1994-95 UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA No. 3
UNIVERSITY SENATE MINUTES
FEBRUARY 16, 1995
The third meeting of the University Senate for 1994-95 was convened in
25 Law Building, Minneapolis campus, on Thursday, February 16, 1995, at 2:20
p.m. Coordinate campuses were linked by telephone. Checking or signing the
roll as present were 126 voting faculty/academic professional members, 30
voting student members, 3 ex officio members, and 5 nonmembers. President
Nils Hasselmo presided.
I. ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSE TO UNIVERSITY SENATE ACTIONS
Information
A. Student Academic Grievance Policy
Approved by: the University Senate on February 17, 1994
the Administration in December 1994
the Board of Regents on January 13, 1995
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CONSENT AGENDA
Action
Agenda items II. and III. 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.
II. MINUTES FOR NOVEMBER 3, 1994
III. COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES
Committees of the Senate, 1994-95
[The following are additions to those approved at the November 3 meeting.]
DISABILITIES ISSUES - Student: Amy Whitehead
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY FOR WOMEN - Ex Officio: Jean Strauchon
FINANCE AND PLANNING - Civil Service: Thora Cartlidge
LIBRARY - Student: Matt Skally
RESEARCH - Student: Kathy James Ex Officio: Rob Super
SOCIAL CONCERNS - Students: Joel Bergstrom, Mark Speltz
STUDENT AFFAIRS - Civil Service: Michael Hanberg Students: Brenda
Ellingboe, Anne Sales
INFORMATION:
COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES - Students: Sam Black, Nicolette Caillier, Melissa
Sandmeier, Phil Ziermann
CONSULTATIVE - Student: Corey Kopacek, Brandon Lujan Ex Officio: Joel
Bergstrom
JEAN QUAM, Chair
Committee on Committees
DISCUSSION:
The Consent Agenda was approved with one amendment.
APPROVED
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. SENATE CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE
EDUCATIONAL POLICY COMMITTEE
Joint Preparation Requirements for the Minnesota State
Universities and the University of Minnesota
Action
MOTION:
That the University Senate adopt the following "Joint Preparation
Requirements for the Minnesota State Universities and the University of
Minnesota":
ENGLISH--Four years, including writing, literature, and speech.
Within the writing component, students may elect work in
composition, creative writing, journalism, or research
writing. Literature may include both American and world
literatures; speech may include both public speaking and
debate.
MATHEMATICS--Three years consisting of two years of algebra, one of
which must be intermediate or advanced algebra, and one year of
geometry.
SCIENCE--Three years, including at least one course each in the
biological and physical sciences, and all three units to incorporate
significant laboratory experience.
The biological and physical science requirements would
most commonly be met by courses in biology, chemistry, and
physics. Other courses could include advanced biology, human
anatomy and physiology, botany, zoology, geology, and advanced
chemistry and physics.
SOCIAL STUDIES--Three years, including one year each of geography and
American history.
Geography need not always be taught as a full year course, and may
in fact be incorporated in a significant way into other studies;
transcripts should indicate specifically which courses meet the
geography requirement.
[Additional comment: Geography is increasingly important to our
understanding of global issues; its importance has been recognized
by the National Goals Task Force, which is currently developing
national geography standards. We support the addition of courses
in geography to the high school curriculum.]
WORLD LANGUAGE--Two years of a single second language.
Language courses may include both those traditionally taught in
high schools (for example, Spanish, French, German), as well as
those less frequently taught.
ARTS--One year in the visual or performing arts.
It is expected that all arts courses (including band and chorus)
will include instruction in the history and critical
interpretation of the art form. Courses in the arts should offer
students the opportunity to experience the arts directly as
creators/performers and as critical, informed observers.
Additional study in mathematics and science is highly recommended; some
divisions in specific institutions require four years of each for
admission.
Students are also strongly urged to develop skills in using computers.
COMMENT:
Following this Motion and Comment is the text of the report of the "Ad
Hoc Committee on Joint Preparation Requirements for the Minnesota State
Universities and the University of Minnesota," presented to the Senate
Committee on Educational Policy and discussed by SCEP over several meetings.
SCEP believes that these joint preparation standards represent a step forward
in cooperation among the higher education systems in the State of Minnesota.
These standards build on the preparation standards approved by the Senate on
April 17, 1986.
(The recommendations from the Ad Hoc Committee are the only items
proposed for action by the Senate. The report that follows is for explanatory
purposes only and is not to be adopted by the Senate.)
Report of the Ad Hoc Committee on Joint Preparation Requirements
for the Minnesota State Universities
and the University of Minnesota
Public baccalaureate education in the state of Minnesota is provided by the
seven universities comprising the Minnesota State Universities, and by the
University of Minnesota. Both of these systems have instituted preparation
requirements for admission to their respective institutions. The University
of Minnesota's requirements went into effect for incoming freshmen in fall,
1991; the requirements for the Minnesota State Universities began in fall,
1994, with a world language requirement to begin in fall, 1996.
The two systems have agreed that a common set of preparation requirements for
the two four-year systems is in the best educational interests of students and
school districts alike. Common preparation requirements will simplify the
tasks of school counselors and others who help students make educational
choices, make it easier for students to make course selections, facilitate
curricular planning by school districts, and simplify the efforts of the four-
year institutions to communicate their expectations. By moving toward a joint
statement on preparation requirements, the two systems hope to send a clear
and unambiguous message about the importance of appropriate preparation for a
college education.
