The meeting of the University Senate and Faculty Senate for 2006-07 was convened in Coffman Theatre on Thursday, April 5, 2007, at 2:30 p.m., as a joint meeting of the two bodies. Coordinate campuses were linked by telephone. Checking or signing the roll as present were 23 academic professional members, 18 civil service members, 123 faculty/academic professional members, and 18 student members. Vice Chair Mary Jo Kane presided.

FOR INFORMATION:

The Crookston 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, and 2011-11 calendars have been changed as follows (new language is underlined, language to be deleted is struck out).

Crookston 2007-08

Fall Semester 2007 (75 class days)

SECTION I. SCOPE.

This policy governs compensation and recognition for University of Minnesota (University) employees.

SECTION II. DEFINITIONS.

Subd. 1. Compensation. Compensation shall mean base salary and additional payments to employees, such as augmentations, lump sum payments, and incentives.

Subd. 2. Recognition. Recognition shall mean formal and informal acknowledgement of work or service performed.

SECTION III. GUIDING PRINCIPLES.

The following principles shall guide the University's compensation and recognition systems:

(a)The University strives to achieve and maintain a compensation structure that, when combined with benefits and other rewards, is competitive relative to institutional peers and other appropriate labor markets and serves to attract and retain a high performance workforce.

(b) The University seeks to reward meritorious performance and employee contribution to the success of the University through compensation and other forms of recognition.

(c) In the setting of initial salaries and subsequent pay adjustments, the University considers the work responsibilities, market, internal equity, experience and expertise, performance, and other criteria as appropriate.

(d) The University adheres to compensation and recognition practices that are fair and equitable in design, application, and delivery.

SECTION IV. IMPLEMENTATION.

Subd. 1. Compensation System. The University's compensation system shall articulate current compensation strategies, describe forms of pay, identify funding sources, and outline annual compensation plans for each employee group. Responsible administrators shall be held accountable for disseminating salary and other compensation within the defined parameters of the annual plans in a manner that supports the academic direction and investment strategies of the University. The University compensation system shall (a) be administered in a manner that complies with all applicable federal, state, and local regulations and laws and (b) be consistent with applicable administrative policies, rules, and collective bargaining agreements.

Subd. 2. Recognition System. The University shall have programs of awards, honors, and events that recognize excellence in performance by individuals, groups, and units.

SECTION V. MONITORING AND REPORTING.

The president or delegate shall monitor the effectiveness of compensation and recognition programs and report annually to the Board of Regents.

Endorsed by the Faculty Affairs Committee February 13, 2007

SECTION I. SCOPE.

This policy governs performance evaluation and development of University of Minnesota (University) faculty, academic professional and administrative, civil service, and union-represented staff employees.

SECTION II. DEFINITIONS.

Subd. 1. Performance Evaluation and Development. Performance evaluation and development shall mean a process undertaken between responsible administrators/supervisors and the employees reporting to them. This process includes assessing, guiding, improving, and recognizing employee performance, resulting in effective achievement of organizational and individual goals.

SECTION III. GUIDING PRINCIPLES.

The following principles shall guide the University's evaluation and development of employee performance:

(a) The University cultivates a high performing workforce through employee performance evaluation and development that engages the entire organization, is appropriate to the nature of the work, recognizes and rewards exemplary performance, and addresses substandard performance.

(b) The University is committed to assessing and supporting the development of the behavioral and functional competence of its employees, consistent with expressed academic and administrative needs, the role of the employee, and performance expectations.

(c) The University is committed to a performance evaluation process that incorporates regular feedback and candid discussion about performance.

(d) The University is committed to responsible investments in its employees through professional development, education, and training directed at maximizing productivity, enhancing employee personal and professional competencies, supporting employees as they seek new career opportunities within the University, and generating a succession of leaders prepared and able to lead the University into the future.

(e) The University holds its leaders, responsible administrators, and supervisors accountable for actively supporting and engaging in the performance evaluation and development process in a fair and equitable manner and for ensuring the alignment of employee and organizational goals and priorities.

SECTION IV. PERFORMANCE REVIEWS.

University leaders, responsible administrators, and supervisors shall conduct performance reviews for purposes of evaluation and development. The University expects ongoing evaluation of employee performance, with regularly conducted and documented reviews of all employees administered according to applicable administrative policies, rules, and collective bargaining agreements.

SECTION V. EMPLOYER RESPONSIBILITY.

Subd. 1. Leadership Accountability. University leaders, responsible administrators, and supervisors shall be held accountable for implementing a performance evaluation and development process that is consistent in the treatment of employees, provides for accurate performance reviews, and encourages open communication.

Subd. 2. Implementation. The University shall provide to its leaders, responsible administrators, and supervisors the necessary resources, tools, and training to effectively manage employee performance.

SECTION VI. EMPLOYEE RESPONSIBILITY.

Employees are expected to (a) understand the importance of their contribution to the University's mission, values, and success and (b) to exercise responsibility for actively engaging in the performance evaluation process and subsequent development efforts.

Endorsed by the Faculty Affairs Committee February 13, 2007

FOR INFORMATION:

At the February 15, 2007, Faculty Senate meeting the Faculty Affairs Committee presented a Statement on Faculty Salaries for approval. The Faculty Senate amended the motion to ask the Faculty Consultative Committee (FCC) to development a statement that would also address enhancements to undergraduate and graduate education and library support. The following statement is what was drafted and approved by the FCC.

The Faculty Senate expresses its deep concern about the Governor’s recent decision not to request funding for general faculty and staff compensation or for enhancing undergraduate and graduate education in the FY 2008 and FY2009 budgets. At stake is the quality of Minnesota’s only research university, which educates tomorrow’s leaders, attracts hundreds of millions of dollars of research funding, engages in research that spawns important innovations both for the state’s economy and the improvement of human lives, and provides a vast array of service within the state.

The Governor’s budget choices are short-sighted. They fail to recognize the critical connection between investment and excellence in higher education. Competitive salaries for faculty and staff are the foundation for achieving excellence, and for advancing the University’s goal to be among the best public research universities in the world. University of Minnesota faculty salaries are already low. Out of the top 30 research universities in the United States, we rank 27^th in salaries and 22^nd in total compensation. Public research universities compete with private research universities for the same faculty and for the same research funds but cannot do so if the public does not invest the necessary resources. The state and its people are best-served by having public institutions lead in both education and research, and in the service to the state that follows. Salaries must be competitive with private universities in order to maintain that leadership. The Governor’s budget request ignores that necessity.

The Governor has called for merit-based pay in the schools to foster institutional improvement, but fails to include the core funding for University of Minnesota faculty salaries, which are already made on a merit basis. We are unlikely to maintain much less improve our ranking without sufficient resources to attract and keep productive and innovative faculty and staff, and to reward those who perform well.

Residing at the cellar in salaries cannot square with the state’s continuing need for a first-rate research university – the research money it attracts, the innovation it contributes to the economy, the education it provides to students, and its service to the state. State investment must increase, not stagnate or drop in real terms, as it has in recent years. Having a strong and vital public research university in Minnesota is vital to the state’s ability to compete in a global, knowledge-based economy, and market-level salaries are key.

The Governor has also chosen to request zero dollars for the items in the university’s $24.9 million request to sustain the quality and competitiveness of the university. The funds are sought to improve the undergraduate writing program, to support library funding, to enhance undergraduate research opportunities, to expand academic advising, and to increase graduate student support. Like salaries, these items are the foundation for excellence in education at the University. We cannot compete for the best graduate students without competitive funding for them, and attracting highly qualified graduate students is vital for achieving high rankings, for retaining our most productive faculty, and for supporting an ambitious research agenda. Great universities must have great library resources to support both research and teaching. And dedication to quality undergraduate education demands better funding for undergraduate research, expanding writing opportunities and guidance, and providing more extensive academic advising. Under-funding these initiatives is as short-sighted as under-funding salaries for the faculty and staff. We cannot aspire to greater heights without adequate funding for the core of the University’s functions.

