UNIVERSITY SENATE MINUTES
DECEMBER 5, 1996
Information
A. Standards for the Semester Conversion Approved by the: University Senate April 18, 1996 Implemented by the: Administration June, 1996 Board of Regents -- no action required
B. Policy Related to Students Enrolled at the U of M During the Transition Between the Quarter and Semester System Approved by the: University Senate May 2, 1996 Implemented by the: Administration May 10, 1996 Board of Regents - no action required
C. Mitsubishi Boycott Resolution Approved by the: University Senate May 2, 1996 Response: Administration issued a Mitsubishi Purchasing Restriction to take effect no later than December 31, 1996 Board of Regents - no action required
D. Code of Conduct Approved by the: University Senate May 16, 1996 Administration June 13, 1996 Board of Regents July 12, 1996
E. Policy on Horace T. Morse-Minnesota Alumni Association Award for Outstanding Contributions to Undergraduate Education Approved by the: University Senate May 30, 1996 Administration June 12, 1996 Board of Regents - no action required
To approve the membership of the following Senate committees:
COMPUTING AND INFORMATION SYSTEMS - Faculty/PA: Stephen Campbell (chair), Ronald Anderson, Joan Howland, Gary Jahn, Andy Lopez, David Nelson, Marcia Pankake, William Peterson. Students: Bryon Freelon, 1 to be named. Ex Officio: Steve Cawley, Donald Riley.
DISABILITIES ISSUES - Faculty/PA: Lance Johnson (chair), Gary Birnbaum, Deborah Brown, James Carey, Lynn Kyoko Edwards, Richard Hanson, Stephen Kanee, K. Charles Lakin, Louise Mullan, Ken Myers, Deborah Peterson-Pearlman, James Slagle. Civil Service: Tim McCluske, Ruanne Pearson. Students: Jesse Grenz, 1 to be named. Ex Officio: Sue Kroeger, Paul Tschida.
EDUCATIONAL POLICY - Faculty/PA: Laura Coffin Koch (chair), Avram Bar-Cohen, Anita Cholewa, Elayne Donahue, Gayle Graham Yates, Gordon Hirsch, Thomas Johnson, Judith Martin, Cleon Melsa, Kathleen Newell, William Van Essendelft. Students: Bret Benesh, Ryan Nilsen, Tina Rovick, 2 to be named. Ex Officio: Darwin Hendel, Robert Leik, W. Phillips Shively.
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY FOR WOMEN - Faculty/PA: Naomi Scheman (chair), Janet Ahern, Rose Brewer, Ann Burkhart, June LaValluer, Marcia Odom, Delane Welsch. Academic Professionals: Beverly Stewart, Joyce Walker. Ex Officio: Jessica Bailey, Stephanie Leiberman.
FACILITIES MANAGEMENT - Faculty/PA: Gary Malzer (chair), Theodore Galambos, Cynthia Gillett, Gail Peterson, Jane Phillips, Leon Satkowski, Faye Thompson. Civil Service: Kent Rees. Students: 2 to be named. Ex Officio: Diane Dufault, Elizabeth Grundner, Clint Hewitt, Don Kelsey, Bob Schenkel.
FINANCE AND PLANNING - Faculty/PA: Fred Morrison (chair), Patricia Ferrieri, Catherine French, Peter Robinson, Benjamin Senauer, Charles Speaks, Craig Swan, James Van Alstine. Civil Service: Thora Cartlidge, Gerald Klement. Students: Jason Frick, Joe Larson, James Reibestein, Montgomery Sexton. Ex Officio: David Hamilton, Robert Kvavik,Gary Malzer, Roger Paschke, Richard Pfutzenreuter.
LIBRARY - Faculty/PA: Gerhard Weiss (chair), John Anderson, Steven Girshick, Celia Hales, Marci Hoffman, Linda Jorn, Julia Kelly, Nita Krevans, Bruce Moskowitz, James Orf, Richard Richards, 1 to be named. Students: 4 to be named. Ex Officio: Dennis Cabral, Karen Fischer, Joan Howland, Thomas Shaughnessy, Bill Sozansky, Owen Williams.
