2008-09 UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA

APRIL 30, 2009

UNIVERSITY SENATE MINUTES: No. 4
FACULTY SENATE MINUTES: No. 6
STUDENT SENATE MINUTES: No. 5

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.

1. ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSES TO SENATE ACTIONS
Information

Faculty Senate

Revised Set of Educational Policies
Approved by the:
Faculty Senate April 2, 2009
Approved by the:
Approved by the:
Board of Regents – no action required

Amendment to the Board of Regents Academic Freedom and Responsibility Policy
Approved by the:
Faculty Senate April 2, 2009
Approved by the:
Approved by the:
Board of Regents PENDING (review in May and action in June)

2013-14 Twin Cities Calendar
Approved by the:
Faculty Senate April 2, 2009
Approved by the:
Approved by the:
Board of Regents – no action required

2. TRIBUTE TO DECEASED MEMBERS OF THE UNIVERSITY COMMUNITY

FACULTY/ACADEMIC PROFESSIONALS/STAFF

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

STUDENTS

Guadalupe Avendano
College of Continuing Education

Nhi T. Dao
College of Biological Sciences

Jeremy Windahl
University of Minnesota Crookston

3. EDUCATIONAL POLICY COMMITTEE
Collection and Reporting of Grade Data and Syllabus Requirements
Information for the University Senate

FOR INFORMATION:

On February 18, 1999, in adopting a policy on "Collection and Reporting of Grade Data and Syllabus Requirements," the Senate Committee on Educational Policy was required to provide to the Senate "data on the mean grade point average by designator and course level, on the percentage of As awarded by course level, and overall collegiate grade point averages . . . for grades awarded each Fall Semester." The policy also provides that "data should be reported for all undergraduate students."

COMMENT:

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

090430sen00.jpg

CATHRINE WAMBACH, CHAIR
EDUCATIONAL POLICY COMMITTEE

4. SENATE CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE REPORT

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.

5. MINUTES FOR MARCH 5, 2009, AND APRIL 2, 2009
Action by the University Senate
MOTION:

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

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

STUART GOLDSTEIN, CLERK
UNIVERSITY 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

MOTION:

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.

ARTICLE 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

...

- 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

...

COMMENT:

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.

EMILY HOOVER, CHAIR
SENATE CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE

DISCUSSION:

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

APPROVED

7. UNIVERSITY SENATE BYLAW AMENDMENT
University Senate Term Limits
Action by the University Senate

MOTION:

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.

ARTICLE I. UNIVERSITY SENATE MEMBERSHIP AND OFFICERS (Changes to this article are subject to vote only by the University Senate)

...

2. Elections

All members elected to the University Senate shall begin service on July 1 and shall serve for three years. Elected members of the University Senate shall not serve more than two consecutive terms, and shall be eligible for re-election only after a one-year interval of nonmembership in the University Senate.

...

[Subsequent sections will be renumbered]

COMMENT:

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.

EMILY HOOVER, CHAIR
SENATE CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE

DISCUSSION:

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

APPROVED

8. SENATE CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE
Report on the Graduate School
Discussion by the University Senate

Draft Report — Committee on Graduate Education

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

April 24, 2009

Committee Membership

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

Committee Charge

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.

Meetings: Procedures, Consultation

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:

  1. What are the strengths and weaknesses of the current arrangement (i.e., the existing Graduate School operations)?
  2. Which activities/functions of the Graduate School should be administered centrally, and by which office?
  3. Which activities/functions should be taken over by the colleges?
  4. Which activities/functions should be discontinued?
  5. What activities/functions that are not currently being done should we be doing?
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.

II. Recommendations

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:
Specific Recommendations (see Section IV for details)

