1994-95 UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA No. 5
UNIVERSITY SENATE MINUTES
MAY 18, 1995
The fifth meeting of the University Senate for 1994-95 was convened in 25
Law Building, Minneapolis campus, on Thursday, May 18, 1995, at 2:20 p.m.
Coordinate campuses were linked by telephone. Checking or signing the roll as
present were 117 voting faculty/academic professional members, 22 voting
student members, 4 ex officio members, and 5 nonmembers. President Nils
Hasselmo presided.
I. ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSE TO UNIVERSITY SENATE ACTIONS
Information
A. JOINT PREPARATION REQUIREMENTS FOR THE MINNESOTA STATE UNIVERSITIES AND
THE UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA
Approved by: the University Senate on February 16, 1995
the Administration March 1995
the Board of Regents on March 9, 1995 (with
implementation changed from Fall '96 to Fall '97)
II. ELECTION OF VICE CHAIR FOR 1995-96
Action
Professor Roberta Humphreys was elected vice chair of the University
Senate for 1995-96.
APPROVED
III. SENATE CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE
Academic Freedom and Responsibility Statement
Action
MOTION:
To approve the following Academic Freedom and Responsibility Statement:
Academic Freedom and Responsibility Statement
The Regents of the University of Minnesota reaffirm the Principles of Academic
Freedom and Responsibility. These are rooted in the Belief that the Mind is
ennobled by the Pursuit of Understanding and the Search for Truth, and the
State well served when Instruction is available to All at an Institution
dedicated to the Advancement of Learning. These Principles are also refreshed
by the Recollection that there is COMMUNE VINCULUM OMNIBUS ARTIBUS--a Common
Bond through all the Arts.
Academic Freedom is the Freedom to discuss all relevant matters in the
Classroom, to explore all Avenues of Scholarship, Research and Creative
Expression and to speak or write as a public Citizen without institutional
Discipline or Restraint. Academic Responsibility implies the faithful
Performance of Academic Duties and Obligations, the Recognition of the Demands
of the Scholarly Enterprise and the Candor to make it clear that the
Individual is not speaking for the Institution in Matters of public Interest.
Questions regarding academic freedom or academic responsibility shall be
resolved in accordance with the "Regulations Concerning Faculty Tenure" or
other applicable University procedures.
JOHN ADAMS, Chair
Senate Consultative Committee
DISCUSSION:
Professor John Adams presented the motion to approve the Academic Freedom
and Responsibility Statement. He recalled for senators previous discussions by
the Senate concerning this item. It is clear, he said, that development of
the statement is one of the most important things the Senate will accomplish
this year because the statement will be used as a guide and compass in the
years to come. It has come to the Senate Consultative Committee's (SCC)
attention, he noted, that some outside the University might look at the
document as a bit arcane or precious in the way that it is worded. However,
all comments made to the committee have been favorable and the SCC endorses
its approval. Professor Adams did suggest, however, and the Senate approved,
one modest adjustment to the document that would place the latin phrase
"Commune Vinculum Omnibus Artibus" before the phrase "a Common Bond through
all the arts" in order to clarify the language.
Professor Adams expressed appreciation to Regents Professor Rutherford
Aris, author of the document, for his thoughtful attention to the crafting of
the statement.
The Academic Freedom and Responsibility Statement, as amended, was then
approved by a majority of members present and voting. [The document as it
appears above is the amended version.]
APPROVED
IV. SENATE CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE
Merger of Student Senate Leadership Positions
Action
MOTION 1:
To amend the Senate Constitution as follows: (deletions are in
[brackets]; additions are in CAPS)
Article III, Section 6b
. . . .
6. University Senate and Student Senate Officers
a. . . . .
b. The officers of the Student Senate shall be a chair AND a vice
chair [, a clerk, and a treasurer].
[The chair and vice chair shall be elected by the Student Senate
at its last regularly scheduled spring quarter meeting from the
members of the Student Senate.] THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR SHALL BE
ELECTED AT A SPECIAL SPRING QUARTER SESSION OF THE STUDENT SENATE
ATTENDED ONLY BY STUDENT SENATORS ELECTED FOR THE FOLLOWING YEAR.