RESEARCH - Faculty/PA: David Hamilton (chair), Joel Eisinger, Burle Gengenbach, Dorothy Hatsukami, Susan Hupp, Leonard Kuhi, Kathryn Rettig, Mark Snyder. Civil Service: Phil Norcross. Students: Jesse Grenz, Jennifer Long, Barbara Van Drasek. Ex Officio: Mark Brenner, Marilyn DeLong, Robin Dittman, Ed Wink, 2 to be named.
SOCIAL CONCERNS - Faculty/PA: Gustav Bauer (chair), Dean Abrahamson, Vasilikie Demos, Gayle Foreman, George French, Arthur Geffen, Gary Thomas, 1 to be named. Civil Service: Robert Brennan, Ramona French, Ellen Stewart. Alumni: Lori Clark, Priscilla Nauer, Frank Wood. Students: Samar Barakat, Jennifer Meyer, Montgomery Sexton, Damien Toven, 3 to be named. Ex Officio: Ken Foxworth, Clint Hewit.
STUDENT AFFAIRS - Faculty/PA: John Romano (chair), Linda Brady, Patrick Kroll, Kathleen Peterson, john powell, Thomas Soulen. Civil Service: Jeffrey Cookson. Alumni: Laura Langer. Students: Jesse Berglund, Debashis Cowdhury, Susan Daniels, Alex Lindblad, Matthew Mayo, Nancy Netz, Damien Toven, 2 to be named. Ex Officio: McKinley Boston.
INFORMATION:
ALL-UNIVERSITY HONORS - Faculty/PA: Willard Hartup (chair), Wilbert Ahern, Joanne Eicher, Judith Garrard, Seymour Geisser, Benjamin Liu. Alumni: Mark Bregmann, Mary Lou Christensen, Les Krogh, Barbara Luehmann, Nancy Miller Lindahl. Students: Julia Johnson, 2 to be named. Ex Officio: Gerald Fischer, Marcia Fluer, Cheryl Jones, Marvin Marshak.
COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES - Faculty/PA: M. Janice Hogan (chair), Ann Burkhart, James Cotter, Martin Dworkin, Emily Hoover, Carol Miller, V.R. Murthy, 2 to be named. Students: 7 to be named.
CONSULTATIVE - Faculty: Virginia Gray (chair), Carl Adams, Carole Bland, Victor Bloomfield, Sara Evans, Russell Hobbie, Michael Korth, Harvey Peterson, Michael Steffes, Matthew Tirrell. Students: Jesse Berglund, Susan Giovengo, Brett Hoerner, Stephanie Kjonaas, Amy Mertl, Don Ness, Jarad Niemi, Jeannine Pluhar, Mary Jane Sommerville, Rob Vanasek. Ex Officio: W. Andrew Collins, Gary Davis, Laura Coffin Koch, Fred Morrison.
M. JANICE HOGAN, Chair
APPROVED
Third Phase Critical Measures:
Goal: Continue and increase the University's successful interactions with and benefits to its external constituencies in research and discovery, teaching and learning, and outreach and public service.
Specific Measures:
University story
External users satisfaction
General public access to information
Goal: Increase access to and use of information resources to advance the University's three-part mission of teaching and learning, research and discovery, and outreach and public service.
Specific Measures:
Access to Information
Connection
Use of Technology in Teaching
VIRGINIA GRAY, CHAIR
That the following paragraph be added to the Semester Conversion Standards, Section 1A, adopted by the Senate at its April, 1996, meeting: (all language is new)
COMMENT:
At the April 18, 1996, Senate meeting, after members of the Senate raised questions about the provisions for deadline dates for turning in grades in the Semester Conversion Standards, Professor Koch (chair of the Senate Committee on Educational Policy) withdrew the language and promised to return to the Senate with an amended provision.
The Committee on Educational Policy debated the issue briefly, and agreed that a standard due date should be established for all courses. The Committee believes, however, that when the deadline for Fall Semester will require grades to go through department and college offices, and the Office of the Registrar, very close to the holidays, the Registrar should have the authority to extend the deadline. This recommendation is made on very practical grounds: the University is open and conducts business through the holiday period, except for official University holidays, but it must be recognized that many civil service and P & A employees take vacation days around the holidays, so offices are frequently not at their full staff complement during this period. It is not realistic to expect those offices to be able to effectively deal with the avalanche of grades that will be turned in on the same day(s) because of overlapping deadlines caused by the holidays. Nor is it realistic (or humane) to expect faculty or teaching assistants to spend the holiday periods grading papers and examinations, especially since many travel during this time.
