MEETING OF THE UNIVERSITY SENATE

The second meeting of the University Senate and Faculty Senate was convened in 25 Mondale Hall, Minneapolis campus, on Thursday, November 29, 2007, at 2:32 p.m., as a joint meeting of the bodies. Coordinate campuses were linked by telephone. Checking or signing the roll as present were 25 academic professional members, 19 civil service members, 128 faculty/faculty-like academic professional members, and 16 student members. President Bruininks presided.

2. TRIBUTE TO DECEASED MEMBERS OF THE UNIVERSITY COMMUNITY

FACULTY/ACADEMIC PROFESSIONALS/STAFF

Daphne Berdahl
Professor
Anthropology
1964 – 2007

David Evertz
Professor
HHH Institute of Public Affairs
1947 – 2007

Donald F. McGavisk
Physician
Boynton Health Service
1931 – 2007

David W. Thompson
Professor
Theatre Arts and Dance
1917 – 2007

John Verby Jr.
Professor
Medical School
1923 – 2007

Marion B. Wallace
Professor
Entomology
1917 – 2007

Julius F. Wolff
Professor
Political Science – Duluth
1918 – 2007

Nassif A. Youssif
Professor
Library Collection Development and Management
1939 – 2007

Edward A. Bump
Carlson School of Management

Katherine A. Olson
College of Continuing Education

Jeff Stoll
University of Minnesota – Crookston

3. INTRODUCTIONS
Vice President Steven Rosenstone, Scholarly and Cultural Affairs;
Chancellor Stephen Lehmkuhle, University of Minnesota-Rochester

President Bruininks introduced Steven Rosenstone, Vice President for Scholarly and Cultural Affairs, and Stephen Lehmkuhle, Chancellor of the University of Minnesota-Rochester.

4. SENATE CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE REPORT

Professor Gary Balas, Chair of the Senate Consultative Committees (SCC), apologized to Civil Service senators for neglecting to recognize them at the October Senate meeting. He asked them to stand for a round of applause and then introduced Cathy Marquardt as this year's Civil Service Committee Chair.

Since the last meeting, SCC has received reports from the Information Technologies Committee and the Advisory Committee on Athletics. SCC plans to continue to listen to the concerns from all Senate committee and offer help when appropriate.

5. FACULTY AFFAIRS COMMITTEE
Resolution on Retiree Benefits
Action by the University Senate

e) always use gender-inclusive language such as “retired faculty” instead of “emeriti faculty.” When referring to individuals, of course the traditional “Professor Emeritus” and “Professor Emerita” are appropriate.

e) mentoring or tutoring individual undergraduate or graduate students in their specialties, such as in English language acquisition for foreign students, in writing, in developing library skills, or in orientation to the University beyond the students’ regular classroom instruction,

f) serving on University search committees, development committees, or governance committees, where appropriate and when needed by the University, and serving as advocates for the University in situations where the University’s needs and the retirees’ abilities and concerns match.

5. Host an annual reception honoring all retirees (faculty, professional and administrative employees, and civil service staff) of the previous twelve months, with the University president and some members of Board of Regents present.

(Note: There are numerous models around the country for relationships of retirees groups with the universities. Some retirees’ associations are arms of the university, some are entirely separate but related in the manner of student organizations or a faculty union, some are members of parallel bodies like alum associations. The University of Minnesota has a volunteer center sponsored by retirees, the University Retirees Volunteer Center, and also the University of Minnesota Retirees Association (UMRA). Looking at the model that is being developed at the University of Wisconsin at Madison, The Senate recommends that SCFA begin discussions with appropriate administrative officers about the possibility of establishing a University-supported Retirement Center along the lines of the Madison proposal. [See Web link http://www.secfac.wisc.edu/senate/2006/1204/1958.pdf.] Such a center might consolidate budget, space, activities and authority for its retirees within the University and focus the organization of retired persons who might be helpful to the University when they are needed.)

The Faculty Retirees’ Bill of Rights was adopted by the Senate on April 16, 1998, and the Regents included most of it in their Policy on Faculty Emeriti (July 14, 2000). The UMRA Web site (http://www.umn.edu/umra) prominently displays these policies.

The 1998 Senate Resolution points out that in addition to pension and health plans, “many emeriti[/ae] wished to retain a connection with the University by volunteering or contracting their services, continuing their research, or working with students, affirmed that such continuing ties brought substantial benefits to retirees and University alike, and urged that policies be developed for dealing with such activity.”

In addition, a November 2004 report sponsored by President Robert Bruininks and Senior Vice President for Administration Robert Jones and conducted by Professor Carole J. Bland, Director of Research in Family Medicine, concludes that late-career senior faculty desire the following ten institutional relationships and benefits following retirement:

Some of these--emeritus/a status, library privileges, office space where available, teaching and office services use possibilities, and parking privileges--are available either by University arrangements, UMRA negotiations, or through the University Retirees Volunteer Center. Although outstanding opportunities have been made available to many retired faculty through their departments and colleges, recent discussions in UMRA have revealed that policies regarding retirees have been unevenly implemented and do not include some important matters. The UMRA goal is to seek to have them available to all. SCFA would like to explore the possibilities, with the support of the Faculty Senate.

GEOFFREY SIRC, CHAIR
FACULTY AFFAIRS COMMITTEE

To: Geoffrey Sirc, Chair, Senate Committee on Faculty Affairs

From: Pam Stenhjem, Chair, Council of Academic Professionals & Administrators

Re: Proposal for the Enhanced Recognition of Retirees

Date: November 16, 2007

The Council of Academic Professionals and Administrators (CAPA) notes the passage by the Senate Committee on Faculty Affairs (SCFA) of a Proposal for the Enhanced Recognition of Retirees (attached) to be presented to the University Senate at its November 29 meeting.