Many in the state have applauded the University’s strategic positioning initiative aiming to improve the standing of the University. We have worked hard to identify the critical steps to be taken to achieve even greater excellence and to provide the state with the leadership it needs in research, education, and service. We cannot achieve those goals without adequate funding. While we appreciate the money the Governor has recommended for "Competitive Compensation" and new research initiatives, what is the point of funding new initiatives while neglecting to fund our core needs? How can we undertake new research initiatives successfully if we do not have the salaries to attract and retain top research faculty? Why would the Governor approve no money for salary increases in one of the only public institutions in the state that grants salary increases only on the basis of merit, the system the Governor has long advocated? Why would the Governor reject enhancements to the education of graduate and undergraduate students in Minnesota whose tuition has gone up so much in recent years due to budget cuts the State has made to the University? We call upon the Governor to reconsider his penny-wise logic and give the University the full support the University has requested to help us achieve great things for the citizens of Minnesota. This must not be the generation that fails to invest in its research university and leaves the next generation without a first-rate University of Minnesota.

7. TRIBUTE TO DECEASED MEMBERS OF THE UNIVERSITY COMMUNITY

FACULTY/ACADEMIC PROFESSIONALS/STAFF

Arnold M. Flikke
Professor
Biosystems & Ag Engineering
1919 – 2007

Barbara Hartman
Executive Assistant
Office of the Senior Vice President for System Academic Administration
1947 – 2007

Lois P. Hodgell
Professor
Humanities – Morris
1922 – 2006

Arthur L. Johnson
Professor
Sociology
1917 – 2006

Rudolph Johnson
Professor
University Libraries
1916 – 2007

Wallace T. Johnson
Professor & Head Coach
Athletics
1915 – 2007

Janet Krieger
Assistant Professor
Finance and Operations
1918 – 2006

George Lawther
Associate Professor
Periodontics
1924 – 2007

Robert McClure
Professor
Law School
1915 – 2007

John G. Rice
Professor
Geography
1934 – 2007

Joseph J. Roback
Supervisor
Facilities Management
1920 – 2007

Ruth Roberts
Associate Professor
Student Affairs
1915 – 2006

Barbara Stuhler
Professor
University College
1924 – 2007

Albert Tezla
Professor
University of Minnesota - Duluth
1915 – 2006

Louis Tobian, Jr.
Professor
Medicine
1920 – 2006

Deborah A. Wolfangel
Information Technologies Professional
College of Continuing Education
1952 – 2006

STUDENTS

Connie J. Christ
College of Design

Todd H. Kangas
Graduate School

Mark Lawson
College of Liberal Arts

Christopher A. Oster
Law School

Rebecca F. Yacob
College of Liberal Arts


8. INTRODUCTION
Vice President Karen Himle, University Relations

Professor Carol Chomsky, Chair of the Senate Consultative Committee (SCC), introduced Karen Himle, Vice President of University Relations.

Professor Carol Chomsky, Chair of the Senate Consultative Committee (SCC), said that the committee has had a light agenda. It has discussed the Student Learning Outcomes and the Student Development Outcomes, which will both come to the Senate in May.

Although it was not discussed by the SCC, Professor Chomsky commented on the announcement by the University regarding TIAA-CREF. She noted that various committees and subcommittees were consulted throughout the process.

MOTION:

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

http://www1.umn.edu/usenate/usen/060928sen.html
http://www1.umn.edu/usenate/usen/061130sen.html
http://www1.umn.edu/usenate/fsen/070215sen.html

DISCUSSION:

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

MOTION:

To amend Article II, Section 1 of the University Senate Rules as follows (language to be added is underlined). As an amendment to the University Senate Rules, the motion requires a simple majority for approval.

ARTICLE II. RULES FOR COMMITTEES OF THE UNIVERSITY SENATE (Changes to this article are subject to vote only by the University Senate)

1. Ex Officio Members of University Senate Committees

...

- All-University Honors--Office of the Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs and Provost; Office of the Vice President for University Relations (three representatives, including one from Alumni Relations and one from the University Development Office); Office of the Vice Chancellor for University Relations - Duluth; Office of University Relations the Chancellor- Crookston

...

COMMENT:

When ex officio representatives were added last year from Duluth and Crookston, the intent was to have these representatives be from the University Relations Offices on each campus, to parallel the representative from the Twin Cities. However, both Chancellors’ Offices have asked that a representative be chosen from their offices, due to the small size of University Relations Offices on both campuses. This change allows the Chancellors’ Offices to choose the ex officio representative to the All-University Honors Committee.

DISCUSSION:

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

MOTION:

To approve the following position statement.

Sudan Position Statement

The University of Minnesota has a long established tradition of concern for social issues. The Senate Social Concerns Committee believes that the egregious situation occurring in the Darfur region of Sudan is particularly disturbing. In 2003, the Sudanese government, working with Arab militias, began promoting the ethnic cleansing of non-Arab Darfurians. Since that time over 400,000 Darfurian civilians have been killed, and over 2.5 million have been displaced due to violence. In July 2004, the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives unanimously adopted a joint resolution declaring the situation in Darfur as genocide.

In recent years, the government of Sudan has been enriched by the influx of foreign investment, particularly in the oil, energy and construction industries. The link between increased government revenue and the Sudanese government’s capacity to arm paramilitary groups has been well documented, thus suggesting complicity in the events occurring in Darfur for firms dealing directly with the Sudanese government.

The information provided by the University’s Chief Investment Officer, Stuart Mason, to the committee indicates that the University of Minnesota does not currently have any direct investments in companies operating in Darfur and that our indirect investments total approximately $100,000.00 in Sudanese government bonds which have been frozen by the United States government. However, it is likely that there are indirect investments - in firms that provide revenues to the government of Sudan through commingled funds managed by independent managers.

Research conducted by the widely-respected Sudan Divestment Task Force (SDTF) has identified a number of foreign companies whose participation in business activities in Sudan it considers particularly egregious. This list of companies includes only those firms that provide revenues to the government of Sudan while providing minimal benefit to the bulk of the Sudanese population. It also includes only those firms that have failed to articulate a policy regarding the Darfur crisis. A recent report by the group lists the firms that are the worst offenders and this list currently includes 29 foreign companies (Appendix-1, firms included in Category One).

The Social Concerns Committee believes that the University of Minnesota should not indirectly perpetuate the cycle of violence in Sudan via its investment portfolio. Accordingly, the Social Concerns Committee recommends that the Senate support the following investment actions:

a) The University, effective immediately, make it policy to prohibit direct investment in any company that is listed as an egregious contributor to the financial support of the Sudan government’s actions facilitating genocide.

b) The University consult with managers of commingled funds that might provide indirect exposure to any company listed as an egregious contributor to the financial support of the Sudan government’s actions facilitating genocide and establish sound financial strategies that avoid investment in these companies.

c) The University contact the other institutional investors also participating in these same commingled funds to coordinate a sound financial strategy that divests any securities held in offending firms operating in Sudan.

d) The Senate Social Concerns Committee periodically review the situation in Sudan to determine if this investment policy warrants changes.

Approved by the Social Concerns Committee on Tuesday, March 13, 2007

COMMENT:

This year, the Senate Committee on Finance and Planning (SCFP) requested the Social Concerns Committee take up the issue of whether the University should divest its Sudanese holdings due to the stormy political climate in Sudan. Several other institutions such as Yale, Harvard, Dartmouth, Stanford, University of California, Brown, Amherst, and Samford, to name a few, have already taken action.

The Social Concerns Committee spent four months hearing testimony, collecting information and carefully weighing the issues around divestment from Sudan and came to the conclusion that it was the right position to take. Another consideration worth noting is that John Bul Dau, one of the “Lost Boys of Sudan,” whose emigration to the United States was filmed in the 2006 documentary “God Grew Tired of Us,” will be the CLA commencement speaker on May 13, 2007. The Social Concerns Committee asks that the Senate take action now so that a response from the administration can be received prior to John Bul Dau's speech.

