The meeting of the University Senate and Faculty Senate for 2006-07 was convened in Coffman Theatre on Thursday, May 3, 2007, at 2:31 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, 20 civil service members, 115 faculty/academic professional members, and 15 student members. President Bruininks presided.

2. TRIBUTE TO DECEASED MEMBERS OF THE UNIVERSITY COMMUNITY

FACULTY/ACADEMIC PROFESSIONALS/STAFF

Stephen Chilton
Professor
Political Science – Duluth
1946 – 2007

Edith Hols
Professor
English – Duluth
1912 – 2007

Donovan A. Johnson
Professor
Center for Early Education Development
1910 – 2007

Jui S. Lee
Professor
Physiology
1913 – 2007


STUDENTS

Jaclyn K. Kobilka
College of Continuing Education

Eloma K. Lenya
College of Biological Sciences

Kyle L. Sharbonno
Institute of Technology

Melissa Speich
School of Public Health


3. EDUCATIONAL POLICY COMMITTEE

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

COMMENT:

These data will be distributed at the meeting and are available on the web at: http://www.irr.umn.edu/grades/.

Professor Carol Chomsky, Chair of the Senate Consultative Committee (SCC), introduced Alison Davis-Blake, Dean of the Carlson School of Management.

Professor Carol Chomsky, Chair of the Senate Consultative Committee (SCC), said that the Student Development Outcomes were endorsed by the SCC and are on today's agenda for action. A second issue for SCC involved improving the attendance of senators or alternates. SCC decided to make attendance records available on the web and to encourage the appointment of a pool of alternates for all representatives groups.

As this is the last SCC report of the year, Professor Chomsky thanked the Committees and senators who served this year.

MOTION:

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

http://www1.umn.edu/usenate/usen/070405sen.html

DISCUSSION:

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

MOTION:

To amend Article II, Section 2 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)

...

2. Terms of Membership, Chairing of Committees, and Removal of Members for Absences

...

c. Terms of committee service begin July 1 and terminate June 30. No non-student member is eligible to serve more than two consecutive full three-year terms on any one committee, and shall be eligible for reappointment only after a one-year interval of nonmembership on that committee. No student member is eligible to serve more than two consecutive two-year terms on any one committee. No committee member is eligible to serve on more than two committees of the University Senate, the Faculty Senate, or the Student Senate at a time. These rotation procedures and limitations do not apply to ex officio representatives.

d. Notwithstanding the preceding provisions, faculty, academic professionals, and civil service staff appointed to the four-year terms of membership on the Finance and Planning Committee shall be eligible to serve two consecutive four-year terms, for a total of eight years.

e. Notwithstanding Rule 2(c), the Senate Committee on Committees shall have authority to waive the term limit for faculty, academic professionals, civil service staff, and students from the coordinate campuses.

...

COMMENT:

The Faculty Committee on Committees received a request to exempt Morris faculty from committee term limits in cases where the faculty member currently serving wishes to continue, but has served the maximum of six years and there are no other faculty who wish to fill this vacancy. The Committee proposes this amendment to allow the Committee to waive term limits for all coordinate campus committee members on an individual basis.

DISCUSSION:

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

MOTION:

To approve the following statement.

The Social Concerns Committee strongly encourages the University Senate to endorse the following statement:

The University Senate requests that the University of Minnesota join with other universities and human rights organizations to respond to the concerns of foreign-born students, faculty, and visiting scholars, regarding the Military Commissions Act.

Congress is now considering legislation to revise the Military Commissions Act and to restore the due process right of habeas corpus to detainees being held by the United States, and to make it clear that the federal government must comply with the Geneva Conventions. Without these reforms any foreign-born resident at the University, or in the United States is at risk of violation of his or her personal rights, with no recourse.

The University Senate asks that the President direct the University’s legislative representative in Washington, D.C. to help support these important legislative initiatives. Further, we ask that the University of Minnesota work with other universities and human rights organizations across the nation to support needed legislative reforms to protect the rights of all residents of the United States.

COMMENT:

Last year, 2006 Cass Gilbert Visiting Professor Richard Kroeker, College of Architecture, spoke to President Bruininks about what the University was doing to protect his rights and the rights of other non-citizens, students, faculty, and visiting scholars in light of the Military Commissions Act. The President referred him to Regents Professor David Weissbrodt, Law School. Professor Weissbrodt directed the matter to the Senate Committee on Social Concerns, since it had been discussing the abrogation of rights of foreign-born residents in the United States.

A report issued in February by Minnesota Advocates for Human Rights states that “since 9/11 national security has often trumped other policy concerns and has justified legislation that puts at risk personal freedoms, the balance of governmental power, and the human rights of immigrants and refugees.” Most egregious is the Military Commissions Act, with its provisions that strip any non-citizen deemed an “enemy combatant” of the right to be heard in court to establish his or her innocence, regardless of how long the person is held without charge. The Constitutional Writ of habeas corpus is the foundation of our nation’s limits on arbitrary executive power over any person. Under the Military Commissions Act, even a detainee who is being subjected to torture would never be allowed to seek relief from any U.S. courts. There is no reason for this dangerously broad forfeiture of the traditional check of last resort on executive power. Denying access to the courts also signals to the world that our nation so fears our own independent judiciary that we must cut off all access to it.