Based upon discussions with Earl Nolting, the University of Minnesota Retirees Association (UMRA) liaison to CAPA, and statements made by individual employees, CAPA believes the application of existing University retiree benefits and the offering of retiree volunteer opportunities on campus is applied inconsistently at the University. Statements from individual employees have revealed confusion among current P&As and other employee groups about the benefits and opportunities available to University retirees.

CAPA believes that University retirees are an invaluable resource to the University. Retirees provide a deep and diverse source of organizational history and culture, as well as crucial talents and experience that can be utilized for the benefit of the entire University community.

Therefore, CAPA supports this proposal and the continued discussion of a system-wide process to:

CAPA strongly advocates for a broad inclusion of all employee groups when retiree benefits and opportunities are discussed, particularly regarding the formation of a system-wide process to facilitate the retiree benefits and service opportunities outlined in the proposal.

CAPA stands ready to support continued work on behalf of University retirees and asks that all appropriate governance and representative groups on campus, including University Civil Service Committee, UMRA, Senate Benefits Advisory Committee, CAPA, and CAPA’s Benefits & Compensation Committee, be included in discussions and planning.

CAPA applauds UMRA’s and SCFA’s work to bring this proposal forward to the Senate and looks forward to continued, collaborative dialogue and work on retiree benefits for all University employees.

A senator noted that the goals of this resolution are right, but the language feels sloppy by mixing unlike items. Also, not all benefits should be applied evenly to all retiring staff. Departmental selectivity and clear details are also not included.

Gayle Graham Yates, President of the University of Minnesota Retirees Association (UMRA), said that her group drafted this document and it was reworked by SCFA. The intent of the resolution was to provide faculty, academic professionals, and civil service staff retirees benefits equitably among employment categories. The resolution also requests that the University centrally oversee the administration of retiree benefits.

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

6. UNIVERSITY SENATE BYLAW AMENDMENT
Advisory Committee on Athletics Charge
Action by the Twin Cities Delegation

To amend Article II, Section 5(A) of the University Senate Bylaws as follows (language to be deleted is struck out; language to be added is underlined). As an amendment to the University Senate Bylaws, the motion requires either a majority of all voting members of the Twin Cities Delegation (113) at one regular or special meeting, or a majority of all voting members of the University Senate present and voting at each of two meetings. This is the first meeting at which this motion is being presented.

ARTICLE II. Committees of the UNIVERSITY Senate (Changes to this article are subject to vote only by the University Senate)

5. University Senate Committee Charges

A. ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON ATHLETICS

The Advisory Committee on Athletics shall consist of the following voting members:

(1) a Chair, who must be a tenured faculty member, who holds no administrative appointment higher than department chair or head, appointed by the President after consultation with the Senate Consultative Committee Faculty Committee on Committees, for a term of one year;

(2) four (4) members of the faculty or academic staff (at least two of whom shall be members of the tenured faculty), appointed by the President after consultation with the faculty members of the Senate Consultative Committee Faculty Committee on Committees, for terms of three (3) years;

(3) the Faculty Representatives to the NCAA;

(4) the chair of the Faculty Academic Oversight Committee on Intercollegiate Athletics, or a member designated by that committee;

(5) a dean, appointed by the President after consultation with the Twin Cities' deans, for a term of three (3) years, or another member of the tenured faculty;

(6) four (4) students, two of whom will be appointed by the President after consultation with the student members of the Senate Consultative Committee Student Committee on Committees, for terms of one year, and two of whom will be selected by the representatives of students in the intercollegiate athletic programs for terms of one year;

(7) two graduates of the University, appointed by the President after appropriate consultation for terms of three (3) years;

(8) one University civil service employee, appointed by the Civil Service Committee for a term of three (3) years.

The appointments are subject to approval by the Assembly Twin Cities Delegation. The President designates a vice chair from among the other tenured faculty members of the committee. No one, other than the faculty representatives, may serve more than six (6) consecutive years on this committee. Initial appointments will be arranged to provide for partial replacement of the committee each year.

The director of intercollegiate athletics, the director of academic counseling and the director of compliance shall serve as non-voting ex officio members.

The Senate Consultative Committee (SCC) is recommending that the process for appointing the members of the Advisory Committee on Athletics (ACA) be placed in the hands of the Committee on Committees. SCC was given responsibility for appointing the members in the wake of the most recent Twin Cities campus basketball scandal, when it was thought important that the executive committee of the University Senate keep a watchful eye on the relationship between the athletic program and the academic programs in which student-athletes are enrolled.

While SCC continues to believe that ACA plays an important role on the campus, SCC finds it is not the best group to make such appointments. The Faculty Committee on Committees regularly considers lists of faculty in various colleges and departments and both committees solicit expressions of interest from faculty, academic professionals, and students in serving on Senate committees. SCC has no ready mechanism to identify individuals for committee service, so must rely on who SCC members may know personally. SCC is also sufficiently obligated in other ways that the task of identifying ACA members sometimes falls by the wayside, to the disadvantage of ACA.

SCC thus recommends that the Faculty Committee on Committees and the Student Committee on Committees be given this responsibility.

The language beginning "Initial appointments. . . ." is to be deleted because those provisions are elsewhere in the University Senate bylaws and apply to all University Senate committees. There is no need to repeat the language here.

GARY BALAS, CHAIR
SENATE CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE

With no discussion, a vote was taken and the motion was approved with 147 votes in favor and none opposed.

