The meeting of the University Senate and Faculty Senate was convened in 25 Mondale Hall, Minneapolis campus, on Thursday, September 29, 2005, at 2:36 p.m., as a joint meeting of the bodies. Coordinate campuses were linked by telephone. Checking or signing the roll as present were 25 academic professional members, 24 civil service members, 123 voting faculty/faculty-like academic professional members, and 24 voting student members. President Bruininks presided.

FOR INFORMATION:

In the recent election to fill Twin Cities vacancies on the Committee on Committees, Professors Perry Leo and Carl Rosen were elected to three-year terms (July 1, 2005 through June 30, 2008).

3. TRIBUTE TO DECEASED MEMBERS OF THE UNIVERSITY COMMUNITY

FACULTY/ACADEMIC PROFESSIONALS/STAFF

Jacob E. Bearman
Professor
Public Health
1915 – 2005

Caron Carlberg
Engineer
Physical Plant
1913 – 2005

Evelyn Deno
Professor
Educational Psychology
1911 – 2005

James L. Donahue
Associate Professor
Dentistry
1923 – 2005

Rakel L. Erickson
Professor
Education - Duluth
1912 – 2005

William Fenster
Professor
International Agriculture
1935 – 2005

Rebecca L. Foss
Academic Professor
Sustainable Building Research
1951 – 2005

George D. Freier
Professor
Physics & Astronomy
1915 – 2005

Joan Gordon
Professor
Food Science and Nutrition
1923 – 2005

Henry L. Hansen
Professor
Natural Resources
1912 – 2005

Robert L. Jevne
Professor
Wilson Library
1918 – 2005

Miles S. Kersten
Professor
Civil and Mineral Engineering
1913 – 2005

William H. Knobloch
Professor
Ophthalmology
1926 – 2005

Anatoly Larkin
Professor
Physics & Astronomy
1932 – 2005

Roger A. Larson
Professor
General College
1931 – 2005

Adrian R.M. Lauritzen
Professor
Music
1907 – 2005

Ernest B. Lee
Professor
Electrical & Computer Engineering
1932 – 2005

Arthur Naftalin
Professor
Public Affairs
1917 – 2005

George A. Nash
Professor
Athletics
1915 – 2005

Robert E. Nylund
Professor
Horticultural Science
1916 – 2005

William C. Rogers
Professor
World Affairs Center
1919 – 2005

Leonard M. Schuman
Professor
Epidemiology
1913 – 2005

Burrell W. Shippee
Professor
Center for Urban and Regional Affairs
1916 – 2005

James Stochl
Professor
Mathematics Education
1931 – 2005

Patricia Turner
Associate Professor
Wilson Library
1928 – 2005


STUDENTS

Hassan Abdi
College of Continuing Education

Shannon L. Arvis
College of Liberal Arts

Bryan H. Benson
College of Liberal Arts

Kevin J. Boe
University of Minnesota – Crookston

Charles C. Cook
Graduate School

Christopher R. Hager
College of Liberal Arts

Kelly J. Thompson
College of Liberal Arts


4. INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES COMMITTEE
Resolution on the New Financial System
Information for the University Senate

We commend the colleges for the careful way in which they have handled technology fees, including the regular determination of priorities, setting of fees, and appropriate expenditures. We note the careful inclusion of students in planning and decision-making and urge that feedback about the outcome of technology fees be assured. We also suggest that each college establish a clear point of contact for student, faculty, and staff questions about the application of technology fees. We recommend that the University central administration continue to monitor technology fees for changes and share findings with the Senate Committee on Information Technology for review at least every two years.

Approved May 3, 2005

This policy describes the role of the Social Concerns Committee and the president of the University of Minnesota (University) in advising the Board of Regents (Board) regarding socially responsible investments.

Subd. 1. Guiding Principle. The Board, while recognizing its fiduciary responsibilities, encourages the University to be socially responsible regarding its investments.

Subd. 2. Delegation of Authority. The president or delegate, as a result of Board policies, the body of trust law, and the constitution and laws of the United States and the State of Minnesota, shall be held to strict standards of propriety, fiduciary responsibility, and compliance with law in the management of the assets held in trust for the University.

Consistent with these responsibilities and obligations, the president or delegate, in consultation with the Social Concerns Committee of the University Senate, shall provide guidance to the Board in effectively implementing socially responsible policies regarding investments.

Subd. 3. Social Concerns Committee Responsibilities.

The Social Concerns Committee (Committee) shall have the following responsibilities :

(a) Identification of Issues. The Committee shall consider which shareholder resolutions are of concern to the University by
-interacting regularly with the University community and campus advocacy groups;
-monitoring current events regarding socially responsible investment activity; and
-maintaining a diverse membership as determined by the University Senate.

(b) Recommendations. The Committee shall recommend
-resolutions on specific issues that the University, as a shareholder, would place before affected companies and
-restrictive investment policies or positive social investment policies.

Subd 4. Reporting Requirements. The Committee shall monitor the effectiveness of actions regarding shareholder resolutions or social investment policies and report annually to the president its recommendations and votes regarding social investments.

Supersedes: Voting University-Owned Stock dated February 13, 1976; and University Policy on Shareholder Resolutions dated December 9, 1983.

Approved May 6, 2005

The Senate Committee on Finance and Planning is pleased with the Phase Two plans for the financial system replacement project, but is extremely concerned that a lack of unit-level participants threatens to undermine the quality of a system that is key to our research mission and operations.

While we recognize that some units may feel that their benefit for participation does not justify the effort involved, we see this as a classic public goods problem—one where rational local decision-making can lead to results detrimental to all.

Accordingly, we strongly urge the President to act quickly to encourage greater unit-level participation, through whatever appropriate means necessary. We also ask that the Executive Steering Committee for the project provide a report that summarizes the time commitment by unit and that the report be shared throughout the University to encourage all units to contribute to the project.

Approved August 9, 2005

The Senate Committee on Educational Policy made the following interpretation of the Undergraduate Residency Credit Requirements Policy, minimum University credits for undergraduate degrees. The current language of the policy reads as follows (adopted spring, 2005):

(1) To be eligible for a University of Minnesota undergraduate degree, a student must present at least 30 semester credits awarded by the University of Minnesota campus from which he or she is seeking to graduate.

(2) Students must complete at least half of upper division major work on the campus from which they are seeking to graduate.

(3) At least 15 credits of the last 30 credits earned prior to the awarding of a University degree must be awarded by the University of Minnesota campus from which a student is seeking to graduate.

(4) For students who seek an academic minor, to be eligible for record of a minor on the University of Minnesota transcript, students must take at least three upper division credits in the minor field at the campus from which they will receive their degree.

A student's college or campus may, under extraordinary circumstances, waive the requirements in sections 2, 3, and 4, above, but not section 1.

All credit awarded by the University, regardless of the type of instruction, shall count toward the credit requirements for the degree.

Interpretation by the Senate Committee on Educational Policy: This policy, revised in the spring of 2005, will apply to incoming students beginning in the fall of 2005.

COMMENT:

The Senate Committee on Educational Policy does not believe that this policy change, as with any changes that affect students who are already part-way through their education at the University, should apply retroactively. The question has arisen; this interpretation simply clarifies that the policy applies prospectively.

Professor Jean Bauer, Chair of the Senate Consultative Committee (SCC), introduced Terrence Collins, Interim Dean of General College, and Gail Dubrow, Dean of the Graduate School.

Professor Jean Bauer, Chair of the Faculty Consultative Committee (FCC), said that this summer the committee worked with the Provost to ensure that there was adequate faculty representation on every strategic planning task force. FCC also worked to place an FCC member on each strategic planning steering committee to improve the consulting process.

FCC then held a retreat prior to the start of the academic year. The goal was to empower the committee and the collective human capital through strengthen working relations for the year. One item discussed was the budget model, in terms of input and what decisions are being made. A second topic was looking into what it means to go through a strategic planning process and the history of these processes at the University. The majority of the retreat, however, was spent looking at the five major reports on ranking the University and understanding what metrics are used for each.

This fall, the FCC will be discussing post-retirement health care, but a decision will be withheld until the strategic planning process is finalized.

Lastly, she welcomed all new members to the meeting.

Agenda Items 10. and 11. are considered to be non-controversial or “housekeeping” in nature and are offered as a “Consent Agenda” to be taken up as a single item with one vote. Any item will be taken up separately at the request of a senator. (A simple majority is required for approval.)

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/050428sen.html

University Senate committee memberships for 2005-06:

DISABILITIES ISSUES - Faculty: Patrick McNamara (chair), Tammy Berberi, Marilyn Bruin, James Gambucci, Maria Gini, Kathryn Kohnert, David Marks, Frank Symons. Academic Professionals: Norma Gutierrez Shanesy, Carol Rachac. Civil Service: Elizabeth Madson, Maureen McManus. Students: Rachel Garaghty, 1 to be named. Ex Officio: Bobbi Cordano, Julie Sweitzer.

EQUITY, ACCESS, AND DIVERSITY - Faculty: Naomi Scheman (chair), Benjamin Clarke, Jennifer Gunn, Ruth-Ellen Joeres, Amy Kaminsky, Joo-inn Lee, Margaret Moss, Joanna O’Connell, Lee Penn. Academic Professionals: Jeff Bieganek, Patricia Jones-Whyte. Students: 6 to be named. Civil Service: Audrey Boyle, Don Cavalier. Ex Officio: B. David Galt, Geoffrey Maruyama, Julie Sweitzer, Claire Walter-Marchetti.

