The fourth meeting of the University Senate and the sixth meeting of the Faculty Senate was convened in 25 Mondale Hall, Minneapolis campus, on Thursday, April 30, 2009, at 2:37 p.m., as a joint meeting of the bodies. Coordinate campuses were linked by phone. Checking or signing the roll as present were 17 academic professional members, 18 civil service members, 123 faculty/faculty-like academic professional members, and 27 student members. Vice Chair Carol Chomsky presided.

Paula J. Bowman
Professor
Epidemiology
1955 – 2009

Barbara L. Lee
Professor
Public Health
1931 – 2009

Barbara L. Lukermann
Professor
Center for Urban and Regional Affairs
1930 – 2009

Anna E. Smits
Professor
Curriculum and Instruction
1919 – 2009

Harriet E. Viksna
Professor
Liberal Arts – University of Minnesota Duluth
1920 – 2009

Guadalupe Avendano
College of Continuing Education

Nhi T. Dao
College of Biological Sciences

Jeremy Windahl
University of Minnesota Crookston

These data are also available on the web at: http://www.irr.umn.edu/grades/

Professor Emily Hoover, Chair of the Senate Consultative Committee (SCC), said that the SCC has spent much of this year discussing and approving the pathways for future policy reviews and approvals. The University has two sets of policies – one established by the Regents and a second through central administration. There are hundreds of policies covering a wide variety of topics for running the University.

Previous to these efforts, many of the policies were difficult to find and formatted differently with names that hid many of the provisions within them. A small subcommittee met to review the language and revise formatting for inclusion in the policy library.

At its April meeting, the SCC met with the Chief of Police and received an update on campus security, including the relationships that the University has with the neighboring police forces. It was an educational and enlightening discussion.

Professor Hoover then mentioned that the University community needs to stay flexible, if and when the flu arrives in the Twin Cities.

Today, the SCC is bringing forward the task force report on graduate education for discussion. She encouraged written comments during the next three weeks.

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

http://www1.umn.edu/usenate/usen/090305sen.html
http://www1.umn.edu/usenate/usen/090402sen.html

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

To amend Article II, Section 1 of the University Senate Rules as follows (new language is underlined). A simple majority vote is required for approval.

...

- Senate Consultative--Vice chair of the University Senate (voting); past chair of the Faculty Consultative Committee (voting if not otherwise a voting member); Chair of the Finance and Planning Committee; Chair of the Educational Policy Committee; elected representative from the Duluth faculty eligible to vote in Senate elections

...

When the Senate Constitution, Bylaws, and Rules were amended in 2004, the intention was for the Educational Policy Committee chair to be included as a Senate Consultative Committee (SCC) member since it allows the chair to report to SCC on issues that affect students (and, on occasion, staff who teach). This amendment makes clear this intention.

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

To amend Article I, Section 2 of the University Senate Bylaws as follows (new language is underlined). As an amendment to the University Senate Bylaws, the motion requires either a majority of all voting members of the University Senate (129) at one regular or special meeting, or a majority of all voting members of the University Senate present and voting at each of two meetings. This is the first meeting at which this motion is being presented.

...

...

[Subsequent sections will be renumbered]

When the University Senate Constitution and Bylaws were rewritten, a statement on term limits was included for Faculty Senate and Student Senate members, but not for University Senate members (civil service and academic professionals). This language adds term limits for University Senate members and reflects the same term limit as Faculty Senate members.

With no discussion, a vote was taken and the motion was approved with 143 in favor, one opposed, and one abstention.

Draft Report — Committee on Graduate Education

“Recommendations on the Oversight and Support of Graduate Education at the University of Minnesota”

April 24, 2009

Steven L. Crouch, Dean, Institute of Technology, Committee Chair

David A. Bernlohr, Distinguished McKnight University Professor and Head, Department of

Biochemistry, Molecular Biology, and Biophysics, College of Biological Sciences

Boyd D. Cothran, Vice President, Council of Graduate Students, Ph.D. candidate, Department of

History, College of Liberal Arts

William K. Durfee, Vice Chair, Faculty Consultative Committee; Professor, Department of

Mechanical Engineering, Institute of Technology

Timothy J. Ebner, Professor and Head, Department of Neuroscience, Medical School

Lincoln A. Kallsen, Budget Officer, Office of Budget and Finance

Timothy J. Kehoe, Distinguished McKnight University Professor and Director of Graduate Studies, Department of Economics, College of Liberal Arts

Kristi L. Kremers, President, Graduate and Professional Student Assembly, Ph.D. student,

Department of Educational Policy and Administration, College of Education and Human

Development

Nita Krevans, Associate Professor and Director of Graduate Studies, Department of Classical

and Near Eastern Studies, College of Liberal Arts

Mindy S. Kurzer, Professor, Department of Food Science and Nutrition, College of Food, Agricultural and Natural Resource Sciences, Director of Graduate Studies, Nutrition Graduate Program

Vince R. Magnuson, Vice Chancellor for Academic Administration, University of Minnesota

Duluth

Jennifer J. McComas, Associate Professor and Director of Graduate Studies, Department of