An excerpt from the minutes of the April 18 Senate meeting follows:
"A senator speaking on behalf of the CLA Curriculum Instruction and Advising Committee said the committee is concerned about the timeframe for turning grades in outlined under motion 1A. It believes it will cause an administrative backlog resulting in the delay of grade notification to students and that it gives the impression the University is closed the week between Christmas and New Year's.
"Another senator said there is a lack of parallelism between the rules for the fall deadline and those for the spring deadline. The fall semester deadline is measured from the date of the exam while in spring there is an added reference that for courses that do not have a final exam, the clock begins after the last class. Unless there is a strong argument for the difference, the senator suggested amending the third paragraph to strike the phrase "..., or for courses that do not have a final exam, no later than three business days after the last class period" to make the language consistent. His rationale was that many classes require a term paper instead of a final exam which is oftentimes due at the end of the exam week.
"At this time, Professor Koch withdrew the sections of Motion 1A that refer to final grades and said the Educational Policy Committee will review the language for the Senate's consideration at a later date."
LAURA COFFIN KOCH, Chair
DISCUSSION:
Professor Laura Koch recalled for senators that when the Educational Policy Committee (SCEP) brought forth the semester conversion standards to the University Senate last year there was a question concerning when final examination grades were to be turned in. At that time, the SCEP agreed to review the issue and bring a recommendation to the Senate. The above motion reflects that action.
Hearing no discussion, the President called for the vote and the motion was approved as presented.
APPROVED
For Semesters
Each campus of the University shall adopt a standard class schedule of 55-minute classes with an appropriate change period between classes. These class schedules will be reported annually to the Senate for information. Classes of lengths other than 55 minutes are permitted, subject only to the Senate policies governing the relationship between contact hours, credits, and student workload.
No student shall be permitted to register for classes that overlap. Classes that have any common meeting time are considered to be overlapping, as are any back-to-back classes that have start and end times closer together than the standard change period for that campus.
Only under extenuating circumstances shall petitions for overrides for such conflicts be permitted, and shall require the signatures of all faculty members involved. The decision to approve or disapprove such a petition for override is entirely discretionary with each faculty member involved.
Students must attend the first class meeting of every course in which they are registered, unless they obtain prior approval from the instructor (or department, if appropriate) for an intended absence before the first class meeting; without such prior approval, a student may lose his or her place in the class to another student.
If a student wishes to remain in a course from which he or she has been absent the first day without prior approval, the instructor should be contacted as soon as possible. In this circumstance, instructors have the right to deny admission to the class if other students have been admitted and the course is full. Instructors are, however, advised to take into account extenuating circumstances (e.g., weather) which may have prevented a student from attending the first class session. Absence from the first class session that falls during a recognized religious holiday (e.g., Rosh Hashanah) does not require instructor approval, but the instructor must be notified of the absence and the reason; in this instance, the place for the student will be retained.
Students must OFFICIALLY cancel any course for which they have enrolled and subsequently been denied admission.
a) All classes that normally permit undergraduates to enroll shall follow a standard examination schedule. The final examination period for day school and University College, at the close of each session, shall be extended over a five or six-day period. The final examination period shall begin on the second day after classes end, with the day after classes designated as a study day. In the event classes end on a Friday, final examinations shall not start until the following Monday.
For courses that do not run for a full semester, the final examination shall be administered (or due, in the case of take-home or other out-of-class examinations) on the last day of the course.
b) Instructors are not permitted to hold their final examinations ahead of the regularly scheduled time except under such unusual circumstances as may be approved by the Senate Committee on Educational Policy.
c) There shall be no other exceptions from the University final examination schedule unless (1) proposed by the instructor, (2) with the unanimous consent, via written secret ballot, of the students, and (3) with the concurrence of the department chair. The appropriate campus scheduling office shall be notified of any change. This prohibition precludes moving a final examination from a scheduled time to study day or to the last or earlier meetings of the class (with the exception of (1) laboratory practicums, which may be given during the final week of classes during the normal lab period, and (2) take-home or other out-of-class finals, which may be distributed prior to the final exam week but which may not be due before the scheduled final exam for that course.
