The fifth meeting of the University Senate and Faculty Senate was convened in Coffman Theatre, Minneapolis campus, on Thursday, May 4, 2006, at 2:34 p.m., as a joint meeting of the bodies. Coordinate campuses were linked by telephone. Checking or signing the roll as present were 21 academic professional members, 18 civil service members, 108 faculty/faculty-like academic professional members, and 19 student members. President Bruininks presided.

2. TRIBUTE TO DECEASED MEMBERS OF THE UNIVERSITY COMMUNITY

FACULTY/ACADEMIC PROFESSIONALS/STAFF

George L. Adams
Professor
Otolaryngology
1941 – 2006

Kimberly M. Dippo
Adjunct Instructor
Family Medicine and Community Health
1972 – 2006

Marie J. Eller
Assistant Professor
Library Central Technical Services
1919 – 2006

Stuart W. Fenton
Professor
Chemistry
1922 – 2006

Heinrich Fleischer
Professor
Music

Michaeleen Fox
Director
Planning and Academic Affairs
1945 – 2006

Kamal Gindy
Professor
Psychology - Duluth
1929 – 2006

John L. Kroening
Professor
Physics - Duluth
1934 – 2006

STUDENTS

David T. Chung
College of Liberal Arts


3. CLERK OF THE SENATE REPORT
Nominating Committee Election Results
Information for the Faculty Senate

FOR INFORMATION:

In the recent election to fill one vacancy on the Nominating Committee, Professor Erdman was elected to a three-year term (July 1, 2006 through June 30, 2009). The members of the Nominating Committee for 2006-07 will be:

F. Ronald Akehurst, College of Liberal Arts
Arthur Erdman, Institute of Technology
Catherine French, Institute of Technology
Gary Gardner, College of Agricultural, Food, and Environmental Sciences
Judith Garrard, School of Public Heath
Jean Quam, College of Human Ecology
Nelson Rhodus, School of Dentistry
Leslie Schiff, Medical School
W. Phillips Shively, College of Liberal Arts

FOR INFORMATION:

Following the April 6, 2006, Faculty Senate meeting, an electronic vote was taken to pass one proposed constitutional amendment (Item #18) and one proposed bylaw amendment (Item #19). At the end of the three working day voting period, Item 18 received 125 votes in favor of and 6 votes opposed and Item 19 received 127 votes in favor, 3 opposed, and 1 abstention. These motions were approved. Item 18, which is a Constitutional amendment, will now be presented to the President and the Board of Regents for approval.

FOR INFORMATION:

In the recent election for executive committee members and senators, the following people were elected:

FOR INFORMATION:

The Benefits and Advisory Subcommittee on the Council of Academic Professionals and Administrators would like to thank the Faculty Affairs Committee for their work this semester on the following vacation policy recommendations for academic professionals and 12 month faculty.

Background
As stated in the draft Strategic Positioning Report, “The University of Minnesota: Advancing the Public Good: Securing the University's Leadership Position In the 21^st Century” the goal for the University over the next decade is to become one of the three best public research institutions in the world. One of the five action strategies cited in the strategic plan is to “recruit, mentor, reward and retain outstanding faculty and staff”. Salary and benefits play an important role in the ability of the University to recruit a competitive work force.

CAPA believes the current vacation policy for full-time, academic employees is inadequate and must be revised for the following reasons:

Recommendation
CAPA recommends that the vacation policy for P&A employees with 12-month appointments at 67% time or greater be changed to the following:

On February 18, 1999, in adopting a policy on "Collection and Reporting of Grade Data and Syllabus Requirements," the Senate Committee on Educational Policy was required to provide to the Senate "data on the mean grade point average by designator and course level, on the percentage of As awarded by course level, and overall collegiate grade point averages . . . for grades awarded each Fall Semester." The policy also provides that "data should be reported for all undergraduate students."

COMMENT:

These data were distributed at the meeting.

Professor Jean Bauer, Chair of the Senate and Faculty Consultative Committees (SCC/FCC), said that the FCC discussed the intellectual future of the University during its April meeting. The focus was on the need for continuing strategies of communicating and how the University ensures that one part of the University does not override another part in its current positioning environment.