Central Services

  1. University-wide faculty committees are especially important in the award of graduate fellowships and block grants. A faculty committee should be charged with reviewing the current allocation processes for these awards, with a view to maintaining merit criteria while making the processes more efficient, transparent, and accountable, and recommending how they should be administered. This committee should be convened at the start of Fall Semester 2009 and asked to submit its recommendations in time for the new allocation processes to take effect during the 2009–10 academic year, for awards made for 2010–11.
  2. Work should begin as soon as possible on development of a Web-based graduate admissions system using program-specific “smart forms” that eliminate any duplication or unnecessary information in the admissions process and facilitates other process improvements. The key feature of the system would be a greater focus on the needs of individual graduate programs. Models for such a system are in place at both the Pennsylvania State University and the University of Wisconsin-Madison, and these should be examined carefully before designing a system for the University of Minnesota. Ideally, ApplyYourself would be amended to facilitate such information. However, if ApplyYourself cannot be efficiently and cost-effectively updated, other systems should be considered when the University’s contract with the ApplyYourself vendor expires in 2012.
  3. Work should also begin as soon as possible on evaluation of student services processes and development of a University-wide electronic system for initiating and/or revising, approving, and archiving student program plans, examination clearances, and other student records. (The committee understands that the Graduate School had started work in this area but suspended it because of other staffing priorities.) The Graduate College/Office should only be involved in reviewing forms, electronic or otherwise, where there are clear additions to value; primary academic oversight should be the responsibility of the Directors of Graduate Studies and the faculty.
  4. The diversity functions within the Graduate School Diversity Office (GSDO) should be moved to the central University Office of Equity and Diversity (OED). Within OED, significant resources and efforts must be directed toward increasing diversity in graduate education, including an office and personnel dedicated solely to this goal. This office will need to work closely with the Graduate College/Office, and an evaluation of the quality and effectiveness of the move should be conducted after the first full year of operation.
  5. The committee recommends that the faculty awards programs currently administered by the Graduate School — the Grant-in-Aid of Research, Artistry and Scholarship program, and the Distinguished McKnight University Professorship and the McKnight Land-Grant Professorship programs — be transferred to the Office of the Vice President for Research. Involvement of University-wide faculty selection committees in the selection processes for these awards is crucial, and must be maintained.
  6. Interdisciplinary graduate programs must be protected. The Vice Provost and Dean of the Graduate College/Office should be responsible for facilitating conversations among the deans of units involved in all cross-college programs, resulting in formal memoranda of agreement regarding financial support for each program. Regular revenue streams and special funds are needed to support these programs, especially those whose students and faculty are on different campuses. Allocation of funds should be merit-based and competitive and the criteria for funding should be transparent. The Graduate School’s Office of Interdisciplinary Initiatives should be maintained and supported by the new Graduate College/Office.
  7. A centralized Office of Postdoctoral Affairs (OPDA) must be maintained based on the current and projected needs of the university. Postdocs are likely to play an increasing role in the research environment of the University in the future and a single-site organization is likely to be the best organizational structure. Moreover, the OPDA currently shares several structural functions with the Graduate School such that whatever unit manages graduate education should also include the OPDA.
  8. Based on information for graduate school operations of comparable size at three peer institutions (Illinois, Penn State, and Wisconsin), the committee believes that it should be possible to reduce the staff complement of our current Graduate School by approximately 20 percent. A further reduction should be possible if terminal master’s and applied doctorate degree programs are taken over by colleges. In suggesting this substantial downsizing, however, the committee wishes to emphasize that due regard must be given to maintaining acceptable levels of service to faculty, staff, and students in the graduate programs.
  9. The quality and consistency of graduate and professional student advising, including supervision of research and teaching assistants, must be improved. The committee asks that the Vice Provost and Dean of the Graduate College/Office form a committee to study this issue further, work with Center for Teaching and Learning staff to help build curriculum, implement an advisor training program, create measures to evaluate the success of training, and continue to work with the Academy of Distinguished Teachers on this topic.
  10. The quality of graduate education at the University must be measured and shared with the University community and administration. The new Graduate College/Office should be responsible for compiling these data in conjunction with the Office of Institutional Research (OIR). Suggested metrics are listed in Section IV, and are compiled primarily from the two strategic positioning task force reports on graduate education (2006). Ultimately, it is the faculty members who are responsible and accountable for the quality of graduate education in their programs, and the compilation of these data is essential for demonstrating that quality is, in fact, being maintained.
  11. Faculty governance over matters of graduate education via the Policy and Review (P&R) Councils should be maintained, with administrative assistance from the Graduate College/Office. However, the Council review process is considered cumbersome and is often an impediment to rapid and effective change. The functions and processes linked to the Councils should be streamlined by removing the most minor, routine items from the review process and using subcommittees and e-votes to speed evaluation of more substantial proposals.
  12. The Graduate College/Office should be responsible for conducting an all-University commencement ceremony for the graduate programs it administers, but there should be only one such ceremony each year rather than the two ceremonies currently held by the Graduate School.

Decentralized Services

  1. Colleges should have the option ― but not be required ― to administer terminal (professional) master’s and applied doctorate degree programs in-house. Other master’s degree programs (i.e., M.S. and M.A. degrees) are often preparatory to the Ph.D. and should be administered centrally by the Graduate College/Office.
  2. Graduate degree programs at the University of Minnesota Duluth (UMD) should continue to be administered by a central authority on the Twin Cities campus, whether this is an Office of Graduate Education or a Graduate College. Terminal master’s degree programs at UMD may optionally be administered locally.
  3. Before any graduate program that is currently under the auspices of the Graduate School is moved to a college, an analysis should be performed of the implications this has for the college’s cost pool charges. At a minimum, this analysis should include a review of the original fund transfers that central administration made to the college when the new budget model was adopted in 2005–06. At that time, revenue-neutral adjustments were made to each college’s budget to pay the initial cost pool charges, based on the prevailing head count of students and Graduate Faculty.
EMILY HOOVER, CHAIR
SENATE CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE

DISCUSSION:

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.

9. RESOLUTIONS REGARDING THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
Action by the University Senate

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.

ANNA CLARK, SENATOR

HARVEY SARLES, SENATOR

DISCUSSION:

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.