7. UNIVERSITY SENATE BYLAW AMENDMENT
Disabilities Issues Charge
Action by the University Senate

To amend Article II, Section 5(C) of the University Senate Bylaws as follows (language to be deleted is struck out; language to be added is underlined). As an amendment to the University Senate Bylaws, the motion requires either a majority of all voting members of the University Senate (124) at one regular or special meeting, or a majority of all voting members of the University Senate present and voting at each of two meetings. This is the first meeting at which this motion is being presented.

ARTICLE II. Committees of the UNIVERSITY Senate (Changes to this article are subject to vote only by the University Senate)

5. University Senate Committee Charges

C. DISABILITIES ISSUES COMMITTEE

The Disabilities Issues Committee shall be composed of at least 7 faculty members, 2 academic professional members, 2 4 students (at least one two graduate/professional and one two undergraduates), 2 civil service staff members, and ex officio representation as specified by vote of the Senate. Faculty, academic professional, and student members shall be nominated by the Committee on Committees with the approval of the Senate. Civil service members shall be appointed by the Civil Service Committee.

The Disabilities Issues Committee would like to double the number of students serving so the committee receives input from a larger number of students and represents a broader student viewpoint.

ALEX LUBET, CHAIR
DISABILITIES ISSUES COMMITTEE

With no discussion, a vote was taken and the motion was approved with 160 votes in favor and none opposed.

8. PRESIDENT’S REPORT

President Bruininks said that a few years ago October was designated as scholarship month to draw attention to the importance of keeping higher education accessible and affordable at all campuses. Three-years ago he also made a commitment to double scholarships and fellowships and raise more than $150 million. This statement was made on the heels of a successful seven-year capital campaign that raised $1.7 billion.

At the end of October the fund had approached $200 million, but he has told fundraisers to keep working. He believes that this is one of the most important ways to strengthen the long-term future of the University. The scholarship will cover 10,000 undergraduate, graduate, and professional students throughout the system in the next few years and includes a fifty percent increase in the number of awards provided.

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. More than 125 students in two years have this grant. Ninety percent are Pell-eligible, only one of 77 students did not return for their second year of classes, and thirty-five percent of the recipients are students of color.

President Bruininks then turned to the February capital request to the state legislature. There will be close to $300 million total in the bonding request, of which $210 million is for asset preservation. The state revenue forecast will be released tomorrow, which might show a downturn in the economy. He stated that this is not a time to be timid, but a time to invest in the core infrastructure of the state.

He then noted that this has been an historic fall for the University. Professor Leo Hurwicz was granted the Nobel Prize for his life-long achievements in Economics. Large Animal Sciences saw an expansion with the opening of the Doug and Louise Leatherdale Equine Center on the St. Paul Campus in October. The Department of Energy awarded a $50 million four-year grant to Physics to develop the new international physics laboratory in Northern Minnesota. This could become a $200 million long-term investment. A $14 million five-year award was given to conduct a national children's study on environmental effects on children's health and development. Seven colleagues were named as fellows to the American Association for the Advancement of Science: Professors Judith Berman, Robert Herman, David Lilja, John Lipscomb, Stephen Polasky, Jeffrey Roberts, and Lanny Schmidt. A post-secondary grant to build a set of academic partnerships with North Minneapolis was also awarded. Lastly, the Institute for Advanced Studies and the University Press received a $700,000 Mellon grant to cultivate interdisciplinary scholarship and publication.

9. QUESTIONS TO THE PRESIDENT

10. UNIVERSITY SENATE OLD BUSINESS

11. UNIVERSITY SENATE NEW BUSINESS

12. UNIVERSITY SENATE ADJOURNMENT

The University Senate was adjourned at 3:22 p.m.

13. FACULTY CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE REPORT

Professor Gary Balas, Chair of the Faculty Consultative Committees (FCC), said that the Metrics and Measures Subcommittee is still working to identify metrics for scholarly work, because FCC does not believe that the current set is representative of what faculty do.

He and the Vice Chair, Professor Emily Hoover, attended the CIC faculty governance meeting in Iowa. It was clear after listening to the other institutions that the University has excellent processes in place, especially regarding access to and influence on the administration.

FCC hosted four meetings with department heads and chairs. Topics discussed included faculty morale, departmental resources, faculty support, centralization versus decentralization, burdens affecting faculty productivity, budget model impact, and improved communication between central administration and academic units. FCC will work with the administration to address these issues.

Future topics include a report from the budget-model subcommittee, senior administrator reviews, financing of the strategic plan, and funds for spousal and under-represented minority hires.

Yesterday representatives of FCC met with some members of the Twin Cities Deans Council. The meeting was informative for both sides and will be repeated.

Lastly, FCC discussed two items that are on the agenda later today, student rating of teaching questions and the liberal education requirements.

In closing Professor Balas thanked outgoing Vice Provost Craig Swan for his service to the University and welcomed Professor Robert McMaster to the position.

14. FACULTY LEGISLATIVE LIAISON UPDATE

Professor Martin Sampson, Faculty Legislative Liaison, began by introducing Professor Caroline Hayes as the second faculty legislative liaison. The role of the liaisons is to attend all hearings at which the University is being discussed, keep faculty informed, and talk to legislators about the faculty point of view. He reminded senators of the clout that each has as a constituent in a particular district. He asked everyone to contact their legislators on behalf of the University. He will be asking for specific help once the session starts.

_______________________________________________________________
MOTION A
Consent Agenda
Action by the Faculty Senate

Agenda Items 15. and 16. are offered as a “Consent Agenda” to be taken up as a single item with one vote. Any item will be taken up separately at the request of a senator.