DISCUSSION:

Professor Mani Subramani, Chair of the Social Concerns Committee, said that the University has only one direct investment, totaling $100,000, in Sudanese government bonds. These assets are frozen so there is no way to dispose of them. Exposure might also come through participation in mutual funds. The Committee is asking that no future investments in mutual funds be made with companies noted by the Sudan Divestment Task Force. He noted that there are currently 45 institutions that have taken similar action.

Q: Different language is used in sections a) and b) to denote in which companies the University should not invest. Is this language change meant to reflect that any support of the Sudanese government is a support of their genocide and therefore should not take place?

A: The language change is not meant to be material. Instead, the University should divest from the most egregious companies as noted in the materials from the Sudan Divestment Task Force.

Q: Would this statement request the same divestment for foundation funds?

A: This statement applies only to University endowments.

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

The meeting was recessed at 3:01 p.m.

After the cancellation of the March 1 Faculty Senate meeting, the Faculty Consultative Committee (FCC) acted on behalf of the Faculty Senate to approve the following six names to stand for election to the Faculty Consultative Committee, from which one of each pair are to be elected by the Twin Cities and non-represented UMD faculty for a term of 2007-10. First pair: Professors Marc Jenkins and Jeffrey Kahn; Second Pair: Professors Kathryn Van den Bosch and Becky Yust; Third Pair: Professors John Freeman and Marti Gonzales.

Professor Carol Chomsky, Chair of the Faculty Consultative Committee (FCC), announced the 2007-10 FCC members: Professors Jeffrey Kahn, Becky Yust, and Marti Gonzales.

After the February 15 meeting, FCC was delegated the task of expanding the statement to the legislature, which is Item 6 on this agenda. The statement was sent to the Governor, legislative leaders, and the Regents.

Additionally, FCC has discussed the athletics task force report, student learning outcomes, and the Northside initiative. A few members also traveled to Morris in December to talk with several faculty groups. A report from this trip has been published.

Lastly, FCC discussed the Tenure Code changes and held a conversation on the need for faculty advisors for the Judicial Committee and grievances processes.

Professor Martin Sampson, Faculty Legislative Liaison, distributed a sheet on the status of funding requests for the University. Both houses are in support of HEAPR funding and money to renovate a building for bioscience research. For the biomedical sciences bonding bill, the Governor and the House have not recommended funding, but the Senate is recommending $233.6 million. A conference committee will be formed on this issue.

The appropriation request is more complicated for all three groups depending on what items are being included, some of which were not funds that the University requested.

The last item relating to the legislature is the cost of textbooks. The current Senate version only applies to MnSCU, while the House version does include the University. Both bills include language that the bill is not intended to contravene academic freedom or compromise course quality and remove most responsibilities for faculty, instead making publishers more responsible for providing information.

MOTION:

To amend Section II of the Uniform Grading and Transcript policy as follows (language to be added is underlined, language to be deleted is struck-out).

...

II. PERMANENT GRADES FOR ACADEMIC WORK

1. 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.

. . .

3. In connection with all symbols of achievement 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. The performance required for an S shall be the same as that required for a C. For undergraduate students, a C- grade shall be equal to an S grade.

...

COMMENT:

When the Senate Committee on Educational Policy recommended, and the Faculty Senate approved, a change to the grading policy requiring that students who received a C- receive an S if they had registered for the course S/N, there was no exception made for post-baccalaureate (i.e., graduate and professional) students. Since the change was approved, SCEP has heard from many sources that it is inappropriate to require that an S be granted for C- work to post-baccalaureate students. The language proposed makes it clear that the policy applies to undergraduate students; the discretion to set the bar for an S in graduate and professional school courses is left to the instructor, the department, or the college.

The requirement that the instructor clearly define the performance required for a certain grade remains applicable to all courses.

DISCUSSION:

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

MOTION:

To approve the 2011-12 Morris and Twin Cities calendars.

Morris 2011-12

Fall Semester 2011 (73 class days)

August 24	Wednesday	Classes begin
September 5	Monday	Labor Day holiday
October 17-18	Mon.-Tues.	Fall Break (no classes)
November 24-25	Thurs.-Fri.	Thanksgiving holiday
December 9	Friday	Last day of instruction
December 10	Saturday	Study day
December 12-15	Mon.-Thurs.	Final examinations

Spring Semester 2012 (74 class days)

January 16	Monday	MLK holiday
January 17	Tuesday	Classes begin
March 12-16	Mon.-Fri.	Spring Break
May 4	Friday	Last day of instruction
May 5	Saturday	Study day
May 7-10	Mon.-Thurs.	Final examinations
May 12	Saturday	Commencement

May Session 2012 (14 class days)

May 14	Monday	May session begins
May 28	Monday	Memorial Day holiday
June 1	Friday	May session ends

Summer Session 2012

May 21-June 22	Summer session 1 (24 class days)
May 28		Monday	Memorial Day holiday
June 25-July 27	Summer session II (24 class days)
July 4		Wednesday	Independence Day holiday

Twin Cities 2011-12

Fall Semester 2011 (70 class days)

September 5	Monday	Labor Day holiday
September 6	Tuesday	Classes begin
November 24-25	Thurs.-Fri.	Thanksgiving holiday
December 14	Wednesday	Last day of instruction
December 15	Thursday	Study day
December 16-17, 19-22	Fri.-Sat., Mon.-Thurs.	Final examinations
December 18	Sunday	Study day
December 22	Thursday	End of the term

Spring Semester 2012 (74 class days)

January 16	Monday	MLK holiday
January 17	Tuesday	Classes begin
March 12-16	Mon.-Fri.	Spring Break
May 4	Friday	Last day of instruction
May 6	Sat.-Sun.	Study days
May 7-12	Mon.-Sat.	Final examinations
May 12	Saturday	Commencement

May Session 2012 (14 class days)

May 21	Monday	May session begins
May 28	Monday	Memorial Day holiday
June 8	Friday	May session ends

Summer Session 2012 (39 class days)

June 11	Monday	Classes begin
July 4	Wednesday	Independence Day holiday
August 3	Friday	8-wk. summer session ends

DISCUSSION:

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

MOTION:

To approved amendments to Sections 1, 13, 15, and 16 of Faculty Tenure.

Section 1. Academic Freedom.

1.1 Principles. Every member of the faculty is entitled to due process and academic freedom as established by academic tradition and the constitutions and laws of the United States and the state of Minnesota and as amplified by resolutions of the Board of Regents. The Board of Regents hereby reaffirms its commitment to academic freedom and tenure as reflected in its resolution of January 28, 1938, and in the statement of December 14, 1963, which are set forth in the appendix to these regulations. The policies of the Board of Regents regarding academic freedom are currently stated in the board's statement of September 8, 1995, which provides:

The Regents of the University of Minnesota reaffirm the principles of academic freedom and responsibility. These are rooted in the belief that the mind is ennobled by the pursuit of understanding and the search for truth and the state well served when instruction is available to all at an institution dedicated to the advancement of learning. These principles are also refreshed by the recollection that there is commune vinculum omnibus artibus -- a common bond through all the arts.

Academic freedom is the freedom to discuss all relevant matters in the classroom, to explore all avenues of scholarship, research, and creative expression and to speak or write as a public citizen without institutional discipline or restraint. Academic responsibility implies the faithful performance of academic duties and obligations, the recognition of the demands of the scholarly enterprise, and the candor to make it clear that the individual is not speaking for the institution in matters of public interest.

1.2 Protection Of Faculty. Denial of faculty appointment or reappointment, or removal or suspension from office, or censure or other penalty must not be based upon any belief, expression, or conduct protected by law or by the principles of academic freedom. Cases of alleged violation of academic freedom may be brought directly to the Judicial Committee, in accordance with Section 15.


Section 13. Judicial Committee.

13.1 Membership. The Judicial Committee is composed of at least nine members of the regular faculty. The number of members and manner of appointment is governed by the University Faculty Senate bylaws.