Educational Psychology, College of Education and Human Development

Robert B. McMaster, Vice Provost and Dean of Undergraduate Education

James A. Parente, Dean, College of Liberal Arts

Henning Schroeder, Professor and Associate Dean for Research and Graduate Studies, College

of Pharmacy

Kathryn A. Sikkink, Regents Professor, Department of Political Science, College of Liberal Arts

Cathrine A. Wambach, Chair, Senate Committee on Educational Policy, Associate Professor,

Department of Postsecondary Teaching and Learning, College of Education and Human

Development

Elizabeth V. Wattenberg, Associate Professor and Director of Graduate Studies, Division of

Environmental Health Sciences, School of Public Health

I. Executive Summary

The Committee on Graduate Education was given its initial charge by Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs and Provost E. Thomas Sullivan on February 20, 2009. Originally, the charge was to make recommendations for implementing the plan for restructuring the oversight and support of graduate education at the University of Minnesota that had been announced to the University community on February 9. At the outset the committee was referred to as the Implementation Team, but this name was eventually changed to Committee on Graduate Education — hereafter simply “the committee” — to reflect an evolving revision of the original charge, including the option of recommending a streamlined version of the current Graduate School instead of a new Office of Graduate Education, as called for in the February 9 restructuring plan.

The committee held eight two-hour meetings between February 27 and April 17. These meetings were devoted to interviewing key Graduate School staff, discussing issues that had been identified by one or more committee members, reviewing the current budget for the Graduate School, and considering options for restructuring. The last two meetings were dedicated to a discussion of the committee’s recommendations and review of the draft report.

Members of the committee consulted broadly with the University community through meetings with individuals, directors of graduate studies (DGSs) and their assistants, department heads and chairs, Graduate School Staff, and students. In addition, three open meetings were held: one on the West Bank, one on the East Bank, and one on the St. Paul Campus. The latter two open meetings were Webcast.

The committee approached its assignment by asking (or otherwise seeking answers to) the following questions:

These questions were used to frame the conversations at the open meetings as well as to guide the committee discussion throughout its deliberations.

Based on the totality of responses and suggestions received by the committee, 15 specific recommendations were developed for consideration by the University administration. It is the committee’s understanding that the University community will have ample opportunity to comment on these recommendations before any decisions are made about the restructuring of graduate education at the University of Minnesota.

Based on conversations within the University community, as well as examination of administrative structures for graduate education at peer institutions, the committee concluded that a strong, central administrative entity is essential for oversight and support of quality graduate programs. At most universities this central entity is a Graduate School or a combined Graduate School and Office of Research.

The committee considered three possible organizational structures for administering graduate education at the University of Minnesota. The first of these is an Office of Graduate Education, led by a Vice Provost and Dean, and administratively housed within the Office of the Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs and Provost, as proposed in the February 9 restructuring plan. The second possibility is a recombination of the Graduate School with the Office of the Vice President for Research, led by a Vice President for Research and Dean of the Graduate School. Finally, the third possibility is a streamlined version of the existing Graduate School, henceforth called the “Graduate College” to differentiate it from the current Graduate School.

In discussing these possibilities, the committee decided not to recommend a
combined Graduate School and Office of the Vice President for Research. The committee reasoned that the current Office of the Vice President for Research has done an excellent job of focusing attention on critical research-related matters such as technology transfer, regulatory issues, and expanded research opportunities, and the additional work associated with management of graduate education would inevitably detract from these efforts. In addition, it would probably be necessary to appoint a senior associate dean to oversee graduate education activities (as is done, for example, at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and Pennsylvania State University), so the leader of the office (the Vice President and Dean) would be more involved with research matters than with graduate student education. The committee does recommend, however, that certain current activities of the Graduate School most related to the research function of the University, including the Grant-in-Aid of Research, Artistry and Scholarship program and McKnight Awards be moved to the Office of the Vice President for Research.

The committee is divided on the question of whether the central entity responsible for oversight of graduate education at the University of Minnesota should be an Office of Graduate Education or a Graduate College (as defined above). In both cases the operations would be led by a Vice Provost and Dean who reports to the Provost and is responsible for oversight and leadership of issues related to graduate education. In the case of an Office of Graduate Education, however, the operation would be an administrative unit, parallel in structure to the existing Office of Undergraduate Education, and not an academic unit comparable to other colleges and professional schools. Resolving this issue will require University-wide consultation.

While the distinction might seem minor, some committee members (and many people in the University community) feel strongly that the presence of a Graduate College (School) gives graduate education at the University of Minnesota a more recognizable identity among peer institutions. Other members of the committee believe that the name and reporting structure are less important than the operational efficiency and effectiveness of the unit responsible for oversight of graduate education functions.

Regardless of the administrative structure adopted for graduate education at the University of Minnesota, the committee recommends that a strong component of faculty and student governance be maintained. Faculty and student governance is particularly important in relation to matters of program oversight and review, policy, and allocation of student and faculty fellowships. Either structure, however, will need to be efficient and accountable in delivering excellent graduate education. While the Graduate College/Office will need to be more flexible and streamlined than the current Graduate School, the committee recommends that experienced Graduate School staff should be employed in the new unit.