The FCC has also deepened its engagement in administrative searches, and discussed administrative services transformation with Vice President O’Brien and the faculty culture task force report with Provost Sullivan.

In closing, Professor Bauer thanked Professor John S. Sullivan for his work as FCC Vice Chair, as well as the other elected, appointed, and ex officio members. She noted that next year’s FCC Chair is Professor Carol Chomsky and the Vice Chair is Professor Scott Lanyon.

Professor Jean Bauer, Chair of the Senate Consultative Committee (SCC), introduced Beverly Durgan, Dean of the University of Minnesota Extension Service.

MOTION:

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

http://www1.umn.edu/usenate/usen/060406sen.html

DISCUSSION:

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

President Bruininks reported that this has been a busy year in St. Paul promoting the agenda of the University and on campus working through the strategic positioning process. This process was launched last year in the University Senate. The debate and vote at that meeting was the finest example of debate and discussion in his 38 years at the University. He thanked senators for putting the correct issues on the table and framing the recommendations that were approved by the Regents. The issue was a great example of how governance can work well in a complex institution.

The year was started with 34 task forces and over 500 people working on them. Much of the success of this effort is due to the hard work of Provost Sullivan, senior officers, and faculty leaders. All task forces have now issued reports and serious attention is being paid to their recommendations.

This has been a spirited and active time for the University and President Bruininks is confident that the work done this year will lay a solid foundation for taking the University forward and improving the quality and impact of the University into the future.

Reports will soon be brought to the Regents and the University community that will synthesize the results of the task forces and the recommendations. The Regents will receive a preliminary report in July, with a more formal document presentation in September to the Regents and University community.

There are many ideas that are already underway, such as the new college names approved by the Regents. Integrating college cultures is also progressing successfully, but likely not without some problems to resolve. He has been pleased with the hard work and creative endeavors of the people who have worked on the collegiate integration.

The University is also announcing a new Institute on the Environment. There are only a few places in the United States that have interdisciplinary centers focusing on the environment, and many people at the University believe that it has unparalleled resources and opportunities in this area. This Institute will knit together current faculty and centers to work on issues as a whole. The Institute on Advanced Study was stated last year as part of the arts and humanities initiative, and he believes that its agenda needs to be expanded to other disciplinary fields.

Another cluster of activities that will make a difference in the long-term future of all campuses has to do with the improvement of undergraduate education. For the Twin Cities campus, this will include expanded honors opportunities, a writing initiative, major investments in academic advising and career services, and vast improvements in funding and providing scholarships and need-based financial aid. There will be close to a $25 million University investment, matched with private gifts, to catapult the University into a national position of leadership in providing aid and financial support to low-income students.

Much more work needs to be done on all the ideas generated by the strategic positioning process, but there will be a much more complete picture in the fall.

Turning to the legislative session, three University bills remain unapproved and there are only 17 days remaining until adjournment. The University has an ambitious capital bill and it is in a good position at this time. He is hoping for a good compromise bill between the House and Senate to fund all the major building initiatives.

The President said that several people will be testifying tonight before the Senate on the biomedical sciences bill, which asks the state to make a ten-year capital investment in the future of the University. It would lead to a strong position for the University in the global economy of research and development.

The most interesting bill to watch deals with the on-campus stadium. The vote from the House was very bipartisan, while the debate in the Senate has been along political lines. He is optimistic that this bill will be approved in this session.

MOTION:

To supercede current Policy on Student Evaluation of Instruction with the revised version that follows.

Draft Policy and Protocol on the Evaluation of Instruction
February 15, 2006

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. Instructors may require students to participate in course evaluations but any system for gathering student evaluations, whether paper or electronic, shall include an opt-out provision allowing students to decline to respond to questions,

--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.

--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.^[3]

--The information collected pursuant to this policy to evaluate teaching effectiveness for personnel decisions remains confidential.^[4] 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.^[5]

--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.^[6]

--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?"

--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."

--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.]^[7]

--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.^[8]

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.^[9] 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.^[10] 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.

