2008-09
UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA
OCTOBER
2, 2008
UNIVERSITY
SENATE MINUTES: No. 1
FACULTY
SENATE MINUTES: No. 1
STUDENT
SENATE MINUTES: No. 1
The
first meeting of the University Senate and Faculty Senate was convened in 25
Mondale Hall, Minneapolis campus, on Thursday, October 2, 2008, at 2:34 p.m., as
a joint meeting of the bodies. Coordinate campuses were linked by phone.
Checking or signing the roll as present were 21 academic professional members,
20 civil service members, 128 faculty/faculty-like academic professional
members, and 24 student members. President Bruininks presided.
1. ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSES TO SENATE
ACTIONS
Information
University
Senate
|
Resolution
on Retiree Benefits
|
|
Approved
by the:
|
University
Senate November 29, 2007
|
|
Approved
by the:
|
Administration
May 13, 2008*
|
|
Approved
by the:
|
Board of
Regents – no action required
|
|
* The
University values the extraordinary contributions and experience of its retired
faculty and staff. The President wholeheartedly supports additional improvements
to the coordination and facilitation of retiree service in campus activities,
particularly teaching, mentoring, advising, and serving on critical University
committees. Consequently, the University is referring this resolution to the
Vice President of Human Resources, the Vice President for University Relations
(who oversees the Retirees Volunteer Center), and the Senior Vice President for
System Academic Administration (with Extension and civic engagement offices) to
identify ways to further improve in this area. The University is also asking
them to evaluate the feasibility of implementing the other recommendations in
the resolution, as appropriate.
|
|
Amendments
to the Protocol for Senate Committee Involvement in Central Administrator
Searches
|
|
Approved
by the:
|
University
Senate March 6, 2008
|
|
Approved
by the:
|
Administration
May 13, 2008
|
|
Approved
by the:
|
Board of
Regents – no action required
|
|
Resolution
on Fair Trade Coffee
|
|
Approved
by the:
|
University
Senate April 3, 2008
|
|
Approved
by the:
|
Administration
May 13, 2008*
|
|
Approved
by the:
|
Board of
Regents – no action required
|
|
* The
University supports offering fair trade coffee to campus customers where
reasonable, including University residential, retail, and catering operations.
In fact, since 2001, University Dining Service (UDS) has achieved a 48% increase
in the availability of fair trade coffee to its campus customers, and offers at
least one fair trade coffee choice at all locations, and in some venues offers
it exclusively. The possibility of offering fair trade coffee exclusively is now
automatically a part of the evaluation process when the University considers a
new retail location on campus.
As part of
their evaluation process, UDS balances social responsibility with customer
demand. In response to customer satisfaction surveys, UDS has provided a broader
range of coffee options to meet varied customer brand preferences and cost (for
example, fair trade coffee can cost anywhere from 12-35% more than non-certified
coffees, depending upon the roast and flavor profile). Also as a result of
customer surveys, UDS has incorporated national brands like Starbucks, Dunn
Bros, and Einstein's Bros – which all offer a fair trade coffee selection,
but do not exclusively offer fair trade coffee – into campus offerings.
UDS will continue to seek input from its campus customers on a regular basis to
assess ongoing customer needs and demand for fair trade coffee. The University
is encouraging UDS to continue efforts to increase the availability of fair
trade coffee to its campus customers over the next three years as appropriate,
and is also asking for an annual progress report to assess continued progress on
this issue.
Finally,
please note that the University is now incorporating social and corporate
responsibility clauses in its contracts with outside vendors to
communicate the University's expectation that
vendors are expected to engage environmentally, economically, and socially
sustainable activities. The University is a leader in this area of higher
education and will continue to strive for the highest ideals of ethical business
standards and practices.
|
|
Resolution to Offset Imputed
Income Tax Related to Same-Sex Domestic Partner Benefits
|
|
Approved
by the:
|
University
Senate April 3, 2008
|
|
Approved
by the:
|
Administration
May 13, 2008*
|
|
Approved
by the:
|
Board of
Regents – no action required
|
|
* When the
University separated its health plan from the state years ago, the University
committed to offering health plan benefits to the same-sex domestic partners of
University employees. The President is proud that the University is able to
continue to offer equitable benefits to our employees through this program.
However, given the budget challenges facing the University and the estimated
$300,000 annual cost to implement this additional benefit, the University cannot
approve the resolution to offset imputed income tax related to same-sex domestic
partner benefits at this time.
|
Faculty
Senate
|
2012-13
Morris and Twin Cities Calendars
|
|
Approved
by the:
|
Faculty
Senate March 6, 2008
|
|
Approved by the:
|
Administration May 13,
2008
|
|
Approved by the:
|
Board of Regents – no
action required
|
|
Resolution
on the Budget Model
|
|
Approved
by the:
|
Faculty
Senate April 3, 2008
|
|
Approved by the:
|
Administration May 13,
2008*
|
|
Approved by the:
|
Board of Regents – no
action required
|
|
* The University appreciates the
thoughtful analysis of the internal budget model implementation and
recommendations for improvement. Consequently, the University is referring the
resolution to the Senior Vice Presidents and the Vice President and Chief
Financial Officer for consideration and ongoing discussion with the Budget Model
Advisory Committee and Senate Finance and Planning Committee.
|
|
Resolution
on a Faculty Expertise Database
|
|
Approved
by the:
|
Faculty
Senate April 3, 2008
|
|
Approved by the:
|
Administration May 13,
2008*
|
|
Approved by the:
|
Board of Regents – no
action required
|
|
* The
University would clearly benefit from a system to identify, store, and track
faculty and staff activity and expertise. In fact, this item currently appears
on the University's 6-Year IT Plan and is currently in the planning and
development stage which involves ensuring alignment, assigning a
sponsor/champion, evaluating the financial impact, and determining the design,
integration, and the day-to-day management processes that will be needed to
support such a system for the University. The University has asked the Vice
President and Chief Information Officer for this information to determine how it
should be considered for future action.
|
|
Liberal
Education Requirements
|
|
Approved
by the:
|
Faculty
Senate April 3, 2008
|
|
Approved by the:
|
Administration May 13,
2008
|
|
Approved by the:
|
Board of Regents – no
action required
|
|
Health
Care Savings Plan Proposal
|
|
Approved
by the:
|
Faculty
Senate May 1, 2008
|
|
Approved by the:
|
|
|
Approved by the:
|
Board of Regents – no
action required
|
2.
JUDICIAL COMMITTEE
Information
regarding Findings in a Tenure Denial
Case
Information for the Faculty
Senate
According
to Section 15.5 of the Tenure Code, "If the Judicial Committee decides that the
President has imposed an action that is less favorable to the faculty member
than it had recommended, it shall inform the faculty by publication of the
President's action in the docket of the Faculty Senate. If the faculty member
waives rights to confidentiality, the full text of the statement will be
published. Otherwise a summary of the statement will be published without
identification of the faculty member or information that may indirectly identify
the faculty member."
Having
determined that the President’s decision in this case was less favorable
to the faculty member than the Senate Judicial Committee (“SJC”) had
recommended and being advised that the Complainant does not waive rights to
confidentiality, the following background and summary of the President's
decision in a tenure denial case heard by the SJC follows:
The
Complainant was hired as an assistant professor in 2000 and appointed to a
tenure track position in 2001. The annual evaluations of Complainant’s
performance identified concerns about teaching skills, student ratings,
scholarly productivity, and progress towards achieving promotion and tenure.
During the 2002-03 and 2005-06 academic years actions were taken to terminate
the Complainant’s appointment prior to the expiration of the probationary
period. In each instance the Complainant filed a complaint with the SJC, but
prior to a hearing on the claims, the University rescinded its actions and
continued Complainant’s probationary status.
The
Complainant notified the SJC of the intent to file a complaint in June, 2007
following the denial of tenure in the last probationary year. The Complainant
alleged several procedural violations of the Tenure Code related to the
consideration and decision. Evidentiary hearings before an SJC Panel were held
in January, 2008 on several of the issues raised by the Complainant, other
issues having been dismissed prior to the hearing.
The SJC
Panel issued Proposed Findings and Recommendations to the President in March,
2008. The Panel concluded that the Complainant prevailed on one of the
procedural issues raised, that certain materials had been erroneously excluded
from the file. It therefore recommended that the Complainant’s file be
re-reviewed with the particular materials included. The Panel further stated
that “In light of the complexities of this case, the Panel recommends that
[the Complainant’s] appointment be extended for an additional year to
allow a careful and thorough re-review.”
