2007-08
UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA
OCTOBER
4, 2007
UNIVERSITY
SENATE MINUTES: No. 1
FACULTY
SENATE MINUTES: No. 1
STUDENT
SENATE MINUTES: No. 1
1. ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSES TO SENATE ACTIONS
Information
University Senate
|
Statement on the Rights of Foreign-born Residents of the United
States |
|
|
Approved by the: |
University Senate May 3, 2007 |
|
Approved by the: |
Administration – no action required* |
|
Approved by the: |
Board of Regents – no action required |
|
|
* The University strives for flexible, speedy, and efficient
procedures to bring international faculty, staff, and students to campus, and
continues to assist colleges and departments that find themselves working to
resolve challenging immigration situations. While the University has not adopted a formal position
regarding the Military Commissions Act, members of the University community
are encouraged as citizens to contact the appropriate officials to seek
relevant legislative changes in this area. |
|
CIC Provosts' Statement on Publishing Agreements |
|
|
Approved by the: |
University Senate May 3, 2007 |
|
Approved by the: |
Administration August 3, 2007 |
|
Approved by the: |
Board of Regents – no action required |
|
Student Development Outcomes |
|
|
Approved by the: |
University Senate May 3, 2007 |
|
Approved by the: |
Administration August 3, 2007 |
|
Approved by the: |
Board of Regents – no action required |
|
Minnesota Dream Act Statement |
|
|
Approved by the: |
University Senate May 3, 2007 |
|
Approved by the: |
Administration – no action required* |
|
Approved by the: |
Board of Regents – no action required |
|
|
* The University supports efforts to make higher education fully
available to all qualified Minnesota high school graduates, irrespective of
their immigration status. While
it is unfortunate that the Minnesota Dream Act was dropped from the higher
education bill this spring, the University continues to identify and promote
other opportunities to help open the doors to higher education for all
eligible Minnesota high school students. |
Faculty Senate
|
Amendments to Faculty Tenure
Sections 1, 5.5, 7.11, 7.12, 13, 15, and 16 and new Section 9.2 |
|
|
Approved by the: |
Faculty Senate April 5, 2007 |
|
Approved
by the: |
Administration
April 16, 2007 |
|
Approved
by the: |
Board
of Regents June 8, 2007 |
|
Constitutional Amendment – Definition of Faculty and
Faculty-like Academic Professionals |
|
|
Approved by the: |
Faculty Senate May 3, 2007 |
|
Approved
by the: |
Administration
August 3, 2007 |
|
Approved
by the: |
Board
of Regents PENDING |
|
Student Learning Outcomes |
|
|
Approved by the: |
Faculty Senate May 3, 2007 |
|
Approved
by the: |
Administration
August 3, 2007 |
|
Approved
by the: |
Board
of Regents - no action required |
|
Statement on Child Care for Dependents of University Employees |
|
|
Approved by the: |
Faculty Senate May 3, 2007 |
|
Approved
by the: |
Administration
– no action required* |
|
Approved
by the: |
Board
of Regents - no action required |
|
|
*
In light of recent requests to consider enhancing selected individual
employee benefits, I have asked Vice President for Human Resources Carol
Carrier in consultation with faculty and staff leaders to review all employee
benefits as a whole to ensure that the University is as responsive as
possible to the changing needs of its employees. |
2. CLERK OF THE SENATE REPORT
Committee on Committees Election Results
Information for the Faculty Senate
FOR INFORMATION:
In the recent election to fill Twin Cities vacancies on the Committee on Committees, Professors Michael Hancher, Robert McMaster, and Stephen Weeks were elected to three-year terms (July 1, 2007 through June 30, 2010).
STUART GOLDSTEIN, CLERK
UNIVERSITY SENATE
3. CLERK OF THE SENATE REPORT
Nominating Committee Election Results
Information for the Faculty Senate
FOR INFORMATION:
In the recent election to fill Twin Cities vacancies on the Nominating Committee, Professors Jean Bauer, Amy Kaminsky, Scott Lanyon, Ann Masten, and Mary Jo Maynes were elected.
STUART GOLDSTEIN, CLERK
UNIVERSITY SENATE
4.
TRIBUTE TO DECEASED MEMBERS OF THE UNIVERSITY COMMUNITY
FACULTY/ACADEMIC
PROFESSIONALS/STAFF
Thomas P. Anderson
Professor
Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
1918 – 2007
Ward J. Barrett
Professor
Geography
1927 – 2007
Timothy B. Besingi
Professor
University of Minnesota Extension – West Central
1950 – 2007
Wayne Caron
Professor
Family Social Science
1956 – 2007
James Connolly
Professor
Rhetoric
1932 – 2007
Arnold L. Cutler
Professor
Geometry
1938 – 2007
Roland A. Delattre
Professor
American Studies
1928 – 2007
Donald W. Freeman
Professor
Obstetrics & Gynecology
1917 – 2007
Wilma Gary
Professor
Minnesota Extension Services
1923 – 2007
Richard P. Halverson
Professor
Electrical Engineering
1930 – 2007
Eldon G. Hill
Professor
Hormel Institute
1918 – 2007
Larry Huus
Associate Professor
Business and Technology – Crookston
1947 – 2007
Barbara Ann Kautz-Flom
Academic Professional
Wilson Library
1941 – 2007
Frank Kara
Academic Professional
Athletic Compliance
1966 – 2007
William Kavanaugh
Professor
Education
1913 – 2007
Marcus Kjelsberg
Professor
Public Health
1932 – 2007
Mirjana Lausevic
Professor
Music
1966 – 2007
Donald McQuarrie
Professor
Surgery
1931 – 2007
Victoria Mikelonis
Professor
Writing Studies
1947 – 2007
Paul Neibergs
Professor
Radiology
1912 – 2007
Carol Pazandak
Professor
Psychology
1923 – 2007
Judith Peterson
Professor
School of Public Health
1942 – 2007
Samuel Popper
Professor
Educational Policy and Administration
1916 – 2007
L.E. "Skip" Scriven
Regents Professor
Chemical Engineering
1931 – 2007
Nazmi Shehadeh
Professor
Science and Engineering – Duluth
1936 – 2007
Edward B. Stanford
Professor
Libraries
1910 – 2007
Marian Stankovich
Professor
Chemistry
1947 – 2007
Esther Trammell
Professor
Food Science and Nutrition
1912 – 2007
Mary E. West
Professor
Music
1909 – 2007
STUDENTS
Elizabeth M. Benrud
College of Education and Human Services – Duluth
Jessica M. Boseman
University of Minnesota – Crookston
Elizabeth C. Brahm
College of Liberal Arts
Lakshmi P.R. Chinthakunta
Graduate School
Josiah B. Danielson
Institute of Technology
Andrew B. Ferguson
University of Minnesota – Crookston
Kevin C. Keane
College of Liberal Arts
Dana E. Mangi
College of Veterinary Medicine
Elisabeth T. McClellan
College of Veterinary Medicine
Stephanie J. Pontious
School of Nursing
Kiran S. Yellajyosula
Graduate School
5.
STUDENT ACADEMIC INTEGRITY COMMITTEE
Academic
Dishonesty Reporting Process for Twin Cities Undergraduates
Information
Purpose:
The purpose of this document is to provide a recommendation to the
Office for Student Conduct and Academic Integrity (OSCAI) on
a structure for communication with instructors and program administrators about
instances of academic dishonesty by Twin Cities undergraduates. It is hoped that by taking
advantage of the existing structure of the academic programs it will be
possible to remove some of the barriers to instructor reporting that may exist
with the current method, which is the instructor reporting directly to
OSCAI. In addition this process
will provide notice to program directors and colleges. This structure should also prove
valuable for general communications from OSCAI to instructors and places the
Directors of Undergraduate Studies (DUGS) in a position to facilitate this
process.
Scope:
This document covers undergraduate students in all levels of courses. Graduate and professional students will be covered separately.
Recommendation:
There are two parts to the communication in the reporting process: 1. The instructor reporting the incident and 2. The OSCAI notification.
1. Instructor Reporting
The following diagram summarizes the reporting process.
* or equivalent person for lower division programs.
This process goes as follows: The instructor informs the student that there is a problem and discusses with the student what the resolution to the problem will be (for example, F on the assignment, F in the course, etc.) The instructor can use the DUGS for the program that is offering the course as a resource in this process. A Report of Scholastic Dishonesty Form (see below) is filled out. The instructor is asked to indicate that the student has been informed. The instructor then files this form with the DUGS for the program that offers the course and OSCAI. This completes the reporting process.
Because the DUGS of the unit that offered the course is notified of the incident, there is also the opportunity to identify patterns and proactively address them.
Role of the DUGS in this process is to provide information about the
process to the instructor and the student. The DUGS is not a decision maker or part of the appeals
process. Determination of penalties resides solely with the
instructor and the appeals process.
2. OSCAI Notification
After an incident is reported to OSCAI they determine if any further response is warranted (in the case of repeated or egregious instances). In any case, OSCAI sends a letter to the student indicating that they have received a report of the incident. Copies of the letter are sent to the instructor and the DUGS for the program in which the student is enrolled and which offered the course, if different. The following diagram summarizes the Notification process:
This Notification process is also used to announce the results of an appeal or action by the Campus Committee on Student Behavior (CCSB), should it be required.
Notifications to Colleges
At the beginning of every semester, OSCAI will submit a report to each college in which there were incidents of academic dishonesty (in a course offered by the college, or by a student in the college). These reports will be a summary of the courses and students involved for the previous semester and the actions taken by OSCAI, if any.
Report of Scholastic Dishonesty Form
This form should include the following:
- Instructor and class identification
- Student identification
- Nature of the incident (instructions to include copies of any relevant work, etc.)
- Instructors response to the incident (F on paper, F in course, etc)
- Place to indicate that the student was informed.
- Place to indicate that the course DUGS was informed.
- Source of information for student appeals process
- Instructions for filing the form
OSCAI Educational Communications
The Office of Student Conduct and Academic Integrity needs to provide
information about implementation of this process and about other issues related
to academic integrity from time to time to instructors. This should be carried out by OSCAI
informing the program DUGS (with copies to the Undergraduate Deans) and then
letting the DUGS communicate with the instructors in their program. This will keep the DUGS aware of the
process and allow the DUGS to answer questions and inform new faculty of the
process.
Approved by Student Academic Integrity Committee on May 9, 2007
6.
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES COMMITTEE
Student
Technology Fees Position Statement
Information
The Senate Committee on Information Technologies (SCIT) requests that
the final proposal for any new student technology fees structure be brought
before SCIT prior to going forward for Board of Regents approval. The
committee wishes to applaud the colleges for their existing work to create
procedures and feedback mechanisms for the current college-based student
technology fees structures. They have carefully worked to create cost-neutral
plans with clear involvement of students both in the setting of fees and in
reporting results and gathering feedback for future planning.
However, the current system has become unnecessarily complicated and
dysfunctional.
SCIT members strongly support the creation of a new system-wide
structure that would rationalize and consolidate fees structures, while
maintaining strong input and feedback from affected students.