--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.^[11]

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

COMMENTS:

Following discussion at the December 1 and March 2 Faculty Senate meetings, this policy is being brought today for action.

DISCUSSION:

Professor Richard McCormick, Chair of the Educational Policy Committee (SCEP), said that this item has been presented to the Faculty Senate three times this year for information and discussion. The policy itself reconciles two separate policies on evaluation from the early 1990s.

In December, the discussion focused on the distribution of written comments and the majority of senators felt that the decision should be made at the unit or department level, as is currently the practice. Therefore no change was made to the policy, even though recent newspaper articles have implied that access to these comments would be restricted.

A discussion in December also focused on the mandated questions that are part of the evaluation and the need for them to be updated. Since that meeting, SCEP and the Faculty Affairs Committee (SCFA) have established a joint subcommittee to reconsider the questions. The membership will be: four faculty – two from SCEP and two from SCFA, two students – one undergraduate and one graduate, one faculty-like academic professional, and two staff members – David Langley from the Center for Teaching and Learning Services and Thomas Dohm from the Office of Measurement Services. The members will be appointed soon and work will commence in the fall.

A senator commented that she appreciated the inclusion of a faculty-like academic professional representative on this subcommittee.

Another senator then said that some faculty-like academic professional solely have teaching responsibilities and therefore are heavily governed by this policy, since it is the only factor that determines their merit pay increase. While the policy calls for the use of both evaluations and peer review, there is the question of what constitutes peer review for faculty-like academic professional.

A senator noted that this policy contains many positive elements, but the package as a whole is flawed since the implied driving force is to identify poor teaching and institute consequences. The vast majority of faculty care deeply about the quality of their teaching and do a fine job. The proposed solution to identify a small percentage of poor teachers is to impose a large administrative burden on all faculty. This change will require substantially more peer review and he is convinced that it will be effect since negative peer reviews are extremely rare. While this package contains constructive elements, it cannot be supported as a whole because it will not improve the quality of teaching.

Professor McCormick said that the provisions for peer review in this policy are not a change from in previous versions of the policy.

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

MOTION:

That the Twin Cities Faculty Delegation approve the following slate of nominees to fill four 2006-09 Twin Cities faculty vacancies on the Committee on Committees. A simple majority is required for approval. Once the slate is approved, a ballot will be distributed for voting.

FIRST PAIR
KUMAR BELANI: Professor of Anesthesiology, Medical School. University Senate member: None. Senate/Assembly Committee participation (past and present): None.

J. MICHAEL OAKES: Assistant Professor of Epidemiology, School of Public Health. University Senate member: 2004-07. Senate/Assembly Committee participation (past and present): None.

SECOND PAIR
CLAUDIA NEUHAUSER: Professor of Ecology, Evolution, and Behavior, College of Biological Sciences. University Senate member: None. Senate/Assembly Committee participation (past and present): Educational Policy, 2005-08.

MICHAEL SADOWSKY: Professor of Soil, Water, and Climate, College of Agricultural, Food, and Environmental Sciences. University Senate member: 1995-98. Senate/Assembly Committee participation (past and present): Faculty Affairs, 1192-95; Judicial, 1996-2002, 2003-06.

THIRD PAIR
PRISCILLA GIBSON: Associate Professor of Social Work, College of Human Ecology. University Senate member: None. Senate/Assembly Committee participation (past and present):.

ALLEN LEVINE: Professor of Food Science and Nutrition, College of Human Ecology. University Senate member: None. Senate/Assembly Committee participation (past and present):.

FOURTH PAIR
KATHLEEN KRICHBAUM: Associate Professor of Nursing, School of Nursing. University Senate member: None. Senate/Assembly Committee participation (past and present): AHC Faculty Consultative, 1998-00, 2003-2006 (Chair, 2004-06).

TOM SCOTT: Professor of Political Science, College of Liberal Arts. University Senate member: 1982-85, 1995-96. Senate/Assembly Committee participation (past and present): Committee on Committees, 1987-90 (Chair, 1988-90); Consultative, 1990-92 (Chair, 1991-92); Judicial, 2003-09; Facilities Management, 1985-88 (Chair, 1986-88); Finance, 1981-84, 1986-88.