BACKGROUND
In September, 1985, the President of the University of Minnesota and the Chair
of the Senate Consultative Committee jointly appointed the Special Committee
on Unified and Increased Preparation Requirements. This committee, chaired by
W. Andrew Collins, Professor and Director of the Institute of Child
Development, issued its final report in March, 1986. The recommendations
contained in that report were adopted (with minor modifications) by the Board
of Regents, with the recommendations to take effect for incoming freshman
students in fall, 1991, and for transfer students in fall, 1993. Students who
graduated from high school before 1987 are exempt from the requirements. The
requirements total fourteen Carnegie units, and include four years of English,
three years of mathematics, three years of science, two years of a single
second language, and two years of social studies. Courses in the visual and
performing arts and courses using computers are also strongly recommended.
Students who are otherwise well qualified may be admitted to the University
lacking one or two requirements, but all preparation requirements must still
be completed after admission.
The University undertook an extensive effort to communicate information about
the new requirements to high schools, parents, and students. One major
component of this educational effort was Project Inform, which was designed to
assist students in making appropriate educational choices to prepare for
college work. The University of Minnesota also developed a database to track
completion of preparation requirements. Within two years of the time the
requirements were approved, and well before they were in effect, the
improvement in preparation of the incoming student body was noticeable. By
the time the requirements went into effect in fall, 1991, more that 85 percent
of students had completed all requirements before admission.
The Minnesota State Universities, as part of their quality planning and
improvement effort known as Q7, have also adopted preparation requirements.
In February, 1991, Chancellor Robert L. Carothers appointed a Preparation
Standards Task Force made up of elementary, secondary, and postsecondary
educators from all parts of the state. Following several months of intensive
deliberations, the task force recommended preparation requirements to the
Minnesota State University Board, which adopted them with several
modifications in May, 1991. The requirements, which will be phased in
beginning fall, 1994, consist of four years of English, three years of
mathematics, three years of science, three years of social studies, and three
years of specified electives (to be chosen from at least two of three areas:
world cultures, world languages, and the arts). Subsequently, the Board
revised the requirements to include a two-year world language requirement
effective in fall, 1996.
As a second phase of the process to implement preparation requirements, the
Minnesota State Universities formed teams of elementary/secondary teachers and
university faculty members to translate the adopted "seat-time" requirements
into statements of competency. As noted later in this report, final
competencies have now been adopted in six areas, with interim guidelines in
place in two additional disciplines. The Universities are also working on
implementation of an admissions database that will allow them to track the
impact of preparation requirements on admission and retention; development of
a mechanism to report routinely to high schools on students' freshman year
academic performance; and development of special efforts to assure that all
students in Minnesota, regardless of racial or ethnic background, socio-
economic status, or location, have the information needed to prepare
adequately for postsecondary study.
RECOMMENDATIONS
There are strong correspondences between the preparation requirements now in
effect in the two systems (see Table 1 at the end of this report). In
considering how to approach the establishment of a set of common requirements,
the Ad Hoc Committee adopted two strategies. First, the Committee agreed not
to add any new requirements beyond those already stated in one of the two sets
of requirements. Second, the Committee agreed that, in the case of each
requirement, they would adopt the more rigorous of the two standards currently
in effect unless there was a compelling reason to do otherwise. The
recommendations that follow reflect these two decisions.
We recommend that, beginning in fall, 1997, the following preparation
requirements be adopted by both the University of Minnesota and the Minnesota
State Universities. [Recommendations constitute the text of the motion.]
LOOKING TO THE FUTURE
The Minnesota State Universities are moving from "seat-time" preparation
requirements to competencies. The advantage of the competencies is that they
amplify the seat-time requirements and allow faculty to explain clearly the
specific skills and knowledge expected of students who wish to pursue a
college degree.
The Minnesota Department of Education is also in the process of developing a
new high school graduation rule based on competencies. When this rule is
approved, it may provide a appropriate starting point for the University of
Minnesota to develop its own competency-based approach to preparation.
Ad Hoc Committee on Joint Preparation Requirements
University of Minnesota Participants
Elizabeth Blake, Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs, UMM
Andrew Collins, Professor, Institute of Child Development. UMTC
Linda Ellinger, Associate to the Vice President for Arts,
Sciences, and Engineering, UMTC
Richard Leppert, Professor, Cultural Studies and Comparative
Literature, UMTC
Roger Miller, Associate Professor, Geography, UMTC
Minnesota State Universities Participants
Cynthia Crist, Associate Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs,
Minnesota State Universities
Miriam Lo, Economics and International Business, Mankato State
University
Mary Shimabukuro, Professor of Biology, Moorhead State University
JOHN ADAMS, Chair
Senate Consultative Committee
KENNETH HELLER, Chair
Educational Policy Committee
DISCUSSION:
Professor Kenneth Heller presented the motion concerning Joint
Preparation Requirements for the Minnesota State Universities and the
University of Minnesota, calling senators attention to the commentary
following the motion. The requirements, he said, were negotiated between the
U of M and the Minnesota State Universities and will supercede the
requirements previously approved by the University Senate. Changes to the
previous requirements include the addition of a one-year geography requirement
under social studies and a one-year requirement in the visual and performing
arts.
Hearing no questions, the President called for the vote. The motion was
approved by a majority of members present and voting.
APPROVED
V. SENATE CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE
EDUCATIONAL POLICY COMMITTEE
Morse-Alumni Award for Excellence in Undergraduate Education
Action
MOTION:
That the University Senate approve the following changes in the Morse-
Alumni Award for Excellence in Undergraduate Education program:
I. POLICY CHANGES
1. That a standing group chosen from the Morse-Alumni award
winners be established, to serve as a resource and advisory
group to the University about excellence in undergraduate
education.
