1995-96 UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA No. 1
UNIVERSITY SENATE MINUTES
NOVEMBER 16, 1995
The first meeting of the University Senate for 1995-96 was convened in
the Whiting Proscenium Theater, Rarig Center, Minneapolis campus, on Thursday,
November 16, 1995, at 1:00 p.m. Coordinate campuses were linked by telephone.
Checking or signing the roll as present were 124 voting faculty/academic
professional members, 38 voting student members, 6 ex officio members, and 7
nonmembers. President Nils Hasselmo presided.
I. ORIENTATION
Professor Carl Adams, chair of the Senate Consultative Committee, drew
senators attention to several handouts distributed at the door, including a
list of Senate and Assembly committees with their anticipated agenda items for
the year. He introduced each of the committee chairs and encouraged senators
to contact appropriate committees during the year concerning matters of
interest to them. Professor Adams also reported on the series of meetings
the Faculty Consultative Committee (FCC) has been conducting with department
chairs/heads and FCC members; and deans, senators, and FCC members in an
attempt to strengthen the communication amongst those groups.
II. MEETING SCHEDULE
Information
Other 1995-96 meetings of the University Senate are scheduled as follows:
Thursday, January 11, 1996
Thursday, February 15, 1996
Thursday, April 18, 1996
Thursday, May 16, 1996
III. ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSE TO UNIVERSITY SENATE ACTIONS
Information
A. ACADEMIC FREEDOM AND RESPONSIBILITY STATEMENT
Approved by: the University Senate on May 18, 1995
the Administration on June 5, 1995
the Board of Regents on September 7, 1995
-----------------------------------------------------
CONSENT AGENDA
Action
Agenda Items IV. through VII. are considered to be noncontroverial or
"housekeeping" in nature and are offered as a "Consent Agenda" to be take up
as a single item with one vote. Any item will be taken up separately at the
request of a Senator. A majority of those members present and voting is
required for approval.
IV. MINUTES FOR APRIL 20 AND MAY 18
V. SENATE OFFICERS
The chair of the University Senate recommends the following officers for
1995-96:
Parliamentarian--Karen Brown
Abstractor and Clerk--Martha Kvanbeck
VI. COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES
Committees of the Senate, 1995-96
COMPUTING AND INFORMATION SYSTEMS - Faculty/PA: David Weiss (chair), Ronald
Anderson, Thomas Burk, Stephen Campbell, Thomas Hoffmann, Andy Lopez, Marcia
Pankake, George Wilcox. Students: Susan Herbst, 1 to be named. Ex Officio:
Steve Cawley, Donald Riley.
DISABILITIES ISSUES - Faculty/PA: Judith Gaston (chair), Gary Birnbaum,
Deborah Brown, Lynn Kyoko Edwards, Richard Hanson, Lance Johnson, Stephen
Kanee, Marie Knowlton, K. Charles Lakin, Larry McKay, Ken Myers, James Slagle.
Civil Service: Tim McCluske, 1 to be named. Students: Leigh Clemons, 1 to
be named. Ex Officio: Sue Kroeger, Paul Tschida.
EDUCATIONAL POLICY - Faculty/PA: Laura Coffin Koch (chair), Avram Bar-Cohen,
Anita Cholewa, Paul Cleary, Elayne Donahue, Gayle Graham Yates, Megan Gunnar,
Robert Johnson, Thomas Johnson, Judith Martin, William Van Essendelft.
Students: Jeffrey Larsen, Glenn Merkel, Ryan Nilsen, Helen Phin, Mark
Schuller. Ex Officio: Darwin Hendel.
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY FOR WOMEN - Faculty/PA: Naomi Scheman
(chair),
Janet Ahern, Ann Burkhart, Emily Hoover, June LaValluer, Marcia Odom, 1 to be
named. Academic Professionals: Kathryn Sedo, Beverly Stewart. Ex Officio:
Jessica Bailey, Stephanie Leiberman.
FACILITIES MANAGEMENT - Faculty/PA: David Kittelson (chair), Mark Davison,
Christopher Loring, Gary Malzer, Gail Peterson, Jane Phillips, Faye Thompson.
Civil Service: 1 to be named. Students: Anthony Biel, Timothy Lander. Ex
Officio: Elizabeth Grundner, Clint Hewitt, Don Kelsey, Sue Markham, Vilis
Vikmanis.
FINANCE AND PLANNING - Faculty/PA: Fred Morrison (chair), Karen Karni,
Patrice Morrow, Peter Robinson, Doris Rubenstein, Charles Speaks, Craig Swan,
James Van Alstine. Civil Service: Thora Cartlidge, Gerald Klement.
Students: Craig Dexheimer, Kathy James, Steven Thelen, Ryan Thrun.
Ex Officio: David Berg, Allen Goldman, Roger Paschke, Richard Pfutzenreuter.
LIBRARY - Faculty/PA: Robert McMaster (chair), John Anderson, John Cogan, Ed
Cushing, Steven Girshick, Marci Hoffman, Linda Jorn, Nita Krevans, David
McLaughlin, Bruce Moskowitz, Gerhard Weiss, 1 to be named. Students: Frank
Kohlasch, Seamus McMillan, 2 to be named. Ex Officio: Karen Fischer, Joan
Howland, Donald Riley, Thomas Shaughnessy, Bill Sozansky, Owen Williams.
RESEARCH - Faculty/PA: Allen Goldman (chair), Henry Buchwald, Joel Eisinger,
Dorothy Hatsukami, Susan Hupp, Jeylan Mortimer, Kathryn Rettig, Mark Snyder.
Civil Service: 1 to be named. Students: Kathy James, Elizabeth Jansen,
Christopher Wiley. Ex Officio: Mark Brenner, Marilyn DeLong, N.L. Gault,
Tony Potami, Rob Super.
SOCIAL CONCERNS - Faculty/PA: John Dickey (chair), Gayle Foreman, Arthur
Geffen, Cleon Melsa, Gary Thomas, Barbara Walden, 1 to be named. Civil
Service: Sharon Day, Ellen Stewart, 1 to be named. Alumni: Priscilla Nauer,
Laurie Wilson Spencer, Frank Wood. Students: Brenda Ellingboe, Nicole
Kubista, Jennifer McKeever, Jennifer Pon, Amy Siqveland, Mark Speltz, Chad
Uran. Ex Officio: Ken Foxworth, Clint Hewitt, Stephanie Leiberman.
STUDENT AFFAIRS - Faculty/PA: Glenn Hendricks, Patrick Kroll, Guillermo
Rojas, John Romano, Thomas Soulen, 1 to be named. Civil Service: Michael
Handberg. Alumni: Michael Coyle. Students: Joel Bergstrom (chair), Susan
Giesler, Shelley Keohane, Melissa Lind, Stephanie Malone, Rachel Rabaey,
Damien Toven, Cheryl Triplett, 1 to be named. Ex Officio: McKinley Boston.
INFORMATION:
ALL-UNIVERSITY HONORS - Faculty/PA: Eville Gorham (chair), Wilbert Ahern,
Judith Garrard, Willard Hartup, Benjamin Liu, Paul Quie. Alumni: Mark
Breggman, Mary Lou Christensen, Wally Hilke, Barbara Luehmann, Lee Paulson.
Students: Dave Dahlgren, Eric Ruska, Barbara Thompson. Ex Officio: Gerald
Fischer, Marcia Fluer, E.F. Infante, Cheryl Jones.
COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES - Faculty/PA: W. Andrew Collins (chair), Ann
Burkhart, Vasilikie Demos, Martin Dworkin, Marcia Eaton, M. Janice Hogan,
Cleon Melsa, V.R. Murthy, 1 to be named. Students: Sam Black, Leigh Clemons,
4 to be named.
CONSULTATIVE - Faculty: Carl Adams (chair), John Adams, Carole Bland, Victor
Bloomfield, Virginia Gray (vice chair), James Gremmels, Robert Jones, Geoffrey
Maruyama, Harvey Peterson, Michael Steffes. Students: Joel Bergstrom, Bruce
Bromberek, Mike Davey, Benjamin Duranske, Paul Kluge, Corey Kopacek, Helen
Phin, Malik Shabazz, Amber Strack, Chad Tvedt. Ex Officio: Roberta
Humphreys, Laura Coffin Koch, Lester Drewes, Fred Morrison.
W. ANDREW COLLINS, Chair
Committee on Committees
VII. SENATE CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE
Educational Policy Committee Membership
MOTION:
To amend Article III, Section 2, of the Senate Rules, as follows: (new
languge is in CAPS)
Article III. Rules for Committees of the University Senate
. . . .
2. Ex Officio Members of Senate Committees
. . . .
- Educational Policy--Office of the Senior Vice President, Academic
Affairs; OFFICE OF THE PROVOST, ARTS, SCIENCES, AND ENGINEERING; DEAN,
GRADUATE SCHOOL
COMMENT:
The members of the Educational Policy Committee (SCEP) voted unanimously
for the proposed amendment. Until her departure, Vice President Anne Hopkins
met regularly with the Educational Policy Committee because she had overall
responsibility for undergraduate education at the University. The Provost for
Arts, Sciences, and Engineering has that same responsibility, so SCEP wishes
the membership of the Provost to be formalized and made permanent. At the
same time, SCEP has a responsibility to be involved with issues of graduate
education as well, so requests that the Dean of the Graduate School also be
made an ex officio member of the committee. Both of the current occupants of
the positions strongly endorse this change.
SCEP has not had an opportunity to discuss whether representation from
the other two provostal areas is necessary or desirable; it will do so in the
near future, and make a recommendation to the Senate if representatives from
the offices of the provosts for the Academic Health Center and Professional
Studies is desired.
CARL ADAMS, Chair
Consultative Committee
LAURA COFFIN KOCH, Chair
Educational Policy Committee
DISCUSSION:
The Consent Agenda was approved without discussion.
APPROVED
------------------------------------------------------------
VIII. SENATE CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE
EDUCATIONAL POLICY COMMITTEE
Policy on Uniform Grade and Honor Point System and University Transcripts
Discussion
PREAMBLE:
The Senate Committee on Educational Policy (SCEP) is in the process of
reviewing all Senate educational policies, with the intent of reorganizing and
consolidating them into a coherent whole. This policy on grading is the first
of a number of policy revisions that will be brought to the Senate.
SCEP has been made aware of the fact that there are more than ten
different grading systems in use on various campuses and colleges of the
University. This diversity of grading systems requires maintainence of
expensive data bases, especially in light of the large number of students that
pass through the University. The lack of uniformity also makes intra-college
and intra-campus transfers more complicated than necessary. Finally, and
perhaps most important, there is keen interest among some faculty and students
in having a grading system that offers the option of finer gradations in
recognizing student academic performance. For these reasons, SCEP recommends
that the following grading system be adopted.
As proposed in this draft, the policy would apply to all colleges and
campuses except the Law School and the two medical schools, all of which have
very long-standing systems that are the norms in their professions. This is
not the first time that SCEP has considered plus/minus grading. This is not a
new discussion. No faculty member would be required to use pluses and
minuses; this provides the option for those faculty who wish to use them.
However, it would be expected that all faculty and instructors will inform the
students at the beginning of the quarter (semester) whether on not pluses and
minuses will be used in a course.
Parenthetical comments referring to earlier Senate and Assembly
legislation will be deleted from the final text if the policy is adopted by
the Senate.