General Recommendations

Central Oversight. The Graduate College/Office should administer the following services and programs:

Central Oversight. The following services should be administered by other central University offices:

Central Oversight. The following programs should be added to the Graduate College/Office’s portfolio:

Either Central or Local Oversight. Terminal (professional) master’s and applied doctorates:

Local Oversight. The following services should be provided by colleges or programs:

Professor Emily Hoover, Chair of the Senate Consultative Committee (SCC), thanked the committee members for the hard work given to this issue and the high level of thoughtfulness and detail in this report. She looks forward to today’s discussion.

Vice Chair Carol Chomsky then read a statement from President Bruininks.

First, the President wanted to express his appreciation for the discussion and debate about the graduate school resolutions at the last Faculty Senate meeting. Clearly, the University’s faculty senators are a thoughtful and engaged community, and he thought that the many senators who spoke at that meeting made a number of excellent points.

He regrets that he is unable to attend the Senate meeting this Thursday (due to an important out-of-town commitment) and will miss what he is certain will be a robust discussion about the draft report from the Committee on Graduate Education. The University community should all join in thanking the members of the Committee for the extraordinary time and attention they devoted to this important analysis. He has reviewed the report and is pleased with the breadth of the recommendations the committee has developed for broader discussion.

The University is very interested in hearing the reaction of its faculty, staff, and students to the Committee recommendations over this public comment period. The University will also be engaging in additional consultation with key governance groups, such as the Faculty Consultative Committee, Twin Cities Deans, and graduate students, to discuss the Committee recommendations prior to making any final decisions.

President Bruininks understands that restructuring the oversight and support of graduate education is a somewhat challenging task for a University that has functioned under the same Graduate School model for many years. He wants to assure senators and the University community of his personal commitment to retaining key elements of the Graduate School structure that have been effective to date.

Graduate education is a hallmark of the University, and the University need to find ways to further enhance its graduate student services and support while at the same time reducing administrative overhead costs to meet the significant challenges it is facing with the current and future budget environment. As good stewards of public resources, he believes that the University is responsible – and accountable – for reevaluating systems and processes to ensure the highest degree of efficiency, effectiveness, and quality possible.

He is confident that in working together with the faculty, staff, and student communities, the University can and will meet these shared goals for graduate education.

A senator said that he appreciates the detailed work that was done for this report. As a former member of a strategic positioning task force on graduate education, there were a number of issues that were not addressed at that time but have been addressed now. He looks forward to future conversations on issues raised in this report.

A senator then stated the committee was divided on the option of a Graduate College or an Office for Graduate Education. Lines 94-96 of the report refer to operational efficiency and effectiveness. How does an Office for Graduate Education improve efficiency and effectiveness, since it is not addressed in the report?

Another senator felt that this is a fairly good report and has answered some of the previous concerns. However, facing these two options, she believes that a Graduate College should be retained to ensure faculty governance over the research and educational missions of the school. She is concerned that the diversity office is being incorporated in a central administrative unit, since a central mission of the Graduate School has been diversity. Without that unit within the Graduate College, the central office will have no power to ensure that diversity remains. She also does not agree that the DOVE Fellowships should be separated from the fellowships.

A senator said that the President’s remarks mentioned the budget situation. It raises the question of how much money is actually being saved and if it is worth the effort. There has not been much discussion on this topic and is not addressed by the report.

A senator asked how the changes will affect the Duluth campus and the faculty on campus who are associated with the Twin Cities for their Master’s and Ph.D. students.

A senator said that lines 217-220 deal with the budgetary savings which can be achieved by cutting the Graduate School staff by 20 percent.

Another senator noted that these staff reductions could be achieved within the current structure.

A senator then stated that the report is good, but he finds it suspicious that he has been told that there have been multiple reports of this nature over the years, but that this year the decision is quickly made to reform the Graduate School and everyone is in emergency mode for two months. He also noted that the Graduate School constitution states that amendments to the constitution need a vote by the Councils. He suggested that these Council receive the report and are allowed to vote before any further decisions are made.

A senator asked if there are minutes available to the task force meetings as well as a list of the DGSs who were contacted. Many faculty involved in graduate programs were surprised that they were not contacted.

Another senator questioned how any of the task force members completed any other work with the amount of consultation that took place. He is impressed with how transparently and consultatively the committee worked with the University. This is a sharp contrast to what was done prior to February 9.

A senator said that she had a few questions after reading the report. One was the moving of degree-awarding to colleges. If these are University of Minnesota degrees, then who checks off on this process. The second is moving the management of the graduate roster to the programs. The report moves only tenure and tenure-track faculty, but some programs have academic professionals and outside faculty. This needs to be taken into account and a process put in place. Last, processing for graduate students needs to be seamless.

A senator commented that even if there are decreases in staff in the central unit, increasing responsibilities in the colleges may just shift costs instead of reducing them.

A senator said that it is interesting that the report came as a reaction to the February 9 memo and it gives new meaning to the phrase ‘Driven to Discover.’

Another senator said that he was pleasantly surprised that this report makes it conceivable that the Graduate School will survive. He is confused by items 3, 4, and 5 from the list of 15 since he cannot determine what problems they are trying to solve. For item 15, he is surprised that colleges may seek to draw back their professional master’s program into the college and of the conditions to be reviewed, quality and academics are not considered, just the cost pool.

A senator clarified a technical point in that all degrees are awarded by the Regents and not the colleges.