FINANCE AND PLANNING - Faculty: Fred Morrison (chair), Charles Campbell, Joseph Konstan, Michael Korth, Ian Macmillan, Judith Martin, Timothy Nantell, Justin Revenaugh, Karen Seashore, Kathryn van den Bosch, Warren Warwick. Academic Professionals: Thomas Klein, Sue Van Voorhis. Civil Service: Rose Blixt, Kathryn Olson. Students: Kendal Beer, 3 to be named. Ex Officio: Calvin Alexander, Arthur Erdman, Daniel Feeney, Steve Fitzgerald, Lincoln Kallsen, Kathleen O’Brien, Richard Pfutzenreuter, Charles Speaks, Thomas Stinton, Alfred Sullivan, Michael Volna.

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES - Faculty: Andy Lopez (Chair), Christine Blue, David Demuth, Alan Ek, Douglas Ernie, Joan Hughes, Greg Laden, Stuart Speedie, Jim Waddell. Academic Professionals: Nancy Herther, Mark Sanders, John See, Dale Swanson. Civil Service: Deanette Schmidt. Students: Mahmoud Sadrai, 2 to be named. Ex Officio: Steve Cawley, Eric Celeste, Linda Jorn.

LIBRARY - Faculty/PA: Lael Gatewood (chair), John H. Anderson, David R. Brown, Elaine Challacombe, Juliette Cherbuliez, Jay Hatch, Lisa Norling, James Orf, Leon Satkowski, Otto Strack, Danielle Tisinger, Susan Wick. Students: 4 to be named. Ex Officio: Jonathan Binks, LeAnn Dean, Joan Howland, Wendy Lougee, Bill Sozansky, Jim Waddell, Owen Williams.

SOCIAL CONCERNS - Faculty: Kenneth Heller (chair), Katherine Fennelly, David Fox, Catherine Jordan, Julie Pelletier, Mani Subramani, 1 to be named. Academic Professionals: Joseph Marchesani, Jennifer Oliphant, Todd Tratz. Civil Service: Elizabeth Richardson, Benton Schnabel, to be named. Alumni: Peter Hiniker, Richard Lidstad Sandy Ulsaker Wiese. Students: Mira Reinberg, Samuel Stone, 5 to be named. Ex Officio: Gerald Rinehart, Greg Schooler, Julie Sweitzer.

STUDENT ACADEMIC INTEGRITY - Faculty/PA: Shawn Curley (chair), Sarah Angerman, Mark Bellcourt, Francisco Diez-Gonzalez, Linda Jones, Paul Myers, Robert Pepin, Micky Trent. Students: 5 to be named. Ex Officio: Sharon Dzik, Laura Coffin Koch.

STUDENT BEHAVIOR - Faculty/PA: Michael Rodriguez (chair), Jane Carlstrom, Patricia Fillipi, Lorraine Francis, Francis Harvey, Patricia Jones-Whyte, Michelle Koker, Nicole Letawsky-Shultz, Michael LuBrant, Nikolaos Papanikolopoulos, Paul Porter, Gretchen Zunkel. Students: Onyi Amajuoyi, Abby Bar-Lev, Rachel Long, Jennifer Schumann, Keeya Steel, at least 5 to be named. Ex Officio: Sharon Dzik.

FOR INFORMATION:

ALL-UNIVERSITY HONORS - Faculty: Laura Gurak (chair), Lois Heller, Allen Isaacman, Paul Magee, David Pui, Richard Richards, Ronald Sawchuk, Katherine Solomonson. Academic Professionals: Stacie Haugen, Jean Kucera. Alumni: Joel Bergstrom, David Hagford, Andrea Hjelm, Todd Klingel, Juanita Luis. Students: Neil Shah, 2 to be named. Ex Officio: Gerald Fischer, Cheryl Jones, Jessica Mooney, Billie Wahlstrom.

SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES - Faculty: Kathryn Hanna (chair), Carl Adams, Subir Banerjee, David Born, Anna Clark, Gordon Hirsch, Joan Howland, Tom Johnson, Mary Jo Kreitzer, Perry Leo, Jan McCullough, Carl Rosen, Cheryl Zimmerman. Academic Professionals: Randy Croce, Nan Kalke, Lynne Schuman, Kyla Wahlstrom. Students: To be named (chair), Joshua Beiningen, Garret Groves, Rick Orr, Timothy Tangen, 3 to be named.

SENATE CONSULTATIVE - Faculty: Jean Bauer (chair), Gary Balas, Nancy Carpenter, Daniel Feeney, Megan Gunnar, Mary Jo Kane, Scott Lanyon, Terry Roe, John L. Sullivan, Jennifer Windsor. Academic Professionals: Jacqueline Cottingham-Zierdt, Beth Emshoff. Civil Service: Matthew Bowers, Margaret Wolff. Students: Joshua Breyfogle (chair), Anthony Kouba, Timothy Tangen, Dion Turgeon, Jared Warren, 2 to be named. Ex Officio: Barbara Elliott, Marvin Marshak, Judith Martin, Fred Morrison.

DISCUSSION:

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

MOTION:

To amend Article II, Section 5(A) of the University Senate Bylaws as follows (language to be added is underlined; language to be deleted is struck-out). As an amendment to the University Senate Bylaws, the motion requires either a majority of all voting members of the University Senate (126) at one regular or special meeting, or a majority of all members of the University Senate present and voting at each of two meetings. This is the first meeting at which this motion is being presented.

A. Advisory Committee on Athletics

The Advisory Committee on Athletics provides consultation and advice to the President, the senior administrator responsible for athletics, and the departments of intercollegiate athletics on policies and other major decisions.

Membership

The Advisory Committee on Athletics shall consist of the following voting members:

(1) a Chair, who must be a tenured faculty member, who holds no administrative appointment higher than department chair or head, appointed by the President after consultation with the Senate Consultative Committee, for a term of one year;

(2) four (4) members of the faculty or academic staff (at least two of whom shall be members of the tenured faculty), appointed by the President after consultation with the faculty members of the Assembly Steering Committee Senate Consultative Committee, for terms of three (3) years;

(3) the Faculty Representatives to the NCAA;

(4) the chair of the Faculty Academic Oversight Committee on Intercollegiate Athletics, or a member designated by that committee;

(5) a dean, appointed by the President after consultation with the Twin Cities' deans, for a term of three (3) years, or another member of the tenured faculty;

(6) four (4) students, two of whom will be appointed by the President after consultation with the student members of the Assembly Steering Committee Senate Consultative Committee for terms of one year, and two of whom will be selected by the representatives of students in the intercollegiate athletic programs for terms of one year;

...

COMMENT:

It has proven difficult for deans to attend the meetings of the Advisory Committee on Athletics. The Faculty Consultative Committee thus suggests allowing the President to appoint another tenured faculty member, in lieu of a dean, if no dean can be identified who is able regularly to attend the meetings of the committee.

(The other change reflects the fact that there is no Assembly Steering Committee after the reorganization of the Senate effective 2005-06.)

DISCUSSION:

With no discussion, a vote was taken and the motion was approved with 160 in favor and none opposed.

President Bruininks said that he wanted to discuss the University’s strategic positioning process since it will occupy the attention of the broader University community for more than the coming academic year. He stated that is more than setting high aspirations to change the University; it is truly how this is done and the results that are actually achieved. He does not expect all these results to be easy to achieve but it is about moving from policy to implementation and raising the sights of the University.

These are lofty aspirations and the goals are likely the most comprehensive in the University’s history. There is much work to be done and it will touch nearly every facet of the cultural and academic life of the University.

He then walked senators through the following set of slides:

Transforming University of Minnesota
Strategic Positioning Update
University Senate
September 29, 2005

Review: President’s Recommendations on Strategic Goals and Positioning

Transforming the University-Outcomes

Action Strategies
Approved March 2005

Themes for Measuring Progress

In closing he said that the an all-day retreat was held for all strategic positioning participants from the 33 task forces. These task forces include over 300 faculty and staff, and students serve on most task forces. The biggest challenge will be to bring ideas together across the task forces and integrate them in an effective way. He hopes that the Senate will continue to revisit this issue and provide opportunities to talk about aspects of this process now and in the years ahead.

Q: On the proposed stadium web site financial section there is a reference to a mandatory stadium fee. It says that discussions are under way with students leaders on the best way to be involved in a proposed fee. Considering that there is considerable dissent from some student segments, how will these views be heard when there are no planned meetings of the Stadium Advisory Committee?

A: Discussions with students will take place, but there is little point in having them at this time given that there is no commitment from the state for financial support. The University’s attention has been focused on a state appropriation, since without it there is little hope of raising enough funds to make the stadium a reality.

He noted that student opinion on this topic is mixed, but he would like to see students participate and make a modest contribution to a campus legacy. If state support is received, he would anticipate a rich discussion with students regarding alternative funding methods, but he conceded that not all parties will agree on the final outcome. However, if a fee is assessed, he would like to see it used to support the collegiate culture and arts on campus as well.

Agenda Items 17. and 18. are considered to be non-controversial or “housekeeping” in nature and are offered as a “Consent Agenda” to be taken up as a single item with one vote. Any item will be taken up separately at the request of a senator. (A simple majority is required for approval.)

The chair of the University Senate recommends the following officers for 2005-06:

Clerk – Professor Stuart Goldstein
Parliamentarian – Professor Guy Charles

Faculty Senate committee memberships for 2005-06:

ACADEMIC FREEDOM AND TENURE - Faculty: William Durfee (chair), Tracey Anderson, Tom Clayton, Nancy Ehlke, John Mowitt, Ruth Okediji, G. Edward Schuh, Jennifer Westendorf, Jianyi Zhang. Ex Officio: Arlene Carney, Carol Carrier.