--------------------------------
POLICY ON UNIFORM GRADE AND HONOR POINT SYSTEM AND UNIVERSITY
TRANSCRIPTS
I. GENERAL PROVISIONS
1. There shall be two grading systems at the University of Minnesota, A-B-
C-D-F and S-N. (This explicitly reverses Senate action of 3/9/72,
delegating authority for grading policy to each campus assembly.) The
S-N system is a self-contained alternative to the A-F system and the
two may not be combined for a particular student in a particular
course. Students may receive grades or symbols only from the grading
system under which they have registered for a course. (Assembly
4/28/77)
2. There are, in addition, registration symbols identified and described
in this policy that carry neither grade nor credit.
3. Each college, campus, and program shall determine to what extent and
under what conditions each of these two systems may be available to its
students and to its faculty, consistent with the provisions of this
policy. Any college, campus, or program may specify what courses or
proportion of courses taken by its students or its prospective students
must be on one or the other grading system. No campus, college,
program, or instructor is required to offer a course on the S-N grading
system, nor is any instructor obligated to use pluses and minuses. Any
unit or instructor may choose to limit grades assigned to the A-F or
the S-N system. (Senate, 3/9/67)
4. When both grading systems are available to a student, he or she must
declare a choice of system as part of the initial registration for the
course. The choice may not be changed after the end of the second week
of classes (the first week in summer sessions). (Assembly 4/28/77)
5. No student may receive a Bachelor's degree unless at least 75 percent
of the degree-qualifying residence credits carry grades of A, B, C, or
D. (Senate, 5/22/69)
6. Except as provided in this policy in Sections I (8) and IV (5), no
college or campus may use any grading system other than the one
established by this policy.
7. The University's official transcript, the chronological record of the
student's enrollment and academic performance, will be released by the
University only at the request of the student; mailed copies will
include the official seal of the University imprinted on them.
Students may obtain an unofficial transcript of their own academic work
at their request.
8. The Law School, the Medical School, and the Duluth School of Medicine
are exempt from the provisions of this policy, but shall report their
grading systems, and any changes therein, to the Senate. Any other
units which believe that the national norms of their profession require
a different grading system may make application to the Senate Committee
on Educational Policy for an exemption from this policy; all such
exemptions must be approved by the University Senate.
II. PERMANENT GRADES FOR ACADEMIC WORK
1. THERE SHALL BE FIVE PERMANENT GRADES WHICH SHALL BE ACCEPTABLE
FOR THE
COMPLETION OF A SINGLE COURSE, which will be entered on a student's
official transcript. Grades may include pluses and minuses, as
follows, and carry the indicated honor points. The S grade shall carry
no honor points but the credits shall count toward the student's degree
program if allowed by the college, campus, or program. (Senate,
5/20/43; Assembly, 4/28/77)
A 4.00 . . . . Represents achievement that is outstanding
relative to the level necessary to meet course
requirements.
A- 3.67
_________________________________
B+ 3.33
B 3.00 . . . . Represents achievement that is significantly
above the level necessary to meet course
requirements.
B- 2.67
_________________________________
C+ 2.33
C 2.00 . . . . Represents achievement that meets the course
requirements in every respect.
C- 1.67
_________________________________
D+ 1.33
D 1.00 . . . . Represents achievement that is worthy of credit
even though it fails fully to meet the course
requirements.
D- 0.67
_________________________________
S -0- Represents achievement that is satisfactory,
i.e., is equivalent to a 2.00 and meets or
exceeds the course requirements in every respect.
2. THERE SHALL BE TWO PERMANENT GRADES GIVEN FOR A SINGLE COURSE
FOR WHICH
NO CREDIT SHALL BE AWARDED and which will be entered on a student's
official transcript.
F (or) N Represents failure (or) no credit and signifies
that the work was either (1) completed but at a
level of achievement that is not worthy of credit
or (2) was not completed and there was no
agreement between the instructor and the student
that the student would be awarded an I (see item
4). Academic dishonesty in any portion of the
academic work for a course shall be grounds for
awarding a grade of F or N for the entire course.
The grade of F shall carry 0 honor points.
Students who enroll for a course on the A-F grading system shall
receive an F if such grade is warranted; students who enroll for a
course on the S-N system shall receive an N if such grade is warranted.
3. In connection with all symbols of achievement, and especially for the
S, instructors shall define for a class, at one of its earliest
meetings and as explicitly as possible, the performance that will be
necessary to earn each (subject to the provision in this policy that
the amount and quality of work required for an S may not be less than
that required for a C [2.00]). (Assembly, 4/28/77)
4. Every student shall have calculated, both at the end of each grading
period (quarter or semester) and cumulatively, a grade point average,
which shall be the ratio of honor points earned divided by the number
of credits earned with grades of A-F (including pluses and minuses).
Both the periodic and cumulative grade point average will appear on
each student's record. (Assembly, 4/26/79)
No grade point average, cumulative or periodic, shall exceed 4.00.
All special grade point averages calculated at the request of a college
or unit, if approved by the appropriate chancellor, provost, or vice
president, will be accommodated by the Office of the Registrar in such
a manner that they do not appear on the student's official transcript
or any unofficial transcript which might be issued.
III. OTHER TRANSCRIPT SYMBOLS
1. There shall be a temporary grade I, incomplete, awarded to indicate
that the work of the course has not been completed.
The I shall be assigned at the discretion of the instructor when, due
to extraordinary circumstances, the student was prevented from
completing the work of the course on time. The assignment of an I
requires a written agreement between the instructor and student
specifying the time and manner in which the student will complete the
course requirements during the student's next period of enrollment.
For undergraduates and adult special students, an I that is not made up
within 72 hours of the last final examination of the student's next
period of enrollment at the University becomes an F if the student was
registered on the A-F system for the course and an N if the student was
registered for the S-N system for the course. (Assembly, 5/15/86)
When an I is changed to another symbol, the I is removed from the
record. (Assembly, 4/28/77, 5/15/86)
A student does not need to be registered at the University in order to
perform the work necessary to convert an I to a grade with credit.
(Assembly, 5/28/70)
2. There shall be a symbol T, transfer, posted as a preceding supplement
to the original grade, to indicate credits transferred from another
institution or from one college or campus to another within the
University when reevaluation is required. (Assembly, 4/28/77)
3. There shall be a symbol V, visitor, indicating registration as an
auditor or visitor, which shall carry no credit and no grade.
(Assembly, 4/28/77)
4. If a student officially withdraws from a course during the first two
weeks of classes, there shall be no record of that course registration
entered on the student's transcript.
There shall be a symbol W, withdrawal, entered upon a student's record
when the student officially withdraws from a course in accordance with
procedures established by the student's college or campus. The W will
be entered on the transcript irrespective of the student's academic
standing in that course if the student withdraws from the course during
the third through sixth week of class (second or third weeks of summer
sessions). If the student withdraws during the seventh or later week
of classes (fourth or later in summer sessions), a W shall be entered
on the transcript only if the student is not failing the course at the
time of withdrawal. If the student is failing at the time of
withdrawal after the sixth week (fourth week in summer sessions), the
grade of F or N shall be entered on the transcript (depending on which
grading system the student had enrolled under).
5. There shall be a symbol X, indicating a student may continue in a
continuation course in which a grade cannot be determined until the
full sequence of courses is completed. The instructor shall submit a
grade for each X when the student has completed the sequence.
(Assembly, 4/28/77)
6. There shall be a symbol K, assigned by an instructor to indicate the
course is still in progress and that a grade cannot be assigned at the
present time.
IV. OTHER PROVISIONS
1. If a student is permitted by the college or campus of enrollment to
repeat a course, all grades shall be reported on the official
transcript. In those instances when a college or campus permits a
student to repeat a course, (1) all grades for the course shall appear
on the official transcript, (2) the course credits my not be counted
more than once toward degree and program requirements, and (3) only the
grade earned in the last enrollment for the course shall count in the
student's grade point average. This section (IV [1]) of this policy
shall not apply to courses using the same number but where students
study different content each term of enrollment; all such courses
falling under this provision must be approved by the college.
2. Any college or campus may set special scholastic or other standards for
registration in a particular course, for scholastic probation,
admission, honors, continued residence, degrees, and other purposes
they deem appropriate.
3. All grades for all courses each period (quarter or semester) shall be
submitted to the Office of the Registrar no later than 72 hours after
the last final examination for that enrollment period.
4. This grading system shall go into effect fall quarter 1996, thereby
replacing all previous University, campus, and college grading systems.
Its grades, symbols, and provisions may not be applied retroactively to
any grades or symbols awarded before that time. Each transcript will
clearly identify the procedures under which it was produced and will be
maintained and released under policies in effect during the time of the
student's registration.
5. Only the Senate Committee on Educational Policy shall have the
authority to grant to individual colleges or campuses permission to use
alternative grading methods outside the provisions of this official
University system, for a specified period (but no longer than five
years), and only for the purpose of experimenting with a new grading
system for possible system-wide adoption. Such permission may be
granted if the proposal does not interfere significantly with the
registration options of students from other colleges, campuses, and
programs. Such alternative systems shall be reported for information
to the University Senate as soon as permitted and, after the specified
period, shall be re-evaluated, either to be discontinued, or with
Senate approval on recommendation from the Senate Committee on
Educational policy, made part of the system-wide policy. Except for
the provisions of this section 13, no college, campus, or program may
use any grading system except for the one contained in this policy.
Because alternative grading systems, once used, must be maintained by
the University for decades afterward (to preserve the integrity of the
transcripts), the Senate Committee on Educational Policy will rarely
grant permission for alternative grading systems. It will consider
doing so only when (1) those who propose it can make a persuasive case
that the alternative is a more accurate and effective way to measure
and record student academic performance, and (2) there is strong reason
to believe that the proposal will be useful to all colleges and
campuses of the University (except the Law School, Medical School, and
Duluth School of Medicine).
6. The chancellors and provosts shall resolve disputes between and among
colleges and campuses should procedures developed for this grading
system result in unacceptable complications for students registering
across college lines. They should bring to the Senate Committee on
Educational Policy issues they are unable to resolve informally through
negotiation, with recommendations for resolution.
CARL ADAMS, Chair
Senate Consultative Committee
LAURA COFFIN KOCH, Chair
Educational Policy Committee
DISCUSSION:
Professor Laura Coffin Koch, chair of the Educational Policy Committee
(SCEP), introduced the proposed Policy on Uniform Grade and Honor Point System
and University Transcripts and briefly reviewed the activities of the
committee in recent months leading up to the proposal before the body.
Professor Koch said the plus/minus system of grading has been piloted in the
Carlson School of Management and after much discussion SCEP believes this
would be an appropriate system for the entire University. Originally, the
proposal included an A+ but after much discussion a decision was made to
remove the A+ grade. One change from existing policy that Professor Koch
pointed out was that the proposed policy stipulates that if a student repeats
the same course all grades from the course will be included on the student's
transcript but credit will only be given for the last time the course was
taken. Many of the provisions of the policy are not new, she noted, but were
consolidated by former policies approved by the University Senate.
A senator from the Morris campus said faculty at UMM are not entirely
persuaded of the need for uniformity of the grading policy across the
University nor of the validity of the single Carlson School experiment. Morris
faculty, he said, are also concerned about the notion of repealing the Senate
action of March 1972 which grants autonomy in the area of grading to
individual campuses. Professor Koch and Professor Adams (chair of the Senate
Consultative Committee/SCC) agreed that the autonomy issue warrants further
discussion.
Students from the Crookston campus requested that the record show they do
not support the proposed changes.