2. That the financial portion of the Morse-Alumni award,
beginning with new 1995 awards, be provided to recipients
for the remainder of the time they remain regular faculty
at the University, that is, that the award be a continuing
addition to the faculty member's regular salary. The
three-year award of funds to the recipients' departments,
for the recipients' use in undergraduate education, should
continue as at present.
INFORMATION:
II. OPERATIONAL CHANGES
1. That the annual Award ceremony be a large public event to
which the students and colleagues of all the winners can be
invited. This would be in addition to a smaller event with
the President and the Alumni.
2. That the Award include for each winner an appropriate,
well-publicized lecture, seminar, or exhibition in the
individual's specialty.
3. That at least every ten years, beginning with the 1995 30th
anniversary year, a special recognition event be held for
all of the winners over all of the years and that a special
memento, such as a lapel pin, be designed and given to
them.
4. That the standing advisory group of Morse-Alumni winners
consist of 20 individuals appointed for staggered three-
year terms. The group and its chair shall be appointed by
the President, on recommendation of the Senate Committee on
Educational Policy, and shall meet at the call of the
President, any of the senior officers of the University,
the Senate Committee on Educational Policy, or on its own
initiative. The chair shall make an annual oral report to
the University Senate about the group's activities.
5. That the salary of each new Morse-Alumni award winner be
increased by a continuous augmentation of $1500.
COMMENT:
The Senate Committee on Educational Policy believes that changes to the
Morse-Alumni Award for Outstanding Achievement in Undergraduate Education can
significantly enhance its attractiveness and at the same time emphasize the
University's commitment to undergraduate education.
Policy Changes
1. The Morse-Alumni award recipients provide a valuable resource to the
University because of their contributions to undergraduate education. This
advisory group provides an organized method by which their experience can help
influence University policy and practice to enhance undergraduate education.
2. Since undergraduate education is one of the primary functions of our
University, this mechanism demonstrates that the University recognizes that
excellence in undergraduate education is a continuing process and should be
reflected in salaries.
Operational Changes
1. The Morse-Alumni award recipients are excellent examples of the
effort that faculty devote to undergraduate education at the University. This
ceremony provides an opportunity to publicize this commitment.
2. The public presentation of the work of the award recipients will
allow the communication of this work to other members of the University
community. This should help maintain a culture of teaching at the University.
3. It is valuable to periodically recognize those who have contributed
to excellence in undergraduate education over a long period. This provides an
opportunity to do so every ten years.
4. The advisory group of award winners should change over time; the
terms suggested parallel those of Senate committees. The Senate should also
hear from the chair, at least once per year, about what the group has been
doing.
JOHN ADAMS, Chair
Senate Consultative Committee
KENNETH HELLER, Chair
Educational Policy Committee
DISCUSSION:
Professor Heller also presented the motion concerning the Morse-Alumni
Award. The Educational Policy Committee, he said, has been reviewing the
Morse-Alumni Award with the idea that the University should make a more public
use of the award to illustrate its commitment to undergraduate education. As
a result, the two policy changes are being proposed. Professor Heller
clarified that only the policy changes are proposed for action. The
operational changes are included for information only. The policy changes 1)
recognize the expertise of the group of award winners and make use of their
expertise in forming an advisory committee to advise the University in
excellence in undergraduate education, and 2) make the award a continuous
addition to faculty members regular salary to show that the University regards
undergraduate education a continuous commitment and puts it on the status of
other types of merit raises.
One senator encouraged the Morse-Alumni Award Committee to include in
its publications and presentation ceremonies recognition for Professor Horace
Morse so that he can be properly honored.
Another senator inquired about the definition of the term "regular"
faculty. Is the intent that fulltime faculty would receive the annual $1,500
award or would faculty who change to parttime status still be eligible for the
full annual supplement? Professor Heller said the point raised is an
important one and the Educational Policy Committee (SCEP) will need to review
implementation under the operational portion of the policy. Again Professor
Heller noted that that portion is not being acted upon today.
"What are the cost estimates to implement these policy changes and what
will the funding source be?" asked another senator. Professor Heller
responded that the increased costs are small. Because the amount of the award
will be changed from $2,500 for three years to a $1,500 continuous
augmentation, the increased cost to the University for the first five years
will be zero. After that time there will be an increased cost of $1,500 per
person per year. SCEP estimates a cost of approximately $300,000 over a 20
year period and envisions the need for reallocation of existing monies to fund
the award. President Hasselmo suggested this as an excellent item for
fundraising.
In response to a question about the rationale for the change and an
assumption that there would be fewer recipients, Professor Heller assured the
Senate that the number of award recipients would not be decreased.
At this time the motion was approved by a majority of members present
and voting.
APPROVED
VI. U2000 UPDATE
Discussion
President Hasselmo introduced the U2000 discussion. He said he believes
U2000 has turned out to be an important and useful vehicle for communicating
about the University, its priorities and aspirations for the future. It has
suffered from lack of specificity, he said, to some extent that is due to the
way the University approached it. The approach was to set a framework and a
set of directions that was to be filled out by the planning process. It is
very important that the entire University community get fully engaged in the
definition of the U2000 agenda in its specifics.