EDUCATIONAL POLICY - Faculty/PA: Richard McCormick (chair), William Bart, Vernon Cardwell, Shawn Curley, LeAnn Dean, James Leger, Claudia Neuhauser, Mary Ellen Shaw, Paul Siliciano, Donna Spannaus-Martin, Douglas Wangensteen, Joel Weinsheimer. Students: Christopher Pappas, Emily Ronning, 4 to be named. Ex Officio: Gail Dubrow, Craig Swan, 1 to be named.

FACULTY AFFAIRS - Faculty: Morris Kleiner (chair), Matthew Bribitzer-Stull, Vladimir Cherkassky, A. Saari Csallany, Janet Erickson, John Fossum, Patricia Frazier, Darwin Hendel, Steven McLoon, Roderick Squires, Oriol Valls, Larry Wallace, Timothy Wiedmann, Aks Zaheer, Virginia Zuiker. Academic Professionals: Jane Miller, Lori-Anne Williams. Ex Officio: Arlene Carney, Carol Carrier, Dann Chapman, William Durfee, Theodor Litman. Students: Kelly Risbey, 1 to be named.

JUDICIAL - Faculty: James Farr (chair), David Biesboer, Ernest Davenport, Amos Deinard, Bruce Downing, Jeanette Gundel, Roland Guyotte, Gordon Hirsch, Joan Howland, Diane Katsiaficas, Carol Klee, Alice Larson, Sanford Lipsky, Karin Musier-Forsyth, Michael Sadowsky, Tom Scott, Geoffrey Sirc, Clifford Steer, William Turner, Ann Waltner.

RESEARCH - Faculty: Steven Ruggles (chair), Diane Bartels, James Cotter, Christopher Cramer, Dan Dahlberg, Sharon Danes, Penny Edgell, Genevieve Escure, J. Stephen Gantt, Paul Johnson, James Luby, Maria Sera, Virginia Seybold, George Trachte, 1 to be named. Academic Professionals: Barbara Van Drasek, Jean Witson. Civil Service: Kathy Bowlin. Students: Michael Hughey, Ryan Lukas, 1 to be named. Ex Officio: Mark Ascerno, Richard Bianco, Arlene Carney, Robin Dittmann, Timothy Mulcahy, Mark Paller, Thomas Schumacher, Charles Spetland, Michael Volna.

FOR INFORMATION:

ACADEMIC HEALTH CENTER FACULTY CONSULTATIVE - Faculty: Kathleen Krichbaum (chair), Peter Davies, Stephen Ekker, Michael Georgieff, Lois Heller, John Himes, Brian Isetts, Marc Jenkins, Nelson Rhodus. Ex Officio: Dan Feeney.

ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON ATHLETICS - Faculty/PA: Melissa Avery (chair), Linda Brady, Doug Hartmann, Paul Iaizzo, Perry Leo, Laurie McLaughlin, Maria Sera, Richard Weinberg, 1 to be named. Civil Service: Duane Nelson. Alumni: Lea Favor, Jerry Noyce. Students: Jonathan Loveall, Suzannah Mork, 2 to be named. Ex Officio: Frank Kara, Joel Maturi, Mark Nelson.

COUNCIL ON LIBERAL EDUCATION - Faculty: Michael Simmons (chair), Randal Barnes, Gordon Duke, Charles Fletcher, James Kakalios, Rebecca Krug, Amy Lee, Willard Miller, Sandra Peterson, Kathryn Sikkink, Nevin Young, 1 to be named. Academic Professional: Sally Lieberman. Students: 2 to be named.

FACULTY ACADEMIC OVERSIGHT ON INTERCOLLEGIATE ATHLETICS - Faculty: Perry Leo (chair), Melissa Avery, Andrea Berlin, Linda Brady, Thomas Brothen, John Remington, Mark Seeley, Richard Weinberg, Anthony Weinhaus. Ex Officio: Frank Kara, Mark Nelson.

FACULTY CONSULTATIVE - Faculty: Jean Bauer (chair), Gary Balas, Nancy Carpenter, Daniel Feeney, Megan Gunnar, Mary Jo Kane, Scott Lanyon, Terry Roe, John L. Sullivan, Jennifer Windsor. Ex Officio: Barbara Elliott, Morris Kleiner, Kathleen Krichbaum, Marvin Marshak, Judith Martin, Richard McCormick, Fred Morrison, Steven Ruggles, Martin Sampson.

NOMINATING - Faculty: To be named (chair), F. Ronald Akehurst, W. Andrew Collins, Catherine French, Gary Gardner, Judith Garrard, Jean Quam, Nelson Rhodus, Leslie Schiff, W. Phillips Shively. Academic Professional: Michael Darger, Mary Ellen Shaw.

DISCUSSION:

Q: Why are the Senate officers just approved by the Faculty Senate?

A: The Constitution states that the Faculty Senate elects its officers, who then also serve as the officers for the University Senate. While students and civil service employees are not involved in the Faculty Senate, there are some faculty-like academic professionals who are able to and do serve in the Faculty Senate.

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

MOTION:

To amend Article IV, Section 5(E) of the Faculty Senate Bylaws as follows (language to be added is underlined; language to be deleted is struck-out). As an amendment to the Faculty Senate Bylaws, the motion requires either a majority of all voting members of the Faculty Senate (134) at one regular or special meeting, or a majority of all members of the Faculty Senate present and voting at each of two meetings. This is the first meeting at which this motion is being presented.

E. FACULTY ACADEMIC OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE FOR INTERCOLLEGIATE ATHLETICS

The Faculty Academic Oversight Committee for Intercollegiate Athletics has responsibility for eligibility, compliance, and other issues relating to academic integrity of participants in the programs. This committee will work closely with the Provost, who as head of academic affairs is the senior administrative officer in charge of academic counseling programs for athletes.

Membership

The voting membership of this committee consists of six (6) members of the tenured faculty, plus the two (2) Faculty Representatives and the Chair of the Advisory Committee on Athletics. Since the purpose of this committee is to ensure that students who choose to participate in athletics have a full opportunity to pursue and complete their University studies, the primary qualification for appointment to this committee is a commitment to teaching students, rather than a special interest in athletics.

The Assembly Steering Committee Faculty Consultative Committee appoints six (6) members of the committee after consultation with the President. The Committee on Committees will provide a list of candidates for consideration. The appointments are subject to approval by the Twin Cities Faculty Delegation. The term of office is three (3) years; the initial terms will be arranged so that one-third of the terms expire each year. No one may serve more than six (6) consecutive years on the committee.

...

COMMENT:

The Assembly Steering Committee no longer exists. Inasmuch as this is a Faculty Senate committee, composed entirely of faculty, the Faculty Consultative Committee should make the appointments, subject to consultation with the President.

DISCUSSION:

With no discussion, a vote was taken and the motion was approved with 105 in favor and none opposed.

MOTION:

To amend Article IV, Section 1 of the Faculty Senate Rules as follows (language to be added is underlined; language to be deleted is struck-out). As an amendment to the Faculty Senate Rules, the motion requires a simple majority vote.

ARTICLE IV. RULES FOR COMMITTEES OF THE FACULTY SENATE (Changes to this article are subject to vote only by the Faculty Senate)

1. Ex Officio Members of Faculty Senate Committees

...

- Academic Freedom and Tenure--Chair of the Faculty Affairs Committee; Office of the Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs and Provost; Office of the Vice President for Human Resources

- Educational Policy--Office of the Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs and Provost (two representatives, including the Vice Provost for Undergraduate Education); Dean of the Graduate School

...

- Faculty Affairs--Office of the Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs and Provost; representative of the University of Minnesota Retirees Association; Office of the Vice President for Human Resources (two representatives, including one from Employee Benefits); Chair of the Academic Freedom and Tenure Committee

...

- Research--Office of the Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs and Provost (two representatives, including the Director of Agricultural Experiment Stations); Office of the Vice President for Finance; Office of the Senior Vice President for Health Sciences; Vice President for Research; University Librarian; Director of Institutional Compliance; Assistant Vice President for Regulatory Affairs

...

COMMENT:

These amendments reflect committee and department names changes, and a reduction in ex officio representation on the Educational Policy Committee that was requested by the Office of the Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs and Provost.

DISCUSSION:

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

MOTION:

To amend Section III of the Uniform Grading and Transcript Policy as follows (language to be deleted is struck out):

III. OTHER TRANSCRIPT SYMBOLS

1. There shall be a temporary symbol I, incomplete, awarded to indicate that the work of the course has not been completed.

The I shall be assigned at the discretion of the instructor when, due to extraordinary circumstances, the student was prevented from completing the work of the course on time. The assignment of an I requires a written agreement between the instructor and student specifying the time and manner in which the student will complete the course requirements. In no event may any such written agreement allow a period of longer than one year to complete the course requirements.

For graduate and professional students, an I is to remain on the transcript until changed by the instructor or department. For all other students, work to make up an I must be submitted within one year of the last day of final examinations of the term in which the I was given; if not submitted by that time, the I will automatically change to an F (if the student was registered on the A-F system) or an N (if the student was registered on the S-N system) for the course.¹

When an I is changed to another symbol, the I is removed from the record. Once an I has become an F or an N, under the provisions of the preceding paragraph, it may subsequently be converted to any other grade, upon petition by the instructor (or the department if the instructor is unavailable) to the college.

A student does not need to be registered at the University in order to complete the work necessary to convert an I to a grade with credit in the time and manner previously agreed upon between the student and the instructor.² The instructor is expected to turn in the new grade within four weeks of the date the work was submitted by the student.³

If a student graduates with an I on the transcript, the I will remain permanently an I. A student may petition his or her college, within a year of graduation, to complete the work in the course and receive a grade. The degree GPA would be frozen upon graduation but the cumulative GPA would reflect the change in GPA if a student chooses to complete the work and change I to a grade within a year of graduation.