d) All requests for adjustment of final examination hours must be made on the form provided by the scheduling office and submitted at least a month before the beginning of the examination period.
e) Final examinations for summer session shall be scheduled during the regular meeting time of the course on the last day.
f) Until such time as the University can schedule classes and finals so that no conflicts in the final examination schedule occur, students should be encouraged to avoid registering for classes with overlapping final exam times.
g) Students with final examination conflicts, or with three (or more) final examinations in one calendar day, or who have agreed to reschedule a final (in accord with the provisions of section 3, above) will be expected to make the appropriate rescheduling arrangements with the instructors by the end of the second week of the term so that conflicts will be eliminated. Instructors must agree to give an alternative final examination to any student having examination conflicts or three (or more) examinations in one calendar day.
h) The Committee on Educational Policy shall have the authority to grant waivers to the provisions of this policy, and shall report such waivers to the University Senate at its next meeting.
a) No classes will be permitted after the last day of instruction for any course that normally includes undergraduate students.
b) No University-sponsored extra-curricular events which require the participation of students may be scheduled from the beginning of Study Day to the end of Finals Week. Exceptions to this policy may be granted ONLY by the Senate Committee on Educational Policy through whatever procedure it determines most feasible. The Senate also advises all faculty members that any exemption granted pursuant to this policy (that is, with the explicit authorization of the Committee on Educational Policy) shall be honored and that students who are unable to complete course requirements during Finals Week as a result of that exemption shall be provided an alternative and timely opportunity to do so.
It shall be the responsibility of senior academic officers on each campus to enforce these policies. Each campus shall adopt additional regulations to implement these policies, as it deems appropriate. All such regulations will be reported annually to the Senate for information.
Discussion
The Senate Committee on Educational Policy has been deliberating, for the last year, a policy to bring order to the present rather chaotic rules, or lack thereof, governing the scheduling of classes and final exams. With this policy, a draft for discussion, SCEP proposes that the Senate establish clear policy for the semester conversion.
Section 1: This provision simply incorporates long practice into existing policy.
Section 2: This is proposed as new policy. As a result of the discussions surrounding class scheduling, an associated problem became apparent to SCEP: with the self-registration system now in place, students are notified that class times overlap but are not prevented from registering for such classes. As a matter of sound educational policy, students should not be permitted to do so.
The Registrar's office has informed SCEP that it will seek to incorporate this restriction into the new registration system the University is purchasing, so that the system will automatically prohibit students from registering from overlapping classes or classes that are too close together.
SCEP recognizes that if the provisions of the Standard Class Schedule and Period were strictly adhered to, there would be no classes starting and ending with fewer than 15 minutes between them on either of the Twin Cities campuses, but SCEP also recognizes that class schedules are not always as neat and orderly as might be wished for in an ideal world.
Section 3: This is proposed as new policy, but incorporates practice that is spelled out in each class schedule and been in place for a very long time.
Section 4: Most of the provisions of Section 3 replace by modification previous policies governing final examinations (adopted February 19, 1931 and February 20, 1992) or elevate long, sound practice into policy. This is an issue related to the "user-friendliness" of the University and to graduation rates: conflicts in scheduled final examinations need to be minimized and these changes should help achieve that end.
As soon as the Registrar is able to incorporate appropriate software, students will be notified of overlapping finals at registration and faculty will be notified via class lists.
Section 5: Section 5(a) is new. It was brought to SCEP's attention that faculty sometimes hold a regular lecture during examination week (which in some cases interfered with students' other exams) or hold a lecture during the first hour of the examination period and then conducting the final examination during the remaining hour(s). Both practices seem to SCEP to be unfair to the students and are now prohibited.
Section 5(b) is existing policy.
