1994-95 UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA No. 1
UNIVERSITY SENATE MINUTES
NOVEMBER 3, 1994
ORIENTATION
Professor John Adams, Chair, Senate Consultative Committee, welcomed
senators to the first full Senate meeting for the year and introduced each of
the 20 Senate and Assembly committee chairs. Most Senate business, he said,
is initiated and developed within the committees and he encouraged senators to
contact chairs regarding issues they are working on. Senators were then
provided with a listing of the major agenda items for 1994-95 for each of the
committees along with the appropriate contact person.
II. MEETING SCHEDULE
Information
Other 1994-95 meetings of the University Senate are scheduled as follows:
Thursday, February 16, 1995
Thursday, April 20, 1995
Thursday, May 18, 1995
III. ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSE TO SENATE ACTIONS
Information
A. Policy Relating to the Use of Human Subjects in Research
Approved by: the University Senate on May 19, 1994
the Administration on May 24, 1994
the Board of Regents on July 10, 1994
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CONSENT AGENDA
Action
Agenda items IV. through VI. are considered to be noncontroversial or
"housekeeping" in nature and are offered as a "Consent Agenda" to be taken up
as a single item with one vote. Any item will be taken up separately at the
request of a Senator. A majority of those members present and voting is
required for approval.
IV. MINUTES FOR MAY 19, 1994
V. SENATE OFFICERS
The chair of the University Senate recommends the following officers for
1994-95:
Parliamentarian--Karen Brown
Abstractor and Clerk--Martha Kvanbeck
VI. COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES
Committees of the Senate, 1994-95
COMPUTING AND INFORMATION SYSTEMS - Faculty/PA: David Weiss (chair), Thomas
Burk , Stephen Campbell, Thomas Hoffmann, James Olson, Marcia Pankake, George
Wilcox, Tzvee Zahavy. Students: Donald Ness, Paul Pazandak. Ex Officio:
Steve Cawley, Donald Riley.
DISABILITIES ISSUES - Faculty/PA: Judith Gaston (chair), Gary Birnbaum, Nancy
Eustis, Richard Hanson, Lance Johnson, Stephen Kanee, Marie Knowlton, Harold
Levy, Ken Myers, Glenn Scudder. Civil Service: Tim McCluske, Ruanne Pearson.
Students: Leigh Clemons. Ex Officio: Sue Kroeger, Paul Tschida.
EDUCATIONAL POLICY - Faculty/PA: Kenneth Heller (chair), Anita Cholewa, James
Cotter, Elayne Donahue, Megan Gunnar, Robert Johnson, Manuel Kaplan, Laura
Koch, Judith Martin, William Van Essendelft, Gayle Graham Yates. Students:
Jeff Bauer, Rachel Brand, Sara Hornstra, Ryan Nilsen, Darren Walhof. Ex
Officio: Darwin Hendel.
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY FOR WOMEN - Faculty : Janet Ahern, Silvia Azar,
Ann Burkhart, Wesley Hackett, June LaValleur, Marcia Odom, Naomi Scheman.
Academic Professionals: Kathryn Sedo (chair), Bev Stewart. Ex Officio:
Patricia Mullen, Norma Peterson.
FACILITIES MANAGEMENT SUBCOMMITTEE - Faculty/PA: Mark Davison (chair), Martin
Gwinup, David Kittelson, Christopher Loring, Roger Martin, Faye Thompson, Mary
Walser. Civil Service: Ginger DeRoiser. Students: 2 to be named. Ex
Officio: Elizabeth Grundner, Clint Hewitt, Don Kelsey, Sue Markham, Vilis
Vikmanis.
FINANCE AND PLANNING - Faculty/PA: Virginia Gray (chair), Mark Davison,
William Gerberich, Thomas Hoffmann, Karen Karni, Roger Martin, Patrice Morrow,
Doris Rubenstein, Craig Swan, James Van Alstine. Civil Service: Gerald
Klement, 1 to be named. Students: Mary Askelson, Carl Erickson, Ryan Fuller,
Anne Sales. Ex Officio: David Berg, Allen Goldman, Roger Paschke, Richard
Pfutzenreuter, Thomas Scott.