Interpretation of Policy on Incompletes for Students Called to Active Military Duty - When appropriate, instructors may prefer to make arrangements for the student to take an incomplete. Senate policy requires that an incomplete be made up within one calendar year of the end of the term in which the incomplete is given. When students are called to active military duty, and reach agreement with their instructor(s) to take an incomplete, they will have up to one calendar year following their discharge from active duty to complete their incomplete(s).

¹ If an I changes automatically to an F or an N, the instructor has the discretion to reinstate the I for another year.

² An I will be converted automatically to an F or an N even if a student graduates: if a student receives an I in a course, but he or she graduates (that is, has enough credits without the course in which the I was received) before the year has run, and the student does not make up the work, the I will convert to an F or an N after the degree has been granted.
³ This may mean that there would be, temporarily, an F or an N on the transcript: if the student waits until the last week or so to turn in the work required to make up the I, and the instructor uses all or nearly all of the four weeks allowed to grade the work, the one-year period will lapse and the I will be changed to an F, until the instructor changes the grade.

COMMENT:

At present the language of the sixth paragraph under III (1) and footnote 2 in the fifth paragraph are in conflict. Presumably either an I converts to an F or it does not; the current policy says both that it does and it does not. The Senate Committee on Educational Policy recommends that the Faculty Senate advise the administration to change the policy so that if a student graduates with an I, the I remains on the transcript (subject to the petition provision in paragraph 6, which is already part of the policy). This adheres to the general policy that a transcript is "frozen" at the time a student graduates and may not be changed thereafter.

DISCUSSION:

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

MOTION:

To amend Section IV of the Uniform Grading and Transcript Policy as follows (new language is underlined; language to be deleted is struck out):

IV. OTHER PROVISIONS

1. When a student graduates, no further changes to his or her transcript will be made (to that portion of the transcript related to the program from which the student graduated) except as expressly allowed under the provisions of this policy.

1. 2. An undergraduate student may repeat a course once. When a student repeats a course, (a) both grades for the course shall appear on the official transcript, (b) the course credits may not be counted more than once toward degree and program requirements, and (c) only the last enrollment for the course shall count in the student's grade point average. The preceding sentence of this policy shall not apply to courses using the same number but where students study different content each term of enrollment; all such courses falling under this provision must be approved by the college. If an undergraduate student repeats a course after his/her degree has been awarded, the original course grade will not be excluded from the degree GPA nor will the new grade be included in the degree GPA, as provided in Section IV (1) of this policy. When students enrolled in the Graduate School repeat a course, provisions (a) and (b) apply but not (c); both grades for the course shall be counted in the student's grade point average.

[re-number following sections of the policy]

COMMENT:

The Senate Committee on Educational Policy (SCEP) has been informed by the Registrar that students who have graduated wish to repeat a course that they took prior to graduation and have the second grade count in their degree GPA. It has been long-standing policy that once a student graduates, his or her transcript is "frozen" for that degree or program and no further changes will be made. This language is intended to clarify that policy.

DISCUSSION:

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

MOTION:

To amend Section II and Section IV of the Uniform Grading and Transcript Policy as follows (new language is underlined; language to be deleted is struck out):

II. PERMANENT GRADES FOR ACADEMIC WORK

There are five permanent grades given for a single course for which credit shall be awarded, which will be entered on a student's official transcript: A-B-C-D-S grades including pluses and minuses, as follows, and carry the indicated grade points. The S grade shall not carry grade points but the credits shall count toward the student's degree program if allowed by the college, campus, or program.

...

In connection with all symbols of achievement, and especially for the S, instructors shall define for a class, at one of its earliest meetings and as explicitly as possible, the performance that will be necessary to earn each. (subject to the provision in this policy that the amount and quality of work required for an S may not be less than that required for a C-). [In any class, instructors have the right to set the level of performance required for an S at any level. They may not set it at less than a C-.] The performance required for an S shall be the same as that required for a C-.

. . .

IV. OTHER PROVISIONS

...

The course syllabus for every course which enrolls undergraduates shall include the definitions of grades set out in Section II (1) of this policy, as follows, and shall also include the workload expectations set forth in the Senate Policy Statement on Class Hour-Credit Ratio, as follows.
A - achievement that is outstanding relative to the level necessary to meet course requirements.
B - achievement that is significantly above the level necessary to meet course requirements.
C - achievement that meets the course requirements in every respect.
D - achievement that is worthy of credit even though it fails to meet fully the course requirements.
S - achievement that is satisfactory, which is equivalent to a C- or better (achievement required for an S is at the discretion of the instructor but may be no lower than equivalent to a C-.)

...

COMMENT:

The Senate Committee on Educational Policy was recently informed that a student complained because he enrolled for a course and would have received a C+ if he had enrolled for the course on the A-F grading system; since he had enrolled on the S-N system, however, and the instructor set the level for an S equal to a B-, the student received an N. The course was critical to the student's ability to graduate and he felt it was not fair that he would have been able to graduate had he taken the course A-F.

The Committee also understands that in the case of the Duluth campus, faculty members do not know which students are enrolled A-F and which S-N; the Duluth faculty award letter grades and the computer changes them to S or N, as appropriate.

While the Committee is not recommending (at this point) that the faculty not know whether students are registered A-F or S-N, it does believe that provisions allowing instructors to set a higher level of performance for an S than a C-, which would be sufficient for degree credit, is inappropriate and leads to unfair results. The Committee thus recommends deleting provisions in the grading policy that permit such discretion; the policy, as amended, would require that class work meeting the requirement for a C- would also constitute an S.

DISCUSSION:

Q: In the comment section, it mentions that the committee is not yet considering hiding from the faculty member whether a student is registered S-N or A-F. Is the committee going to take up this issue, since it is removing discretion for what consists an S grade?

A: The committee did not make a decision on this issue.

The senator suggested that the committee further discuss this issue so that faculty can simply assign all students an A-F grade, and then programming would translate the letter grade into an S or N for those registered under that grade option.

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

MOTION:

To approve the Regents Policy on Openness in Research.

UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA BOARD OF REGENTS POLICY
Academic
Adopted: July 10, 1969
Amended: October 8, 1971, to be determined

SECTION I. SCOPE. This policy applies to research conducted at the University of Minnesota (University) by University faculty, staff, students, visiting researchers, and volunteers, except as provided in Section II.

This policy shall not apply when:

(a) the research is performed by faculty members on leave from the University, by faculty members serving as consultants, or by faculty members working off-site through another organization; or

(b) the research involves services performed as an external sale, provided that the results of such services either may be published freely in the aggregate or may be used to guide the design of broader research activities.

The mission of the University is to generate and disseminate knowledge. Essential to this mission are the fundamental principles of open scholarly exchange and academic freedom. Absent compelling reasons, the University shall not accept restrictions on the dissemination of the results of University research. The University cooperates with research sponsors in the orderly publication of research results, subject to appropriate restrictions on the use of publications or of the University’s name for commercial purposes.

The following provisions shall govern the acceptance of research grants and contracts by the University:

Subd. 1. Disclosure of the Research Relationship. The University shall not accept support from any source for research under a contract or grant that prohibits the disclosure of:

(a) the existence of the contract or grant;

(b) the identity of the sponsor or the grantor and, if a subcontract is involved, the identity of the prime contractor if the results of the research must be reported to the sponsor, grantor, or prime contractor; and

(c) the purpose and scope of the proposed research in sufficient detail to permit informal discussion concerning the wisdom of such research within the University and to inform colleagues in immediate and related disciplines of the nature and importance of the potential contribution to the disciplines involved.

Subd. 2. Open Dissemination of Research Results. The University shall not accept support for any research under a contract or grant, if the contract or grant limits the full and prompt public dissemination of results or specifically permits the retroactive classification of results as nonpublic, except for reasons found compelling through a review process specified in administrative procedures.

Subd. 3. Retroactive Restrictions on Research Results. If a sponsor imposes restrictions on disclosure of research results after the research has begun, the University shall reevaluate whether to continue the work. In the reevaluation, the University shall apply provisions of this policy and a review process specified in the administrative procedures.

Subd. 4. Use of Facilities. University facilities shall not be available for research that violates this policy. Any exceptions shall be considered through the review procedure specified in administrative procedures.

The following provisions shall govern the publication of research results:

Subd. 1. University's Right to Publish. The University reserves the right to publish and present research results, individually and in collaboration with other researchers. When a research sponsor requests prior review, the University shall provide an opportunity for review of the manuscript or presentation materials and will consider suggested modifications prior to publication.

Subd. 2. Attribution. Publications by the University shall properly acknowledge the financial support and other contributions of research sponsors.

Subd. 3. Brand and Trade Names. Publication and presentation of research results by either the University or the sponsor shall not include commercial brands or trade names unless such brand or trade name is essential to the description of the research.

Subd. 4. Publicity. Research grants and contracts may provide that University researchers must obtain prior written approval from the sponsor for any prepublication publicity regarding the research results.

Subd. 5. Authorization for Research Sponsor to Publish. If the University elects not to publish research results, the research sponsor may, with the consent of the University, publish them.

The name of the University shall not be used in any way by research sponsors for advertising purposes.

This policy supercedes the Regents’ policies on Publication of Investigation Results and Research Secrecy.

COMMENT:

The Senate Research Committee recommends that the Faculty Senate approve the revised Regents' policy governing secrecy in research. There are no significant policy changes; this is largely a matter of re-formatting to align the policy with other regental policies. As Board policies have come up for review, in the normal cycle, procedural elements have been removed from policies and placed in administrative policies. This policy revision does that as well.