The A+ issue was raised by a senator who thought it unfortunate that the
University would consider adopting a grading policy that has many many shades
of gray at the lower end of the grading scale (e.g. D- and D+) and eliminates
the opportunity to recognize extraordinary accomplishment at the high end of
the scale. What was SCEP's rationale for this and did the committee consider
streamlining the lower end of the grading scale as well? Professor Koch
responded that the committee discussed the notion of A+ at length. One
problem with the A+ grade is that if there is not a numerical comparison for
it, such as 4.33, it becomes meaningless. If the numerical grade is attached
but a student is not allowed to be given a numerical rating higher than 4.0
then it doesn't really show what students are actually earning. SCEP
considered eliminating the A- as well, but found that unacceptable.
One senator took exception to the provision that allows a student to
repeat a course and use the grade earned in the last enrollment of the course
to be counted toward his/her grade point average. This favors students with
the financial ability to continue to repeat courses and seems to undermine the
University directive to encourage students to finish in four years.
An IT student inquired about withdrawing from a course. Does the "one
time only, get out of jail free card" policy where a student can drop a class
at any time once in his/her academic career still apply? Professor Koch said
she was not aware of that policy and will inquire about it. With regard to
the policy on withdrawing, one senator noted that if the language in the
proposed document is unchanged from existing policy there appear to be many
colleges that are not following University policy in this area and he
encouraged SCEP to look into this.
Another student questioned whether there will be some assurance that a
B+, for example, in one class will be equivalent to a B+ in another class.
Some students are concerned that by adding so many variables, the system
actually becomes less uniform. Professor Koch responded that SCEP is
discussing the possibility of including on transcripts how many students
participated in a class and what the average grade was for each class.
Discussion of this issue will continue at the January 11 Senate meeting
and in the interim any comments/questions may be directed to Professor Laura
Koch.
IX. SENATE CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE
EDUCATIONAL POLICY COMMITTEE
Standards for the Semester Conversion
Discussion
STANDARDS FOR THE SEMESTER CONVERSION
In September, 1995, the Board of Regents voted that the University of
Minnesota should convert from its current quarter system to a semester system.
This change is to be University-wide.
Because many of the issues related to the conversion to semesters reside
within the purview of the University's Senate Committee on Educational Policy
(SCEP), SCEP began the discussion of how the University could use this change
as an opportunity to focus on maintaining and strengthening the academic
integrity of the curriculum and educational processes of the institution. The
questions and principles stated below represent the beginning of our
deliberation.
This version is intended to begin a discussion that will take place over
the next several months. It begins with this November Senate meeting; it is
expected that there will be additional Senate meetings in January, February,
and April. The idea of this process is that as these discussions take place,
the Senate will begin to converge on conclusions about the semester conversion
standards. By the beginning of spring quarter, the convergence will become
apparent. As discussions continue, at all levels of the University, SCEP will
continue to respond to the concerns presented to it.
Along with the University-wide discussions that will occur, there will be
a small semester oversight group, made up of faculty, administrators and a
student, that will also discuss this document and the implications it presents
for other areas of concern. SCEP anticipates interaction among itself, the
oversight committee, other Senate committees, administrators, faculty, staff
and students. SCEP would like to bring this, and other principles that may be
developed, to the Senate for a final vote by the end of winter quarter. SCEP
points out, however, that complete convergence on the standards may not be
achieved, and may not be possible; the need for a decision on major issues,
however, will require that the Senate act, even if it cannot achieve
unanimity. There is no doubt that some programs and individuals will perceive
themselves to be at a disadvantage, no matter what standards and calendar is
adopted; while unfortunate, it is probably unavoidable.
There are several major questions that need to be addressed as the
semester conversion is considered. Dr. Peter Zetterberg has laid out a number
of them (he deserves thanks for contributing both questions and information,
some of which is contained in this document); SCEP has added some of its own.
1. (a) One major question is when the Fall Semester should begin
(including whether it should start before, during, or after the State
Fair).
1. (b) How should the problems of the State Fair and its impact on the
St. Paul campus be addressed, especially if classes start before or
during the Fair?
1. (c) Should there be a common calendar for all campuses? A common
calendar for all colleges on the same campus?
1. (d) How much consideration should be given to the specific problems of
different campuses, colleges, departments, and groups of students that
may ensue as the result of the adoption of a specific semester calendar
(e.g., the State Fair)?
1. (e) Should the length of the semester be 14 weeks, or 15 weeks, or
some other length? Which would be the most educationally sound
alternative, and why?
1. (f) If there are 14-week semesters, should there be a separate January
term devoted to intensive study, field experiences, and other different
kinds of study?
1. (g) What should be the length of the class period? If the semester is
15 weeks, should the class period be left at 50 minutes? If the
semester is 14 weeks, should class periods be lengthened to 55 or 60
minutes?
1. (h) Should the University offer a year-long program of three terms of
equal length, whereby students could attend 1, 2, or all 3 sessions,
and faculty could, under various circumstances, work either 2 or 3 of
the sessions? [See, for instance, the example of calendar (b), below)]
1. (i) Should there be, or is there a need for, two summer terms? Should
the calendar be divided into two semesters plus a shorter summer term,
should there be three roughly equal terms, or should there be a short
(month-long) term in January and a shorter summer term? (It is
probable, whether semesters are 14 or 15 weeks, that there would be a
regular summer term, either as long as or shorter than the semesters,
plus a separate summer term that would begin after the public schools
are out.)
1. (j) Must the final examination period, under a semester system, be six
days long?
__________________
INFORMATION AND PERTINENT QUESTIONS ABOUT THE STATE FAIR:
The Minnesota State Fair is run by the Minnesota State Agriculture
Society, which is a Minnesota public corporation. The University's transitway
agreement with the society was signed on January 31, 1992. It is a 10-year
agreement that will expire on January 31, 2002. It is an agreement that can
be renewed by agreement of both parties, with or without negotiated changes.
The agreement gives the State Fair use of more than 4,000 Twin Cities Campus
parking spaces, including 500 in the 4th Street Ramp on the Minneapolis
Campus. This is over and above the parking lost on the State Fairgrounds lot.
It also gives the State Fair exclusive use of the portion of the transitway
between Como and Raymond for the six days prior to the fair and for the five
days after the fair, as well as for the nine days of the fair (20 days total).
Accordingly, any complications resulting from the University's inability to
use the full transitway would last for three weeks. If the University began a
fall semester on August 19, the Twin Cities campus would experience these
complications for roughly the first three weeks of the semester.
If the Fall Semester begins on August 19 or August 26, how will students
travel back and forth between the St. Paul and Minneapolis campuses for the
first three/four weeks of the semester? How will the transportation problem
affect the way in which students schedule classes and the classes they choose?
How will St. Paul faculty teaching on the Minneapolis campus get to the
Minneapolis campus? How will Minneapolis faculty teaching on the St. Paul
campus get to the St. Paul campus, and, if by car, where will they park?
__________________
A proposed standard to be discussed by SCEP:
SEMESTERS SHALL BE 15 WEEKS IN LENGTH. THE STANDARD CLASS PERIOD SHALL
BE 50 MINUTES. THE STANDARD SUMMER SESSION SHALL BE 10 WEEKS IN LENGTH.
THE STANDARD CLASS PERIOD SHALL BE 75 MINUTES.
IMPLEMENTATION: DEPARTMENTS AND PROGRAMS MAY OFFER SUMMER PROGRAMS
OF VARYING LENGTHS, AS IS PRESENT PRACTICE, TO MEET THE NEEDS OF THEIR
STUDENTS.
Comment on the proposed standard to be discussed:
To take the most difficult problem first, SCEP has confronted at length
the issue of the State Fair running concurrently with classes on the St. Paul
campus. SCEP fully understands the problems--transportation, parking,
building security, among others--that arise with respect to the Fair and life
on the St. Paul campus. SCEP and its members were told a number of things,
including by people from the St. Paul campus.
-- It would be impossible to have classes in session during the State Fair.
-- It would not be a big problem to have classes in session during the
Fair.
-- It would be a problem to have classes in session during the Fair, but
they could make do.
-- The level of activity on the St. Paul campus is almost as high during
the two weeks before classes as it is when classes begin.
-- One of the major source of problems associated with the State Fair is
the provisions of the contract (the terms of which were outlined above),
but that the contract granting this control to the Fair ends in January,
2002.
As one of our colleagues pointed out, she knew of no major research
university or educational institution in the country that makes one of its
major educational policy decisions--its academic calendar--on the basis of a
state fair.
SCEP may conclude that it must simply ignore the State Fair and develop
a calendar that seems academically appropriate for the University--at the same
time recognizing that for our colleagues on the St. Paul campus, life will be
difficult for a period. If indeed the level of activity on the campus is
nearly as high before classes as after they begin, there is no hope for
dealing with the problems short of proposing a 12-week semester that would not
begin until two weeks after the Fair ends. The early start 15-week semester
calendar SCEP may recommend [example (a) above, beginning either August 19 or
August 26] would have classes begin slightly before or during the State Fair,
thus facing the commotion and congestion of the Fair. There would be a
somewhat more difficult period during the first two years of the semester
system, 1999-2000 and 2000-2001, when the State Fair still controls the
transitway and parking, but SCEP has no doubt that the University did not want
to change its calendar TWICE, and thus leans toward recommending that the 15-
week semester calendar be implemented beginning with the 1999-2000 academic
year. However, if there is no agreement with the State Fair about the
transitway, there is no transitway, because part of it runs through land owned
by the State Fair.
One can debate whether the semester should be 14 or 15 weeks; the
practice varies across the country. About 60% of higher education institutions
use the 15-week semester; about 10% use the 14-week semester (including
Michigan, Michigan State, and Wisconsin). In line with its general view,
reflected throughout these comments, that the conversion to semesters should
be used as an opportunity to re-value the baccalaureate degree and to re-
establish standards that strengthen the value of the education students
receive, SCEP would likely recommend the 15-week semester. The arithmetic
logic of the conversion speaks for itself, in that two 15-week semesters are,
at the very least, the instructional equivalent of three 10-week quarters.
Alternatively, SCEP sees less logic to proposing a 14-week semester, except as
a means to accommodate the problems of the State Fair. To reduce the regular
academic year to 28 weeks, down two from the present thirty weeks, would
simply be one more devaluation of education, and SCEP would be unlikely to
recommend such a change.
To be candid, there are also potential problems of perception with 14-
week semesters. A shortened academic year of 28 weeks plus two finals weeks
(as opposed to 30 weeks plus three finals weeks) would certainly be seen in
some quarters as another way to reduce the amount of work required of faculty-
-at a time where there are already public critics of what is perceived as a
faculty workload that is too light. SCEP does not for a moment endorse or
accept that view, but it may also not be inclined to recommend abbreviating
the academic year by two additional instructional weeks, because it does not
make either educational or political sense to do so.
SCEP is less certain how the summer session(s) should be structured.
With 15-week semesters, a 15-week session is not possible unless the winter
break is shortened, ending the spring semester a week early and allowing the
beginning of a summer term a week early. That also has problems, however, in
that it is unlikely many non-University but college students would be out of
school that early in the year, and thus able to enroll in summer session; it
is certain that no public school students (or teachers) would be out, and able
to take courses in the summer. As noted, it is likely that no matter the
length of the semesters and whether or not there are three approximately equal
terms, there will be an additional summer term that begins after the public
schools are out. Even the date proposed for the (standard) single summer term
will present problems with professional and other programs who serve
clienteles such as teachers; those units must be permitted to run summer
sessions that meet the needs of their students, and SCEP would not recommend
restricting the ability of units to do so.