In July,
2008 the President issued detailed and comprehensive Presidential Determinations
and Actions in the case. He agreed with the SJC’s recommendations in all
regards, except that he determined that the Complainant’s candidacy could
be reconsidered in a manner designed to remedy the procedural error by the end
of fall semester, 2008. He therefore extended the Complainant’s
probationary period until the end of fall semester rather than the full year
recommended by the SJC. The President specifically indicated that he believed
that a careful and thorough re-review could be accomplished by the end of the
fall semester and that reaching a more expeditious resolution than the SJC
recommended was vital to all concerned.
CAROL
KLEE, CHAIR
JUDICIAL
COMMITTEE
3.
TRIBUTE TO DECEASED MEMBERS OF THE UNIVERSITY COMMUNITY
FACULTY/ACADEMIC
PROFESSIONALS/STAFF
Ray C.
Anderson
Professor
Pediatrics
1917 – 2008
Charles H.
Backstrom
Professor
Political Science
1926 – 2008
Bonnie
Batajones
Professor
Nursing
1947 – 2008
Carole J.
Bland
Professor
Family Medicine and Community Health
1946 –
2008
John
Brandl
Professor and Dean
HHH Institute of Public Affairs
1937
– 2008
Merle L.
Bryant
Professor
Early Education Development – Duluth
1914
– 2008
Harvey
Carlson, Jr.
Professor
Postsecondary Teaching and Learning
1951
– 2008
Richard D.
Christenson
Professor
Learning Foundations – Crookston
1937
– 2008
Harlan
Cleveland
Professor
HHH Institute of Public Affairs
1918 –
2008
Robert J.
Falk
Professor
Psychology - Duluth
1923 – 2008
Eleanor S.
Fenton
Professor
Continuing Education
1919 – 2007
Leroy
Gardner, Jr.
Professor
Postsecondary Teaching and Learning
1947
– 2008
Wesley
Gray
Professor
West Central Experiment Station
1923 –
2008
Martha I.
Harris
Professor and Dean
School of Nursing
1914 –
2008
Donald
Haynes
Professor
Health, Physical Education & Recreation –
Duluth
1934 – 2008
Leonid
Hurwicz
Professor
Economics
1917 – 2008
James F.
Koerner
Professor
Biochemistry
1929 – 2008
Donna
Pegors
Professor
Music – Duluth
1921 – 2008
Vernon W.
Ruttan
Regents' Professor
Applied Economics
1924 –
2008
Charles F.
Schachtele, Jr.
Professor
Dentistry
1942 – 2008
G. Edward
Schuh
Regents' Professor and Dean
HHH Institute of Public
Affairs
1930 – 2008
Norman J.
Simler
Professor
Economics
1921 – 2008
Matthew B.
Smorstok
Physician
Boynton Health Service
1915 – 2008
Harrison B.
Tordoff
Professor
Bell Museum of Natural History
1923 –
2008
Rudolph
Vecoli
Professor
History
1927 – 2008
Jesse B.
Williams
Professor
Animal Science
1917 – 2008
STUDENTS
Stephanie
E. Atwell
Carlson School of Management
Harvey L.
Carlson, Jr.
Graduate School
RaNae G.
LaBelle
College of Design
Michael
Mayhew
Business and Economics – Duluth
4.
INTRODUCTION
Dean David Wippman,
Law School
President
Bruininks introduced David Wippman, Dean of the Law School.
5.
SENATE CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE REPORT
Professor
Emily Hoover, Chair of the Senate Consultative Committees (SCC), thanked
senators for their time and dedication to shared governance at the University.
The SCC meets monthly to discuss issues that affect the entire University and to
receive reports from committees that report to the University Senate. SCC is
comprised of faculty, students, civil service, and academic professional
staff.
She noted
that the University is in the process of working through all administrative
policies to reduce redundancy, update and clarify language, and to standardize
formats. Some of these policies will be brought to the University Senate and
fora will be held on some.
She
encouraged senators to contact her and other SCC members with items throughout
the year.
_______________________________________________________________
MOTION
A
Consent
Agenda
Action by the University
Senate
Agenda
Items 6. and 7. are considered to be non-controversial or
“housekeeping” in nature and 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. A simple majority is required
for approval.
6.
MINUTES FOR APRIL 3, 2008, AND MAY 1, 2008
MOTION:
To approve
the University Senate and Faculty Senate minutes, which are available on the Web
at the following URL.
http://www1.umn.edu/usenate/usen/080403sen.html
http://www1.umn.edu/usenate/usen/080501sen.html
STUART
GOLDSTEIN, CLERK
UNIVERSITY
SENATE
7.
COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES
2008-09
Committees of the University Senate
MOTION:
To approve
the University Senate committee memberships for 2008-09.
University
Senate committee memberships for 2008-09:
DISABILITIES
ISSUES - Faculty: Alex Lubet (chair), Tammy Berberi, Dale Branton, Lesley
Craig-Unkefer, James Gambucci, Maria Gini, Patrick McNamara, Julia Robinson.
Academic Professionals: Amy Hewitt,
Carol Rachac. Civil Service: Shari
Jorissen, Joanie Tool. Students: Rachel
Garaghty, Miriam Krause, Emily Smith, 1 to be named.
Ex Officio: Peggy Mann
Rinehart, Eric Schnell.
EQUITY,
ACCESS, AND DIVERSITY - Faculty: Benjamin Munson (chair), Joel Eisinger,
Richard Graff, Keith Horvath, Diane Katsiaficas, Raul Marrero-Fente, Lee Penn,
Naomi Scheman. Academic Professionals:
Vicente Garces, MJ Gilbert.
Students: Katie Ballering, Andrei Diuchin, Asim Khan, 3 to be named.
Civil Service: Susan Cable, Shannon
McGoffin. Ex Officio: Kimberly Boyd,
Kris Lockhart, Peg Lonnquist, Anne Phibbs.
FINANCE
AND PLANNING - Faculty: Judith Martin (chair), V.V. Chari, Joseph
Konstan, Russell Luepker, Justin Revenaugh, Terry Roe, Gwen Rudney, Karen
Seashore, Warren Warwick, Aks Zaheer. Academic
Professionals: Thomas Klein, Michael Rollefson.
Civil Service: Steen Erikson, Kara
Kersteter. Students: Mikael Moseley, 3
to be named. Ex Officio: Jonathan
Binks, Steve Fitzgerald, Lincoln Kallsen, Lyndel King, Kathleen O’Brien,
Paul Olin, Richard Pfutzenreuter, Thomas Stinson, Michael Volna.
INFORMATION
TECHNOLOGIES - Academic Professionals: Mark Sanders (Chair), John Crow,
Dale Swanson, Sue Van Voorhis. Faculty:
Lee Anderson, David Arendale, Aaron Doering, Ted Higman, Michael Korth, Brent
Larson, Josephine Lee, Stuart Speedie, Bonnie Westra.
Civil Service: Paul Rubenis.
Students: Briana
Clark, 2 to be named.
Ex Officio: John Butler, Steve Cawley,
Danielle Tisinger, Billie Wahlstrom.
LIBRARY
- Faculty/PA: Jay Hatch (chair), Juliette Cherbuliez, Isaac Fox, Stephen
Gross, Jennifer Gunn, J. Woods Halley, Anatoly Liberman, James Orf, Nora Paul,
Danielle Tisinger, Zhirong Zhao, David Zopfi-Jordan.
Students: Farzad Sadjadi, 3 to be named.
Civil Service: 1 to be named.
Ex Officio: Jonathan
Binks, LeAnn Dean, Joan Howland, Wendy
Lougee, Bill Sozansky, Owen Williams, 1 to be named.
SOCIAL
CONCERNS - Faculty: David Fox (chair), Katherine Fennelly, Catherine
Jordan, Mark Pedelty, Marynel Ryan, Ajay Skaria, Yiyuan Zhao.
Academic Professionals: Joseph
Marchesani, Timothy Sheldon, 1 to be named.
Civil Service: Robert
Fox, Benton Schnabel, Rebecca von
Dissen. Alumni: Michele Anderson, Lisa
Pogoff, 1 to be named. Students:
Jessica Arett, Christine Dolph, 5 to be named.
Ex Officio: Kaari Nelson, Michael O'Day,
Amelious Whyte.