The procedures that were part of the former policy, however, have been changed in the proposed administrative policy. In the current policy, requests for exceptions from the policy barring secrecy in research were first sent to the Senate Research Committee, then to the University Senate for a final recommendation to the President. The President made the decision whether or not to grant an exception. In the administrative policy, requests for exceptions go to the subcommittee on openness in research (which has been established by the Senate Research Committee). The subcommittee makes a recommendation to the Senate Research Committee, which in turn makes a recommendation to the Vice President for Research. The Vice President makes the final decision. (Obviously, in the nature of line responsibilities in the University, the President could reverse a decision of the Vice President for Research--just as the President can reverse the decision of any of the senior officers of the University.)

DISCUSSION:

Professor Steven Ruggles, Chair of the Research Committee, said that the proposal before the Senate does not significantly alter the policy on openness in research, but removes the administrative procedures from the Regents Policy, as is being done with all Regents policies. He noted that there have been less than five exemption requests in the last decade.

Under current procedures, which are still part of the Regents Policy, the Research Committee hears the case for an exception, which then forwards its decision to the Senate for another vote, which is a recommendation to the President. The current system is problematic since the cases are very complex and involve lengthy debates at all levels.

Under the proposed procedures, which are not up for approval today, a Research Secrecy Subcommittee would be created, under the Research Committee, to hear cases for exemptions. A recommendation would then be made to the Research Committee, which would then make a recommendation to the Vice President for Research. The final decision would still be made by the President, however the University Senate would not be involved in the decision.

Q: Why is the Senate being asked to approve a Regents Policy? Have the Regents already approved it?

A: The Regents have not approved a policy change yet. The Faculty Senate is being asked to approve the change since the policy is both a Senate and Regents policy.

Q: Under the section on exclusions, section (a) appears to exempt faculty members as consultants or those working off-site. Does this section exclude them from adhering to the policy?

A: Section (a) is not a change in language from what is in the current policy.

Q: Does this document change the criteria to be used in granting exemptions?

A: No, these criteria have not been changed.

Q: Is there an established procedures if an exemption is requested during the summer?

A: The Research Secrecy Subcommittee and the Research Committee would be convened for meetings to discuss this issue.

Q: The change will disadvantage the Senate because this body will not be involved in decisions. Will the Senate be informed when exemptions are granted?

A: The Research Committee could make a report to the Senate, but a public report of each exemption in also issued. One of the procedures documents also calls for an annual report to the Senate of exemptions granted by the chair of the Research Committee.

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

Draft Policy and Protocol on the Evaluation of Instruction
September 16, 2005

PREAMBLE

The University of Minnesota seeks to achieve instruction of the highest quality so that students learn to their maximum potential. The evaluation of instruction is one way to help ensure excellence in instruction, so the Faculty Senate adopts the following policy and protocol on evaluation of instruction.

There are at least three reasons to evaluate instruction: (1) to improve instruction, (2) to provide information for (a) salary and promotion decisions based on merit and (b) faculty tenure decisions, and (3) to assist students in course selection. This policy and protocol is intended to meet all three objectives. With respect to the second, the purpose of this policy and protocol is to define what shall constitute adequate documentation for student and peer review of faculty and instructional staff teaching contributions.^[1]

The required evaluation of teaching for tenure and promotion decisions must have two major components, peer review and student .evaluation of teaching. Academic units must make provisions for peer review for faculty being considered for tenure, promotion, and salary increases, and for other instructional staff being considered for reappointment, promotion, and salary increases. The peer review information for individuals is to be supplemented by information from student evaluations of all their courses.

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

POLICY

--Every course with a University course number shall be evaluated by the use of student rating forms every time it is offered, except that thesis-only credits, directed or independent study, internships, and classes with fewer than five students shall not be evaluated using such forms. [Note: The Senate Committee on Educational Policy will appoint an ad hoc subcommittee to develop guidelines for departments to evaluate small classes, internships, directed/independent study, and so on. Those guidelines do not have to be in place to adopt this policy.] A department that wishes permanently to exempt a course or courses from use of the standard student evaluation form must receive written approval from the Senate Committee on Educational Policy.^[2]

Data and information from student evaluations shall not be used in isolation from peer evaluation and (for faculty) research and service in evaluating faculty and instructional staff.

The directions for students written on the student rating forms should stress the three purposes of the form: evaluation of instructors, improvement of teaching, and assistance to future students in selecting courses (the "student release" questions). The instructions should be written in a manner that will motivate students to complete the forms. The instructions should explain why demographic data are being collected.

--The student rating forms shall be anonymous.

--Students may not be required to fill in a student rating form for any course. This provision applies to all courses at the University, including multiple-instructor courses that are otherwise covered by a different evaluation protocol.

-- No incentives may be given for filling in a student rating form. Instructors are not to know who filled out a form and who did not.^[3]

--The teaching performance of all instructors, regardless of their academic rank or tenure status, is subject to evaluation. This policy and protocol applies to all instructors regardless of whether they are tenure-track/tenured, term/P&A, or adjunct faculty or hold any other kind of teaching appointment at the University. Specific provisions are noted for tenured and tenure-track faculty.

--Personnel decisions (e.g., merit and salary reviews, promotion, tenure for tenure-track faculty) for all faculty and instructional staff whose salary is based in any part on teaching shall include review by appropriate department, college, and University officers, as set forth in pertinent rules and policies, all numeric data from the teaching evaluation forms from their courses.

--For tenured and tenure-track faculty, faculty peers must evaluate course objectives and syllabi, handouts, assignments and tests, theses and dissertations, and examples of graded student work in order to measure their quality and appropriateness. Faculty and instructional staff must do the same for all other instructors who are not tenured or tenure-track faculty. Peers must also assess the instructor's knowledge of the subject matter, contributions to departmental teaching efforts, and any other teaching contributions, such as development of new courses or innovative instructional materials, authorship of texts or laboratory manuals, or publications on discipline-specific teaching techniques. Peer review could also include assessment of student performance on certification exams (if appropriate to the discipline), survey of the extent of mentoring and participation in other activities related to instruction, or assessment of an instructor's classroom performance via personal visit or videotaping of the class.^[4]

--The information collected pursuant to this policy to evaluate teaching effectiveness for personnel decisions remains confidential.^[5] The results must be shared with the faculty member being reviewed. Access to information on a specific instructor must be restricted to those responsible for decisions on reappointment (where applicable), promotion, tenure (where applicable), and salary adjustments.

--Faculty must always be allowed to respond to student rating results when those results are used for performance evaluation; faculty members must be permitted to add written comments to their files

--All student evaluation data used in personnel decisions must be accompanied by the response rates for the data.^[6]

--Responsibility for implementing the provisions of this policy and protocol rests with the Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs and Provost, the Senior Vice President for the Health Sciences, deans and department heads, all of whom must clearly convey to faculty the emphasis being placed on teaching in decisions regarding promotion, tenure, and merit-pay increases.

--Department heads and chairs should be evaluated in part on the extent to which they effectively implement this policy and protocol.

PROTOCOL

--Department heads and tenure and promotion review committees will be provided with comprehensive information on the interpretation and use of student rating data (including questions of reliability and validity) in making personnel decisions, and information on practices of peer evaluation of instruction.^[7]

--The student rating form shall contain the following questions, with the verbal anchors as identified:

How would you rate the instructor's overall teaching ability?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Very Poor Satisfactory Exceptional

How would you rate the instructor's knowledge of the subject matter?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Very Poor Satisfactory Exceptional

How would you rate the instructor's respect and concern for students?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Very Poor Satisfactory Exceptional

How much would you say you learned in this course?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Almost Nothing Amount Expected An Exceptional Amount

--All student rating forms shall have spaces for two questions permitting open-ended comments: "Describe things about the course that you found helpful" and "What suggestions do you have for improving the course?"

ALTERNATIVE ONE:
--All written comments on student evaluation forms shall be provided only to the instructor, after data processing by the designated unit on the campus. The evaluation form shall include the following statement: "All written comments will be provided only to the instructor. If you have a complaint about the instructor, you should contact _______________."^[8]

ALTERNATIVE TWO:
--The disposition of written comments on student evaluation forms shall be decided by each college or campus.

Faculty and departments are free to add additional open-ended questions to the required form, but such questions will be in addition to rather than replace the required questions.

--Directions given on student evaluation questionnaires will include the following statement:

"Your responses to this questionnaire are important because they will be used in tenure, promotion and salary decisions for your instructor. Your thoughtful written comments are especially requested, and may help your instructor improve future course offerings. The results of this evaluation (including the evaluation forms) will not be returned to the instructor until after the final grades are submitted for this course." [Suggestion has been made to list these points in bullet form.]

--The evaluation form will ask for information on the student's major, gpa and class year, as well as whether or not the course is in the student's major and whether the course is required or elective for the student. There will also be a request, marked optional, for information on the student's age, gender, and race or ethnicity. [Note: Information about the class size and type (lab, lecture, seminar, etc.) will be included, but this information will be compiled elsewhere.]^[9]

--The following question shall be included in the demographic section of the student evaluation form. The data from this question shall be linked to specific building and room numbers and the summary data by room number shall be provided to the chief academic officer and appropriate classroom management office on each campus to help guide decisions on facilities resource allocation.^[10] [It has been suggested the information should be collected, but not in a demographic section.]