U2000 has a very "upbeat" agenda, said President Hasselmo, because it is
defining a strong leading University of the future and setting very high
aspirations for it in spite of the financial stringencies it is suffering
from. It is an agenda that intends to build on the enormous strengths of the
University. The agenda becomes negative only when you look at the resources
and that is where the University must make the case with the state and the
federal government for continued public investment in research, learning, and
outreach.
President Hasselmo briefly reviewed the six strategic directions under
U2000. It will be important, he said, for the University, with full
participation by the faculty, to identify the areas of scientific research and
scholarship and artistic activity where it must put its investments in the
future. He also reviewed some of the areas that have already been identified
in the planning process and reminded senators that the process is continuous
and one in which the faculty must be vigorously involved in shaping and
honing.
"PLANNING, BUDGETING, AND EVALUATION ACTIVITIES"
The President called on Professor Robert Kvavik, Associate Vice
President for Academic Affairs, to provide an update on the planning process.
The collegiate plans, except for the health sciences, have been received and
meetings have been held with each of the units, said Professor Kvavik. The
administrative plans have also been received and meetings with those units are
in process. In March written responses will be returned to the collegiate
units and in April to the support units. Some of the challenges of the
process, he said, are to share the ideas people have, to integrate the plans,
and to ensure communication between academic and support units.
The budget process is also well underway. Units are working on their
budgets with hearings scheduled for March. It is important, said Professor
Kvavik, that the academic plans become the driver for setting the budget.
The Capitol Improvements Advisory Committee has begun to prioritize
University repairs and replacements. Because the budget for this activity is
known, it makes planning easier, said Professor Kvavik. In connection with
this, the first draft of a planning document for the total upgrading of the
classroom environment on the Twin Cities campus is complete, and master
planning activities, which include conceptualizing the design of the campus as
a whole, are proceeding well.
"U2000 CAMPAIGN"
Vice President Mel George was introduced next to report on the U2000
Campaign. Vice President George was pleased to report that the number of
members in the Legislative Network has tripled to approximately 2,000. The
Network is a group of citizens from across the State who have agreed to
receive periodic mailings about legislative matters and who are willing to
contact legislators on behalf of the University. Training has been provided
to Network members that included a panel discussion with legislators. A
number of University support groups (e.g., the U of M Foundation Trustees, the
Medical Foundation Trustees, the Hospital Board of Governors) have also been
asked to speak with legislators on behalf of the University's budget request.
In addition to the above initiatives, a number of printed materials have
been produced, including the 1995-97 Partnership Proposal brochure distributed
to senators at the door, and a simple guide for volunteers and individuals to
use in contacting legislators. Moreover, a number of non-University people
have been asked to speak to groups on behalf of the University and a
presentation kit has been developed for their use. Efforts are also underway
to reconnect with the Conversations with Minnesota groups, groups from across
the State that were part of the original U2000 discussion process, to assure
them that their comments were heard in the development of U2000 and to seek
their support in garnering the funds to implement it.
In conclusion, Dr. George commended the University of Minnesota
Coalition for Higher Education on the document they developed, called U2000--
Renewing the Partnership Between the State and Students, which was approved by
the Student Senate earlier in the day. The document, he said, is very upbeat
and positive and will be used by students in their own legislative contact
efforts.
"INSTITUTIONAL-LEVEL CRITICAL MEASURES AND PERFORMANCE GOALS"
Dr. Darwin Hendel reported on the status of the Institutional-Level
Critical Measures and Performance Goals. He briefly reviewed for senators the
development process to date which has included significant Senate committee
involvement. The first five measures were approved by the Board of Regents in
December 1994. They included: 1) characteristics of entering students, 2)
graduation rate, 3) underrepresented groups/diversity, 4) sponsored funding,
and 5) investment/student.
The second group of eight measures is being developed during the 1994-95
academic year, using a discussion process involving campuses, colleges and
administrative units; the University Senate and its committees; staff
committees; student organizations/groups; President Hasselmo's minority
advisory committees; and other external groups. Second phase critical
measures include: 1) student experience, 2) post-graduate experience, 3)
scholarship, research, artistic accomplishments, 4) responsiveness to
compelling State needs, 5) overall satisfaction of Minnesota citizens, 6)
faculty and staff recruitment, satisfaction and retention, 7) facilities, and
8) resource development. It is hoped that the second phase measures and goals
will be ready for review by the Regents in May or June.
"SENATE DISCUSSION"
Professor John Adams, chair of the Senate Consultative Committee,
reviewed Senate involvement in the development of the critical measures and
performance goals and called on several committee chairs to review their
committees' activities.
Professor Virginia Gray, chair of the Finance and Planning Committee
(F&PC), reported that the F&PC has met with Dr. Hendel on several occasions to
discuss the second set of eight critical measures, including meeting in small
groups in order to critique them in more meaningful ways. In addition, the
committee is reviewing the non-academic unit plans discussed by Professor
Kvavik in order to provide some academic perspective. Several meetings have
also been held that relate to the overall planning process. Additionally, the
committee has been actively involved in each stage of the legislative request
and partnership proposal. For example, the committee will be holding a
special meeting to review the revised budget instructions that are scheduled
to be distributed within the next week. Professor Gray welcomed senators to
F&PC meetings held on Tuesday afternoons or to contact her with comments or
concerns.
Professor Kenneth Heller, chair of the Educational Policy Committee
(SCEP), said the committee has met frequently this year to address the myriad
of University issues relating to educational policy. One of those, of course,
is the critical measures, which, he said, is so important because they define
the way the University sees itself. In addition, the committee tries to act
as a forum for the faculty by raising issues with the administration. The SCEP
is also concerned with issues related to the physical environment which
impacts on education. He too welcomed senators to attend the committee's
meetings or to contact him with issues they would like to have discussed.