The Social Concerns Committee believes that one of the great strengths of the University of Minnesota is its international character. We benefit greatly from the diversity of our faculty, staff and student body, and are proud to count over twelve hundred international scholars employed on the Twin Cities campus, and thirty-six hundred international students system-wide. Yet the well being of these individuals is jeopardized by a curtailment of the rights of foreign-born residents of the United States under the current federal administration.

DISCUSSION:

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

MOTION:

To approve the following resolution.

[For a fuller consideration of the issues addressed herein, see ‘Copyrights and the Paradox of Scholarly Publishing” by R. Michael Tanner, Provost, University of Illinois at Chicago]

Publication is the lifeblood of a research university. It is incumbent upon faculty, campus administrators and librarians to ensure the free flow of scholarly information in fulfillment of our campus missions to advance the public good through research and education. Toward this end, our campuses are committed to supporting a sustainable publication process and a healthy publishing industry. The “information revolution” has greatly expanded the means for disseminating and utilizing scholarly discourse, but this opportunity for extending the reach and impact of our campuses is countered by social and economic conventions of some sectors of the publishing industry. Suitable publishing partners for academic enterprises should be encouraging the widest possible dissemination of the academy’s work, and the management of copyright should be directed to encouraging scholarly output rather than unnecessarily fettering its access and use. Without some important changes in publishing practices, authors and readers will continue to be frustrated by barriers to the free flow of information that is an essential characteristic of great research universities.

The CIC Provosts suggest that faculty authors consider a number of factors when choosing and interacting with publishers for their works. The goal of publication should be to encourage widespread dissemination and impact; the means for accomplishing this will necessarily depend on the nature of the work in question, the author’s circumstances, available suitable outlets, and expectations in the author’s field of inquiry. In general, we encourage authors to consider publishing strategies that will optimize short and long-term access to their work, taking into account such factors as affordability, efficient means for distribution, a secure third-party archiving strategy, and flexible management of rights.

Protecting intellectual property rights is a particularly important consideration, as many of our authors unwittingly sign away all control over their creative output. Toward this end, the CIC Provosts encourage contract language that ensures that academic authors retain certain rights that facilitate archiving, instructional use, and sharing with colleagues to advance discourse and discovery. Accompanying this document is a model CIC publishing addendum that affirms the rights of authors to share their work in a variety of circumstances, including posting versions of the work in institutional or disciplinary repositories. While the particular circumstances and terms governing publication will vary on a case by case basis, the underlying principle of encouraging access to the creative output of our campuses should inhere in all of our efforts.

The CIC Provosts recognize the complexity of the issues involved in publication, but are nonetheless committed to helping our faculty make the most of their work. For further discussion of these issues, or for help in assessing options for the publication of particular works, members of our faculty are encouraged to consult with academic deans, campus counsels, university librarians, or academic staff in the provosts’ offices.

Endorsed by the Senate Library Committee April 18, 2007.

COMMENT:

The Senate Library Committee has reviewed the CIC Provosts’ statement on Publishing Agreements and supports the principles it incorporates. The statement encourages authors to be thoughtful in selecting publishing outlets, recognizing potential restrictions that may fetter access to scholarship. The model publishing addendum and information about publisher policies will be made available by the University Libraries to assist authors in those choices.

The Committee recommends that the Senate support the CIC Provosts’ statement.

DISCUSSION:

Professor Carol Chomsky, Chair of the Senate Consultative Committee (SCC), said that this issue arose from a lengthy discussion at last November's faculty governance CIC leaders meeting. Each institution was then asked to initiate conversations on their own campuses. She noted that the Senate at the University of Illinois at Chicago has endorsed this statement and it is under review at many other Big Ten institutions.

A senator spoke in support of this motion, noting it is helpful to be able to offer publishers language on what their institution expects in publishing agreements.

Q: Having previously consulted with the Office of the General Counsel (OGC), what is the mechanism that the libraries will have?

A: The Libraries maintain two websites - one on scholarly communication and another on copyright, and is prepared to provide support for people with questions. The copyright website was developed in consultation with the OGC, since that office cannot meet with everyone.

Q: Did the University consider making the language stronger by guaranteeing rights to the University?

A: The University did not want to mandate the relationship between the publisher and the author, as room for negotiating is necessary.

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

That the Twin Cities Delegation of the Faculty Senate:

-- adopts as University policy the following Undergraduate Student Learning Outcomes for the Twin Cities campus, and

--endorses these learning outcomes as the guiding principles for teaching and learning at all levels of curricular decision-making on the Twin Cities campus.

Undergraduate Student Learning Outcomes

At the time of receiving a bachelor’s degree, students:

--Can identify, define, and solve problems

--Can locate and critically evaluate information

--Have mastered a body of knowledge and a mode of inquiry

--Understands diverse philosophies and cultures within and across societies

--Can communicate effectively

--Understand the role of creativity, innovation, discovery, and expression across disciplines

--Have acquired skills for effective citizenship and life-long learning.

COMMENT:

The Senate Committee on Educational Policy (SCEP) has discussed these outcomes at several meetings over the last year and recommends to the Faculty Senate that it adopt them as policy for the Twin Cities campus.

The Faculty Consultative Committee reviewed the outcomes as well and concurs in the recommendation from SCEP.

DISCUSSION:

Professor Richard McCormick, Chair of the Educational Policy Committee (SCEP), said that these outcomes have been developed over the last four years and SCEP has seen versions of these outcomes at five meetings. SCEP strongly endorses the outcomes as a way to make explicit what the University is already doing and to uphold teaching and learning as crucial pieces of the strategic positioning process. Lastly, he noted that there are student members on SCEP and that the proposal has been presented to the Student Senate Consultative Committee and the Council of Academic Professionals and Administrators.

