollment periods. The student workload statement (required in the preceding section) must justify fewer total contact hours than the number of credits for the course times the number of weeks the course is offered; contact hours of all types equal to or in excess of at least one hour per week per credit, on average, need not be justified. College and campus curriculum committees and other approving bodies (e.g., the Council on Liberal Education) must consider the contact hours in reaching a decision on whether to approve a proposed semester course; such bodies should normally reject course proposals which have fewer contact hours than the number of credits times the number of weeks the course is offered, barring significant evidence that reduced instructional contact hours are appropriate.

Explicitly exempted from this standard are research seminars, studio courses, clinical experiences, correspondence courses and independent study, directed study or readings or field work, directed research, internships and practicums, honors thesis credits, and other experiences faculty offer to students outside the normal laboratory or classroom setting (many of which include activities beyond the physical boundaries of the campuses). Included in the standard are interactive video classes (which in practice should be no different from in-class instruction) and one-way transmission of instruction from the instructor to the students (it is assumed that other avenues of two-way interaction are used in this instance, such as email and the telephone).

COMMENT:

The Committee on Educational Policy was asked whether Section 5A should be repealed and Section 4A left as the controlling language for student academic workload. After extended discussion, the Committee concluded that 5A, if modified with the addition of one word so that it was not unnecessarily rigid, remained a useful rule governing the amount of contact time that should accompany a course. The Committee concluded it would be unwise to eliminate the rule because having it sets a standard to which the University should continue generally to adhere, eliminating it might allow slippage over the years, and because to do so could unnecessarily cause difficulties for the University at a time of significant budget difficulties.

The Committee thus recommends the Senate approve the one-word amendment.

The Senate Consultative Committee voted 6-5 in favor of the motion.

MOTION:

To approve amendments to the Student Conduct Code as follows (new language is underlined; language to be deleted is struck-out).

A paper copy of the policy will be available at the meeting. Prior to the meeting, the policy will be available on the web at: http//www1.umn.edu/usenate/ssen/stuconductcode.html

Agenda Items 11. through 12. 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 Assembly Bylaws, a motion requires either a majority of all voting members of the Assembly (100) at one regular or special meeting, or a majority of all members of the Assembly present and voting at each of two meetings.

MOTION:

To amend Article III, Section 6 the Twin Cities Campus Assembly Bylaws, as follows (new language is underlined):

6. INTERCOLLEGIATE ATHLETICS

...

The Regents Policy declares that all aspects of the programs will be administered by central administration, the athletic directors, and the coaches, with direct oversight and involvement by the faculty representatives through an Assembly committee. (Sec. III, subd. 10, para. 2), but also provides that a committee of this Assembly is responsible for the formulation of all policy on intercollegiate athletics within the policies provided by the Board. (Sec. III, subd. 13.) All policies formulated by the committees established by this bylaw will be reported to the Assembly Steering Committee for action and to the Twin Cities Campus Assembly for information after the Assembly Steering Committee has acted. The Assembly has the authority to reverse or change a decision by the Steering Committee.

...

COMMENT:

Before the establishment of the two existing committees that deal with intercollegiate athletics, the bylaw governing the athletic committee provided that all policy approvals and policy changes were to be brought from the Assembly Committee on Intercollegiate Athletics to the Assembly Steering Committee. When the new bylaws were adopted, there was no language establishing how policies were to be approved or changed.

The Steering Committee recommends that the authority to approve the policies rest with it, with all adoptions and approvals reported thereafter to the Assembly for information, with the understanding that the Assembly could reverse the action of the Steering Committee. There are a substantial number of these policies, many of which involve details that are not of sufficient importance to bring to the Assembly every time there is a need for change or updating. The changes to these policies are made rather frequently so if they all needed to come to the Assembly for action they would take up a large part of each agenda. Such a process would also slow down the approval.

MOTION:

To amend Article III, Section 2 the Twin Cities Campus Assembly Bylaws, as follows (new language is underlined):

2. COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES

Senate Committee on Committees

The Senate Committee on Committees appoints members of certain committees of the Senate and advises the Senate Consultative Committee on the committee structure of the Senate. The faculty/academic professional representatives shall serve as the Faculty Senate Committee on Committees and the student representatives shall serve as the Student Senate Committee on Committees.

Membership

The Senate Committee on Committees shall be composed of at least 13 and no more than 15 elected tenured or tenure-track faculty members, at least 2 and no more than 4 elected academic professional members, 6 elected undergraduate students, and one elected graduate/professional student.

