This is a concurrent meeting of the University Senate, Faculty Senate, and Twin Cities Campus Assembly. There are 260 voting members of the University Senate, 196 voting members of the Faculty Senate, and 215 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/031002sen.html

3. TRIBUTE TO DECEASED MEMBERS OF THE UNIVERSITY COMMUNITY

FACULTY/ACADEMIC PROFESSIONALS/STAFF

Egolfs V. Bakuzis
Profesor
Natural Resources
1912 – 2003

Theodore M. Breu
Associate Professor
Business and Economics – Duluth
1942 – 2003

Elizabeth A. Brown
Assistant Professor
University Libraries
1924 – 2003

Charles R. Bruning
Associate Professor
Curriculum and Instruction
1927 – 2003

William G. Shepard
Professor
Electrical Engineering
1911 – 2003

Donald E. Wells
Professor
Rhetoric
1926 – 2003

STUDENTS

Matthew D. Erickson
School of Business and Economics – Duluth

Brian Heiden
College of Liberal Arts

Amanda Speckien
College of Liberal Arts

Elizabeth Wencl
College of Liberal Arts


4. ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSES TO SENATE AND ASSEMBLY ACTIONS
Information

This award recognizes those who have attained distinction in their field, profession, and/or public or volunteer service and are not an alumnus or alumna of the University of Minnesota. Awards of Distinction are not awarded to encourage or reward financial contributions to the University.

A nomination for an Award of Distinction should be submitted to the All-University Honors Committee. The following format is to be used:

Nominee – cannot be or have been a member of the faculty, staff, Board of Regents, or an alumnus or alumna of the University.

Nominator – must be an alumnus or alumna of the University or a current member of the faculty, staff, or student body. Board of Regents policy requires that no disclosure is to be made to the nominee, or persons other than those writing supporting letters, until a decision is forthcoming on the nomination.

Letter from nominator – should focus on personal knowledge of the nominee’s distinction in their field, profession, and/or public or volunteer service.

Dean, Chancellor or Vice President Support – As appropriate (indicated by the cover letter to the nomination.)

Nomination Summary – 50 words or less, restricted to outlining the nominee’s accomplishments.

Outstanding Accomplishments – one page summary highlighting the individual’s accomplishments.

Biographical Information – to include nominee’s address, telephone/fax number, date of birth, education, employment, professional and public and/or volunteer service.

Supporting Letters – three ideally from both from the nominee’s peers inside and outside the University; again, these are in addition to the letter from the nominator and should focus on personal knowledge as outlined above.

Number of Copies – 25 of each item, collated, stapled and clipped (no binders and folders).

Date for Submission – Recommend at least 6 months before the award is to be presented.

Submit to – honors committee of the appropriate college, if one exists, and if not, to the All-University Honors Committee, c/o Vickie Courtney, University Senate, 427 Morrill Hall, 100 Church Street SE, Minneapolis, MN, 55455.

The college honors committee forwards its recommendations to the Senate All-University Honors Committee. A nomination approved by the Senate All-University Honors Committee is submitted to the President and, finally, to the Board of Regents for approval.

NOTE: Persons writing letters of nomination should know that such letters will be legally available upon request, even to an unsuccessful candidate who becomes aware of the nomination. Nominators should also make sure that writers of supporting letters are aware that their letters, too, will be available on request.

Board of Regents policy requires that no disclosure is to be made to the nominee while his or her name is under consideration.

Units sponsoring Awards of Distinction are encouraged to provide travel support when funds are available. If this is not possible or creates a hardship for the nominating unit, it is encouraged to seek partial funding through the Office of the President. In general, award and citation costs are borne by University Relations, award ceremony costs by the nominating unit, and travel expenses (except as described above) by the awardee.

Capital improvements applicable to centrally-scheduled classrooms should NOT be the financial responsibility of the academic unit which houses the facility and should be exempt from the 1/6 cost-sharing principle which applies to other capital improvements that are not designated for HEAPR" [Higher Education Asset Preservation and Renewal, which appropriations are not subject to the requirement that the University pay one-third of the debt service].

Approved unanimously by FCC; also approved by the Senate Committee on Finance and Planning.

Whereas Parking and Transportation Services is initiating a new extra-cost Reserved Contract Parking program in selected garage and ramp facilities, effective October 1, 2004; and

Whereas this change reduces the value of a non-reserved contract without any corresponding reduction in its price; and

Whereas this change imposes severe negative effects on the educational mission of the university by substantially reducing the ability of evening students to park on campus in time to join their classes, and otherwise generally reduces the efficiency in the use of parking facilities, especially for events involving the general public; and

Whereas it is not egalitarian and sends the wrong message to students and the public; and

Whereas this change was introduced following the beginning of the academic year and without consultation with the faculty and staff; therefore

Be it resolved that the Senate Committee of Faculty Affairs requests that this proposed contract modification be prohibited unless and until appropriate consultation has been completed and the likely negative effects of its implementation studied and weighed.