SCIT would suggest that the final proposal or any new proposal be
brought before not only SCIT for review and consultation but also the Student
Senate and the colleges before final submission to the Board of Regents. This
will only strengthen the proposal itself and insure future cooperation.
Colleges play a key role in this process. Consultation will allow for
exploring strategies and discussion/creation of plans to insure revenue
neutrality now and in the future, and for relating technology fees to other
college fees and issues (such as laptop requirements).
Students, as both beneficiaries and sources for these funds, deserve
to have a clear voice in the establishment of this fee structure. The Student
Senate would be an appropriate venue for this input.
SCIT has an ongoing interest in student technology fees and their
implementation across the University system: The impact on students; fee
structures and implementation issues; and the impact of these fees on colleges,
especially with the constant changes in technology. SCIT would request that
reports on student technology fees be made to the committee, on an ongoing
basis, for discussion/review at least every two years.
Approved May, 2007
MARK
SANDERS, CHAIR
INFORMATION
TECHNOLOGIES COMMITTEE
7.
SENATE CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE REPORT
Professor Gary Balas, Chair of the Senate Consultative Committees (SCC), recognized the Senate Office staff for their support. He then introduced some SCC members: Pamela Stenhjem, Council of Academic Professionals and Administrators (CAPA) Chair; Bree Richards, Graduate and Professional Student Assembly (GAPSA) member; and Ron Miller, the Student Senate Chair.
He said that SCC recently met with the Social Concerns Committee Chair
to learn about their agenda items for the year. The plan is to meet with all the chairs that report to SCC.
_______________________________________________________________
MOTION
A
Consent
Agenda
Action
by the University Senate
Agenda Items 8. and 9. are considered to be non-controversial or ÒhousekeepingÓ in nature and are offered as a ÒConsent AgendaÓ to be taken up as a single item with one vote. Any item will be taken up separately at the request of a senator. (A simple majority is required for approval.)
8.
MINUTES FOR MAY 3, 2007
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/070503sen.html
STUART GOLDSTEIN, CLERK
UNIVERSITY SENATE
9.
COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES
2007-08
Committees of the University Senate
University
Senate committee memberships for 2007-08:
DISABILITIES
ISSUES - Faculty: Alex Lubet (chair),
Tammy Berberi, Marilyn Bruin, Lesley Craig-Unkefer, James Gambucci, Maria Gini,
Kathryn Kohnert, Julia Robinson, Marlene Stum. Academic Professionals: Amy Hewitt, Carol Rachac.
Civil Service: Kari
Branjord, Nicole Tollefson. Students: 2 to be named.
Ex Officio: Eric Schnell,
Kimberly Simon.
EQUITY, ACCESS, AND DIVERSITY - Faculty: Margaret Moss (chair), Elizabeth Davis, Joel Eisinger, Benjamin Munson, Joanna OÕConnell, Lee Penn, Naomi Scheman, Akhouri Sinha. Academic Professionals: Patricia Jones-Whyte, 1 to be named. Students: Katie Ballering, Paige Glasener, Chimezie Ononenyi, 3 to be named. Civil Service: Susan Cable, Shannon McGoffin. Ex Officio: Rusty Barcel—, Kimberly Boyd, Peg Lonnquist, Anne Phibbs.
FINANCE
AND PLANNING - Faculty: Judith Martin
(chair), David Chapman, Joseph Konstan, Russell Luepker, Justin Revenaugh,
Terry Roe, Gwen Rudney, Warren Warwick, Aks Zaheer, 1 to be named. Academic Professionals: Thomas Klein, Michael Rollefson. Civil Service: Rose Blixt, Kathryn Olson. Students:
Mikael Moseley, 3 to be named. Ex
Officio: Jonathan Binks, Steve Fitzgerald,
Lincoln Kallsen, Kathleen OÕBrien, Paul Olin, Richard Pfutzenreuter, Thomas
Stinson, Michael Volna, George Wilcox, 1 to be named.
INFORMATION
TECHNOLOGIES - Academic Professionals: Mark
Sanders (Chair), John Crow, Dale Swanson, Sue Van Voorhis. Faculty: Alan Ek, Michael Korth, Greg Laden, Brent Larson,
Stuart Speedie, Jim Waddell, Bonnie Westra, 1 to be named. Civil
Service: Deanette Schmidt. Students: Briana Clark, Mahmoud Sadrai, Parker Schultz.
Ex Officio: John Butler, Steve Cawley, Danielle Tisinger, Billie
Wahlstrom.
LIBRARY
- Faculty/PA: James Orf (chair), John H. Anderson, Juliette Cherbuliez,
Isaac Fox, Stephen Gross, Jennifer Gunn, Jay Hatch, Anatoly Liberman, Nora
Paul, Otto Strack, Danielle Tisinger, David Zopfi-Jordan. Students: Shruti Patil, Jessica Reinitz, 2 to be named. Ex Officio: Jonathan Binks, LeAnn Dean, Joan Howland, Wendy Lougee, Bill
Sozansky, Owen Williams, 1 to be named.
SOCIAL
CONCERNS - Faculty: Katherine Fennelly (chair), David Fox, Craig Hassel, Kenneth
Heller, Catherine Jordan, Ajay Skaria, Mani Subramani. Academic Professionals: Joseph Marchesani, Jennifer Oliphant, Todd
Tratz. Civil Service: Benton Schnabel, Rebecca von Dissen, Julia
Washenberger. Alumni: Barbara Foster, Richard Lidstad, Janice Meyer. Students: Jessica Arett, Christine Dolph, Justin Drees, Kurtis McIntire, 3 to be
named. Ex Officio: Kimberly Boyd, Greg Schooler, Amelious Whyte.
STUDENT
ACADEMIC INTEGRITY - Faculty/PA: Tom
Shield (chair), Lisa Anderson, Sarah Angerman, Linda Jones, Randy Moore, Micky
Trent, Eric Watkins, 1 to be named. Students: Amanda Kossak, Erin West, 3 to be named. Ex Officio: Sharon Dzik, Laura Coffin Koch.
STUDENT
BEHAVIOR - Faculty/PA: Michael Rodriguez
(chair), Lorraine Francis, Francis Harvey, Jeanne Higbee, Patricia Jones-Whyte,
Michelle Koker, Nicole Letawsky-Shultz, Christian Mohr, Nikolaos
Papanikolopoulos, Paul Porter, Keith Russell, Becky Yust. Students: Abby Bar-Lev, Barrie Berquist, Emma Buser, Camille
Crary, Alexander Essington, John Hoedeman, Ashley Pavletich, Katina Petersen,
Claire Wolters, at least 3 to be named.
Ex Officio: Sharon Dzik.
FOR
INFORMATION:
ALL-UNIVERSITY
HONORS - Faculty: Laura Gurak (chair),
Carl Adams, Wilbert Ahern, Lois Heller, John Himes, Allen Isaacman, Shashi
Shekhar, Madelon Sprengnether. Academic
Professionals: Jean Kucera, Patrick
Troup. Alumni: Andrea Hjelm, Todd Klingel, Stephen Litton, Juanita
Luis, Eric Pehle. Civil
Service: Susan LaTendresse, 1 to be
named. Students: 3 to be named.
Ex Officio: Kristin
Cleveland, Gerald Fischer,
Cheryl Jones, Krista Lemos, William Wade, Billie Wahlstrom.
SENATE
COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES - Faculty: Perry
Leo (chair), Gary Anderson, Robert Gehrz, Michael Hancher, Joan
Howland, Tom Johnson, Mary Jo Kreitzer, Robert McMaster, J. Michael Oakes, Carl
Rosen, Stephen Weeks, at least 2 to be named. Academic Professionals: Elaine Challacombe, Jacqueline Cottingham-Zierdt,
Frank Douma, Kyla Wahlstrom. Students: Jamie Ebert, Kristi Kremers, 5 to be named.
SENATE CONSULTATIVE - Faculty: Gary Balas (chair), Nancy Carpenter, Shawn Curley, William Durfee, Marti Hope Gonzales, Emily Hoover, Jeffrey Kahn, Nelson Rhodus, Jennifer Windsor, Becky Yust. Academic Professionals: Mary Hagemeister, Pamela Stenhjem. Civil Service: Susan Cable, Cathy Marquardt. Students: Neal Brown, Jeni Kiewatt, Bree Richards, Kristopher Schwebler, Alicia Smith, 2 to be named. Ex Officio: Carol Chomsky, Barbara Elliott, Mary Jo Kane, Judith Martin.
PERRY
LEO, CHAIR
SENATE
COMMITTEE ON Committees
DISCUSSION:
With no discussion, a vote was taken and the motion was approved.
APPROVED
_______________________________________________________________
END
OF MOTION A
10.
SENATE CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE
Senator
Responsibilities
Information
and Discussion by the University Senate
Responsibilities
of Faculty Senators
In order to ensure that the faculty governance
system operates effectively to represent faculty concerns and perspectives,
individuals serving as Faculty Senators should:
1. Attend
all University and Faculty Senate meetings or arrange for an alternate to
attend
2. Review
docket materials before Senate meetings and be prepared to discuss and vote on
issues presented.
3. Share
draft policies and policy amendments with colleagues for discussion before
Senate action.
4. Distribute
to colleagues in their college information on significant matters before the
Senate and solicit faculty views on such issues.
5. Bring
to the Senate, or one of its committees, issues of concern to their colleagues.
6. Communicate
regularly with faculty governance bodies in their academic units.
7. Consider
serving on one of the Senate committees.
8. Remember
that, while they are elected as delegates from their academic units, Ò[e]ach
member of the University Senate shall represent the University as a whole.Ó
Adopted
unanimously by the Faculty Consultative Committee 8/17/06.
Responsibilities
of Student Senators
In order to ensure that the University governance
system operates effectively to represent student concerns and perspectives,
individuals serving as Student Senators should:
1. Attend
all University and Student Senate meetings or arrange for an alternate to
attend.
2. Review
docket materials before Senate meetings and be prepared to discuss and vote on
issues presented.
3. Share
draft policies and policy amendments with constituents and relevant student
organizations for discussion before Senate action.
4. Distribute
to constituents and relevant student organizations information on significant
matters before the Senate and solicit student views on such issues.
5. Bring
to the Senate, or one of its committees, issues of concern to their
constituents and relevant student organizations.
6. Communicate
regularly with student governance bodies.
7. Consider
serving on one of the Senate committees.
8. Remember
that, while they are elected as delegates from their academic units, Ò[e]ach
member of the University Senate shall represent the University as a whole.Ó
Adopted
unanimously by the Student Senate Consultative Committee 9/14/06.
DISCUSSION:
Professor Gary Balas, Chair of the Senate Consultative Committees
(SCC), said that these responsibilities are being distributed for information. He said that the most important
obligations are to talk with colleagues, inform them about Senate items, and
bring their concerns to meetings.
11.