STUDENT
ACADEMIC INTEGRITY - Faculty/PA: Tom Shield (chair), Lisa Anderson, Sarah
Angerman, Dana Davis, Linda Jones, Chris Russill, Eric Watkins, 1 to be named.
Students: Manami Bhattacharya, William
Enlow, Erin West, 2 to be named. Ex Officio:
Sharon Dzik, Laura Coffin
Koch.
STUDENT
BEHAVIOR - Faculty/PA: Francis Harvey (chair), Jeanne Higbee, Julia
Johnsen, Patricia Jones-Whyte, Barney Klamecki, Michelle Koker, Nicole
Letawsky-Shultz, Christian Mohr, Nikolaos Papanikolopoulos, Marshall Stern,
Becky Yust. Students: Abby Bar-Lev,
Barrie Berquist, Camille Crary, John Hoedeman, Tracy Hoffmann, Shruti Patil,
Ashley Pavletich, Katina Petersen, Mark Quale, Clarissa Schleichert.
Ex Officio: Sharon Dzik.
FOR
INFORMATION:
ALL-UNIVERSITY
HONORS - Faculty: Laura Gurak (chair), Carl Adams, Wilbert Ahern, John
Himes, James Luby, Shashi Shekhar, Madelon Sprengnether, 1 to be named.
Academic Professionals: Peyton Owens,
Patrick Troup. Alumni: Andrea Hjelm,
Julia Johnson, Stephen Litton, Eric Pehle, Todd Williams.
Civil Service: 2 to be named.
Students: Clark Nguyen, 2 to be named.
Ex Officio: Kristin
Cleveland, Gerald Fischer, Cheryl Jones,
Andrew Svec, William Wade, Billie Wahlstrom.
SENATE
COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES - Academic Professionals: Elaine Challacombe
(chair), Frank Douma, Kyla Wahlstrom, 1 to be named.
Faculty: Gary Anderson, Jay Coggins,
Janet Ericksen, Jeanne Higbee, Joan Howland, Roberta Humphreys, Carol Lange,
Alfred Marcus, Joanna O'Connell, Elizabeth Wattenberg, Stephen Weeks, at least 2
to be named. Students: Jermaine Elliott,
Emily Haugen, Mikael Moseley, 4 to be named.
SENATE
CONSULTATIVE - Faculty: Emily Hoover (chair), Nancy Carpenter, Shawn
Curley, William Durfee, Marti Hope Gonzales, Michael Hancher, Jeffrey Kahn, J.
Michael Oakes, Nelson Rhodus, Becky Yust.
Academic Professionals: William Craig,
Pamela Stenhjem. Civil Service: Susan
Cable, Karen Lovro. Students: Jeffrey
Anderson, Katie Best, Jason Einertson, Ryan Kennedy, Mariam Maiga, Jeffrey
Wencl, 1 to be named. Ex Officio: Gary
Balas, Carol Chomsky, Janet Fitzakerley, Judith Martin.
ELAINE
CHALLACOMBE, CHAIR
SENATE COMMITTEE
ON COMMITTEES
DISCUSSION:
With no
discussion, a vote was taken and the motion was approved.
APPROVED
_______________________________________________________________
END
OF MOTION A
8.
SENATE CONSULTATIVE
COMMITTEE
Senator
Responsibilities
Information for
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:
- Attend
all University and Faculty Senate meetings or arrange for an alternate to
attend.
- Review
docket materials before Senate meetings and be prepared to discuss and vote on
issues presented.
- Share
draft policies and policy amendments with colleagues for discussion before
Senate action.
- Distribute
to colleagues in their college information on significant matters before the
Senate and solicit faculty views on such issues.
- Bring
to the Senate, or one of its committees, issues of concern to their
colleagues.
- Communicate
regularly with faculty governance bodies in their academic units.
- Consider
serving on one of the Senate committees.
- Remember
that, while they are elected as delegates from their academic units,
“[e]ach member of the University Senate shall represent the University as
a whole.”
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:
- Attend
all University and Student Senate meetings or arrange for an alternate to
attend.
- Review
docket materials before Senate meetings and be prepared to discuss and vote on
issues presented.
- Share
draft policies and policy amendments with constituents and relevant student
organizations for discussion before Senate action.
- Distribute
to constituents and relevant student organizations information on significant
matters before the Senate and solicit student views on such issues.
- Bring
to the Senate, or one of its committees, issues of concern to their constituents
and relevant student organizations.
- Communicate
regularly with student governance bodies.
- Consider
serving on one of the Senate committees.
- Remember
that, while they are elected as delegates from their academic units,
“[e]ach member of the University Senate shall represent the University as
a whole.”
Adopted
unanimously by the Student Senate Consultative Committee 9/14/06.
DISCUSSION:
Professor
Emily Hoover, Chair of the Senate Consultative Committees (SCC), said that these
responsibilities are being distributed for information. She said that the most
important obligations are to talk with colleagues, inform them about Senate
items, and bring their concerns to meetings.
9.
SENATE CONSULTATIVE
COMMITTEE
Amendments to the
Administrative Procedure for
the
Academic Misconduct
Policy
Action by the University
Senate
MOTION:
Copies of
the policy and accompanying procedures will be available at the meeting.
FOR
INFORMATION:
Significant
Changes to
Administrative Procedure on
Academic Misconduct
Purpose
of Revision:
- To
keep consistent with federal regulations, specifically requirements to allow
anonymous reports and to include an initial screening process for reviewing
allegations.
- To
add information about securing physical evidence, an area of concern for federal
regulators.
- To
make the process more efficient.
- To
reformat the procedure into current administrative policy and procedure
format.
Significant
Changes:
- Anonymous
reporting through EthicsPoint.
Previous
policy: reports had to be made in writing and could not be anonymous.
- Formal
allegation review stage.
Previous
policy: this was informally handled by the Vice President for Research (VPR).
- New
appendix on securing physical
evidence.
Previous
policy: there was little information on handling the data. Because of the
potential involvement of security personnel and the possibility of needing to
secure data from multiple computers, more detail on this process is provided in
the policy.
- New
roles for Deciding Officer (DO) and Research Integrity Officer
(RIO)
Previous
policy: VPR acted as the deciding officer and a Senior Administrator (SA),
usually a dean, conducted the inquiry personally and/or coordinated the panel
reviews. This process was time-consuming for most deans.
Renaming
the DO position is consistent with federal regulations and allows for another
University official to act in this role if the VPR has a conflict of interest.
Shifting
the SA responsibilities from deans to the RIO or Associate Vice President for
Research is intended to improve timeliness and accountability for the
process.
- New
role for the Faculty Senate Research
Committee.
Previous
policy: this role was played by the Scientific and Scholarly Advisory Board
(SSAB), a committee only convened for this process. Convening the committee and
finding a time for them to meet is difficult. Replacing the SSAB with a standing
committee that meets on a regular basis will make this more efficient.
Previous
policy: a single procedure that did not contain definitions or responsibility
sections.
COMMENT:
These
changes were reviewed by the Senate Research Committee on January 25, 2008, and
were approved unanimously. The Senate Consultative Committee, acting on behalf
of the University Senate, unanimously approved the revisions on May 15, 2008,
subject to the understanding that the changes would be brought for final action
to the University Senate in the fall.
EMILY
HOOVER, CHAIR
SENATE CONSULTATIVE
COMMITTEE
DISCUSSION:
Professor
Emily Hoover, Chair of the Senate Consultative Committee (SCC), said this policy
was amended following the April Senate meeting, so action was taken by the SCC
with the proviso that the policy be brought back to the University Senate for
approval. Most of the changes made relate to federal legal requirements.
Q: If
there is a conflict of interest between the deciding officer (DO) or the
research integrity officer (RIO), what are the rules to manage this
conflict?
A: The
Vice President for Research is charged with making sure that a conflict does not
exist.
Q: Can a
person accused of academic misconduct present information on a conflict?
A: The
University's Conflict of Interest Policy would provide information for this
process.
With no
further discussion, a vote was taken and the motion was approved.
APPROVED
10.
PRESIDENT’S REPORT
President
Bruininks addressed three issues during today's report. The first involved
finances and the vulnerability of the University in this economic climate. He
noted that the changes in the broader marketplace are affecting the University
but the University is substantially resistant to the ups and downs. The
University does have a position in the Common Fund, but does not rely on it to
meet daily cash flow needs. The University's practice is to ladder very
short-term commercial paper or treasury instruments so as to provide a weekly
payout. The University also has state and tuition dollars being received. The
University has lost some funds during this decline, but it is in a strong
position for recovery, including funds from bond claims.