THE OUTGOING CHAIR SHALL PRESIDE OVER THE ELECTION. NON-SENATORS
AND OUTGOING STUDENT SENATORS MAY NOT BE CANDIDATES FOR THESE
POSITIONS. The chair and vice chair shall not be from the same
campus. In the event that no one is nominated for the vice chair
position from a separate campus, the position will be open to all
qualified members of the Student Senate. Term of office shall be
July 1 to June 30, and the personS holding office [is] ARE
eligible for re-election. The duties of the chair are (1) to be
the official spokesperson of the Student Senate; (2) to set the
Student Senate agenda, to be approved by the Student Consultative
Committee; (3) [to organize and chair the Student Lobbying
Advisory Committee;] TO SERVE ON THE BOARD OF THE
COALITION/UMCHE, THE UNIVERSITY'S STUDENT LOBBYING ORGANIZATION;
(4) to serve as the University's representative on the Student
Advisory Committee; (5) TO SERVE ON ONE CENTRAL UNIVERSITY
ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND TO DELEGATE STUDENT MEMBERS FOR OTHER
ADVISORY COMMITTEES; (6) TO SERVE AS THE CHAIR OF THE STUDENT
CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE.
The duties of the vice chair are (1) to assume the duties of the
chair in the event of an absence or incapacity of the chair; [and]
(2) to assume responsibilities delegated by the chair; (3) TO
SUBMIT TO THE SENATE OFFICE AN ANNUAL BUDGET REQUEST FOR THE
STUDENT SENATE AND STUDENT CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE, TO BE APPROVED
BY THE STUDENT SENATE DURING ITS FALL QUARTER MEETING; (4) TO
ORGANIZE AN ANNUAL ORIENTATION FOR MEMBERS OF THE STUDENT SENATE;
(5) TO MONITOR STUDENT SENATE ATTENDANCE AND ENSURE THAT THE
STUDENT SENATE HANDBOOK IS UPDATED AND DISTRIBUTED; (6) TO SERVE
ON A CENTRAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE THAT IS NOT ATTENDED BY THE
STUDENT SENATE CHAIR IF THERE IS MORE THAN ONE SUCH COMMITTEE
ACTIVE; (7) TO SERVE AS THE VICE CHAIR OF THE STUDENT CONSULTATIVE
COMMITTEE.
[The clerk and treasurer shall be appointed by the chair subject
to the approval of the Student Senate. The duties of the clerk
and treasurer shall be prescribed in the Senate Bylaws. The
Student Consultative Committee shall periodically review these
officer positions.]
c. . . . .
MOTION 2:
To amend the Senate Bylaws as follows: [deletions are in [bracktes];
additions are in CAPS]
Article I, Section 8
Article I. University Senate Membership, Elections, and Officers
. . . .
[8. Treasurer of the Student Senate: The treasurer of the Student Senate
shall be the chief budget officer of the Student Senate. The
treasurer shall chair the budget subcommittee of the Student Senate.]
Article III, Section 4
4. Consultative Committees
The Senate Consultative Committee shall be composed of 10 elected
members of the faculty, 9 elected students, and the vice chair of the
University Senate. The faculty representatives shall serve as the
Faculty Consultative Committee; the 8 elected student representatives
and the chair and vice chair of the Student Senate shall serve as the
Student Consultative Committee; the 8 elected student representatives
and the vice chair of the Student Senate shall [comprise] CONSTITUTE
the 9 voting student members of the Senate Consultative Committee.
. . . .
Student Consultative Committee
Membership
The Student Consultative Committee shall be composed of:
one student from the Crookston campus
one student from the Duluth campus
one student from the Morris campus
five students from the Twin Cities campus, as follows:
1993-94 4 undergraduates, 1 graduate/professional
1994-95 3 undergraduates, 2 graduate/professional
1995-96 4 undergraduates, 1 graduate/professional
1996-97 3 undergraduates, 2 graduate/professional
1997-98 4 undergraduates, 1 graduate/professional
the chair and vice chair of the Student Senate
Student members EXCEPT FOR THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR shall be elected in
accordance with procedures determined by the respective campuses' student
constituencies, subject to the following provisions:
- At the time of their election, students shall be members of the
University Senate (except for Crookston).
- Students shall serve a one-year term, and are eligible for re-election.
No student member is eligible to serve more than three consecutive
terms.
Student vacancies shall be filled in accordance with procedures determined by
the respective campuses for the balance of any unexpired term until the next
regular election.