APPROVED

10. UNIVERSITY SENATE OLD BUSINESS

NONE

11. UNIVERSITY SENATE NEW BUSINESS

NONE

12. UNIVERSITY SENATE ADJOURNMENT

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

13. FACULTY CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE REPORT

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.

14. FACULTY LEGISLATIVE LIAISON UPDATE

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.

15. REPORT OF THE FACULTY COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES
FOR THE NOMINATING COMMITTEE ELECTION
Action by TC Faculty and Academic Professional Members

MOTION:

That the Twin Cities Campus Faculty Delegation confirm the reappointment of 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.

INFORMATION:

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.

ELAINE CHALLACOMBE, CHAIR
FACULTY COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES

DISCUSSION:

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

APPROVED

16. REPORT OF THE FACULTY COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES
FOR THE NOMINATING COMMITTEE ELECTION
Action by TC Faculty and Academic Professional Members

MOTION:

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).

FOR INFORMATION:

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

ELAINE CHALLACOMBE, CHAIR
FACULTY COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES

DISCUSSION:

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

APPROVED

17. REPORT OF THE NOMINATING COMMITTEE
FOR THE FACULTY COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES ELECTION
Action by TC Tenured and Tenure-Track Faculty Members

MOTION:

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.

FOR INFORMATION:

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

CATHY FRENCH, CHAIR
NOMINATING COMMITTEE

DISCUSSION:

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

APPROVED

18. FACULTY SENATE RULES AMENDMENT
Ex Officio Membership
Action by the Faculty Senate

MOTION:

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.

ARTICLE IV. RULES FOR COMMITTEES OF THE FACULTY SENATE (Changes to this article are subject to vote only by the Faculty Senate)

1. Ex Officio Members of Faculty Senate Committees

...

- 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

...

COMMENT:

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.

DAN DAHLBERG, CHAIR
RESEARCH COMMITTEE

DISCUSSION:

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

APPROVED

19. FACULTY SENATE BYLAW AMENDMENT
Eligibility for Faculty Senate Committee Service
Action by the Faculty Senate

MOTION:

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.

ARTICLE IV. COMMITTEES OF THE FACULTY SENATE (Changes to this article are subject to vote only by the Faculty Senate)

...

2. Eligibility for Membership

...

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.

...

COMMENT:

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.

EMILY HOOVER, CHAIR
FACULTY CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE

DISCUSSION:

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.

NOT APPROVED

20. FACULTY AFFAIRS COMMITTEE
Amendments to the Faculty Compensation Policy
Action by the Faculty Senate

MOTION:

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 COMPENSATION POLICY

BACKGROUND ON COMPENSATION AT THE UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA

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.

CRITERIA FOR ANNUAL SALARY INCREASES AND PROMOTION

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)

7.11 GENERAL CRITERIA

The basis for awarding indefinite tenure is the determination that the achievements of an individual have demonstrated the individual's potential to continue to contribute significantly to the mission of the University and to its programs of teaching, research, and service over the course of the faculty member's academic career. The primary criteria for demonstrating this potential are effectiveness in teaching and professional distinction in research; outstanding discipline-related service contributions will also be taken into account where they are an integral part of the mission of the academic unit. The relative importance of the criteria may vary in different academic units, but each of the criteria must be considered in every decision.

7.12 DEPARTMENTAL STATEMENT

Each academic unit must have a document that articulates with reasonable specificity the indices and standards which will be used to evaluate whether candidates meet the criteria of Section 7.11.
FACULTY INVOLVEMENT

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.

ALLOCATION FORMAT

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.

This policy does not apply to any across-the-board component of salary increases.

PROMOTION INCREASES

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.

OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS PROVISIONS

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.

2. Goals and expectations for endowed chairs and professorships must be established in each unit, in consultation with the dean, and must be used as the basis for review of the performance of individuals who hold endowed chairs and professorships.

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.

DRAFT

APPENDIX

POLICY FOR STATEMENT ON EVALUATING LECTURESHIPS, FELLOWSHIPS, PROFESSORSHIPS, AND CHAIRS

Senate Committee on Faculty Affairs
(Adapted from an ad hoc subcommittee report, September, 2006)

There are more than 700 Endowed Chairs at the University of Minnesota. The expenditure of dollars to those holding endowed chairs and professorships exceeded $30 million in fiscal year 2003. The number and dollar expenditures are expected to grow due to shrinkage of historical means/levels of support coupled with expansion of charitable campaigns.

Currently, there is no policy that requires faculty oversight or involvement in the development or implementation of review processes for faculty holding these positions. In fact, there is no requirement of a review. The faculty compensation policy does not recognize the existence of this form of compensation and the tenure code makes no mention of these factors. Therefore, it behooves the Faculty Senate to provide clarification to the tenure code and post-tenure review process as well as to develop a policy to require review of those faculty that receive awards, honors, and recognition and the inclusion of faculty from the appropriate academic unit in the review process.

Section 7a.1 of the TENURE CODE Board of Regents policy: Faculty Tenure requires that

faculty of each academic unit must establish goals and expectations for all faculty members, including goals and expectations regarding teaching, scholarly productivity, and contributions to the service and outreach functions of the unit. The factors to be considered will parallel those used by the unit in the granting of tenure, but will take into account the different stages of professional development of faculty.