FOR INFORMATION:

The Faculty Senate Bylaws specify that the Twin Cities Faculty Delegation shall elect by written ballot faculty/academic professional members to fill vacancies on the Committee on Committees from a slate of candidates provided by the Nominating Committee. Other candidates may be nominated by petition of 12 members of the Twin Cities Faculty Delegation. Petitions to nominate candidates not on the slate must be in the hands of the Clerk on the day before the meeting at which the election is to be conducted. The elected Twin Cities faculty members of the committee whose term continue at least through 2006-07 are:

David Born, School of Dentistry
Anna Clark, College of Liberal Arts
Robert Gehrz, Institute of Technology
Gordon Hirsch, College of Liberal Arts
Joan Howland, Law School
Mary Jo Kreitzer, School of Nursing
Perry Leo, Institute of Technology
Carl Rosen, College of Agricultural, Food, and Environmental Sciences

DISCUSSION:

With no discussion a vote was taken and the motion was approved. Ballots were then distributed and Professors Priscilla Gibson, J. Michael Oakes, Michael Sadowsky, and Tom Scott were elected to the Committee on Committees.

Professor Martin Sampson, Faculty Legislative Liaison, said that there are two key priorities for the University at the legislature. One is the capital investment bill and the other is the biomedical sciences building bonding authority proposal. The capital investment bill is in conference committee and the two houses are separated by the amount of one building, the replacement of the Science Classroom Building.

The bonding authority bill is also in committee and there is speculation about what will happen. There is some opposition from people who feel that there should be a rough parity between MnSCU and the University. There is also opposition on the basis that this is expensive for the state. Lastly, there is a significant amount of support which considers this bill a must-do for the session. He said that this is a moment in which contacting legislators is absolutely crucial.

A third bill deals with the stadium. The bill has been overwhelmingly approved by the House, and the debate in the Senate currently focuses on different philosophies of how to fund the stadium.

In closing, he asked that any faculty interested in serving as a legislative liaison for next year should contact the Faculty Consultative Committee Chair.

The meeting was adjourned at 3:32 p.m.

^[1] In this policy and protocol, the term "instructor" includes all who deliver instruction regardless of academic rank, appointment status, and so on. At some points in the policy, there will be a distinction between (1) tenured and tenure-track faculty, and (2) all others who deliver instruction; in the latter case, the language will refer to faculty and instructional staff.
^[2] This policy and protocol shall apply to student evaluation of courses having no more than two instructors. In other cases departments and/or colleges that wish to develop alternative evaluation procedures must seek written approval from SCEP. SCEP is open to discussion with units in which student evaluation procedures must meet national accreditation standards.

^[3] It is to a faculty member's benefit to prepare and regularly update a teaching portfolio that contains materials that will be considered during his/her evaluation. This policy is not meant to exclude continued use of other mechanisms for peer review that may already be in place in academic units, such as classroom visitation.

^[4] As required by Minnesota state law at the time this policy is adopted.
^[5] The Senate Committee on Educational Policy is concerned about the very low response rates when students are asked to fill out evaluation forms on the web, outside of class.
^[6] Responsibility for providing this information rests with the Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs and Provost, the chancellors, and the deans. Training for new department heads/chairs and for deans should include this information as well.

^[7] Age/gender/ethnicity information shall be requested because the information obtained can be useful to instructors in demonstrating how different groups respond to his/her teaching; problems with different race/gender/age groups can be identified and addressed. Other personal information--class year, GPA, major, and whether the class was elective or required—will be requested (not marked optional) because these factors have been shown in prior research to have an effect on student evaluations.

^[8] Variants of this question should be developed for classes that use multiple rooms, for field study class, for on-line classes, and for other classes that differ from the lecture-in-one-room format.
^[9] On the web, for instance.
^[10] The University administration will provide the question bank on a website.

^[11] Reminders each semester coupled with a very easy method to grant permission should increase the number of instructors who choose to release their data. The course release information should be cataloged by course along with instructor and should have a link at the entry for the course in the on-line Course Guide. This will make it easier for students to find information about a course.