2008-09 UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA
FEBRUARY 5, 2009
UNIVERSITY SENATE MINUTES: No. 2
FACULTY SENATE MINUTES: No. 3
1. ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSES TO SENATE ACTIONS
Information
Faculty Senate
|
Amendment to the Policy and Protocol on the Student Rating and Peer Evaluation of Instruction |
|
|
Approved by the: |
Faculty Senate December 4, 2008 |
|
Approved by the: |
Administration PENDING |
|
Approved by the: |
Board of Regents – no action required |
|
Statement on University Responsibility to Researchers |
|
|
Approved by the: |
Faculty Senate December 4, 2008 |
|
Approved by the: |
Administration PENDING |
|
Approved by the: |
Board of Regents – no action required |
2. INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES COMMITTEE
Statement in Support of OIT Compact
Information for the University Senate
Statement in Support of OIT Compact
The Senate Committee on Information
Technologies (SCIT) would like to indicate its support for the Office of
Information Technology compact statement as presented to SCIT during the
November 4, 2008 meeting. These
goals serve as a catalyst and mechanism for leveraging technology to advance
and support education, innovative research, and public engagement while
continuing to be one of the best information technology support organizations
in higher education. The innovative and strategic application of information technologies
as outlined, if successfully implemented, will advance the University of
MinnesotaÕs goal of becoming one of the top three public research
universities. While the compact
dovetails with the University's strategic positioning efforts, SCIT acknowledges
the challenges OIT faces in light of scarce funding, staffing, and resources.
SCIT would like to offer its continued
support and guidance in reviews and updates of current and future OIT compacts.
Approved December 2009
MARK SANDERS, CHAIR
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES COMMITTEE
3. TRIBUTE TO DECEASED MEMBERS OF THE
UNIVERSITY COMMUNITY
FACULTY/ACADEMIC PROFESSIONALS/STAFF
Ernest G. Bormann
Professor
Speech Communications
1925 – 2008
James Dickey
Professor
Statistics
1939 – 2008
Martin W. Duffy
Professor
Carlson School of Management
1921 – 2008
Neal L. Gault, Jr.
Professor
Medicine
1920 – 2008
John Haarstad
Research Associate
Ecology, Evolution, and Behavior
1946 – 2008
Robert C. Hart
Professor
English – University of Minnesota Duluth
1920 – 2008
Philip W. Hursh
Clinical Physician
Boynton Health Service
1916 – 2008
Naresh Jain
Professor
Mathematics
1937 – 2009
James T. Joichi
Professor
Mathematics
1927 – 2008
James E. Kaufman
Professor
Agricultural Marketing
1919 – 2008
Ellis Livingston
Professor
History – University of Minnesota Duluth
1920 – 2008
Keith N. McFarland
Professor
Vocational and Technical Education
1921 – 2008
George Nishida
Professor
Dentistry
1920 – 2008
Roger B. Page
Associate Dean
College of Liberal Arts
1917 – 2008
Douglas C. Pratt
Professor
Plant Biology
1931 – 2008
James Rothenberger III
Professor
Epidemiology
1947 – 2008
Thomas Swallen
Professor
Lab Medicine and Pathology
1930 – 2008
Mildred C. Templin
Professor
Institute of Child Development
1913 – 2008
Dennis W. Watson
Regents Professor
Microbiology
1914 - 2008
Kathryn G. Zieske
Professor
Laboratory Medicine and Pathology
1926 – 2008
STUDENTS
Justin W. Goodhue
Graduate School/Medical School
Earaka E. Holiday
College of Education and Human Service Professions – Duluth
Jenna Lynn
College of Education and Human Service Professions – Duluth
4. SENATE CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE REPORT
There was no report.
5. MINUTES FOR DECEMBER 4, 2008
Action by the Faculty Senate
MOTION:
To approve the Faculty Senate minutes, which are available on the Web at the following URL. A simple majority is required for approval.
http://www1.umn.edu/usenate/fsen/081204fac.html
STUART
GOLDSTEIN, CLERK
FACULTY
SENATE
DISCUSSION:
With no discussion, a vote was taken and the motion was approved.
APPROVED
6. UNIVERSITY SENATE RULES AMENDMENT
Ex Officio Membership
Action by the University Senate
To amend Article II, Section 1 of the University Senate Rules as follows (new language is underlined). A simple majority is required for approval.
II. RULES FOR COMMITTEES OF THE UNIVERSITY
SENATE (Changes to this article are subject to vote only by the University
Senate)
1.
Ex Officio Members of University Senate Committees
...
- Library--Office of the
Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs and Provost; University Librarian,
Twin Cities campus; Director of Library Services, Crookston campus; Director of
Libraries, Duluth campus; Library Director, Morris campus; Director of the Law
Library, Twin Cities Campus; Librarian, Rochester Campus; Chair of the
Information Technologies Committee
...
COMMENT:
The Senate Library
Committee requests that the Rochester librarian be added as an ex-officio
member of the committee to provide representation from all the campus
libraries.
JAY HATCH,
CHAIR
LIBRARY
COMMITTEE
DISCUSSION:
With no discussion, a vote was taken and the motion was approved.