PRESIDENTÕS REPORT
President
Bruininks said that an issue he felt strongly about a few years ago was keeping
the University accessible and affordable to students, although this discussion
was taking place in a year with when the University funding from the state was
cut and tuition dramatically increased.
Several initiatives were launched, which are now becoming national
models for how to keep higher education affordable and accessible.
The
first initiative was the Founder's Free Tuition Scholarship program which
guarantees grant and gift assistance to provide full coverage of tuition and
fees for low-income PEL-eligible students. The average family income for students who benefited from
this program was $26,000 two years ago.
Next year this program will serve 4200 students across the University
system and will provide close to $20 million in financial support to these
students from private and University resources.
At
the same time President Bruininks raised the question of asking alumni and
other individuals to donate while speaking at events across the country. He asked the Foundation to make this
the highest fundraising priority.
When
the last capital campaign ended in 2003, the goal of $50 million in student
scholarships was the only goal that almost was not reached. President Bruininks then suggested a
three-year drive to raise $150 million.
A decision was made to match gifts of $25,000 or more into a permanent
endowment and the Promise for Tomorrow Scholarship drive was started. To date $190 million has been raised
which translates to 1200 new scholarships. Eventually the scholarship will cover 10,000 undergraduate,
graduate, and professional students throughout the system.
The
Twin Cities was almost last in the Big Ten in scholarship and fellowship
support was this program started.
Now the University is in the middle and the amount of the awards has
increased by fifty percent.
Private
donors also suggested other ways to help, such as funding up to ninety percent
of the total cost to attend the University, transition programs, and
mentoring. These programs have led
to higher retention and GPA rates.
The
role of financial support is vitally important if the University hopes to
achieve its aspirational goals to improve retention and graduation rates.
President
Bruininks then spoke about the Regents' Scholarship program, noting that more
than 1300 employees have used this resource. The program allows employees to take classes each semester
at the expense of the University.
Last year 276 employees completed a certificate or degree through this
program, of which sixty percent were bargaining unit or civil service
employees. He has asked for a
study of this program to make it more productive in the future.
This
last spring brought tuition reforms to the Regents, following a strong
appropriation from the state. One
reform was fixing the Wisconsin tuition reciprocity agreement which allowed
Wisconsin students to pay less than Minnesota students to attend the
University. This agreement has
been changed so that Wisconsin students will pay the same rate as Minnesota
students.
He
also said that the non-resident tuition rate was also reduced by $7000 to
broaden national recruitment and attract more international students.
President
Bruininks noted that these initiatives keep higher education within reach of
University students.
12.
QUESTIONS TO THE PRESIDENT
Q:
In light of the recent strike, is there a better way to communicate issues at
stake during the strike and how can the University community attend to both
sides?
A:
Having lived through various strikes, both at the University and outside, he
noted that strikes are divisive and create a heavy toll on the community as a
whole, but especially those who cannot afford to lose their income. The issue is communication, since it is
hard to share information when in the middle of a collective bargaining
agreement. The University needs to
be fair to all of its 19,000 employees.
At
the end of the strike valuable employees return to work and the return was hard
for them. The strike became too
personal and polarized. The best
way to conduct negotiations is to stay at the table until the issues are
resolved.
One
needs to approach these matters from an interest-based point of view. The interests of the University were
not to keep the wages of the lowest-income employees at 3.25 and to press for
health care givebacks. He urged
negotiators to stretch for this segment of the workforce. The agreement was worth 30-35 percent
more than what was offered to many other employees. The University should not be in a race to the bottom for
benefits.
He
was distressed by the strike and felt that it should not have happened. He asked that everyone be welcomed back
to their positions and help to heal wounds. However, he noted that the Teamsters union was successfully
completed during this period, with overwhelming support from its members.
Q:
The University did a poor job not explaining what its offer was, but why the
offer was made a certain way. Was
this approach considered?
A:
Yes, although at issue is that people use language in different ways to talk
about these issues and emotions run high during these times. Most people do not understand the
concept of step increases, so the University should have used different
terminology to explain the increase to the public. The University is revisiting this entire process so that it
does not happen again.
13.
UNIVERSITY SENATE OLD BUSINESS
NONE
14.
UNIVERSITY SENATE NEW BUSINESS
NONE
15. UNIVERSITY SENATE
ADJOURNMENT
The University Senate was adjourned at 3:18 p.m.
16.
FACULTY CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE REPORT
Professor Gary Balas, Chair of the Faculty Consultative Committees (FCC), said that FCC recommended two people to serve as Faculty Legislative Liaisons, Professors Martin Sampson and Caroline Hayes. The President has approved these appointments.
The committee has also discussed the Regents Policy on Copyright and the Procedures for Reviewing the Performance of Tenure-Track Probationary Faculty, both of which are discussion items for later in this meeting.
At its August retreat, the committee looked at the status of strategic positioning, focusing on the issue of metrics and measures. FCC felt that faculty metrics were not measured and assessed as well as other aspects of the University, so a subcommittee has been appointed to address this issue.
FCC starts meeting with department heads and chairs tomorrow to hear about issues and ways for the committee to be a resource.
Other agenda items for this fall are review of senior administrators, long-term financing of the academic mission, and a targeted hiring discussion with the Vice President for Equity and Diversity.
If there are other topics that the FCC should be discussing, please let him know.
_______________________________________________________________
MOTION
B
Consent
Agenda
Action
by the Faculty Senate
Agenda Items 17. and 18. are considered to be non-controversial or ÒhousekeepingÓ in nature and are offered as a ÒConsent AgendaÓ to be taken up as a single item with one vote. Any item will be taken up separately at the request of a senator. (A simple majority is required for approval.)
17.
SENATE OFFICERS
The chair of the Faculty Senate recommends the following officers for 2007-08:
Clerk – Professor Stuart Goldstein
Parliamentarian – Professor Kristin Hickman
18.
COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES
2007-08
Committees of the Faculty Senate
Faculty
Senate committee memberships for 2007-08:
ACADEMIC FREEDOM AND TENURE - Faculty: Tom Clayton (chair), Yusuf Abul-Hajj, Tracey Anderson, William Doherty, Carl Flink, Joseph Gaugler, Linda McLoon, Karen Miksch, John Mowitt, Paul Porter, Terrence Simon, Carol Wells. Ex Officio: Arlene Carney, Tom Scott
EDUCATIONAL
POLICY - Faculty/PA: Cathrine Wambach
(chair), William Bart, April Knutson, James Leger, Richard McCormick, Claudia
Neuhauser, Peh Ng, Jane Phillips, Paul Siliciano, Donna Spannaus-Martin,
Douglas Wangensteen, Joel Weinsheimer.
Students: LeAnn Alstadt,
Molly Tolzmann, 4 to be named. Ex
Officio: Gail Dubrow, Craig Swan.
FACULTY
AFFAIRS - Faculty: Geoffrey Sirc (chair),
Stacy Aronson, Ben Bornsztein, Vladimir Cherkassky, Jayne Fulkerson, Kathryn
Hanna, Morris Kleiner, Anna Masellis, Luis Ramos-Garcia, George Sheets,
Roderick Squires, Larry Wallace, Virginia Zuiker. Academic Professionals: Erin George, Holly
Littlefield. Ex Officio:
Arlene Carney, Carol Carrier, Dann
Chapman, Tom Clayton, Theodor Litman.
Students: 2 to be named.
JUDICIAL
- Faculty: Tom Scott (chair), David Andow,
David Biesboer, Martha Bigelow, John Budd, Sauman Chu, Ernest Davenport, Amos
Deinard, Caroline Hayes, Brian Horgan, Joan Howland, Terry Jones, Carol Klee,
Alice Larson, Paula OÕLoughlin, Michael Sadowsky, Paul Shaw, Clifford Steer,
Susan Wells. Legal Advisor: Jan
Halverson, Karen Schanfield.
RESEARCH - Faculty: Dan Dahlberg (chair), Linda Bearinger, Jerry Cohen, James Cotter, Sharon Danes, Donald Dengel, J. Stephen Gantt, Tryphon Georgiou, Paul Johnson, Jennifer Linde, Steven Ruggles, Virginia Seybold, Joel, Slaton, George Trachte, Sanford Weisberg. Academic Professionals: Barbara Van Drasek, Jean Witson. Civil Service: 1 to be named. Students: Bridget Helwig, Shikha Jain, 1 to be named. Ex Officio: Richard Bianco, Arlene Carney, Robin Dittmann, Timothy Mulcahy, Mark Paller, Federico Ponce de Leon, Suan Rafferty Charles Spetland.
FOR
INFORMATION:
ACADEMIC HEALTH CENTER FACULTY CONSULTATIVE - Faculty: Lois Heller (chair), Susan Berry, Peter Davies, Brian Isetts, George Maldonado, Paul Olin, 2 to be named. Ex Officio: Paul Olin.
ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON ATHLETICS - Faculty/PA: Douglas Hartmann (chair), Melissa Avery, Linda Brady, Thomas Brothen, Ronald Greene, Laurie McLaughlin, S. Douglas Olson, Richard Weinberg, Virginia Zuiker. Civil Service: Duane Nelson. Alumni: Linda Mona, Jerry Noyce. Students: Jonathan Loveall, 3 to be named. Ex Officio: J.T. Bruett, Joel Maturi, Mark Nelson.
FACULTY ACADEMIC OVERSIGHT ON INTERCOLLEGIATE ATHLETICS - Faculty: Thomas Brothen (chair), Linda Brady, Priscilla Gibson, Douglas Hartmann, Murray Jensen, Timothy Johnson, Mark Seeley, Richard Weinberg, 1 to be named. Ex Officio: J.T. Bruett, Mark Nelson.
FACULTY CONSULTATIVE - Faculty: Gary Balas (chair), Nancy Carpenter, Shawn Curley, William Durfee, Marti Hope Gonzales, Emily Hoover, Jeffrey Kahn, Nelson Rhodus, Jennifer Windsor, Becky Yust. Ex Officio: Carol Chomsky, Dan Dahlberg, Barbara Elliot, Lois Heller, Mary Jo Kane, Judith Martin, Martin, Geoffrey Sirc, Catherine Wambach.
NOMINATING - Faculty: Catherine French (chair), Jean Bauer, Susan Berry, Arthur Erdman, Daniel Feeney, Amy Kaminsky, Mindy Kurzer, Scott Lanyon, Ann Masten, Mary Jo Maynes, Leslie Schiff. Academic Professional: 2 to be named.
PERRY
LEO, CHAIR
FACULTY
COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES
DISCUSSION:
With no discussion, a vote was taken and the motion was approved.
APPROVED
_______________________________________________________________
END
OF MOTION B
19.
FACULTY SENATE BYLAW AMENDMENT
Faculty
Committee on Committees Charge
Action
by the Faculty Senate
MOTION:
To amend Article IV, Section 5(G) 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 (83) 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
...
G.
FACULTY COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES
...
Membership
The
Faculty Committee on Committees shall be composed of at least 13 and no more
than 15 elected tenured or tenure-track faculty members, at least 2 and no more
than 4 elected academic professional members.