According to the RULES AND PROCEDURES FOR ANNUAL AND SPECIAL POST-TENURE REVIEW Approved by the Tenure Subcommittee January 5, 1998
Revised by the Tenure Subcommittee March 5, 1998, the implementation of Section 7a of the tenure code requires the following:

The faculty of each academic unit should adopt two policy statements. One is a statement of goals and expectations for all faculty members in that unit (Section 7a.1). The other is a statement of procedures for annual and special reviews (Sections 7a.2, 7a.3). Many Academic Units already have these (or similar) policies in place for compensation review purposes. If so, the faculty need only make any modifications it feels necessary and identify them as the policies applicable to post-tenure review pursuant to Section 7a.

The two policy statements must be adopted by vote of the faculty of the unit. If existing policies are being designated for this purpose, there should be a vote of the faculty designating them as such. The documents must be submitted for review to the dean, who is responsible for ensuring that every Academic Unit has adopted a policy that meets the standards of the University and of the collegiate unit. The dean may approve the policy statements or return them to the faculty with requests for change.

The Subcommittee of SCFA asserts these policies must be applied to those that receive special awards, honors and recognition. This would include lectureships, fellowships, professorships, or chairs (referred to more generally as endowed chairs to distinguish the appointment from administrators) as defined in the Board of Regents policy: Awards, Honors, and Recognition. The special recognition, honor or compensation bestowed upon the faculty must be considered in establishing the goals and expectations for that faculty in a manner analogous to taking into account the different stages of professional development of faculty.

Pursuant to the Tenure code (Section 7a.1), each unit must have a statement addressing the goals and expectations for all faculty including those that receive special recognition, honor, or compensation. Each unit must also have a statement of procedures for annual and special reviews of all faculty, including those specially recognized faculty. In keeping with the RULES AND PROCEDURES FOR ANNUAL AND SPECIAL POST-TENURE REVIEW Approved by the Tenure Subcommittee, the two policy statements must be adopted by vote of the faculty of the unit. The documents must be submitted for review to the dean, who is responsible for ensuring that every academic unit has adopted a policy that meets the standards of the University and of the collegiate unit. The dean may approve the policy statements or return them to the faculty with requests for change.

For the recognition, honor, or compensation that is awarded by an entity other than the academic unit (for example, the college, university, or outside entity), rules and procedures for timely review must be developed by the awarding entity. These procedures must have a component involving the review conducted by the academic unit of the faculty.

KATHRYN HANNA, CHAIR
FACULTY AFFAIRS COMMITTEE

DISCUSSION:

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.

APPROVED

21. FACULTY SENATE OLD BUSINESS

NONE

22. FACULTY SENATE NEW BUSINESS

NONE

23. FACULTY SENATE ADJOURNMENT

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

Rebecca Hippert
Abstractor


APPENDIX B

MEMORIAL STATEMENTS

 

Alfred Aeppli

Alfred Aeppli, a long-time professor of mathematics at the University of Minnesota, died on Sept. 14. He was 79.

Born and raised in Zurich, Switzerland, Aeppli received his undergraduate degree in mathematics from the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Zurich in 1951. From 1951 to 1952, he was awarded a research fellowship at the University of Paris. He received his doctorate degrees in mathematics from the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Zurich in 1957. Prior to joining the University of Minnesota faculty in 1961 as an assistant professor of mathematics, Aeppli taught mathematics at Cornell University in New York.

A member of the University's mathematics department for 37 years, until his retirement in 1998, Aeppli was an imaginative and creative mathematician whose major research interests were in algebraic topology, differential topology and global differential geometry. His numerous papers on topological problems related to differential equations have been published in a variety of mathematics journals worldwide.

Charles Backstrom

Charles Backstrom received his Ph.D. in political science from the University of Wisconsin in 1956, where he won the Genevieve Gorst Herfurth Award for the best social science dissertation. He taught American politics and research methods at Minnesota until his retirement in 1996. Throughout this time, Charles continuously promoted professionalism, excellence and mature scholarship, all the while imparting a steady flow of wisdom and insight to his younger colleagues. Excellence with a humane face, at all times.

When Charles did his graduate work in political science, the discipline was experiencing the behavioral revolution, a major challenge to traditional modes of research that had dominated the field. He was among the earliest scholars in the broad area of electoral behavior to develop impressive competencies in statistical analysis and computer programming. Along with Gerald Hursh-Cesar he published Survey Research, an impressive and very early tour-de-force introducing systematic data collection and analysis methods to an emergent cohort of behavioralists. Published by Northwestern University Press in 1961, it set high standards of rigor and professionalism for this new field of scholarship and it stood the test of time by being rewritten, more than doubled in size, and published again by John Wiley & Sons in 1981. This entirely revised and expanded second edition continued to be influential and heavily cited through the 1980s and 1990s.