13.2 Procedures. The Judicial Committee applies and interprets this tenure code in complaints that come before it. The Judicial Committee has its own Rules of Procedure and may adopt additional rules with the approval of the Tenure Committee Proceedings before the Judicial Committee will be conducted in conformity with these regulations. The Judicial Committee may adopt additional rules with the approval of the Tenure Committee, as provided in Section 16.3.

In every case before the Judicial Committee the senior academic administrator may designate the academic administrator who will represent the University as respondent. If the case involves two or more campuses or areas, the president or the senior vice president for academic affairs may designate the respondent.

13.3 Duty To Testify. Faculty members and administrators have an obligation to appear before the Judicial Committee if asked to give testimony in matters pending before it.

13.4 Panels. The Judicial Committee may sit in panels to hear individual cases. In cases under Sections 10 and 14, the panel must consist of at least five members. In all other cases, the panel must consist of at least three members. The rules of the Judicial Committee will establish the respective functions of the committee as a whole and of the individual panels.

13.5 Legal Officer. The Judicial Committee shall have its own legal officer, appointed by the Judicial Committee with the approval of the president. The Judicial Committee also may, with the approval of the president, appoint a deputy legal officer, or a substitute legal officer for a particular case, as necessary. At the direction of the committee, the legal officer may preside at hearings of Judicial Committee panels or regulate the procedure in Judicial Committee cases. The legal officer may be present and participate in the deliberation of a panel, but shall have no vote.


Section 15. Appeals To The Judicial Committee.

15.1 Right To Review. Any faculty member who claims that his or her rights or status under these regulations have been adversely affected without his or her consent may seek review before the Judicial Committee. Cases arising under Sections 1, 4, 7, 7a, 8, 10, or 11, or 12 may must be brought directly to the Judicial Committee. In these cases, that is, the Judicial Committee has original jurisdiction. In other cases, the faculty member must exhaust all other available University remedies before bringing the case to the Judicial Committee; the Judicial Committee will not proceed with such a case until the appropriate University body has either decided it or has refused to consider it. In such cases, the Judicial Committee has appellate jurisdiction.


Section 16. Academic Freedom and Tenure Committee.

16.1 Membership. The Academic Freedom and Tenure Committee Subcommittee Of The Senate Faculty Affairs Committee (referred to elsewhere in these regulations as the Tenure Committee) is composed of at least seven members of the faculty and such other persons as the Faculty University Senate bylaws shall provide. The manner of appointment is governed by the Faculty University Senate bylaws.

16.2 Interpretations. The senior vice president for academic affairs and provost and the Tenure Committee may propose formal interpretations of these regulations, consistent with their terms. Such interpretations must be reported to the Faculty Senate and the Board of Regents. If adopted by the Board of Regents, such interpretations will be binding in all cases subsequently arising.

16.3 Procedures. The senior vice president for academic affairs and provost and the Tenure Committee may jointly adopt the procedures provided by subsections 7.4 and 7.61, and jointly approve the procedures proposed by the Judicial Committee under Section 13.2. Such procedures must be reported to the Faculty Senate and the Board of Regents before they go into effect.

16.4 Additional Functions. The Tenure Committee also advises the University and makes recommendations concerning the interpretation and amendment of these regulations, but such advice and recommendations are not binding on the Judicial Committee.

DISCUSSION:

With no discussion, a vote was taken and the motion was approved with 106 in favor and none opposed.

MOTION:

To approved amendments to Sections 5.5, 7.11, and 7.12 and new Section 9.2 of Faculty Tenure.

5.5 Exception for New Parent or Caregiver, or for Personal Medical Reasons. The maximum period of probationary service will be extended by one year at a time at the request of a probationary faculty member:

1. on the occasion of the birth of that faculty member's child or adoptive/foster placement of a child with that faculty member; or

2. when the faculty member is a major caregiver for a family member (fn 1) who has an extended serious illness, injury, or debilitating condition. A faculty member may use this provision no more than twice or

3. when the faculty member has an extended serious illness, injury, or debilitating condition.

The request for extension must be made in writing within one year of the events giving rise to the claim and no later than June 30 preceding the year a final decision would otherwise be made on an appointment with indefinite tenure for that faculty member.


(fn 1) The term "family member" is meant to include a spouse or domestic partner, an adopted or foster child, or other relative.


7.11 General Criteria. What the University of Minnesota seeks above all in its faculty members is intellectual distinction and academic integrity. The basis for awarding indefinite tenure to the candidates possessing these qualities is the determination that each has established and is likely to continue to develop a distinguished record of academic achievement that is the foundation for a national or international reputation or both. (fn 1). This determination is reached through a qualitative evaluation of the candidate’s record of scholarly research or other creative work, teaching, and service (fn 2). The relative importance of these criteria may vary in different academic units, but each of the criteria must be considered in every decision (fn 3). Demonstrated scholarly or other creative achievement and teaching effectiveness must be given primary emphasis; service alone cannot qualify the candidate for tenure. Interdisciplinary work, public engagement, international activities and initiatives, attention to questions of diversity, technology transfer, and other special kinds of professional activity by the candidate should be considered when applicable. The awarding of indefinite tenure presupposes that the candidate’s record shows strong promise of his or her achieving promotion to professor.


(fn 1) "Academic achievement" includes teaching as well as scholarly research and other creative work. The definition and relative weight of the factors may vary with the mission of the individual campus.

(fn 2) The persons responsible and the process for making this determination are described in subsections 7.3 through 7.6.

"Scholarly research" must include significant publications and, as appropriate, the development and dissemination by other means of new knowledge, technology, or scientific procedures resulting in innovative products, practices, and ideas of significance and value to society. "Other creative work" refers to all forms of creative production across a wide range of disciplines, including, but not limited to, visual and performing arts, design, architecture of structures and environments, writing, media, and other modes of expression.

"Teaching" is not limited to classroom instruction. It includes extension and outreach education, and other forms of communicating knowledge to both registered University students and persons in the extended community, as well as supervising, mentoring, and advising students.

"Service" may be professional or institutional. Professional service, based on one's academic expertise, is that provided to the profession, to the University, or to the local, state, national, or international community. Institutional service may be administrative, committee, and related contributions to one's department or college, or the University. All faculty members are expected to engage in service activities, but only modest institutional service should be expected of probationary faculty.

(fn 3) Indefinite tenure may be granted at any time the candidate has satisfied the requirements. A probationary appointment must be terminated when the appointee fails to satisfy the criteria in the last year of probationary service and may be terminated earlier if the appointee is not making satisfactory progress within that period toward meeting the criteria.


7.12 Departmental Statement (fn 1). ). Each department or equivalent academic unit must have a document that specifies (1) the indices and standards that will be used to determine whether candidates meet the threshold criteria of subsection 7.11 ("General Criteria" for the awarding of indefinite tenure) and (2) the indices and standards that will be used to determine whether candidates meet the threshold criteria of subsection 9.2 ("Criteria for Promotion to Professor"). The document must contain as an appendix the text and footnotes of subsections 7.11 and 9.2, and must be consistent with the criteria given there but may exceed them. Each departmental statement must be approved by a faculty vote (including both tenured and probationary members), the dean, and other appropriate academic administrators, including the Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs and Provost. The chair or head of each academic unit must provide each of its probationary faculty members with a copy of the Departmental Statement at the beginning of the probationary service.


(fn 1) "Departmental" refers to an academic department or its equivalent, such as division, institute, or unit.


9.2 Criteria for Promotion to Professor. The basis for promotion to the rank of professor is the determination that each candidate has (1) demonstrated the intellectual distinction and academic integrity expected of all faculty members, (2) added substantially to an already distinguished record of academic achievement, and (3) established the national or international reputation (or both) ordinarily resulting from such distinction and achievement (fn 1). This determination is reached through a qualitative evaluation of the candidate’s record of scholarly research or other creative work, teaching, and service (fn 2) The relative importance of these criteria may vary in different academic units, but each of the criteria must be considered in every decision. Interdisciplinary work, public engagement, international activities and initiatives, attention to questions of diversity, technology transfer, and other special kinds of professional activity by the candidates should be considered when applicable. But the primary emphasis must be on demonstrated scholarly or other creative achievement and on teaching effectiveness, and service alone cannot qualify the candidate for promotion.