Professor Daniel Feeney, chair of the Faculty Affairs Committee (SCFA),
said the SCFA has adopted the philosophy that it must be the faculty advocate,
which has been its role in the critical measure development and in other areas
related to faculty welfare. The committee is very concerned about faculty
morale, the tapping of faculty creativity, the relationship between the
administration and the faculty, and how policies affect faculty. This must be
integrated in the critical measures. The committee has met with Drs. Hendel
and Whiteside and recently encouraged them to refocus the faculty
satisfaction, recuitment, and retention measure to address the idea that there
is a core group of faculty who are loyal, are not seeking outside jobs, are
not necessarily "stars" but are very productive and under-recognized. Other
items under review by the SCFA are: 1) tenure code revisions necessary under
the new provost model, 2) new options for retirement, 3) review of the
proposed Conflict of Commitment Policy, 4) review of the proposed Sexual
Harassment Policy, and 5) development of a faculty/staff periodical with the
goal of improving University communication.
One senator, speaking to an issue relating to user-friendliness, related
an experience in which he spent over three hours attempting to learn the
University's definition of "minority" without success. This pursuit was in
response to the question, "If I have to recruit graduate students who are
minority by the National Institute of Health definition or any other
definition, and we are to go after additional sponsored research funds set
aside for those minority students, how does one define a minority student?"
VII. PRESIDENT'S REPORT
President Hasselmo began his report by praising students for their
extraordinary efforts with the Legislature this year. Clearly, he said, the
Legislature is moving toward performance measures and the fact that the
University has been out front on this issue gives it the opportunity to use
its own measures rather than have them imposed on it, which has happened in a
number of other states.
The Transition Task Force, said the President, has been working on all
of the sixteen areas that need to be considered in decentralization of
administration. Part of this process is assigning to provosts, deans, and
departments all responsibilities that can appropriately be so assigned. Nine
of the sixteen areas have already been approved. They include: 1) strategic
planning, 2) student affairs, 3) resource allocation, 4) facilities
management, 5) human resources, 6) instruction, 7) outreach, 8) institutional
relations, and 9) environment health and safety. Remaining to be restructured
are: research, legal affairs, diversity, technology, financial management, and
data collection.
As part of the reorganization effort there has been a reorganization of
academic affairs, and consultation on that has begun. One of the important
parts of that reorganization came to the fore suddenly when the President had
to consider a retention case which involved the restructured Student Affairs
position, renamed Student Development and Athletics, restoring to that
position responsibility for intercollegiate athletics which the position had
as late as 1987. The President stressed that it was not an addition of a new
vice presidency but a previously restructured position. Because of budget
stringencies, the President has placed a temporary hold on the search for a
Vice President for Outreach.
President Hasselmo was pleased to announce that:
- Dr. Kathryn Martin has been named Chancellor of the Duluth campus
and will be assuming her position on August 1
- Dr. C. Eugene Allen has been named Provost for Professional
Studies effective February 10
- Dr. McKinley Boston has been named Vice President for Student
Development and Athletics and will be assuming that position July 1
The search for the third Provost position (Arts, Sciences, and
Engineering) is nearing conclusion.
The President also reported on legislative issues, noting that the
Governor, through his budget recommendations, sent a strong message of support
of the major restructuring efforts going on at the University. The Governor
has recommended $61 million of new funding for the University for the next
biennium. While it is not the full $87 million asked for under the
partnership proposal, it is a substantial recommendation for the University.
It is important to understand, however, that $53 million of the $61 million is
one-time money. The President believes the Legislature has responded well to
the Partnership Proposal and he thanked the many faculty and students who have
been very visible in the Legislature. It is quite clear, he said, that the
University will have to continue to restructure and reinvest existing
resources as public investment is not going to snap back to what it has been
during the past few decades.
VIII. QUESTIONS TO THE PRESIDENT
QUESTION: What consultation process was used in the appointment of Dr.
McKinley Boston; how will student consultation be structured into
how the position is further developed and reorganized; and how
does it fit into U2000?
RESPONSE: The position had already been defined within the restructuring
effort with a concentration on those parts of student affairs
that are focused on community building among students, such as
counseling, residence halls, programming, student activities,
athletics, etc. Further development of the position will take
place when Dr. Boston begins July 1. The President is confident
that he will establish close collaboration with students and
review the entire way students participate in governance in
general and in the community building effort.
With regard to consultation on Dr. Boston's appointment, the
President said this was one of those situations when quick
decisions needed to be made. The President did consult with the
Senate Consultative Committee leadership and other colleagues,
but agreed consultation was minimal because of the nature of the
situation.
User-friendliness, access, and diversity are three of the major
directions of U2000. Community building in its broader
ramifications embraces all of those areas to bring students to
the University and support them while they are students. The
Vice President for Student Development is an important
appointment in that context.
IX. SENATE CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE REPORT
Professor John Adams, chair of the Senate Consultative Committee (SCC)
reported that the Senate through its committee structure has been actively
involved in:
- the development of a Conflict of Commitment Policy
- the revision of the Academic Freedom and Responsibility Statement
- the refinement and implementation of the U2000 agenda
- the search process for the provosts and other senior
administrative positions
- the development of a new communication vehicle for the faculty,
staff, and administration
- curriculum initiatives
- discussions concerning the Partnership Proposal and budget issues
- discussions about responsibility centered management
- review of compensation issues
Professor Adams also reviewed the final recommendations of the
Transition Advisory Committee, which he chaired, that was established in the
fall to "look at how existing governance structures should interface with the
new administrative organization, and to serve in an advisory capacity to the
Transition Task Force." Copies of the final report were distributed to
senators as they entered the meeting room.