LIBRARY - Faculty/PA: Harold Hinds (chair), Frank Akehurst, John Anderson,
John Cogan , Kay Cooper, Ed Cushing, Michael Hancher, Marci Hoffman, Anita
Krevans, David McLaughlin, V. Rama Murthy, Roderick Squires. Students: John
Fahey, Stephanie Hill-Simione, 2 to be named. Ex Officio: Karen Fischer,
Joan Howland, Harold Opgrand, Donald Riley, Thomas Shaughnessy, Bill Sozansky.
RESEARCH - Faculty/PA: Allen Goldman (chair), Henry Buchwald, Susan Hupp,
Jean Kinsey, Eric Klinger, Jeylan Mortimer, Paul Sackett, Mark Snyder. Civil
Service: John Basgen, 2 to be named. Students: Dongli-Su, 2 to be named.
Ex Officio: Signe Betsinger, Mark Brenner, Liz Eull, N.L. Gault, Tony Potomi.
SOCIAL CONCERNS - Faculty/PA: Barbara Walden (chair), John Dickey, Gayle
Foreman, Dorothy Hatsukami, Cleon Melsa, Gary Thomas, Frank Wood. Civil
Service: Sharon Day, Ellen Stewart, 1 to be named. Alumni: Georgiann Errigo,
Julie Johnson, Priscilla Nauer. Students: Brenda Ellingboe, Amy Siqueland,
Derek Veerkamp, 3 to be named. Ex Officio: Clint Hewitt, Juan Moreno, Anne
Truax.
STUDENT AFFAIRS - Faculty/PA: Evelyn Franklin (chair), George Brauer, Glenn
Hendricks, Joel Nelson, Guillermo Rojas, Thomas Soulen. Civil Service: Nancy
Hugg Wilson. Alumni: Michael Coyle. Students: Samar Barakat, Joel
Bergstrom, John Buch, Nikki Caillier, Dan Chapman, Jordan Fineberg, Alison
Han, 2 to be named. Ex Officio: Jack Imholte.
INFORMATION:
ALL-UNIVERSITY HONORS - Faculty/PA: Eville Gorham (chair), Wilbert Ahern,
Willard Hartup, Alice Larson, Benjamin Liu, Paul Quie. Alumni: Mark
Bregmann, Wally Hilke, Steve Kreitz, Barbara Luehmann, Lee Paulson. Students:
Quiana Edwards, 2 to be named. Ex Officio: Margaret Carlson, Gerald
Fischer, Marcia Fluer, E. F. Infante.
COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES - Faculty/PA: Jean Quam (chair), Ann Burkhart, W.
Andrew Collins, Martin Dworkin, Marcia Eaton, Barbara McGinnis, Cleon Melsa,
Carolyn Williams. Students: Kirk Allison, Lisa Olson, 5 to be named.
CONSULTATIVE - Faculty: John Adams (chair), Carl Adams (vice chair), Thomas
Burk, Sara Evans (winter and spring quarters), James Gremmels, Roberta
Humphreys, Robert Jones, Geoffrey Maruyama, Harvey Peterson, Michael Steffes,
Gerhard Weiss (fall quarter). Students: Rabun Taylor (chair), Derek Jensen,
Jason Mork, Don Ness, Linda Pham, Chad Reichwald, Tim Stanislawski, Barbara
Thompson. Ex Officio: Sheila Corcoran-Perry, Lester Drewes, Virginia Gray,
Kenneth Heller.
JEAN QUAM, Chair
Committee on Committees
DISCUSSION:
The Consent Agenda was approved without discussion.