MOTION:

That the Twin Cities Delegation of the University Senate endorses the following development outcomes as guiding principles for undergraduate students in planning and reflecting upon their experiences within and beyond the classroom.

As they progress toward their degree, University of Minnesota undergraduates will develop and demonstrate the following characteristics:

COMMENT:

The Senate Committee on Educational Policy (SCEP) has discussed these outcomes at several meetings over the last year and recommends to the University Senate that it adopt them as policy for the Twin Cities campus.

The Senate Consultative Committee reviewed the outcomes as well and concurs in the recommendation from SCEP.

DISCUSSION:

Professor Richard McCormick, Chair of the Educational Policy Committee (SCEP), said that these outcomes compliment the Student Learning Outcomes as they are not restricted to the classroom environment but are life skills that students are acquiring while at the University. These outcomes have been presented to SCEP twice and received the committee's endorsement.

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

MOTION:

To approve the following resolution.

WHEREAS, the University of Minnesota recognizes that students learn best in a diverse educational environment^[1]; and

WHEREAS, the University of Minnesota is committed to fostering a uniform campus environment of inclusion, knowledge, and understanding in which faculty, staff, and students learn to value diversity and to respect individual differences that enrich the University community; and

WHEREAS, ethnic background questions based on ethno-geographic origin provide for a more inclusive and consistent level of generality which minimizes confusion in ethnic classification schemes; and

WHEREAS, setting mandatory minimum requirements for admissions applications while leaving individual programs, departments, schools, and colleges the ability to augment their applications with additional options^[2] as they please allows for flexibility without compromising a base level of inclusiveness; and

WHEREAS, compliance at the University administrative level is essential for uniformity and ease of transition; therefore

BE IT RESOLVED, that the University Senate recommends that all programs, departments, schools, and colleges restructure their applications for admission to base any ethnic background questions on ethno-geographic origin, with the mandatory minimum requirements for the ethnic background question wording to include the following:

ETHNIC BACKGROUND (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY)^[3]:
American Indian/Alaskan Native
Asian American/Pacific Islander
Black/African American
Hispanic/Latin American
Middle Eastern American
South Asian American
White (non-Hispanic)^[4]
Other, please specify:^[5] ____________________________________
If you wish to self-identify further, please do so here _______________________________

and therefore

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the University shall exercise its right to augment the ethnic classifications mandated by any future resolution, proposal, or order from the U.S. Department of Education or similar governing body such that all categories stated above are included.^[6]

and therefore

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the PeopleSoft software used by the University for its faculty, staff, and students (for admissions and enrollment) be updated to reflect these changes when the federal reporting requirements are released, or for applications of the entering class of Fall 2009, whichever is sooner.

Approved February 8, 2007 by SSCC.
Approved April 5, 2007 by the Student Senate.

DISCUSSION:

The motion was withdrawn.

President Bruininks commended the faculty, the Provost, and the Faculty Senate for their unanimous approval and support of the Tenure Code changes. Secondly, he congratulated Professor Gary Balas, next year's Faculty Consultative Committee (FCC) Chair, and Professor Emily Hoover, next year's FCC Vice Chair. Lastly, he recognized the awards recently received by University faculty and students, including:

He said that the University has tried hard to provide more support to those who nominate faculty and students for these awards, and this is the culture that should be nurtured.

President Bruininks then said that this legislative session is still too premature to make firm predictions, but at this time it looks optimistic for the University. The Governor recently vetoed the capital bonding bill, which included a $20 million investment for renovation of a building for the College of Pharmacy and the School of Public Health. The House and Senate need to craft a new bill to go to the Governor. If they do not, then this funding issue will be held until next year.

The bio-medical sciences authority separates this issue from the rest of the University's investments and asks for a ten year state commitment to the core infrastructure. The Senate has approved this bill; the House has not done so yet, but if approved it could be an amendment to the capital bonding bill. If not approved, it puts pressure on other academic needs of the University.

The University's biennial budget request is for $182 million. The Governor recommended $115 million, the House $165 million, and the Senate $139 million. This issue is now in conference committee. If the University receives close to its full request, it will allow it to restrain tuition growth. Another student funding proposal is a grant to middle income students that will allow them to buy-down tuition by 2.5 percent. He commended the House and Senate committee leaders for being supportive of the University's investment, but there is still over two weeks in the session before a final decision is sent to the Governor.

FOR INFORMATION:

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

MOTION:

To approve the following statement.

The University Senate supports the passage and enactment of the Minnesota Dream Act.

COMMENT:

The Minnesota Dream Act would help open the doors to higher education for more resident students of color. Under the current system, undocumented Minnesota students are hindered from enrolling in post-secondary institutions because they must pay out-of-state tuition, even though many of these young people have lived nearly their entire lives in the state.

If the Minnesota Dream Act becomes law, all students who meet the following requirements would be allowed to pay in-state-tuition rates at Minnesota public colleges and universities:
- graduated from a Minnesota high school or attained an equivalent certificate ( GED)
- resided in the state of Minnesota for at least three years
- been accepted to a Minnesota public college or university
- (if applicable) have filed an affidavit to regularize their immigration status as soon as they are able to do so

This legislation has received wide bipartisan support. Both the House and the Senate have voted to include the Minnesota Dream Act in their versions of the Higher Education Omnibus bill. Currently, a conference committee is discussing the details of the final joint bill. I ask for endorsement of this proposal, as it embodies the Senate's principles of encouraging academic excellence and expanding equitable access to the University.