(fn 1) "Academic achievement" includes teaching as well as research and other creative work.  The definition and relative weight of the factors may vary with the mission of the individual campus. Not being promoted to the rank of professor will not in itself result in special-post-tenure review of a tenured associate professor.

(fn 2) The persons responsible for this determination are the full professors in the unit who are eligible to vote. The outcome of the vote is either promotion to the rank of professor or continuation in rank as an associate professor. The procedures for voting are identical to those outlined in Section 7.4 for the granting of indefinite tenure, the nondisclosure of grounds for the decision (Section 7.5), and the review of recommendations (Section 7.6). In addition, a petition to the Judicial Committee for review of a recommendation of continuation in rank as an associate professor follows the procedures specified in Section 7.7 for decisions about promotion to associate professor and conferral of indefinite tenure.

See the definitions of "scholarly research," "other creative work," "teaching," and "service" in footnote 2, subsection 7.11.  A greater contribution in the area of institutional service is expected of candidates for the rank of professor than was expected for the award of tenure.

DISCUSSION:

With no discussion, a vote was taken and the motion was approved with 108 in favor and none opposed.

The meeting was adjourned at 3:26 p.m.

The meeting was reconvened at 3:58 p.m.

It’s a great time to learn and work at the University of Minnesota. Today you’ll find all the excitement you would expect from a university community headed into spring. In this period of transformative change, we also share the genuine commitment to excellence you’d expect from a community of critical thinkers and passionate advocates.

Enthusiasm and commitment are at the core of our character. Our University, like our state, is hopeful, measured, engaged and caring. While our concerns are Minnesota’s concerns, they are not parochial. The great challenges of the 21st century are the same from Brainerd to Beijing: health and education; economic growth; the food supply; the environment and energy; the preservation of human dignity; and the fostering of free and creative expression. The people of Minnesota care deeply about these issues – and we are expected to provide the knowledge and leadership the state needs to address them.

Why the University of Minnesota? Because as the state’s only land-grant university and its only comprehensive research university system, we are responsible, not just for the education of the state’s people, but for ground-breaking research and the application of new knowledge to serve the greater good. Chartered years before statehood, the University underscored its commitment to this three-fold mission with the inscription on Northrop Auditorium. The idea for the Northrop inscription first surfaced in 1924, and a committee went to work on it in 1928. By October 1929, committee members were feeling the strain – one feared any inscription would seem laughable to future generations.^[1] No further action was taken until 1935, when the inscription was revised at least twice. It was set in stone in 1936. Perseverance yielded a final product that has framed the University’s commitment to Minnesota ever since:

“The University of Minnesota
“Founded in the faith that men are ennobled by understanding
“Dedicated to the advancement of learning and the search for truth
“Devoted to the instruction of youth and the welfare of the state”

Perhaps it’s no surprise that it took 10 years for the U community to write those 37 words. In the context of strategic positioning and my term as president, I’m pleased to say we’ve at least cut that time in half – and we’ve written considerably more!

The more important point is that, in the midst of the Great Depression, people recognized the beauty of human understanding – and they saw fit to have their devotion to the advancement of knowledge written on the very heart of the University. So while we can make light of the work that went into those four lines, the truth is that the things that last in this world take vision, take time, and take persistence.

Resetting the goal
Today, the state of the University is strong. We began the process of transformative change strong, and I believe we’ll finish even stronger.

I know it hasn’t been easy. For months, staff members in Extension and the three redesigned colleges spent their days working in their old configurations, their evenings mapping out the new configurations, and many sleepless nights wondering what would happen to their academic programs and jobs.

Lori Gilbertson from the College of Design puts it this way: “The past few years have shown me what is personally important – not the daily dramas ... [but] acceptance of each other, the ability to stand in another's shoes, the importance of modeling what you want to see, and the importance of daily joy and laughter.”

Gilbertson and countless others paid a high price in terms of extra work and stress, but they rallied, not in support of slogans, or rankings, or Morrill Hall, but in support of students and an expanded academic vision. They rallied in support of excellence.

The stated goal of the U’s strategic positioning initiative is to become one of the top three public research universities in the world while achieving an equivalent standard of excellence for our coordinate campuses. Like the Northrop inscription, this goal has been greeted with some expected skepticism, but its purpose is to urge our communities to live up to our proud heritage of achievement and public responsibility.

The good news is that this goal is now well established: All of you know it; our supporters are drawn to it; and our peers are taking notice. “Top three” is aspirational and audacious, but that’s not to say it can’t be achieved. We must continue to set aggressive goals in critical areas of responsibility, and to measure what we value, but we must not get caught up in rankings and begin “teaching to the test.” We aspire, not to ranking, but to stature – and achieving this aspiration requires a deep and abiding cultural commitment to excellence in everything we do, from the education of our students to the advancement of knowledge for the public good.

In this context, it’s much easier to see “top three” as attainable, and to imagine what an “equivalent standard of excellence” looks like for our resources statewide. It’s also clear that while the creation of three new colleges on the Twin Cities campus was a major undertaking, it’s also just an initial step toward academic leadership on a global scale. The redesigned colleges, our support of new interdisciplinary institutes and inquiry, and more recently, the creation of the new Department of Writing Studies, provide a framework for outstanding education and research opportunities. Our task now is to realize our full potential in these areas. If the recent Bush Foundation grant of nearly $1 million in support of our innovative Writing Enriched Curriculum program is any indicator, the best is yet to come.

According to Aristotle, “We are what we repeatedly do; excellence is not an act, but a habit.”^[2] For the University of Minnesota system, habits of excellence have everything to do with our mission of education, research and outreach. The four pillars of strategic positioning support the weight of this vision and mission, so that if any one pillar crumbles, the entire structure is diminished.

Nor can we strengthen any one pillar at the expense of the others. Our 35 task forces were not formed and charged in isolation; all of the parts work together to move the entire University system forward. For example, it’s true that the college reconfiguration helped the University realize operational efficiencies to the tune of roughly $4 million this year. But it’s also true that we could have recognized that savings far more easily by requiring people to carry their trash to a central location and by cleaning public spaces every other day. Any organization can streamline; real transformation requires looking beyond the bottom line.

Transformation
Exceptional Students
After two years of planning, a better U is emerging. If students are why we’re here, then we have tens of thousands of great reasons to come to work each day.

The class of 2010 is the best-prepared in history. This strong student profile predicts more students like Twin Cities campus senior Katie Lee. Lee is an accomplished concert violinist who became a full-time University of Minnesota student at age 15, double-majored in chemistry and biochemistry, and was named one of 32 U.S. Rhodes Scholars for 2007. Her achievements speak volumes about her, and the fact that she chose to spend her undergraduate years here is a testament to the University’s commitment to provide a distinctive student experience.

We foster such experiences by investing in our own strengths, but also by partnering with other organizations. Last year, the Guthrie Theater selected University alumnus Santino Fontana to play Hamlet in the final production on its Vineland Place stage. Not only was Fontana the youngest Hamlet ever to grace that stage, but he is also a member of the first class to graduate from the University-Guthrie BFA Actor Training Program. The program enables U students like Fontana and cast-mates Leah Curney, Matthew Amendt and Jonas Goslow to study with top-notch professionals from both institutions.

The Guthrie partnership is just one of many ways we offer students an experience tailored to their strengths. The University of Minnesota Rochester is expanding its academic footprint to meet the education and research needs of southeast Minnesota. This expansion builds upon our long-standing partnership with Mayo Clinic, as well as our relationships with Rochester Community and Technical College and Winona State University.

The University of Minnesota Crookston recently received the maximum 10-year accreditation from the Higher Learning Commission. UMC continues to lead the system in online education, meeting the needs of traditional and non-traditional students statewide with countless technology-enhanced courses and three complete degree programs offered via the Internet.