THE CHAIR OF THE STUDENT SENATE SHALL ALSO SERVE AS THE CHAIR OF THE STUDENT
CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE. THE VICE CHAIR OF THE STUDENT SENATE SHALL ALSO SERVE
AS THE VICE CHAIR OF THE STUDENT CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE. IF EITHER THE CHAIR
OR VICE CHAIR HAS ALREADY BEEN ELECTED TO THE STUDENT CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE
AS A REGULAR MEMBER, HE OR SHE MUST CONCEDE HIS OR HER PRIOR POSITION TO
ANOTHER STUDENT, TO BE CHOSEN AS SOON AS POSSIBLE BY THE APPROPRIATE STUDENT
CONSTITUENCY. THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR SHALL SERVE NO MORE THAN TWO
CONSECUTIVE TERMS. The VICE chair of the Student Senate shall serve as an ex
officio, nonvoting member of the Senate Consultative Committee [if not
otherwise elected in his or her own right]. The [vice] chair of the Student
Senate shall serve as a voting member of the Senate Consultative Committee.
Duties and Responsibilities
a. To meet separately, when necessary, to discuss with the president, or
others, matters of concern to the student body.
b. To serve as [the nucleus of an] THE executive and steering committee of
the Student Senate.
[c. To provide for a budget subcommittee of the Student Senate. The budget
subcommittee shall be chaired by the treasurer of the Student Senate.
Three members shall be appointed by the chair of the Student Senate with
one member from each of the following committees: Student Senate
Consultative Committee, Student Committee on Committees, Student
Lobbying Advisory Committee. These appointments are subject to the
approval of the Student Senate.]
Chairs: The chair[s] of the Faculty Consultative Committee [and of the
Student Consultative Committee] shall be elected by [their respective] ITS
members from among their number for a one-year term of office. [Chairs] THE
CHAIR OF THE FACULTY CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE SHALL BE ELIGIBLE FOR RE-ELECTION
TO THAT POSITION. THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR OF THE STUDENT CONSULTATIVE
COMMITTEE SHALL BE ELECTED BY THE STUDENT SENATE IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE
III, SECTION 6B, OF THE SENATE CONSTITUTION. The chair of the Faculty
Consultative Committee shall serve as chair of the Senate Consultative
Committee.
[The Student Consultative Committee shall have a chair and a vice chair who
shall be from separate campuses. The vice chair shall assume the duties of
the chair in the event of an absence or incapacity of the chair and shall
assume responsibilities delegated by the chair.]
MOTION 3:
To amend the Senate Rules as follows (deletions are in [brackets];
additions are in CAPS)
Article III, Section 2
2. Ex Officio Members of Senate Committees
Ex officio members shall be appointed from each of the offices listed below
and are non-voting positions unless otherwise noted.
. . . .
Senate Consultative--Vice chair of the University Senate (voting); Chairs of
the Finance and Planning and Educational Policy Committees; elected
representative from the Duluth faculty eligible to vote in Senate elections;
VICE chair of the Student Senate
COMMENT:
The above amendments were approved by the Student Senate on February 16,
1995, and if approved by the University Senate will merge the chair and vice
chair positions of the Student Senate and the Student Senate Consultative
Committee. The Student Senate believes these changes will result in more
effective leadership and communication within student governance. The Senate
Consultative Committee endorsed the amendments at its April 6 meeting.
JOHN ADAMS, Chair
Senate Consultative Committee
DISCUSSION:
The amendments failed to receive the required number of votes necessary
for approval and will be brought back to the first meeting fall quarter for
reconsideration.
NOT APPROVED
V. SENATE CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE
STUDENT AFFAIRS COMMITTEE
Sexual Assault Policy
Action
MOTION:
To approve the following Sexual Assault Policy:
Sexual Assault Policy
The University of Minnesota is committed to creating a community which
is free from violence in all forms, including, but not limited to physical
assaults, and bias motivated actions based on gender, race, sexual
orientation, or disability. Sexual violence, including sexual assault and
sexual harassment, will not be tolerated at this University.
To flourish as a University and as a community, we must strive to ensure
the safety of every individual and respect for the dignity of every individual
whether they are students, faculty or staff.
The University commits itself to creating a community which is not only
free from sexual assault and other forms of sexual violence, but supportive of
its survivors.
We define sexual assault as sexual contact (not limited to sexual
intercourse) when such contact is achieved:
- without consent, or
- with the use of physical force, coercion, deception, threat, or
the victim is:
- mentally incapacitated or impaired
- physically impaired (due to alcohol or drug consumption)
- asleep or unconscious
A sexual assault is an attack not only on a person's body, but on their
dignity; an attack not only on an individual, but on the community.
The decision to report the sexual assault of a member of the University
community by another member of the University community rests solely with the
survivor. However, the University strongly encourages the reporting of sexual
assaults to the proper University officials. Reporting is the only way that
action can be taken against the alleged attacker.