SCEP was also told that while it may be an attractive idea to try to
offer three more-or-less equivalent semesters, allowing students to enroll
year-round and perhaps even graduate early, the advice of students on SCEP
suggests that most students do not WANT to go to school in the summer, and
certainly do not want to do so full-time. SCEP thus would recommend, for now,
a (standard) single summer session of ten weeks with classes of 75 minutes,
recognizing that a number of units may offer additional sessions at times they
deem appropriate.
----------------------------------
Here are three sample calendars that might be considered; variations on
each are possible:
(a) 15-WEEK SEMESTER, EARLY START
Fall Semester 1999 (75*)
August 19 Thursday Fall Semester classes begin
September 6 Monday Labor Day holiday
November 25-26 Thursday-Friday Thanksgiving holiday
December 6 Monday Last day of instruction
December 7 Tuesday Study day
December 8-14 Wednesday-Tuesday Final examinations
December 15 Wednesday Winter break begins
[Alternatively, Fall Semester could start on August 26 and end on Dec 22]
Spring Semester 2000 (75*)
January 10 Monday Spring Semester classes begin
January 17 Monday Martin Luther King holiday
March 20-24 Monday-Friday Spring break
May 1 Monday Last day of instruction
May 2 Tuesday Study day
May 3-9 Wednesday-Tuesday Final examinations
Summer Term 2000 (50**)
May 15 Monday Summer semester classes begin
May 29 Monday Memorial Day holiday
July 4 Tuesday July 4 holiday
July 25 Tuesday Last day of instruction
July 26 Wednesday Study day
July 27-29 Thurs-Saturday Final examinations
(b) 14-WEEK SEMESTER (OR THREE TERMS OF EQUAL LENGTH)
Fall Semester 1999 (70*)
September 6 Monday Labor Day
September 7 Tuesday Fall Semester classes begin
November 25-26 Thursday-Friday Thanksgiving holiday
December 15 Wednesday Last day of instruction
December 16 Thursday Study day
December 17-23 Friday-Thurs Final examinations
Spring Semester 2000 (70*)
January 17 Monday Martin Luther King holiday
January 18 Tuesday Spring Semester classes begin
March 20-24 Monday-Friday Spring break
May 1 Monday Last day of instruction
May 2 Tuesday Study day
May 3-9 Wednes-Tuesday Final examinations
[Alternatively, Spring Semester could start on January 4 or 11; if a January 4
start, the two semesters fall within 8 months]
Summer Term 2000 (70*)
May 15 Monday Summer Term classes begin
May 29 Monday Memorial Day holiday
July 4 Tuesday July 4 holiday
August 22 Tuesday Last day of instruction
August 23 Wednesday Study day
August 24-30 Thurs-Wednesday Final examinations
[Alternatively, there could be two seven-week terms; in some terms, the number
of instruction days could be increased to 71 or 72. Labor Day in the year
2000 will be September 4, leaving only a few days before the end of Summer
Term finals and the beginning of Fall Semester 2000. This 14-week summer term
would run into the State Fair; it could also be shortened to some fraction of
14 weeks, or the Spring Semester could be moved back two weeks, thus moving
the Summer Term back two weeks as well.]
(c) 14-WEEK SEMESTERS WITH A JANUARY TERM
Fall Semester 1999 (70*)
September 6 Monday Labor Day
September 7 Tuesday Fall Semester classes begin
November 25-26 Thursday-Friday Thanksgiving holiday
December 15 Wednesday Last day of instruction
December 16 Thursday Study day
December 17-23 Friday-Thurs Final examinations
January Term 2000 (19 instruction days)
January 10 Monday J-term classes begin
January 17 Monday Martin Luther King holiday
February 4 Friday Last day of instruction
Spring Semester 2000 (70*)
February 7 Monday First day of instruction
March 27-31 Monday-Friday Spring break
May 19 Friday Last day of instruction
May 20 Saturday Study day
May 22-27 Monday-Friday Final examinations
Summer Term 2000 (35 instruction days)
May 29 Monday Memorial Day holiday
May 30 Tuesday First day of instruction
July 4 Tuesday July 4 holiday
July 18 Tuesday Last day of instruction
[This summer term would be one-half a regular semester; class hours and
meeting times would need to be adjusted as at present, where one summer
session represents one-half a quarter. As noted earlier, there would
also need to be a summer term beginning after the public schools
recess.]
* = number of instruction days, 50-minute hour
** = number of instruction days, 75-minute hour
2. (a) What would be the most appropriate credit module for the curriculum
the University offers and the students it serves? Why?
(b) Should there be a standard course credit module?
(c) If so, should it be 3 credits or 4 credits (or some other number)?
[See information and questions following point number 3, below]
__________________
One proposed standard to be discussed by SCEP:
THE STANDARD CREDIT MODULE SHALL BE THREE CREDITS.
IMPLEMENTATION: WHILE DEPARTMENTS AND PROGRAMS MAY OFFER COURSES OF
VARYING NUMBERS OF CREDITS, AS IS THE PRESENT PRACTICE, IT IS STRONGLY
DISCOURAGED. THE STANDARD COURSE, ESPECIALLY THOSE TAKEN BY A
SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF NON-MAJORS, SHOULD BE THREE CREDITS.
3. (a) Should there be a standard minimum number of credits required for a
baccalaureate degree? (Is there really an option NOT to have a minimum?)
(b) Should that number be 120, the typical requirement for semester-
based calendars? (If there are exceptions to the 120, they are not
known to the University.)
(c) Should there be a range of credits permitted to be required for a
baccalaureate degree (e.g., 120 - 130) that would not require
extraordinary approval?
(d) Should there also be a minimum number of courses required for a
baccalaureate degree?
(e) If so, what should that number be? [Under the quarter system, with
a presumed standard 4-credit module, the assumption is that a student
takes 45 courses to earn the (at least) 180 credits required for a
degree. Under a semester system, typically requiring (at least) 120
credits for a degree, a standard 4-credit module would mean a student
would take 30 courses; a standard 3-credit module would require 40
courses.]
(f) Should there be a cap on the number of required credits permitted
by majors? If so, what should that cap be?
(g) Should there be a stipulated minimum number or percentage of
credits to meet liberal education requirements? If so, what should it
be?
(h) How would a set minimum number of courses affect faculty workload,
classroom scheduling, and student enrollment patterns, student costs,
and time to degree?
__________________
INFORMATION AND PERTINENT QUESTIONS ABOUT CURRICULAR MATTERS:
A standard rule of thumb when changing from a quarter-based academic
calendar to a semester-based academic calendar is that the number of courses
in the curriculum should be reduced by one-third. This is because the number
of opportunities to offer a course during the academic year is being reduced
by one-third, from three quarters a year to two semesters a year. All other
things being equal, if faculty members are currently teaching two courses per
quarter or six per year, on a semester system they should wind up teaching two
courses per semester or four per year. And if each faculty member will be
teaching one-third fewer courses on semesters, then it follows that there
should be one-third fewer courses in the curriculum.
Everyone understands the simple 3-to-2 arithmetic of converting from a
quarter-based academic calendar to a semester-based academic calendar. What
is complicating the arithmetic is an additional question that is being asked.
What would happen if in addition to changing to semesters, the curriculum is
also changed from one of mostly 4-credit courses to one of mostly 3-credit
courses, so that students can take a greater variety of courses in completing
a 120-credit degree program (i.e., 40 courses, rather than 30)?
What would be wrong, for example, with converting three 4-credit quarter
courses (12 credits total) to two 3-credit and one 2-credit semester courses
(8 credits total), rather than to two 4-credit semester courses (8 credits
total)? In either case the number of credits is reduced by one-third (i.e.,
from 12 to 8). The answer is that there may be absolutely nothing wrong with
converting to semesters in this fashion, provided that all of the consequences
are thought through and accepted.
The consequences include the following.
1. Many faculty members who now never teach more than two courses per
quarter would now teach three every semester. Teaching three courses
per term is different than teaching two, even if the credit hours and
contact hours are exactly the same--different, not necessarily
unthinkable or undesirable.
2. In the case of year-long courses involving three 5-credit quarter
courses (e.g., first year French, German, Spanish, etc.), converting to
three 3-credit semester courses rather than to two 5-credit semester
courses would mean that "first year French" would become "first year-
and-a-half French." If any year long sequence of 4-credit or 5-credit
quarter courses was converted to three 3-credit semester courses rather
than to two 4-credit or 5-credit semester courses, then the sequence
would become a year and a half sequence.
There are certain subjects that should be taught over the course of one
year, usually at the lower division level, because they are prerequisite
for other course work. Calculus is probably the classic example.
Although 3-credit courses may be the most common in the curricula of
other institutions with semester-based academic calendars, 4 and 5-
credit courses at the lower division level are common in the case of
year-long introductory sequences, and as a consequence students at these
institutions might complete something less than 40 courses in the course
of completing a 120-credit degree program.
3. If we had a curriculum of all 4-credit courses and converted it to a
curriculum of all 3-credit and 2-credit courses while also changing to
semesters, and if the total number of courses in the quarter-based
curriculum were 3000, with 1000 offered each quarter, rather than
winding up with 2000 4-credit courses, with 1000 offered per semester,
we would wind up with 3000 2-credit and 3-credit courses, with 1500
offered per semester (i.e. 500 more). Scheduling 1500 2-credit and 3-
credit courses per term is different than scheduling 1000 4-credit
courses per term--different, not necessarily impossible. There are
classroom utilization implications. Do we have enough classrooms? In
order to fully utilize available classroom space, would departments be
willing to schedule classes at less popular times (e.g., 8:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. and 4:00 p.m. and 5:00 p.m.)? These are just considerations;
things to think about.
4. If our current full-time students are in the habit of taking four 4-
credit courses on quarters, would they be willing to take five 3-credit
courses on semesters in order to maintain a full load? Taking five 3-
credit courses is different than taking four 4-credit courses, even
though the total credit load is not significantly different. This too
is just a consideration; something to think about.
Although across the University there are more 4-credit courses than 3-
credit or 5-credit courses, there is currently no standard credit module for
the University's campuses and colleges. There is instead considerable
variation in the distribution of courses by credit module. If there is no
standard credit module for the quarter-based academic calendar, why should
there be one for the semester-based academic calendar?
Finally, the Twin Cities Liberal Education Task Force never defined its
proposed CLE requirements (as now implemented) as a fixed percentage of a
student's undergraduate education. It considered doing so and decided against
such an approach. At least on the Twin Cities Campus it is now possible for a
student to satisfy these requirements with course work that is less that one-
third of a 180 quarter-credit degree program. Why now stipulate that the CLE
requirements (for each campus?) must be at least one-third of a student's
undergraduate program--and if there is to be such a stipulation, should the
one-third be a minimum or a maximum?
__________________
One proposed standard to be discussed by SCEP:
BACCALAUREATE DEGREES CONSIST OF A MINIMUM OF 40 COURSES AND A MINIMUM
OF 120 SEMESTER CREDITS. THE LIBERAL EDUCATION REQUIREMENTS (INCLUDING
WRITING SKILLS), AS ESTABLISHED BY THE COUNCIL ON LIBERAL EDUCATION,
SHALL CONSIST OF AT LEAST ONE-THIRD OF THE MINIMUM NUMBER OF COURSES AND
OF SEMESTER CREDITS.