DISCUSSION:

A motion was made and seconded to suspend the rules to consider an item of new business. A vote was taken and the motion was approved to allow the business to be considered.

Randy Croce, an academic professional senator, said that the Minnesota Dream Act would allow undocumented students who graduate from Minnesota high schools to attend the University at in-state tuition rates. He has been working on a documentary on this topic for the past three years and has met many students who have lived in the state for the majority of their lives but still need to pay out-of-state tuition. This provision has been approved by both the House and Senate in the past few years, but has not made it into a state bill. This year the provision is not included yet, but University approval might be an encouragement to the state conference committee. It also seems appropriate that the University takes a position since it encourages diversity on campus and would reward students who have done well in high school.

He then ceded time to Felipe Mancera, a student at the Rochester Community Technical College.

Felipe Mancera said that he graduated high school is 2004 and was accepted to the University of Minnesota. However, since he could not complete the FAFSA form he was not eligible for financial aid and could not afford out-of-state tuition. He said it is hard for himself and other students to keep hope alive when they graduate high school and are so uncertain about the future. He asked that the Senate approve the motion on behalf of the hundreds of students who graduate each year and cannot afford college.

President Bruininks noted that this issue involves federal immigration law and allows states to take affirmative action to allow undocumented students to qualify for in-state tuition rates. 10 states have already approved this legislation. The University cannot take action without this legislation being approved by the state first. The Governor is against this legislation, but the state must find a way to resolve this issue.

Q: Which students would qualify for this coverage under the motion?

A: Any student who meets the first three requirements should be eligible for in-state tuition, which is a more stringent requirement for undocumented students. The fourth requirement refers to federal legislation that is being discussed, but has not yet been approved.

A senator noted that GAPSA has also noted to support this Act.

Another senator stated that these students did not choose to be undocumented, but were brought to the United States when they were younger.

A senator then spoke in favor of the motion, noting that a strong democracy needs an educated citizenship.

Professor Carol Chomsky, Chair of the Senate Consultative Committee (SCC), said that this item is under new business because it was not brought through a committee and therefore does not have official committee endorsement. However, she feels that this motion would have unanimous support from the committee.

Professor Naomi Scheman, Chair of the Equity, Access, and Diversity Committee (EAD), said that her committee also did not officially consider the motion, but would also be in support of the motion.

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

The meeting was adjourned at 3:35 p.m.

Professor Carol Chomsky, Chair of the Faculty Consultative Committee (FCC), said that since the last meeting the FCC has continued its general consultative role with the President and Provost, approved changes to the Faculty Senate election process, discussed the University Culture Task Force, and has had extensive discussions with senior administrators on issues raised in meetings with department chairs, senators, and Morris faculty. Issues from these meetings included decisions on what is centralized and decentralized, resource issues, balance between disciplinary and interdisciplinary work, burdens on faculty productivity, concerns about the new budget model, and issues about how and how much communication is conducted by the University.

Remaining agenda items include an intellectual future discussion, intellectual property policy revisions, internal communications, Morris faculty issues, and a report from the Coalition on Intercollegiate Athletics.

In closing, she thanked senators and committee members for their work with year, and then thanked the FCC Vice Chair, Scott Lanyon, for his support, work, and wise counsel.

Professor Martin Sampson, Faculty Legislative Liaison, said that the Governor has vetoed the capital investment bill, so it is unclear what will happen with this funding. The House and Senate have passed operating budget bills, and there is a conference committee looking at them. The committee has met a few times, but cannot make a decision until it has budget targets.

President Bruininks then thanked Professor Sampson for his work on behalf of the University.

MOTION:

To amend Article IV, Section 2 of the Faculty Senate Rules as follows (language to be added is underlined). As an amendment to the Faculty Senate Rules, the motion requires a simple majority for approval.

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

...

2. Terms of Membership, Chairing of Committees, and Removal of Members for Absences

...

c. Terms of committee service begin July 1 and terminate June 30. No non-student member is eligible to serve more than two consecutive full three-year terms on any one committee, and shall be eligible for reappointment only after a one-year interval of nonmembership on that committee. No student member is eligible to serve more than two consecutive two-year terms on any one committee. No committee member is eligible to serve on more than two committees of the University Senate, the Faculty Senate, and the Student Senate at a time. These rotation procedures and limitations do not apply to ex officio representatives.

d. Notwithstanding the preceding provisions, faculty, academic staff, and civil service staff appointed to the four-year terms of membership on the Finance and Planning Committee shall be eligible to serve two consecutive four-year terms, for a total of eight years.

e. Notwithstanding Rule 2(c), the Faculty Committee on Committees shall have authority to waive the term limit for faculty, academic professionals, civil service staff, and students from the coordinate campuses.

...

COMMENT:

The Faculty Committee on Committees received a request to exempt Morris faculty from committee term limits in cases where the faculty member currently serving wishes to continue, but has served the maximum of six years and there are no other faculty who wish to fill this vacancy. The Committee proposes this amendment to allow the Committee to waive term limits for all coordinate campus committee members on an individual basis.

DISCUSSION:

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

The Faculty Consultative Committee nominates Professor Mary Jo Kane for the Faculty Senate Vice Chair position for the 2007-08 academic year. This person also serves as Vice Chair of the University Senate.