Of
the faculty/academic professional members, 12 shall be from the Twin Cities
campus. There shall also be one
member each from the Duluth and Morris campuses. All faculty/academic professional
members shall be elected for three-year terms by the faculty/academic
professional members of the Senate from these respective campuses. In case of a faculty/academic
professional vacancy, the remaining faculty/academic professional members, by
majority vote, shall fill the vacancy by interim appointment until the next
general election.
The Faculty Committee on Committees shall elect its chair from amongst
its members for a one-year term of office. The chair is eligible for re-election to that position. The chair shall also serve as the chair
of the Senate Committee on Committees.
...
COMMENT:
The current membership language designates a seat for a Duluth faculty
member. Since this seat has not
been filled since 2003, the Medical School Duluth's Nominating Committee was
asked if they wanted to keep one seat designated for Duluth or if it could be
part of the at-large seat assignment.
The Nominating Committee decided that they could not fill a designated
seat and suggested that the allotment be changed. The above language represents this change.
PERRY LEO, CHAIR
FACULTY COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES
DISCUSSION:
With no discussion, a vote was taken and the motion was approved.
APPROVED
20.
EDUCATIONAL POLICY COMMITTEE
Course
Numbering Policy
Action
by the Faculty Senate
MOTION:
To approve the policy as follows.
Course-Numbering Policy
Semester courses will
have four digit numbers. The first number designates the course level. The numbering system is as follows:
0xxx Courses that do not carry credit toward
any University degree.
1xxx Courses primarily for undergraduate
students in their first year of study.
2xxx Courses primarily for undergraduate
students in their second year of study.
3xxx Courses primarily for undergraduate
students in their third year of study.
4xxx Courses primarily for undergraduate
students in their third or fourth year of study; graduate students may enroll
in such courses for degree credit.
Note: Use of 4xxx Courses in Graduate
Programs
4xxx courses can be
counted for a Graduate School degree. However, no 4xxx course can be counted
for a Graduate School degree unless it is taught by a member of the graduate
faculty or an individual appointed to Limited Teaching Status (LTS). Also, a
graduate program may restrict the use of 4xxx courses in the program (e.g., by
stipulating that no more than y credits of 4xxx courses may be counted or by
stipulating that only certain 4xxx courses may be counted). Such restrictions
may be applied both for 4xxx courses in the major field and for 4xxx courses
outside the major field. These are matters left to the discretion of each
graduate program.
5xxx Courses primarily for graduate
students; undergraduate students in their third or fourth year may enroll in
such courses.
6xxx Courses for post-baccalaureate students
in professional degree programs.
7xxx Courses for post-baccalaureate students
in professional degree programs.
Note: 6xxx and
7xxx Courses
6xxx and 7xxx courses
are to be used primarily for post-baccalaureate professional programs that are
not offered through the Graduate School. 6xxx and 7xxx courses may be counted
for a Graduate School degree, if a degree program wants them to count.
Similarly, 5xxx and 8xxx courses may be counted for a non-Graduate School
degree, if a program wants them to count. Those departments or programs that
offer both Graduate School degrees and non-Graduate School degrees should
decide for themselves how best to number courses in the curriculum.
8xxx Courses for graduate students.
9xxx Courses for graduate students.
All thesis credit
courses shall use the following numbering conventions.
8555 Thesis/Project Credits: Master of Fine
Arts
8666 Doctoral Pre-thesis Credits
8777 Thesis Credits: Masters
8888 Thesis Credits: Doctoral
All-University
numbering conventions for other kinds of courses are provided below.
xx91 Independent Study
xx92 Directed Reading
xx93 Directed Study
xx94 Directed Research
xx95 Problems
xx96 Field Study; Internships, Industrial
Assignment
xx97 Reserved for future use
xx98 Reserved for future use
All of the above are
examples of courses that may be repeated for credit. Use of a zero as the last
digit of a course number should be reserved for other kinds of courses that may
be repeated for credit (e.g., "topics" courses).
COMMENT:
The Senate Committee
on Educational Policy (SCEP) discussed several times in the past few years the
rules that are to govern course numbering. The "policy" was contained in an administrative
memo not readily accessible; SCEP concluded that (1) course numbering is an important
matter of educational policy, in that it directs which students should be
enrolling in which classes, and (2) as a matter of institutional policy, it
should be more readily accessible (such as on the Senate website).
SCEP recommends that
the Faculty Senate adopt the course-numbering policy.
CATHRINE WAMBACH, CHAIR
EDUCATIONAL POLICY COMMITTEE
DISCUSSION:
Q: How will students know if a faculty member is part of the Graduate
School faculty when they register for a course?
A: This policy will put pressure on departments to clarify who is
teaching courses.
With no further discussion, a vote was taken and the motion was
approved.
APPROVED
21.
ACADEMIC FREEDOM AND TENURE COMMITTEE
Amendments
to the Procedures for Reviewing the Performance of
Tenure-Track
Probationary Faculty
Information
and Discussion by the Faculty Senate
Procedures for Reviewing Candidates for Tenure
and/or Promotion:
Tenure-Track and Tenured Faculty
Draft as of September 25, 2007
I. Introduction
A. Scope
B. Definitions
C. Variances
D. Confidentiality of
review materials
II. Tenure Procedures
A. Actions to be taken generally
1. Unit statement of criteria
(7.12)
2.
Regular voting rules
a. Who is eligible to vote
b. Disqualifications
c. Voting procedures
d. Questions to be voted
upon
e. Required majority
f. Report of the vote
3. Rules requiring an
exceptional majority
B. Actions at the beginning of a probationary
appointment
4. Explaining the process to
the candidate
C. Annual review during the probationary period
5. Elements of the annual
review process
6. Collecting information on
the candidate's performance
7. Annual review by the
tenured faculty
8. Annual conference with the
candidate
D. Unit consideration of the candidate for tenure
or for termination of his or her appointment
9. Tenure decision may be made
at any time
10. A decision to terminate an
appointment may be made at any time
11. Schedule for unit action
12. Preparation of the file
for tenure decisions
13. Report of action
E. Review by college, campus, or alternative
second-level review committee
14. Review by senior academic
administrators
15. Collegiate or campus
review committee
16. Applicable all-University
criteria and standards
17. Requests for
reconsideration or for more information
18. Dean's recommendation
F. Central review and action
19. Central review
20. Standards for review and
action
21. Action by the Senior Vice President
for Academic Affairs and Provost; explanations to dean/chancellor and unit
III. Promotion Procedures
These procedures are adopted in accordance with sections 6, 7, 9, and
16 of the Board of Regents Policy: Faculty Tenure. They cover additional elements of the tenure-granting and review
process.
I. Introduction
A. Scope
This document contains procedural rules for the consideration of
candidates for tenure and promotion. It is also intended to provide a
convenient guide for unit heads, tenured faculty members, and candidates, to
assist in understanding and organizing the tenure-granting and promotion
process. Those faculty members who are governed by contracts with the
University Education Association abide by some parts of these Procedures and
not others, as specified in their individual contracts. The document restates
some of the rules that are found in the Board of Regents Policy: Faculty
Tenure and adds additional procedures. For
additional detail or interpretation, see the relevant sections of Faculty
Tenure.
The mandatory rules
(those using "must" or "shall") established in this
document are minimum requirements. Other procedures are simply recommendations
or expressions of permission (those using "should" or
"may"). Units, colleges, and campuses are encouraged to supplement
them with additional rules that clarify the process for considering tenure and
promotion while protecting the rights of candidates. Any supplemental rules
must be consistent with these Procedures and with Faculty Tenure.
The procedural rules established by this document are intended to
guide the orderly and fair administration of the tenure process. Units, review
committees, unit heads, and other administrators should carefully follow them.
But a decision may not be set aside merely because there have been minor or
technical deviations from the rules. The Judicial Committee has authority to
take action based on procedural irregularities only if the personnel decision
was Òbased in significant degree upon . . . substantial and prejudicial
deviation from the proceduresÓ (Faculty Tenure, section 7.7(3)).
These procedural rules apply to individuals regardless of the date of
their initial appointment.
B. Definitions
Candidates include: (1) probationary faculty members eligible for
indefinite tenure and promotion to the next rank; (2) probationary faculty
members eligible to receive tenure in rank; and (3) faculty members with tenure
eligible for promotion in rank.
In these Procedures, "unit" means the academic unit that
makes the initial recommendation on tenure and promotion. That may be a
department, a college (in colleges not subdivided into departments), or a
division (on a coordinate campus).
The definitions of teaching, research, and service set forth in Faculty
Tenure, section 7.11, as approved by the
Board of Regents in June 2007 will not apply to probationary faculty members
appointed before July 1, 2007, if those faculty members have chosen to be
evaluated on the basis of a different version of Faculty Tenure in place when they were initially appointed.
C. Variances
If it is impossible or impracticable to implement these procedures, a
unit may apply to the Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs and Provost
for a written variance. Variances will be given very sparingly, and will
require that the unit take other steps to ensure that the process conforms as
far as possible to the principles set forth here. Applications for variance
must be made in writing; approval must be given in writing by the Senior Vice
President for Academic Affairs and Provost, who will consult with the Faculty
Senate Academic Freedom and Tenure Committee before acting on the request.
D. Confidentiality of
review materials
All materials collected in the tenure or promotion file, all written
reports of the deliberations, and all written reviews by college and central
administration, are private and must not be disclosed to anyone not
participating in the tenure or promotion decision, or in the review of that
decision (e.g. members of the Senate Judicial Committee or the Office of the
General Counsel addressing complaints regarding a promotion or tenure
decision). Faculty members must destroy files given to them for review after
the promotion and tenure process is concluded.
II. Tenure Procedures
A. Actions to be taken generally
1. Unit statement of criteria (7.12)
Faculty Tenure requires every
unit to have a document specifying the indices and standards that will be used
to evaluate candidates, and those standards will apply to all candidates for
tenure in the unit, except as modified for faculty appointed pursuant to a
special contract (Faculty Tenure,
sections 7.12 and 3.6). When a unit adopts new criteria in accordance with
established University procedures, "current probationary faculty in the
unit may elect to be evaluated on the criteria in the previous Subsection 7.12
Statement or on the new criteria. This option is also available to current
tenured faculty in their evaluation for promotion to the next level.
Probationary or tenured faculty must make this decision within one year of the
date of administrative approval of the new criteria" (Faculty
Tenure, Interpretation 6). The Senior Vice President for Academic
Affairs and Provost shall be responsible for obtaining an acknowledgment from
each probationary or tenured faculty member described in this paragraph and
his/her unit head and dean or chancellor, specifying the faculty member's
choice, within the one-year period specified in Interpretation 6 of Faculty
Tenure.