15. FACULTY SENATE BYLAW AMENDMENT
Nominating Committee Charge
Action by Twin Cities Faculty Delegation

To amend Article IV, Section 5(K) of the Faculty Senate Bylaws as follows (language to be deleted is struck out; 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 Twin Cities Faculty Delegation (80) 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

K. NOMINATING COMMITTEE

The Nominating Committee is responsible for identifying Twin Cities faculty candidates for the Committee on Committees and for the Faculty Consultative Committee and for overseeing elections to those two committees.

The Nominating Committee shall consist of at least nine tenured or tenure-track faculty and at least two academic professional staff members. In case of a vacancy, the remaining members, by majority vote, shall fill the vacancy by interim appointment until the next general election.

The Twin Cities members of the Faculty Consultative Committee shall nominate and certify as available twice as many tenured or tenure-track faculty members as there are faculty seats available seats on the Nominating Committee. The Council of Academic Professionals and Administrators shall nominate and certify as available twice as many academic professional staff members as there are academic professional seats available on the Nominating Committee.

1. The faculty nominations will be presented at a spring semester meeting of the Twin Cities Faculty Delegation. Additional nominations, certified as available, may be made by: (1) petition of 12 voting members of the faculty provided that the petition is in the hands of the clerk of the Senate the day before the Twin Cities Faculty Delegation meeting; (2) nomination on the floor of the Twin Cities Faculty Delegation. In the event there are additional nominations, the Twin Cities Faculty Delegation shall by vote reduce the slate to twice the number to be elected, and shall forward the results to the clerk of the Senate.

The Twin Cities Faculty Delegation shall then vote on the slate by secret ballot at the spring semester meeting when the slate of candidates is presented. In case of a tie, the clerk shall choose the successful candidate by lot.

2. The academic professional and administrative candidates will be elected by the Council of Academic Professionals and Administrators.

In those instances when an incumbent member of the Nominating Committee is eligible for re-election, the Faculty Consultative Committee (for a faculty member) or the Council of Academic Professionals and Administrators (for an academic professional member) may present to the Twin Cities Faculty Delegation or the Council of Academic Professionals and Administrators, as appropriate, the name of that individual for confirmation of reappointment without another candidate on the ballot to fill the position. A proposed confirmation of reappointment would not preclude additional nominations made according to the provisions of the preceding paragraph; any such nomination must stipulate against whom the nominee will run.

The Nominating Committee 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.

Duties and Responsibilities

1. The faculty candidates for the Committee on Committees shall be announced in the Twin Cities Faculty Delegation docket at a spring semester meeting. Additional nominations, certified as available, may be made by: (1) petition of 12 voting members of the faculty or academic professional staff eligible to serve in the Twin Cities Faculty Delegation, provided that the petition is in the hands of the clerk of the Twin Cities Faculty Delegation the day before the Twin Cities Faculty Delegation meeting; (2) nomination on the floor of the Twin Cities Faculty Delegation. At the meeting when the slate is presented and approved, the Twin Cities Faculty Delegation shall elect by secret ballot members of the Committee on Committees for three-year terms. In case of a tie, the clerk shall choose the successful candidate by lot.

2. The academic professional candidates for the Committee on Committees shall be elected in accord with procedures established by the Council of Academic Professionals and Administrators.

The Faculty Consultative Committee recommends that the P&A members of the Nominating Committee be removed. The reason is that by the terms of another bylaw amendment on this docket, the Council of Academic Professionals and Administrators (CAPA) will make P&A appointments to the Faculty Committee on Committees, so the Nominating Committee will only be responsible for faculty nominations to the Faculty Committee on Committees (as well as for the nomination of Faculty Consultative Committee members).

CATHERINE FRENCH, CHAIR
NOMINATING COMMITTEE

16. FACULTY SENATE BYLAW AMENDMENT
Committee on Committees Charge
Action by the Faculty Senate

To amend Article IV, Section 5(G) of the Faculty Senate Bylaws as follows (language to be deleted is struck out; 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 (84) 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

Faculty Committee on Committees

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 from the Morris campus. 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. The academic professional candidates for the Committee on Committees shall be elected in accord with procedures established by the Council of Academic Professionals and Administrators. 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.

Duties and Responsibilities

With the change to the Nominating Committee charge, language is needed in the Committee on Committees charge to address appointment of academic professionals to the Committee on Committees. The new language puts into writing the arrangement that has been used for two years.

PERRY LEO, CHAIR
FACULTY COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES

With no discussion, a vote was taken and the motion was approved with 101 in favor and none opposed.

_______________________________________________________________
END OF MOTION A

17. FACULTY SENATE BYLAW AMENDMENT
Faculty Academic Oversight Committee on Intercollegiate Athletics Charge
Action by the Twin Cities Faculty Delegation

To amend Article IV, Section 5(E) of the Faculty Senate Bylaws as follows (language to be deleted is struck out; 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 Twin Cities Faculty Delegation (80) 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

E. FACULTY ACADEMIC OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE FOR INTERCOLLEGIATE ATHLETICS

The voting membership of this committee consists of six (6) members of the tenured faculty, plus the two (2) Faculty Representatives and the Chair of the Advisory Committee on Athletics. Since the purpose of this committee is to ensure that students who choose to participate in athletics have a full opportunity to pursue and complete their University studies, the primary qualification for appointment to this committee is a commitment to teaching students, rather than a special interest in athletics.