The
University and Minnesota Medical Foundations endowments are invested in a way to
protect the University. While these endowments have decreased, the decrease is
less than the market. The University does have derivative investments, but
about half the average for institutions of higher education. These have only
decreased about one-quarter of the market decrease, which has provided a
cushion.
He said
the biggest challenge has been bond issues with some of the large lending
houses. Some bonds needed to be reissued when companies were bought. However,
most of these bonds are long-term with a low, fixed rate. There is only 10-15
percent in variable rate funds.
President
Bruininks then addressed the second issue, Enterprise Financial System (EFS)
implementation. He has been receiving a few complaints, and is taking them
seriously. These types of systems are hard to implement in a highly
decentralized and distributed environment. This system is a mature product used
mainly in the private sector where there is much more centralization in
accounting.
He stated
that the University did not fully anticipate all the problems in this
implementation and the ways in which financial information is fed into the
system, such as through 16-18 legacy systems.
He is
meeting with senior officers on this topic and has asked for weekly updates.
The biggest problems will be solved as soon as possible so that there is
reliable data and reporting, however, it will take time to remove all the
problems from the system. He asked that senators help to explain the resolution
process at the local level, and that any further questions and concerns be sent
to Associate Vice President Michael Volna.
Lastly,
President Bruininks addressed the state budget forecast. A recent newspaper
article stated that this is the first time in modern history that the state's
unemployment had exceeded the national average. When asked about the cause of
this increase, his standard answer is that the state has stopped investing in
what drives innovation and needs to invest in places, such as the University, to
compete in a global economy.
He
recently asked Vice President Mulcahy for trends lines on sponsored funding for
the last 15 years. About six years ago the University had a $185 million budget
reduction, which was 15 percent of the base budget. During this period the
University also had a decrease in sponsored funding. Also during this period
the University did not hire new people and therefore did not compete for new
grants.
He said
that the University cannot ask for a grandiose budget from the state, but,
taking into account the state situation, needs to request funding for what is
required to keep the University strong and competitive. It will be the lowest
percentage increase in 10 years. The request will focus on faculty and staff
compensation to maintain the workforce. The University then needs to work hard
to keep higher education accessible and affordable.
The
framework for the request is simply to keep the focus on items that the state
was uniquely positioned to fund, and is responsible for funding. The University
has requested three items from the state, and will find resources to cover the
remainder.
First is a
three percent compensation pool increase which is close to $95 million, 75
percent of the University's request. Compensation is roughly two-thirds of the
University's operating budget and he does not believe that there can be a wage
freeze at this time when inflation is increasing.
Second is
a middle income scholarship program to build on the University's commitment to
keep higher education accessible and affordable. This program would provide
funding for students who are not Pell-Grant-eligible but whose families earn
less than $100,000 per year. The request to the state is for $8 million per
year for this program. If this funding is received, the University will grow a
$320 million endowment, the payout from which will match the state
funding.
Lastly is
funding for research infrastructure, which emphasis on high performance
computing. Computing capacity at the University has declined, which affects all
fields at the University.
The
strategy is that this is a way for the state to invest, and by investing,
leveraging about $640 million in outside grants and contracts that then provide
25,000 jobs in the state's private economy.
He
believes that it is important that some tuition dollars pay for faculty and
staff salaries, but he noted that less than 30 percent of the compensation pool
increase will be paid by tuition. He has never heard from a student group that
they do not support tuition dollars paying for University salaries for people
who serve them.
The
University's budget includes a 4.5 percent tuition increase, which amounts to
about $460 per year for an undergraduate student. For 9000 students who qualify
for the middle income scholarship, they would not see any increase next year.
The University is also proposing a one percent reallocation.
While
everyone knows that belts can be tightened in hard times, the President does not
believe that the quality of the University should suffer every time there are
ups and downs in the economy. He urged everyone to think creatively about the
what-ifs that might occur, and the road will be more difficult if the economy
continues to decline. A letter will be sent to the University community
addressing access and affordability for students.
11.
QUESTIONS TO THE PRESIDENT
Q: While
conditional on raising funds, the University is considering making a substantial
commitment to one or more institutions in Africa. What criteria are being used
to select the institutions? Is there a selection process that allows for
faculty involvement?
A: The
National Association of Research and Land-Grant Universities has been in
conversations this year with the U.S. Department of State and the Gates
Foundation about building global partnerships with emerging institutions in
Africa. $1.5 million has already been collected, and is viewed as a start to
the process. Most of the leadership at the University will be through the
International Programs Office and will involve faculty, as they are the driving
force for this project. The discussions are just beginning so there is still
time for ideas.
12.
UNIVERSITY SENATE OLD BUSINESS
NONE
13.
UNIVERSITY SENATE NEW BUSINESS
MOTION:
To approve
the Copyright Ownership Policy.
|
|
|
|
|
ADDITIONAL DETAILS
|
Effective:
Last Updated:
August 2008  What's
this? Responsible
University Officer:
- Senior
Vice President for Academic Affairs and
Provost
Policy
Owner:
- Senior
Vice President and
Provost
Policy
Contact:
|
|
|
|
|
|
POLICY STATEMENT
Copyright
protects and promotes the creation of intellectual assets that are critical to
academic endeavors and thus is fundamental to the creation and sharing of
knowledge. The Board of Regents Policy:
Copyright
and federal law establish rules governing the ownership of works created by
University faculty, staff and students.
Copyright
Ownership by Faculty and by Employees with Faculty-Like
Appointments. University faculty and
University employees who have a “faculty-like” appointment own the
copyright in their academic works as provided in Board of Regents Policy:
Copyright.
A person may perform faculty-like duties as part of his or her position and,
therefore, under Board of Regents Policy:
Copyright,
be deemed to have a faculty-like appointment in connection with those particular
duties only; the balance of the person’s duties would not constitute a
faculty-like appointment.
The
dean or the chair/head of the relevant unit will decide whether an individual
holds a faculty-like appointment based on the definition of faculty-like
contained in Board of Regents Policy:
Copyright.
The decision whether an individual holds a faculty-like appointment may be
appealed. Such decision is relevant only in relation to Board of Regents Policy:
Copyright.
Copyright
Ownership by Students. Students own the
copyright in works created in or as part of a University course. Nevertheless a
University college, department or unit may reserve rights to use the work
consistent with the rules and guidelines of the relevant college, department or
unit. The University may require a student, as a condition of enrolling in a
course or course of study or otherwise participating in a University activity,
to permit it to reproduce, distribute, display, perform or otherwise use a work
the student authored. The University also may require a student to permit the
University to archive a work created and owned by the student.
The
University owns the copyright in works created by students as part of their
employment by the University, for example as research or teaching assistants.
The University will permit a University faculty member or a University employee
who has a “faculty-like” appointment to use a work created by a
student as part of the student’s employment as the University faculty
member’s or such University employee’s research or teaching
assistant. The permission extends to using the work in performing academic
duties (including creating an academic work) at the University. The University
generally will not assert ownership interest in the copyright in an academic
work authored jointly by University faculty or University employee who has a
“faculty-like” appointment and by a University student employed as a
research assistant. The University will only claim copyright ownership in such a
work if the work is a directed work, a work specially ordered or commissioned by
the University, a work created in connection with the administration of the
University or a work created pursuant to a contract with an outside sponsor that
provides for University ownership of the copyright in the work.
Copyright
Ownership by the University. Federal
copyright law vests in an employer ownership of the copyright in works authored
by its employees in the course of their employment. Federal law, however,
permits employers to vest that copyright ownership in its employees in
designated works or classes of works. Consistent with federal law, the
University owns the copyright in works created by University employees in the
course of their employment except for ownership rights vested in faculty,
University employees holding a “faculty-like” appointment and
students as provided in Board of Regents Policy:
Copyright.
The
University owns the copyright in audio and visual recordings or transmissions of
courses, lectures or other events delivered by University faculty, staff or
students to University students and others. However, the University’s
claim extends only to recordings or transmissions created by it or its agents or
contractors, not to recordings created by faculty or University employees with
“faculty-like” appointments at that person’s direction and
instigation. The University’s recording or transmitting of such a lecture
or other audio or video presentation, standing alone, would not grant the
University under federal law any ownership interest in an academic work
presented in the lecture or presentation.
Ownership
of Joint Works. Federal copyright law
grants authors of a joint work equal ownership and rights to use the work.
Federal law permits such authors to agree to different ownership and use rules.