2. Regular voting rules
Tenure votes are taken at meetings of the tenured faculty. A tenure
vote may be taken at any annual-review meeting during the probationary period,
but must be taken in the last year of the probationary period. See section
D(9).
a. Who is eligible to vote
Attendance and participation at tenure and promotion meetings are
essential obligations of the members of the tenured faculty. The head of the
unit must schedule the time and place of the formal meeting of the tenured
faculty well in advance, and must notify all tenured faculty members of the
meeting. In ordinary circumstances, at least one month's notice of the meeting
should be given. All faculty members eligible to vote are expected to review
the candidate's file prior to the meeting and to attend the meeting unless
unable to do so for compelling reasons.
Only members of the tenured faculty of the unit have the right to participate
in the meeting and vote on granting tenure, except as specified in this
paragraph. In the cases of small units, it may be appropriate to include, in
the discussion and vote on tenure, a professor or professors from another unit
or units in the college, campus, or University. Including additional faculty
members is also warranted in cases of candidates whose work encompasses
multiple disciplines. In order for faculty members from outside the unit to participate,
the initiating unit and/or the dean or chancellor must submit a written request
to and obtain authorization in writing by the Senior Vice President for
Academic Affairs and Provost. The request must identify the faculty member
under consideration, and give the name(s) and tenure homes of those faculty
members who will be asked to vote on the candidate and the reasons for
including them.
If the unit head is a member of the tenured faculty, he or she may
participate and vote but has no additional tie-breaking vote.
b. Disqualifications
Persons who are or were closely related to a candidate, or who have or
have had an intimate personal relationship with a candidate that could
prejudice their judgment, must not attend or participate in the meeting where
that candidate is being considered. If the candidate (or another member of the
tenured faculty) wishes to challenge the participation of any member of the
tenured faculty, that challenge must be made in writing to the challenged
faculty member and to the head of the unit at least two weeks before the
scheduled tenure meeting, stating the reasons for the challenge and setting
forth the relevant evidence. The fact that a member of the tenured faculty has
formed a negative view of the candidate's teaching, scholarship, or service
during the course of the candidate's career is not a basis for
disqualification. In most cases, the unit head will decide whether the
challenged faculty member may participate in the decision. In cases where the
unit head is the challenged faculty member, the decision will be made by the
dean, chancellor, or other administrator to whom the unit head reports. In
doubtful cases, the Office of Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action should
be consulted in reaching a decision about disqualification, pursuant to its
responsibilities under the Nepotism and Consensual Relationships Policy of the
Board of Regents. The record of the challenge and its resolution will be
included in the file forwarded for review. If the challenged faculty member is
not permitted to participate in the discussion and vote, that person shall be considered ineligible to vote and
therefore shall not count toward the quorum requirement established in these
Procedures (see section 2(e)).
The same principles of disqualification apply to members of the review
committees and to academic administrators who may be called upon to review the
matter.
c. Voting procedures
The vote is taken by written, unsigned secret ballot. An effort must
be made to provide a copy of the file to every tenured faculty member who will
be absent from the meeting but wishes to cast a ballot. Such faculty members
must be given an opportunity to vote by written absentee ballot, which should
be sent in a sealed envelope to the unit head. Proxy votes, telephone votes,
and email votes are not permitted.
d. Questions to be voted upon
During any annual-review meeting before the final probationary year, a
unit may vote upon either (or both) of the following questions:
Shall (the candidate) be recommended for tenure?
Shall (the candidate) be given notice of termination of appointment?
Any consideration of termination must be pursuant to the standards
specified in Section 10 of these Procedures.
If no vote is taken or if there is no majority for either motion, the
appointment will be continued.
In the last year of the probationary period, the question should be
"Shall (the candidate) be recommended for tenure?" If there is no
majority for that motion, the recommendation is automatically for termination
of the appointment.
e. Required majority
A quorum must be present for discussion and vote on promotion and
tenure. A quorum is defined as more than 50% of the faculty members eligible to
vote on the matter. Unless the faculty of a unit adopts a rule requiring an
exceptional majority (see section 3 below), the action of the unit is based on
the vote of the majority of those voting on the question, including absentee
ballots cast as specified in section 2(c). Abstentions are not counted in
determining whether a majority of those voting cast votes in favor of tenure or
promotion, as required to report an affirmative recommendation, but the number
of abstentions is reported as part of the vote tally and, in the review
process, they will be considered an indication of lack of support for the
candidate by those abstaining. Abstentions are strongly discouraged. Tenured
faculty members have an obligation to decide whether or not a candidate merits
tenure or promotion and to vote for or against tenure or promotion.
If there is a tie vote, the recommendation is in the negative. In the
final year of the probationary period, a tie vote on the question of tenure
automatically results in a recommendation for termination of the appointment.
In a unit that has a rule requiring an exceptional majority (see
section 3 below), if a recommendation to grant tenure receives an ordinary
majority but not the required exceptional majority, the unit must prepare and
send forward the file without a recommendation for tenure, unless the candidate
requests in writing that the file not be reviewed beyond the unit.
f. Report of the vote
In all cases, the actual vote is to be reported. The report should
indicate the number eligible to vote, the number present at the meeting, the
number of affirmative and negative votes and abstentions, and the number of
absentee ballots cast. If there is a "reconsideration" after an
initial vote, both the original and the reconsidered vote must be reported.
Although the unit's recommendation is based upon the required majority by the rules
applicable to the particular unit, reviewing committees and administrators may
legitimately take into consideration the relative size of the majority in
conducting their own review of the candidate.
3. Rules requiring an exceptional majority
As specified in section 2(e), if the unit or college does not specify
otherwise, a majority of those voting on a personnel question will take action
for a unit, if a quorum is present. A unit or college may, however, require an
exceptional majority (for example, a 2/3 majority of those voting or an
absolute majority of the tenured members of the unit) as a prerequisite for a
recommendation for tenure (Faculty Tenure,
section 7.4 (d)). If a unit chooses to do so, it must adopt that rule well in
advance of the meeting in which the tenure decision will take place, normally
no later than the end of the previous academic year. Any rule requiring an
absolute majority must also make provision for excusing members who are unable
to participate in person. All rules requiring special majorities must be
reported to the dean or chancellor and to the Senior Vice President for
Academic Affairs and Provost and the Faculty Senate Academic Freedom and Tenure
Committee. The rule may be adopted as part of the college or unit constitution
or as part of the rules adopted under section 7.12 of Faculty Tenure. If such a rule is adopted, it must be included as
part of the unit statement required by section 7.12.
If a unit votes to change the majority required, with corresponding
change to the 7.12 statement, current probationary faculty members must choose whether to be considered
under the old or new rule within one year of the final approval of the new 7.12
statement by the Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs and Provost (Faculty
Tenure, Interpretation 6). The Senior Vice
President for Academic Affairs and Provost shall be responsible for obtaining
an acknowledgment from each probationary or tenured faculty member described in
this paragraph and his/her unit head and dean or chancellor, specifying the
faculty member's choice, within the one-year period specified in Interpretation
6 of Faculty Tenure,
B. Actions at the beginning of a probationary appointment
4. Explaining the process to the candidate
In the first year of the probationary appointment, the unit head must
review the terms of appointment with the probationary candidate. This includes:
a. Making certain that credit for prior service has been granted and
appropriately recorded, and that there is a common understanding about the maximum
length of the probationary period (Faculty Tenure, section 5.4).
b. Supplying the candidate with copies of Faculty Tenure, these "Procedures," and the unit
Statement about tenure expectations (Faculty Tenure, section 7.12). If the candidate is unsure about the
application of the criteria, the head should seek to make that as clear as
possible.
c. Informing the candidate about the procedures used by the unit to
review teaching, research, and service. The candidate must be informed about
the annual-review process and made familiar with the annual report on
Appraisals of Probationary Faculty (President's Form 12) that will be
completed. The candidate must also be informed about his or her right to
inspect the file and right of access to information.
The unit head must make a written summary of this meeting, including
the time and date it took place, and include it in the candidate's personnel
record. The probationary faculty
member must sign and date this summary.
The unit head must forward a copy of this signed summary to the dean or
chancellor and to the Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs and Provost.
C. Annual review during the probationary period
5. Elements of the annual review process
The process of reviewing a candidate's progress is continuous. It is
intended to be encouraging and nurturing, although it is necessarily
evaluative. Especially in the early years of the probationary period, the
annual tenure review is intended to point out to the candidate his or her
strengths and weaknesses, so that the strengths can be built upon and the
weaknesses remedied. Three elements are essential to this process: information
gathering, deliberation, and consultation with the candidate. The review is
always to be conducted in accordance with the unit statement required by
section 7.12 of Faculty Tenure.
The procedures set forth in these paragraphs (5-8) are minimum
requirements. Some units may prefer to conduct a more formal annual review,
comparable to the one that must take place when a formal recommendation will be
made regarding the candidate in the decision year.
6. Collecting information on the candidate's performance
The unit head has the responsibility to ensure that the unit gathers
data annually about the candidate's performance on all relevant criteria and
must make the assembled file available to the candidate for his or her review.
These functions must be performed by the unit head or by a designated member or
committee of the tenured faculty and may not be delegated to staff or students,
although they may play appropriate supporting roles. The candidate must assist
in the preparation of the file when asked to do so.
The annual review file should include as appropriate:
i. The
candidate's current curriculum vitae and annual activity reports;
ii. Summaries of the
candidate's teaching assignments, and student and peer evaluations, using the
methods of evaluation that have been adopted for the unit or college (see Faculty
Tenure (2007), footnote 4, for the definition of teaching, or if
the probationary faculty member is still governed by Section 7.11 of Faculty Tenure
(2001), then see footnote 6 for the definition of teaching; see also "Policy
and Protocol on the Evaluation of Instruction" approved by the Faculty
Senate);
iii. Summaries or copies of (or
references to) the candidate's scholarly research or other creative work (see Faculty
Tenure (2007), footnote 4 for the
definition of scholarly research and other creative work, or if the
probationary faculty member is still governed by Section 7.11 of Faculty Tenure
(2001), then see footnote 7 for the definition of research);
iv. Summaries of the
candidate's service activities (see Faculty Tenure (2007), footnote 4, for the definition of service, or
if the probationary faculty member is still governed by Section 7.11 of Faculty Tenure
(2001), then see footnote 8 for the definition of service);
v.
Copies of the Appraisal of Probationary Faculty forms for the
current and previous years; and
vi. Any other relevant
material.
The file may also include evaluations of the candidate's scholarly
research or other creative work by persons inside and outside the University.
The probationary faculty member has the right and
responsibility to inspect the annual-review file annually. He or she has a right
to submit written comments and to add relevant materials to the file. Material
provided by a candidate should be identified as such.
The annual-review file is only one part of the
candidate's personnel file in the unit and contains only those materials that
are relevant to an eventual tenure decision. It is accessible to the candidate
and to all of the tenured faculty members in the unit, while other portions of
the candidate's personnel file are accessible only to the candidate and to
those who have reason to have access to particular information contained in it.