Our regional comprehensive university on the North Shore, the University of Minnesota Duluth, continues its leadership in environmental research and many other fields of study. UMD’s Sieur Du Luth Summer Arts Festival has become internationally known for its opera program, with 120 international participants registered this year from Europe, Asia and Mexico – including 40 students from Turkey alone. Last year, theater professor Tom Isbell was commissioned to write a play for the opening of a new theater at the Kennedy Center. And this fall, Duluth will launch its first-ever doctoral degree in education and will welcome Distinguished McKnight University Professor Robert Hecky to its biology department and Large Lakes Observatory.

To the west, the University of Minnesota Morris provides a public alternative for students who seek a liberal-arts education in a closely-knit, diverse and engaged community, with a campus and research center devoted to leadership in renewable energy. Last fall, Morris’s Center for Small Towns and the city of Morris won a national Carter Center Partnership Award for Campus-Community Collaboration, and more recently, Morris history and political science major Eagan Heath was named a 2007 Truman Scholar.

Morris also leads the University system with a freshman class that is 21 percent students of color. The campus enrolls 178 Native American students, each of whom attends college with free tuition as a result of an historic agreement with the federal government that predates the institution’s founding. We have honored that promise for decades, making access to a college education a reality for students who may not otherwise have been able to afford it.

Across our system, nearly 16 percent of this year’s freshmen are students of color, and on the Twin Cities campus, that number is more than 20 percent – up nearly two percent over Fall 2005 – underscoring our continued commitment to serving the diversity of our population.

Access and affordability are a top priority for parents and students across the state. Two years ago, I announced the Founders Free Tuition Program, providing free tuition for low-income students and emphasizing access and affordability as primary concerns of the University. In October, our Promise for Tomorrow private scholarship drive reached its initial three-year goal of $150 million in endowed scholarship and fellowship funds. This effort continues, achieving giving rates five to 10 times higher than pre-campaign levels. Student access will continue to be a major focus of our planning and fund-raising efforts in the foreseeable future – not only in terms of undergraduate scholarships, but financial support and fellowships for graduate and professional students as well. We still have much work to do.

We’ve also set our sights higher in terms of academic goals. Under the leadership of Provost Tom Sullivan, Senior Vice President Robert Jones, and our chancellors, we’ve set aggressive new four-year graduation rates for all campuses. These goals are supported by many strategies to ensure greater student success. Such strategies include new Welcome Week activities, summer bridge programs, stronger advisement and career support services to help students make the transition between high school and college, and new strategies to support transfers. We are also engaging the public to improve college preparation through the new Consortium for Post-Secondary Success.

In addition, we’re pushing forward with specific learning and success outcomes for students – defining in clear terms what all U graduates should know and be able to do, regardless of major or profession. Recent reports suggest that in this global century, employers will be looking for 360-degree thinkers and breadth of knowledge will be as important as depth of expertise in a given field.^[3] Our proposed, outcomes-based approach is right for our students and the world.

Exceptional faculty and staff
Exceptional faculty and staff are essential to achieving our strategic goal. They are critical to fostering excellence; improving our stature; recruiting and retaining the best and brightest students; providing a distinctive educational experience; attracting research funding to the University; and garnering the attention of other world-class scholars. We’ve made great gains in our faculty recruitment and retention efforts in the past year, including a new Web site addressing, among other things, the quality of life that has made Minnesota a destination state for people from around the world.

But our emphasis cannot be limited to compensation and support for new faculty – the U’s human capital resides at every level of the organization, and we are committed to professional development and support for everyone. We should all applaud the work of our faculty leaders in strengthening the University’s promotion-tenure policies – especially our colleagues on the Academic Freedom and Tenure Committee and in the Faculty Senate. Today’s vote on the adoption of tenure code revisions is an important step toward fostering faculty achievement and advancing our efforts to transform the University. We are also seeking funding to support merit-based compensation throughout the University, and actively implementing new programs to increase the U’s appeal to current and prospective faculty and staff.

At the best universities, inspiration is alive in the classroom. Our faculty are teacher-scholars – researchers at the forefront of their fields who not only change the way we live through their discoveries, but actually change the way our students learn and each of us think. As a result, our goals of education, research and public engagement are not at odds, but strongly complementary. John Slaughter puts it this way: “Research is to teaching as sin is to confession. If you don’t participate in the former, you have very little to say in the latter.”^[4]

In short, research is education – and it takes the best to inspire the brightest. Unfortunately, all the recruiting materials in the world won’t serve us without the ability to offer basic and competitive compensation to heavily recruited faculty. To that end, we’ve asked the legislature for $28 million in market-based compensation to help us attract great minds to the U and keep them. This investment will pay for itself over time in terms of research funding, innovation and human capital.

Exceptional organization
I’ve long maintained that we must be as well known for our stewardship of public resources and the quality of our management as we are for education, research and public engagement. This requires an exceptional organization working to support our academic responsibilities – a culture that seeks the best answers to common internal questions, such as “Can we do more to improve services and productivity at the U?” as well as external questions like, “How are you spending our money?”

I continue to be impressed by the way Vice President Kathleen O’Brien has carried this message to thousands of employees in University Services. As a result, today many of our best ideas come from people in the trenches. Stop me if you’ve heard this one – it happens to be one my favorite stories illustrating the impact of a cultural commitment to excellence:

How many U dollars does it take to change a light bulb?

Ruth Ann Manlet in University Services and Dave Crane in the Office of Classroom Management got the notion that if the University quit changing individual light bulbs as they burned out, and instead changed them in batches on a regular cycle, the labor savings could be significant – and even more so if we switched to more energy-efficient bulbs. A pilot project in a few selected buildings saved $46,000 in one year, and according to financial analysis done by their colleague Sean Schuller, over the first five years, the savings is projected at more than $1.5 million. The program is currently being implemented across the Twin Cities campus.

John Gardner once said, “The society which scorns excellence in plumbing because plumbing is a humble activity, and tolerates shoddiness in philosophy because philosophy is an exalted activity, will have neither good plumbing nor good philosophy. Neither its pipes nor its theories will hold water.” Our emphasis on organizational excellence has been deliberate – everything we do impacts everything else, such that group relamping not only saves time and energy, but helps to beautify our campus, increase productivity and ensure public safety, while enabling us to spend the savings in more mission-critical ways.

There are many such examples on all of our campuses, including strengthened construction management practices that have enabled the University to deliver almost every construction project in the past three years on time, within budget, and without spending valuable resources on midstream redesigns or incurring costly claims. We estimate that these performance increases have helped the University avoid $60-80 million in costs – proof that we are maximizing our construction dollars to serve academic programs while fostering stronger relationships with contractors in the state. An AHC initiative used innovative design, shared space and open space to improve lab usage efficiency by 33 percent. Senior Vice President Frank Cerra has voiced his view of Transforming the U in no uncertain terms – “right goal; right time” – and his Research Corridors concept provides a clear vision of an agile organization committed to sharing information and breaking down barriers.

Each of these examples adds to the overall picture of University campuses on the verge of becoming talent magnets – destination schools for faculty, staff and students from all walks of life. Our efforts to foster diversity and inclusiveness system-wide are bolstered by the hard work and spirit of the U’s first Vice President for Equity and Diversity, Dr. Rusty Barcelo. Encouraging diversity of people and ideas on all of our campuses will better prepare our students and members of our academic community to be productive and engaged global citizens.

Exceptional innovation
Our commitment to excellence is already at work in our corridors. The problems of the 21^st century require an interdisciplinary approach to solve them – but the strength of that approach will be rooted in departments and disciplines of distinction.

Serious interdisciplinary work requires – and builds – strength in core academic fields. The University of Minnesota system is an established national leader in many disciplines – strengths that feed directly into our efforts to foster new interdisciplinary work through centers and institutes such as the Institute on the Environment, the Large Lakes Observatory in Duluth, the Institute for Translational Neuroscience, the Institute for the Advancement of Science and Technology, and the Institute for Advanced Study in the humanities and social sciences.