LAURA COFFIN KOCH, Chair
DISCUSSION:
Professor Laura Koch introduced the proposed Policy on Classes, Schedules, and Final Examinations which was prepared in response to the semester conversion and a desire to consolidate into one policy existing rules and policies governing the scheduling of classes and final exams. It addresses standardizing class schedules and periods, overlapping classes, attendance at first class sessions, final exams, and classes and events during the study day/finals week period. It also suggests, in section 1, that each campus adopt a 55 minute class period. However, it should be noted that this issue has generated considerable discussion with some concern expressed that a 55 minute class period will extend the day too long, creating day care problems, workload issues, etc. Professor Koch reported that the University of Wisconsin-Madison has a similar calendar with a 50 minute class period and a 15 minute changeover. Because of the increasing collaboration between the two universities and other concerns that were raised, the SCEP has reconsidered its position on this issue and will be bringing to the Senate winter quarter a proposal to return to the 50 minute class hour for semesters.
The following questions were raised:
Q: In the College of Architecture and Landscape Architecture most students take courses that cross many colleges and they often overlap. Keeping in mind that students and the University want to encourage timely completion of degree programs, is there a way to check where discrepancies occur?
A: This issue was brought to the SCEP earlier this year when the St. Paul campus changed their class hour and when the buses were cut. This resulted in problems for students who were required to travel back and forth between the Minneapolis and St. Paul campuses to attend classes in their program. Currently, no one at the University is responsible for examining this problem, but it is something that the SCEP is very interested in and will be pursuing.
Q: Is the SCEP looking particularly at the Minneapolis-St. Paul scheduling issue?
A: Yes. The review will examine the bus schedule, the staggering of classes, and general University planning.
Q: Why should the University have a policy on overlapping classes? If a student chooses to take two classes that overlap, that should be his/her personal decision.
A: The SCEP disagrees with that argument and believes that faculty value the time spent in the classroom and what they do in the classroom, and that it is important for students to be in class. It does not believe students should be given the message that the University is unconcerned about whether they are in class or not. Furthermore, when students come into class late or need to leave early, it is disruptive for the instructor as well as the other students.
Q: Section 4.g states that, "Students with final examination conflicts...will be expected to make the appropriate rescheduling arrangements with the instructors by the end of the second week of the term." Oftentimes, the day and time of the final exam is not known until much later in the quarter. How will this policy apply in those instances?
A: The final exam schedule is prepared before the quarter begins and is posted in the Course Guide book. Therefore, there should no instances when it is not known until the middle of the quarter. If approved, the proposed policy will prohibit instructors from changing the final exam time except under such unusual circumstances as may be approved by the SCEP. The SCEP has also discussed with the University Registrar the possibility of including the final exam times on the student schedule so students can easily determine if they have overlapping exams.
C: Speaking as an advisor, section 4.f places students in a difficult position. What it really means is that the University cannot solve an administrative glitch and, therefore, students are discouraged from taking some courses they either really need or want to take. This clause should be eliminated from the policy.
R: The SCEP is not saying that students cannot take these courses, but only that they need to be aware of the conflict. Section 4.g provides solutions for students in those instances. The committee will review the wording to determine if it can be more clear.
To delete Article III, Section 15, of the bylaws of the University Senate in its entirety:
15. UNIVERSITY COLLEGE ASSEMBLY
The University College Assembly represents the interests of all
University students and faculty members by providing opportunities and support
for faculty and students to develop worthy programs in experimental,
alternative, and cross-collegiate undergraduate education.
Membership
The University College Assembly shall include 12 faculty/academic
professional members nominated by the president with the approval of the
Senate, from a slate provided by the director of University College after
consultation with the appropriate deans and chancellors; one member must be
from a coordinate campus. Three additional faculty/academic professional
members may be appointed by the director of University College for a one-year
term, with no more than two reappointments. One faculty/academic professional
member from each policy board of permanent programs shall be elected for
one-year terms in the manner defined by each program's bylaws. One
faculty/academic professional member from each experimental program shall be
elected by the program's advisory committee or appointed by the director of
University College if no advisory committee exists.
The University College Assembly shall include the one student chosen at
large from the University, nominated for a one-year term by the president,
subject to confirmation by the Senate, from a slate provided by the Student
Committee on Committees; if no nomination comes forward, the director of
University College shall nominate a student. Two students representing the
Student Board and one student representative from each permanent or
experimental program shall be appointed for one-year terms by the Student
Board; if no appointments are forthcoming, the Assembly shall make the
appointments from a slate of nominations provided by the director of University
College after consultation with administrators of University College programs.
The director of University College shall have ex officio voting
membership, and one representative shall be elected from the academic staff and
shall have all privileges except voting.