In the meantime, with Ronald Stinnett, Charles wrote the definitive work—Recount—on the contested Minnesota gubernatorial election of 1962. Until 2008, this was the closest statewide election in Minnesota history, and after recounts and court challenges, Democrat Karl Rolvaag defeated incumbent Republican Elmer Andersen by 91 votes. It is possible that as we write this, an even closer statewide election will be decided in essentially the same way. It is ironic that Charles Backstrom passed away in the summer of 2008 because he would have reveled in the Coleman-Franken election and subsequent recount. He would have been the resident expert and could have provided wise counsel to those overseeing and re-creating the process.

Of most interest to readers of this journal, Charles Backstrom was one of the world's experts on redistricting and gerrymandering. His most important work on this subject is undoubtedly "Issues in Gerrymandering: An Explanatory Measure of Partisan Gerrymandering Applied to Minnesota," published in July, 1978 in the Minnesota Law Review. (This article was co-authored by Leonard Robins and Scott Eller, reflecting Backstrom's characteristic generosity toward research assistants.) The specific measure of partisan gerrymandering presented in this article published some thirty years ago has been superseded by subsequent work, as predicted and indeed welcomed by the authors themselves. Its contribution to how we think about partisan gerrymandering has, however, endured. Prior to this article the dominant narrative concerning partisan gerrymandering focused on the geographic shape of districts and the remedy prescribed to preclude it was a requirement that districts be compact. In this article, Backstrom and his colleagues demonstrated that plans with nearly identical degrees of competitiveness could have widely differing partisan effects. They argued that we needed a political measure for a political problem and to this day, that has remained the predominant frame for partisan gerrymandering.

In the last years of his academic life, Backstrom's major scholarly work was with Robins on the politics of AIDS. It did not receive the degree of attention or obtain the influence he and Robins would have liked, but it was important for Backstrom to show that even (or perhaps especially) the study of the most explosively emotional subjects could benefit from an honest and objective perspective.

Charles Backstrom was passionate about practical politics and he brought his careful, scholarly analysis to bear on the political process throughout his life—although his professionalism put strict limits on how he did this. Along with John Turner, in 1961 Charles helped his colleague Art Naftalin get elected Mayor of Minneapolis by creating a quantitative measure of precincts' "Naftalin potential." They served as Naftalin's consultants and helped him obtain the nomination. They then conducted an entirely new statistical analysis to re-rate Minneapolis's precincts, creating a new general election strategy, also successfully. This solidified a reputation as a remarkably successful, data-driven campaign consultant. Charles also developed a very successful set of 100 bellweather precincts for Minnesota elections that was used successfully by the Minneapolis Star Tribune and others to avoid significant errors in "calling" elections based on early returns.

At the start of his career, Charles received an APSA Congressional Fellowship, working for Congressman Carl Elliott of Alabama. A racial progressive in a non-progressive district, Congressman Elliott sacrificed his career to promote racial equality. Years later, when the Kennedy Library Foundation's Profiles in Courage Awards were created, Charles and Elliott's Administrative Assistant, Mary Ellen Jolley, nominated Elliott and he became the very first recipient in 1990.

In addition to his scholarship, Charles Backstrom helped create and run a remarkable student internship program. At a time when many such programs were purely applied, Charles insisted that all students who participated be trained to understand and apply analytic scholarly perspectives about their applied experiences. His unwavering commitment to the disciplined scholarship of political science was never compromised whether dealing with undergraduates or colleagues.

A few additional words are required about Backstrom the man. The extent of his kindness and generosity to colleagues, students, friends and even strangers was remarkable, but others of course also share these qualities. His combination of deep religiosity and complete tolerance and non-judgmentalism was, however, in this age of culture wars, extremely rare. He is greatly missed.

Sharon L. Beckes

Sharon L. Beckes, human resources administrator for University of Minnesota Extension for 16 years, died August 11, 2008 after an extended illness, at age 61.  Sharon was known for her dedication to Extension, creating a positive work environment and encouraging wide participation in communication and decision-making.

Martin W. Duffy

The Carlson School of Management lost a friend and colleague when Martin W. Duffy, former associate professor of Labor Education Services, passed away Dec. 6 in Seagrove Beach, Fla.

Duffy came to the University of Minnesota in 1960 with a bachelor's degree in economics and psychology from Northern Michigan State College (now Northern Michigan University) and several years as a labor union activist in the iron ore mining industry.

As associate professor of Labor Education Services, Duffy taught evening classes to union members and collective bargaining to business school students.  He mentored many young labor educators and was a pioneer in the use of audio-visual materials. He created a video archive of the lives of several labor leaders and working people in their later years to preserve and highlight their contributions. His film of Vice President Hubert Humphrey's emotional "Last Speech to Labor" at the 1977 Minnesota AFL-CIO convention garnered national recognition. He also produced an award-winning documentary, "Labor's Turning Point," about the 1934 Teamster's strike in Minneapolis. In 1984, he created a cable television program, "Minnesota at Work."