The University will strive to provide a judicial process for students
that is sensitive, supportive, fair, expedient and respectful of the
individual needs and rights of all involved. This process will allow for
interim measures to be taken when they are necessary to ensure the well-being
of the survivor, the accused, or the witnesses. This process will not be
prejudiced by any actions that may be taken in the criminal or civil courts at
the county, state or federal level.
Our responsibility in relation to sexual assault is not limited to the
adjudication process. The survivor, the accused and the community itself have
needs that must be addressed.
The University offers an array of services to support both the survivors
and offenders of sexual assault.
The University commits itself to the provision of a variety of
educational programs and services to all members of the University community.
As an educational institution we must not neglect the importance of education
as it pertains to sexual assault and sexual violence.
The commitment of all members of the University community to this policy
will contribute to our goal of creating a community free from sexual violence.
JOHN ADAMS, Chair
Senate Consultative Committee
EVELYN FRANKLIN, Chair
Student Affairs Committee
DISCUSSION:
Mr. Joel Bergstrom, senator and member of the Student Affairs Committee,
introduced the motion. Two questions arose concerning the language: 1) Is
the phrase "rests solely with the survivor" appropriate? and 2) Is the
document intended only for students since the term "students" is used
throughout it? While the senator posing the first question understood the
concept behind the phrase, he wondered if more appropriate language, such as
"the person who was assaulted," should be substituted. A member of the
Student Affairs Committee explained that the word "survivor" was used because
it has become the term of choice in recent years for those who have been
sexually assaulted. With regard to the second question, it was not clear to
members of the Student Affairs Committee who were present whether the policy
was intended to apply only to students. The Senate, however, believed that it
should apply to all members of the University community and approved a motion
to replace the word "student" with "members of the University community" where
appropriate.
Another question was raised concerning the judiciary process referred to
in the document. Again, committee members in attendance were not able to
explain the intent behind the language. At this time, the Senate voted to
recommit the document to the Student Affairs Committee for further
clarification and review.
REFERRED BACK TO COMMITTEE
VI. SENATE CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE
SOCIAL CONCERNS COMMITTEE
ROTC
Action
MOTION:
That the University Senate approve the following Resolution with respect
to the continuing conflict between the University's equal opportunity and ROTC
policies:
ROTC Resolution
WHEREAS, the University of Minnesota is committed to the policy that all
persons shall have equal access to its programs and facilities without regard
to sexual orientation;
WHEREAS, federal military regulations governing ROTC place the University's
ROTC program in conflict with this policy;
WHEREAS, the Senate acknowledges various important benefits of ROTC programs;
but
WHEREAS, the Senate is also committed to defending the University's equal
opportunity policy in its entirety,
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Senate request the President and the
administration to continue their efforts to place the issue of federal
military regulations discriminating against current and future members of the
armed services in the matter of their sexual orientation on the national
agendas of the appropriate educational associations and the Minnesota
congressional delegation, with the objective of resolving the conflict on our
campus, as well as at other universities.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that those efforts be communicated to the University
community for the purpose of illuminating the nature and importance of the
equal opportunity policy.
BE IF FURTHER RESOLVED that if the conflict has not been settled by June 30,
1996, then the University, at the time of renewal, will renegotiate its
contracts with all ROTC programs on campus in accordance with the following
resolution; at the same time, the administration will establish an oversight
committee to oversee the fulfillment of the following resolution.
BE IF FURTHER RESOLVED that if the conflict has not been settled by one year
after the beginning date for renegotiation of the contract, then the
University will begin the process of severing relations with the ROTC,
specifically by disallowing the admission of any new students into any ROTC
program on campus. ROTC representatives may maintain a presence on campus as
long as that presence is maintained in such a way that the equal opportunity
policy is not violated.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, pending approval by the Board of Regents, the
University formally notify all ROTC programs on campus of this motion by June
30, 1995.
COMMENT:
The equal opportunity policy of the University of Minnesota, as required
by federal statue, states, "The University of Minnesota is committed to the
policy that all persons shall have equal access to its programs, facilities,
and employment without regard to race, religion, color, sex, national origin,
handicap, age, veteran status, or sexual orientation." The University of
Minnesota Reserve Officers Training Corps program (ROTC) has consistently
discriminated against applicants and members on the basis of sexual
orientation. On February 14, 1991, the University Senate adopted a resolution
calling on the University to end its relationship with the ROTC program if the
discrimination continued after June 30, 1993.
On May 8, 1992, the Board of Regents affirmed its support of the
principles put forward in the Senate resolution but declined "to endorse at
this time, the recommendation of the University Senate that a timetable be
established at this time for effecting the desired changes." The President
was directed "to continue to pursue changes in the Department of Defense
policies through administrative and legislative channels and in cooperation
with other national higher educational organizations." This action was
similar to one called for in a prior resolution passed by the University
Senate at its Fall 1989 meeting, which also included no deadline for ROTC
compliance with University equal opportunity policy.