APPROVED
7. SENATE CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE
Twin Cities Campus Outdoor Smoking Policy
Discussion by the Twin Cities Delegation
BACKGROUND:
For background information, please review the Senate Consultative Committee (SCC) minutes at: http://conservancy.umn.edu/bitstream/45826/1/08-11-20%20SCC.pdf and the Council of Academic Professionals and Administrators (CAPA) minutes at: http://capa.umn.edu/meetings/capa081219.pdf
Information is also available at: http://academic.umn.edu/provost/reports/smo_survey08.html
EMILY HOOVER, CHAIR
SENATE CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE
DISCUSSION:
Professor Emily Hoover, Chair of the Senate Consultative Committee (SCC), said an administrative committee was formed to discuss and propose an option for a Twin Cities campus outdoor smoking policy. This committee met last semester and received input from various faculty, student, and staff organizations. They would now like to gather input from the senators.
A senator presented the following statement that was approved by the Student Senate with 31 votes in favor and 4 opposed, "The Twin Cities Student Delegation does not support a campus-wide smoking ban. While we are concerned about the health impact that smokers have on themselves and others, we support other alternatives such as smoking zones, or designated smoking areas. We feel that a well formulated, alternative and enforceable approach, coupled with increased marketing of campus smoking cessation programs, will have a more successful and lasting impact than a campus-wide smoking ban."
A senator then said that he also opposes a ban since the current policy barring of not smoking within 25 feet of building entrances is not enforced by the University, but by individual people. He does not understand how to ban smoking from the entire campus and is not clear about the scientific evidence of second-hand smoke outdoors.
Q: Would this ban apply to Fairview Hospital employees?
A: The University would need to define what is campus, in consultation with Fairview Hospital, to see who would be affected and where.
A senator stated that he is in favor of an outdoor smoking ban and feels that the majority of students support this position from the survey that was conducted. While second-hand smoke is dangerous for people with asthma, there are other issues. The University prides itself on its health sciences and therefore should exhibit positive behaviors both inside and outside classrooms. The University should also have a healthy image, which cannot be achieved with cigarette butts on the ground. As for enforcement, it can be an issue with every rule, so the University should take a gradual approach with increased education.
Another senator then questioned enforcement, sanctioning and to whom sanctions would apply, and the creation of smoking police.
A senator opposed this ban and would instead ban cars, buses, and pesticides around campus.
Another senator spoke against the ban because this is not a question with a clear-cut answer. There is a problem for people who suffer from second-hand smoke, so a solution should be found for them, but that is not a complete ban. He then quoted from the Policy on Student Development Outcomes which has as one of its principles, ÒTolerance of Ambiguity by demonstrating the ability to perform in complicated environments where clear cut answers or standard operating procedures are absent.Ó Based on this principle, he claimed that a smoking ban is contrary to the mission of the University.
Q: Have the neighborhoods been consulted on the impact this policy might have on areas adjacent to campus?
A: One consultation was held with representatives from the neighborhoods and they did not feel that this would be a concern.
8. PRESIDENTÕS REPORT
President Bruininks addressed several distressing issues with the UniversityÕs budget. The first is the GovernorÕs recommendation to cut $75.5 million per year from the base budget, coupled with a $40 million reduction in the past few months. State economists are projecting a deeper deficit than the current $5.2 billion by the February forecast.
However, while the deficit amounts to 2.2 percent of the total state budget, the UniversityÕs reduction is in excess of 8 percent, a four-fold increase over the state average. The University is trying to determine how it responds in a way that is civil, respectful, firm, and assertive in light of a recommendation that indicates that the Governor does not regard higher education as critical to the stateÕs economy. Even when the priority list was released, higher education was missing.
President Bruininks stated that economists do not believe that a state can have a strong economy without a strong higher education system that values human capital, educating leaders, and creating ideas and innovations. The message to the state is that education, including higher education, needs to be made a priority.
He said that the University is committed to protecting students from tuition increases and protecting faculty and staff jobs. He said that it is ironic to be talking about a reduction for the University when business is not declining, as opposed to many other industries in the state. The University received 32,000 applicants for 5300 freshmen spaces this year, and grants and contracts increased $50 million last year. In the last three years, the University was second among public institutions in the country in the growth of productivity, which amounted to about 25,000 jobs in the private economy.
President Bruininks then said that budget instructions will be sent shortly to departments, asking for models of a five percent and an eight percent reduction. If the economy gets worse and the UniversityÕs reduction increases, a wage and salary freeze will be discussed. In conjunction with these possibilities, tuition increases are being modeled between 4.5 and 7.5 percent.
The University is working to create a middle-income, need-based scholarship program. With an $8 million investment, the University would hope to raise $16 million in private, matching funds. This would allow for a tuition freeze for middle-income families, which is defined as families with an income up to $80,000 per year.
He would like the community to stay focused and work together while debates are taking place. He does not believe that all the academic programs and investments will be able to continue. However, this period can be used to identify some reforms and changes to make the University stronger. Decisions will likely not be made until the February forecast is released and the federal stimulus package funds come to the state, and it is more plausible that a determination will be at the very end of the session. This will leave very little time for the University to adapt to any reduction.
Lastly, he said that faculty colleagues are working on a public discussion series on the future of the state, entitled Ô2030.Õ The purpose is to have people focus on the stateÕs issues long into the future, both nationally and globally.
9. QUESTIONS TO THE PRESIDENT
Q: There are some measures that indicate that during the last budget reduction, the University improved. What message might this send to legislators this year and what message can be used to counter this sentiment?