The University encourages authors of a joint work created at the University to
enter into a written agreement providing for ownership, attribution, use,
sharing of royalty or other income, and the registration and protection of the
work.
Registration
and Protection of Works. The University
will not register or otherwise protect or enforce the copyright in works it does
not own. The University may register and protect the copyright in a work in
which it has some right, title or interest.
Management
of Copyrights. Having a more open
access to works created by University faculty, staff and students, directly and
strategically benefits the University and University faculty, staff and students
who will use the works. The University encourages owners of academic works to
manage the copyright in the works so as to provide the greatest possible
scholarly and public access to the works.
Credit
and Attribution. Irrespective of
copyright ownership, there is a professional and ethical obligation of
University faculty, staff or students to credit or attribute creation of a work
appropriately.
Reports.
Annually, the Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs and Provost (or
designate) will report to the Faculty Consultative Committee on the
implementation of Board of Regents Policy:
Copyright
and the related administrative policy and procedure.
REASON FOR POLICY
This
administrative policy implements Board of Regents Policy:
Copyright.
The policy promotes compliance and provides guidelines for following the
Copyright Policy.
PROCEDURES
FORMS/INSTRUCTIONS
There
are no Forms associated with this policy.
ADDITIONAL CONTACTS
|
Subject
|
Contact
|
Phone
|
Fax/Email
|
|
Primary
Contact
|
|
612-625-0051
|
|
DEFINITIONS
Academic
work
A
“scholarly, pedagogical or creative work . . .” Board of Regents
Policy: Copyright,
§II, subd. 3. Whether a work is an academic work or not will be determined
consistent with the traditions, customs and practices within the relevant
academic discipline.
Copyright
Protection
The
rights granted by federal law to the owner of a copyright in a work to do and to
authorize (others to do) any of the following:
- to
reproduce the copyrighted work;
- to
prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;
- to
distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work;
- to
perform certain copyrighted works publicly;
- to
display certain copyrighted works publicly; and
- to
perform sound recordings publicly by means of a digital transmission.
See
United States Code, Chapter 17, §106.
Directed
Works
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.” The
agreement to create a directed work shall be in writing.
Joint
Work
A
“work prepared by two or more authors with the intention that their
contributions be merged into inseparable or interdependent parts of a unitary
whole.” United States Code, Chapter 17, §101.
Faculty
Members
of the faculty as defined in the policies of the Board of Regents. See Board of
Regents Policy: Employee
Group Definitions.
Faculty-Like
Appointment
A
“University employee who teach[es] or conduct[s] research at the
University with a level of responsibility and self-direction similar to that
exercised and enjoyed by faculty in a similar activity.” Board of Regents
Policy: Copyright,
§II, subd. 4.
Student
“A
registered student at the University.” Board of Regents Policy:
Copyright, §II,
subd. 5.
Work
“A
work protected under the United States copyright law.” Board of Regents
Policy: Copyright,
§II, subd. 4. Federal law provides that “copyright protection
subsists . . . in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of
expression, now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived,
reproduced or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a
machine or device. United States Code, Chapter 17, §102.
RESPONSIBILITIES
Faculty
and “faculty-like” employees
Manage
the copyright in works they own under Board of Regents Policy:
Copyright.
APPENDICES
There
are no Frequently Asked Questions associated with this policy.
FREQUENTLY ASKED
QUESTIONS
RELATED INFORMATION
HISTORY
Effective:
EMILY
HOOVER, CHAIR
SENATE CONSULTATIVE
COMMITTEE
DISCUSSION:
A motion
was made and seconded to suspend the rules to consider the item of new business.
A vote was taken and the motion was approved.
Professor
Gary Balas, former chair of the Senate Consultative Committee (SCC), provided
history on this policy by noting that the Regents split the Intellectual
Property Policy into two segments. The Regents policy on Copyright Ownership
was approved in December 2007. An administrative policy was then needed, so the
Provost appointed a committee in February 2008. A draft administrative policy
was created and was brought to the Faculty Consultative Committee (FCC) for
review. It was then sent to the Research and Faculty Affairs Committees for
review, but not the Academic Freedom and Tenure Committee since it was not under
the purview of that committee.
The issues
from these discussions focused on codifying directed work in writing and using
the existing Conflict Resolution Office instead of creating a separate committee
in the policy. These issues were brought to the Provost, who agreed with
written documents for directed work. The conflict resolution question was not
finalized for this meeting, so it has been removed from the policy.
Q: Why are
software or on-line instructional items not included in the definition of
academic work? If not covered in this policy, how will faculty ownership of
these items be determined?
A:
Software is covered by the Intellectual Property Policy. On-line work varies.
If the University videotapes a faculty member, then the University owns the
academic work. The presenter continues to own the slides and materials.
Q: Does
the University also own the right to derivative works without permission of the
original officer?
A:
Anything not listed separately in the policy would be owned according to
copyright law, which is based on authorship. Under federal law, the copyright
owner of materials that faculty produce and use would belong to the faculty
according to the academic works provision.
A senator
said that there are many complicated issues that relate to the original Regents
policy and are hard to determine in advance. Most will be dealt with on a
case-by-case basis. The policy can then be revised if needed based on
experience. A dispute resolution mechanism will be determined.
Professor
Balas noted that the Provost knows that this is an issue, so a group has been
established within the Academic Health Center to address on-line material. The
administration will also report to the FCC annually, or sooner, on
progress.
With no
further discussion, a vote was taken and the motion was approved.
APPROVED
14.
UNIVERSITY SENATE ADJOURNMENT
The
University Senate was adjourned at 3:47 p.m.
15.
FACULTY CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE REPORT
Professor
Emily Hoover, Chair of the Faculty Consultative Committees (FCC), said that FCC
is comprised of nine Twin Cities faculty and one Morris faculty, all elected by
their peers, the past FCC Chair, the Faculty Senate Vice Chair, a Duluth faculty
member, two faculty legislative liaison, and chairs of four Faculty Senate
committees. The committee meets almost every Thursday afternoon to discuss an
array of issues.
One of the
first items this year was the report from the Metrics and Measures Subcommittee,
which is on today's agenda for discussion. The subcommittee charge was to
respond to the work of the Strategic Positioning Metric and Measurements Task
Force and propose additional measures of the scholarly and creative activities
of faculty.
Another
subcommittee has been editing, organizing, and revising the University's
educational policies. One forum will be held to hear from faculty, and then the
policies will be brought to the Faculty Senate in segments for review before
final approval in spring.
FCC also
spends time meeting with other groups, such as the Twin Cities Deans Council and
department heads and chairs.
Other
issues for FCC include long-term financing of the University, intercollegiate
research and the role of centers, and effective communication within the
University. FCC began the year with a two-day retreat to make a list of issues,
but she encouraged senators to contact FCC with any other issues.
16.
FACULTY LEGISLATIVE LIAISON UPDATE
Professor
Martin Sampson, a Faculty Legislative Liaison, said that he is joined this year
by Professor Caroline Hayes. There role is to attend all hearings at the state
legislature that deal with the University's request to the state, meetings on
ideas from legislators to improve how the University operates, and floor
debates. If it is helpful, the liaisons also testify at hearings. The liaisons
have also attend all the public segments of the legislature’s Regents
selection process.
The
liaisons also provide routine reports to the faculty on the status of the
University’s request. They are expecting that this will be a challenging
year, so they will be more appreciative of all efforts by faculty to contact
their legislators. There is nothing more powerful than a call from a
constituent.
17.
COMMUNITY FUND DRIVE UPDATE
Professor
Carol Chomsky spoke about the Community Fund Drive, which began yesterday and
continues through the end of the month, as a way for the University to give back
to the community through a range of charitable organizations. She said that
there is an Advisory Panel composed of representatives from the administration,
employee groups, and the charitable organizations. She encouraged all senators
to participate and encourage their colleagues as well. They know that this is a
hard year to contribute, but the charitable organizations continue to need
support. The financial goal was maintained from last year, but another goal of
a 40 percent participation rate, up from 28 percent last year, was also
created.
She
encouraged faculty to read the brochure that was sent to see how contributions
can be made and to where funds can be directed.
18.
FACULTY CONSULTATIVE
COMMITTEE
Metrics and Measurement
Subcommittee Report
Discussion by
the Faculty Senate
DISCUSSION:
Professor
Jennifer Windsor, Chair of the Metrics and Measurements Subcommittee, said that
the subcommittee has met with various faculty groups to discuss this report, but
she welcomes comments and questions from senators.