President-elect Clinton committed himself to eliminating Department of
Defense discrimination based on sexual orientation prior to taking office in
January 1993, but the action he eventually took, the so-called "don't ask,
don't tell" policy, fell short of providing equal treatment for people of all
sexual orientations. Their right to open affirmation of their sexual
orientation continues to be denied by the current policy, and they remain
subject to harassment and punitive action if their sexual orientation becomes
known to others. Fitness to carry out job-related activities is not the
issue. This discrimination is based solely on the thoughts and feelings of
the individuals concerned.
Much of the text of the comment presented with the 1991 Senate
resolution remains germane in 1995. The remainder of this statement is taken
directly from that document, beginning in the third paragraph.
....there has been increased interest (in recent years) in the promotion
and celebration of diversity within our own University community.
And yet, at the heart of the University's commitment to diversity are
our equal opportunity and affirmative action policies, the former of
which is so clearly violated by ROTC practice.
To present the ROTC equal opportunity conflict merely as a "policy"
conflict, as we have done so often, suggests a symmetry: each policy
conflicts with the other. But in fact, we have hesitated to practice
equal opportunity in such a way as to challenge our ROTC policy. Why
is this asymmetry tolerated?
To be sure, the ROTC-University affiliation is valuable; for
instance, there are considerable benefits to the Nation and to the
State from offering military action in conjunction with civilian
education; moreover, the University and many students benefit from
ROTC scholarships. To that extent, the ROTC equal opportunity
conflict is not just a policy conflict but also a conflict of values.
Again, there may appear to be a symmetry -- unmistakable values on
both sides. But the question arises whether the values in question
are equally fundamental to the role of the University as an
educational institution.
To establish a deadline for resolution of this matter, rather than
simply to require immediate conformity with the equal opportunity
policy, is to acknowledge that there are indeed some important
benefits of ROTC programs -- benefits worth preserving. But to
establish a deadline with the consequences stated above is to
acknowledge that our equal opportunity policy is much more valuable
to our educational mission than our ROTC policy. It is in addition a
very clear message to members of the community that the University is
strongly committed to equal opportunity. The deadline also
represents a special urgency that the President and administration
can hopefully communicate to leaders of other educational
institutions, and to our congressional representatives, on behalf of
continued efforts to get an appropriate response at the federal
level. (Emphasis as in the original statement.)
JOHN ADAMS, Chair
Senate Consultative Committee
BARBARA WALDEN, Chair
Social Concerns Committee
DISCUSSION:
Professor Barbara Walden, Chair of the Social Concerns Committee,
presented the motion concerning the ROTC Resolution. Referring to the
committee as the "conscience" of the Senate, she said the resolution was being
brought forward in that vein. Professor Walden reviewed with senators the
commentary portion which details the history of and rationale for the
resolution. She then introduced Professor Frank Wood, chair of the
Subcommittee on Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender Issues.
The Resolution, Professor Wood said, addresses a matter of violation of
the University of Minnesota's mandated affirmation of equal opportunity for
all persons. Essentially, it calls on the University to reaffirm a position
taken in February of 1991. For clarification, he told senators the issue of
having an ROTC program on campus is NOT at issue. It is also important to
note that the Resolution is in no way a reflection on the qualifications of
the present ROTC staff or the quality of the program. The Resolution
addresses a civil rights issue. Current federal policy requires that the ROTC,
which is a significant source of student financial support as well as
providing access to a career in the military, violates the equal opportunity
policy by requiring that some students conceal and/or deny their sexual
orientation to be eligible for admission to the ROTC program and to remain in
the program. The Resolution is a recommendation to the Board of Regents to
again review the matter.
In response to a question to the President concerning what actions he
took in response to the 1991 Senate Resolution, he said he and others engaged
in active lobbying both directly and through the national educational
associations and that he visited the Department of Defense to present the
University's case. During the Clinton campaign there appeared to be some
movement, but the kind of action that was hoped for was compromised in the
political process. The result was an ambiguous and unsatisfactory situation.
The University has continued to monitor the political situation and to
evaluate court cases related to this issue, which, he said, have gone in both
directions.
"When does the ROTC contract next come up for renegotiation?" inquired
one senator. Neither the President nor the Social Concerns Committee had that
information at hand, although the Social Concerns Committee has inquired into
that matter.