One representative shall be elected from the civil service staff and
shall have all privileges except voting.
The chair of the University College Assembly shall be elected by the
Assembly from one of the 12 faculty members nominated by the president.
Duties and Responsibilities
a. To be the legislative and policy-making body regarding all
educational matters in University College.
b. To approve all courses with a University College designation.
c. To receive, review, and offer recommendations on all requests for
housing permanent programs.
d. To approve the membership of policy boards and the bylaws for
permanent programs.
e. To receive all proposals for educational experiments submitted to
University College, direct them to the Experimental Programs Committee for
review, and act on requests for University College support.
f. Through the University College Consultative Committee, to meet with
the vice president for academic affairs to recommend policies and advise the
vice president on decisions pertaining to intercollegiate and experimental
education, including instructional and staff services, financial support, and
reward structures for faculty members wishing to develop experimental
education.
g. To appoint committees and charge them with the responsibility for
evaluating and reporting to the Senate through the Educational Policy Committee
on each experimental program as it reaches the end of its experimental phase
and each permanent program at least every five years.
Relationship to the Senate
Although University College is an academic unit, it is here listed as a
special kind of committee because its constitution, approved by the Senate
November 30, 1978, provides several important ties with the Senate:
1. The University College Assembly submits an annual report to the
Senate.
2. Permanent undergraduate educational programs to be housed in
University College must be formally approved by the Senate.
3. A review of University College, including its purposes and
programmatic operations, is undertaken at least every seven years in
consultation with the Educational Policy Committee.
4. Periodic evaluations of experimental and permanent programs are
reported to the Senate.
5. The University College Assembly recommends to the Senate
Consultative Committee such actions or policies as it deems appropriate.
COMMENT:
With the establishment of the "new" University College (formerly Continuing Education and Extension), and the incorporation of the "old" University College into the "new" University College, there is no longer need for the Senate to operate a governing body for this specific college. The Committee on Educational Policy has reviewed the proposed governance structure for the "new" University College and is satisfied that the two degree programs in the "old" University College (Program for Individualized Learning and Intercollege Program) will continue to have the necessary faculty involvement and oversight.
LAURA COFFIN KOCH, Chair
DISCUSSION:
Professor Laura Koch presented the motion to disband the University College Assembly in view of the establishment of the "new" University College that merges Continuing Education and Extension and the "old" University College.
Hearing no discussion, the President called for the vote and the motion was approved 116 to 0.
APPROVED
The President discussed his recent trip to East Asia with other members of the University delegation saying he returned more convinced than ever that there are some truly outstanding opportunities there. It is quite remarkable, he said, the extent to which political, business and industry, and academic leaders in Taiwan, China, and Korea are University of Minnesota graduates. They are enthusiastic and share a love and appreciation for the U of M. The people of East Asia look very much to the University as one of the institutions they can work with to strengthen their academic programs in research as well as education and they look forward to contacts with the University as well as the State of Minnesota in their own economic development. There are great opportunities there for U of M students as well, including internship opportunities.
President Hasselmo said the most moving experience was awarding an honorary doctoral degree to Professor Peisong Tang in his hospital room in China. Dr. Tang, who is 94 years old, is one of ten members of the Chinese Academy of Science who are University of Minnesota graduates. Dr. Tang has been characterized as the father of plant physiology in China and is one of the national treasures in his country.
An honorary degree was also presented to President Kim Young Sam of Korea, who has been instrumental in bringing about democratization in his country. The room in the presidential palace in which the presentation was made was filled with Minnesota graduates who are leaders in political life, industry, and Korean universities.
The U of M representatives were guests of alumni in Taiwan and Korea and the Chinese Academy of Sciences in Beijing.
Next, the President turned to a discussion of the biennial request. He said that it is time for Minnesotans to decide what kind of University they want for the future. The budget proposal lays out a four year agenda for the University. That longer horizon allows the University and the State of Minnesota to define and address investment needs and to do so with clearly stated longer term and mutually understood measures of results. Investments in faculty talent are clearly the most important factors in defining quality and competitiveness in the future. The goal is very straightforward--to raise faculty compensation to the mean of peer institutions within the next four years.