IMPLEMENTATION: A BACCALAUREATE DEGREE PROGRAM MAY JUSTIFY A GRADUATION
REQUIREMENT IN EXCESS OF 120 CREDITS ONLY IF REQUIRED FOR EXTERNAL
ACCREDITATION; SUCH EXCESS CREDIT REQUIREMENTS MUST BE APPROVED BY THE
PROVOST. STUDENTS MUST BE ALLOWED AS "FREE" ELECTIVES AT LEAST TEN
PERCENT OF THE MINIMUM NUMBER OF COURSES AND SEMESTER CREDITS (I.E.,
COURSES EXCLUSIVE OF THE LIBERAL EDUCATION, INCLUDING WRITING SKILLS,
MAJOR, AND OTHER BACCALAUREATE DEGREE REQUIREMENTS).
Comment on the proposed standard to be discussed:
In a call for 120 semester credits for a degree (the standard practice
around the country) AND for 40 courses, SCEP realizes it would implicitly be
recommending the three-credit course as the norm. The recommendation would be
precisely that. SCEP recognizes that for some programs, in which four- and
five-credit courses may be more prevalent, the degree requirements may of
necessity exceed 120 credits. SCEP has been reluctant, however, to recommend
the sacrifice of breadth that would be required were courses to be
predominantly four credits; for a 120-credit degree, that would mean only 30
courses (compared to the presumed norm of 45 courses, at four credits each,
under the current quarter system). SCEP believes that breadth is an extremely
important part of the baccalaureate degree and that it should be maintained to
the greatest extent possible.
SCEP understands that some curricula, especially in engineering and
other professional fields, may require more than 120 credits if the portion
set aside for liberal education and writing requirements is to be maintained
and accreditation requirements are to be met. Degree programs that require in
excess of 120 credits, however, should have to be justified, and SCEP
recommends that review and approval of such requirements should be in the
hands of the provosts.
4. (a) Should the Senate standard from 1922 concerning academic work per
week per credit in each course be reaffirmed (three hours of academic
work per week per credit, as a minimum for the average student,
including classes, field work, labs, recitations, study, and so on)?
(b) If so, should there be a mechanism for reviewing semester course
proposals that would provide assurance that faculty and departments are
aware of and adhere to the standard?
(c) If so, who would the appropriate review bodies be (college
curriculum committees? dean? provosts? other?)
__________________
One proposed standard to be discussed by SCEP:
THE UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA SENATE AFFIRMS THE STANDARD (FIRST ADOPTED
BY THE UNIVERSITY SENATE ON FEBRUARY 16, 1922, AND REAFFIRMED
SUBSEQUENTLY) THAT ONE SEMESTER CREDIT IS TO REPRESENT, FOR THE AVERAGE
STUDENT, A MINIMUM OF THREE HOURS OF ACADEMIC WORK PER WEEK (INCLUDING
LECTURES, LABORATORIES, RECITATIONS, DISCUSSION GROUPS, FIELD WORK,
STUDY, AND SO ON).
IMPLEMENTATION: ALL COURSES PROPOSED FOR THE SEMESTER CALENDAR SHALL
INCLUDE A STUDENT WORKLOAD STATEMENT DEMONSTRATING HOW THE COURSE
CONFORMS TO THIS POLICY. COLLEGE AND CAMPUS CURRICULUM COMMITTEES AND
OTHER APPROVING BODIES (E.G., THE COUNCIL ON LIBERAL EDUCATION) MUST
CONSIDER THE STUDENT WORKLOAD STATEMENT IN REACHING A DECISION ON
WHETHER TO APPROVE A PROPOSED SEMESTER COURSE, AND SHOULD NORMALLY
REJECT ANY COURSE WHICH DOES NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENT OF THREE HOURS OF
ACADEMIC WORK PER WEEK FOR EACH COURSE CREDIT.
Comment on the proposed standard to be discussed:
On the issue of the relationship between academic work and credits for a
course--which, along with contact hours, make up the heart of the educational
process--SCEP will likely wish to vigorously reaffirm the standard that has
been on the Senate books since 1922: each credit for which a student enrolls
(typically in a course) should represent, for the "average" student, at least
three hours of academic work per week (including lectures, laboratories,
recitations, field work, outside study, and so on). The student members of
SCEP were unaware that this is supposedly the standard for course work;
several acknowledged that a number of their courses failed to meet this
standard. SCEP believes this to be a serious problem that should be remedied;
the education a student receives is devalued when it requires too little
learning and study. SCEP may thus call for a process whereby every course
proposal submitted for approval for semesters must demonstrate that each
credit requires approximately three hours of academic effort per week. SCEP
understands well that students possess a wide variety of abilities and that
three hours for some may be two hours for other students and four hours for
yet others. But the Committee may conclude it is both possible and reasonable
to establish a standard for course review and approval that has a norm of at
least three hours of academic work per week per credit.
5. (a) Should a policy on contact hours per credit be re-established?
(b) If so, should a mechanism for review be established in order that
departments and colleges are able to adhere to the policy?
(c) How would this affect classroom scheduling, student enrollment
patterns, and faculty workload?
__________________
One proposed standard to be discussed by SCEP:
GENERALLY, THE NUMBER OF CONTACT HOURS PER WEEK FOR A COURSE THAT
ENROLLS UNDERGRADUATES (THIS DOES NOT INCLUDE ANY 8-XXX COURSES) SHALL
EQUAL AT LEAST THE NUMBER OF CREDITS FOR THE COURSE.
IMPLEMENTATION: A CONTACT HOUR IS DEFINED HERE AS FORMAL INSTRUCTION BY
A FACULTY MEMBER, GRADUATE TEACHING ASSISTANT, OR A TEACHING SPECIALIST;
CONTACT HOUR DOES NOT INCLUDE INSTRUCTION BY AN UNDERGRADUATE. THE
STUDENT WORKLOAD STATEMENT (REQUIRED IN THE PRECEDING SECTION) MUST
JUSTIFY FEWER CONTACT HOURS PER WEEK THAN THE NUMBER OF CREDITS FOR THE
COURSE; CONTACT HOURS OF ALL TYPES IN EXCESS OF ONE HOUR PER WEEK PER
CREDIT NEED NOT BE JUSTIFIED. COLLEGE AND CAMPUS CURRICULUM COMMITTEES
AND OTHER APPROVING BODIES (E.G., THE COUNCIL ON LIBERAL EDUCATION) MUST
CONSIDER THE CONTACT HOURS IN REACHING A DECISION ON WHETHER TO APPROVE
A PROPOSED SEMESTER COURSE; SUCH BODIES SHOULD NORMALLY REJECT COURSE
PROPOSALS WHICH HAVE FEWER CONTACT HOURS THAN CREDITS, BARRING
SIGNIFICANT EVIDENCE THAT REDUCED INSTRUCTIONAL CONTACT HOURS ARE
APPROPRIATE.
THE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATIONAL POLICY WOULD ANNUALLY REVIEW THE EXCEPTIONS
GRANTED BY EACH COLLEGE TO THIS PROVISION. IF THE COMMITTEE ON
EDUCATIONAL POLICY CONCLUDES THAT INAPPROPRIATE EXCEPTIONS HAVE BEEN
MADE BY ANY COLLEGIATE UNIT, FUTURE EXCEPTIONS TO THE CONTACT HOUR
PROVISION IN THAT UNIT, FOR A PERIOD OF TIME IT DEEMS APPROPRIATE (E.G.,
TWO YEARS) WOULD HAVE TO BE APPROVED BY THE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATIONAL
POLICY.
Comment on the principle SCEP discussed:
SCEP realizes that there is a diversity of opinion on the question of
contact hours. If there is value in student contact with faculty and other
instructors--which the research demonstrates beyond doubt that there is--then
the question is the amount. SCEP was provided with data by the Office of
Planning and Analysis which suggests that to the extent that courses which
enroll undergraduates deviate from the ratio of one contact hour per week per
credit, the University deviates from national norms. At peer institutions,
the average ratio of contact hours per week to credits for a course is almost
exactly 1:1 in the humanities and social sciences and well in excess of 1:1 in
the physical sciences and engineering.
Those who oppose adopting such a standard argue that much learning can
and does take place outside the classroom setting and that faculty can and
should encourage such learning. SCEP does not disagree. But this is a
slippery slope, the logical end of which is that faculty should show up for
the first class, assign readings and other work, and then test students at the
end of the term. If one believes, as SCEP is inclined to, that there is value
in student contact with faculty members--who presumably can provide
instruction and guidance and insight beyond the readings or laboratory work--
then it seems not unreasonable to insist on a minimum amount of such contact
for every course. It also seems, moreover, that faculty contact is especially
appropriate at a research university, a place where faculty are doing the work
that will appear in the textbooks five years later; contact and interaction
with faculty at a place like Minnesota is essential if one proposes to defend
the unique value of an undergraduate education at a research university. SCEP
would likely accept the prevailing national standard of a minimum of
approximately a 1:1 ratio as reflection of a reasonable consensus, and urge it
be adopted as the general rule.
SCEP also notes that the University recognized and generally adhered to
this 1:1 standard up until the early 1970s. At that time, the standard credit
module for a course was increased from three to four credits, but it is the
view of many of our colleagues that in a large number of instances
(distributed unevenly across the University) the amount of work for courses
did not significantly change, and thus the value of the course work and the
education itself was devalued. In the words of one of our colleagues, the
students and faculty entered into a neat bargain where the faculty had to
teach less, the students had to attend class less, and everyone went on their
way, with both credits and degrees cheapened. Although it seemed wise at the
time, those who have spoken with the Committee believe that in retrospect it
was an egregious error that should now be rectified. SCEP is inclined to
conclude that decision should be explicitly reversed and the 1:1 ratio between
credits and contact hours per week re-established as the norm, deviation from
which can be approved by the colleges and campuses, with appropriate review,
if sufficient justification is provided.
CARL ADAMS, Chair
Senate Consultative Committee
LAURA COFFIN KOCH, Chair
Educational Policy Committee
DISCUSSION:
Professor Carl Adams introduced the discussion of the semester conversion
standards by reviewing the process the Senate will follow in developing the
standards and the committees and mechanisms that have been put in place to
coordinate and implement the conversion.
Senators raised the following questions:
Q Has SCEP considered a winter interim?
R Calendar (c) above shows what a 14-week semester with a January
term would look like. The committee is also discussing the
possibility of having two semesters with a one-month term other
than in January.
Q Ignoring the State Fair in developing the University calendar is a
mistake. What are the committee's thoughts on this issue?
A SCEP has received numerous messages from faculty and staff from
the St. Paul campus concerning the effect of the State Fair on
their campus. The opinions vary. At this point SCEP is focusing
on the educational issues and when those issues are resolved,
peripheral issues, such as the State Fair, must be addressed.
Q The College of Education currently has the flexibility to deviate
from the University calendar. How much freedom will colleges have
to continue this sort of practice?
A The College of Education has brought this to SCEP's attention and
it is currently under discussion.
Q Has SCEP considered a uniform start date for all campuses?
A SCEP is beginning to work with the coordinate campuses on this
matter.
Other comments included:
- There should be a uniform standard for the amount of student work
associated with one credit in order to prevent the devaluation of
the credit.
- Some objected to the notion of a standard 3-credit semester unit
and the minimum number of courses requirement.
- At Crookston students and faculty favor a September start over
August.
With respect to the uniform credit module, Professor Koch said SCEP is
still considering this issue and is concerned that students be able to take a
wide breadth of courses as well as the depth they need for their major. They
fear a standard 5 credit module would not allow for much breadth.
President Hasselmo again reminded senators of the special January 11
Senate meeting at which the discussion of semesters will continue.