A: The community noticed the changes that were made the last time and have a sense of the intention of those changes. Cuts will again be needed this year, which may mean charging for services to the state that have been free, or program and organizational consolidations. The University can also flatten the organization and strengthen the leadership framework. The University must continue to put energy into reducing the size of the reduction since as was demonstrated last year, a $50 million state investment is equivalent to a $1.2 billion recurring endowment.
Q: How were faculty involved in the decision to combine the Medical School dean with the Senior Vice President for Health Sciences?
A: Consultation did take place with the Academic Health Center Faculty Consultative Committee before a decision was made. Going forward, faculty will be involved in defining qualities for this position and in the evolution of this leadership model before there is a search. This decision brings the positions together, reduces redundancies, and stabilizes the Medical School budget. There is no easy way to make these difficult changes, but the administration will be open to hearing concerns as this process proceeds.
Q: Reference was made at the December Student Senate meeting that student evaluation survey results were largely favorable; the student population is satisfied with the quality of the instruction they have been receiving. Given the Governor's recent budget-deficit-reduction recommendations and their potential to negatively impact the quality of higher education here at the University, can the Student Senate and the student body take effective actions during or prior to upcoming legislative committee hearings that can assist legislators in making fully-informed decisions regarding higher education funding and its potential to harm the quality of the University if the Governor's recommendations are adopted?
A: Several faculty leaders along with a few students have provided testimony at the legislature. The students have been fired up this session and have organized an alliance for appearing at the capitol and supporting the University. There are also 18,000 people involved in the UniversityÕs grassroots organization. The best way for students to get involved is to contact Government Relations and the grassroots organization.
10. UNIVERSITY SENATE OLD BUSINESS
NONE
11. UNIVERSITY SENATE NEW BUSINESS
NONE
12. UNIVERSITY SENATE ADJOURNMENT
The University Senate was adjourned at 3:30 p.m.
13. FACULTY CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE REPORT
Professor Emily Hoover, Chair of the Faculty Consultative Committees (FCC), said that the economic outlook for the University, state, and nation has changed since the last FCC report. The proposed budget reduction has been the main topic of conversation at all the FCC meetings. Discussions have been held with central administrators on the principles and approaches to the budget reductions. FCC has also participated in two breakfasts with the President on the UniversityÕs budget and budget strategies.
As the budget process moves forward in the legislature, some faculty may be asked to testify. She hopes that faculty take this opportunity to discuss the importance of funding a world-class public research University.
Other FCC business has included a conversation with the Controller about EFS implementation. He updated the committee on the methodology being used to prioritize changes in the system and troubleshooting with staff in units. The system is not perfect yet, so oversight will continue. Other issues appear later on todayÕs agenda.
14. FACULTY LEGISLATIVE LIAISON UPDATE
Professor Martin Sampson, a Faculty Legislative Liaison, said that the House and Senate committees are holding groundwork hearings on the GovernorÕs proposal. Everyone is expecting that the deficit will be greater than the last forecast, so not much will be done until after March 4. The faces of legislators are much more solemn and some committee members are stunned when listening to University administrators, faculty, and students. Since there are no funds, it becomes a question of priority.
There are three basic points for this session. First, this is the first year for the University and MnSCU that the stateÕs share will fall below the share raised by tuition. Second, there are more discussions of University autonomy when it relates to tuition caps. Lastly, debate is very intense. The involvement of students has never been greater than this year, but no one is as persuasive as constituents. He urged faculty to contact their legislators regarding University funding.
15. NOMINATING COMMITTEE FOR THE TWIN
CITIES MEMBERS OF THE FACULTY CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE
Slate of Candidates
Action by the Twin Cities Faculty
Delegation and UMD Faculty Senators
MOTION:
To
approve the following six names to stand for election to the Faculty
Consultative Committee, from which one of each pair are to be elected by the
Twin Cities and non-represented UMD faculty for a term of 2010-13. First pair: Professors Christopher
Cramer and Tom Shield; Second Pair: Professors Thomas Brothen and Jan
McCullough; Third Pair: Professors David Biesboer and Kathryn VandenBosch. A simple majority is required for
approval.
FIRST PAIR
CHRISTOPHER CRAMER: 1992*, Professor of Chemistry, Institute of Technology. University Senate member: None. Committee participation (past and present): Research, 2003-06.
THOMAS SHIELD: 1990*, Professor of Aerospace Engineering and Mechanics, Institute of Technology. University Senate member: 2005-08. Committee participation (past and present): Student Academic Integrity, 2006-09 (Chair, 2006-09)..
SECOND
PAIR
THOMAS BROTHEN: 1972*, Professor of Post Secondary Teaching and Learning,
College of Education and Human Development. University Senate member: 2003-06. Committee participation (past and
present): Arts, Science, and Engineering Provostal Faculty Consultative,
1996-98; Faculty Academic Oversight Committee on Intercollegiate Athletics,
2005-08, (Chair, 2007-08).
JAN MCCULLOCH: 2002*, Professor of Family Social Science, College of Education
and Human Development. University Senate member: 2005-08. Committee participation (past and present): Committee on
Committees, 2005-06.
THIRD
PAIR
DAVID BIESBOER: 1980*, Professor of Plant Biology, College of Biological
Sciences. University Senate
member: 1987-90, 1993-96, 2006-09.
Committee participation (past and present): Finance, 1988-89; Finance
and Planning, 1989-92; Judicial, 2002-08; Planning, 1987-89 (Chair, 1988-89).