Interdisciplinary work in these areas and others should increase funding from government and industry sources. Under the leadership of Vice President for Research Tim Mulcahy, we are working hard to support faculty teams seeking funding for large-scale interdisciplinary grants, as well as to facilitate statewide industry partnerships through the corporate relations center and related efforts.

We believe that such institutes provide a flexible, responsive model for conducting research and attracting support in the future. The Institute on the Environment was recently awarded a $300,000 contract from the Legislative-Citizen Commission on Minnesota Resources to develop a comprehensive conservation and preservation plan for the state of Minnesota. An early success for the institute, this project is the result of coordinating our academic strengths across campuses, departments and fields. Legislators too often perceive the University as having its hand out – our approach going forward must be to present the U first and foremost as a resource.

Challenges
The path forward is not without obstacles. All of our aspirations are contingent upon two resources: persistence and funding. I rank persistence first, most obviously because in this regard we control our own destiny. It is only fair that an institution committed to responsible stewardship would expect to be held accountable by the state and the public. We’ve identified important strategies that support our view of excellence, but we cannot expect continued investment without continuing reform.

Self-scrutiny is critical because the information needed to address most of our challenges already exists within the University. Let me share one case in point: When our athletic-academic advisory task force examined the record of achievement for student-athletes on the Twin Cities campus, they discovered that from 1999 to summer 2006, roughly 27 percent left the U without obtaining degrees. Many of them had accumulated 100 or more academic credit-hours – enough credit-hours to put graduation within reach. In other words, they were succeeding academically when they left. We are now implementing several strategies to foster greater success and timely graduation for our student-athletes.

In addition, we’ve now looked more closely at students from the general population who leave the Twin Cities campus without graduating, and found that approximately 7 percent of them leave with more than 100 credits but without completing a degree. These disappointing numbers suggest an urgent need to apply similar solutions in our overall retention efforts.

So we must do a better job of mining our own intelligence and sharing what we find there. For example, policy-makers who see our biennial budget request and wonder, “What’s in it for my district?” need to know that the University of Minnesota system has talented, engaged alumni working across the state, including more than 7,000 who have founded roughly 10,000 companies employing half a million Minnesotans in every county in the state. Or that in the 2004 academic year, the University of Minnesota produced 46 percent of the state’s degrees in science, technology, engineering and mathematics, including nearly three-quarters of all first professional degrees and 90 percent of all doctoral degrees in these fields.

Not only are we an economic engine for the state and one of its chief sources of human capital, but we are also Driven to Discover. The research we do here changes lives – and the success of our marketing campaign in the past year underscores the fact that this message is beginning to resonate, on campus and off. We can use success stories like these to connect the fate of the U to the future of our great state. We can convince our partners that money invested in the University is money well spent.

Our legislators have shown great willingness to hear our story and our ideas for the future. But the U requires a stronger partnership with Minnesota. We’ve asked the governor and the legislature to make a serious and sustained investment in the University, because such an investment will create new resources and human capital needed for the future.

Make no mistake, over the past few years we’ve taken great steps to strategically allocate funds, seek new research dollars and garner private support. The University works hard to ensure the maximum return on the state’s investment – in fact, we rank sixth in the U.S. in terms of income from University-developed technologies. This year, we will attract more than $600 million in grants, contracts, royalties and other forms of non-state funding to support research, discovery and the transfer of knowledge. In addition, the University of Minnesota Foundation reported $181 million in total gifts for 2006 – a record for a non-campaign year – but these funding sources can’t carry the day. Our message going forward must be this: The time to do more with less is past. In the future, we must do more with more.

Conclusion
Two years ago, I said that Minnesota needs a great research university, and this University needs Minnesota. I also said that strategic positioning would provide the basis for change and a commitment to excellence worthy of our heritage and our future.^[5] The inscription on Northrop captures this beautifully: It expresses the spirit of a great University, its commitment to excellence, and its service to the greater good. It’s a tremendous vision, and I’m humbled by your efforts to attain it – but we still have work to do.

The poet Emily Dickinson wrote: “We never know how high we are/Till we are called to rise/And then, if we are true to plan/Our statures touch the skies.”^[6] If we continue together toward our common vision of excellence, we will truly transform this university for the benefit of our students, our state and the world.

And if, throughout this transformation, we keep that historic Northrop inscription in mind, we will remain all that we already are: The only university in the world that can call itself Minnesota.

Question: A very particular issue concerns the University’s membership in the workers rights consortium and the present work to developing a designated suppliers program. And I am wondering if you could address the University’s not yet having signed on to be among the, at this point thirty universities that are trying to craft that code which will put teeth into and the commitment that I know that you share really effective and all the University of California system, University of Wisconsin, they are at the table trying to work out the details, make sure that it is legal and so on and I think especially given our recent large contract with Nike so that our name is tied to theirs it really behooves us to be out there and protect our good name which is not only on our sports team, on our logo apparel, but most importantly on our degrees and the research that comes from here and that trying to create a diverse democratic critical conversation locally and transnationally is at the core of the vision I have heard you articulate and I am wondering what you can say about will by the end of this academic year this university join others at the table trying to work out those procedures.

Answer: Thank you for your question. First of all I have to say that the University of Minnesota is one of the first universities in the United States to join the workers rights consortium has a strong statement of standards, and we are clearly on record in supporting the values of the WRC and the values in ensuring that contractors who prepare sports apparel or apparel for the university or any other product that we may use here live up to those standards and we are deeply committed. The issues are the workers rights consortium that we are a part of and we are a part of making the recommendations to move to the designated supplier program has asked the U.S. Department of Justice to make a determination as to whether these standards and the designated supplier program will stand up to the legal standards of the United States. I asked people to take a look as to whether we should sign on with the other Universities. There is no reluctance on our part to be a part of the conversation and certainly to be part of the movement, to make a big difference in this area. I think we need to figure out ways of expanding the influence beyond universities in the United States. University apparel represents roughly five percent of the world’s apparel industry right now and I think what I want to say is those values are steadfast. We have a very, very strong commitment and we will make the right decision I am quite sure in the next few weeks and we will make it in consultation with you and other members of the committee.

Question: This is Bill Peterson, faculty member of Crookston, for the past 9 years the campus has been rated top public comprehensive college in the Midwest by US News and World Report. This year we moved up to number two in that category. Given that, what other types of measures are you looking at to connect campuses to support the University’s goal of becoming one of the top three public research universities?

Answer: Well Bill, what people in the Twin Cities are worried about is that I will truly answer your question, and they might have to give up their dinner. I actually think it is a profoundly important question. You have heard me at one point in my remarks, and I have said this over and over again and I believe this and it goes back to the last question; we measure what we value and obviously we have put together a report that we submit to the University board of Regents and the state legislature every year that includes nearly 80 measures in very sector and area of University responsibility but I also made the point that I do not think we should just chase rankings because quite frankly rankings are quite transient and really great cultures that survive are ones that continually transform themselves, that build a culture that is continuously committed to excellence and improvement. I love this mantra from the service industry, the non-profit as well, and the retail industry, that “good enough is never good enough,” and I think that has to be the way that we think about the future of the University of Minnesota, but I would argue that we are better off, we should pay attention to these ratings that occur in higher education, but we should pay far more attention to the real results. I talk about mining our own intelligence. On the Twin Cities campus we have an aspiration to be an international global university, but we are dead last in the big ten in attracting and providing educational support for undergraduate students. Provosts, I talked to Tom Sullivan about this, he is putting a swat team together to figure out why. It is not because we lack applications. Our applications have been going up at a geometric rate. There is something else going on. Either our price is too high, we do not act quickly enough, we do not provide good enough housing, we do not have decent financial support. If we are going to be a truly global university we cannot just be effective in attracting graduate professional students, and the point I would really make is that we should sit down in a deliberate way as an academic community and say to ourselves, what is really important to accomplish here at the University of Minnesota and how well are we doing it? How well are we supporting our work? How well are we supporting the academic mission of the University? How effective are we as an organization? We should build a measure that really tracks our progress and impact in all of those areas and use them as a means of not only monitoring where we are but as for the fuel and the energy to continuously create this cultural dynamic around improvement, this cultural dynamic I refer to as a real commitment to excellence. So I would pay attention, Bill, to those ratings because some of those measures matter, but a lot of the ratings are somewhat superficial in terms of measuring what really matters in a great academic system like the University of Minnesota and if you just pay attention, it is the teaching of the test phenomenon, if you just pay attention for those measures without taking a look at some of the underlying trends I think you can often fall off the cliff and not really achieve the long term success that I think this state has a right to expect of us. So I think you ought to look at the evaluation framework the board has endorsed and really drill these measures. Some of them need, for example the five percent measure about student participation is fine, but if you are not achieving it what a great institution does is ask the question about why, why are we not getting that? What is wrong with the way we are operating? So I am really asking for is that our community not only pay attention to the bench marks we think are important and the evaluations that others do of us, but really the thoughtful and self-conscious about the trends in our own academic environment and to really manage them in a way to get much better results and I think put the University on a much stronger path towards the future.