X. SENATE CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE
Faculty Consultative Committee and
Student Senate Consultative Committee Responsibilities
Action
MOTION:
To amend Article III, Section 4, of the University Senate Bylaws, as
follows: (new language is in CAPS)
4. Consultative Committees
. . . .
Faculty Consultative Committee
. . . .
Duties and Responsibilities
a. To meet separately, when necessary, to discuss with the president, or
others, matters of concern to the faculty.
b. To serve as the executive committee and steering committee of the
Faculty Senate.
c. TO ACT ON BEHALF OF THE FACULTY SENATE WHEN A DECISION IS REQUIRED PRIOR
TO THE NEXT SCHEDULED MEETING OF THE FACULTY SENATE AND WHEN A DECISION
IS REQUIRED WHEN IT WOULD NOT BE POSSIBLE TO CONVENE A SPECIAL MEETING
OF THE FACULTY SENATE IN A TIMELY FASHION; SUCH ACTIONS WILL BE REPORTED
TO THE FACULTY SENATE AT ITS NEXT MEETING AND THE FACULTY SENATE MAY
THEN OVERRULE THE FACULTY CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE.
. . . .
Student 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 executive and steering committee of the
Student Senate.
c. To provide for a budget subcommittee of the Student Senate. . . .
d. TO ACT ON BEHALF OF THE STUDENT SENATE WHEN A DECISION IS REQUIRED PRIOR
TO THE NEXT SCHEDULED MEETING OF THE STUDENT SENATE AND WHEN A DECISION
IS REQUIRED WHEN IT WOULD NOT BE POSSIBLE TO CONVENE A SPECIAL MEETING
OF THE STUDENT SENATE IN A TIMELY FASHION; SUCH ACTIONS WILL BE REPORTED
TO THE STUDENT SENATE AT ITS NEXT MEETING AND THE STUDENT SENATE MAY
THEN OVERRULE THE STUDENT SENATE CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE.
COMMENT:
This bylaw amendment parallels exactly existing language granting the
Senate Consultative Committee authority to act on behalf of the University
Senate between meetings; it authorizes the Faculty Consultative Committee to
act on behalf of the Faculty Senate between meetings and the Student
Consultative Committee to act on behalf of the Student Senate between
meetings, with the understanding that any such action will be brought to the
appropriate Senate for review at its next meeting.
CARL ADAMS, Chair
Senate Consultative Committee
DISCUSSION:
The motion was approved 142 to 0 without discussion.
APPROVED
XI. 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 [brackets];
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.
The amendments were presented at the May 18 Senate meeting but did not
receive sufficient votes for approval. They are being presented for
reconsideration.
CARL ADAMS, Chair
Senate Consultative Committee
DISCUSSION:
The Senate Consultative Committee introduced the motion and accepted the
following friendly amendments to motions 2 and 3:
- reinsert "vice" in the last phrase of the first paragraph, Article
III, Section 4
- strike "chair and" from the proposed new language under the
membership section of Article III, Section 4
- strike "The chair of the Student Senate shall also serve as the
chair of the Student Consultative Committee" from paragraph
preceding Duties and Responsibilities section
- strike "vice" in second to last sentence and reinsert "vice" in
last sentence of the paragraph just preceding Duties and
Responsibilites
- in Chairs paragraph, reinsert proposed stricken language and
strike "chair and" from the last phrase of the proposed new
language
- strike motion 3 entirely
- effective date of changes: beginning of the 1996-97 academic year
With little discussion, the Senate voted on the amended motions. As a
constitutional amendment, motion 1 failed to receive the required 141 votes
for approval. It did receive a majority and will be brought back to the
Senate for a second reading at its next meeting. The vote on Motion 2 will be
delayed until that time.
NOT APPROVED
XII. PRESIDENT'S REPORT
President Hasselmo introduced and welcomed to the University several new
deans: Dean Robert Elde, College of Biological Sciences; Dean Michael Martin,
College of Agricultural, Food, and Environmental Sciences; and Dean E. Thomas
Sullivan, Law School.
The President held further comments until his State of the University
Address scheduled for later in the day.
XIII. QUESTIONS TO THE PRESIDENT
NONE
XIV. SENATE CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE REPORT
Professor Carl Adams called senators attention to a handout distributed
at the door entitled Faculty Consultative Committee Quarterly Report. The
report, he said, was presented to the Board of Regents on November 10.
Professor Adams briefly described the actions the Faculty Consultative
Committee (FCC) has taken with respect to tenure. A Tenure Working Group was
jointly appointed by the administration and the FCC to coordinate the efforts
of the administration and the faculty during the tenure review process. It
will seek from the Tenure Subcommittee and the Senate Faculty Affairs
Committee whatever modifications of the Tenure Code seem appropriate.
The Faculty Consultative Committee, he said, is also working to
establish a mechanism for faculty consultation within the provostal areas and
will be coming forward with some recommendations in the near future.
XV. ANNUAL REPORTS
Information
Committee on Committees
Annual Report, 1994-95
The Committee on Committees met during the 1994-95 academic year to fill
vacancies on the various Senate and Assembly committees and to select chairs
for those committees. There were numerous attempts made to engage more
faculty and staff in the committee process. Careful attention was paid to
gender composition as well as diversity of disciplines, colleges, and campuses
of committees and nominations for chairs.
We found it very difficult this year to find faculty and staff who would
agree to chair committees despite the fact that there is exceptionally strong
staff support for the committee chairs. This may be an issue that next year's
committee would like to address.
As outgoing chair of the committee, I wish to thank all of the committee
members who worked so efficiently as to make our tasks much easier.
Jean Quam, Chair
Computing and Information Systems Committee
Annual Report, 1994-95
The Senate Committee on Computing and Information Systems (SCCIS)
considers its purview to include all aspects of computing, telecommunications,
and information processing at the University of Minnesota. The following
issues were discussed during the reporting period:
1. The major issue that was discussed during several meetings is the need for
improving access by dial-up telephone to the Internet for University students,
staff, and faculty. The problem arises in the evening hours when many members
of the University community attempt to read their e-mail or otherwise access
the Internet from their home computers. Since before the start of the
academic year, the modem pool for access to these facilities has been
saturated by extremely heavy demand. New modems were added toward the end of
the academic year to attempt to alleviate the situation, but the Office of
Information Technology (formerly Computing and Information Systems) feels that
it is necessary to consider alternative solutions in addition to increasing
the modem pool, due to the cost of adding modems and maintaining them at about
$1,000 per year per high speed modem. Some proposals that were discussed by
the committee included a limit on the number of hours of free dial-up access
to the modem pool, with a charging structure implemented after those hours
were used per individual. Other possibilities included the use of leased
departmental modems, and the provision of guaranteed access to individuals
through a cost structure. All proposals are currently still under discussion
and evaluation, and no changes in the current policies with respect to access
have yet been implemented. A letter was written to President Hasselmo from
the committee in March of 1995 requesting additional funding to resolve these
problems, but no reply has yet been received.
2. The second issue that was discussed across several meetings concerned
aspects of supercomputing and high performance computing in general. The
committee heard a report of the High Performance Computing Committee and
discussed aspects of the performance of the new supercomputing provider with
respect to its impact on faculty supercomputing activities.
3. SCCIS met with Graduate School Dean Brenner to discuss the impact of
federal changes in direct cost allowances on computing charges and grant
proposals. The discussion revolved partly around the future of mainframe
computing at the University and alternatives to mainframe computing as they
relate to the provision of intensive (non-supercomputer) computing needs of
faculty and students.
4. The committee heard reports on implementation of the Infotech planning
process that has been going on for the last several years.
5. The committee reviewed developments in the telecommunications planning
process and at its last meeting agreed that more faculty involvement is needed
in long-range telecommunications planning. The committee endorsed the idea of
requesting the administration to establish a faculty telecommunications
planning committee like the Hobbie committee of about 10 years ago that
planned for the current telecommunications system. Discussion during several
meetings also touched on networking of the campus and the University system-
wide and needs for upgrading the network in the next iteration of
telecommunications planning.
6. The committee also heard reports from the library system on the use of
information technology, AIS, Administrative Information Systems, Student
Support Systems, and discussed potential areas of cooperation between AIS and
CIS.
Further details of all of the committees deliberations appear in the minutes
of each of the monthly meetings.
David Weiss, Chair
Equal Employment Opportunity for Women Committee
Annual Report, 1994-95
The committee was composed of the following members: Janet Ahern,
Silvia Azar, Ann Burkhart, Wesley Hackett, June LaValleur, Marcia Odom, Naomi
Scherman, Kathryn Sedo (chair), Bev Stewart.
The committee met eight (8) times during the year. Three subcommittees
were created to facilitate the committee's work.
During 1994-95, the EEOWC considered and was consulted with on the
following topics:
1. Critical measures concerning diversity and faculty satisfaction were
discussed on two occasions with Darwin Handel and Jane Whiteside. In
addition, the committee met at a separate meeting with Pat Mullen, Carol
Carrier and Josie Johnson to discuss the goals underlying the benchmark
materials.
2. The issue of pay equity for women's athletic coaches was brought to
the attention of the committee and discussed. The committee began collecting
data concerning this issue, both on Twin Cities campus and coordinate
campuses. Meetings with chris Bolez and a group of concerned staff and
alumnae will be held during 1995-96 to follow up on this issue.
3. The issue of separate althetic departments for men and women was
addressed by the group and a letter sent to President Hasselmo concerning this
issue.
4. The committee consulted with Pat Mullen concerning policy changes
concerning hiring practices, specifically the hiring of significant others and
agreed with the changes proposed by Pat Mullen.
5. The committee reviewed hiring data and retentin data obtained from
Pat Mullen's office for the past 11 years. An attempt was made to ascertain
why it appears that our retention rate for women and minorities is low.
Information form Josie Johnson's office may be forthcoming on this issue as
least as it concerns minorities. This issue will continue to be monitored by
the committee.
6. Pat Mullen notified the committee of her retirement and the pending
job search to fill her position. The committee reviewed the job description
used in the search and noted that it had several sifnificant chages from Ms.
Mullen's current job description. Concern over the changes was expressed to
President Hasselmo by letter and by the chair of the committee direct to
President Hasselmo at a meeting of the FCC.
7. The committee reviewed the analysis of salary increases prepared by
Rob Toutkoushain from the Management Information Division. The analysis
showed no statistically significant difference between pay raises for men and
women. However, Mr. Toutkoushian indicated that the data was old and really
needed to be updated. The committee has this on its agenda for the upcoming
year.
The committee greatly appreciated the reports and information received
from Pat Mullen and her office, from Rob Toutkoushian and his office, and from
Jane Whiteside and Darwin Handel. Vickie Courtney provided excellent support
for the committee. Naomi Scheman, Philosophy, will serve as chair next year.
Kathryn J. Sedo, Chair
Facilities Management Subcommittee
Annual Report, 1994-95
The Facilities Management Subcommittee of the Senate Committee on
Finance and Planning discussed the following issues: Governance
Reorganization, the Steam Plant, Master Planning, the Classroom Study, and
Critical Measures for Facilities Management.
The Subcommittee discussed merger of the Facilities Management
Subcommittee and the Support Services Committee. The merger would cut the
number of committees, eliminate the need for issue orientated ad hoc
committees in Finance and Operations, and consolidate the consulting lines for
Facilities Management.
After reviewing the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the steam
plant, the committee questioned the cost figures and environmental impact
estimates contained in the EIS. Cost figures and environmental impact
estimates did not seem comparable across the different options. The committee
remains interested in natural gas options on or off the river. There seems
agreement that, given the condition of the current plant, the University needs
to proceed with a new one as soon as possible.