Martin supported the Teamsters for decades and worked with them on many programs. He also was active in Minnesota's Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party and advised several prominent candidates in public speaking and labor issues, including former Minneapolis mayor and Congressman Don Fraser and U.S. Senator Paul Wellstone. 

Martin is survived by his partner of 30 years, Nancy James; son Martin J. Duffy and his wife Laurie of Maple Grove, Minn.; daughters Debra Clark of DeForest, Wis.; and Colleen Duffy of Austin, Texas; grandsons, Derek Duffy and Joshua (Brenna) Duffy; granddaughter, Shannon Clark; and dozens of other relatives and close friends.

Helen Horwitz

In October 2008, Helene Horwitz, associate dean for student affairs, passed away following treatment for a brain tumor. She had served the University of Minnesota Medical School for nearly 20 years. Horwitz devoted her career to aiding medical students, first at Southern Illinois University at Carbondale, then at the Minnesota Medical Foundation and, from 1989 on, at our Medical School. It was noted in her obituary that Helene felt lucky to have such a rewarding job; we, too, are fortunate that she served the Medical School and our students with such dedication.

Among her many tasks, she advised the Medical School Student Council and the leaders of the American Medical Student Association. Helene was involved with our chapter of the Alpha Omega Alpha medical honor society as well as the more recently established chapter of the Gold Humanism Honor Society, which promotes the education of compassionate doctors. She also advised students with personal or academic struggles, and helped students who were referred to the Committee on Student Scholastic Standing.

She is survived by her husband, Dr. Charles Horwitz of St. Louis Park; daughter, Karyn Rudnick of St. Paul; sons, Martin Rudnick of Minneapolis, and Michael Rudnick of New York City; former husband, Hans Rudnick of Carbondale, Ill., and four grandchildren.

The Drs. Helene and Charles Horwitz Scholarship Fund at the Minnesota Medical Foundation has been established to provide scholarships to students with demonstrated financial need at the University of Minnesota Medical School who are members of the Gold Humanism Honor Society.

James Joichi

We are saddened to report the death of our retired colleague Jim Joichi this past October. Jim was born in Colorado in 1927, the youngest of seven sons. Their father was a truck farmer, and so the family moved a lot during the Second World War.  At the end of the war, Jim enlisted in the U.S. Army. As a sign of the thinking of that time, the Army recorded his nationality as Japanese --- even though he was clearly American by birth.

A superior student with an obvious talent for mathematics, Jim ended up as a graduate student in mathematics at the University of Illinois in Urbana, and wrote his Ph.D. thesis in functional analysis under Prof. Robert Bartle. Jim joined the faculty at the University of Minnesota in 1959, was promoted to full professor in 1989, and retired in 1992. He was an outstanding collaborator, initially working with the late Glen Baxter. He gradually moved towards combinatorics, writing many papers jointly with our colleagues. In particular, a collaboration with Jay Goldman and Dennis White led to a series of five influential papers on "rook theory".  Jim subsequently collaborated with Dennis Stanton on several elegant papers on partitions. Over the years, Jim played an important role in creating and sustaining a lively and distinguished combinatorics group in our department.

In addition to his research and teaching contributions at Minnesota, Jim served as Director of Undergraduate Studies for four years, where he brought a positive and friendly outlook to what some consider to be a thankless job. For relaxation, Jim enjoyed a variety of hobbies, especially fishing out West.  He was never married.

For all of us who knew him, he will be missed.

Paul J. Maupin, Jr.

Paul J. Maupin Jr. passed away at his home in Placida, Florida on Sunday,

September 7, 2008.  Paul joined the University's Health Sciences Administration that was led by Senior Vice President Lyle French as a Project Coordinator in 1971.  His primary responsibility was to coordinate the planning and construction of capital projects consistent with the Health Sciences Master Plan.  This required a close working relationship with the Council of Deans and other key administrators in the Health Sciences.  His direct report was to Associate Vice President for Physical Planning and Development Clint Hewitt.  Hewitt remembers Paul as a very dedicated, skilled project director, and persuasive spokesman for capital projects in the Health Sciences.  He helped the University navigate determinedly with its development goals through the busy construction activities of the middle 70s and 80s and the limited development resources during the latter part of the decade.   Paul remained enthusiastic and supremely confident about the future of planning and development in the Health Sciences, until his retirement in 1993. 

Keith McFarland

On Dec. 27, 2008, the University of Minnesota lost a distinguished longtime member of the community and an ardent supporter when Keith McFarland died at age 87. McFarland is most remembered for his many years of visionary leadership of the College of Human Ecology (formerly the College of Home Economics). McFarland was an administrator at the University for more than 44 years, ending his career by serving as dean of the former General College.

McFarland began working in the office of the director of resident instruction in the College of Forestry, Agriculture and Home Economics starting in 1946. He later became dean of the former College of Home Economics. He went on to serve as deputy chancellor of the Waseca campus before returning to the Twin Cities campus to lead General College. McFarland was a Regents Award recipient and a strong supporter of University programs and activities throughout his years. He was also influential in the field of home economics and served at one point as vice president for public affairs for the American Home Economics Association.