Professor Emily Hoover said that the 30-day comment period is open and then consultation will begin with respective Senate committees, including the Faculty Consultative Committee, the Educational Policy, and the Research Committee. Faculty governance will have input into the next steps in the process.

A senator said that a comment from students is moving the diversity office. Through the Community of Scholars program, all the professional development workshops that are available for graduate and post-doctoral students started in that program and have since moved out. Also, there are close linkages between programs now that promote synergy and it is hard to see how this will continue. Lastly, most of the discussion has been focusing on the structural problems, which do exist, but models need to be found at institutions who are doing the work well with a centralized college. Future work needs to focus on the excellence of the college as well as the efficiencies.

Another senator said that most of the comments today focused on retaining the Graduate School. He asked that anyone wanting to eliminate the Graduate School present that opinion.

A senator noted that any final product needs to be a college that represents the unified theme of graduate education.

Resolution on Central Administration’s Proposal to Abolish the Graduate School

WHEREAS: The University of Minnesota’s Policy on Reorganization requires that the Senate “be involved in any organizational or structural decision affecting an academic unit” (Preamble); further, that “the campus assembly (or analogous body) of an affected campus or collegiate unit shall review and make recommendations on ... [the] elimination of existing collegiate units” (I); further, that “When the president contemplates (a) the establishment or elimination of senior administrative position(s) of high rank, or (b) a major reorganization of the central administration, he or she shall present a proposal to the Senate Consultative Committee ... for information and discussion,” and likewise when the provost contemplates such reorganization for a campus (III.2);

WHEREAS: The Provost’s plan to abolish the Graduate School, as publicly announced by the Provost in his e-mail of Feb. 9, 2009 to the University faculty, was adopted without any prior consultation or involvement of the University Senate, or any part or committee thereof, in violation of University policy;

WHEREAS: The “Implementation Committee” (eventually renamed the “Committee on Graduate Education”) appointed by and reporting to the Provost is not a “campus assembly (or analogous body)” and was constituted and charged only after the decision to abolish the Graduate School had already been made and publicly announced;

WHEREAS: The formal charge to the “Implementation Committee” (now “Committee on Graduate Education”) did not encompass review of the merits of the underlying decision to abolish the Graduate School, having instead been limited to consideration of how the Provost’s decision to abolish the Graduate School was to be implemented;

BE IT RESOLVED: That the University Senate of the University of Minnesota rejects the Provost’s decision to dissolve the Graduate School as illegitimate and demands that any proposal to dissolve or otherwise to restructure the Graduate School hereafter comply with the University of Minnesota Policy on Reorganization.

Professor Harvey Sarles, from Cultural Studies and Comparative Literature, said that at the last meeting, two resolutions were presented for discussion. However, due to the work of the committee, the second resolution is moot and has been withdrawn. The first motion is back today for action as it focuses on the procedure for developing and implementing a drastic reorganization. It is impossible to achieve an outcome whose substance is sound through a fundamentally flawed process. The resolution rejects the decision to reorganization as illegitimate since it was done in a manner that violates University policy and the principles of collective governance.

A senator agreed that the February 9 memo was inadequate in its consultation, but he takes issue with the claim of a lack of consultation since. The committee has gone to great lengths to listen to input from all avenues and has satisfied the requirements of the policy. He disagreed with the illegitimate nature of the resolution since the President has the authority to make this decision.

A senator then said that while she admires and appreciates the work of the committee, there is no guarantee that the recommendations will be accepted or followed since this decision will be made by the Provost. This is also the person who bypassed faculty and student governance in deciding on a plan to abolish the Graduate School. The purpose of the plan was not to enhance excellence nor cut funding. She believes that the real purpose of the reorganization was included in the February 9 memo which explicitly states that accountability for graduate education resides with the colleges, but control of funding resides in the Provost’s office. This plan is meant to disempower the faculty and concentrate power in the hands of central administration. If the faculty want to retain control over their work and the substance and quality of graduate education, then any procedure that flaunts the faculty role in governance must be rejected.

Another senator commented that the committee was created after the decision was already made and it was given a limited task, how to implement the decision that was already made without consultation. This decision broke various University policies and the Graduate School’s constitution. While the consultation is great now, it is derived from a process that has limited discussion about the process itself. If this resolution is not approved, it will set a precedent that allows future decisions to be in violation of University policy. The University Senate needs to stand by its commitment to shared governance and fulfill its purpose as a check and balance to the administration.

A senator stated that he would have supported this resolution if it had been introduced in February, however, the timing now makes it moot. Checks and balances are important, but the administration is not the enemy. Each group has the best interests of the University at heart, but brings different perspectives to the table. No one will disagree that the process started poorly, but the faculty governance system stepped in and corrections were made. The process now is good. The amount of consultation exceeds anything in the ambiguous language in the Policy on Reorganization. He sees this situation as a success of governance and process is on track.

Another senator said that Article VII, Section B of the Bylaws of the Board of Regents states that, “All matters relating to the education and administrative affairs of the University, consistent with actions or policies of the Regents of the University of Minnesota heretofore or hereafter taken or established and including those incident to the management of the student body are, for the purpose of effectuating the government of the University under and by the Regents, committed to the President, the University Senate, and the several faculties, as provided in the Senate Constitution and as amended from time to time.” It is true that the President will make this decision and that the University Senate needs to be involved. The opinion of this body does count. During the strategic positioning process, task forces were assembled without student participation. When the issue was addressed by the administration, the response was that next time they would do better. This is the next time and the process was not better. Rules, and the protection they afford, are necessary in bad times, such as now.