Finally, Professor Adams called senators attention to another handout
which outlined the differences between the Senate-approved and Regents-
approved versions of the Student Academic Grievance Policy. Because the
modifications the Regents made were considered non-substantive, the
Consultative Committee did not consider further action by the Senate
necessary.
X. SENATE CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE
Academic Freedom and Responsibility Statement
Information and Discussion
The University of Minnesota was founded in the belief that people are ennobled
by understanding; it is dedicated to the advancement of learning and the
search for truth; it is devoted to the instruction of youth and the welfare of
the state. These purposes, carved in stone upon the facade of Northrop
Auditorium, embody the tradition of scholarship upon which rest the
development of higher education and the progress of a democratic society. It
is this tradition that sustains the human mind and spirit when beset by human
passions and prejudices. It is to this tradition that the Board of Regents of
the University of Minnesota reaffirms its adherence. In doing so, it
reiterates its commitment to the corollary principles of academic freedom and
responsibility.
Academic Freedom and Responsibility at the University of Minnesota mean:
Freedom: of expression in the classroom on matters relevant to the subject and
the purpose of the course and of the choice of methods in classroom teaching;
from direction and restraint in scholarship, research, and creative expression
and in the discussion and publication of the results thereof; to speak and
write as a citizen without institutional censorship or discipline;
and
Responsibility: to perform faithfully the duties of membership in the
University community and the responsibilities of position; to observe the
special obligations of a member of a learned community and of an officer or
member of an educational institution to seek and respect the truth; to make it
clear that statements made on one's own behalf are not those of the
institution.
All members of the University community are responsible for fostering the
principles of academic freedom and responsibility at the University.
Questions regarding academic freedom or academic responsibility shall be
resolved in accordance with the Regulations Concerning Faculty Tenure or other
applicable University procedures.
DISCUSSION:
Professor John Adams introduced the proposed Academic Freedom and
Responsibility Statement, which was presented to the Senate for information
and discussion. He asked Professor Fred Morrison, a member of the working
group that crafted the proposed statement, to briefly discuss the ideas behind
the statement and to respond to questions. Professor Morrison explained that
the University currently has three separate statements relating to academic
freedom and responsibility, the first from 1938 rang loud and clear about the
protection of academic freedom, a second was approved in 1963, and a third in
1971. Earlier this year the Regents initiated a review of these statements
with the recommendation that they be incorporated into one policy statement.
A small working group was then formed to craft a revised statement. The
committee had several goals in mind, said Professor Morrison: 1) a simple
clear statement of policy that did not go into great detail, 2) a policy that
reached out to all members of the academic community, including faculty and
students, and 3) a statement that included the notion of responsibility.
One senator asked why the language "to speak and write as a citizen . .
" was used when many members of the University community are neither United
States or state citizens. The committee intended to convey the proposition
that the University will not attempt to stop a member of the University
community from expressing any view that individual has outside of the work
environment, responded Professor Morrison. Citizen may not have been the
right choice of words as the committee did not intend it to mean a citizen of
the United States or state, but instead was thinking that every member of the
academic community has the right of a citizen vis-a-vis the University,
whatever his/her citizenship may be.
It was further suggested that "duties of membership" and
"responsibilities of position" should be defined. in the responsibility
section. Professor Morrison responded that this language was intended to mean
that each employee of the University has a responsibility to fulfill the
duties of his/her position description no matter what his/her personal view
points may be.
In conclusion, Professor Adams reminded senators that the statement will
be brought for action at the April 20 Senate meeting. Comments between now
and then may be directed to either him or Professor Morrison.
XI. PLANS FOR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE
Dean Harold Miller gave a presentation on plans for University College.
When discussing University College, said Dean Miller, it is important to
remember that the world is changing with our knowledge based economy.
Knowledge workers not only need formal education to begin their careers, but
updating and career changing instructional activity throughout their careers.
As a result higher education institutions have seen a significant increase in
the number of adult students who are returning for continuing education. The
University must take leadership in this transition of what it means to be a
land grant institution in the 21st century. It means the University must be
accessible to the population of the State and that there must be a sharing of
knowledge across the entire spectrum of life. University College will be a
tactical unit to help achieve this transition.
The mission of University College is six-fold: 1) to be system-wide, 2)
to provide access to degrees and courses, 3) to develop new degrees and
certificates, 4) to develop and provide work-related non-credit courses, 5) to
provide distance and time-free educational opportunities to people all over
the state, and 6) to serve as a broker for partner universities.
Why is CEE the platform for University College? CEE, said Dean Miller,
offered over 6,000 credit classes and 887 non-credit classes last year. It's
head count for credit students is approximately 61,000 and for non-credit
students approximately 36,000. It has 13,545 full year equivalent students
who are partnered with the various colleges and campuses of the University.
The budget for CEE last year was $54 million, of which 90 percent was earned
income from tuition and fees. It pays for inloaded instruction to departments
and overload instruction of the faculty. It provides employment for over
1,000 graduate students each year and provides ongoing funding for numerous
on-campus service operations. 47.5 percent of instruction in CEE is done by
regular faculty of the University. This will carry forward into University
College as well. In comparison, 55 percent of day school instruction is done
by the regular faculty.