APPROVED
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
VII. U2000 UPDATE
Discussion
President Hasselmo called senators attention to the several documents
recently mailed to Senate members concerning U2000. They included an October
14 Planning, Budgeting, and Evaluation document, a draft document on Critical
Measures, U2000 Status Report 5, and a table outlining the process for the
development of additional critical measures.
U2000 is a basic agenda for the development of the University to the
year 2000 and into the 21st century, said President Hasselmo, and the biennial
request recently submitted to the State Finance Department laid out the first
set of major financial strategies for its implementation. It also begins to
build greater specificity into the way the six different agendas that comprise
U2000 will be implemented.
Associate Vice President Robert Kvavik was then introduced to discuss
the planning, budgeting, and evaluation activities. One of the first goals of
the planning team, Professor Kvavik said, was to set some objectives that
would create a much more systematic planning process than had been used in the
past--one that was predictable, understandable, and simple to use. It must be
a "rolling" process rather than a fixed plan and it must be cumulative.
Furthermore, he said, there seemed little purpose in forcing colleges into
planning modes that made no sense to those colleges. As a result, colleges
were requested to prepare a summary of plans presented in a way that the
administration can aggregate the information to write institutional plans, to
write Twin Cities plans, to inform the capitol planning process, to take a
look at enrollment projects, etc. Taking the directive from the Senate, the
process also is consultative with directions in the protocol outlining that
process. There is also an emphasis on performance, which is discussed under
institutional measures and performance goals below. Planning must drive the
allocation process, added Professor Kvavik, and presumably the protocol will
drive that discussion in the proper manner. A three year calendar has been
designed to synchronize planning, budgeting, and capitol planning with lead
time built in in order to allow for appropriate consultation.
Professor Kvavik then briefly reviewed the October 14 planning document.
One senator inquired about the staff costs associated with planning
development. Professor Kvavik replied that graduate students from the College
of Education were recruited to work with the planning office with
approximately one-quarter of their time devoted to this effort.
Before turning to the critical measures discussion, Professor John Adams
said he had not seen in his 25 years as a faculty member at the University the
kinds of external and internal pressures that are being placed on the
institution at this time. It is the Faculty Consultative Committee's sense
that if the University and the faculty do not act in appropriate ways now,
they are going to be pushed to do things that they might find inappropriate to
the University's overall mission. As senators it will be important to take
responsibility for commenting on the planning process and to take the
materials back to colleges and units to galvanize some response and action.
Professor Adams also reviewed the resolution that will be presented to the
Board of Regents in November noting recent revisions. It was the original
expectation, he said, that the five critical measures would be presented as
general areas within which the University would define specific goals it would
work toward. Subsequent to that discussion the Board decided it wanted to be
more specific--not just deal with general measures of performance but rather
specific items. That led to discussions about how to do that recognizing the
wide variety of operations occurring on all the campuses, in the colleges, and
in departments. It is one thing, he said, to talk about the quality of
something and another to translate that into specific numbers that will then
be used as measuring sticks. He identified the committees that have been
working with the administration in the development of the critical measures
and noted that the chairs were present to respond to questions.
Professor George Copa was then introduced to lead the discussion of the
critical measures. When the Board of Regents approved U2000, he said, it
charged the University's central and unit administration with the development
of critical measures and benchmarks for measuring institutional, campus, and
unit performance in realizing the goals of U2000. The purpose of the measures
is to confirm success in teaching and stated goals, to link performance with
budgeting, to meet the increasing demands of outside agencies and groups for
demonstrated performance, to provide a means of comparison with other
institutions, and to guide and facilitate self-improvement by the University.
Professor Copa reviewed the overall principles, technical principles,
principles for using measures, and the sources used to develop the measures.
The latter included review of U2000; review of preliminary strategic plans
submitted by colleges, campuses, and support units; review of similar efforts
being made in other states; and emerging reporting requirements for the
University from the state and federal government.
