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