A senator then said that the Policy on Reorganization was directed toward collegiate mergers without consultation. Then strategic positioning took place and this policy was not mentioned, but the process was unanimously approved by this body. A new way of doing things emerged from strategic positioning, which is to create a task force of members from across the University to create recommendations, allow comments, and then make a decision. This situation has provided a model of how to consult in difficult times.

A senator then said that he has two problems with the resolution. First is with the word ‘illegitimate’ in the final paragraph. Due to the size of the institution, the right to make certain decisions need to be granted to the administration. These decisions are not illegitimate if input is sought from faculty. Second, he objects to, ‘the University Senate...rejects the Provost’s decision to dissolve the Graduate School.’ A memo was sent, but a decision has not yet been made.

Another senator stated that the committee members have not agreed on the decision for the Graduate School and that this question is open for comment. The University will be gathering advice on this question for the next month and he urged individuals or groups to weigh in.

A senator disagreed with a previous comment on the illegitimacy of the decision. Just because the University is large, more power is not acquiesced to administrators. The best decisions are made with consultation between the faculty and administrators, instead of just by one group or the other. The illegitimate part is that once again the administration needs to be re-educated on the right way to do things.

Another senator understands the perspective that this resolution is too late, however, the process is not complete. His worry is that if the resolution is not approved, then the University Senate goes on record that it does not disapprove. He worries how the process will end if this is the decision made today. He urged senators to vote in favor of the resolution, no matter how imperfect some phrases might be.

A senator said that there is no question about who will make the final decision. Since the University is so big, the only way that the final decision can be informed by consultation is for the consultation to work. This resolution asks senators to approve of how the consultation went along the way.

A senator stated that the University Senate would have more power if it did not approve this resolution but held the administration accountable to listening to the report and feedback.

Another senator said that it is important to not vote on sentiment, but vote on the wording of the resolution. The first paragraph refers to steps of consultation. As of today, these steps have been taken even if the process has not been perfect. However the resolution does not refer to the process.

A senator reminded senators that the ‘whereas’ clauses have no meaning. What is being voted on is the language in the ‘be it resolved’ clause.

A senator then stated that the February 9 memo stated that the Graduate School would be abolished. There is no doubt that a decision was made. The committee was then appointed by the Provost, not the University Senate.

A senator said that he takes offense at the phrase, “...the University Senate...rejects the Provost’s decision...” and for this reason he will not vote in favor.

Vice Chair Chomsky reminded senators that the President has repeatedly stated that a decision has not yet been made.

Q: Is the Provost’s decision to be rejected the one referred to in the February 9 memo?

A: Yes.

A senator asked that instead of voting against the resolution based on the language, the wording in the ‘be it resolved’ clause be amended.

A motion was made and seconded to extend debate by 10 minutes. This motion was approved.

A senator proposed the following amendment to the ‘be it resolved’ clause, “...That the University Senate of the University of Minnesota disapproves of the Provost’s plan to dissolve the Graduate School as stated in the February 9 memo...”

This was accepted as a friendly amendment.

Professor Clark said that while committee did an excellent job, it was not appointed by the University Senate. The resolution emphasizes that greater University Senate involvement, from the beginning, is what is required, rather than ex-post-facto consultation.

A senator proposed that the use of the word ‘decision’ throughout the resolution be changed to ‘plan.’

This was accepted as a friendly amendment.

A senator proposed that there be a second ‘be it resolved’ clause which would read, “BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: that any proposal to dissolve or otherwise to restructure the Graduate School comply with the University of Minnesota Policy on Reorganization.”

This was accepted as a friendly amendment.

Q: Do the ‘whereas’ clauses remain in the final, published version of the resolution?

A: Yes. They are provided to frame the resolution.

A senator commented that he preferred that the words ‘demand’ and ‘reject’ not be removed from the final version.

Vice Chair Chomsky said that the University Senate does not have the authority to reject the plan, so the new wording fits better with the University Senate’s role in the process.

A senator said that the committee was told that a decision has been made and was not to revisit whether or not the decision was correct. Despite what the President has said, the decision was made.

With no further discussion, a vote was taken and the motion as amended was approved with 135 in favor, 17 opposed, and nine abstentions.

The University Senate was recessed at 4:03 p.m.

Professor Emily Hoover, Chair of the Faculty Consultative Committee (FCC), said that today’s comments will focus on legislative actions and the Policy on Reorganization. She expressed gratitude to Professors Martin Sampson and Caroline Hayes for serving as the Faculty Legislative Liaisons. They provide the faculty updates on legislative issues and advise the FCC on when it should become involved in issues.

One such issue arose last week with the discussion and vote in the House on changing the Regent Candidate Advisory Council (RCAC) process. Under the state constitution, the legislature appoints the Regents. The RCAC screens the candidates and conducts public interviews. This process was instituted to remove the selection of Regents partially from politics, to improve the quality of candidates, and to provide a public element to the selection process.