Consultation in the process has been extensive, Professor Copa said,
including University Senate committees, senators, student groups and
associations, all categories of employees, and numerous external
organizations.
Drawing senators attention to the critical measure handout, Professor
Copa briefly reviewed the eighteen recommended critical measures. They have
been divided into "input measures," "process measures," and "outcome
measures." Plans for implementation of the critical measures was also
reviewed. The first phase will be presented to the Board of Regents in
November for action, the second phase is expected to be ready by spring
quarter, and the third phase during the 1995-96 academic year. The critical
measures to be presented to the Regents later in the month include:
characteristics of entering students, graduation rate, underrepresented
groups/diversity, sponsored funding, and investment per student.
Senators were also provided with a table outlining how Senate committees
and other groups will be involved in the development of additional critical
measures.
Last, Professor Copa reviewed the resolution that will be presented to
the Board of Regents. The first part reaffirms the purpose, the second points
out that appropriate consultation took place, the third section identifies the
five measures, the fourth sets particular performance goals, and the last part
of the resolution speaks to the Regents encouraging the University to move
forward with the continued development of performance goals for the five
measures and instructs the administration to incorporate them into the long-
term and annual academic planning and budgetary process, the biennial request,
and the capital planning process.
One senator inquired whether it will be a goal of the University to have
a more diverse group of minority students than it presently has. Specific
goals have been set for each of the underrepresented groups, Professor Copa
said, in order to address that very issue.
In response to another question concerning graduation rates, Professor
Copa said goals have been set not only for five years but for eight years to
be responsive to a university that includes students who never intended to
graduate in five years.
Another senator inquired whether there was any data that indicate that
years to graduate are somehow related to success later in life? If the
University is going to develop a policy in which it has very measurable goals,
such as graduation rates, it may need to have data to show why it is such an
important goal. Professor Copa said the rationale for the five year rate is
that it has become a standard that is looked at across universities in our
country. More importantly, there is an expectation from parents that their
children will be able to move through the institution in a reasonable amount
of time. It doesn't really relate so much to success as it does to resources-
-family resources and the resources of the state.
To what extent is the development of the critical measures in response
to a legislative mandate, queried one senator? This has been a University
initiative, President Hasselmo said; however, he believes that if the
University does not pursue their development it is very likely that external
mandates may be imposed upon the institution. The academy will be much better
served, he added, if it develops its own measures.
One of the concerns of the Senate Research Committee, said its chair, is
that the critical measure relating to sponsored research might actually
distort the planning of the University because there are certain channels of
funding which are more lucrative than others, and essentially emphasizing
those may not be in the interests of developing a balanced program in the
University. What sort of strategies are there to prevent that kind of misuse
of a critical measure? Professor Copa said that each of the measures has the
opportunity to distort which is why it is very important that the process very
quickly becomes part of the planning, budgeting, and evaluation cycle.
Professor Heller, chair of the Senate Educational Policy Committee,
pointed out that in the graduation rate measure the 38 percent who graduate in
five years is really made up of two numbers: 1) the people who actually
graduate and 2) those who never graduate at all. About one-half of entering
freshmen never graduate, he said, and if you look just at the people who do
graduate, then statistics show that about 75 percent graduate in five years.
In response to a final question concerning graduation rates for graduate
and professional students, Professor Copa said that he and his colleagues are
currently working with the Graduate School and with the colleges to gather
information both for transfer students and for graduate and professional
students. It is their hope that this will be accomplished before the end of
the academic year.
VIII. PRESIDENT'S POLICY AGENDA, 1994-95
Information
PRIORITY: Continue the development of University 2000 as a strategic plan:
specifically, develop action plans for the implementation of strategic
directions of University 2000; research; graduate and professional education;
undergraduate education; access and outreach; user friendliness, and
diversity, with good stewardship of resources and in partnership with other
institutions.