In 2006,
the Metrics and Measurements Task Force produced a report that involved 20
performance measures identified through the strategic positioning process. When
the Faculty Consultative Committee (FCC) reviewed this report, it was concerned
that the scholarly and creative work of the faculty was not being appropriately
addressed. FCC also felt that measurement draws attention, and this was needed
for faculty work, and that it could begin a discourse to help the broader
community understand that what faculty are doing is valuable.
Of the 20
measures proposed, six deal with research and discovery, six deal with teaching
and learning, three deal with public engagement, and five deal with resources
and infrastructure.
The
Subcommittee decided to focus on the six measures of research and discovery
– national academy memberships, significant faculty awards, the number of
post-doctoral appointees, total federal research expenditures, diversity, and
faculty satisfaction. As each campus has a distinct mission, the report was
focused on the Twin Cities, however, a recommendation was to encourage a similar
process by the faculty at the other campuses.
The
Subcommittee is recommending mostly tweaks to these set of measures –
intellectual property commercialization be moved from public engagement to
research and discovery, faculty and staff diversity and faculty satisfaction be
moved to a category of culture – with a few exceptions – scholarly
productivity as a new measure and the additional of two new internal measures.
One would lead faculty to higher achievement externally. A second measure would
acknowledge that a one-size-fits-all measure does not work for all disciplines
and would encourage units to develop criteria for their own use.
Q: What is
the next step?
A: The
Subcommittee will be meeting with the FCC for focused input, but felt that
implementation ideas were beyond the purview of the Subcommittee.
EMILY
HOOVER, CHAIR
FACULTY CONSULTATIVE
COMMITTEE
JENNIFER
WINDSOR, CHAIR
METRICS AND
MEASUREMENTS SUBCOMMITTEE
19.
COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES
2008-09
Committees of the Faculty
Senate
Action by the Faculty
Senate
MOTION:
To approve
the Faculty Senate committee memberships for 2008-09. A simple majority is
required for approval.
Faculty
Senate committee memberships for 2008-09:
ACADEMIC
FREEDOM AND TENURE - Faculty: Tom Clayton (chair), Yusuf Abul-Hajj,
Tracey Anderson, Joseph Gaugler, Barbara Loken, Linda McLoon, Karen Miksch, Paul
Porter, Terrence Simon, Carol Wells. Ex
Officio: Arlene Carney, Carol Klee.
EDUCATIONAL
POLICY - Faculty/PA: Cathrine Wambach (chair), Norman Chervany, April
Knutson, James Leger, Richard McCormick, Kristen Nelson, Peh Ng, Jane Phillips,
Paul Siliciano, Donna Spannaus-Martin, Michael Wade, Joel Weinsheimer.
Students: LeAnn Alstadt, Emily Ronning,
Molly Tolzmann, David Zeller, 2 to be named.
Ex Officio: Gail Dubrow, Robert
McMaster.
FACULTY
AFFAIRS - Faculty: Kathryn Hanna
(chair), Ben Bornsztein, Marilyn Bruin, Vladimir Cherkassky, Jayne
Fulkerson, Anna Masellis, Luis Ramos-Garcia, Joe Ritter, George Sheets, Geoffrey
Sirc, Roderick Squires, James Wojtaszek.
Academic Professionals: Holly
Littlefield, 1 to be named. Ex Officio:
Arlene Carney, Carol Carrier, Dann Chapman, Tom Clayton, Theodor Litman.
Students: Jessica Reinitz, Elizabeth
Stallman.
JUDICIAL
- Faculty: Carol Klee (chair), David Andow, Martha Bigelow, Sauman Chu,
Amos Deinard, Satish Gupta, Caroline Hayes, Brian Horgan, Joan Howland, Terry
Jones, Alice Larson, Paula O’Loughlin, Michael Sadowsky, Paul Shaw,
Clifford Steer, Susan Wells. Legal Advisor:
Jan Halverson, Karen Schanfield.
RESEARCH
- Faculty: Dan Dahlberg (chair), Melissa Anderson, Peter Argenta, Linda
Bearinger, Saif Benjaafar, Jerry Cohen, James Cotter, Donald Dengel, Genevieve
Escure, Tom Hays, Jennifer Linde, Steven Ruggles, Joel, Slaton, George Trachte,
Andrew Van de Ven. Academic
Professionals: Leslie Delserone, Jean Witson.
Civil Service: Michelle Lamere.
Students: Tricia Conway, Bridget Helwig,
1 to be named. Ex Officio: Arlene
Carney, Robin Dittmann, Frances Lawrenz, Timothy Mulcahy, Mark Paller, Federico
Ponce de Leon, Karen Williams, Lynn Zentner.
FOR
INFORMATION:
ACADEMIC
HEALTH CENTER FACULTY CONSULTATIVE - Faculty: Brian Isetts (chair), Susan
Berry, Colin Campbell, Peter Davies, Stephen Downing, Paul Olin, Cheryl
Robertson, Vernon Weckwerth. Ex Officio:
Paul Olin.
ADVISORY
COMMITTEE ON ATHLETICS - Faculty/PA: Douglas Hartmann (chair), Melissa
Avery, Linda Brady, Ronald Greene, Ravi Janardan, Timothy Johnson, Laurie
McLaughlin, Richard Weinberg, Virginia Zuiker.
Civil Service: Patricia Roth. Alumni:
Rick Beeson, Linda Mona.
Students: Alexis Russell, Luke
Silovich, 2 to be named. Ex Officio:
J.T. Bruett, Joel Maturi, Mark Nelson.
FACULTY
ACADEMIC OVERSIGHT ON INTERCOLLEGIATE ATHLETICS - Faculty: Timothy
Johnson (chair), Linda Brady, Andrew Flood, Sean Garrick, Douglas Hartmann,
Murray Jensen, Mark Seeley, Richard Weinberg, Maureen Weiss.
Ex Officio: J.T. Bruett, Mark
Nelson.
FACULTY
CONSULTATIVE - Faculty: Emily Hoover (chair), Nancy Carpenter, Shawn
Curley, William Durfee, Marti Hope Gonzales, Michael Hancher, Jeffrey Kahn, J.
Michael Oakes, Nelson Rhodus, Becky Yust.. Ex
Officio: Gary Balas, Carol Chomsky, Dan Dahlberg, Janet Fitzakerley,
Kathryn Hanna, Caroline Hayes, Judith Martin, Martin Sampson, Catherine
Wambach.
NOMINATING
- Faculty: To be named (chair), Jean Bauer, Arthur Erdman, Daniel
Feeney, Catherine French, Mindy Kurzer, Scott Lanyon, Ann Masten, Mary Jo
Maynes, 1 to be named.
ELAINE
CHALLACOMBE, CHAIR
FACULTY
COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES
DISCUSSION:
With no
discussion, a vote was taken and the motion was approved.
APPROVED
20.
REPORT OF THE FACULTY CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE
FOR
THE NOMINATING COMMITTEE ELECTION
Action
by TC Faculty and Academic Professional Members
MOTION:
That the
Twin Cities Campus Faculty Delegation confirm the reappointment of one faculty
for an additional three year term on the Nominating Committee. A simple
majority is required for approval.
SUSAN
BERRY: Professor of
Pediatrics, Medical
School. University Senate member: 1997-2000, 2001-07. Senate/Assembly Committee
participation (past and present): AHC Committee on Committees, 19998-2001; AHC
Faculty Consultative, 2006-09; Nominating, 2006-08.
INFORMATION:
The
Nominating Committee Bylaws specify that the Faculty Consultative Committee may
present the names of individuals, eligible for re-election, to the Delegation
for confirmation of reappointment without another candidate on the ballot to
fill the position.
EMILY
HOOVER, CHAIR
FACULTY CONSULTATIVE
COMMITTEE
DISCUSSION:
With no
discussion, a vote was taken and the motion was approved.
APPROVED
21.
FACULTY SENATE BYLAW
AMENDMENT
Academic Freedom and
Tenure Committee Membership
Action
by the Faculty Senate
To amend
Article IV, Section 5 (A) 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
A.
ACADEMIC FREEDOM AND TENURE COMMITTEE
The
Academic Freedom and Tenure Committee is responsible for all matters of policy
related to academic freedom and faculty tenure, including the Regents' policy,
"Faculty Tenure." The Academic Freedom and Tenure Committee reports to the
Faculty Senate and does not deal with individual disputes.