The Faculty Legislative Liaisons sit in on the legislative interviews, raise questions about candidates, and express views to the legislature. At the suggestion of the Faculty Legislative Liaisons, FCC approved a statement supporting the retention of the current process, which was distributed in today’s materials.

Policy paths have been addressed this year. The Policy on Reorganization will be reviewed next fall by the Educational Policy Committee (SCEP) due to its divergent interpretations in light of proposed changes to the Graduate School. The issue to be addressed is how to articulate the expectations about consultation on proposals for changes in units within the University.

Other topics for FCC have been a discussion with Vice President Brown on senior administrator reviews, the faculty role in the reorganization of the Academic Health Center, and the threat to the constitutional autonomy of the University vis-à-vis language in the federal stimulus bill.

FCC continues to consult with the President and Provost to convey the sentiment of the University community on graduate education and other topics. She encouraged senators to keep abreast of these discussion in the FCC minutes.

As this is Professor Hoover’s final report, she stated that she enjoyed this experience and encouraged senators to stay involved in faculty governance because it does make a difference.

Professor Caroline Hayes, a Faculty Legislative Liaison, said that the House and Senate have passed biennial budget bills and conference committees are now meeting to work out the differences. There have been several changes since the email update. One is that the biomedical buildings are back after funding was considered for removal. Second is that there is language in the House bill that net tuition increases must be less than $300 per year for the biennium for Minnesota resident students. This bill also includes language that new Minnesota resident students, beginning fall 2010, must be offered the opportunity to participate in a stable tuition plan of up to four years. This provision is not in the Senate bill.

The joint committee on the bonding bill has yet to meet. The House and the Senate have both proposed HEAPR funding, the House bill proposes a solar testing lab, and the Senate bill contains funding for a new Bell Museum.

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

ARTHUR ERDMAN: Professor of Mechanical Engineering, Institute of Technology. University Senate member: 1986-89, 1997-2000, 2004-10. Senate Committee participation (past and present): Advisory Committee on Athletics, 2000-05 (Chair, 2003-05), Capital Projects and Campus Master Planning Subcommittee, 2002-06 (Chair, 2004-06); Committee on Committees, 1988-89; Council on Liberal Education, 2001-04; Facilities Management, 1986-90 (Chair: 1988-90); Finance, 1988-89; Finance and Planning, 1989-90 (Ex Officio, 2002-06); Judicial, 1988-2001; Nominating, 2006-09; Support Services, 1990-93.

ANN MASTEN: Professor of Child Development, College of Education and Human Development. University Senate member: 1991-94. Senate Committee participation (past and present): Nominating, 2007-09.

The Nominating Committee Bylaws specify that 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.

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

That the Twin Cities Faculty Delegation approve the following slate of nominees to fill one 2009-12 Twin Cities faculty vacancy on the Nominating Committee. A simple majority is required for approval. Once the slate is approved, a ballot will be distributed for voting.

RICHARD LEPPERT: Regents Professor of Cultural Studies and Comparative Literature, College of Liberal Arts. University Senate member: 1985-88, 1992-95. Senate Committee participation: None.

JOHN SULLIVAN: Regents Professor of Political Science, College of Liberal Arts. University Senate member: None. Senate Committee participation: Computing and Information Systems, 1987-88; Consultative, 2004-07; Finance, 1983-85; Research, 1982-85, 1990-91 (Chair, 1984-85, 1990-91).

The Nominating Committee Bylaws specify that 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 elected members of the committee whose term continue at least through 2009-10 are:

Jean Bauer, College of Education and Human Development
Susan Berry, Medical School
Daniel Feeney, College of Veterinary Medicine
Catherine French, Institute of Technology
Mindy Kurzer, College of Food, Agricultural, and Natural Resource Sciences
Mary Jo Maynes, College of Liberal Arts

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

That the Twin Cities Campus Faculty Delegation confirm the appointment of the following faculty for the Committee on Committees. A simple majority is required for approval.

CARL ADAMS: Professor of Information/Decision Sciences, Carlson School of Management. University Senate member: 1984-87, 2005-06. Senate Committee participation (past and present): All-University Honors, 2007-10; Committee on Committees, 1991-92, 2000-06; Consultative, 1994-97 (Chair, 1995-96); Faculty Affairs, 1990-94 (Chair, 1992-94); Finance, 1986-87; Planning, 1985-88 (Chair, 1986-87).

ELIZABETH BOYLE: Associate Professor of Sociology, College of Liberal Arts. University Senate member: 2006-09. Senate Committee participation (past and present): None.

JAMES CAREY: Associate Professor of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Medical School. University Senate member: 2005-08, 2008-11. Senate Committee participation (past and present): Disabilities Issues, 1996-2001 (Chair, 1998-2001).

WILLIAM GARRARD: Professor of Aerospace Engineering and Mechanics, Institute of Technology. University Senate member: 1996-99. Senate Committee participation (past and present): Committee on Committees, 2008-09; Council on Liberal Education, 1995-98; Tenure, 2002-03 (Chair, 2002-03)

LOIS HELLER: Professor of Molecular Physiology, Medical School-Duluth. University Senate member: None. Senate Committee participation (past and present): AHC Faculty Consultative, 2002-08 (Chair, 2007-08; Vice Chair, 2005-07); All-University Honors, 2005-08; Consultative (Ex Officio, 2007-08).