KATHRYN
VANDENBOSCH: 2001*, Professor of Plant
Biology, College of Biological Sciences.
University Senate member: None.
Committee participation (past and present): Finance and Planning,
2003-06.
--------------------------------------
*Date of initial appointment at the University.
FOR INFORMATION:
The Faculty Consultative Committee serves as the executive committee of the Faculty Senate and forms the faculty membership of the Senate Consultative Committee. Senate legislation has merged the Twin Cities faculty and non-represented UMD faculty for purposes of Faculty Consultative Committee elections. Should a non-represented UMD faculty member be elected, that individual will be a member of the Senate and Faculty Consultative Committees.
Additional nominations, certified as willing to stand for election, may be made by (1) petition of 12 voting members of the faculties, provided that the petition is in the hands of the Clerk of the Senate the day before the Senate meeting, and (2) nominations on the floor of the Senate. The faculty representatives of the Senate shall reduce by vote the slate to twice the number to be elected.
Currently serving with terms continuing at least through next year are:
Shawn Curley, Carlson School of Management
Marti Hope Gonzales, College of Liberal Arts
Michael Hancher, College of Liberal Arts
Jeffrey Kahn, Medical School
J. Michael Oakes, School of Public Health
Becky Yust, College of Design
The terms of William Durfee (Institute of Technology), Emily Hoover (College of Food, Agricultural, and Natural Resource Sciences), and Nelson Rhodus (School of Dentistry) expire at the end of the academic year. However, the current chair, Professor Emily Hoover, will remain on the committee for one more year in a voting ex officio position as the past chair.
CATHERINE FRENCH, CHAIR
NOMINATING COMMITTEE
DISCUSSION:
With no discussion, a vote was taken and the motion was approved.
APPROVED
_______________________________________________________________
MOTION A
Consent Agenda
Action by the Faculty Senate
Agenda Items 16. through 18. are offered as a ÒConsent AgendaÓ to be taken up as a single item with one vote. Any item will be taken up separately at the request of a senator. As amendments to the Faculty Senate Bylaws, the motion requires either a majority of all voting members of the Faculty Senate (85) 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.
16. FACULTY SENATE BYLAWS AMENDMENT
Faculty Committee on Committees Charge
MOTION:
To
amend Article IV, Section 5(G) of the Faculty Senate Bylaws as follows
(language to be added is underlined, language to be deleted is struck
out).
G. FACULTY
COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES
Faculty Committee
on Committees
The Faculty
Committee on Committees proposes candidates for election to the Nominating
Committee, appoints members of certain other committees of the
Faculty Senate and advises the Faculty Consultative Committee on the committee
structure of the Faculty Senate.
Membership
The Faculty Committee on Committees shall be
composed of at least 13 and no more than 15 elected tenured or tenure-track
faculty members, and at least 2 and no more than 4 elected
academic professional members.
Of
the faculty/academic professional members, 12 shall be from the Morris
campus and the remainder from the Twin Cities campus. There shall also be one member from
the Morris campus. All faculty
members of the Committee shall be elected for three-year terms by
the faculty members of the Senate from these their 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.
Duties and
Responsibilities
...
b. To forward annually to the Faculty
Consultative Committee a slate of candidates to be considered for election to
the Nominating Committee. The slate should contain twice as many candidates as
there are positions to be filled on the Nominating Committee and the candidates
shall be paired. The committee should give preference to candidates who have
broad experience in governance at the University.
...
[Subsequent bullets will be relettered.]
CATHERINE FRENCH, CHAIR
NOMINATING COMMITTEE
17. FACULTY SENATE BYLAWS AMENDMENT
Faculty Consultative Committee Charge
MOTION:
To
amend Article IV, Section 5(H) of the Faculty Senate Bylaws as follows
(language to be added is underlined, language to be deleted is struck
out).
H. FACULTY
CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE
...
Duties and
Responsibilities
...
Executive
...
d. To forward
annually to the Twin Cities Faculty Delegation the slate of candidates for the
Nominating Committee. The slate of candidates for the Nominating Committee
shall contain twice the number of candidates as there are positions to be
filled and the candidates shall be paired. The proposed slate will be provided to the Faculty
Consultative Committee by the Committee on Committees. In the event that additional
nominations are made by members of the Faculty Consultative Committee, the
Faculty Consultative Committee shall vote by secret ballot to reduce the slate
to twice the number to be elected before forwarding the final slate to the Twin
Cities Faculty Delegation.
e. To forward
annually to the Twin Cities Faculty Delegation the slate of candidates for the
Committee on Committees. The slate of candidates for the Committee on
Committees, shall contain the same number of candidates as there are positions
to be filled. A proposed slate
will be provided to the Faculty Consultative Committee by the Nominating
Committee. In the event that additional nominations are made by members of the
Faculty Consultative Committee, the Faculty Consultative Committee shall vote
by secret ballot to determine the final slate to be forwarded to the Twin
Cities Faculty Delegation.
...
[Subsequent bullets will be relettered.]
CATHERINE FRENCH, CHAIR
NOMINATING COMMITTEE
18. FACULTY SENATE BYLAWS AMENDMENT
Nominating Committee Charge
MOTION:
To
amend Article IV, Section 5(K) of the Faculty Senate Bylaws as follows
(language to be added is underlined, language to be deleted is struck
out).