The Faculty Consultative Committee appoints six (6) members of the committee after consultation with the President. The Committee on Committees will provide a list of candidates for consideration. The appointments are subject to approval by the Twin Cities Faculty Delegation. After consultation with the President, all members shall be nominated by the Faculty Committee on Committees with the approval of the Twin Cities Faculty Delegation. The term of office is three (3) years; the initial terms will be arranged so that one-third of the terms expire each year. No one may serve more than six (6) consecutive years on the committee.

The Faculty Consultative Faculty Committee on Committees designates the chair of the committee.

The Faculty Consultative Committee (FCC) is recommending that the process for appointing the members of the Faculty Academic Oversight Committee for Intercollegiate Athletics (FAOCIA) be placed in the hands of the Committee on Committees. FCC was given responsibility for appointing the members in the wake of the most recent Twin Cities campus basketball scandal, when it was thought important that the executive committee of the Faculty Senate keep a watchful eye on the relationship between the athletic program and the academic programs in which student-athletes are enrolled.

While FCC continues to believe that FAOCIA plays an important role on the campus, FCC finds it is not the best group to make such appointments. The Faculty Committee on Committees regularly considers lists of faculty in various colleges and departments and solicits expressions of interest from faculty in serving on Senate committees. FCC has no ready mechanism to identify individuals for committee service, so must rely on who FCC members may know personally. FCC is also sufficiently obligated in other ways that the task of identifying FAOCIA members sometimes falls by the wayside, to the disadvantage of FAOCIA and faculty interests generally.

FCC thus recommends that the Faculty Committee on Committees be given this responsibility.

The language beginning "The term of office. . . ." is to be deleted because those provisions are elsewhere in the Faculty Senate bylaws and apply to all Faculty Senate committees. There is no need to repeat the language here.

GARY BALAS, CHAIR
FACULTY CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE

With no discussion, a vote was taken and the motion was approved with 97 in favor and none opposed.

18. EDUCATIONAL POLICY COMMITTEE
FACULTY AFFAIRS COMMITTEE
FACULTY CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE
Revisions to the Policy and Protocol on the Student Rating
and Peer Evaluation of Teaching
Action by the Faculty Senate

To amend the Policy and Protocol on the Student Rating and Peer Evaluation of Teaching as follows (language to be deleted is struck out; language to be added is underlined).

Policy and Protocol on the Student Rating and Peer Evaluation of Instruction

The University of Minnesota seeks to achieve instruction of the highest quality so that students learn to their maximum potential. The student rating and peer evaluation of instruction is one way to help ensure excellence in instruction, so the Faculty Senate adopts the following policy and protocol.

There are at least three reasons to rate and evaluate instruction: (1) to improve instruction, (2) to provide information for (a) salary and promotion decisions based on merit and (b) faculty tenure decisions, and (3) to assist students in course selection. This policy and protocol is intended to meet all three objectives. With respect to the second, the purpose of this policy and protocol is to define what shall constitute adequate documentation for student and peer review of faculty and instructional staff teaching contributions.[1]

The required student rating and peer evaluation of teaching for tenure and promotion decisions must have two major components, peer review and student rating of teaching. Academic units must make provisions for peer review for faculty being considered for tenure, promotion, and salary increases, and for other instructional staff being considered for reappointment, promotion, and salary increases. The peer review information for individuals is to be supplemented by information from student ratings of all their courses.

Students must be made aware that their ratings will be used in making personnel decisions. A small number of questions, common to all courses throughout the University, will be used in the student ratings of instruction. The use of common questions provides one means of making judgments on teaching effectiveness University-wide and allows calculation of statistical norms. This type of information can be used with other types to identify very good instructors who deserve rewards as well as instructors who may need assistance in improving their classroom effectiveness. This information does not have the resolution necessary to allow fine discrimination between instructors in intermediate categories. In addition to questions that request a numerical response, survey forms must include provisions for written comments by students.

--Every course with a University course number shall be evaluated by the use of student rating forms every time it is offered, except that thesis-only credits, directed or independent study, internships, and classes with fewer than five students shall not be evaluated using such forms.[2] A department that wishes permanently to exempt a course or courses from use of the standard student rating form must receive written approval from the Senate Committee on Educational Policy.[3]

Data and information from student ratings shall not be used in isolation from peer evaluation and (for faculty) research and service in evaluating faculty and instructional staff.

The directions for students written on the student rating forms should stress the three purposes of the form: rating of instructors, improvement of teaching, and assistance to future students in selecting courses (the "student release" questions). The instructions should be written in a manner that will motivate students to complete the forms. The instructions should explain why demographic data are being collected.

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

--Students may not be required to fill in a student rating form for any course. This provision applies to all courses at the University, including multiple-instructor courses that are otherwise covered by a different rating protocol.

--The teaching performance of all instructors, regardless of their academic rank or tenure status, is subject to student ratings and peer evaluation. This policy and protocol applies to all instructors regardless of whether they are tenure-track/tenured, term/P&A, or adjunct faculty or hold any other kind of teaching appointment at the University. Specific provisions are noted for tenured and tenure-track faculty.

--Personnel decisions (e.g., merit and salary reviews, promotion, tenure for tenure-track faculty) for all faculty and instructional staff whose salary is based in any part on teaching shall include review by appropriate department, college, and University officers, as set forth in pertinent rules and policies, all numeric data from the teaching rating forms from their courses.