Another senator reported that a document entitled "A Pedge To Students,"
which supports the current ROTC program, was recently approved by MSA and he
encouraged the Senate not to vote in favor of the Resolution.
Other senators spoke in favor of the Resolution and some even suggested
the language wasn't strong enough. "We wouldn't tolerate this in any of our
departments or among any of our colleagues," said one person.
In response to a question concerning whether local ROTC representatives
had been contacted, Professor Walden said the committee did speak with ROTC
representatives. As the Senate may suspect, they are not supportive of the
Resolution and believe they are mandated by the Federal policy.
The Social Concerns Committee carefully crafted the Resolution, said one
of its members, in order to provide the University some time to continue its
work on the matter and hopefully come to a successful resolution of the issue.
While some would like to see the language stated more strongly, the Committee
understands the importance of ROTC and the role it plays at the University,
but it also recognizes the importance of the University's commitment to equal
opportunity for all students and employees.
At this time the Resolution was overwhelmingly approved on a voice vote
by a majority of those members present and voting.
APPROVED
VII. PRESIDENT'S REPORT
The President opened his remarks by thanking his colleagues at the
Morris campus for a very pleasant visit the previous week--a visit in which he
had an opportunity to meet and exchange ideas with faculty, staff and
students. He said he has also had the opportunity to attend other events
which brought home what the University is about, where important contributions
of the institution, faculty, staff, and students have been recognized.
The president then reported on a number of topics:
PARTNERSHIP PROPOSAL: It is expected that the University will receive
approximately $61 million from the State during the next biennium, which
represents a $45 million increase. Unfortunately, most of that money is a
one-time allocation. The signal from the legislature, however, is that it
heard the University's requests and it believes that the University is taking
steps to be more cost effective in the way it continues to provide research,
teaching and outreach to the State. The University must continue with its
reform agenda and continue to set priorities, said the President.
The legislature endorsed five of the critical measures which the
University recently developed and adopted. It was important that the
University took the initiative in this area, President Hasselmo said. $5
million of the appropriation for the next biennium is tied to meeting
objectives which fall under those five measures. However, the implications
are somewhat problematic because the University received $26 million less than
it had calculated in the Partnership Proposal. As a result, there will
probably be a tuition increase greater than what was suggested under the
Partnership Proposal, which was 4.8%
COMPENSATION: The administration is carefully looking at the Report of
the Compensation Working Group (CWG) and is trying to find ways to put as much
as possible into the compensation pool because it realizes that the future of
the University depends on its ability to remain competitive. The only way to
accomplish this, said the President, is by not providing "across the board"
increases because different components of the University find themselves in
very different market, competitive, and equity situations. Flexibility must
be allowed in the compensation plan in order to place compensation
strategically in those areas where it is needed to deal with compensation
issues. The Report of the CWG is being used as a guide by the administration,
noted the President. It presents a very aggressive compensation report in the
context of what 30 major universities in the country do. It has been very
difficult to implement policies in compensation with State funding the way it
has been in recent years and the CWG report points to the necessity of looking
at other ways to generate revenues in order to meet the compensation needs of
the University. This is an area that the administration, faculty and staff
will have to work together in order to maximize those opportunities, which
includes aggressive marketing of learning opportunities through various
mechanisms directly by colleges and also through University College, whose
purpose is to provide that type of marketing assistance.
STRATEGIC INVESTMENTS: Strategic investments are being made, said the
President, and the institution will go forward according to priorities
established under U2000. Investments in the undergraduate initiative are
being continued to make sure that the best possible undergraduate education
can be provided. Continuing investments are being made in the diversity
effort as well as in the technology that is necessary for quality teaching and
research. Administrative efficiencies are also under review. Other areas are
also being identified for strategic investment, such as academic areas where
there is national and international leadership; the arts, sciences and
professional fields; and re-engineering, which is the process of changing the
entire overhead structure in such a way that not nearly as much is spent on
overhead operations.
RESTRUCTURING AND REALLOCATION: The University is entering its fifth
year of major restructuring and reallocation. The $21 million that was
distributed among colleges within the University is going into the last phase
of that restructuring. Reform and reorganization has been and will continue
at many levels, including central administration, human resources, and
facilities management.