JOAN HOWLAND: Professor of Law, Law School. University Senate member: None. Senate Committee participation (past and present): Committee on Committees, 2005-09; Computing and Information Systems, 1996-97; Faculty Affairs, 2000-02; Judicial, 1996-2000, 2005-11; Library (Ex Officio, 1995-2009); ROTC Subcommittee, 2006-12; Student Behavior, 1993-96.

LINDA LINDEKE: Associate Professor of Nursing, School of Nursing. University Senate member: 2003-08. Senate Committee participation (past and present): None.

NATHAN SPRINGER: Assistant Professor of Plant Biology, College of Biological Sciences. University Senate member: None. Senate Committee participation (past and present): Committee on Committees, 2008-09.

The Nominating Committee Bylaws specify that it 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. This slate has been approved by the Faculty Consultative Committee.

Additional nominations of individuals confirmed as willing to serve, may be made by: (1) petition of 12 voting members of the Twin Cities faculty, provided that the petition is in the hands of the clerk of the Senate the day before the Faculty Senate meeting; or (2) nomination on the floor of the 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. In case of a tie in any Senate vote in the election process, the clerk shall choose the successful candidate(s) by lot.

The elected Twin Cities faculty members of the committee whose term continue at least through 2009-10 are:

Jay Coggins, College of Food, Agricultural, and Natural Resource Sciences
Jeanne Higbee, College of Education and Human Development
Roberta Humphreys, Institute of Technology
Joanna O’Connell, College of Liberal Arts
Stephen Weeks, College of Design

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

To amend Article IV, Section 1 of the Faculty Senate Rules as follows (language to be deleted is struck-out). A simple majority is required for approval.

...

- Research--Office of the Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs and Provost (two representatives, including the Director of the Agricultural Experiment Station); Office of the Vice President for Budget and Finance; Office of the Senior Vice President for Health Sciences; Vice President for Research (two representatives, including the Associate Vice President for Regulatory Affairs); University Librarian; Director of Institutional Compliance

...

The Research Committee has been informed that there is no longer a position entitled ‘Associate Vice President for Regulatory Affairs.’ Therefore the Research Committee is asking that the rules be amended to remove this entitled position, but yet retain two ex officio positions on the committee to represent the Vice President for Research.

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

To amend Article IV, Section 2 of the Faculty Senate Bylaws as follows (new language is underlined). As an amendment to the Faculty Senate Bylaws, the motion requires either a majority of all voting members of the Faculty Senate (84) at one regular or special meeting, or a majority of all voting members of the Faculty Senate present and voting at each of two meetings. This is the first meeting at which this motion is being presented.

...

...

e. With the exception of the Faculty Committee on Committees, only individuals tenured or tenure-track faculty eligible to serve in the Faculty Senate may serve as the chair of a committee of the Faculty Senate. The chair of the Committee on Finance and Planning, which reports to both the Faculty Senate and the University Senate, must also be chaired by a tenured or tenure-track faculty member.

...

The Committees of the Faculty Senate are: Academic Freedom and Tenure, Academic Health Center Faculty Consultative, Council on Liberal Education, Educational Policy, Faculty Academic Oversight Committee on Intercollegiate Athletics, Faculty Affairs, Faculty Committee on Committees, Faculty Consultative, Finance and Planning, Judicial, Nominating, and Research. These committees deal with academic and faculty welfare issues that are primarily the responsibility of the tenured and tenure-track faculty. In addition, the Chairs of these committees are often in the position of commenting to central administration on sensitive or controversial matters. Because of these responsibilities and pressures, the Faculty Consultative Committee (FCC) recommends that the Chairs of the Faculty Senate committees be tenured or tenure-track faculty.

A senator spoke against the motion since the University Senate itself was changed a few years ago to include academic professionals and civil service staff. There are also contract faculty at the University who are not holding tenured or tenure-track positions. The current language is fine, in that any member of the committee may serve as chair, when in practice it is typically a tenured or tenure-track faculty member. If the chair is meant to deal with controversial matters, then why would faculty without tenure be eligible to serve when academic professionals are not?

Another senator noted that academic professionals are active in the governance system and can handle leadership of Senate committees. Therefore, she is opposed to this amendment.

A senator then stated that leadership and brilliancy on a committee is not related to someone’s tenure status.

Another senator said that the language should be the most inclusive, so this amendment should not be approved.

A senator stated that academic professionals are great contributors on committees, but chairs of four Senate committees serve as ex officio members of the Faculty Consultative Committee. Therefore these committees need faculty chairs.

With no further discussion, a vote was taken and the motion was not approved with only 27 in favor, 58 opposed, and one abstention.

That the Faculty Senate adopt the following revised Faculty Compensation Policy (language to be added is underlined; language to be deleted is struck out):

Faculty are compensated for their contributions to teaching and advising, research and scholarship, and service to the institution and the state/region/nation/other nations, as well as their professions. Total compensation includes annual base salary plus fringe benefits, including retirement, health and dental coverage, and life and disability insurance. In some instances, annual base salary is augmented through internal sources, such as overload teaching, or from external sources in the case of approved external consulting.