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.
Membership
The Nominating
Committee shall consist of at least nine tenured or tenure-track faculty elected
by the Twin Cities Faculty Delegation in the manner described below. 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 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.
In those instances when an incumbent member of the Nominating
Committee is eligible for re-election , the Faculty Consultative Committee may
present to the Twin Cities Faculty Delegation 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.
For the purposes
of this section of the Bylaws, action by ÒFaculty Committee on CommitteesÓ
means action taken by the Twin Cities faculty members of the Committee on
Committees and action taken by the ÒTwin Cities Faculty DelegationÓ means
action taken by the Twin Cities tenured and tenure-track faculty members of the
Faculty Senate.
The Faculty Committee on
Committees each year shall submit to the Faculty Consultative Committee for its
approval a proposed slate to be considered for election to the Nominating
Committee. In those instances when an incumbent member of the Nominating Committee
is eligible for re-election and is willing to serve, the Faculty Committee on Committees may present to Faculty Consultative
Committee the name of that individual for confirmation of reappointment without
another candidate on the ballot to fill the position. For all other positions, the Faculty Committee on Committees will propose a slate
composed of twice as many tenure-track or tenured faculty members as there are
positions to be filled, each confirmed as willing to serve. The Faculty Committee on Committees
will strive to include a diverse pool of candidates and, to ensure that the
Nominating Committee as a whole will include balanced representation from
across the Twin Cities campus, the Faculty Committee on Committees shall select
candidates from appropriate academic units, and the slate of nominees, other
than those for reappointment, shall pair candidates from related academic
units. The slate and the
proposed reappointments shall be submitted to the Faculty Consultative
Committee for approval. In the event that additional nominations are made by
members of the Faculty Consultative Committee, the Faculty Consultative
Committee shall vote by secret ballot to reduce the slate to twice the number
to be chosen through contested election, continuing to strive for appropriate
balance on the slate. The final
slate and the approved nominations for reappointment shall be announced in the
Faculty Senate docket for a spring semester meeting.
Additional nominations of
tenured or tenure-track faculty, confirmed as willing to serve, may be made by: (1) petition of 12 voting members of the Twin
Cities Faculty Delegation, provided that the petition is in the hands of the
clerk of the Senate the day before the Faculty Senate meeting at which the
slate is to be presented; (2) nomination on the floor of the Faculty Senate by
members of the Twin Cities Faculty Delegation when the slate is presented. Such
nominees may be named to run against a pair of candidates or against a
candidate for reappointment. To
ensure appropriate balanced representation on the Nominating Committee, any
additional nominations shall specify against whom the nominee will run.
After a final
slate is selected as specified above, the clerk of the Senate shall present the
final slate to the Twin Cities Faculty Delegation for a vote. The election for contested seats will
be conducted by secret ballot. The
candidate receiving the most votes in each pair or group will be elected. Uncontested elections for
reappointment may be conducted by voice vote.
In case of a tie
in any Senate vote in the election process, the clerk shall choose the
successful candidate(s) by lot.
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
a. The Nominating
Committee shall nominate and certify as available twice as many faculty
candidates for the Faculty Consultative Committee, who are confirmed as
willing to serve, as are to be elected each year from the Twin Cities campus
and from those faculty from the Duluth campus eligible to vote in Senate
elections to the Faculty Consultative Committee. To achieve balanced representation
across the Twin Cities campus, the Nominating Committee may choose to pair
candidates. These The
final slate of candidates shall be announced in the Twin Cities Faculty
Delegation Faculty Senate docket for a spring semester meeting. Additional nominations,
certified as available, of eligible faculty, confirmed as willing to
serve, may be made by: (1) petition of 12 voting members of the faculties
Twin Cities faculty, provided that the petition is in the hands of
the clerk of the Senate the day before the Twin Cities Faculty Delegation
Faculty Senate meeting; (2) nomination on the floor of the Twin Cities
Faculty Delegation Faculty Senate by members of the Twin Cities Faculty
Delegation when the slate is presented. If the nominees are paired, any
additional nomination shall specify against which pair the nominee will
run. In the event there are additional
nominations, the The Twin Cities Faculty Delegation shall by vote
in order to reduce the slate to twice the number to be elected. The
vote shall be taken by secret ballot in a manner determined by the Twin Cities
Faculty Delegation. The clerk of
the Senate shall present the final slate to and shall forward the results to the clerk of the Twin
Cities Faculty Delegation for its approval. The slate as approved shall be presented to the faculty for
an election, conducted Election procedures shall be in accordance
with Article III IV, Section 35(H), of the Faculty
Senate Bylaws.
b. The Nominating
Committee shall nominate and certify as available twice as many faculty
candidates for the Committee on Committees each year shall submit to the
Faculty Consultative Committee for its approval a proposed slate to be
considered for election to the Committee on Committees, composed of as many
tenured and tenure-track faculty members, confirmed as willing to serve, as
there are positions to be filled. as are to be elected each year. The
Nominating Committee will strive to include a diverse pool of candidates and,
to ensure that the
Committee on Committees as a whole will include a balanced representation from
across the Twin Cities, the Nominating Committee shall
select candidates from appropriate academic units to fill the
vacancies. In
the event that additional nominations are made by members of the Faculty
Consultative Committee, the Faculty Consultative Committee shall vote by secret
ballot to determine the slate to be forwarded to the Twin Cities Faculty
Delegation, continuing to strive for appropriate
balance on the slate. .