--For tenured and tenure-track faculty, faculty peers must evaluate course objectives and syllabi, handouts, assignments and tests, theses and dissertations, and examples of graded student work in order to measure their quality and appropriateness. Faculty and instructional staff must do the same for all other instructors who are not tenured or tenure-track faculty. Peers must also assess the instructor's knowledge of the subject matter, contributions to departmental teaching efforts, and any other teaching contributions, such as development of new courses or innovative instructional materials, authorship of texts or laboratory manuals, or publications on discipline-specific teaching techniques. Peer review could also include assessment of student performance on certification exams (if appropriate to the discipline), survey of the extent of mentoring and participation in other activities related to instruction, or assessment of an instructor's classroom performance via personal visit or videotaping of the class.[4]

--The information collected pursuant to this policy to evaluate teaching effectiveness for personnel decisions remains confidential.[5] The results must be shared with the faculty member being reviewed. Access to information on a specific instructor must be restricted to those responsible for decisions on reappointment (where applicable), promotion, tenure (where applicable), and salary adjustments.

--Faculty must always be allowed to respond to student rating results when those results are used for performance evaluation; faculty members must be permitted to add written comments to their files

--All student rating data used in personnel decisions must be accompanied by the response rates for the data.[6]

--Responsibility for implementing the provisions of this policy and protocol rests with the Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs and Provost, the Senior Vice President for the Health Sciences, deans and department heads, all of whom must clearly convey to faculty the emphasis being placed on teaching in decisions regarding promotion, tenure, and merit-pay increases.

--Department heads and chairs should be evaluated in part on the extent to which they effectively implement this policy and protocol.

--Department heads and tenure and promotion review committees will be provided with comprehensive information on the interpretation and use of student rating data (including questions of reliability and validity) in making personnel decisions, and information on practices of peer evaluation of instruction.[7]

--The student rating form shall contain the following questions, with the verbal anchors as identified:

1. The instructor was well prepared for class.

2. The instructor presented the subject matter clearly.

3. The instructor provided feedback intended to improve my course performance.

4. The instructor treated me with respect.

5. I have a deeper understanding of the subject matter as a result of this course.

6. My interest in the subject matter was stimulated by this course.

--Each of the six questions will have the following scale attached to it on the form that is provided to students:

6-Strongly Agree
5-Agree
4-Somewhat Agree
3-Somewhat Disagree
2-Disagree
1-Strongly Disagree

Open Ended Questions

1. What did the instructor do that most helped your learning?

2. What could you have done to be a better learner?

3. Additional Comments.

--The disposition of written comments on student rating forms shall be decided by each college or campus.

Faculty and departments are free to add additional open-ended questions to the required form, but such questions will be in addition to rather than replace the required questions.

--Directions given on student rating questionnaires will include the following statement:

"Your responses to this questionnaire are important because they will be used in tenure, promotion and salary decisions for your instructor. Your thoughtful written comments are especially requested, and may help your instructor improve future course offerings. The results of this rating (including the rating forms) will not be returned to the instructor until after the final grades are submitted for this course."

--The rating form will ask for information on the student's major, GPA and class year, as well as whether or not the course is in the student's major and whether the course is required or elective for the student. There will also be a request, marked optional, for information on the student's age, gender, and race or ethnicity. [Note: Information about the class size and type (lab, lecture, seminar, etc.) will be included, but this information will be compiled elsewhere.][8]

--The following question shall be included in the demographic section of the student rating form. The data from this question shall be linked to specific building and room numbers and the summary data by room number shall be provided to the chief academic officer and appropriate classroom management office on each campus to help guide decisions on facilities resource allocation.[9]

How would you rate the physical environment in which you take this class, especially the classroom facilities, including the effect of the environment on your ability to see, hear, concentrate, and participate?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Very Poor Satisfactory Exceptional

-- The instructions on the rating forms shall state that harassing comments or comments on irrelevant factors are not helpful for evaluation of instruction. Faculty should be provided with guidelines on how to process and interpret open-ended student comments, particularly those that are inappropriate.

-- Administering student ratings will be the responsibility of each instructional unit. Student ratings used in promotion and salary decisions will be administered at the beginning of a class period, during the last two weeks of instruction for the term. The instructor may give instructions but must not be present while the forms are being completed and collected. The rating forms will be handed out, completed, and collected without the instructor being present. Once collected, ratings will be put in a sealed envelope or box. It is suggested that a student be asked to hand out and collect the forms. Each instructional unit shall develop its own practices for ensuring that the completed forms are delivered to the appropriate office. If the forms are delivered to the department office, the department should deliver the envelopes to the data processing center without opening the envelopes. The instructor must never touch or see completed forms until after grades are turned in.

--Each campus will determine the appropriate manner of administering and evaluating student rating forms. To facilitate tabulation of the results of standardized questions on the student rating forms, each campus administration will provide the instructor and the unit chair/head with a summary of the data; the original questionnaires will be returned to the instructor. This summary will include appropriate statistical characterization of the responses to each question and, where a statistically meaningful data base exists, comparison to the responses for the same question on a campus, college, department, and program basis. To make comparative analysis more meaningful, there will also be comparisons on the basis of class type (e.g., large lecture, small discussion, laboratory, upper or lower division, elective, needed to meet university or major requirements). As resources permit, other types of statistical processing and comparisons may be added at the request of faculty or instructional units.

-- Every instructional unit shall have a policy on peer review of faculty and instructional staff teaching efforts and contributions to teaching, both for purposes of promotion decisions and for teaching-based salary increases. Each unit shall determine what documentation will be used for peer review, and (for faculty) how to evaluate theses and dissertations as well as (for all instructors) samples of graded student work. The documentation is to be used as a basis for evaluating the instructor's knowledge of the subject matter as well as the quality of the instructor's instructional activities. Each unit shall determine who shall have access to the documentation for purposes of peer review, and which materials will be retained for future reference.