A. Develop action plans to implement strategic directions regarding:
€ Research
€ Graduate and Professional Education
€ Undergraduate Education
€ Access and Outreach
€ User Friendliness
€ Diversity
B. Formulate critical measures and performance goals.
C. Review resource stewardship and accountability initiative.
D. Expand linkages with other institutions.
PRIORITY: Continue to develop a program to ensure that institutional goals
are responsive to the needs of Minnesotans, are properly understood, and
properly supported: specifically, organize a major campaign to inform
Minnesota leaders and the public about the University's ongoing contributions
to the state, the importance of the University 2000 plan, and the need for
continued state and private investment in the University.
A. Secure understanding and endorsement of U 2000 Partnership short-term
and long-range goals.
B. Develop a strategy for uniting/activating key internal/external partners
who can help the University achieve the objectives of the U 2000
Partnership initiative.
C. Monitor implementation of the Outreach Council's recommendations.
PRIORITY: Continue to clarify and strengthen the management infrastructure,
including personnel and systems, to ensure the capability of the organization
to execute the strategic plan as well as the policies of the board and the
administration: specifically, implement the new organization for the Twin
Cities campus and recruit and reassign personnel to new or redefined
positions.
A. Complete the reorganization of the central administration.
B. Review and propose changes in the collegial governance structure.
C. Review and restructure student financial aid and administration of
scholarships.
D. Complete the Comprehensive Classroom Study.
PRIORITY: Continue to improve the operating and capital budgeting processes
to provide the Board and the administration the capability to allocate
resources in accord with the University's strategic priorities: specifically,
determine the extent to which further decentralization of resource management
to responsibility centers should be undertaken and assign appropriate
authority and accountability to provosts, deans, directors, and department
chairs.
A. Define and articulate the planning, budgeting, and evaluation process;
implement a revised planning, budgeting and evaluation process.
B. Develop and recommend for Regents' action the biennial operating and
capital requests.
C. Prepare contingency and reallocation plans.
D. Further develop and monitor the decentralization of resource management
to responsibility centers.
E. Review the assignment of authority and accountability to provosts,
deans, directors, and department chairs.
F. Review the activities of the Master Planning Committee and Capital
Improvement Advisory Committee.
PRIORITY: Continue to improve the personnel policies, processes, and
practices: specifically, review and revise as necessary the policies,
processes, and practices for recruitment, career development, compensation,
retention, and retirement for faculty and staff, and preservation of morale in
a time of change.
A. Develop and implement policies regarding:
€Recruitment of a diverse and competent work force
€Maximization of workforce productivity
€Administration of legal mandates
€University relationship as employer with faculty/staff
€Roles and responsibilities of human resources administration
€Information necessary for effective management
€Adequacy of promotion/retention system
€Safe and healthy work environment
B. Review and revise policies/procedures regarding:
€ Administrative compensation
€ Faculty and P/A compensation
€ Student employment
€ Management of grants/contracts
€ Oversight mechanisms for academic and grievance processes
€ Conflict of commitment, intellectual property, and research data
IX. PRESIDENT'S REPORT
Before turning to his report, President Hasselmo introduced and welcomed
to the Senate meeting Dr. Mel George, Vice President for Institutional
Relations and Dr. William Brody, Provost of the Academic Health Center.
Vice President George, speaking from the Crookston campus, said he was
delighted to have an opportunity to address the Senate. His first weeks at
the University have been spent getting acquainted with faculty, students, and
staff members and learning about the variety of teaching, research, and
outreach activities at the University. Looking at President Hasselmo's Policy
Agenda outlined above, Vice President George said it is the second priority
that he is charged with--to continue to develop a program to ensure that
institutional goals are responsive to the needs of Minnesotans, are properly
understood, and properly supported, and specifically to organize a major
campaign to inform Minnesota leaders and the public about U2000 and the
institution. That is now being called the U2000 partnership initiative, he
said.
Provost Brody expressed appreciation for the warm welcome and said he is
excited and challenged to be at the U of M with the kind of breadth and
diversity that it offers. He is most enthusiastic about the number of cross-
cutting relationships in the Academic Health Center not only within the
colleges but also within the community.