Initial annual base salary is negotiated at the time of hire, with floors established for the instructor and assistant professor ranks only. Increases to annual base salary for faculty occur in the following ways: through annually determined merit increases; through acceptance of a retention offer that includes an increase; in conjunction with a promotion in rank and/or the awarding of indefinite tenure; through an augmentation attached to an administrative title or a set of administrative duties; or in conjunction with an honorary or endowed title. For many faculty, annual base salary is supplemented with summer school or other internal summer employment, such as grant research. Annual base salary may also be supplemented internally during one's contract period through means such as extension teaching. Normally, new salaries go into effect for A base faculty on July 1 and for B base faculty on September 16 of each year.

The salary determination process must provide an objective unbiased evaluation of each faculty member following a thorough review of his/her work. The process must encourage continued good or improved performance, which in turn, should be rewarded by the compensation system.

Any salary determination process at the University of Minnesota must be nondiscriminatory. Initial salary offers, periodic increases, and retention offers may not be based on considerations related to the race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, sexual preference, marital status, public assistance status, veteran status, or age of the person being considered.

The criteria for determining salary increases must be similar to those used for promotion and tenure. The tenure and promotion regulations of the University, adopted in 1985, provide the following instructions which form the framework within which salary decisions must be made: (See Board of Regents policy: Faculty Tenure, sections 7.11, 7.12, 9.2, and 5.5, and administrative Procedures for Reviewing Candidates for Tenure and/or Promotion: Tenure-Track and Tenured Faculty)

Faculty input participation into the discussions surrounding criteria and procedures for salary increase determination is essential to maintaining an equitable and collegial environment. (For the purposes of salary discussion and determination, the relevant academic unit is the departmental or budgetary unit, whichever is smaller.) With the administrator of each unit, the faculty must have the opportunity to develop the criteria for, and the format of, the process through which annual salary increases are determined, including for those faculty who hold endowed chairs. The process determined through consultation may include faculty participation in the judgments regarding compensation changes as a committee of the whole or through a salary committee consisting in whole or in part of elected members. The documents that describe these criteria, formats, and processes shall be shared with the college dean, the appropriate vice president Senior Vice President for Health Sciences, as appropriate, and finally the Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs and Provost. This process must include the provision that the department chair (unit head leader) meet with each faculty member individually, at least once per year, to review his or her performance. The sessions shall review the past year's performance and offer suggestions for enhancing productivity, where appropriate. Units may choose to conduct more in depth evaluations on a periodic basis (e.g. 4 or 5 years) that would include outside evaluations.

Each year the annual salary increase pool for meritorious performance received by the unit will be distributed based on the criteria specified in the University's Regulations Concerning Board of Regents Policy: Faculty Tenure and appropriate departmental faculty evaluation documents.

Unsatisfactory performance, which shall be documented and communicated to the individual involved, shall serve as justification for withholding an individual's increase.

Promotion from assistant professor to associate professor and from associate professor to professor will be accompanied by an extraordinary recurring $2250 increase in base salary and promotion from associate professor to professor will be accompanied by an extraordinary recurring $3000 increase in base salary. These amounts figures should be interpreted as minima andare in addition to the annual increase given for meritorious performance. The minima amounts will be adjusted annually to reflect inflation using the Higher Education Price Index. It will be the responsibility of the Provost to identify the amounts each year and to communicate those amounts to the deans (or equivalent unit heads). The Provost's office will, after calculating the increases, round the results to the nearest $50 or $100, and no particular ratio between the two promotion increments need be maintained. The deans will set aside funding for promotional increases separate from funding normally set aside for merit and retention purposes. Deans may institute higher minima but are required to use consistent and equitable procedures when granting these increases.

1. A standing administrative and faculty compensation committee (including representatives of the Senate Faculty Affairs Committee) will examine and make recommendations on policies such as salary levels in the University as a whole, salary disparity among units, minimum salary levels for associate and full professors, and salary compression.

3. The Provost will receive an annual report from each college on reviews of endowed chairs and will provide a summary report to the Senate Committee on Faculty Affairs.
_________________________________________________________________
NOTES
*For the purposes of salary discussion and determination, the relevant academic unit is the departmental or budgetary unit, whichever is smaller.
**The process determined through consultation may include faculty participation in the judgements regarding compensation changes as a committee of the whole or through a salary committee consisting in whole or in part of elected members.
***No mention is made of a possible across the board component of compensation increase because it is assumed that no faculty input is required at the unit level for such increases.
[1] The Senate assumes the Provost's office will, after calculating the increases, round the results to the nearest $50 or $100. The Senate does not presume that any particular ratio between the two promotion increments will be maintained.

Professor Kathryn Hanna, Chair of the Faculty Affairs Committees (SCFA), stated that a few years ago the faculty had a discussion about faculty compensation and the fact that the current policy was silent for faculty who hold endowed chairs and other similar positions. SCFA felt that this should be addressed in the policy. A subcommittee was formed to revise the policy. The primary change was to add language that included endowed and honorary faculty titles and annual reviews of these positions. Language was also added that units should have goals and expectations of endowed chairs and professorships. The last changes were removing obsolete references and promotion dollars increases.

She then noted that there was one clerical chance that was not included. The dates provided at the end of the second paragraph need to be revised since these dates refer to the previous quarter system.

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

The University Senate was adjourned at 4:29 p.m.