Investments in technology and facilities are other major keys to competitiveness and quality. There is no question that information technologies will continue to transform society, the economy and the University's research, teaching, and outreach in the future. The technologies require up-to-date facilities and infrastructures. Over the last several years the University has proven that it can plan and make meaningful reforms and documented change. It has made and kept public commitments to change and to improve quality in each of the U2000 strategic directions: undergraduate education, graduate and professional education, research, outreach, diversity, and user-friendliness.
The University has also proven that it can keep its commitments. It has reallocated every dollar that it promised to do and then some. The University has pursued new revenue sources to ease the pressure on taxpayers and students. It has demonstrated accountability through management reforms, redesigned administrative and support services, and publicized performance goals and critical measures. For the first time in years, State revenues are healthy enough to permit serious discussion of meaningful and productive investments in the University, unlike previous years when the State's revenue limitation virtually prohibited thinking about increased investments. The opportunity is now there for the University to be funded on its merits.
Discussions have begun between the Governor and a group of University administrators to discuss in some detail the University's priorities, its change agenda, and the justification for the investments. The signals that have come forward thus far have been are positive.
In conclusion, the President said the paradox of glacial change, no change, and too much change too rapidly continues to be out there. He is baffled by this paradox. The North Central Association accrediting team has suggested that the University probably has taken on a change agenda that is too demanding. While the President believes that some of the change has been forced on the University, it is an aggressive and productive agenda. He encouraged everyone to read the article written by Tom Swain, Acting Vice President for Institutional Relations, that shows what people at the University have accomplished.
Response: It is correct to say that the debate over tenure at the University during the past year has not only been disruptive but harmful to the University. It now appears that the Sullivan II proposal may be acceptable to all involved and there is absolutely no indication from any Board member that the Regents intend to take up the Tenure Code again within the foreseeable future.
Question: I understand your faith in the Regents, but do you think that you can convince them to make a public statement?
Response: Chairman Reagan has already done that.
Comment: I understand a memo from Regent Reagan has been circulated that implies that the issue of faculty workloads should be revisited within a year or two after the new president is appointed. It is vital to convince the Regents to agree to a moratorium or the recruiting and retention problems will continue.
Response: I believe the Regents are acting in good faith and hope the faculty can trust in what they say. Continuation of the relationship of suspicion in itself becomes a negative for the University. Faith and belief at this point is the best strategy. The University has shown that it can vigorously defend academic freedom during efforts to undermine it.
The Faculty Consultative Committee has been very busy with tenure and the presidential search. With regard to tenure, Professor Gray said several Regents have assured her that once settled the Board has no intention of raising the issue of tenure in the near future. She encouraged faculty with concerns about this matter to contact the Regents directly to satisfy themselves of the Board's intention.
As chair of the Faculty Consultative Committee, Professor Gray said she has been asked to appear on several local news programs to discuss tenure and other University related topics and is frequently asked to respond to local and national media requests. Moreover, she has reported to the Regents on such topics as faculty loyalty and what it actually takes for a person to attain tenure in a major research university. She also represented the University Senate at the CIC meetings on faculty governance in Iowa City in October.
Several initiatives of the FCC this year include:
ALL-UNIVERSITY HONORS COMMITTEE, 1995-96
Awards Approved:
This year the committee approved 29 awards, a number similar to last year's 27, and almost double the average number for the 11 years 1983-94. The numbers for each of the three different categories of award are presented in Table I, which shows substantial gains in Honorary Degrees over the last two years, following President Hasselmo's letter of 24 October 1994 to chancellors, provosts and collegiate deans, urging them to set up collegiate honors committees where none exist and to encourage faculty to bring forward more nominations. Outstanding Achievement Awards were up appreciably last year, whereas Alumni Service Awards declined strongly after a banner year in 1994-95. Three Honorary Doctorates and three Outstanding Achievement Awards were given to women, one of each a minority. This is a distinct improvement over the previous five years, with an annual average of one Honorary Doctorate and one Outstanding Achievement Award to women, and one minority awardee in both categories combined.
Approval was given to naming three buildings, the first in honor of Lawrence Weaver, former and interim dean of the College of Pharmacy and (jointly) Katharine Densford, first director of the School of Nursing, the second in honor of the distinguished plant ecologist and conservationist, Donald Lawrence, a long-time member of the Botany (now Plant Biology) Department and the third in honor of Roy Wilkins, a truly eminent graduate in 1923 of the Department of Sociology and Social Work in the former College of Science, Literature and the Arts.