The Subcommittee heard a presentation on the current Master Planning
effort for all campuses. We urge completion of the plans and continued
consultation with the Facilities Management Subcommittee about these plans.
Where possible, capital project decisions should be consistent with the
projected Master Plans.
Discussion of the classroom study focused two issues: (1) the need to
renew and modernize existing classrooms and (2) the need to use our classrooms
more fully and efficiently.
In the discussion of critical measures, emphasis was placed on
preservation, the renewal, renovation and replacement of existing facilities
at reasonable cost. A concern was expressed for the entire campus
environment, classrooms, custodial and grounds services and research
facilities. Technology and facilities may need to be considered separtately.
As the University moves toward Responsibility Centered Management, next
year's Subcommittee may want to consider the management of facilities in a
Responsibility Centered Management system.
Mark L. Davison, Chair
Library Committee
Annual Report, 1994-95
The Senate Library Committee met seven times during the academic year.
At our initial meeting, after reviewing a suggested agenda for 1994-95, the
committee reviewed the University of Minnesota Libraries--Twin Cities Task
Force on Restructuring the Libraries Final Report (1994). Linda DeBeau-
Melting, Chair of the Task Force, presented the report. This was followed by
a discussion of the problems and opportunities associated with system-wide
budgeting for the University's libraries.
The November meeting was devoted to the Library's position on data bases
and electronic texts. Joe Branin, Library Department Director, outlined the
Library's current policy; Tom Shaughnessy, University Librarian, focused
committee discussion on related policy issues, e.g., to what extent should the
library use funds (which traditionally have been dedicated to the purchase of
print materials) for data base access? To what extent should data base
licenses be negotiated so as to include all University users/potential users?
How should licenses be funded?
In January and February, the committee turned its attention to the
serials crises. We heard testimony from Donald Marion, Science and
Engineering Collection Development; Marcia Pankake, English and American
Literature Bibliographer; and Donald Johnson, Curator of the Ames Library of
South Asia. Given that allocations of funds lag seriously behind escalating
costs for periodicals, it is not surprising that no single solution emerged as
solving this crisis.
In January we also heard from Christopher Loring, Wilson and Walter
Libraries Access Services, concerning collection moves in Wilson Library:
moves which attempt to address issues of space, security, and organization.
In February, the committee also focused on the relationship of the Libraries
to U2000's Critical Measures. Tom Shaughnessy will report back to the 1995-96
committee on the Library's ongoing attempts to develop appropriate measures.
In March, Bill Sozansky, UM Duluth Library Director, persuasively
presented UMD's case for a new library and information center. The committee
also heard from Judy Burton, Development Officer, University Library Admin.,
about the creation and continuing efforts to attract monetary gifts through
the Friends of the Library; and Clarence Carter, Associate Program Director,
Grievance Office, explained in detail the policy and workings of the Regents'
Policy on Library Gifts. The committee suggested a number of possibilities
for increasing gifts to the Library.
April brought us back to the biennial budget. Issues raised by the
Minnesota Legislature's funding and stipulations were discussed. In April,
the committee also reviewed progress toward the creation of a Library Archives
and Overflow Center and revisited efforts to create a Virtual Electronic
Library by the libraries of the Committee on Institutional Cooperation.
The final committee meeting, under the guidance of Bill Sozansky, UMD
Library Director, addressed library cooperation. Past efforts at interlibrary
cooperation were reviewed, and considerable discussion centered on future
cooperative efforts. Given budgetary problems, this is an area needing
greater attention.
Harold Hinds, Chair
Research Committee
Annual Report, 1994-95
The Senate Research Committee met nine times during the academic year
and considered a range of issues. In collaboration with the Senate Committee
on Faculty Affairs, it developed an Addendum to the Workload Policy direct at
fostering an appropriate research climate for faculty in all units where
research is an important component in performance evaluation and career
advancement. The Committee participated in discussions of a number of
important issues affecting the research climate, such as Graduate Assistants'
benefit rates, policies on conflict of interest and conflict of commitment,
policies on indirect cost recovery, and certain issues relating to grants
management, and health and safety in the laboratory. There were extensive
discussions of critical measures and U2000, especially the measure associated
with the area of Research, Scholarship, and Artistic Accomplishment.
Discussions of Responsibility Centered Management and the issue of financial
and legal responsibilities of faculty in their research activities were
initiated, but remain important topics for the coming academic year.
Allen Goldman, Chair
Social Concerns Committee
Annual Report, 1994-95
Major concerns of the Social Concerns Committee during 1994-95 have been
(1) issues of diversity and equal opportunity (2) responsible University
investment (3) University involvement in environmental issues
(1) DIVERSITY AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY
During the year, the Committee met twice with Dr. Darwin Hendel and Dr.
Jane Whiteside (Office of Academic Affairs) to discuss the planning and
benchmarks of U2000 as they relate to the University's commitment to diversity
and accessibility for educationally-disadvantaged individuals. In addition,
two committee members (Prof. John Dickey, Brenda Ellingboe, Student, Graduate
School) served on the Working Group for U2000, a special Senate all-committee
task force.
The committee met with Dr. Roger Harrold (Office of Student Affairs) to
discuss the Student Campus Diversity Survey and its findings, which, although
positive in many respects, nevertheless included indications of pervasive and
ongoing discrimination and harassment, not only on the basis of race but also
on the basis of sexual orientation and disability, perceived by students as
coming from other students, from faculty, and in classroom and dormitory
settings. The Committee was concerned by these findings and recommended to
the Senate Consultative Committee that these findings should be more widely
publicized and that additional methods should be sought to ensure that these
issues are dealt with constructively throughout the University.
The Committee's Subcommittee on Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender
Concerns (Prof. Frank Wood, Chair) has been concerned, among other issues,
with the University's relationship with the Reserve Officer Training Corps
(ROTC), which is determined by Regents' policy. The ROTC on-campus training
program has consistently followed the policies of the Defense Department
rather than those of the University by discriminating against persons on the
basis of their announced sexual orientation. A motion adopted by the
University Senate in 1991 called upon the University to end its relationship
with the ROTC if the discrimination continued after June 30, 1993. As of 1995
however, the basic issue remains unresolved and ROTC practice remains
unchanged. Thus, the Subcommittee brought to the full Social Concerns
Committee a further resolution which was adopted by the Social Concerns
Committee and subsequently adopted by the University Senate. This resolution
requests the University President and Administration to continue efforts to
place the issue of federal military regulations discriminating against 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 between
the University's stated policies and ROTC practice. The resolution further
states that, should this conflict remain one year after the date of the next
renewal of the ROTC contract, the University should begin the process of
severing its relations with the ROTC. The intent of the resolution is not
requiring immediate conformity to equal opportunity policy is to recognize the
value of the ROTC program and allow time for resolution, while affirming that
the University's commitment to its policy of equality must be paramount.
(2) RESPONSIBLE INVESTMENT
As part of its ongoing charge, the Committee reviewed and recommended to
the Vice President for Finance and Operations the proxy vote that the
University should record for its investments, where shareholder resolutions of
social concern were involved.
The Committee was particularly concerned with the University's decision
this year to begin investing in Chinese (PRC) companies, in the light of
worldwide concern about violations of human rights of workers and others in
the People's Republic of China. After meeting with Roger Paschke (University
Treasurer), and representatives from the University's China Center and Amnesty
International chapter, the Committee drafted and sent on to the Senate an
informational resolution expressing its concerns. The Committee requested
that Mr. Paschke bring these concerns to the investment group with the purpose
of encouraging the group to monitor its investments to avoid companies with
human-rights violations. A subcommittee of the Committee was formed to find
and monitor information relevant to investment in the People's Republic of
China. This activity will continue in the coming year.
(3) ENVIRONMENT
The Committee considered and endorsed a resolution brought by University
students involved in the Rainforest Action Network calling upon the University
to boycott (refrain from purchasing) products carrying the Mitsubishi name
until Mitsubishi logging operations in its three most destructive operations
are verifiably sustainable. This action occurred too late for consideration
by the Senate Consultative Committee and University Senate during the 1994-95
academic year. The resolution will be forwarded to the Senate Consultative
Committee during the summer of 1995, for action during the 1995-96 academic
year.
Ongoing issues: in addition to the China investment policy and Mitsubishi
issues noted above, ongoing issues include consideration of possible further
action in light of the student diversity report, and a previously mandated
review of the Subcommittee on Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Concerns
to determine whether it should be continued after June, 1996.
The charge to the Social Concerns Committee is broader than that of most of
the standing committees of the Senate. The Committee can respond to only a few
of the many social issues which affect the University community. The Chair
expressed her appreciation to those members of the Committee who took an
active role in its work during the year and to others who provided valuable
input into the Committee's discussions.
Barbara Walden, Chair
Student Committee on Committees
Annual Report, 1994-95
The 1994-95 Student Committee on Committee has concluded its regular
meeting schedule, and, thus, the business on agenda for the 1994-95 academic
year. There have been a number of notable achievements:
* Establishment of a Committee on Committees database. The fileserver
software was financed by ConC whereas the hardware was financed by
GAPSA. This should ensure accurate tracking of committees, and
multiple access to information concerning who is, formerly has, or
would be interested in serving on committees. This database has
already shown itself to be a great asset.
* Closer communication with the University Senate office and Clerk,
Martha Kvanbeck. Throughout the year we have had ongoing, if
occasional, meetings concerning University Senate and committee
structure, the structure and responsibilities of the Student
Committee on Committees, budgetary relationship to the Student
Senate and Student Senate Consultative Committee (shifting emphasis
to Committee on Committees) and concerning the transfer of Committee
on Committees financial accounts from the MSA office to the
University Senate office, as well as the establishment of a
collaborative arrangement with GAPSA for staff support and billing
expenses.
* The fall reception and Spring orientation were successful, with the
latter involving guest speakers Acting Vice President Jack Imholte,
Senate Clerk Martha Kvanbeck, Joel Bergstrom of the Student Senate,
Barbara Thompson of the Student Senate Consultative Committee and
about 20 orientees.
* Completely filling all but 3 committees through the orientation, e-
mail and Daily advertising efforts. The three committees are the
University Grievance Board, Grievance Advisory Committee, and Library
Committee (1). The former two are called only if needed from a large
pool. In almost every other committee there were more applicants
then positions. We also pursued an extensive follow up program to
contact members of this year's committees to encourage their serving
two consecutive years for continuity, experience and effectiveness.
* Establishment of a Committee on Committees e-mail address:
ConC@gold.tc.umn.edu
There were a number of areas to improve upon. Ironically, during part
of the year, Committee on Committees representation suffered from resignations
from MSA representatives which were not replaced by MSA, even following
multiple notification, and from tragedy in Morris. Communication with the
Faculty Committee on Committees left something to be desired. Telephone
messages and e-mail queries were often not answered promptly if at all. The
slate of nominations for committee chairs was originally not sent to the
Student Committee on Committees by the Senate office in a timely manner;
however, when it was received, the Student Committee on Committees was
heartened to see that Joel Bergstrom had been nominated to chair the Committee
on Student Affairs. It should be recognized that Joel has provided insight as
well as many recommendations for committee members during the past year.
Steve Prince, the outgoing GAPSA Executive Administrator, has also been very
helpful in the discussion of databases, structure and as a resource for the
history of the committee over the past 10 years. Additionally, it should be
recognized that Liza Olson, committee member from Duluth, was extraordinarily
committed (and present) throughout the year. Her two years of service and
many long hours of commuting are greatly appreciated. Sam Black, as the sole
continuing committee member, has been designated as chair pro-tem, with full
expectation that he will serve in this capacity throughout the 1995-96
academic year. Stephanie Hill Simione has provided excellent support in the
latter half of the year in the context of the database and organization of the
orientation.