COMMENT:

As the Nominating Committee was identifying candidates for the Faculty Committee on Committees, it concluded it would be able to bring more breadth to the membership if it had somewhat more flexibility in appointing faculty from various colleges and disciplines. It thus proposes that it be given the authority to nominate individuals for between 13 and 15 slots. By the same token, it wished to have somewhat more flexibility in identifying candidates for the P&A positions.

This recommendation does not impinge on the student membership of the committee because the two groups only rarely meet together--and when they have recently, there has been no disagreement on issues. The Nominating Committee would not, in any event, be opposed to a similar expansion of the student membership, if the students wished. For now, however, the Nominating Committee would like the option of flexibility as it considers members for 2003-04.

_________________________________________________________________
END OF MOTION A

Questions to the President should be submitted in writing to the University Senate office no later than Tuesday, March 25, 2003.

MOTION:

To approve the following plan:

The merits of a post-retirement health care savings plan (PRHCSP) are evident. A key concern to present (and certainly future) retirees is the cost of health care, which now comes from their post-tax dollars. This is often a rude awakening for faculty entering retirement, as during employment the University not only covers the major portion of the cost, but most additional costs come from an employee's pre-tax dollars.  

A PRHCSP has the advantages that each of our present 401a, 403b and 457 plans have; all University and employee contributions come from pre-tax dollars and earnings on the balance invested are not subject to income taxes. The contributions can be invested in one or more funds chosen by the employee from a select group of investment options. A PRHCSP has another very important advantage; upon retirement or termination of employment from the University, withdrawals to pay for health insurance premiums and other appropriate health care costs are not considered to be taxable income. Thus, the PRHCSP avoids taxation on contributions as they go in, on accumulated investment earnings, and on tax post-employment distributions when used for health care

We believe there is no question that the University should embrace this plan. However, there are questions about the amounts to go into the savings plan and the source of these funds. The rules of the program say that each individual in a given "class" must put in the same amount ($ or % of salary). This "class" cannot be directly defined by age. However, those nearing retirement would probably want to (and certainly should) put in more than younger faculty as they have fewer years to put in funds or have the earnings accrue.

Recommendations:

1) For Faculty Members* the "class" is defined as the number of years employed at the University.

2) Plan contributions will be collected and invested by Minnesota Life Insurance Company.

3) Claim payouts will be managed by the University’s Employee Benefits Department.

4) Plan implementation will ideally be by July 1, 2003 but no later than January 1, 2004.

5) All Faculty Members would have a basic contribution each year to the PRHCSP of one and a half percent (1 1/2%) of salary. This would, for now, come from the 13% contribution of the University to each individual’s Faculty Retirement Plan (FRP).

6) All Faculty Members who in fall 2003 have served seven years or more would contribute an additional amount as a catch-up provision. Additional contributions from those starting their eighth (8th) or later year in fall 2003 should be in steps of 0.2% per service year up to those in their 25th year of employment at the University when it would reach 3.6%. This additional 3.6% contribution, over and above the one and a half percent new contribution from the University, would be the same for all eligible employees with 24 or more years of service in Fall 2003. For a given individual these contributions would be frozen at the percentage dependent on their service at the U up to fall 2003. It should be clear that the contributions to the new fund would be mandatory; each member of each specific class (years of service with our definition) must contribute in the same manner. The recommended input by faculty members with different degrees of service should be reexamined at least once every three years.

7) The additional money, 0.2% to 3.6% of salary, would also come from the university’s present 13% contribution to the basic (401a) plan, reducing the input to that plan by the amount going into the PRHCSP. This is not a reduction to the individual’s total retirement funds; rather a transfer to a more tax advantaged plan (PRHCSP). If the individual wishes to make up for the smaller amount going to the 401a plan, additional funds could be contributed to either of the Optional Retirement plans (403b or 457) up to the maximum permitted.

The rationale for these contributions is to provide a reasonable sum of money at the time of an individual's retirement. Though people now very close to retirement can never completely catch up to accumulate enough money to pay for a significant fraction of their health care premiums, these additional steps will help and would perhaps be sufficient for those who still have a fair amount of time left before retirement. The goal is to have the accumulated savings in this plan reach something in the order of magnitude of an individual’s last year’s salary within +/-25%, though this is unrealistic for those with less than 10 to 15 years to retirement. Even one year’s salary would probably not provide (based on an annuity analysis) all of the funds for health care insurance, but could provide a significant fraction.