CEE is also very cost effective. It has the lowest cost/FYE per
undergraduate studies student at the University. This is because CEE operates
on the margin and utilizes the existing faculty.
Turning to the issue of access, Dean Miller said CEE has, and University
College will have, access to 25 baccalaureate degrees, 8 masters degrees, 22
workforce and lifelong learning certificates (e.g. child abuse prevention
studies, solid waste management), and non credit-vocational and professional
training. Through CEE, students from all over the world may take credit
courses at the University without formally being admitted.
CEE also operates the Post Secondary Enrollment Options Act (PSEOA) for
high school students. 913 high school students were enrolled last year in
this program, 30 percent of whom were students of color. Their average GPA
earned at the University was over 2.5 and 50 percent of PSEOA students go on
to enroll at the U of M.
What then is new or different about University College? One major
difference will be the collegiate strategic planning process which will
include working with the academic departments and the colleges to deploy the
resources of the University in the most efficient way possible for research,
for professional and graduate education, for undergraduate education, for
user-friendliness, etc. There will also be expanded access to current degrees
and certificates and state-wide outreach through distance technology.
XII. 1993-94 ANNUAL REPORTS
Information
ALL-UNIVERSITY HONORS COMMITTEE
During the 1993-94 academic year the All-University Honors Committee
reviewed and approved six honorary degree, six outstanding achievement award,
and three alumni service award nominations, and a recommendation to name a
lecture hall. The committee also spent considerable time discussing ways to
increase the number of nominations it receives. Funding, it was learned,
posed a major obstacle for many units. In order to alleviate some of this
burden, the U of M Foundation most generously agreed to provide some funding
for this purpose. The president will notify deans and department heads of
this change and encourage them to increase their nomination efforts. Colleges
will be urged to establish honors screening committees and to set goals for
their colleges concerning honors.
The committee also reviewed, modified, and reprinted the Awards and
Recognition Procedures and Policy Handbook; reviewed Regents' policies on
awards and honors; and met with the chair of the Regents' Professor Nominating
Committee to discuss the nomination process.
Many thanks to the following individuals for their outstanding service
on the committee this year: Wilbert Ahern, Margaret Carlson, Qiana Edwards,
Gerald Fischer, Marcia Fluer, Eville Gorham, Willard Hartup, Wally Hilke, E.
F. Infante, Steve Kreitz, Alice Larson, Cathy Milota, Barbara O'Leary, Lee
Paulson, Paul Quie, Jesse Rosen, Stephanie Smith
Ellen Berscheid, Chair
COMPUTING AND INFORMATION SYSTEMS COMMITTEE
The major agenda item for the Computing and Information Systems
Committee (SCCIS) for 1993-94 was review and discussion of the information
technology planning process, which was the subject of many of the Committee's
meetings during the year. There was extensive discussion of the reports that
were produced in the early phases of the process; the Committee continuously
provided advice to the administration on how the planning and implementation
of information technology should proceed. The Committee also considered at
length the issues associated with the Minnesota Supercomputer Center, Inc.,
including consideration of the external review of the Minnesota Supercomputer
Institute, a report from Peat Marwick on the Supercomputer Center, the report
of the Task Force on Supercomputing (established to consider the future of the
University's relationship with the Center), and, at the end of the academic
year, the proposal to sell the Center. The Committee also received a report
form Telecommunications and discussed, inter alia, levels of use of various
services as well as the relationships between budgets and provisions of
service. The Committee reviewed and generally approved the budget requests
developed by the Office of Computing and Information Technologies. The
Committee also met with responsible administrators to discuss the computer
discount program offered through the bookstores and the use of information
technology in undergraduate education. Most of these issues will continue to
be the subject of discussion during
1994-95.
Thomas Burk, Chair
XIII. OLD BUSINESS
NONE
XIV. NEW BUSINESS
NONE
XV. TRIBUTE TO DECEASED MEMBERS OF THE UNIVERSITY COMMUNITY
FACULTY
Patrick Manning
1938-1994
Roberto Reis
1949-1994
Roberto Reis, Professor and Director of Graduate Studies in the
Department of Spanish and Portuguese, died on December 26, 1994, following a
serious head injury. Professor Reis was 45 years old and is survived by his
wife, Antonia, and ten year-old twins, Adriana and Diogo. We are all shocked
and deeply saddened by the sudden, tragic, and untimely passing of a truly
humanitarian individual--a man whose beliefs were carried out not only in his
scholarly work, but also in his daily life, especially with regard to family,
friends, students, and colleagues. Professor Reis' intellectual legacy
included numerous books, articles, lectures and papers on Brazilian literature
and culture. This spring, an international conference he had planned on
Brazilian studies will be held in his honor at the University.
Fredrick J. Robinson
1934-1995
Frederick J. Robinson, Professor and Founding Department Head of the
Department of Industrial Engineering at the Duluth Campus of the University of
Minnesota died on Saturday, January 7, 1995. He was born on February 17,
1934, in London, England and died of cancer at the age of 60 in his Duluth
home.
Dr. Robinson received his Ph.D. in Mechanical Engineering from the
University of London. During his engineering career he had two years of
military service, 14 years of professional/industrial experience and spent 29
years in academia. He was a jet fighter pilot for the Royal Air Force in the
1950s. In the 1950s and 1960s he was a rocket engineer for DeHavilland and
developed a rotary steam expansion engine similar in layout to the Wankel
spark ignition gasoline engine. In fact, in 1961 he conferred with Felix
Wankel himself in Lindau on the Bodensee. Even Prince Philip took an interest
in this work and came to visit Dr. Robinson in his labs at the University of
London, Queen Mary College. From 1970-1980 he was a Professor in the School
of Engineering at Lakehead University, Thunder Bay, Ontario, Canada.