How would you rate the physical environment in which you take this class, especially the classroom facilities, including the effect of the environment on your ability to see, hear, concentrate, and participate?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Very Poor Satisfactory Exceptional

-- The instructions on the evaluation forms shall state that harassing comments or comments on irrelevant factors are not helpful for evaluation of instruction. Faculty should be provided with guidelines on how to process and interpret open-ended student comments, particularly those that are inappropriate.

-- Administering student evaluations will be the responsibility of each instructional unit. Student evaluations used in promotion and salary decisions will be administered at the beginning of a class period, during the last two weeks of instruction for the term. The instructor may give instructions but must not be present while the forms are being completed and collected. The evaluations will be handed out, completed, and collected without the instructor being present. Once collected, evaluations will be put in a sealed envelope or box. It is suggested that a student be asked to hand out and collect the forms. Each instructional unit shall develop its own practices for ensuring that the completed forms are delivered to the appropriate office. If the forms are delivered to the department office, the department should deliver the envelopes to the data processing center without opening the envelopes. The instructor must never touch or see completed forms until after grades are turned in.

--Each campus will determine the appropriate manner of administering and evaluating student evaluation forms. To facilitate tabulation of the results of standardized questions on the student evaluation forms, each campus administration will provide the instructor and the unit chair/head with a summary of the data; the original questionnaires will be returned to the instructor. This summary will include appropriate statistical characterization of the responses to each question and, where a statistically meaningful data base exists, comparison to the responses for the same question on a campus, college, department, and program basis. To make comparative analysis more meaningful, there will also be comparisons on the basis of class type (e.g., large lecture, small discussion, laboratory, upper or lower division, elective, needed to meet university or major requirements). As resources permit, other types of statistical processing and comparisons may be added at the request of faculty or instructional units.

-- Every instructional unit shall have a policy on peer review of faculty and instructional staff teaching efforts and contributions to teaching, both for purposes of promotion decisions and for teaching-based salary increases. Each unit shall determine what documentation will be used for peer review, and (for faculty) how to evaluate theses and dissertations as well as (for all instructors) samples of graded student work. The documentation is to be used as a basis for evaluating the instructor's knowledge of the subject matter as well as the quality of the instructor's instructional activities. Each unit shall determine who shall have access to the documentation for purposes of peer review, and which materials will be retained for future reference.

The documentation shall reflect what each unit determines to be an appropriately cumulative record of the instructor's contributions to the instructional mission of the University. It is the responsibility of the instructor to update the documentation regularly. It is the responsibility of the unit to retain appropriate portions of this material, including cumulative summaries of student evaluations of the instructor's courses. Each unit shall assume responsibility for maintaining the confidentiality of commentaries or conclusions based on the contents of the documentation.

The documentation for each instructor shall contain an appropriately cumulative listing of courses taught by the instructor, a comprehensive syllabus for each course, and examples of exams, assignments and handouts prepared by the instructor. Units may also wish to include, where appropriate, a listing of undergraduate and graduate students undertaking independent study under the supervision of the instructor, information about student performance on certification exams, and a listing of other activities that pertain to the teaching mission of the unit (e.g. participation in teaching-related committee work or curriculum development, publication of textbooks or study guides, participation in educational development programs, etc.) Documentation may also include a one- to-two page self-assessment of the instructor's teaching strengths and weaknesses. Instructors have the option of adding any other materials they believe are indicative of their contributions to teaching.

--Instructors are encouraged to adopt a mid-semester course evaluation process so that the course can be improved as it is delivered.

--The student evaluation form shall also include the following questions, the responses to which shall, with the consent of the instructor, be made available to students.^[11] The responses to these questions may not be used in any reappointment, promotion, salary, or (for tenure-track faculty) tenure decisions.

[NOTE: The Senate has delegated to the Senate Committee on Educational Policy final authority to approve new questions to be used; they will be inserted here.]

--In addition to the questions required by the preceding sections of this policy, a question bank will be provided for the student evaluation process.^[12] The questions would be supplemental to the required questions, would be selected by the instructor, and would be used primarily for improving teaching. Because the supplemental questions from the question bank are to be used for improving teaching, summary results should go to the instructor only. Use of supplemental questions from the question bank is optional. Provision will be made for instructors, should they choose, to add a reasonable number of custom questions that are not included in the bank.

Departments or schools may also require questions from the question bank or from other sources to be used on all forms used in their area. These additional required questions could be used either for evaluation of instructors or for improving teaching, courses or programs. If for the evaluation of instructors, summary results should go to the department. If for improvement of teaching, courses, or programs, summary results should go to the instructor only if the results are to be used by the instructor, or to curriculum committees if the results are to be used for program improvements. Data from questions that are to be used only for improving teaching should not be released by the University to anyone other than the instructor . Data from questions that are to be used for program improvements may be released to department heads and curriculum committees. [LANGUAGE TO BE INCLUDED AT THE END OF THIS PARAGRAPH IF OPTION ONE IN THE PROTOCOL IS ADOPTED: As with the standard forms, written comments are to be provided only to the instructor. The student evaluation form shall notify students that department heads will not see any written comments. (See footnote 8.)]

--Departments shall develop and make available to instructors a written policy that defines (1) which data from student rating forms will be used for personnel decisions and available to department heads and committees charged with reviewing instructor performance, and (2) which data will be made available to curriculum committees for improving courses and programs. (It is assumed that all information from the four required questions will be used for personnel decisions; the written policy required by this section refers to any additional questions that a unit may require on the evaluation forms.)

--Department and college administrators should be held accountable for timely assessment of the evaluative materials assembled for each faculty member. However, for peer review of the documentation for the purpose of promotion or of teaching-related merit pay increases, the faculty in each unit should be free to decide whether they want their dean or head or chair to take responsibility for assessing the quality of teaching, on the basis of the materials, or whether they prefer that the evaluation be done by an advisory group from within the unit or college.

--Each semester, an appropriate University administrator should send a message to every instructor who is receiving data from a course evaluation with a request to make the release questions available to students.^[13]

When adopted, this policy and protocol replaces all earlier policies, protocols, and questions approved by the University or Faculty Senates.

DISCUSSION:

The motion was tabled until December.

FOR INFORMATION:

An item of new business needs to receive a two-thirds majority vote of those present and voting to be considered and voted on at the meeting at which it was introduced. If two-thirds majority vote is not reached, the item will be referred to the Faculty Consultative Committee.

MOTION:

To amend Section 22 of the Statement of Standard Undergraduate Academic Policies and Practices – Twin Cities as follows (new language is underlined; language to be deleted is struck out):

...

Reviewed by the Council of Undergraduate Deans on April 21, 2005, and by the Educational Policy Committee on May 4, 2005. Suggested revisions made by the College Student Affairs Administrators on May 18, 2005.

DISCUSSION:

A motion was made and seconded to suspend the rules to consider an item of new business which deals with an amendment to the Standard Undergraduate Academic Policies and Procedures in relation to academic probation regulations. A vote was taken and the motion was approved to allow the business to be considered.

It was noted that the existing policy allows a student to seesaw between being on probation one semester and off the next semester repeatedly during their academic career. The change being proposed would force a student who is on probation to either get off for both their semester and cumulative GPAs or would remove them from the University.

Vice Provost Swan noted that the changes have been endorsed by the three groups listed at the end of the policy. The proposed changes would ensure consistency across colleges. There was also ambiguity in the current policy for an entering freshman who has a poor fall semester and is put on probation. If this student also has a poor spring semester, there has been a question as to whether or not the student should be permitted to continue the following fall semester. The proposed change states that this would not be allowed. However, it does state that summer session can be used as a recoupment period for someone who could earn a GPA higher enough to be removed from probation.

Q: Is the policy applicable to all campus or just the Twin Cities?

A: It just applies to the Twin Cities.

Q: Could an academic contract be written to be less than a 2.0 GPA? It does not appear that the policy states this requirement.

A: A contract less than a 2.0 is not allowable, but it does allow the department or college to make a contract that is more rigorous.

Q: The policy includes language about remaining on probation if the terms of the contract are met but the cumulative GPA is still below 2.0. Is this not in contrast to what was stated about only allowing a student one semester on suspension?

A: A student could satisfy contract terms that apply to a term GPA and still not be above a 2.0 cumulative GPA. This student, having satisfied the terms of the contract, could still remain enrolled, but on probation. This would relate to freshmen students.

Q: Does the policy apply to graduate and professional students?

A: No, only undergraduate students.

A senator noted that if a student falls below a cumulative 2.0 GPA, there is almost no way to get above the 2.0 in one semester.

Vice Provost Swan noted that a student can have get below a 2.0 for a term GPA and still have a cumulative GPA that is above a 2.0.

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

The meeting was adjourned at 4:50 p.m.

APPENDIX A
MEMORIAL STATEMENTS


Jacob Bearman

Jacob Eliezer “Pete” Bearman, Ph.D., a highly respected teacher and researcher in the area of biostatistics for 25 years, passed away on July 14, 2005, at his home in Be’er Sheva, Israel, at the age of 90.

Bearman was a pioneer in the discipline and practice of clinical trials, now used universally to test therapeutic and preventive approaches to human diseases. He was one of the first statisticians in the country to participate on a clinical trial team and according to his former colleague Marc Kjelsberg, “(Bearman) very much stressed the notion of the statistician being part of the research team.” Bearman directed the data collection and analysis effort on numerous national clinical trials funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), most in the area of cardiovascular health, tobacco use and prevention, and diabetes. He was also involved in research in Minnesota on oral polio vaccines and presented his team’s findings at meetings of the World Health Organization in 1960.

He served on numerous NIH advisory boards and committees during his long career and was frequently published in major scientific and medical journals.

After graduating from the University of Minnesota with bachelor’s, master’s and a Ph.D. in mathematics, Bearman went on to an appointment as professor in the School of Public Health’s Division of Biostatistics from 1958 until his retirement in 1977. He served as Division Head from 1956-1965.