8) We also believe that those in Phased Retirement should be in a separate faculty class. For this class we propose a significant increase in the individual’s input (essentially taken from the University’s contribution to the basic Faculty Retirement Plan) to the PRHCSP, tentatively 10% of salary. This would greatly help those now approaching retirement through the Phased Retirement Plan. This contribution would be reviewed periodically when the entire plan is reviewed and may eventually be phased out.

9) For faculty in either a Phased Retirement or a Terminal Leave program, there should be a change in how the University pays the additional health care coverage after leaving the University (two or more years depending on eligibility for Medicare benefits). At the time a faculty member ends regular employment at the University, a sum equal to the University cost of faculty health care (either single or family coverage) for the total time involved should be placed in the individual’s PRHCSP fund. This would not represent a change in the present University rule, which provides health care benefits for retirees during the phased retirement period.  

Summary:

A recurring annual contribution of one and a half percent (1 1/2%) of salary would be made by all participants in the FRP. For the present that would come from the 13% University contribution to each individual’s FRP. An additional contribution by each individual who has been here for seven years (i.e. in the eighth year of service) would be 0.2% of salary. For those who have been here longer this would rise by 0.2% for every year of service until the 25th year of service (after 24 years) when the individual’s contribution would be 3.6%. This (3.6%) would be the same for those with still longer service. Thus the maximum input to an individual’s PRHCSP would be 5.1% of salary. The additional money, 0.2% to 3.6% of salary would also come from the university’s present 13% contribution to the basic (401a) plan. Those in phased retirement would make still larger contributions. Those leaving the University through Phased Retirement or Terminal Leave would receive whatever funds due for future health care as a lump sum into their PRHCSP account.

 
* The actual definition of a "Faculty Member" in the Faculty Retirement Plan is rather lengthy, but is essentially:  "any employee of the University who holds an appointment of atleast67% time for a duration of at least nine months and holds one of the following titles (if an employee holds more than one appointment, the first title of appointment will govern): a) Faculty (94xx classes); b) Administrative staff members with personnel classifications 9301-9399; c) Professional staff members with personnel classifications 9701 through 9799; and d) University of Minnesota Extension Service (MES) academic staff with personnel classifications 9621 through 9640who are not eligible for a federal appointment. A "T" temporary appointment does not affect an employee's status in one of the above-described categories. "Faculty Member," however, shall not include the following:  1) Faculty members with Visiting, Adjunct, or Clinical prefixes; 2) Staff members filling administrative or professional positions on an acting basis; 3) Research Specialists (9755); 4) Clinical Preceptors (9756); and 5) Industrial Fellows(9757)."

There are exclusions from the PRHCSP: "An employee shall be ineligible for future contributions to the PRHCSP if the MSRS determines that the employee falls within any one of the following categories: a) The employee is a foreign national and plans to return to the country in which he or she is a citizen upon termination of public employment. b) The employee will receive employer-paid post retirement health care coverage through his/her public employer, or through a spouse's employer. The insurance must provide full-coverage for the employee's lifetime. c) The employee will receive post retirement health care coverage from the military."

COMMENT:

Note, because of the difficult financial circumstances for the University this year, we have modified our previous plan which was submitted 13 December 2002. In that plan, we had proposed one-and-a-half percent of salary would be contributed by the University to the Post-Retirement Health Care Saving Plan (PRHCSP). Now the expectation is a zero salary increase, and yet we believe that this program should be initiated now. Thus, we propose that for the present, the base one-and-a-half percent of the salary going into PRHCSP for all faculty would come out of the University’s present contribution to the retirement plan (13% of salary). Aside from this, the plan would be the same as recommended previously, including the increased contributions for those who had been at the University seven years or more and the increased contribution for those in phase-retirement.

There are two very strong caveats that we would like to add. First, we are going under the assumption that there will be no additional funds for any University group this year for PRHCSP. If this is not the case, then we would expect that similar funds would go into PRHCSP for faculty, rather than having all of the money coming out of the faculty members’ present retirement plan contributions.

Second, we ask that in the future, when the University again reaches a point that there are reasonable new funds, that the one-and-a-half percent taken out of the basic faculty retirement plan would be put back in, returning the University’s FRP contribution to 13% of salary. The University FRP has been an excellent one. We greatly regret the need to reduce the basic plan by this change yet we think overall it is a good idea. However in the future, we are very desirous of seeing the plan return to its present level of contributions.

This plan was approved by the :
- Retirement Subcommittee on Monday, March 10, 2003,
- Faculty Affairs Committee on Tuesday, March 11, 2003,
- Faculty Consultative Committee on Thursday, March 14, 2003.