DISCUSSION:

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

MOTION:

That the Twin Cities Campus Faculty Delegation confirm the reappointment of one faculty for an additional three year term on the Committee on Committees. A simple majority is required for approval.

MARY JO KREITZER: Associate Professor of Nursing, School of Nursing. University Senate member: None. Senate/Assembly Committee participation (past and present): Committee on Committees, 2004-07.

INFORMATION:

The Nominating Committee Bylaws specify that the it may present the name of an individual, eligible for re-election, to the Delegation for confirmation of reappointment without another candidate on the ballot to fill the position.

DISCUSSION:

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

MOTION:

That the Twin Cities Faculty Delegation approve the following slate of nominees to fill three 2007-10 Twin Cities faculty vacancies on the Committee on Committees. A simple majority is required for approval. Once the slate is approved, a ballot will be distributed for voting.

FIRST PAIR
GORDON ALEXANDER: Professor of Finance, Carlson School of Management. University Senate member: 1987-88. Senate/Assembly Committee participation (past and present): Retirement Subcommittee, 2002-10.

STEPHEN WEEKS: Associate Professor of Architecture, College of Design. University Senate member: 2006-08. Senate/Assembly Committee participation (past and present): Disabilities Issues, 1989-91; University College Assembly, 1991-92.

SECOND PAIR
MICHAEL HANCHER: Professor of English College of Liberal Arts. University Senate member: 1986-89, 1991-92, 1993-96, 2001-02, 2003-04. Senate/Assembly Committee participation (past and present): Library, 1991-95.

RAY WAKEFIELD: Associate Professor of German, Scandinavian and Dutch, College of Liberal Arts. University Senate member: 1998-2001, 2006-09. Senate/Assembly Committee participation (past and present): Library, 2000-04 (Chair, 2003-04); Student Affairs, 2001-02.

THIRD PAIR
ROBERT MCMASTER: Professor of Geography, College of Liberal Arts. University Senate member: 2005-08. Senate/Assembly Committee participation (past and present): Council on Liberal Education, 2001-04, 2005-08; Information Technologies, 2000-02; Library, 1991-93, 1995-98 (Chair, 1995-96).

TO BE DETERMINED:

FOR INFORMATION:

The Faculty Senate Bylaws specify that the Twin Cities Faculty Delegation shall elect by written ballot faculty/academic professional members to fill vacancies on the Committee on Committees from a slate of candidates provided by the Nominating Committee. Other candidates may be nominated by petition of 12 members of the Twin Cities Faculty Delegation. Petitions to nominate candidates not on the slate must be in the hands of the Clerk on the day before the meeting at which the election is to be conducted. The elected Twin Cities faculty members of the committee whose term continue at least through 2007-08 are:

Robert Gehrz, Institute of Technology
Priscilla Gibson, College of Education and Human Development
Joan Howland, Law School
Perry Leo, Institute of Technology
J. Michael Oakes, School of Public Health
Carl Rosen, College of Agricultural, Food, and Environmental Sciences
Tom Scott, HHH Institute of Public Affairs

DISCUSSION:

With no discussion a vote was taken and the motion was approved. Ballots were then distributed and Professors Michael Hancher, Robert McMaster, and Stephen Weeks were elected to the Committee on Committees.

MOTION:

That the Twin Cities Campus Faculty Delegation confirm the reappointment of two faculty for additional three year terms on the Nominating Committee. A simple majority is required for approval.

DANIEL FEENEY: Professor of Small Animal Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine. University Senate member: 1983-96, 1987-90, 1991-94, 1995-98, 1999-2000, 2006-09. Senate/Assembly Committee participation (past and present): AHC Faculty Consultative, 1996-98 (Ex Officio, 1998-1998-2002, 2003-07); AHC Finance and Planning, 1997-2007 (Chair, 1998-2002, 2003-07); Consultative, 2000-2006 (Chair, 2002-03; Ex Officio 1994-97); Facilities Management, 1984-85; Faculty Affairs, 1989-92, 1994-97, 1999-2002 (Chair, 1994-97); Finance and Planning (Ex Officio, 2003-07); Nominating, 2006-07; Research, 1992-94; Retirement, 2002-09 (Chair, 2004-07).

MINDY KURZER: Professor of Food Science and Nutrition, College of Food, Agricultural, and Natural Resource Sciences. University Senate member: 2001-04. Senate/Assembly Committee participation (past and present): Equal Employment Opportunity for Women, 1997-2000 (Chair, 1997-99); Nominating, 2006-07; University College Assembly, 1991-92.

INFORMATION:

The Nominating Committee Bylaws specify that the Faculty Consultative Committee may present the names of individuals, eligible for re-election, to the Delegation for confirmation of reappointment without another candidate on the ballot to fill the position.

DISCUSSION:

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

MOTION:

That the Twin Cities Faculty Delegation approve the following slate of nominees to fill one 2007-08, three 2007-09, and two 2007-10 Twin Cities faculty vacancies on the Nominating Committee. A simple majority is required for approval. Once the slate is approved, a ballot will be distributed for voting.

[The slate of nominees will be available at the meeting.]