Adopted unanimously September 9, 2003
Endorsed unanimously by the Academic Health Center Finance and Planning Committee September, 2003

The Senate Committee on Equity, Access, and Diversity (SCEAD) was created in 2001 to replace the Senate Equal Opportunity for Women Committee already addressing the issues of women on campus because of a perceived need to also address issues of equality and access with respect to communities of color and other under-represented groups. At the same time, the Senate was concerned that the issues of women not be submerged in the process. For that reason, and to understand whether the new structure is appropriate and effective, a review of SCEAD was scheduled after two years. As stated in the University Senate Bylaws, Article III., Section 6,

“The role and performance of the Equity, Access, and Diversity Committee will be reviewed during the 2002-2003 academic year, with a special emphasis on the extent to which the work of the existing Committee on Equal Opportunity for Women has been carried forward”.

The Senate Committee on Committees, in consultation with the Consultative Committee, undertook this review. The following procedures were followed:

As a result of this review, the Committee on Committees learned of the accomplishments of the committee as well as issues that should be addressed further by the committee. The following is a summary of the accomplishments, areas of concern identified by the SCEAD, recommendations for the SCEAD, and actions to be taken by the Committee on Committees to facilitate the SCEAD.

Appendix:

Message to the Chair of the EAD Committee:

The Senate Committee on Equity, Access, and Diversity (SCEAD) was created because of a perceived need to address issues of equality and access with respect to communities of color and other under-represented groups, and to replace the Senate Equal Opportunity for Women Committee already addressing the issues of women on campus. At the same time, the Senate was concerned that the issues of women not be submerged in the process. For that reason, and to understand whether the new structure is appropriate and effective, a review of SCEAD was scheduled after two years. To conduct that review, the Committee on Committees would appreciate your answering the following questions, in consultation with the rest of the SCEAD membership:

1. Did the charge to SCEAD effectively establish a foundation for the Committee's work? Should the charge be modified in any way to assist you in your work?

2. Have you been able to establish an effective agenda for the committee's work? What would help you be more effective? What obstacles have you found to being effective?

3. Please list the issues that the committee has addressed since it began meeting as a committee. Have you been able to focus effectively on the issues of women and also on the issues of communities of color and other underrepresented groups on campus? Has the combination of these two agendas been helpful? Problematic? Please be as specific as possible.

4. Has the ex officio membership of the committee provided the expertise and connection with the administration needed for you to perform effectively?

Thank you very much for your input,

the Senate Committee on Committees

Sent to the Office of University Women, Office of Multicultural Affairs, Office of Women’s Studies and like offices on the coordinate campuses:

The Senate Committee on Equity, Access, and Diversity (SCEAD) was created because of a perceived need to address issues of equality and access with respect to communities of color and other under-represented groups, and to replace the Senate Equal Opportunity for Women Committee already addressing the issues of women on campus. At the same time, the Senate was concerned that the issues of women not be submerged in the process. For that reason, and to understand whether the new structure is appropriate and effective, a review of SCEAD was scheduled after two years. To conduct that review, the Committee on Committees would appreciate your answering the following questions:

1. From your perspective, has SCEAD been able to focus effectively on the issues of women as it also addresses the issues of communities of color and other underrepresented groups on campus? Has the combination of these two agendas been helpful? Problematic? Please be as specific as possible.

2. Have you developed an effective working relationship with SCEAD?

3. Do you see a Senate Committee as having an effective role to play in reviewing and supporting the efforts of your office and other initiatives related to the issues of women on campus?

Thank you very much for your input,

the Senate Committee on Committees

The packet of athletics’ policies approved by the Assembly Steering Committee will be available at the meeting.

FOR INFORMATION:

Following the October 2, 2003, University Senate/Twin Cities Campus Assembly meeting, an electronic vote was taken to pass two constitutional amendments. At the end of the three working day voting period, 161 votes in favor of and 1 vote against were recorded for the Senate eligibility item and 160 votes in favor of, 1 vote against, and 1 abstention were recorded for the Student Senate Chair item. The amendments needed 121 votes in favor, therefore these amendments were approved.

Whereas, the University of Minnesota is a large institution that puts a substantial demand on resources and,

Whereas, the University of Minnesota is a world-class institution of higher learning that needs to be a leader in sustainable practices in the community and,

Whereas, over 2,000 students and faculty have given signatures of support for a policy of using only post-consumer waste (pcw) recycled paper and,

Whereas, some departments of the University of Minnesota currently purchase 30% pcw recycled paper at a cheaper price than paper with zero recycled content.

Whereas, the U of M community demonstrates strong support for this change in policy and this policy is a simple and economical step to lessen our impact on our natural environment.