7. Annual review by the tenured faculty
The tenured faculty members of the unit must review
the progress of each probationary faculty member annually, either at the annual
tenure meeting or at a separate meeting. The files for the probationary faculty
members must be made available to the tenured faculty a reasonable time in
advance of the meeting. The annual review does not require a formal ballot or
recommendation of the faculty, but units may take a vote, if they wish, as
specified in section 2(d). The balloting procedures, if any, must be specified
in the unit 7.12 statement. (Note
that under Faculty Tenure, an
appointment will automatically be renewed annually until the maximum probationary
period is reached, unless there is an earlier recommendation for granting
tenure or terminating the appointment.)
Under section 5.5 of Faculty Tenure, a probationary faculty member may request that his
or her tenure clock be stopped for one year at a time for the birth or adoption
of a child, for caregiver responsibilities, or for personal illness. Stopping
the tenure clock is not a leave. If a faculty member has stopped the tenure
clock, this must be noted on PresidentÕs Form 12 during the annual review. If a
faculty member has stopped the clock during one year of the probationary period
(e.g., year 3), then the following year of the probationary period is
considered a continuation of that same year (in the example given, year 3 once
again). That is, this probationary faculty member would have an annual review
each year, but the expectations for the continuation year would not be equal to
those for a new, separate year. During the year or years that a faculty member
has stopped the tenure clock, he or she continues with regular teaching,
research, and service activities as determined by established workload
policies, but the expectations for progress in research, teaching, and service
are reduced during the time the tenure clock has been stopped.
Probationary faculty members who stop the tenure
clock for the conditions listed in Faculty Tenure (section 5.5) must be allowed to do so without fear
of prejudice on the part of the unit head or of the tenured faculty members of
the unit. Probationary faculty members may not be given notice of termination
of their appointment during a year in which the clock has been stopped except
as otherwise specified in Faculty Tenure (e.g. fiscal emergency, disciplinary action, etc.).
8. Annual conference with the candidate
The unit head must discuss annually with the
candidate his or her progress toward achieving tenure. The unit head also
reports to the candidate the sense of the meeting of the tenured faculty, and
any recommendations made by it. If the candidate has not personally reviewed
the individual evaluations of performance contained in the file (as permitted
by section 6), the unit head summarizes them. It is important that this
conversation be candid and that the candidate be clearly told if there are
areas in which performance needs to be improved. The candidate must be given a
copy of the annual Appraisal of Probationary Faculty report, which must reflect
the major elements of this conversation, as well as a written summary of any
additional matters discussed. The annual Appraisal of Probationary Faculty
report must state clearly the concerns of the tenured faculty regarding the
candidateÕs progress toward tenure and must provide guidance for addressing any
weaknesses that have been noted. The review of the probationary faculty member
by the tenured faculty, the conference with the probationary faculty member,
and the final written report must reflect the criteria and indices of
performance in the unit's 7.12 statement. If the candidate has questions about
the application of the criteria or about what he or she is expected to do, the
unit head must explain the criteria. If the candidate has stopped the tenure
clock according to section 5.5 of Faculty Tenure, the annual report must clearly report that fact.
The head of the unit must place in the candidate's
file each year the Appraisal of Probationary Faculty report (President's Form
12) and a written summary—with date and time specified—of any
additional matters discussed. This report is signed by the candidate and the
unit head, and evaluated and signed by the dean of the candidateÕs college or
by the chancellor of the coordinate campus, and by the Senior Vice President
for Academic Affairs and Provost or Senior Vice President for the Health
Sciences.
D. Unit consideration of the candidate for tenure or for
termination of his or her appointment
9. Tenure decision may be made at any time
A decision on tenure may be made in any year of the
probationary period, including the extended probationary period of a candidate
who has stopped the tenure clock according to section 5.5 of Faculty Tenure.
A probationary faculty member may request an early
tenure review; the unit will decide whether to conduct it. Because the process
of conducting a formal review involves a number of steps, including external
evaluations, and because there is a fixed time schedule for review of unit
recommendations, a decision to conduct a formal tenure review must be made well
in advance of the date on which a vote will be taken. In most cases, it will be
necessary to initiate the process during the summer preceding the academic year
in which the vote will be taken.
A candidate must be considered in a formal tenure
review no later than in the last year of the probationary period; that is,
i.
in the sixth year of an ordinary probationary period, or
ii. at
the designated time in a shorter probationary period; or
iii. at
the end of the extended probationary period for a candidate who has stopped the
tenure clock according to section 5.5 of Faculty Tenure; or
iv. at
the time required by special contract.
A formal review may be initiated at any earlier time
by the unit head or by vote of the tenured faculty of the unit.
Candidates must be told that the outcome of an early
tenure evaluation may be a recommendation for (1) promotion and tenure; (2)
continuation of the probationary appointment without tenure and promotion at
this time; or (3) termination.
10. A decision to terminate an appointment
A decision to recommend termination may be made in
any year of the probationary period, except that faculty members who have
stopped the clock according to Section 5.5 of Faculty Tenure may not be terminated during the year in which they
received an extension of the tenure clock stopped except as otherwise specified
in Faculty Tenure (e.g. fiscal
emergency, disciplinary action, etc.).
A unit may recommend termination of a candidate's
appointment if his or her overall performance is so clearly below the standards
required by the unitÕs 7.12 statement that this course of action is
appropriate, or (2) performance on any of the primary criteria is so deficient
that positive evaluation of the other criteria would not warrant continuation
of appointment. The reasons for
this action must be clearly documented in a written evaluation.
11. Schedule for unit action
The Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs and
Provost (and the dean or chancellor) annually establishes schedules for formal
action by units and the subsequent review of those recommendations by the
colleges, campuses, and central administration. It is important that the units,
colleges, and campuses comply with these schedules, so that appropriate and
unhurried review of decisions may take place and required notice be given in a
timely manner.
12. Preparation of the file for tenure decisions
The head of the unit has the responsibility for
seeing that a file is prepared for each candidate, with the help and advice of
at least one senior faculty member. The file must contain relevant information
on teaching, scholarly research and other creative work, and service, and on
other factors relevant to the decision, including outside evaluations of the
candidate's contributions to scholarly research and other creative work. The
unit should seek appraisals both from persons suggested by the candidate and
from other recognized scholars in the field. Units may determine a minimum
number of external appraisals that they require, but at least half, and no
fewer than four, of the external reviews must be obtained from individuals with
no direct professional or personal interest in the advancement of the
candidate's career (for example, they should not be former advisors, mentors,
co-authors, or co-investigators on previous work). The file must specify
clearly the relationship of each external reviewer to the candidate and should
contain a description of each external reviewer and his or her credentials to
enable collegiate/campus review committees and collegiate and central
administrators to interpret reviews more fully. External reviewers must be told
that their evaluations will not be held confidential, because state law permits
the candidate to inspect them. They must be told if and when a candidate has
stopped the tenure clock and for how long. They are not told the reason that
the tenure clock was stopped but should be advised to allow for reduced
productivity during the time the clock was stopped.
Relevant information must not be excluded from the
file, but the weight to be given to the views of any particular outside
referee, internal evaluator, or student is a matter to be considered by the
decision-making bodies. Anonymous statements must not be included in the file
and cannot be considered. Unsolicited signed comments will be included in the file,
if they are relevant and material to the decision. Candidates are discouraged
from soliciting comments or evaluations independently but are encouraged to
suggest names of evaluators.
This file is similar to that prepared for the annual
review, but it should encompass the entire probationary period. It includes:
i. The
candidate's current curriculum vitae and a summary of the candidate's
accomplishments during the probationary period.
ii. A summary of the candidate's teaching assignments; student
and peer evaluations, using the methods of evaluation that have been adopted
for the unit or college; and a statement by the candidate on his/her teaching,
including, for example, a discussion of teaching philosophy, learning outcomes,
and the like.
iii. A
summary of the candidate's research or other scholarly contributions or
creative work. (If copies of the research itself are included in the basic
file, they should not be forwarded in the review process to central administration
unless a specific request is made for them by the reviewing authorities. The
review will be conducted on the basis of summaries and evaluations. Copies of the candidateÕs scholarly
contributions are part of a supplementary file that will be available upon
request). Candidates must supply a research statement that describes his or her
program of scholarly research or creative work completed to date along with
plans for future work.
iv. A
summary and narrative of the candidate's service activities.
v. A
copy of the Appraisal of Probationary Faculty reports for each of the
probationary years as well as of other evaluations by the unit or unit head.
vi. Any
other relevant material relating to the candidateÕs satisfaction of the
requirements for tenure, including evaluations, by persons inside and outside
of the University, of the candidate's teaching, scholarly research or other
creative work, and service.
The candidate
must assist in assembling the file if asked. The unit head must make the
assembled file available to the candidate for his or her review. The candidate
has the right and responsibility to inspect the file and the right to submit
written comments and add relevant materials to the file. Material provided by a
candidate should be identified as such.
13. Vote and report of action
The unit takes a vote and reports the vote according to
Section II.A.2. All reports must be dated.
The unit head (or the designated tenured faculty
member or committee) prepares a draft report that states the faculty's
recommendation, specifies the results of all votes taken, summarizes the
candidate's file, and gives the reasons for the actions taken at the meeting of
the tenured faculty, including any minority views expressed at the meeting that
had substantial support.
Serving in the capacity of the initial academic
administrator, the unit head also prepares an additional statement of his or
her agreement or disagreement with the unit's recommendation, including the
reasons for any disagreement.
The draft report is made available to tenured faculty
members, who may comment and suggest changes, and may file separate reports if
they believe that their views are not adequately reflected in the unit's
report. Copies of such separate reports must be given to the unit head and to
the candidate. The submission of such reports is the only appropriate way for
faculty members to present their individual views to those reviewing the unit
recommendation. The unit head informs the candidate of the unit's
recommendation and of his or her own recommendation and gives the candidate a
copy of each written report. The candidate has the right to submit a
supplementary statement on the unit review for inclusion in the file. Copies of
the statement must be given to the head of the unit and distributed to the tenured
faculty.
The unit forwards for review (1) the file, (2) the
unit recommendation, (3) the unit head's recommendation, (4) the unit report,
(5) any separate statements by members of the tenured faculty, and (6) any
statement by the candidate. (As noted above, copies of the candidate's
scholarly research or other creative work are not to be forwarded, unless the
reviewing authorities request them.)
E. Review by college, campus, or alternative second-level
review committee
14. Review by senior academic administrators
The unit recommendation is reviewed by the academic administrator to
whom the unit head reports. For most units on the Twin Cities campus, the
review is by the dean of the college, who may receive a recommendation from a
collegiate review committee (see section 15). For colleges in the Academic
Health Center, the dean's recommendation is forwarded for review to the Senior
Vice President for the Health Sciences.
For coordinate campuses, the review is by the chancellor, who will
receive a recommendation from a campus-wide review committee.
For Twin-Cities-campus colleges that are not subdivided into
departments, the review is by the Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs
and Provost, who will receive a recommendation from a review committee composed
of tenured faculty both from the participating colleges and from other colleges
he or she designates . [At the
present time (2007), the Humphrey Institute, the Carlson School of Management,
and the Law School use this process, as do some colleges in the Academic Health
Center.]