The documentation shall reflect what each unit determines to be an appropriately cumulative record of the instructor's contributions to the instructional mission of the University. It is the responsibility of the instructor to update the documentation regularly. It is the responsibility of the unit to retain appropriate portions of this material, including cumulative summaries of student ratings of the instructor's courses. Each unit shall assume responsibility for maintaining the confidentiality of commentaries or conclusions based on the contents of the documentation.

The documentation for each instructor shall contain an appropriately cumulative listing of courses taught by the instructor, a comprehensive syllabus for each course, and examples of exams, assignments and handouts prepared by the instructor. Units may also wish to include, where appropriate, a listing of undergraduate and graduate students undertaking independent study under the supervision of the instructor, information about student performance on certification exams, and a listing of other activities that pertain to the teaching mission of the unit (e.g. participation in teaching-related committee work or curriculum development, publication of textbooks or study guides, participation in educational development programs, etc.) Documentation may also include a one- to-two page self-assessment of the instructor's teaching strengths and weaknesses. Instructors have the option of adding any other materials they believe are indicative of their contributions to teaching.

--Instructors are encouraged to adopt a mid-semester course rating process so that the course can be improved as it is delivered.

--The student rating form shall also include the following questions, the responses to which shall, with the consent of the instructor, be made available to students.[10] The responses to these questions may not be used in any reappointment, promotion, salary, or (for tenure-track faculty) tenure decisions.

[NOTE: The Senate has delegated to the Senate Committee on Educational Policy (SCEP) final authority to approve new questions to be used; they will be inserted here. As of the November 29, 2007 Faculty Senate meeting, SCEP has approved a new set of student-release questions, but they were developed before the six mandatory questions now included in this policy and there is overlap between the two sets. SCEP is discussing with the Student Senate the possibility that the student-release questions will be revised or that some alternative system of identifying highly-rated instructors will be used. This issue does not need to be resolved in order for the Faculty Senate to adopt this policy.]

--In addition to the questions required by the preceding sections of this policy, a question bank will be provided for the student rating process.[11] The questions would be supplemental to the required questions, would be selected by the instructor, and would be used primarily for improving teaching. Because the supplemental questions from the question bank are to be used for improving teaching, summary results should go to the instructor only. Use of supplemental questions from the question bank is optional. Provision will be made for instructors, should they choose, to add a reasonable number of custom questions that are not included in the bank.

Departments or schools may also require questions from the question bank or from other sources to be used on all forms used in their area. These additional required questions could be used either for rating of instructors or for improving teaching, courses or programs. If for the rating of instructors, summary results should go to the department. If for improvement of teaching, courses, or programs, summary results should go to the instructor only if the results are to be used by the instructor, or to curriculum committees if the results are to be used for program improvements. Data from questions that are to be used only for improving teaching should not be released by the University to anyone other than the instructor . Data from questions that are to be used for program improvements may be released to department heads and curriculum committees.

--Departments shall develop and make available to instructors a written policy that defines (1) which data from student rating forms will be used for personnel decisions and available to department heads and committees charged with reviewing instructor performance, and (2) which data will be made available to curriculum committees for improving courses and programs. (It is assumed that all information from the six required questions will be used for personnel decisions; the written policy required by this section refers to any additional questions that a unit may require on the rating forms.)

--Department and college administrators should be held accountable for timely assessment of the evaluative materials assembled for each faculty member. However, for peer review of the documentation for the purpose of promotion or of teaching-related merit pay increases, the faculty in each unit should be free to decide whether they want their dean or head or chair to take responsibility for assessing the quality of teaching, on the basis of the materials, or whether they prefer that the evaluation be done by an advisory group from within the unit or college.

--Each semester, an appropriate University administrator should send a message to every instructor who is receiving data from a course rating with a request to make the release questions available to students.[12]

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

The Senate Committee on Educational Policy (SCEP) and the Senate Committee on Faculty Affairs (SCFA) appointed an ad hoc committee to analyze the current SET form in light of research on teaching and principles of good practice on evaluation. The committee was chaired by Dr. David Langley, Center for Teaching and Learning, and included faculty, instructional staff, and professional/administrative staff.

Over a five month period, the committee a) examined the structure of well-established rating forms, b) constructed criteria to guide the development of a new form, c) identified core items appropriate for diverse courses, d) deliberated on an appropriate measurement scale, and e) provided an optional, early semester form focused on instructional development and feedback. In addition, a bank of supplemental student rating statements to augment the six core items is under construction.

The results continue to meet Senate policy on the purpose of the form, i.e., instructional improvement, information for salary, promotion, tenure, and merit raises, and assisting students in course selection. The research-based rating form comprises a wide set of constructs known to influence effective teaching and learning. In addition, the final report of the committee emphasizes the importance of multiple approaches for documenting teaching performance.

The ad hoc committee brought its recommendations to SCEP and SCFA. Both committees deliberated several times about the wording of the questions. The committees also involved the Faculty Consultative Committee in the discussions. The questions contained in this motion are ones that have the endorsement of all three committees and they represent many hours of debate and discussion.

There was no intent to restrict the nature of additional questions instructors might wish to add, whether open-ended or subject-specific, so the motion also includes the deletion of "open-ended" in the policy language about adding questions.

Note that the questions are the only major part of the policy to change. The term "rating" is substituted for "evaluation" at appropriate places in the revised policy. All other elements of the policy approved earlier by the Faculty Senate remain intact.