The President then briefly addressed three issues:
1. What is U2000 really all about? U2000 is about the maintenance and
enhancement of a scholarly community, the President said. That is what
universities have been for the past thousand years and what they must continue
to be if they are going to be universities. That is the very nature of a
university--to be a scholarly community, a community for free and open inquiry
for exploration, discovery, analysis, and synthesis, and to develop an
understanding of life and our existence. This healthy source of scholarship
for our society must be maintained. We are doing that in an environment where
society is questioning whether we are meeting our responsibilities, looking at
the way we provide learning opportunities, and questioning whether we are
really meeting our mission. Under U2000 the University is looking at how it
can enhance the learning environment for our students and how as a land-grant
university it can reach out to society with the knowledge that this kind of
university alone can produce.
2. How does the biennial request for 1995-97 relate to the aspirations
of University 2000? The biennial request really is the first major
installment in U2000, said President Hasselmo, a first set of financial
strategies to implement U2000. "Investment," he said, is a key word. It is a
very real economic concept because what the State of Minnesota is doing is
investing in the University of Minnesota with tremendous returns, not just
financial returns but returns in terms of learning, knowledge and service.
Twenty-eight percent of the University's budget comes from the State of
Minnesota and seventy-two percent from resources generated by the University
community itself, such as sponsored research, private fundraising, tuition,
self-financing activities, etc. The University is a tremendous
entrepreneurial enterprise that multiplies the State investment many times.
That is what the financial strategy is trying to make clear to the State and
why the University talks about a "partnership." The University has laid out
an investment scenario that includes $143.7 million which it needs to invest
in University teaching, research, and outreach if it is going to be the kind
of quality institution that it must be by the year 2000. The partnership
comes in, said the President, in that the University is asking the state for
$87.7 million for the biennium. That request is being coupled with some
tuition increases, on the average of 4.8 percent, and a reallocation within
the University of $28 million.
3. What must the University community do to support the aspirations of
U2000 and the investment scenario? Again, the word partnership comes in, the
President said. The University must find a way to close ranks, standing
united around the priorities of the University.
X. QUESTIONS TO THE PRESIDENT
QUESTION: What is Responsibility Centered Management (RCM) and what are the
expected costs and benefits for faculty, staff, and students?
RESPONSE: As a concept RCM means that all costs and all income are
attributable to each academic unit and assigned to that particular
unit. It identifies the flow of revenues and the costs associated
with certain activities. It is also intended to provide
appropriate incentives for academic units to increase income and
reduce costs. The overhead associated with activities such as
student services and the library will also be allocated to the
academic units. RCM is a part of decentralization and a change in
how the University manages itself. It will give students,
faculty, and staff a more direct sense of financing of particular
activities. For example, space has tended to be a free commodity
to units but it costs the University alot. If space can be
allocated in such a way that there is a financial incentive, it
will probably be utilized more efficienty. Similarly, the
curriculum must be structured in such a way that it meets the
educational needs of students and at the same time maximizes the
University's ability to serve students. Effective structuring of
the curriculum can result in lower costs and help keep tuition
costs down.
QUESTION: Will RCM be implemented at the University?
RESPONSE: RCM is still under review but is expected to be introduced at the
University within the next few months.
QUESTION: What consultative procedure was used in reaching the decision to
drop the Route 52 bus subsidy and what will the savings be
compared with the costs of constructing the new parking
facilities?
RESPONSE: A response will be provided in writing as the President did not
have the necessary information available at the meeting to respond
to the question.
QUESTION: Will the cost centers also include an allocation of tuition as
well as the state budget?
RESPONSE: Tuition generated by a college would be identified and would be
one of the resources available to that unit.
QUESTION: Has there been any progress in reallocations of indirect costs in
federal or other grants?