The membership of all review committees is public information. An
administrator reviewing a tenure recommendation may consult with persons other
than the review committee advising him or her, but each such consultation must
be recorded in the candidate's file. Senior academic administrators and review
committees are governed by the rules for voting and for evaluating candidates
contained in sections 15-17.
15. Collegiate or campus review committee
The collegiate or campus review committee is composed
of members of the tenured faculty of the college or campus, selected as
specified in the college or campus procedures. The committee makes a
recommendation to the dean or chancellor. Because faculty members have an
obligation to participate in the unit recommendation and participate in the
evaluation of the candidate throughout the probationary period, a member of a
unit who serves on a review committee may not participate in the discussion of
or vote on a candidate from his or her own unit. A committee member also may
not participate in a review in circumstances in which he or she would have been
disqualified by part 2(b) of these Procedures (because of a relationship with
the candidate).
The review committee must review the matter on the
basis of the file and other documents that are forwarded to the dean. It may
not seek additional information either from members of the unit or from others.
If it finds that the file contains insufficient information for it to make an
informed judgment, or if there are matters on which the committee would like
clarification from the unit or the candidate, the committee may return the file
to the dean or chancellor with a request that the unit and candidate be asked
to provide the additional information required.
16. Applicable all-University criteria and standards
The review committee and the senior academic
administrators must use the indices and standards for tenure applicable to the
unit and position involved. These are the criteria set forth in section 7.11 of
Faculty Tenure, the unit
statement required under section 7.12, and in any special contract under
section 3.6. Subject only to that limitation, the review committee should
examine the merits of the decision, not merely its procedural regularity.
The review committee must make a written
recommendation to the dean or chancellor. If it differs from the recommendation
of the unit, it must state the reasons for such difference. A copy of the
recommendation must be supplied to the candidate. The recommendation becomes
part of the candidate's file.
17. Requests for reconsideration or for more information
Any senior academic administrator reviewing the unit
recommendation may ask the unit to reconsider the matter on the basis of his or
her specific concerns expressed in writing. In such case, the tenured faculty
must meet again to discuss the question in light of the specific comments or
questions. The procedures are analogous to those for initial consideration by
the unit. The vote is again by secret ballot. A supplemental report is prepared
and transmitted in the same manner as the original recommendation.
Before making a decision on review, the senior
academic administrator, either on his or her own motion or at the request of
the review committee, may ask the unit or the candidate to provide additional
information. Providing such additional information does not require full unit
consideration, but the candidate should be informed of the request and given an
opportunity to participate in the reply to it.
18. Dean's recommendation
The dean makes the recommendation for the college. (A
dean or other reviewing officer may not participate in circumstances in which
the officer would be disqualified from participating in the initial decision.
See part 2(b) of these Procedures.)
Copies of the recommendation must be sent to the unit head and made
available to the tenured members of the unit faculty, and to the candidate.
Every case must be forwarded to the Senior Vice
President for Academic Affairs and Provost for review and appropriate action.
The forwarded file must include (a) the unit recommendation, together with the
unit report and letters of recommendation upon which it relies; (b) the unit
head's report; (c) the review committee's report; (d) the report of the senior
academic administrators who reviewed the unit recommendation; and (e) any other
information in the file requested by the Senior Vice President for Academic
Affairs and Provost. Other portions of the file, e.g., publications or teaching
evaluations, must be retained by the college or campus and forwarded if
requested.
The dean must add to the file any communication that
has been received concerning the candidate and memoranda summarizing
conversations he or she has had concerning the candidate that have been taken
into consideration in any way.
F. Central review and action
19. Central review
The Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs and
Provost has the final authority to make recommendations on tenure and promotion
to the Board of Regents for all Twin Cities colleges and coordinate campuses.
(1) He or she receives recommendations from the deans who report directly to
him or her. (2) Chancellors of coordinate campuses forward their
recommendations both to the Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs and
Provost for decision and to the Senior Vice President for System Academic
Administration for information. (3) In the Academic Health Center, after
receiving the recommendation of the dean, the Senior Vice President for the Health
Sciences forwards his or her recommendation to the Senior Vice President for
Academic Affairs and Provost.
Senior vice presidents and chancellors may consult with other persons
before making a decision, but each such consultation or review shall be
recorded in the candidate's file.
If the Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs and
Provost uses a committee to review one or more candidates, it is subject to
restrictions and procedures parallel to those governing the collegiate review
committees. If the Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs and Provost
consults with individuals about a particular candidate's qualifications, the
consultation must be recorded and included in the candidate's file.
20. Standards for review and action
The central reviews and action must be based upon the
standards for tenure applicable to the unit and position involved. See part 16
of these procedures.
21. Action by the Senior Vice President for Academic
Affairs and Provost; explanations to dean/ chancellor and unit
The Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs and
Provost takes action on the recommendation. If his or her action differs from
the recommendation of the unit, he or she must send to the tenured faculty
members of the unit and to the candidate a written statement of the substantive
reasons for differing with the judgment of the tenured faculty of the unit (Faculty
Tenure, section 7.63). That
statement must be an evaluation of the candidate's substantive qualifications
and include an explanation of the reasons for which the Senior Vice President
for Academic Affairs and Provost believes it appropriate to substitute his or
her judgment for that of the unit with regard to those qualifications. It may
not be a mere recital of the evaluations in the file with a different
conclusion. If the Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs and Provost's
action differs from the recommendation of the dean or chancellor, a similar
written statement must be sent to the dean or chancellor and to the candidate.
The Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs and
Provost presents his or her final recommendations to the Board of Regents for
its decision whether to confer indefinite tenure and/or to approve promotion.
III. Promotion Procedures
Procedures for considering promotions either to the rank of associate
professor or to the rank of professor must parallel those for considering
candidates for tenure, from the unit review through the central review. Faculty Tenure requires that promotion of a probationary appointee
to the rank of associate professor or professor must be accompanied by an
appointment with indefinite tenure. Since the standards for granting tenure are
ordinarily as least as rigorous as those for promotion to associate professor,
the granting of tenure to an assistant professor will ordinarily be accompanied
by a promotion to associate professor. Promotion to the rank of professor may
occur at any time after appointment as or promotion to the rank of associate
professor.
Consideration for promotion to the rank of professor may occur
whenever it is initiated by the unit head or by the professors in the unit. An
associate professor may at any time request that a promotion review take place,
but the professors in the unit will decide whether to conduct it. If an
associate professor believes that a decision not to conduct a promotion review
was made unfairly, he or she may raise his or her concerns with the unit head,
the dean or chancellor, or the Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs and
Provost.
Unit criteria for promotion to the rank of professor as written in the
unit 7.12 statement must be consistent with those stated in section 9.2 of Faculty
Tenure, Criteria for Promotion to
Professor. Only tenured professors senior in rank to the candidate for promotion
are eligible to vote on the promotion. Some units may have heads who are
associate professors. These individuals are not eligible to vote in the cases
of candidates for promotion to professor, but they are required to attend the
promotion review meeting and to write a statement as the unit head as part of
the promotion process. The unit report must be written by a professor who
attended the meeting. The role of the unit head who is an associate professor
is to listen to the discussion, to provide information, and to make a statement
of his or her agreement or disagreement with the unit recommendation.
In the cases of small units with very few faculty members at the rank
of professor, especially if an associate professor is the unit head, it may be
appropriate to include, in the discussion and vote on promotion, a professor or
professors from another unit or units in the college, campus, or University.
Including additional faculty members is also warranted in cases of candidates
whose work encompasses multiple disciplines. In order for faculty members from
outside the unit to participate, the initiating unit and/or the dean or
chancellor must submit a written request to and obtain authorization in writing
by the Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs and Provost. The request must
identify the faculty member under consideration, and give the name(s) and
tenure homes of those faculty members who will be asked to vote on the
candidate and the reasons for including them.
When an associate professor who is the head of a unit is being
considered for promotion, a tenured full professor in the unit may act as the
unit head for the purposes of considering that promotion. With the concurrence
of the faculty in the unit, this role could alternatively be assumed by
a tenured full professor from another unit who has been approved by the Senior
Vice President for Academic Affairs and Provost (see paragraph above). The
tenured full professor acting as unit head will write a letter summarizing his
or her own evaluation of the candidate in lieu of the letter from the unit head
that is ordinarily part of a promotion dossier.
The Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs and
Provost presents his or her final recommendations to the Board of Regents for
its approval or disapproval of promotion.
TOM CLAYTON, CHAIR
ACADEMIC FREEDOM AND TENURE COMMITTEE
DISCUSSION:
Q:
Public Affairs has a number of faculty on various kinds of leave. Under the current system these faculty
have been offered the option of participating and voting in promotion and
tenure (P&T) cases, but many do not vote or vote 'abstain.' May faculty on leave elect to be part
of the pool of eligible voters?
Otherwise are they considered non-voters?
A:
In the report of the vote, the actual vote is to be reported. This report should include the number
eligible to vote, the number present at the meeting, the number of 'yes' votes, the number of 'no' votes, and
the number of 'abstain' votes.
Units can provide an explanation as to why people are not voting. Faculty on leave are eligible to vote,
and therefore should receive the materials to vote, but if these people do not
vote, it is not held against a candidate.
A:
In some instances faculty do not vote or vote 'abstain' due to other factors,
such as illness, joint appointments, or simply refusing to participate. Are these non-vote or abstentions meant
to count against a candidate?
A:
A non-vote is a non-vote, an abstention is a type of vote that is neither a yes
or a no. Abstentions are
recorded. Abstentions are not
meant to count against a candidate, but can send a message to the next level on
the pattern of the vote.
Q:
Are evaluations from outside the University meant to be an optional addition to
the file?
A:
They are optional for the annual review process, but are required as part of
the promotion and tenure process.
Q:
Does the candidate have a right to look at his or her promotion and tenure file
once it leaves the department?
A:
The candidate has the right to view the file and respond throughout the
process.
Q:
Do the voting provisions allow for a vote to be sent by fax?
A:
A vote must be received in an envelope with a signature, so a vote by fax would
not be accepted.
Q:
Must votes from faculty off campus be received prior to the promotion and
tenure meeting?
A:
Votes can be sent prior to the meeting, but language is not included in the
procedures as to how long to wait for off-campus votes.
Q:
Why is the chancellor listed as the deciding party for the coordinate campuses
when the practice has been to have the vice chancellor make these decisions?
A:
This change was made to make it consistent with other policies and have the
highest administrator on campus listed in this position. The chancellor does still have the
authority to delegate this decision to a vice chancellor.
Q:
Is noting by departments heads and chairs addressed in the procedures?
A:
Various details have been added on this topic allowing heads and chairs to vote
on cases if they have the requisite rank.
Q:
The current practice is that copies of new materials added to a promotion and
tenure file are forwarded to the department and the candidate. Is this practice incorporated in the
procedures?
A:
Yes.
Vice
Provost Arlene Carney said that the Provost will shortly be sending a letter
with the schedule for promotion and tenure cases. This letter specifies that anything for the Provost to
consider must be included in the file by March 15, 2008.