CATHRINE WAMBACH, CHAIR
EDUCATIONAL POLICY COMMITTEE

GEOFFREY SIRC, CHAIR
FACULTY AFFAIRS COMMITTEE

GARY BALAS, CHAIR
FACULTY CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE

Professor Cathrine Wambach, Chair of the Educational Policy Committee (SCEP), said that this motion comes from jointly from SCEP, the Faculty Affairs Committee (SCFA), and the Faculty Consultative Committee (FCC), which have all spent considerable time on this issue.

This revision started with a small committee that reviewed the literature on student ratings and then brought a small set of questions to SCEP and SCFA for discussion. At that time the subcommittee was asked to engage in a pilot study of the questions in spring 2007. The results were brought back to the three committees, at which time more discussion and some minor adjustments occurred.

In addition to new questions, the language in the policy be changed from 'student evaluation' to 'student rating' since student opinion alone is not the sole factor used in the evaluation of teaching.

Q: Why is there a large red space on the back of the evaluation page?

A: That is the space allotted for the student release questions.

Q: In the report of the Council on Liberal Education (CLE) there is a recommendation that there be a question which focuses on students' perceptions of the impact of the course in the context of the liberal education requirements. How will this recommendation be addressed

A: These new questions will be implemented spring 2008. Additional questions might be crafted, specific to learner outcomes and the CLE requirements, and added of evaluations to courses to which they pertain. This set of questions is a brief set of core questions that will allow questions to be added for individual needs without making the form too burdensome.

Q: For question number 3, did the committees feel that feedback can be provided to students in large classes?

A: There was much discussion on this topic in SCEP, especially wth faculty who teach large classes where most feedback is provided through teaching assistants in recitation sections. Departments will need to realize that not every question can be viewed the same in all courses.

Q: Why is there no overall question?

A: Literature on this issue recommends that if only one question is going to be asked, then it should be an overall question. If the evaluation has multiple questions, then the literature recommends against an overall question since a global question on a student's perception of teaching is overwhelming. An overall question also makes it easy for a department to just rely on responses to this one question when evaluating instructors, instead of the responses from the remaining questions.

Q: Will this evaluation only be offered on-line?

A: No. A paper copy will still be offered.

A senator commented that ratings can affect a faculty member's willingness to take on a difficult course or less-appealing subject matter. He asked that the directions be worded to ask student to differentiate between the subject matter and the instructor.

Another senator noted that while this is a much-improved form, there are a few modifications to still be made. The initial questions blur the line between the instructor as the manager of an educational experience and the instructor as a lecturer. The second concern is a potential loophole in the policy on the use of evaluation. Faculty know that evaluations are to be done during the last two weeks of class at the start of the class period, however, there are faculty who ask that evaluations be completed at the end of the class period. Does the policy permit evaluations to be discarded if they are not completed at the start of the class period?

Professor Sirc said that a group will be charged with developing a set of best practices, and this comment will be forwarded to them.

Q: For question two, what responses are expected from students besides study more or attend all the classes?

A: The question is meant to put agency on the student to express things that they themselves and the instructor might have done to help them be a better learner. SCEP is also interested in how responses change depending on the level of the student.

A senator said that while these questions are much better, they are not perfect. SCEP and SCFA can look at the questions again in a few years and make additional revisions based on responses received on the questions. He noted that student ratings are only one piece of the teaching evaluation process. Lastly, he said that the on-line evaluations will not be mandated due to low participation rates. The policy does allow for incentives to complete on-line evaluations, or providing access to grades as in the AHC.

Q: Health sciences has specific standards for accreditation that must be included in the rating questions. How do these revision affect the AHC?

A: The AHC is exempt from using this form.

A senator noted that there are two paragraphs in the policy that deals with peer evaluations and while details are provided for the student rating forms, the same level of detail is missing from peer evaluations. She suggested that additional language and guidance be provided to departments to implement the peer-review process in a meaningful manner.

Q: Can language be included to inform students that they are supposed to complete the evaluations independently, without discussion or caucusing in the classroom?

A: SCFA feels that a best practices guide needs to be developed to deal with how forms are filled out and how the forms are used. A committee from the Vice Provost's office will be addressing these issues.

Q: Can an additional open questions be added that would ask students what they would like to see improved in the course?

A: The back page has a large space for other student comments. SCEP and SCFA will watch how this space is being used.

Q: This policy includes language on evaluating the relationship between an instructor and their graduate student, which seems like a different topic from the rest of the document. Should this language be in a separate policy with guidance on how to evaluate a dissertation?

A: Please email this topic to Professor Sirc for SCFA to address since these statements are not part of the document being revised at this time.

Q: Is there any communication to students about the purpose of evaluations?

A: Language will be added to the form, but faculty also need to take the time to educate students in their classes about the use of evaluations for salary, promotion, and tenure decisions.

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

19. FACULTY CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE
Copyright Policy
Discussion by the Faculty Senate

DRAFT: November 8, 2007
University of Minnesota Board of Regents Policy
Supersedes: Portions of Intellectual Property adopted October 8, 1999

This policy applies to copyrighted 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. Work shall mean a work protected under United States copyright law.

Subd. 3. Academic Work. Academic work 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. Faculty 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 having faculty-like appointments (namely., 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 ownership rights as faculty. And are covered under this policy.

Subd. 5. Student. Student shall mean a registered student at the University.

Subd. 6. Directed Work. Directed work 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 is supported by substantial University resources beyond those customarily provided to faculty in the respective discipline and University unit.

Course Numbering Policy
Approved by the:	Faculty Senate October 4, 2007
Approved by the:	Administration October 30, 2007
Approved by the:	Board of Regents – no response required