Under Bearman’s leadership, the size and influence of the Biostatistics Division at the University of Minnesota School of Public Health grew to far exceed that of any other accredited School of Public Health in the country. The division continues to be among the largest in the U.S., and continues to be heavily involved in the coordination and interpretation of clinical trials.

In addition to being a prolific researcher, Bearman was a lively, quick-witted personality and a well-loved teacher who brought a great deal of enthusiasm to the classroom.

Upon his retirement in 1978, Bearman and his wife Shirley moved to Be’er Sheva, Israel where he joined the faculty of the Department of Epidemiology at the Medical School of Ben Gurion University. They remained in Israel until his death earlier this year.

“Pete Bearman made numerous important contributions to the field of biostatistics and helped advance the field immeasurably,” said John Connett, professor and current Head of the Division of Biostatistics at the School of Public Health. “His tenure here helped chart the course for the success we continue to enjoy today as a teaching and research program.”

Bearman is survived by his wife, son, Ken Bearman, and three daughters: Deborah Bearman Jewett, Diane Bearman, and Abby Bearman Lutman. Memorials may be directed to the Jacob E. Bearman Scholarship Fund at the School of Public Health, University of Minnesota.

Caron E. Carlberg

Caron E. Carlberg served the University’s physical plant department for many years, and left an indelible mark on this institution. Working in the Physical Planning Office, Mr. Carlberg contributed to the visual aesthetic that is the University of Minnesota Twin Cities campus. We are grateful for his contributions, and express our deepest sympathies to his family and friends.

Evelyn Deno

Evelyn Deno, professor emerita of special education and alumna of the Institute of Child Development, died June 4. She was 94. Deno was an influential leader in special education, and was the first director of special education for the Minneapolis Public Schools. She received three degrees from the college, a B.S. in nursery, kindergarten, and pre-kindergarten in 1948, an M.A. in child development in 1950, and a Ph.D. in child development in 1958. Deno was born on a farm in Norwalk, Wis., graduated from high school at age 16, attended LaCrosse Teacher’s College, and taught nursery and elementary school in Wisconsin and Minneapolis in the 1930s and ’40s. She joined the Minneapolis Public Schools in 1958 as a consultant of special education and rehabilitation; her title was later changed to director, during which time she was involved in writing the first special education law in Minnesota. In 1967, she came back to the college as a professor of educational psychology and director of the Psychoeducational Clinic, which provided psychological diagnostic services to school districts. Deno led the development of a new program to train teachers in special learning disabilities, and remained at the college until 1975. Her son, Stanley Deno, is a professor of special education in the college. In addition to Stanley, she is survived by another son, John Jr., five grandchildren, and seven great-grandchildren.

James L. Donahue

Dr. James L. Donahue, retired Associate Professor of Prosthodontics, University of Minnesota, School of Dentistry, passed away in April of this year.

A native of Albert Lea, Minnesota, Dr. Donahue enjoyed hunting and fishing, which he pursued as a youngster growing up on the family farm. He added golf to the mix in later years and also attended the ballet on a regular basis with his wife, Carol.

Dr. Donahue attended the University of Iowa where he received his Doctor of Dental Surgery degree in 1947, and continued his education in the specialty of Prosthodontics at Indiana University which he completed in 1957. He had a distinguished career as a dentist in the United States Army, retiring in 1971 as a full Colonel and Commanding Officer at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas.

Upon his retirement from the military, Dr. Donahue joined the University of Minnesota, School of Dentistry as an Assistant Professor, and achieved tenure and the rank of Associate Professor by 1975. He was eventually the Chair of the Department of Fixed Prosthodontics and was admired by students, staff, patients, and faculty alike, for his calm demeanor, smile, and readiness to offer help. He was elected Teacher of the Year 8 times from 1972-1991, which he appreciated and valued. Dr. Donahue retired from the School of Dentistry in 1994.

Dr. Donahue was an active member of the American Academy of Fixed Prosthodontics, the American Prosthodontic Society, the Minnesota Prosthodontic Society and Omicron Kappa Upsilon, the Dental School Honor Society.

Dr. Donahue is survived by his wife, Carol, sons Peter and Charles (wife, Gena, and sons Karl and Kristian), brother, John (wife, Janelle), and other numerous loving relatives and friends.

George D Freier

George Freier, Professor Emeritus of Physics, died on Friday May 18^th 2005 at the age of 90. George was born in Ellsworth, WI, on the family farm and frequently described the harsh life of a farm in the early days of the last century. He graduated from River Falls State Teachers college in Wisconsin in 1938 and taught in White Lake Wisconsin until WW II. He received a master of arts degree from the University of Minnesota in 1941 and then worked in the Naval Ordnance Laboratory from 1942 to 1944, developing torpedoes. Returning to the University he was awarded a PhD in nuclear physics in 1949, and was appointed an assistant professor in the same year. His studies with the nuclear physics group led to a number of important discoveries about the behavior of nuclear interactions at low energies. In particular he was the first to demonstrate the production of polarized beams of nucleons. He was appointed a full professor in 1958 at about the time that his interests switched to atmospheric physics.

His work with the high voltages of the University Van de Graaff accelerator led to his interest in thunderstorms and the electrical discharges that produced lightning. He switched his research work from nuclear physics to meteorology and this remained his main topic of research for the rest of his career. After discovering that rain drops were often radioactive he developed a theory of rain drop formation in which the radioactive atoms lead to the nucleation of water vapor to form drops. Using simple but clever instruments he monitored every thunderstorm that occurred in the area, rushing to the roof of the Physics building every time a storm approached. He made a point of collecting all the folk weather lore that he could find and wrote a popular book, “Weather Proverbs” that discussed the basis and validity of all of the proverbs and weather related sayings he had found. He also had a life long interest in the theory and practice of music, building a number of string instruments and studying Newton’s work on musical theory.

George was deeply committed to teaching and believed that the concepts and ideas of physics were best communicated by hands-on demonstrations. His “Demonstration Handbook for Physics” co-written with F. J. Anderson, was widely used in many Universities. In 2002 the University named the demonstration room in the Tate Laboratory of Physics as the George D Freier Lecture Demonstration Room in recognition of his work. He was honored by a Distinguished Service Citation from the American Association of Physics Teachers for his services to undergraduate teaching.

George retired from the University in 1985, when he reached the mandatory retirement age of 70. He was preceded in death by his wife, Phyllis, who was also a Professor of Physics at the University. He is survived by his son, David and daughter Susan, as well as three grand children.

Joan Gordan

Joan Gordon, emeritus professor in the Department of Food Science and Nutrition, St. Paul Campus, University of Minnesota, died in Minneapolis, Minnesota, on August 24, 2005 at the age of 82.

Joan received her Ph.D. in home economics, with a minor in agricultural biochemistry, from the University of Minnesota in 1953. She joined the University faculty in 1947 and became an assistant professor in 1954. She was promoted to associate professor in 1955. She went to Pennsylvania State University to be a professor in food and nutrition in the College of Human Development from 1960-1967. She returned to be a professor at the University of Minnesota in 1967. She served as chair of the Food Division in the School of Home Economics from 1970-1972. Joan was very instrumental in the leadership following the administrative changes in the early 1970s which made it reasonable to create a new department by combining the Food Department and the Nutrition and Food Service Administration Department (College of Home Economics) with the Food and Industries Department (College of Agriculture) to form a new and present Department of Food Science and Nutrition. Upon her retirement in 1993, she became emeritus professor and continued in that position until her death.

During her University of Minnesota career, she completed 16 masters students and 9 Ph.D. students, and she had numerous undergraduate advisees. She maintained contact with many of her former students through the years. In recognition of her work, she received numerous awards and honors.

Her teaching primarily addressed the chemical and physical interactions resulting from preparation and processing of foods. She pursued research in the areas of cereal, dairy and meat chemistry; the effects on conventional and microwave heating on foods and the sensory characteristics of food. She applied several new analytical methods to the study of food. She authored more than 150 scientific papers, and maintained an active research program well into her retirement.

She is survived by her nephew James Gordon, Jr. of New Jersey and her niece, Anne Sevee of Vermont and many colleagues and friends.

Memorials preferred to the Professor Joan Gordon Memorial Scholarship in the Department of Food Science and Nutrition at the University of Minnesota. (University of Minnesota Foundation, 500 McNamara Alumni Center, 200 Oak St. S.E., Mpls., MN 55455.

Henry L. Hansen

Henry was an outstanding scholar; valedictorian of his St. Cloud Tech high school class at age 16 and a straight "A" student at the U of M, receiving his BS in 1935 and Ph.D. in 1946, both in Forestry. A faculty member first at the U of M, he briefly taught at Michigan State University and Clemson College before coming back to the "U". He taught thousands of students to understand, love and care for Minnesota's woods.

Henry believed in physical, mental and spiritual health. He was a high school pole vaulter, U of M wrestler, cross country skier, sailor, and until age 86 an avid swimmer. He loved to read, everything from Horatio Hornblower to Kipling, and was also a crossword puzzle whiz. He was a skilled writer; as editor of his high school newspaper, for the Minnesota Daily, and during his career interpreting his research for the general public. He was vice-president of his church, a Sunday school teacher and Boy Scout leader. Henry led a vigorous life.

To finish his college education during the Depression he helped map land and forests in the Boundary Waters for the US Forest Service. During WWII he was an inspector for the Army Air Corps glider program, and later an aerial gunnery instructor as a Navy Lieutenant. He started Hansen Tree Farm on the sand plain outside Anoka, now a thriving forest and Christmas tree farm run by his children and grandchildren. He loved his summers with friends and family at Itasca State Park and Leech Lake, made and over a dozen trips to Norway to visit relatives and learn Scandinavian models of wildland management.