1. The faculty
final slate of candidates for the Committee on Committees shall
be announced in the Twin Cities Faculty Delegation on the Faculty
Senate docket at for a spring semester meeting. Additional
nominations, certify as available, of individuals confirmed as
willing to serve, may be made by: (1) petition of 12 voting members of the Twin
Cities 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 Senate the
day before the Twin Cities Faculty Delegation Faculty Senate meeting;
or (2) nomination on the floor of the Twin Cities Faculty Delegation
Faculty Senate by members of the Twin Cities Faculty Delegation when the slate
is presented. To ensure appropriately balanced representation on the Committee on Committees, any additional nomination shall specify against which candidate the nominee will run. In the event there are additional
nominations, the Twin Cities Faculty Delegation shall vote by secret ballot on
any contested position(s) and the individuals who receive the most votes will
be elected to the positions. For any uncontested positions, the election may be
conducted by a voice vote. 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
in any Senate vote in the election process, the clerk shall choose the
successful candidate(s) by lot.
c. In those
instances when a member of the Committee on Committees is eligible for
re-election, the Nominating Committee may present the name of that individual
to the Twin Cities Faculty Delegation 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.
d. c. To oversee the
conduct of the elections of the members of the Committee on Committees and the
Twin Cities members of the Faculty Consultative Committee.
e. d. To report to the
Faculty Consultative Committee any issues or problems it encounters which
require the attention of the Twin Cities Faculty Delegation.
CATHERINE FRENCH, CHAIR
NOMINATING COMMITTEE
DISCUSSION:
Professor Carol Chomsky presented the proposed bylaw amendments to clean up language and incorporate two changes in the process. The first is that the Committee on Committees (ConC) will provide names for the Nominating Committee to the Faculty Consultative Committee (FCC). Currently, ConC is not involved in this process.
Second, the Nominating Committee will only need to send forward one name for each open seat on the ConC. Currently, the Nominating Committee needs to forward two names for each open seat.
Both of these changes still allow for nominations from the floor of the Faculty Senate.
With no discussion, a vote was taken and the motion was approved with 100 in favor and none opposed.
APPROVED
_______________________________________________________________
END OF MOTION A
19. FACULTY AFFAIRS COMMITTEE
FINANCE AND PLANNING COMMITTEE
Health Care Savings Plan
Discussion by Faculty Members Only
MOTION:
That the Faculty
Senate advises the President that it revises its motion of May 1, 2008, which
read as follows:
"The Faculty Senate recommends to the President that the
University adopt a Health Care Savings Plan for the faculty that uses the 0.5%
of the 2.5% faculty contribution to the Faculty Retirement Plan. If there are
questions about the details of the plan, the administration will consult with
the appropriate Faculty Senate committees and the Faculty Senate."
To now read:
The Faculty Senate recommends
to the President that the University redirect 2.0 percentage points of the 13%
points the University currently contributes to the individual's Faculty
Retirement Plan to the individual's Health Care Savings Plan.
Approved unanimously January
27, 2009, by the faculty members of the Faculty Affairs Committee and the
faculty members of the Finance and Planning Committee at the Faculty Affairs
Committee meeting
Endorsed unanimously January
29, 2009, by the Faculty Consultative Committee
COMMENT:
At the urging of a number of constituents, the Senate Committee on Faculty Affairs (SCFA), in conjunction with the Senate Committee on Finance and Planning (SCFP), revisited the Health Care Savings Plan (HCSP) option for faculty. In brief, the HCSP is a vehicle to allow employees, group by group, to save money for health-care expenses after they leave the University or retire. It is the only fringe benefit program that allows tax-exempt contributions and tax-exempt withdrawals. Because it is a tax-free vehicle, it allows retirees to save substantial money, but the plan must be the same for each employee in each group (by federal law). Civil Service employees have already adopted an HCSP.
It is estimated by Money magazine that a person retiring in 2016 may need savings of $200,000 to cover Medicare premiums and out-of-pocket costs. HCSP savings may be used for a wide range of expenses from aspirin to long-term health insurance to traditional reimbursable costs. HCSP savings never expire. Both SCFA and SCFP believe that it is in the best interests of the faculty that HCSP accounts be established through the redirection of 2.0 percentage points of the UniversityÕs contribution.
KATHRYN
HANNA, CHAIR
FACULTY
AFFAIRS COMMITTEE
JUDITH
MARTIN, CHAIR
FINANCE
AND PLANNING COMMITTEE
DISCUSSION:
Professor Kathryn Hanna, Chair of the Faculty Affairs Committee (SCFA), said that this motion revisits a subject that was approved by the Faculty Senate in the spring of 2008. SCFA and the Senate Committee on Finance and Planning (SCFP) decided that the previous proposal was not proactive enough in taking advantage of this new legislation.
She said that everyone has significant costs when they retire, and this plan is a tax-advantaged way to save for these future costs. Currently the University directs 13 percent of everyoneÕs salary into a retirement plan. This proposal would redirect 2 percentage points of the 13 percent into a health care savings plan (HCSP) that is managed by the Minnesota State Retirement System (MSRS). MSRS has seven different options for investment of these funds, including two conservative options. Upon death, the remaining funds can be used tax-free for health-care expenses for a spouse, child, or beneficiary.