FOR INFORMATION:

The Faculty Senate Bylaws specify that the Twin Cities Faculty Delegation shall elect by written ballot faculty to fill vacancies on the Nominating Committee from a slate of candidates provided by the Faculty Consultative Committee. Other candidates may be nominated by petition of 12 members of the Twin Cities Faculty Delegation. Petitions to nominate candidates not on the slate must be in the hands of the Clerk on the day before the meeting at which the election is to be conducted. The elected Twin Cities faculty members of the committee whose term continue at least through 2007-08 are:

Catherine French, Institute of Technology
Susan Berry, Medical School
Arthur Erdman, Institute of Technology
Leslie Schiff, Medical School

DISCUSSION:

With no discussion a vote was taken and the motion was approved. Ballots were then distributed and Professors Jean Bauer, Amy Kaminsky, Scott Lanyon, Ann Maste9, and Mary Jo Maynes were elected to the Nominating Committee.

MOTION:

To amend Article IV, Section 2 of the Faculty Senate Constitution as follows (language to be added is underlined; language to be deleted is struck-out). As an amendment to the Faculty Senate Constitution, the motion requires either a two-thirds majority of all voting members of the Faculty Senate (107) at one regular or special meeting, or a majority of all voting members of the Faculty Senate (81) at each of two meetings. This is the first meeting at which this motion is being presented.

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

...

2. Membership

...

c. For the purposes of this constitution, the bylaws, and the rules, faculty shall include professors, associate professors, assistant professors, research associates, instructors, and research fellows on full-time appointments holding a regular appointment as defined the Regents' Policy "Faculty Tenure." "Full-time appointments" are defined for this constitution to require the same time commitment of faculty and qualified academic staff. the term "faculty" shall include (1) individuals who hold full-time regular appointments as defined in the Regents' Policy "Faculty Tenure," and (2) individuals who hold full-time multi-year or annually renewable term appointments as defined in the Regents’ Policy “Faculty Tenure” and who have completed three years of service at the University.

d. For the purposes of this constitution, the bylaws, and the rules, the term "qualified academic staff" shall be interpreted to mean academic professionals and administrators eligible for election to the Faculty Senate and eligible for appointment to Faculty Senate committees. In order to qualify for election to the Faculty Senate, an academic professional or administrator must meet the definition established by the Board of Regents: "Academic professionals generally parallel disciplinary faculty in having the requisite preparation and specialized knowledge in an academic discipline or field on which practice is based and in exercising independent professional judgment. These individuals may be engaged in teaching, research, and service, as are faculty[.]" Qualified academic staff are those in collegiate units or other campus-based staff holding continuous and probationary appointments or qualified campus-based academic staff with fixed term or annual appointments having completed five years of service at the University. The term "academic staff" shall be interpreted to mean academic professionals and administrators eligible for election to the University Senate (but not the Faculty Senate) and eligible for appointment to all other committees of the senates. Qualified academic staff are also eligible to serve on all other committees and in the University Senate as well as in the Faculty Senate and on committees requiring eligibility for Faculty Senate membership. mean individuals who (1) hold full-time appointments as academic professionals, (2) have faculty-like responsibilities with a primary focus on teaching or research, and (3) have probationary/continuous appointments or have completed five years of service at the University.

e. For the purposes of this constitution, the bylaws, and the rules, "full-time appointments" are defined as requiring at least 67% time.

e f. The manner in which faculty and qualified academic staff are elected to the Faculty Senate shall be prescribed in the bylaws.

...

COMMENT:

The Faculty Consultative Committee has been aware that there is a lack of clarity in the current constitutional provisions governing eligibility for the Faculty Senate. This proposal is an attempt to make the provisions clearer. It also corrects a problem: at present faculty-like P&A staff are eligible for the Faculty Senate but contract/term faculty are not. This proposal makes both groups eligible.

The amendment makes contract/term faculty with three years of service at the University eligible for Faculty Senate election and service. The amendment also modifies the definition of eligible P&A staff to conform with current understandings and practice.  Academic professionals (but not professional administrators) who have faculty-like responsibilities in teaching or research (or both) will be eligible for they are in a continuous appointment track (this is a small category) or if they have completed five years of service at the University.  As is the current practice, departments and colleges will be expected to help identify which individuals in their units fit within the Senate Constitution definition.

In both categories ("faculty" and "qualified academic staff"), only those holding full-time appointments are eligible.  The amendment defines full-time as requiring a minimum of 67% time.

DISCUSSION:

With no discussion, a vote was taken and the motion was not approved with only 80 in favor and one opposed. The motion will be sent to an electronic vote.

MOTION:

To amend Article IV, Section 5(H) of the Faculty Senate Bylaws as follows (language to be added is underlined). As an amendment to the Faculty Senate Bylaws, the motion requires either a majority of all voting members of the Faculty Senate (81) at one regular or special meeting, or a majority of all voting members of the Faculty Senate present and voting at each of two meetings. This is the first meeting at which this motion is being presented.

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

...

5. Faculty Senate Committee Charges

...

H. FACULTY CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE

...

Membership

The tenured and tenure-track faculty of the Twin Cities campus and those tenured and tenure-track faculty members on the Duluth campus eligible to vote in elections for the Senate shall elect 9 members, and the tenured and tenure-track faculty of the Morris campus shall elect one faculty member. Faculty members shall be nominated and elected by procedures established by each campus faculty, subject to the following provisions:

...

COMMENT:

The previous agenda item contains an amendment to make contract/term faculty eligible to serve in the Faculty Senate and vote for Faculty Senators. This bylaw revision retains the current practice of having only tenured and tenure-track faculty vote for the election of FCC members. While the Senate is representative of all faculty and faculty-like individuals, the FCC is the Executive Committee for the Senate and appropriately represents the ultimate responsibility of the tenured and tenure-track faculty for governance as established in the 2005 Academic Unit Governance policy.