McFarland earned all of his postsecondary degrees at the University: a bachelor's degree from the College of Food, Agricultural, and Natural Resource Sciences in 1942, an M.A. in educational psychology in 1952, and a Ph.D. in education in 1955. In between his bachelor's and master's degrees, he served four campaigns in the Army during World War II and earned a Bronze Star.

McFarland's colleagues remembered him as talented administrator who cared deeply about the faculty, staff, and students with whom he worked. He was respected for his leadership and his caring.

He is survived by his wife of 62 years, MaryEllen, two children, four grandchildren, and three great-grandchildren.

Roger B. Page

Roger B. Page, retired associate dean in the College of Liberal Arts, died in Minneapolis on December 19, 2008. His death was the result of the consequences of a stroke he suffered in April of 1997.

Roger was born on August 14th, 1917, in Richmond, Virginia. After a youth spent as a serious student and an avid Boy Scout, he enrolled in Richmond College (now Richmond University) in 1934, graduating from it with honors in psychology in 1938. He then entered graduate school at the University of Wisconsin, transferring to the University of Minnesota soon thereafter. He interrupted his graduate work in psychology to enlist as an ensign in the Navy in 1942, where he worked in the psychological testing and screening of candidates for flight training.  After the war Roger returned to the University to complete his PhD in psychology. In 1948 he became and assistant dean and later an associate dean in what was then the College of Science, Literature, and the Arts and remained in it and its reincarnation as the College of Liberal Arts until his retirement in 1988. In those 40 years he served with five deans: T. Raymond McConnell, Errett A. McDiarmid, E. W. Ziebarth, Frank J. Sorauf, and Fred E. Lukermann.

Initially, Roger's career in CLA and it predecessor was heavily oriented to programs and services for undergraduate students in the College. He developed and oversaw the College's advising services for students in their pre-major years. Through the years he also championed new programs the College established for undergraduates—the honors program, the interdisciplinary major, internships for credit, and individually defined majors embracing work in a number of departments. He also served as the longtime advisor to the Student Intermediary Board, the elected council of undergraduates.

After the College added a new assistant dean to oversee the student services, Roger's responsibilities broadened. Between 1973 and 1978 for example, he organized a data division for the College and recruited the first statisticians, organized and oversaw the membership of College committees, served as the College's contact with a number of other colleges offering undergraduate and adult courses and curricula, and served with the other associate deans in the College and a committee to respond to temporary budget problems in the departments and programs of the College. Above all, he remained an advocate in the College administration for the health of undergraduate program and for shaping its curriculum to new circumstances and new student interests. More generally, because of his long service, he was the informal historian of the College especially for the deans and associate deans who came and went during his years with it. And yet his mastery of the past never impeded his ability to consider or even advocate change when new times warranted it. Many of those changes serve as monuments to his foresight and wisdom.

His colleagues—those who came and went—remember Roger as the quintessential colleague: helpful and supportive, thoughtful and wise, serious, but a man also of quiet wit and humor. Man, too remember his love of the English language and his mastery of its rhetoric and styles, and its capacity for clarity. That mastery improved the prose of the College because of his willingness to read drafts of manuscripts and policy papers, and especially of his close attention to the College's catalogue of course descriptions and curricular requirements. Above all, they remember his undeviating devotion to the College and the University and to their students.

Those students who were members of the Student Board or who were on committees with Roger remember him as a quietly wise mentor and friend, a man from whom they learned much about the University and the arts and skills of being students. On questions of policy-making in the College they remember him as his faculty colleagues do, right down to his gentle wit and his unfailing good will. At the memorial celebration of his life in the University, held January 25th, 2009, both students and faculty colleagues and friends remembered Roger in much the same terms, for Roger was essentially the same man to all who knew and worked with him, regardless of age or status, and regardless of what task or interest brought them together. He was a man for all seasons and all scholarly places.

Roger and his first wife, Sara, had four children: daughters Nora and Emily (Oliver Steinberg), and sons Christopher (Meryll) and Gregory, and five grandchildren, all whom survive him. He is also survived by his wife, Mary Ann Morgan Page, whom he married in 1960. Together they enjoyed 48 years of companionship, outdoor activities, camping, gardening, do-it-yourself projects at home, and travel within the U.S. and abroad.

Roger Page's legacy rests on his dedication to the mission of this College and University in educating the young men and women of the state and region. In every research university I have known of known about, however, the undergraduate mission is only partially served by the incentives and the ethos of the university. Whether public or private, research universities thrive on scholarly grants, research and publications, general public celebrity, and training new young scholars. They are by nature large, somewhat impersonal, and inevitably bureaucratic. It is Roger Pages in them that soften the interface between the university and its novice students, and who represent the interests of those students in the jockeying within the university for scarce resources. They are scattered all through the University of Minnesota, in advising offices, in assistant or associate deanships, in counseling services, and the academic departments (where they can usually be identified by their willingness to teach introductory courses.) They nurture beginning students, they teach about making good academic choices, and they remind the rest of us of our obligations to make the work of a research university serve the least experienced students. In all of these tasks, Roger Page was a paragon, and he has left the College of Liberal Arts and the University of Minnesota greatly in his debt.