Question: Pareena Lawrence from the Morris campus, I would like to thank you for recognizing a Truman scholar, we are all very proud. My question to you is one of the selling commissions goals for American higher education is to adapt to a world altered by changing demographics and globalization. How is the University of Minnesota positioning itself for the future to address those goals, in particular how will you incorporate all the campuses of the University of Minnesota, particularly those outside the metro area, in this endeavor?

Answer: I frankly do not believe you can be a great university without being a great global university. I think it is impossible. If it is impossible today, it will be even more impossible in the future. As we have thought about the international posture and responsibilities of the University, we always think of them on a statewide basis. We think about the international position involving all the campuses and resources of the University of Minnesota and we also think of those resources as connected to government in Minnesota, as our state, our local units of government, the vibrant business culture we have in our state, and the vibrant non-profit section. For example, when we secured a Bush grant a few years ago to internationalize the curriculum of the University of Minnesota, it was not just an exercise on one campus, it was a statewide effort. And it affected the curricular patterns of every campus of the University of Minnesota. So let me just give a few thoughts and really Senior Vic President Robert Jones who is mostly responsible in this area could do a better job than I can and I hope that he will tell me that when I am finished. But anyway, there are several things we have to deal with, if we are going to be an international global university this has to be a welcoming university system for international scholars, for international students, so we really have to get that right and we have to attract people from around the world. We have to work with government to make sure visa issues are much easier in the future to resolve than they are today. I have been working on that quite diligently with a number of people throughout the United States, and it is difficult. But we also need not only to attract people but we also need to internationalize the curriculum and the relationships of the University of Minnesota. So I am really proud of the fact that the University has academic partnerships true of these academic partnerships and research and education and some cases what I call the deeper aspects of public engagement and many many countries throughout the world. The last few years the executive MBA program in Guangzhou, China at Sun Yat-sen University has been ranked the best in China. We have a new health care administration leadership degree located in Hong Kong and we will soon go to India and other places in China. So I can name, if you got me going I could probably name about a dozen more. The Law School is working, you know, with the Beijing University for political science and Law the most distinguished University of its kind in China will offer a joint law degree. So the other thing that I think needs to happen here is we need to deepen these partnerships so they are more than sort of a world perks club you know we all sort of visit, we land, we meet, and then we have good meals, and we leave. These need to be deep academic partnerships where we get to get together and work as we are doing between researchers in Norway and here at the University of Minnesota on the future of removable fuels and removable energy in our society. So that is the one thing I would say clearly this is not going to be a Twins Cities centric activity. I mean when I look at some of the exciting developments and Robert informs me of this all the time. On the coordinate campuses-- in Crookston you are developing great relationships. I mention the UMD summer arts festival that is all about international connections around the world its one of the most exciting programs that you will find anywhere on the University of Minnesota. Morris has some great partnerships--your student teaching program where you place students in countries all over the world I think is one of the best programs of its kind in the United States. So my point really is we can not sort of take a step back, we really have to make a global commitment and global relationships of the University a top priority. We really need to be much more effective and much more ? , and I think we need to do a better job at recruiting, and welcoming and supporting people, scholars and students who come here to study with us from around the world we need to deepen their relationship with the community outside of our campuses we need to strengthen the partnership we have with the business community in Minnesota. Think about this for a minute. Practically every major business in Minnesota is a global business, and when our students go study in China they can be doing internships at Best Buy. Best Buy just bought the largest retail chain in China, and Brad Anderson called just to wonder if the Carlson school could work with him to put together a retail kind of graduate program. You know for Chinese entrepreneurs and entrepreneurs here in the United States. I hope we will move from a celebration of our international character and to a commitment to really deepen the international nature of the University and to figure out a way to make these truly deep and strategic partnerships as we go forward. The other thing I would kindly say and David Metzen is about to give me a book here. The other thing I would say is we need to do a better job when people come here celebrating the cultures that they represent on our campus, and we need to do a better job of celebrating the great fellowships you know the full bright fellowships and other awards that our people get to go around the world truly makes a difference. It is also about celebration I did not talk about but a great culture always celebrates achievement.

Question: John Finnegan, School of Public Health. Bob, wondering if you might address a little bit some of the collaborative relationships that link us to other Minnesota institutions. I think specifically of the University Mayo partnership and what that might do for the strategic positioning directions that we have chosen.

Answer: Thanks John, this is again an answer that could take some time. I actually do not believe we would be a great University unless we really celebrate the power of partnerships. I talked about international ones. I talked about arts and the community, agenda here and Duluth. We have got great partnerships with the city of Minneapolis and we are working on joint ventures with Minneapolis and Hennepin County. Those kind of partnerships really I think just substantially strengthen the academic commission and impact of the University of Minnesota. I would love to be able to catalog everything our faculty and staff do in that regard, it is just absolutely phenomenal. This is, I think this is the most engaged campus in the United States when it comes to people giving, unselfishly, their time to really make our community, our state, this world a much better place. But I just think, again I would argue that a thousand interactions might be important but more and more those partnerships need to be strategic. So when I mention the center on cooperate and business relations. Now we have, this came out of the task group report that Jim McNerny who is formally CEO of 3M, basically it said that University does a lot of work with the businesses in Minnesota. It sort of one person at a time, and one business at a time and the other comment that was made was that we need more then a GPS system to get to the right place at the University of Minnesota, and so can we not sort of make this more understandable place for people in the outside world. The point I really want to make is that we have to think about partnerships as being a really true goal and aspiration of the University of Minnesota that there absolutely one of the central underpinnings of being a truly great University but we increasingly need to be far more strategic of these relationships and partnerships. It cannot be all one person at a time, I want all the entrepreneurial people out there just stirring things up and creating all the activity they possible can. And some of these need to really systemic and strategic the partnership that started from the dinner conversation with the mayor and his fellow leaders in the city of Minneapolis to try to organize academic resources to confront some of our most vexing problems in the Minneapolis/ Saint Paul metropolitan community. It has lead to a three year conversation, and its going to lead to some real strong programs, partnerships, and I think partnerships that would really transform the economy and quality of life for literally thousands of people. But that takes time, and what I said before takes persistence and revision, and to knowing and thinking strategically and just being doggedly persistent. And we, you know just literally dozens and dozens and dozens of these programs all over the state of Minnesota. We need to try and make them partnerships with far more impact than I think they are today. I think we do it right we can truly leverage new resources for the academic mission of the University of Minnesota.

The meeting was adjourned at 3:41 p.m.

^[1] “The Northrop Auditorium Inscription” (unpublished article), Engstrand, Gary, and Ramsay, John.

^[2] Politics, bl. 1,ch. 2, Aristotle.
^[3] “College Learning for the New Global Century,” The National Leadership Council for Liberal Education and America’s Promise, 2007.
^[4] The Creation of the Future, Rhodes, Frank H.T., Cornell University Press, Ithaca, N.Y., 2001.
^[5] 2005 State of the University address, Bruininks, Robert.
^[6] Poem, No. 1176, st. 1, 1870, Dickinson, Emily.