A senator said that this is an improvement over the previous version since it is not funds taken from salary. However, the proposal is discriminatory since it cannot be used by domestic partners. Also, this plan is part of a scheme to address health care costs by having the consumer pay, which is extremely inefficient. These funds will be managed by the same people who have been managing retirement funds. Lastly, she wondered if this is an excuse for the University to reduce this funding further.
Q: Does the HCSP transfer outside the United States?
A: No. If someone has citizenship in a foreign country, he or she would apply for an exemption with MSRS.
A senator does not believe that the University is backing away from its commitment to retirement, but this an opportunity for faculty to make an investment in their best interest.
Q: How does the HCSP relate to the health savings account (HSA) currently available?
A: A HSA is tied to a particular medical plan. The HCSP is not tied to a medical plan but is an additional account. There is no relation or complication between the two accounts.
Q: Can faculty add additional contributions?
A: Federal regulations stipulate that everyone has to contribute at the same rate, so faculty cannot add more to their account separate from the UniversityÕs standard contribution.
Q: Is there the possibility of GLBT faculty to opt-out?
A: No. This is decided by federal tax law.
Q: For people who are eligible to opt-out of the plan, what would happen to the two percent contribution?
A: This has not yet been decided.
20. ACADEMIC FREEDOM AND TENURE COMMITTEE
Border Searches of Electronic Materials
Action by the Faculty Senate
MOTION:
To send the following to the Minnesota Congressional Delegation:
The Members of the Faculty Senate of the University of
Minnesota write to express their grave concern at the change in Department of
Homeland Security policy that enables Customs and Border Patrol Agents to seize
and copy electronic and printed materials at will, without even "suspicion
of illegal activity" ("probable cause"), by which their efforts
were limited until July 2008. We believe that what today affects only border
crossings, tomorrow could spread internally. This freely invasive practice is a
threat to the integrity of the research of all scientists and other scholars
who cross borders and, often, collaborate with scientists and scholars abroad.
We urge you to do all you can to restore to AgentsÕ practice the entirely
reasonable requirement of "suspicion of illegal activity" that
previously obtained.
COMMENT:
The Committee on Academic Freedom and Tenure received the following
information from the national office of the American Association of University
Professors, and in response, recommends the motion for adoption by the Faculty
Senate, to be forwarded to the members of the Minnesota Congressional
delegation.
Subject: AAUP Legislative
Alert: Border Searches of Electronic Materials
October 14, 2008
Over the past few months there
has been a great deal of publicity surrounding the searches of electronic
materials at the border. Until
recently, Customs and Border Patrol agents could seize and copy electronic and
printed materials if they had probable cause to believe that the law was being
broken. In July 2008, the
Department of Homeland Security revealed that its internal policies no longer
require any suspicion of illegal activity to search and seize travelersÕ
materials. While privacy issues
are everyoneÕs concern, and all citizens should actively defend their civil
liberties, faculty members have particular areas of concern about this policy
due to their research and collaboration with colleagues around the world. Below, we offer links to press coverage
and a congressional hearing on the issue.
Please consider calling your
representatives and senators to express your concerns about this issue.
Talking points are directly
below.
Obtain the contact information
for your elected officials, as well as some general pointers on grassroots
advocacy by visiting the AAUP's online advocacy center.
You could also call or e-mail
the offices of Senator Russ Feingold and Senator Patrick Leahy to thank them
for convening a hearing on this vital issue and encourage them to continue
their oversight work.
Talking Points
-- Professors commonly collaborate on research with colleagues
in other countries. In places with restrictive governments, researchers and
scholars may be taking risks to work on certain projects. Knowing that such
collaboration will no longer be kept confidential may have a chilling effect on
collaboration across borders.
-- Similarly, faculty working in areas such as human rights may
have a much more difficult time making contacts or finding sources, if they
cannot guarantee the anonymity of sources of information. This would greatly
impede the amount and quality of information obtained about various political
and socio-economic situations around the world, of which academics are a vital
source.
-- There is little or no information about how information that
is copied and kept by Homeland Security will be kept secure, leading to
concerns about the protection of original research. This extends to projects
that may have patents pending or are in an otherwise precarious stage of
development.
-- It is unlikely that the Customs and Border Protection agents
conducting such searches at the border would have the specialized knowledge to
determine whether or not certain types of data, particularly in areas of
science such as engineering or biochemistry, pose a genuine threat.
-- The invasion of privacy may extend well beyond the
individual whose possessions are being searched. Many faculty members have
outside practices or jobs. An adjunct at a school of law may have confidential
client records. An instructor from a psychology department may have patient
records. Thus, obligations of confidentiality may be breached through no fault
of the professionalÕs own under these searches.
Press coverage of this issue:
"Expanded Powers to
Search Travelers at Border Detailed"
Washington Post, 9/23/08
"Search and Replace"
[editorial], Washington Post,
8/13/08
"US Border Agency Says It
Can Seize Laptops" PC World,
8/3/08
"Travelers' Laptops May
Be Detained At Border: No
Suspicion Required Under DHS Policies" Washington Post, 8/1/08
Congressional Hearing: Senate Judiciary Committee,
"Laptop Searches and Other Violations of Privacy Faced by Americans
Returning from Overseas Travel"
Sincerely,
Cary Nelson, AAUP president
Nicole Byrd, AAUP government
relations associate
TOM
CLAYTON, CHAIR
ACADEMIC
FREEDOM AND TENURE COMMITTEE
DISCUSSION:
With no discussion, a vote was taken and the motion was approved.