(See: http://www.fpd.finop.umn.edu/groups/senate/documents/policy/acadgovpol.html)

DISCUSSION:

With no discussion, a vote was taken and the motion was approved with 84 in favor and none opposed.

MOTION:

That the Twin Cities Delegation of the Faculty Senate:

-- adopts as University policy the following Undergraduate Student Learning Outcomes for the Twin Cities campus, and

--endorses these learning outcomes as the guiding principles for teaching and learning at all levels of curricular decision-making on the Twin Cities campus.

Undergraduate Student Learning Outcomes

At the time of receiving a bachelor’s degree, students:

--Can identify, define, and solve problems

--Can locate and critically evaluate information

--Have mastered a body of knowledge and a mode of inquiry

--Understands diverse philosophies and cultures within and across societies

--Can communicate effectively

--Understand the role of creativity, innovation, discovery, and expression across disciplines

--Have acquired skills for effective citizenship and life-long learning.

COMMENT:

The Senate Committee on Educational Policy (SCEP) has discussed these outcomes at several meetings over the last year and recommends to the Faculty Senate that it adopt them as policy for the Twin Cities campus.

The Faculty Consultative Committee reviewed the outcomes as well and concurs in the recommendation from SCEP.

DISCUSSION:

Professor Richard McCormick, Chair of the Educational Policy Committee (SCEP), said that these outcomes were presented to the Faculty Senate in February. SCEP strongly endorses these outcomes and recommends approval of the Faculty Senate. They make explicit what faculty are already doing and demonstrate that teaching and learning is an important piece of the strategic positioning process.

Q: Does the phrase "understands diverse philosophies and cultures..." mean that the University needs to teach creation science?

A: This phrase would not mandate teaching creation science, or mandate what philosophies need to be taught in the classroom.

Q: How was this list of outcomes created? How do they relate to what education is? Do these outcomes capture the correct sentiment of what faculty are trying to impart on students?

A: The list was developed over four years by the Council for the Enhancement of Student Learning (CESL) with extensive consultation with many bodies at the University. There has been anguish over the word choice in the outcomes, but it is much improved from earlier drafts. These outcomes are meant to enhance student skills in the areas indicated. Everyone who has participated in creating these outcomes hopes that future discussions will be generated by the language of these outcomes. It cannot be narrowly defined for every discipline, but is meant to be a starting point. Other institutions are also looking at similar concepts and are using similar language.

A senator proposed an amendment to the second paragraph of the introduction, removing 'the' before 'guiding principles' so that the phrase begins, 'endorse these learning outcomes as guiding principles..."

This amendment was accepted as a friendly amendment.

A senator then said that he was disappointed with this document. While all institutions are not equal, this is a generic enough document that it could apply to any institution. He would have preferred a unique statement from the University that would represent the student body that is present here and the research nature of the University.

Another senator then spoke in favor of the motion, although he agrees with some of the previous comments. His main concern is how the outcomes will be measured. He hopes that the implementation process would provide direction and flexibility to colleges and departments to measure students in ways that are meaningful.

Arlene Carney, Vice Provost for Faculty and Academic Affairs, said that she has already begun working with volunteer departments to implement these outcomes and make assessments. She noted that the nature of the assessment will vary across disciplines. To address previous comments, these outcomes are meant to be umbrella outcomes, stated simply to speak to the public.

A senator then spoke on behalf of the outcomes, noting that a similar set of outcomes has been adopted for nationally-trained physicians. These outcomes have been powerful, since each specialty has been asked to write the specific competencies that come under each outcome. It has made a difference in how faculty think about their curriculum and how the University can demonstrate when a competency has been achieved.

Q: What will happen if these outcomes are endorsed?

A: These approved outcomes will initiate a process to refine courses and curriculum in terms of each department. Not every discipline is expected to satisfy each outcome.

A senator said that her department volunteered to be part of the pilot program. Graduate students in her department need to complete ten areas of work to qualify for the national organization. The department will use the outcomes in conjunction with the ten areas of work.

Another senator said that she likes the outcomes since one goal is to start conversations about what faculty are doing. However, she does not want approval to mean that faculty need to articulate each outcomes with specificity and then determine how the outcomes can be measured.

A senator stated that the outcomes are a brilliant attempt to describe the core of learning that spreads across disciplines and resonates with different people. He noted that there is one outcome, 'understands diverse philosophies and cultures...," that will be hard for an engineering degree to fulfill and there is no way to mandate that IT students fulfill their liberal education requirements by completing courses for this one outcome.

Professor McCormick said that the Council on Liberal Education (CLE) is rethinking liberal education requirements to make them more meaningful across the University.

Vice Provost Carney responded that the Faculty Senate is being asked to approve these outcomes. A pilot program will take place next year to see how different departments can work with these outcomes. Each department will apply them in a different way and various assessment methods might be needed. The Faculty Senate is not endorsing a process for assessment.

A senator noted that some of the criteria used to grade her students are encapsulated in the first five outcomes and this list is an affirmation of what she has been doing. What she can see looming is a potential bureaucratic nightmare and flood of paperwork with no clear outcome. She is encouraged to hear that there is not a mandated process at the departmental level.