RESPONSIBILITY CENTER MANAGEMENT (RCM): President Hasselmo briefly
reviewed the concept of Responsibility Center Management. RCM provides a
framework for decision-making based on knowledge of the true resource streams
through the institution. It enhances shared governance by transferring the
decision-making and resource allocation processes closer to the academic
departments and support units allowing significantly larger number of students
and faculty to participate. The University's current system of allocating
resources from central to provost to dean to department, through multiple
revenue streams is simply too complex. RCM creates:
- incentives to enhance revenues and control costs
- recognition for the importance of tuition revenue and hence
for students and the courses and professors that attract them
- recognition of the importance of the state subsidy and a
clear sense of how, and where, the state subsidy is used
- explicit charges for space related costs
- explicit portrayal of indirect costs helps reinforce that
indirect cost recoveries are to help cover real costs and
hence are not discretionary revenues
- portrayal of revenues and expenses at the school/department
level involves the faculty substantively at a level where
they can make a difference
- the explicit identification of the sources and uses of overhead
funds creates pressures to provide services more efficiently.
There is no one model for how one introduces or implements RCM. The
objective is to design a system that makes sense for the University. The key
element is to give greater responsibility to colleges and departments.
Change to Semester System: President Hasselmo noted that it is
inevitable that the University convert from quarters to semesters and that it
has placed that issue on its agenda. The Senate, he recalled, recently gave
its preliminary endorsement for the change. The President said he believes
that this move will be to the long-term benefit of the University.
In closing, President Hasselmo expressed appreciation to a number of
people involved in governance this year, and especially recognized Professor
John Adams for his outstanding leadership as chair of the Senate Consultative
Committee.
VIII. QUESTIONS TO THE PRESIDENT
QUESTION: What is the technical meaning of "fiscal emergency"
and what constitutes a fiscal emergency?
RESPONSE: The term "fiscal emergency" does appear in some
documents but it is formulated in such a way that
it cannot possibly ever occur because it means that
the entire University would have to be in such dire
straits that it would have to close its doors. It is
something that cannot be applied to individual units.
For instance, a particular unit cannot declare fiscal
emergency and abolish tenure. The entire University
can only declare fiscal emergency and that is a very
unlikely scenario.
QUESTION: Where will the resources provided from the State
for U2000 go and can actual dollar figures be cited?
RESPONSE: It is important to understand that over the past
five years the University has lost approximately
$50 million in funding that will not be recovered.
Cuts have had to be made in certain areas in order to
reinvest in others. Approximately $86 million has
been carved out for investment in various areas.
Almost $10 million has been put into direct
improvements and undergraduate education. Several
million dollars has also been earmarked to deal with
the tremendous backlog of maintenance at the
University that has developed over the past several
decades. The University has invested selectively in
matching research grants in certain colleges in order
to build them up. Funds have also been earmarked for
investment in the diversity initiative; technology;
certain academic areas, such as biomedical
engineering; children, youth and family programs;
psychology, which was rated number "1" by U.S. News
and World Report; the social sciences, including
departments such as economics, sociology, and
political science; the humanities to ensure that good
education and opportunities are being provided in
language learning and literary and cultural studies;
and the Cancer Center of the Medical school, which
draws on a great deal of research strength with
clinical implications in an area where national
leadership is also present, to name a few.
QUESTION: Can you clarify the position of the administration
with respect to the change to the semester system?
ANSWER: The President interpreted the recently approved Senate
Resolution as being an endorsement to change to
the semester system with some contingencies and
provisions concerning the need to support the process
of such a change. The President said in effect the
decision has been made to convert to the semester
system although no formal action has been taken.
[Senator Adams, chair of the Consultative Committee,
confirmed the President's interpretation.] The
preliminary timetable for that change is Fall of 1999
because it will take time and investment to make the
change. The legislature has already mandated the
state colleges and universities to change over to a
semester system and it seemed that the University
should follow that same course.
IX. SENATE CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE REPORT
Professor John Adams, chair of the Senate Consultative Committee,
provided the following report:
- Professor Carl Adams was elected chair and Professor
Virginia Gray vice chair of the Consultative Committee for 1995-96
- The Regents' Diversity policy, distributed to senators
prior to the meeting, represents a consolidation of a series
of policies that have been adopted independently over the
years--no action was deemed necessary by the Senate because
the consolidated policy does not represent new policy
- The task force to review University governance is expected
to be named before the end of June
- The Consultative Committee and other appropriate Senate
committees need to continue to actively participate in issues and
policies related to compensation. In one sense it is a matter of
simple arithmetic--the size of the salary and benefits pool
divided by the number of personnel equals the average
compensation. If the average is to be increased, the size of the
pool must be increased or the number of personnel must be cut, or
both. But how can this be done? It seemed to Professor Adams
that after watching the debates firsthand, the roles of deans and
department heads must be strengthened, possibly with new job
descriptions that will enable them to assume a greater share of
responsibility in the decisions regarding the financing of their
units and the use of resources under their control.