RESPONSE: Regardless of the RCM issue, the University intends to go to a
full formula-based allocation of indirect cost recovery.
XI. SENATE CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE REPORT
Professor John Adams called senators attention to two resolutions that
were approved by the Faculty Consultative Committee during the summer months,
both of which were distributed to senators as they entered the room. The
resolutions supported the president's plan to reorganize central
administration and move to a provostial structure. Professor Adams also drew
senators attention to his quarterly report that was presented to the Board of
Regents in October. This is an opportunity, he said, to let the Board know
what is on the minds of the faculty. In the most recent report five items were
called to their attention: 1) the FCC's support of the partnership budget
proposal, 2) the need for improved communication and consultation within the
University, 3) the importance of addressing the issue of salary
competitiveness, 4) transition activities associated with the restructuring of
central administration, and 5) the status of the Senate's review of the
Regents Policy on Academic Freedom and Responsibility.
XII. 1993-94 ANNUAL REPORTS
Information
COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES
The Committee on Committees met several times during the 1993-94 academic
year. Primarily to fill vacancies on the various Senate and Assembly
committees during the year and to establish new committees for the 94-95
academic year. Thus, in that sense it was an uneventful year for the
committee.
With the new structure occurring in central administration with the several
provostial units being formed, the committee structure is being reviewed
University-wide. It can be felt that its role within the new central
administration structure will be very important over the next few academic
years as the Senate committees are revised and the need to fill the committees
represent challenges to the Committee on Committees.
As outgoing chairman, I wish to thank all members of the committee for making
these activities not only manageable but also very pleasant. I wish Jean Quam
and her colleagues the best for the current academic year.
Michael Steffes, Chair
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY FOR WOMEN COMMITTEE
Equal Employment Opportunity for Women Committee (EEOWC) membership: Mariah
Snyder (Chair), Siliva Azar, Ann Burkhart, Wesley Hackett, Essie Kariv-Miller,
Marty Roth, Sharon Stewart, Karla Klinger, Kathryn Sedo. Ex-officio members:
Pat Mullen and Norma Peterson
The committee met seven times during the year. Four subcommittees were
created to facilitate the committee's work. These were pay equity,
exceptional hires, hiring practices, and impact of U2000 on women on campus.
Policy for Caregiving Responsibility. Work was completed on the Policy for
Caregiving Responsibility. The policy was forwarded for review and approval
by the appropriate University committees. The policy was approved by the
Senate on May 17, 1994. The policy allows probationary faculty members to
request a one-year extension of their tenure years when a family member for
whom they are a major caregiver has an extended serious illness, injury, or
other debilitating condition.
Hiring Practice. The committee continued to examine hiring practices at the
University. Specifically, EEOWC had concern about the composition of search
committees for top administrative positions. This became a greater concern
with the re-structuring of central administration and the exit of several
females in top administration positions. Letters requesting that search
committees include women and persons who represent diversity were sent to
administrators.
Pay Equity. Although no overall pay increases occurred during 1993-1994, the
committee had concern about the impact that retention increases could have on
pay equity. Attempts have been made to obtain data about retention monies
given by departments/schools in 1993-94. The committee also requested the
administration to distribute the post-Rajender guidelines along with the 1994-
95 pay increase guidelines to all units.
Impact of Retrenchment and U2000 on Women. The committee spent considerable
time discussing issues related to retrenchment and U2000. Kathleen O'Brien
presented information about U2000 to the committee at its October meeting.
During the year the subcommittee monitored the progress of U2000 and examined
the possible implications that the changes may have on women on campus.
The committee is appreciative of the reports and information provided by
Patricica Mullen and Carol Carrier and their offices. Vickie Courtney, the
Executive Assistant to the EEOWC, provided excellent support for the
committee.
Mariah Snyder, Chair
FACILITIES MANAGEMENT SUBCOMMITTEE
Much of the Subcommittee's time was spent reviewing the document entitled
Operatio