His research and teaching covered many areas of forest ecology, focusing on regeneration of Minnesota's pine forests. He believed in the use of forests for recreation, timber and wildlife. He was a founding force for the Minnesota State Scientific and Natural Areas, the University's Quetico- Superior Wilderness Research Center, and forest ecology research at Itasca State Park, Isle Royale National Park and many others. His impact is now visible, to this and future generations.

Memorials preferred to: Hansen Forest Ecology Fellowship - Fund #5613. U of M - CNR, 2003 Upper Buford Circle, St. Paul, MN 55108-6146

Robert Jevne

Robert (Bob) Jevne, longtime librarian at the University of Minnesota, died peacefully of natural causes on December 27, 2004. He was 86 years old. Friends and colleagues celebrated his life at a ceremony and reception at the Campus Club on January 21, 2005.

Professor Jevne was born in International Falls, Minnesota and spent his childhood there. In the 1930s, his family moved to Minneapolis, where he graduated from Washburn High School. After studying English at the University of Minnesota and Drama at the Max Rhinehardt Theater Workshop in Hollywood, he served with the U.S. Army in England and Germany during World War II. When discharged, Professor Jevne was drawn back to Europe, where he studied at the University of Geneva, the Sorbonne, and Oxford University. He earned his Master's Degree in English Literature at the University of Minnesota in 1949, and for some years taught English at Minnesota, Washington State University, and the University of Arizona.

In 1963, Professor Jevne received a Master's Degree in Library Science from the University of Minnesota and began his 20-year career as a Librarian here. He held a faculty appointment in Acquisitions at the Libraries, where he was responsible for English literature and language, and later also for American literature. He was promoted to Instructor and Librarian in 1966.

He seemed to have read everything in English and American literature, and he remembered everything he read. He had been a student and member of the English Department during its glory days, and had taken classes from notable faculty including Sterling Brown, Alan Tate, and others. Professor Jevne had strong tastes and liked nothing better than to talk about literature. He had the most catholic of literary tastes, and his good judgment was honed from years of study. His ambition in building the collection led him to attempt to acquire, he once told a colleague, every edition of every important work. The riches of the collections for the late 1960s, the 1970s, and the early 1980s reflect his knowledge and his diligence.

After his retirement in 1983, Professor Jevne worked as a volunteer in the Book Preservation department in Wilson Library, doing bibliographical research with a team of book preservation staff. He served the University Libraries until his health began to fail in October 2004. The University Libraries were Professor Jevne's second home for 40 years, and he cherished the warm friendships he found here.

Professor Jevne never married but was a devoted family member, much loved by all his relations and in-laws. He took part with gusto in family hockey, tennis and golf games, spending many weekends at the family lake home on Round Lake, near Garrison. He lived in a large house on Holmes Avenue with his parents, caring for them lovingly until their deaths in the 1970s. Thereafter he congenially shared his home with many young students over the years, all of them remaining fast friends for life.

A staunch Democrat and humanitarian, Professor Jevne strongly supported causes furthering equal rights and opportunities for all. Music, art, travel and books were his passions. Most especially books! Professor Jevne was amusing and fun to be with. To receive a letter from him was a delight - he wrote wittily and well. He loved laughter, friends and family, good food, good wine, and good company. He was a scholar and a gentleman. We at the University Libraries feel privileged to have had him in our lives.

Professor Jevne is survived by his sister Bee Burris, his brother Franz (Perk) Jevne, and seven nephews. Memorials are preferred to tsunami relief organizations.

William H. Knobloch

William H. Knobloch MD, Professor Emeritus and former Interim Chair in the Department of Ophthalmology at the University of Minnesota, was considered by regional ophthalmologists as the grandfather of medical and surgical retina in Minnesota. Dr. Knobloch was the first sub-specialty trained retina individual in the region. After his ophthalmology training, he studied with Dr. Paul Cibis in St. Louis, in 1963-64. His career at the University of Minnesota extended from 1964 until he retired in 1998. His level of skill, dexterity, and efficiency in the operating room amazed those of us, who had the unique opportunity to observe this master surgeon. Dr. Knobloch has helped more than 10,000 patients with retinal detachment in his career. Before retinal detachment became an outpatient procedure, Dr. Knobloch had more admissions to the University of Minnesota Hospital than any other physician for nearly a decade, and served as the primary detachment surgeon for the 5 state region for years.

Before Dr. Knobloch was a retina specialist, he was a general practitioner and this is where he adopted his practice philosophy of treating the patient as a whole person, rather than only addressing the sub-specialty retina. Dr. Knobloch was compassionate physician and was always able to connect personally with his patients to relieve many of their fears and anxieties. The same can be said for his mentorship in training resident physicians in ophthalmology. He has guided many of us who practice in Minnesota and numerous physicians who now practice across the United States in understanding patients in addition to their specific retinal disorder. Dr. Knobloch loved teaching and was a master in the classroom. He is famous for a photographic memory and could recall details of the retinal exam, even of patients that he had seen or cases that were presented years earlier.

Dr. Knobloch is revered across the nation by his contributions to our field. Indeed, Knobloch’s Syndrome (a specific form of inherited retinal detachment) has recently been found to be associated with specific genetic mutations. Dr. Knobloch’s keen diagnostic skill has been instrumental in leading genetic researchers in their search for such mutations. Dr. Knobloch was very proud of the recent progress that is being made in ophthalmic research of the condition that he first described.

Dr. Knobloch will be dearly missed by his wife Donna, family, friends, and the entire ophthalmology community.

Anatoly Larkin

The William I. Fine Theoretical Physics Institute, the School of Physics and Astronomy and the Institute of Technology lost a distinguished colleague when Professor Anatoly Larkin died suddenly, on August 4, 2005 in Aspen Colorado.  Professor Larkin, who was 72, had been attending a physics workshop at the Aspen Center for Physics. 

Larkin joined the University of Minnesota in 1995 after a prestigious career in Russia.  He was a world renowned condensed matter theorist specializing in superconductivity and statistical physics.  Many of his former students hold leading academic positions at universities and institutes around the world. 

Larkin received his M.S. from the Moscow Physical Engineering Institute in 1956, His Ph.D. from the Kurchatov Institute in 1960 and his Habilitation from the Kurchatov Institute in 1965.  He was a researcher at the Kurchatov Institute from 1957 to 1966, and became a department head at the Landau Institute for Theoretical Physics in 1966, serving until 1995.  He was also a professor at Moscow State University from 1970 – 1991.  In 1995, he became the William and Bianca Fine Professor of Theoretical Condensed Matter Physics in the William I. Fine Theoretical Physics Institute at the University of Minnesota. 

Larkin is known for his prediction of the phenomenon of paraconductivity in superconducting materials, the development of the theory of collective pinning of vortices in superconductors, for the development of theory of weak localization in disorder metals, and the prediction of inhomogeneous superconductivity in superconductors that are also weakly ferromagnetic.  He also proposed the renormalization group approach to the description of second order phase transitions. 

Larkin’s important contributions to physics were widely recognized.  He became a full member of the Russian Academy of Sciences in 1991.  He received the London Prize for low temperature physics in 1990, the Hewlett-Packard Europhysics Prize for condensed matter physics in 1993, the Onsager Prize for statistical physics in 2002, and the John Bardeen Prize for superconductivity in 2003. 

Larkin published more than 50 papers during his ten years at Minnesota as well as the 600-page monograph, “Theory of Fluctuations in Superconductors.”  He was a major intellectual force in the School of Physics and Astronomy, attracting numerous visitors, and impacting the training of a couple of generations of students of condensed matter physics. 

His colleagues and students will miss Anatoly Larkin.  He was truly a giant in the field of condensed matter physics and a great teacher of theoretical physicists. 

Larkin is survived by his wife Tatiana, his sons, Victor and Ivan, his daughter’s in-law Marina and Victoria, his grandchildren Alexander, Maria, Ilia, Anatoly and Timothy, and great-grandchildren Sofia and George.  

Ernest B. Lee

Ernest Bruce Lee, the Vincentine Hermes-Luh Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering and an I.T. Distinguished Professor, passed away on April 15, 2005 at age 73.

Professor Lee studied mechanical engineering, earning the B.S. degree in 1955 and the M.S. degree in 1956 from the University of North Dakota, and the Ph.D. from the University of Minnesota in 1960. He was with Honeywell, Inc. as a senior research engineer from 1956 till 1963, at which time he joined the University of Minnesota as an associate professor of electrical engineering. He was promoted to the rank of full professor in 1966, served as the Acting Head of the Department of Computer Science 1969-1970, as the Head of the Department of Electrical Engineering, 1976-1982, and again as the Acting Head of the EE Department in 1983-1984. He was a founder of the Center for Control Science and Dynamical Systems, and was its Co-Director for many years. His other academic appointments included Visiting Professor, Caltech, 1968, Sr. Visiting Fellow, Science Research Council (England), 1968-1972, Visiting Professor, Technical University of Warsaw, 1976-1979, Universite de Montreal, Candada, 1978, and the University of Florida, 1983.

Professor Lee was long the leader of the Systems and Controls Group in Electrical Engineering, and the strength of his reputation in this area helped attract some of the most outstanding control scientists and engineers in the world to Minnesota, as well as help forge collaborations with faculty and students in several of the departments in the Institute of Technology. These departments include Mathematics, Mechanical Engineering, Chemical Engineering, Aerospace Engineering and Computer Science.

As a leading educat