Responsibility Center Management might be a device which could
assist in this effort of change. There are, however, many
different ways of designing and installing such a system. By the
end of the calendar year, a broad outline of such a system should
be presented and staff and faculty should participate in figuring
out what exactly should be done along these lines. Faculty and
staff must enter the discussions or decisions will be made without
their input.
- In the area of instruction, the question must be asked
whether students are getting what they deserve and whether
tuition levels are appropriate. A policy was passed
regarding peer review of instruction about a year ago, said
Professor Adams, but he was not aware whether anything had
been done to implement the policy. Instructional quality
must be considered. A move to the semester system should
provide an opportunity for addressing this and other related
issues. For example, a few years ago the Senate raised the
question of course credits and classroom hours of
instruction and decided the two should match unless there
were compelling reasons why they should not. But, by
looking at the day school class schedule and the CEE
schedule, the summer class schedule illustrates divergence
from this policy. Faculty may see good reason why a four
credit lecture in one college meets twice as many hours as
another course in the same college, but students and
faculty must question if what has become standard practice
is appropriate for educational purposes and honest for the
students.
- Quite aside from instructional quality, said Professor
Adams, students need to inquire whether they are receiving
all of the instruction they are paying for and everyone
should ask if there is appropriate leadership and management
at the department level in order to ensure that University
policies are actually being carried out. In the last few
months he has come to the understanding that even though
many people like the present quarter system, if the
University is going to engage in distance learning as an
aggressive approach to maintaining the market share, then
the switch to a semester system must occur.
- The Faculty Senate will be addressing the issue of tenure
during 1995-96. A number of proposed interpretations to the
Tenure Code will be discussed at the Faculty Senate meeting
later in the day and, if approved in June, amendments to the
Tenure Code will need to be prepared for consideration next
year. The Faculty Affairs Committee and its Tenure
Subcommittee will also be addressing other issues relating
to tenure.
- An issue that has been brought to the Consultative
Committee's attention this year is that of maintaining the
vitality and productivity of some mid-career faculty who, on
occasion, drift into productivity slumps from which they
never recover. Looking the other way when a research
program loses its edge or when grant proposals no longer
compete, does not excuse a colleague from that part of
his/her job. A better response would be for the institution
to make a greater investment in mid-career training through
improved sabbatical policies, through short courses, by
providing funding for regular attendance at professional
meetings, or by reassigning certain duties.
- In order to become a more effective fulltime year-round
urban land-grant University, the University must devise ways
to be more imaginative and flexible. This may include
flexibility in hiring practices. Flexibility has been
recently introduced by permitting probationary faculty to
take time out for child bearing and caregiving
responsibilities. This is a positive step forward, thought
Professor Adams. There are also rules that permit spousal
hires in certain cases, but opportunities for couples to
share positions has not been offered. At certain times in a
person's professional life, it might be appropriate for him
or her to work on a significantly less than fulltime basis
yet retain his/her position, tenure and benefits. At the
present time, however, appointments cannot fall below 75
percent time. It is possible that in some situations it
would be in the best interest of the University and the
individual faculty member if there was more flexibility in
the system. The phased retirement program offers some of
this flexibility, but why should these options be only
available to certain age groups?
Professor Adams concluded his remarks by thanking the President, other
administrators, senators, committee members and chairs, student leaders, and
the Senate staff for their service and support this year.
X. OLD BUSINESS
A senator inquired about the status of the establishment of the
Governance Task Force and Professor Adams responded that it was the
Consultative Committee's intent to have it established before the end of
spring quarter.
XI. NEW BUSINESS
NONE
XII. TRIBUTE TO DECEASED MEMBERS OF THE UNIVERSITY COMMUNITY
FACULTY
Rodney A. Briggs
1923-1995
Harold C. Deutsch
1904-1995
ACADEMIC PROFESSIONALS
Patrick R. Lavin
1927-1995
Patrick Lavin, Director of the Student-Athletes' Employment Program, died
suddenly on May 16, 1995. His career at the University began in 1988 soon
after he retired from First Banks.
Pat quickly built the Student-Athletes' Employment Program to be one of
the finest in the country; he worked tirelessly in coordinating a wide variety
of job opportunities, in helping students understand employers' expectations,
and in matching the students' interests and abilities with the
responsibilities of the job assignment.
His leadership, enthusiasm, and good humor will be greatly missed by
colleagues and students alike.
STUDENTS
Thomas M. Erickson
School of Management
Kelly Sellman Parenteau
Graduate School
XIII. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 3:55 p.m.
Martha Kvanbeck
Abstractor