A
senator noted that the outside evaluations of the candidate's research from section
12(vi) should be moved to section 12(iii), as this section deals with the
summary of the candidate's research.
Q:
Are statistics available on what each college and department is requiring for
voting, since different vote levels can be required?
A:
This information is being compiled when reviewing the 7.12 statements and can
be shared at the end of the process.
Information is also being compiled as to the number of units requiring
interdisciplinarity or public engagement as part of their review process.
In closing, Professor Clayton asked that additional comments be sent to him or Gary Engstrand.
22.
FACULTY CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE
Copyright
Policy
Discussion
by the Faculty Senate
COPYRIGHTS
SECTION I. SCOPE
This policy applies to works created by faculty; post-doctoral
fellows, researchers and scholars; students and other employees of the
University of Minnesota (University).
SECTION II.
DEFINITIONS.
Subd. 1. Copyright Protection. Copyright protection subsists in original works of
authorship fixed in a tangible medium of expression as defined by United States
copyright law.
Subd. 2. Work. ÒWorkÓ shall mean a work protected under United
States copyright laws.
Subd. 3. Academic Work. ÒAcademic workÓ shall
mean a scholarly, pedagogical, or creative work, such as an article, book,
textbook, novel, work of visual art, dramatic work, musical composition, course
syllabus, test, or class notes.
Subd. 4. Faculty.
ÒFacultyÓ shall mean members of the faculty as defined by Board of
Regents Policy: Employee Group Definitions, along with
individuals who are not so defined but who are University employees holding
faculty-like appointments (viz.,
University employees who teach or conduct research at the University with a
level of responsibility and self-direction similar to that exercised and
enjoyed by faculty in a similar activity). Post-doctoral fellows, researchers and scholars shall have
the same rights as faculty under this policy.
Subd. 5. Student. ÒStudentÓ shall mean a registered
student at the University, including undergraduate and graduate students.
Subd. 6.
Directed Work. ÒDirected workÓ shall
mean a work agreed upon between the University and faculty creator(s), the
creation of which is based on a specific request by the University and which
requires substantial University resources.
SECTION III. GUIDING PRINCIPLES
Subd. 1. The
UniversityÕs mission articulates a commitment to "sharing
knowledge through education for a diverse community; and application of that
knowledge to benefit the people of the state, the nation, and the world."[1] In this spirit, the University encourages faculty and
students to exercise their interests in ownership and use of their
copyrighted works in a manner that ensures the greatest possible scholarly
and public access to their work.
Subd. 2. The University shall maintain the strong academic tradition that
vests copyright ownership in
works of scholarship in the faculty.
Subd. 3. The University recognizes the importance of intellectual freedom and autonomy in
the creation, use, and dissemination
of scholarly works.
Subd. 4. The University is committed to promoting a culture
in which access, exchange, and
lawful use of materials is regarded as fundamental
to both the process and goals of scholarly inquiry.
SECTION IV. COPYRIGHT
OWNERSHIP.
Subd. 1. Ownership of Academic Works. In accordance
with academic tradition,
University faculty and students shall own the copyrights in the academic
works they create, except for academic works described below in Section IV,
subd. 2(b)-(e), or unless otherwise provided in a written agreement between the
creator(s) and the University.
Subd. 2. University Ownership. The University shall
own the copyrights in the following works created by University faculty,
students or other employees acting individually or jointly with others:
(a) works created by University employees acting within the scope of
their employment, except for academic works created and owned by faculty and
students under this policy;
(b) directed works;
(c) works specially ordered or commissioned by the University and for
which the University has agreed, in writing, to specially compensate or provide
other support to the creator;
(d) works created in connection with the administration of the
University; and
(e) works created pursuant to a contract with an outside sponsor that
provides the University ownership of the copyrights.
Subd. 3. Written Acknowledgements. The University and
University faculty, students and other employees shall execute necessary or
desirable written instruments or agreements to evidence and protect ownership
of copyrights and copyright licenses in accordance with this policy.
Subd. 4. Ownership
under Sponsored and other Outside Funded Agreements. The ownership of copyrights in works created under an agreement with
an outside sponsor shall be determined in accordance with its terms and
applicable law.
Subd. 5. Works Created by Independent Contractors. Copyright
ownership in works created by independent contractors shall be determined in
accordance with applicable law and the contract between the University and the
independent contractor. In most
instances, the University shall enter into appropriate written contracts with
independent contractors before services are provided to the University that may
result in the creation of copyrighted works.
SECTION V. EXCLUSIONS.
Nothing in this policy shall be construed to
preclude the University and
faculty and students from entering into written agreements governing the use,
licensing, or sharing of licensing revenues with each other with respect to
works, whether such works are owned by the University, the faculty, or students
under this policy.
SECTION VI. IMPLEMENTATION.
The president or delegate shall administer
this policy and maintain appropriate policies and procedures to implement
it.
GARY BALAS, CHAIR
FACULTY CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE
DISCUSSION:
Professor
Gary Balas, Chair of the Faculty Consultative Committee (FCC), said that the
FCC voted to add this item to the agenda for discussion, but has not yet taken
a vote on approval of the policy.
He then introduced University Librarian Wendy Lougee and Professor Ruth
Okediji from the Law School as the co-chairs of the revision committee.
Wendy Lougee noted that the item for discussion today is a Regents policy, with more details added at the administrative levels. The policy is scheduled to go to the Regents in November.
The committee's charge was to create a policy that is separate from the intellectual property policy but that embraced both copyright and technology transfer. The group that worked on this draft included six faculty from across the University. The committee reviewed policies from other institutions and also met with Senate committees, administrators, other faculty groups, and distance education providers to have a sense for where pressure points existed with the current policy.
Wendy Lougee stated that copyright protects original works of authorship that are fixed in a tangible medium of expression. Each of these words is important. 'Original' signifies something that is independently created and has some minimal degree of creativity. 'Fixed in a tangible medium of expression' means that that it is embodied in something that is sufficiently permanent or stable so that it can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated for a period of more than transitory duration.
When someone has copyright, the person actually has a bundle of rights that include reproduction, derivation, distribution, performing, and display.
Professor Okediji said that when the committee looked at this policy, it needed to determine where the line is drawn between University ownership of copyrighted materials and faculty ownership of copyrighted materials.
She noted that the default rule of law is that the employer owns the materials that are copyrightable and have been created by the employee within the scope of the employee's job functions. Institutions have had to create an exception to what the law would otherwise require. This exception has been used for enough years that it is considered common law, referred to as the teacher's exception, and entitles teachers to own copyright in the materials, such as syllabi, class notes, articles, and course books.
In this draft policy, the committee felt it important to identify a clear rule that would invest faculty with copyright in their work. The policy also delineates circumstances when the University will own copyrightable work, noted as 'directed works' in the policy. A directed work is one in which the University makes a specific request, invests a substantial amount of resources, and the faculty member agrees to create the work.
Lastly, the committee felt that the policy should have a provision to opt-out of the policy and create a private arrangement with the University.
Professor Okediji said that a question that often arises in this process is the question of control. Copyright does not address questions of control, just questions of ownership. Control is dealt with in employment law.
A second question concerns converting tradition material into an on-line format. Copyright law permeates technological transformations, so if copyright existed for the paper format, it still does for the on-line version.
In closing, Professor Okediji stated that in the future, the teacher's exception might change since it has not been recognized as a valid part of the law by the court system. The policy therefore describes the essence of what a faculty member does.
Q: Software and compilations are two areas that are unclear. The current Regents Policy mentions software but does not mention if it is or is not copyrightable. A call to the licensing center did not have a clear answer since this topic is in flux. What is the current policy and what is contemplated in this policy as to faculty rights to software and compiled copyrighted works, such as a list of readings and a database of nutritional data?
A: The law is clear that if someone has a standard compilation, then it does not qualify for a compilation copyright. This policy avoids a complicated legal analysis of what is and what is not copyrightable between disciplines. If the work is copyrightable and is a recognized as part of the teacher's exception, then the faculty member would hold the copyright.
A senator stated that he would prefer that instead of echoing the historic exceptions, the Regents policy should state for which items the Regents are providing copyright to the faculty. As the University owns items by law, it has the authority to give those rights to the faculty.
Q:
The Regents policy on Intellectual Property states that, "Intellectual property created solely for the purpose of
satisfying a course requirement is owned by the creator and not the
University." This policy
contradicts that definition. One
concern is the definition of academic work in Section II(3). Items such as lecture outlines,
PowerPoint presentations, and handouts are not included. Do these belong to the University? If not, she would propose new language.
A: The definition does start with 'such as' which signifies that the following list of items is not exclusive. One objective of the committee was to think about what was needed to preserve faculty autonomy and the portability of what faculty do as they move between institutions. The policy does not want to invest the imprimatur of law on something that does not have it. Many faculty are agitating over items that are not copyrightable, so faculty education is a key element needed.
Q: A faculty member's department has been directed to put a large amount of coursework on-line and substantial resources have been invested by the University. Does this mean a faculty's coursework, which she has used for 25 years, will now be copyrightable by the University as a directed work under Section IV(2b)?
A: When faculty have copyright on their work, changing it to an electronic format does not divest the copyright interest. Any directed work needs to be agreed upon by the faculty. Course design and presentation, however, are not copyrightable. The committee wanted to make sure that the responsibility of ownership of copyright does not expose faculty to legal liability. The University should share in liability and responsibility for the work that its faculty do.
A senator said that if faculty feel that they are being coerced into an agreement, then they should file a grievance. He then suggested that the policy should be made very simple by eliminating the examples in Section II(3) and leave the examples of copyrightable material to law.
Professor Okediji said that the committee wanted to make sure that there was some delineation between when the University would be able to assert some ownership interests, giving faculty the flexibility to negotiate, and giving faculty the ability to opt out.
Q: The Research Committee raised the same concerns and an understanding was reached that language would be added to require a signed agreement. Why is this language not in this version?
A: The statute requires a signed agreement and particulars of the agreement. The committee choose to refer to law itself instead of reproducing it in the policy. However, if faculty are more comfortable stipulating that this is a written agreement, then the language can be modified.
A senator noted that requiring written agreements allows the faculty to track what types of transfers are being made and allows for an evaluation of how the policy is working.
A motion was made and seconded to extend the time for debate by fifteen minutes. This motion was approved.
Q: If a faculty member owns the copyright, do they decide how to display or not display an item? Who adjudicates disputes about displaying work?
A: The owner decides how to display or not display copyrighted work. Disputes are handled under employment laws.
Q: To have a copyright that is defendable in court, does a faculty member need to complete and submit forms, the work, and pay a fee?
A: This is correct. A copyright is meaningless unless it is registered.
23.
FACULTY SENATE OLD BUSINESS
NONE
24.
FACULTY SENATE NEW BUSINESS
A
senator asked that a discussion be scheduled at a future meeting on the topic
of a livable wage.
Professor
Balas said that the Faculty Consultative Committee would discuss this request.
25. FACULTY SENATE ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 4:50 p.m.
Rebecca
Hippert
Abstractor