Another senator noted that the implication for disciplines is that there would be a congealing of opinion about the significance of the discipline within each department. Once a group of faculty would define the discipline, benchmarks would be judged to their standards. However, there is not a center in some departments and therefore one side might take control of the direction of the department.

Q: In light of today's comments, could a sunset provision be added to the motion?

A: The Faculty Senate can revisit this issue at any time if it is not working and make modifications, so there is reluctance to add a sunset provision. Faculty governance will continue to be involved with implementation.

A senator questioned why this proposal is being voted on now and then piloted. She would prefer to endorse a pilot study first and then approve the outcomes.

Professor McCormick reminded senators that they are only being asked to approve these principles. If senators feel that the outcomes are an adequate representation of what faculty try to do at the University, then senators should vote in favor. There will be time for faculty governance to have a say in future processes.

A senator said that decisions need to be made within a context and future plans spelled out and not just discussed informally. He needs to vote considering both aspects.

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

FOR INFORMATION:

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

MOTION:

To approve the following statement.

Statement on Child Care for Dependents of University Employees
Faculty Affairs Committee

In December, 2003, the Senate Committee on Faculty Affairs received from one of its subcommittees a report on child care at the University (especially the Twin Cities). The gist of that report was that the University should increase the availability of on-campus child care for faculty, staff, and students. The report noted a number of important factors about child care and reported that there was an 18- to 24-month waiting period for the University's child-care center.

Professor Judith Martin, then chair of the Faculty Consultative Committee, transmitted the subcommittee report to the President in February, 2004, and urged that the University "identify funding to help alleviate the shortage of high-quality child care for University faculty, staff, and students." One suggestion Professor Martin made was that the University of Minnesota Foundation should be asked to consider fund-raising for construction of additional child-care sites on the Twin Cities campus.

The problem is not a lack of child-care facilities. The problem is a lack of high-quality child-care facilities.

We do not believe the University has made any progress on increasing child-care facilities on the Twin Cities campus. We believe that it should do so very soon if it is to achieve the goal of becoming a top-three public research university. Achieving that goal will be accomplished in significant part through the recruitment of stellar faculty, staff, and (probably of most concern for this purpose) graduate students.

It is unlikely the University will soon be able to compete on salaries, compared to the top 20 or 30 research universities, so it must be in a position to compete in other ways by providing benefits that prospective faculty, staff, and students will find attractive. It is our view that one of the benefits that will be most attractive is child care that is close and high-quality. As the subcommittee wrote in 2003, "the reality is that employees will virtually always place their child care responsibilities above their responsibilities in the workplace."

We recommend that the Faculty Senate request the President make this a high priority as he considers the capital budget and fund-raising.

Adopted unanimously by the Senate Committee on Faculty Affairs April 24, 2007.

DISCUSSION:

A motion was made and seconded to suspend the rules to consider an item of new business. A vote was taken and the motion was approved to allow the business to be considered.

Professor Geoffrey Sirc, Chair of the Faculty Affairs Committee (SCFA), said that this resolution contains a history of faculty concern about child care. In a recent report from the Office for University Women, the committee is aware of the persistent need for more high-quality child care on campus. Currently the University has one on-campus site and two near-campus in student housing. For comparison, Iowa and Michigan have four centers on campus and Madison has seven child care centers.

He noted that in the spirit of strategic positioning, family-friendly benefits are increasingly important in attracting desirable faculty and graduate students.

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

The meeting was adjourned at 4:45 p.m.

^[1] University of Minnesota. Systemwide Academic Task Force on Diversity. Transforming the University: Report of the Systemwide Academic Task Force on Diversity. February 3, 2006. Retrieved October 31, 2006 from http://www1.umn.edu/systemwide/strategic_positioning/tf_final_reports/diversity_exec_summ.pdf
^[2] These are minimum requirements; each individual school or college is left with the discretion to add checkboxes as it sees fit—so long as subcategories of particular checkboxes are indicated as such. For example:
Hispanic/Latin American
¨ Puerto Rican American
¨ Chicano/Mexican American
The process by which individual schools and colleges add such checkboxes to their applications shall be left unchanged by this resolution.
^[3] As an alternative to stating “Check all that apply,” an application may state “Check only one” as long as “Bi- or Multi- Racial” is added as an option.
^[4] The University of Minnesota Council of Academic Professionals and Administrators (CAPA) has determined, and the Student Senate has suggested, that this category be changed to “White/European American.” While Project: Check It supports this change, this resolution leaves the determination of whether to implement this alternative scheme to the individual schools and colleges. Each individual school and college wishing to implement this change must first ensure that such a change comports with the U.S. Department of Education guidelines and reporting requirements.
^[5] The “Other” category is highly recommended, but not mandatory. It is theoretically possible that an applicant may not “fit” into any of the above categories, but the extra burdens that an “Other” checkbox places on the University in terms of reporting requirements are not something that Project: Check It wants to impose.
^[6] Project: Check It recognizes that the U.S. Department of Education is in the process of undertaking similar revisions. We believe that these revisions are inadequate as they do not concentrate on making applications more inclusive; rather, they concentrate on making them more specific, particularly with respect to Hispanics. In doing so, the U.S. Department of Education is seeking to switch to a two-question system—one question specifically for Hispanics, and a second question for all other applicants. Should such a proposal pass and become the policy of the U.S. Department of Education, the University would be bound to comply; however, the University would retain its right to add on to the U.S. Department of Education’s scheme, which this resolution requires that it do.