Therefore, the University Senate recommends that the University of Minnesota adopt a policy that all departments, computer labs and libraries on its campuses purchase paper that is a minimum of 30% pcw recycled paper. Exceptions to this policy may be made in instances where a paper requirement must be met. Even under these conditions, the University of Minnesota should try to use recycled paper whenever possible. In this way, the University of Minnesota will set an example for other schools and institutions to follow.

Approved by the Social Concerns Committee, May 2003.

COMMENT:

In 1996-97, the University Senate passed an Energy and Environment Conservation Policy for the University (http://www1.umn.edu/usenate/resolutions/socconengres.html). Affirming the principles of that resolution, the Social Concerns Committee suggests a specific action that the University can take towards creation of a more sustainable campus: establishing a minimum post-consumer waste (pcw) content standard for the majority of paper used by the institution. Currently, the University promotes office paper recycling, but in order to have strong markets for this paper, we must also help create demand for recycled products. Paper with a minimum of 30% pcw content is currently priced at or below 0% pcw paper. Thus, we foresee no negative financial consequences of this policy.

Whereas, paper conservation saves the University of Minnesota money and

Whereas, paper conservation lessens our demand on resources.

Therefore, the University Senate recommends that every department, computer lab and library on its campuses purchase at least one duplex printer to be phased in as current printers are replaced. This policy makes paper conservation a more accessible option for students and faculty.

Approved by the Social Concerns Committee, May 2003.

COMMENT:

This resolution suggests a second action the University may take to reduce its use of natural resources. Though duplex printers will require an initial investment on the part of the University, in the long run they will reduce paper use (and expense) by a significant amount.

Resolution Of The Senate Social Concerns Committee On Mount Graham Telescopes

RESOLUTION

WHEREAS, the Mount Graham telescope project has elicited over fourteen years of great controversy as a result of the project’s exemption from the American Indian Religious Freedom Act, the National Historic Preservation Act, the Endangered Species Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, and the National Forest Management Act; and

WHEREAS, Mount Graham (known as Dzil Nchaa Si An), located in southeastern Arizona is a holy place and sacred mountain to the San Carlos Apache and the White Mountain Apache, and is considered a living locus of spiritual energy, central to the religious practices and history of the Apache people; and

WHEREAS, any permanent modification of the present form of Mount Graham constitutes a display of profound disrespect for the San Carlos Apache and White Mountain Apache as well as a serious threat to the survival of a number of endangered species; and

WHEREAS, the University of Minnesota’s involvement in this project tarnishes the image of the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis and St. Paul, and the surrounding communities,

WHEREAS, the Senate Social Concerns Committee stands behind its previous statement that “On ethical, material, political and cultural grounds, we cannot afford to join the MGIO [Mount Graham International Observatory] project,” and

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Senate Social Concerns Committee at the University of Minnesota hereby still strongly opposes any involvement by the University of Minnesota in the Mount Graham telescope project; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Senate Social Concerns Committee opposes the University of Arizona’s request to the U.S. Forest Service in 2002 that they be allowed to place additional telescopes on Mount Graham; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Senate Social Concerns Committee seeks to have the University of Minnesota withdraw its participation in the Mount Graham telescope project, break its affiliation with the University of Arizona Department of Astronomy and the Research Corporation that controls the telescopes on Mount Graham, and find a more suitable place to conduct astronomy;

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Senate Social Concerns Committee that a copy of this resolution will be presented to the University Senate, the Faculty Senate, and the Student Senate, as well as the President and Board of Regents of the University of Minnesota.

Approved by the Social Concerns Committee, May 2003.

COMMENT:

In the Fall of 2001 the Social Concerns Committee began examination of issues surrounding the University of Minnesota’s intentions to join the Mt. Graham International Observatory / Large Binocular Telescope project (MGIO). The Committee devoted several months to careful study of this issue, including testimony from Professor Leonard Kuhi, Chair of the Department of Astronomy, members of the University's American Indian Affairs Committee, local activists, members of the Mt. Graham Coalition, two native elders from the Apache Survival Coalition, and through affidavit from Anthropologist Keith Basso, a leading authority on Apache culture.

After considering all available information, the Committee drafted a position report expressing serious reservations about the University’s involvement in the project. This document is available at: http://www1.umn.edu/usenate/soccon/mountgraham.html. Quoting from that report are the most important of the committee’s concerns, “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.... On ethical, material, political and cultural grounds, we cannot afford to join the MGIO project”

The University of Minnesota has since decided to join the Mt. Graham project (see minutes of the Board of Regents Finance & Operations Committee, October 10, 2002, http://www1.umn.edu/regents/minutes/2002/october/finance.html). Continuing concerns about the ethical ramifications of this action prompted the Social Concerns Committee, in keeping with its charge to be concerned with the “interrelationship between the University and the broader social community,” to draft the current resolution, and to forward it for approval by the University Senate. (Passed by a vote of 14-1-1.)

Questions to the President should be submitted in writing to the University Senate office no later than Tuesday, October 28, 2003.