Membership
The
Academic Freedom and Tenure Committee shall consist of
(1) no fewer than 7 members of
the faculty, of whom at least 5 must be tenured and at least one must come from
a campus other than the Twin Cities,
and (2) two academic professional members whose responsibilities are primarily
teaching or research. The
academic professional members may not vote on any issue related to faculty
tenure; the decision about whether a matter relates to tenure shall be
determined by the chair. Committee members shall be nominated by the
Committee on Committees and appointed with the approval of the Senate.
The chair of the committee shall be a
tenured faculty member.
...
COMMENT:
The
Academic Freedom and Tenure Committee (AF&T) recognizes that academic
freedom is a concern not only to faculty members but also to academic
professional members who teach or do research. Inasmuch as AF&T is charged
to consider issues of academic freedom, it seems appropriate to have academic
professional members of the committee.
Academic
professional members of the committee may participate in all discussions but may
not vote on matters related to faculty tenure and procedures for evaluating
tenured and tenure-track faculty. The decision about whether academic
professional members can vote on a particular matter rests with the chair, a
tenured faculty member.
TOM
CLAYTON, CHAIR
ACADEMIC FREEDOM AND
TENURE COMMITTEE
DISCUSSION:
With no
discussion, a vote was taken and the motion was approved with 84 votes in favor
and none opposed.
APPROVED
22.
FACULTY SENATE BYLAWS
AMENDMENT
Faculty Committee on
Committees
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 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
...
Duties
and Responsibilities
...
- To
review and forward as appropriate to the Faculty Senate any proposed changes to
the charge, membership, or ex officio members for committees of the Faculty
Senate prior to approval from the Faculty Senate.
[Subsequent
bullets would be relettered.]
...
COMMENT:
The
Committee on Committees (ConC) was asked by the a previous Faculty Consultative
Committee Chair to consider an amendment to the ConC charge which would give
responsibility for all other committee changes to the ConC and therefore allow
ConC to provide oversight and consistency when committees are proposing changes.
This change was approved for the Senate Committee on Committees, so now a
similar change is being proposed for the Faculty Committee on Committees
ELAINE
CHALLACOMBE, CHAIR
FACULTY
COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES
DISCUSSION:
With no
discussion, a vote was taken and the motion was approved with 88 votes in favor
and none opposed.
APPROVED
23.
FACULTY SENATE RULES AMENDMENT
Ex
Officio Membership
Action by the
Faculty Senate
To amend
Article IV, Section 1 of the Faculty Senate Rules as follows (new language is
underlined). A simple majority
is required for approval.
IV.
RULES FOR COMMITTEES OF THE FACULTY SENATE (Changes to this article are subject
to vote only by the Faculty Senate)
1.
Ex Officio Members of Faculty Senate Committees
...
-
Educational Policy--Office of the Senior Vice President for Academic
Affairs and Provost (Vice Provost and Dean for Undergraduate Education); Dean of
the Graduate School; Office of the
Senior Vice President for Health Sciences
...
COMMENT:
The charge
to the Senate Committee on Education Policy includes dealing with issues of
graduate and professional education. While the Vice Provost for Undergraduate
Education and the Dean of the Graduate School represent the Provost's office and
the non-health sciences programs, there is no one from the health sciences who
regularly can inform the Committee about issues in education in the health
sciences, even though there are large numbers of undergraduate, graduate, and
professional students in health-sciences fields. The Committee requests that an
ex officio representative from the health sciences be appointed. Senior Vice
President for Health Sciences Frank Cerra concurs strongly with this
recommendation.
CATHRINE
WAMBACH, CHAIR
EDUCATIONAL POLICY
COMMITTEE
DISCUSSION:
With no
discussion, a vote was taken and the motion was approved.
APPROVED
24.
ACADEMIC FREEDOM AND TENURE
COMMITTEE
EDUCATIONAL POLICY
COMMITTEE
Amendment to Policy and
Protocol on the Student Rating and
Peer Evaluation of
Instruction
Discussion by the
Faculty Senate
MOTION:
To amend
the Faculty Senate Policy and Protocol on the Student Rating and Peer Evaluation
of Instruction as follows (language is
underlined):
...
PROTOCOL
...
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. In units where all
written comments on students' evaluations are routinely sent to the chair and/or
to reviewing-bodies and included in the file, the instructor concerned has the
right to ask the chair or a designated senior faculty member to withhold from
the file inappropriate comments he or she views as likely to be prejudicial.
This provision is intended to cover racist, sexist, homophobic, and other
inappropriate personal comments, and is not intended to exclude from the file
negative comments directly related to the course.
...
COMMENT:
The
Committee on Academic Freedom and Tenure (AF&T) noted the difference of
opinion between the Senate Committee on Educational Policy and the Senate
Committee on Faculty Affairs about the disposition of written comments on
student-rating forms when the most recent version of the Senate policy was
adopted. AF&T concurs with the concern expressed by SCFA about the
potential impact of inappropriate negative comments on evaluation of instructors
for promotion, tenure, and merit. After reviewing the comments provided to SCFA
by Professor Marti Gonzales on the social-psychological research that
demonstrates the disproportionate effect of a small number of negative comments,
AF&T recommends the changes indicated above, noting that this policy does
not include the excision of negative comments directed to the content or
pedagogy of a course.
TOM
CLAYTON, CHAIR
ACADEMIC FREEDOM AND
TENURE COMMITTEE
CATHRINE
WAMBACH, CHAIR
EDUCATIONAL POLICY
COMMITTEE
DISCUSSION:
Professor
Cathrine Wambach, Chair of the Educational Policy Committee (SCEP), said that
the committee has heard from faculty over the past few years that students
sometimes write inappropriate comments on the student rating forms. In
departments where these comments are viewed by other people, this can be a
source of embarrassment to faculty. The proposal is that in consultation with
the department chair or a senior faculty member, agreed upon comments would be
removed from the file.
A senator
questioned whether a point of debate was who would determine that a comment is
inappropriate and how this could be a nightmare of subjectivity.
Q: Is the
suggestion to redact specific comments from the full evaluation form?
A: The
policy does not suggest the means at this time. If the Faculty Senate agrees in
principle, then means will be determined.
A senator
said that inappropriate comments can affect other responses on the evaluation,
so he suggested that the entire form be removed.
Another
senator asked that faculty grievance committee be added in addition to the
department chair or a senior faculty member to reduce subjectivity.
25.
ACADEMIC FREEDOM AND TENURE
COMMITTEE
Statement on University
Responsibility to
Researchers
Discussion by the
Faculty Senate
MOTION:
The
Faculty Senate and the President affirm their mutual understanding that, in
cases of unpreventable major adversity affecting faculty members, whether due to
accident, the weather, building collapse, or any other external cause, the
administration will immediately do all in its power to enable faculty members
affected to resume their professional activities as soon as possible; and will
ensure that they will not be held responsible for professional performance to
the extent that their professional activities are disrupted through no fault of
their own.
COMMENT:
The
Committee on Academic Freedom and Tenure (AF&T) heard reports about the
impact of the collapse of the 35W bridge on research being conducted in a
building near the site of the bridge. Our general concern was the potential
impact on review of individuals for promotion, tenure, and merit in the case
when research facilities are disrupted because of natural disaster or other
causes beyond the control of the faculty member. After several discussions,
including a discussion with Vice President for Research Tim Mulcahy, we
concluded that a general statement, to be embraced by the President as well as
the Faculty Senate, would establish expectations without binding anyone to
particular solutions. The range of possible problems precludes the adoption of
a more specific policy, so AF&T recommends this general statement.
TOM
CLAYTON, CHAIR
ACADEMIC FREEDOM AND
TENURE COMMITTEE
DISCUSSION:
A senator
said that not all faculty performance is linked to research, but to allow all
professional performance, such as teaching, to degrade is too generous.
Another
senator asked that the statement include responsibility resting with a faculty
member’s department or unit.
26.
EDUCATIONAL POLICY
COMMITTEE
Amendment to Advanced
Placement Test Scores
Action by the
Faculty Senate
MOTION:
To amend
the University's requirement for receiving credit for freshman composition by
changing the Advanced Placement test score requirement to receive credit from a
3, 4, or 5 to a 4 or a 5, and by eliminating the Lit/Comp Advanced Placement
test as one that allows a student to receive credit for freshman
composition.