James Rothenberger

Jim Rothenberger, a member of the faculty of the School of Public Health since 1972, was an outstanding teacher, inspiration to thousands of students and a dear friend of the School and the University.  Jim received the University's highest honor for teaching, the Morse-Alumni Distinguished Teaching Award, as well as numerous other University and professional awards for teaching and community service. 

Former students recall his lectures, his gift for storytelling and the passion he brought to public health discussions.  Many who have pursued degrees and careers in public health credit Jim for inspiring their career choice.  Many more students (he taught nearly 100,000 over 35 years) recall him as one of the best teachers they ever had.

Even while battling serious illness for 23 years, Jim taught a heavy course load – about 15 a year.  He pioneered new courses on HIV/AIDS, alcohol and drug abuse and dying and death in contemporary society. In 2002, he created an innovative online course, Alcohol and College Life, for incoming freshman. It is now offered on six campuses.  Jim also found time to make numerous presentations to campus and community groups and national and international conferences each year.  And he served as an adviser to health organizations and agencies.

Born in 1947, Jim followed his father and grandfather in earning a bachelor's degree at the U of M, in 1969.  In 1979, he received a master's in public health, also at the U.  Jim is survived by his mother Merna and sister Jane, both of Pensacola, Fla.

When asked what he did at the University, Jim would respond, "I teach about sex, drugs and death."  What he didn't say was that he devoted himself to his students, his teaching assistants and his profession – and inspired all who had the good fortune to know him. 

Allan Spear

The History Department at the University of Minnesota feels deeply the loss of our friend, colleague, mentor, and teacher, Allan Spear.  One of the wonderful things about Allan was how he had an impact on so many people, including those from younger generations.

Much focus has been on Allan's many achievements in politics and as a pioneer in GLBT issues, but Allan also had a path-breaking scholarship and impact on students.  Allan arrived at Minnesota in 1964 as a twenty-seven year old fresh from graduate school at Yale. Even in those early years, he was considered a pioneer in the field of American history, and especially in African American history. 

His book, Black Chicago: The Making of a Negro Ghetto, 1890-1920 (1967), was the first historical study to examine how white racism and institutionalized discrimination in housing, employment, and municipal services led to the formation of the African American ghetto in Chicago. Allan's research helped Americans – both inside and outside of academia – understand both the roots and consequences of institutionalized racism.

But Allan's research was just one part of who he was as a historian. For nearly forty years, he taught 20th century American history to thousands of Minnesota undergraduates. His classes are the stuff of legend.

"Anyone ever try to get into one his classes?" one former student wrote on the Star Tribune comments webpage. "They were filled, not because students "wanted to be taught by a gay guy"...they just wanted to learn."

"History included me, when Alan Spears taught it," another former student – an African American – wrote. "As I watched him pace back and forth in that gigantic classroom, I was transfixed by his humor, his words, and more importantly his ability to make history meaningful to us all."

Allan Spear has left an enduring legacy at the University in his scholarship and in the ways in which he affected students. But he also fundamentally changed how we saw the world around us, and he inspired us to act. The U – like the state Senate, like Minnesota - was never the same after Allan, and that has been a great thing.

Rudolph J. Vecoli

Professor Rudolph J. Vecoli passed away June 17, 2008 in Saint Louis Park, Minnesota. He was 81 and lived in St. Paul.

Rudy grew up in Wallingford, Conn., the son of immigrants from Tuscany. His 1963 Ph.D. from the University of Wisconsin in Madison examined the experiences of Italians in Chicago before World War I. Rudy taught at Rutgers and the University of Illinois before joining the University of Minnesota's Department of History in 1967.

As director of the University's Immigration History Research Center (IHRC) from 1967 to 2005, and in his books and articles, Rudy significantly shaped the fields of immigration history and ethnic history. He challenged the notion that immigrants left their cultures behind to assimilate quickly into America's "melting pot," demonstrating instead that immigrants purposefully retained many cultural elements from their home countries and resisted pressures to relinquish their heritage. Rudy will be remembered for the dedication and enthusiasm with which he pursued, as he put it, the "ethnic histories of which we know little or nothing." He was crucial to the development of the IHRC into one of the nation's premier repositories for source materials documenting the experiences of immigrants and refugees in the United States.

Rudy was honored for his scholarship with numerous awards, and he helped found two organizations: the American Italian Historical Association (serving as its president from 1966 to 1970) and the Immigration and Ethnic History Society (president from 1982 to 1985), which also awarded him a Lifetime Achievement Award. From 1983 to 2003 Rudy was chairman of the history committee advising the Statue of Liberty-Ellis Island Foundation.

Rudy is survived by his former wife, Jill, and his daughter, Lisa, both of Minneapolis, two sons, Chris, of Corvallis, Ore., and Jeremy, of Minneapolis, a sister, Olga Gralton, of Wallingford, and one granddaughter