He came to UMD in 1984 where he assisted and advised in the
establishment of the Industrial Engineering Department. He was a professor in
the department until the time of his death.
Dr. Robinson was a Chartered Engineer and Physicist (U.K.); a Registered
Professional Engineer; and a Fellow of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers
(U.K.), Institution of Electrical Engineers (U.K.), and Royal Society of Arts
(U.K.). He was a member of the Institute of Physics (U.K.), American Society
of Mechanical Engineers, National Association of Scholars, and a senior member
of the American Institute of Industrial Engineering.
His areas of expertise included metrology, mechanical/production
engineering, manufacturing methods, engine design. Dr. Robinson developed a
world class metrology laboratory in the new Engineering Building which
provides excellent training for students and was an important resource for his
research program. He integrated automated measurement techniques, Computer
Aided Design, and Computer Numerical Control machining which provided a closed
loop system to rapidly produce prototype parts from scale models. He was
admired by students and faculty for his very precise drawings on the
blackboard and on paper.
Dr. Robinson's interests included model making, military history
(especially military aircraft), and amateur dramatics. During the spring and
summer of 1994 he was involved in the recording of a series of short radio
plays, written by a Duluthian, which were creations in the Conan Doyle style
of the details of Sherlock Holmes cases which are only mentioned and never
fully developed within the published Holmes stories.
He is survived by his wife, Ellen, at their home in Much Hadham, Herts,
England; three children: Stephen Paul of Berkhamsted, England, Neil Philip of
Geneva Switzerland, and Sally Ann of Hutton, England; and two grandchildren,
Rebecca and Henry.
A private memorial service for Dr. Robinson's family, colleagues and
friends was held in Duluth on Saturday, January 14, 1995. A scholarship for
UMD Industrial Engineering students has been established in his honor/memory.
Gordon I. Swanson
1920-1994
Gordon Ira Swanson, Professor Emeritus in the Department of Vocational
and Technical Education, died November 2, 1994. Dr. Swanson was 74 years old.
A former Marine and World War II veteran, recipient of two Purple Hearts and
the Bronze Star, he returned to the University after the war to complete his
graduate education. He stayed on as a professor of agricultural education, and
remained active in the profession until his death. He officially retired June
30, 1991. During the last two years of his professional career, Gordon served
as Associate Director of the National Center for Research in Vocational
Education headquartered at the University of California, Berkeley.
Dr. Swanson began his professional career as a teacher of vocational
agriculture at Alexandria, Minnesota. Upon his return to graduate school and
subsequent employment at the University, Gordon's career continued to blossom.
He gained an early international reputation in agricultural education and
rural development activity. He spent brief periods working in 27 different
countries throughout Europe, Asia, Africa and South America, including an
extended tour with UNESCO in Paris where his family accompanied him. He
managed one of the University's early large scale international programs
sponsored by the Ford Foundation for agricultural education development in
Brazil.
Gordon had a propensity to lead. During his career he served as
Chairman of the Board of Governors of Phi Delta Kappa Foundation and President
of several state and national organizations including the American Vocational
Association, the National Rural Education Association, the Minnesota
Vocational Association and the American Swedish Institute. In addition, he
chaired several committees and task forces for the National Academy of
Science, and the United States Office of Education (now ESDE).
He was an active community participant, having served as moderator of
the St. Anthony Park United Church of Christ, Boy Scout leader and Chair of
the Board of Management of the University YMCA.
Gordon was the recipient of many prestigious awards for his dedicated
service, but none of which he was more proud than the right to be called Sir
Gordon Swanson, Knight, Order of the North Star, conferred upon him by the
King of Sweden.
Dr. Swanson was an outstanding teacher and prolific writer. A
bibliography of his works fills many pages. Among his accomplishments was the
securing of more than $3 million in research and development funds for his
department.
Dr. Gordon Swanson is survived by his wife, Dorothy, his sons Dean, Dale
and Charles and his daughter Janet (Mackenthun), several grandchildren, and
two bothers.
ACADEMIC STAFF
James E. Coggins
1936-1994
Lois J. DeLeon
1936-1994
The University of Minnesota lost a dedicated adviser when Lois DeLeon
passed away on November 10, 1994. Lois had worked in the General College
since 1982 as a tutor, instructor, mentor and most recently, as an advisor.
During this time, she also taught English in CEE's Neighborhood Programs, in
correctional facilities, and to immigrants through several community programs.
Lois was a dedicated advocate for students of color, serving as a strong role-
model.
Lois was an inspiration to her students because she knew first-hand
about the racial, economic and institutional barriers they face. She provided
her students with every possible kind of assistance and encouragement and she
pushed them hard to live up to their potential. Lois was honored by General
College students with a Mentor Award in 1990, she received the John Tate Award
for Excellence in Undergraduate Advising in 1990 and an Outstanding Advisor
Award from the National Academic Advising Association in 1992.
Lois was dedicated to advancing students and encouraging their academic
success, and her death is a loss both to the General College and the entire
University community.
STUDENTS
Scott A. Badenoch
College of Liberal Arts
Stacey L. Beitz
General College
Karie Kopel
Social Sciences Division, UMM
Amy Jo Matteson
College of Pharmacy
Duncan R. Titus
College of Liberal Arts
XVI. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 4:15 p.m.
Martha Kvanbeck
ABSTRACTOR