COMMENT:
The
following language and AP test-score requirements (below) appear on the web page
of the Admissions Office. At this point the provenance of the requirements is
not clear. The Senate Committee on Educational Policy (SCEP), with the
endorsement of the Faculty Consultative Committee, recommends changing the
English award as recommended in the motion. This motion is a first step in what
will be a more comprehensive review of how the University treats AP test scores
and bringing the requirements into the educational policies of the Faculty
Senate, but SCEP asks that the Faculty Senate approve this change now in order
to provide high schools and students notice of the change (which will be
implemented in the future).
The
Department of Writing Studies examined the AP test score in English and
recommended this change to SCEP. Minnesota is one of the few Big Ten schools to
give credit for a 3 on the AP English test. The evidence reviewed by the
Department of Writing Studies confirms that students who score only a 3 on the
AP test are not prepared for college writing. The Department of Writing Studies
also concluded that the English Literature test does not indicate ability to
write at the college level; while a good score on that test may qualify a
student for credit in other areas, it does not serve to indicate writing
ability.
Information
from the Office of Admissions web site:
The Advanced Placement (AP)
program offers you the chance to begin college-level studies while you are in
high school. Through AP, you can get a jump start on your U of M
education.
Many high schools offer college-level classes through the
Advanced Placement (AP) program. You may also prepare for an AP exam through
individual study. AP exams are graded on a five-point scale. If you have scored
a three or higher, you can earn credits at the University of Minnesota.
Furthermore,
you can use your Advanced Placement exams to fulfill liberal education
requirements at the University of Minnesota. Liberal education requirements are
courses or categories of courses that all college students must complete for
graduation from the U of M. (Note: These requirements should not be confused
with high school preparation requirements, which are required for admission to
the U of M, although AP courses can also satisfy high school preparation
requirements.) See the chart below for details.
|
Area/Test
|
Score
|
Award1
|
|
Art
History
|
3,4,5
|
4
credits in Art History 1001 (Introduction to the History of Art); fulfills
Other Humanities requirement
|
|
Biology
|
3,4,5
|
4
credits in Biology 1009 (General Biology); fulfills biological science/lab
requirement. Effective Fall '01.
|
|
Calculus
|
|
Calculus
AB
|
3,4,5
|
4
credits in Math 1271 (Calculus I); fulfills mathematical thinking
requirement
|
|
Calculus
BC
|
1,2
and AB subscore of 3,4,5
|
4
credits in Math 1271 (Calculus I); fulfills mathematical thinking
requirement
|
|
|
3
|
4
credits in Math 1271 (Calculus I); fulfills mathematical thinking
requirement
|
|
|
4,5
|
8
credits in Math 1271, 1272 (Calculus I-II); fulfills mathematical thinking
requirement
|
|
Chemistry
|
3,4,5
|
8
credits total in Chemistry 1021, 1022 (Chemical Principles I, II); fulfills
physical science/lab requirement. Does not fulfill environmental theme.
|
|
Computer
Science
|
|
A
|
3,4,5
|
4
credits in Computer Science 1902 (Structure of Computer Programming II);
fulfills mathematical thinking requirement
|
|
AB
|
3,4,5
|
8
credits total in Computer Science 1901, 1902 (Structure of Computer
Programming I, II); fulfills mathematical thinking requirement
|
|
Effective
2007:
|
|
|
3,4,5
|
3
credits in Computer Science 1902 (Structure of Computer Programming II); 3
credits in Computer Science 19994;
fulfills mathematical thinking requirement
|
|
Economics
|
|
Micro
|
3,4,5
|
4
credits in Econ 1101 (Principles of Microeconomics); counts toward social
science requirement. Does not
fulfill international perspectives requirement.
|
|
Macro
|
3,4,5
|
4
credits in Econ 1102 (Principles of Macroeconomics); counts toward social
science requirement. Does not
fulfill international perspectives requirement.
|
|
English
|
|
Language/Comp
|
3,4,5
|
4
credits in Writing 1301 (University Writing); fulfills freshman writing
requirement.
|
|
Lit/Comp
|
3,4,5
|
4
credits in Writing 1301 (University Writing); fulfills freshman writing
requirement; 3 credits in English Lit 19994;
fulfills literature requirement.
|
|
Environmental
Science
|
3,4,5
|
3
credits in Natural Resources 19994;
fulfills biological science lab requirement and environmental theme
|
|
French
Language
|
|
No
credit automatically granted3
|
|
French
Literature
|
3,4,5
|
3
credits in French 30994;
fulfills literature requirement
|
|
Geography,
Human
|
3,4,5
|
4
credits in Geog 1301; (Intro. to Human Geography); counts toward social
science requirement and fulfills international perspectives requirement.
Does not fulfill writing intensive requirement.
|
|
German
Language
|
|
No
credit automatically granted3
|
|
Government
and Politics
|
|
American
|
3,4,5
|
4
credits in Political Science 1001 (American Democracy in Changing World);
counts toward social science requirement and fulfills citizenship &
public ethics requirements.
|
|
Comparative
|
3,4,5
|
4
credits in Political Science 1054 (Repression & Democracy Around the
World); counts toward social science requirement and fulfills international
perspectives requirement.
|
|
History
|
|
European
|
3,4,5
|
6
credits in History 19994;
fulfills historical perspectives and international perspectives
requirements
|
|
U.S.
History
|
3,4,5
|
6
credits in History 19994;
fulfills historical perspectives and cultural diversity requirements
|
|
World
|
3,4,5
|
3
credits in History 19994;
fulfills historical perspectives and international perspectives
requirements
|
|
Italian
Language and Culture
|
|
Under
review
|
|
Latin
|
|
Vergil
|
3,4,5
|
4
credits in Latin 3300 (Introduction to Latin Poetry); fulfills literature
requirement
|
|
Literature
|
3,4,5
|
4
credits in Latin 3300 (Introduction to Latin Poetry); fulfills literature
requirement
|
|
Effective
2007
|
|
Vergil
|
3,4,5
|
4
credits in Latin 31994;
fulfills literature requirement
|
|
Literature
|
3,4,5
|
4
credits in Latin 31994;
fulfills literature requirement
|
|
Music
|
|
Music
Theory
|
3,4,5
|
3
credits in Music 1001 (Fundamentals of Music); fulfills Other Humanities
requirement
|
|
Music
Listening & Literature
|
3,4,5
|
4
credits in Music 3021 (Intro. to Music); fulfills other humanities and
international perspectives requirements
|
|
Physics
|
|
B
|
3,4,5
|
8
credits total in Physics 1101 & 1102 (Fundamental Physics I, II);
fulfills physical science/lab requirement; not writing-intensive
|
|
C
Mechanics
|
3,4,5
|
4
credits in Physics 1301 (Intro. Physics I); fulfills physical science/lab
requirement; not writing-intensive
|
|
C
Elec/Magnetism
|
3,4,5
|
4
credits in Physics 1302 (Intro. Physics II); fulfills physical science/lab
requirement; not writing-intensive
|
|
Psychology
|
3,4,5
|
4
credits in Psychology 1001 (Introduction to Psychology); counts toward
social sciences requirement
|
|
Spanish
Language
|
|
No
credit granted for AP scores3
|
|
Spanish
Literature
|
3,4,5
|
3
credits in Spanish 30994;
fulfills literature requirement
|
|
Statistics
|
3,4,5
|
4
credits in Statistics 3011 (Intro. to Statistical Analysis); fulfills
mathematical thinking requirement
|
|
Studio
Art
|
|
no
credit automatically granted2
|
|
|
1 Students will be granted course credit
plus credits toward fulfillment of the University's liberal education
requirements for graduation.
2 Art students may present a portfolio to
the Department of Art. Please call 612/625-8096.
3 For information, go to LangTest.umn.edu/whoweare.html,
send e-mail to LangTest@tc.umn.edu,
or call 612/624-0862.
4 Course numbers 1999 and 3099 indicate
blanket credit in the subject matter area at the freshman-sophomore and
junior-senior levels respectively; other numbers are those of specific
courses for which students may be granted credit.
|
CATHRINE
WAMBACH, CHAIR
EDUCATIONAL POLICY
COMMITTEE
DISCUSSION:
This item
was withdrawn from the agenda and will be brought back to the Faculty Senate
spring semester.
WITHDRAWN
27.
FACULTY SENATE OLD BUSINESS
NONE
28.
FACULTY SENATE NEW BUSINESS
NONE
29.
FACULTY SENATE ADJOURNMENT
The
Faculty Senate was adjourned at 4:37 p.m.
Rebecca
Hippert
Abstractor