In Memoriam
Finally, the Committee on Committees suffered a serious loss this year through
the death of Morris committee member Kari J. Kopel on January 9, 1995, a month
following an automobile accident between quarters. Her funeral at St.
Theresia's Catholic Church in Donnelly, Minnesota on January 12 reflected the
fact that she is greatly cared for by her fellow students, family and friends.
She ably and extensively served the Morris student body, and is a person who
is, and will be, greatly missed.
Kirk Allison, Chair
Student Senate Consultative Committee
Annual Report, 1994-95
I have tried to emphasize a transitional role for the Student Senate
Consultative Committee this year in the expectation that it may be redefined
by the upcoming Governance Task Force. Some elements of the committee,
particularly the MSA and Morris membership, had a great deal of turnover
during the year, and this impeded our effectiveness. However, the SSCC has
managed to carry on its traditional business as the steering committee for the
Student Senate.
The committee met once a month, and at all meetings but one discussed
student concerns with President Hasselmo. The SSCC has a substantive
discussion about student governance reforms, and brought this discussion to
the floor of the Student Senate, using the GAPSA student governance document
as a starting point for debate. One resolution that came out of this argument
called on the Governance Task Force to consider broadening the
responsibilities of the Student Committee on Committees. We also discussed in
detail the Regentsą new tuition policy; drawing from this discussion, I sent a
letter to the Regents detailing student reactions to the changes in the
policy. I also had a substantive discussion with Vice President Infante at
the Tuition Advisory Committee that led to several changes in the document's
language. Twice this year the issue of dispute resolution arose, first with
University Grievance Officer Nick Barbatsis, and second with Jan Morse,
director of the Student Dispute Resolution Center. A related issue, the
proposed sexual violence policy, was also discussed. The SSCC drafted
substantive changes to the Senate Constitution, rules, and bylaws that would
allow for the merging of the SSCC and Student Senate officer positions. The
Student Senate passed this initiative, and although it was approved
unanimously in two University Senate meetings, quorum was not achieved at the
second meeting. We expect that the initiative will pass in the Fall 1995
meeting. This year SSCC members, led by Barbara Thompson of GAPSA, hosted two
open fora for incoming Student Senators and drafted a general handbook for the
Student Senate.
Rabun Taylor, Chair
University Grievance Office
Annual Report, 1994-95
Background
The University of Minnesota Grievance Policy (UGP) was drafted in 1992-93 by a
committee of University faculty, professional and administrative staff, civil
service staff, and students. The UGP was reviewed and passed by the
University Senate in February, 1993, and recommended by University
administration to the Board of Regents and approved by the Regents in April,
1993. The policy was implemented in September, 1993.
The UGP is an internal University process for the good faith review and
resolution of employment grievances filed by employees of the University,
including faculty, academic professional and administrative staff, civil
service staff, and student employees. (The policy does not cover employees of
the University of Minnesota Hospital and Clinic, or employees in bargaining
units represented by labor organizations.)
Alternative Dispute Resolution
In function and intent, the UGP represents an alternative dispute resolution
(ADR) system, designed specifically to encourage and facilitate in-house
resolution of employment grievances. The process consists of four phases, two
informal and two formal: I - Informal, mediated meeting of discussion and
negotiation between the parties; II -Informal, mediated meeting between the
grievant and a higher level University administrative representative; III
-Internal evidentiary hearing by a three person panel; IV - Voluntary
arbitration by a three person panel.
A Commission on the Future of Worker-Management Relations was created in 1993
by the Labor and Commerce departments to explore ways to enhance productivity
and reduce conflict in the workplace, and to increase the extent to which
workplace problems are directly resolved by the parties themselves. The
Commission released its final report and recommendations in January, 1995. In
reporting its recommendations relating to ADR, the Commission strongly
supported the "expansion and development of alternative workplace dispute
resolution mechanisms, including both in-house settlement procedures and
voluntary arbitration systems...." To the credit of the University of
Minnesota Grievance Policy, within its various features the UGP already
offers all of the in-house ADR procedures recommended by the Commission.
Staff
During 1994-95, the Grievance Office functioned with 2.5 FTE staff: the
University Grievance Officer (1.0), the Deputy University Grievance Officer
(.5), and the Executive Assistant (1.0). Beginning July 1, 1995, the Deputy
Grievance Officer returned to his primary position with the University
Libraries, but will support the Grievance Office in an "on call" basis during
1995-96.
Caseload
The "caseload" of the Grievance Office comprises a variety of situations
and/or circumstances, including inquiry meetings, complaints accepted as
grievances, complaints either not accepted as grievances or accepted and
challenged by respondents (advisory determinations), informal meetings at
Phases I and II of the grievance process, panel hearings, and arbitration
hearings.
Inquiry Meetings
Many employees who ask to meet with the Grievance Office believe that
something is amiss in their work environment, but do not know, for example,
whether they have an "authentic" grievance or whether they want to file a
grievance at all. Consequently, a major function of the Grievance Office,
both in terms of time and importance, lies in what might be termed
"advising/counseling" about individual employment situations.
If they can receive help or ideas for resolving their employment problems,
most visitors to the Grievance Office would prefer to avoid filing a formal
grievance. By way of illustration, of the 102 employee/clients who requested
inquiry meetings, 63 (62%) decided not to file a grievance.
Grievances Filed
Despite the large number of faculty, professional & administrative, civil
service, and student employees covered by the Grievance Policy (almost 26,000
in March, 1995), the actual number of grievances filed during 1994-95
represented less than one quarter of one per cent (.22%) of the eligible
employees on all University campuses.
The following numbers describe grievances filed and accepted during 1994-95,
by employee category, with approximate employee population in each category:
Population Grievances
Faculty 3,529 12
Professional & Administrative 3,439 7
Civil Service 4,325 28
Student 14,666 10
TOTAL 25,959 57
By definition of the Grievance Policy, "a grievance must allege a violation of
a specific University rule, regulation, policy or practice pertaining to the
employment relationship between the grievant and the University. This
includes the terms of the grievant's employment contract, alleged violations
of this grievance policy, and discipline." Under this definition, there is no
defined limit as to the types of grievances that may be filed, although
"termination" was the most frequent issue grieved.
The following table shows the types of issues grieved, listed by employee
category. (Please note: because some grievances involve more than one issue,
the number of issues is greater than the number of grievances.)
Summary of Issues Grieved by Employee Classification
Issue Grieved Faculty P & A Civil Service Student TOTAL
Consulting Policy 2 2
Contractual 1 4 3 1 9
Data Practices 2 2
Demotion 1 1
Discipline 1 1 2 4
Discrimination 2 1 3
Due Process 2 1 3
Equity 1 1 2
Harassment 1 2 3
Performance Eval. 2 1 3
Reclassification 2 2
Retaliation 2 2
Rules Application 3 7 10
Salary 2 2 2 6
Termination 3 10 6 19
TOTAL 16 13 31 11 71*
*Some grievances involve more than one issue
Advisory Determinations
The Grievance Policy provides, in part, that the Grievance Officer will:
"Review each complaint to make an advisory determination whether the
complaining party is covered by this policy, and whether the complaint is a
grievance within the scope of the University Grievance Policy."
During 1994-95, the office received six complaints that the Grievance Officer
determined not to be grievances within the scope of the UGP. Of these,
complainants requested in three cases that a panel be convened to review the
advisory determination of the Grievance Officer. The panel upheld the
Grievance Officer's determination in all three cases. In another grievance,
the University respondent challenged the "validity" of a complaint that the
Grievance Officer had accepted as a grievance. The hearing panel upheld the
challenge by determining that the complaint should not be accepted as a
grievance under the UGP.
Of the total number of employees who submitted written complaints to the
Grievance Office, only two or three individuals filed what seemed to be
"frivolous" complaints. Such complaints usually were dealt with by the
Grievance Officer's determining that they did not constitute grievances
within the scope of the Grievance Policy. The complaining party then had the
option to request a panel review of such a determination. Only one person
requested such review, and the determination of the Grievance Officer was
upheld.
Informal Meetings
The UGP provides two opportunities for informal resolution of a grievance --
Phase I - Informal Meeting, and Phase II - Meeting with Supervisor. The
purpose of these meetings is to facilitate grievance resolution through
informal discussion and negotiation between the parties and/or between the
grievant and higher University administration. The Grievance Officer chairs
such meetings, serves as a mediator in a settlement facilitating role, and may
make settlement recommendations as appropriate. Both Phase I and Phase II
may, and often do, require more than one meeting, which occurs only with the
express mutual consent of the parties. For 1994-95 grievances, the Grievance
Office held 64 informal meetings -- 48 at Phase I, and 16 at Phase II.
For a variety of reasons, not all grievances are ready to proceed immediately
to informal meetings. Examples of such reasons include:
- Parties decide to attempt to reach resolution on their own;
- Parties agree to proceed directly to a panel hearing;
- Externally filed dispute is referred to grievance process for
formal hearing;
- Grievance suspended pending receipt of relevant administrative
decision;
- Parties on authorized leave (e.g., medical, professional,
vacation).
Of the 57 grievances filed during 1994-95, 15 were delayed or suspended for
reasons similar to those stated above. That left 42 grievances that proceeded
in a "normal" fashion and had adequate opportunity for resolution to have
been attempted. Of those, 28 (67%) were resolved informally at Phase I or
Phase II. Three others (7%) had good promise for being resolved informally.
Eleven others (26%) either had a panel hearing, were in the process of being
scheduled for a hearing, or were very likely to require a hearing.
Overall, these results indicate that 74% of all grievances filed either were
resolved or were likely to be resolved at the informal level. The following
table shows a summary of informal resolutions and anticipated informal
resolutions, by employee classification:
Informal Resolutions and Anticipated Informal Resolutions
by Employee Classification
(Excludes cases "temporarily suspended" by agreement/request of parties)
Faculty
Number of grievances: 5
Informal resolutions: 3
Probable informal resolutions: 0
Anticipated percent resolved: 60%
P & A
Number of grievances: 7
Informal resolutions: 2
Probable informal resolutions: 1
Anticipated percent resolved: 43%
Civil Service
Number of grievances: 20
Informal resolutions: 16
Probable informal resolutions: 1
Anticipated percent resolved: 85%
Students
Number of grievances: 10
Informal resolutions: 7
Probable informal resolutions: 1
Anticipated percent resolved: 80%
TOTAL
Number of grievances: 42
Informal resolutions: 28
Probable informal resolutions: 3
Anticipated percent resolved: 74%
Panel Hearings
Phase III of the grievance process is a hearing before a three-person panel.
The hearing panel consists of one member of the University Grievance Board
chosen by the grievant, one designee of the vice president or provost of the
unit in which the grievant is employed, and one hearing officer from the
Hearing Officers' Panel. Members of both the University Grievance Board and
the Hearing Officers' Panel are appointed by committees that represent the
several employee constituencies; that is, the Senate Committee on Faculty
Affairs, the Academic Staff Advisory Committee, the Civil Service Committee,
and the Student Senate Committee on Committees.
The role of the hearing panel is to conduct an internal evidentiary hearing.
After the hearing, the panel prepares a written decision, which is distributed
to the parties and to the Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs for
acceptance or non-acceptance by University administration.
In 1994-95, 16 panel hearings were held -- several of which involved
gri