APPROVED
21. EDUCATIONAL POLICY COMMITTEE
Revised Educational Policies
Discussion by the Faculty Senate
List of Educational Policies to be
discussed:
CATHRINE
WAMBACH, CHAIR
EDUCATIONAL
POLICY COMMITTEE
DISCUSSION:
Professor Cathrine Wambach, SCEP Chair, said that a year ago a subcommittee was created to begin looking at educational policies with the goals of rewriting them in a form that was suitable to the new policy library, clarify policies in areas where problems had been reported, and make the policies easier to find amid the verbiage.
The revisions were brought to SCEP at regular intervals for input. Comments were also received from FCC, three open forums, a posting on the policy library website, the Registrar's group, and the administrative Policy Advisory Committee.
She then presented the list of policies for review at today's meeting. This is the second set of policies to be brought for comment. The full set of policies will be presented at the April 2 meeting for approval, pending approval from the PresidentÕs Policy Committee.
There was discussion on the following policies:
Class
Scheduling for Undergraduate and Graduate Classes: Twin Cities, Morris,
Rochester
A senator noted that applied and 8xxx-level courses do not seem to fit within this policy.
Professor Wambach said that graduate and professional student courses have been exempted from this requirement.
Declaring
a Major: Twin Cities, Morris, Rochester
A senator said that this policy should stipulate that it applies only to undergraduates.
Grade
Accountability: Twin Cities, Morris, Rochester
Q: Why are students provided with one year to question a grade? Would six months be more realistic?
A: This time period is consistent with the retention of record maintenance.
A senator said that the deadline for grade questions stems from when paper copies of grades were mailed to students. Now that students can look on the web for their grades, this timeframe should be shortened.
Another senator recommended four weeks to initiative a grade question, since this is within the time frame that a faculty member would still have the studentÕs work.
Holds
on Records and Registration: Twin Cities, Morris, Rochester
A senator asked that the list of individuals in section 1c include the chief academic officers for the coordinate campuses.
Another senator said that section 1a applies to undergraduate students. He questioned how holds are handled for graduate and professional students.
Instructional
Time per Course Credit: Twin Cities, Morris, Rochester
A senator asked if a graduate course that meets twice a week for 2-2.5 hours would be in compliance with this policy.
Professor Wambach said that the college can determine if these classes are in compliance with the policy.
Intercollegiate
Athletic Events During Study Day and Finals Week: Twin Cities, Morris,
Rochester
A senator stated that this policy should only apply to the Twin Cities.
Another senator said the policy does not address club sports which then creates problems for professors on how to interpret absences. Also, section 5 should be more forceful in stating that faculty need to comply with the provision of the policy
Mandatory
Attendance at First Class Session and Consequences for Absence: Twin Cities,
Morris, and Rochester
A senator questioned if students just need to inform an instructor or need approval when missing class due to a religious observation.
Maintaining
Course Records: Twin Cities, Morris, Rochester
A senator noted that this policy changes record retention from 360 days to 30 days, which then puts it is conflict with retention advised in the grade accountability policy.
Professor Wambach said that there are two items being retained. One is the record of grades for a class, which would be 360 days. The other is the actual materials that students produce. For design and studio courses, 360 days is too long to store projects, so it is being changed to 30 days instead for retaining student work.
Makeup
Work for Legitimate Absences: Twin Cities, Morris, Rochester
Q: The route for a club event was that a request was made to SCEP. This policy now states that it goes to the Senior Vice President and Provost. Was this change intended?
A: Yes. The committee felt that the Senior Vice President and Provost was in the best position to determine legitimate absences. An advisory group might be needed to determine reasonable absences.
Q: Does this change conflict with other policies?
A: No.
Q: Should ÔreasonableÕ be added to the policy?
A: The committee did not feel that it should make this decision, which is why it is suggesting an advisory group be formed.
A senator questioned whether the Senior Vice President and Provost is the best person for making decisions for the coordinate campuses.
Mid-Term
Alerts on Academic Performance: Twin Cities, Morris, Rochester
Q: Does this policy stipulate using a specific alert system?
A: No. Faculty can use the University system or a departmental version.
A senator suggested that the commas be removed from the first clause.
Scheduling
Examinations, Final Examinations, and Study Days: Twin Cities, Morris,
Rochester
A senator suggested that the new language from the Intercollegiate Athletic Events During Study Day and Finals Week Policy be added to this policy in section D(3).
Syllabus
Requirements and Guidelines: Twin Cities, Morris, Rochester
A senator recommended that all parts of this policy either be ÔmustÕ or Ôexpected,Õ but not to use both within the one policy.
Teaching
and Learning: Instructor and Unit Responsibilities (Twin Cities, Morris, and
Rochester)
A senator suggested that a reference to Ô1xxx-level coursesÕ be added to section B(5).
Teaching
and Learning: Student Responsibilities (Twin Cities, Morris, and Rochester)
A senator questioned if students just need to inform an instructor or need approval when missing class due to a religious observation.
22. FACULTY SENATE OLD BUSINESS
NONE
23. FACULTY SENATE NEW BUSINESS
NONE
24. FACULTY SENATE ADJOURNMENT
The Faculty Senate was adjourned at 4:55 p.m.
Rebecca Hippert
Abstractor