Revision of the Handbook of Policies and Procedures for Awards and Recognition:
The handbook has undergone a series of substantial revisions over the past two years to make it both more informative and easier to use. With cooperation from the Regents' Office these revisions should be completed during the fall quarter, and after review by the All-University Honors Committee and its recently appointed chair, Regents' Professor Willard Hartup, the new version ought to be ready for printing in winter quarter.
Establishment of a President's Award for Outstanding Service:
This award fills a gap left by the committee's decision, on the advise of the Alumni Association, to restrict the Alumni Service Award to the recognition of strictly voluntary and unpaid service. It also meets at the same time a request by President Hasselmo that we devise an award for active as well as retired administrators, faculty, staff, students, and other members of the University community who have provided it with services well beyond the normal call of duty and that show unusual dedication to the welfare of the University. Nominations will be reviewed by a special committee of three members, two nominated by the All-University Honors Committee and one by the President, who will have authority for final approval of such an award.
Naming of Parts of Buildings:
In the past the committee has acted on numerous requests to name parts of buildings (e.g., rooms) in honor of various persons such as faculty members and philanthropic donors. This year the committee decided that authority to approve such names should rest with the unit or units occupying the building or using the facility unless philanthropy exceeding $500,000 is involved, in which case the nomination should go first to the University Foundation before submission to the All-University Honors Committee.
Conclusion:
As this report makes clear, the committee has had a very successful year, and much of its success is owing not only to the work of its members, but also to the skill, initiative and dedicated service of its executive assistant, Ms. Vickie Courtney, to who the committee members--and in particular the chair--express heartfelt thanks.
Eville Gorham, Chair
The SCSA revisited the University Sexual Assault Policy. This policy went before the University Senate at its previous May meeting and was referred back to committee for some restructuring. After discussing the policy in greater detail, the SCSA forwarded it to the SCC where it was once again sent back to the SCSA. After further discussion the issue was taken up by the Office of the Senior V.P. for Academic Affairs to be looked at in conjunction with related policies.
The SCSA also looked into the credit load policy of the University Residential Housing. After inquiring whether or not a significant number of students were allowed to stay in University Residence Halls with less than a full time credit load, the SCSA concluded its discussion of the issue satisfied with policy.
The SCSA established an Ad-Hoc Committee on Student Organizations. This committee met regularly to review the Office for Student Activity's policy on registered student organizations. After meeting all of spring quarter and into the summer, the committee issued a preliminary report on a restructuring of the current system of recognizing student groups. The SCSA will further address this issue in Fall 96.
The SCSA looked into several other, smaller issues through the course of the year. These included the new campus bus and bike plan, a review of the campus alcohol policies, and a look into the student survey done through academic affairs.
Joel Bergstrom, Chair
The committee continued to work on the idea of how student government should work within the University system. In November the SSCC established an Ad-Hoc Committee on Student Governance. This group then met several times until April, when it issued its report. The Ad-Hoc Committee made several recommendations as to how student participation is monitored by the SSCC. The group also felt that the Student Committee on Committees, and its duties, should be reworked to be more efficient for all four campuses.
The SSCC also discussed the role of student members in University search committees. This was a continuing issue from the 1994-95 school year. The committee sent a letter to the Board of Regents addressing many concerns. The SSCC believed that student membership should be made mandatory on certain University search committees. One prominent example was the number of recent dean searches that had taken place in the past two years. The SSCC understood the need for a search method which would allow for both graduate-professional, as well as undergraduate representation on these committees.
Lastly, once again the SSCC forwarded a motion to the Student Senate, and, consequently, to the University Senate, which reworked the leadership positions of the Student Senate and SSCC. The new constitutional changes provide for an individual chair of the SSCC and Student Senate and one joint vice-chair for both bodies. The Student Senate Chair will be elected annually from that body's new members. The SSCC chair will be elected at the first meeting of the new school year.
Joel Bergstrom, Chair
The University of Minnesota Grievance Policy (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.)
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 University administrative representative;
III - Internal evidentiary hearing by a three person panel;
IV - Voluntary, binding arbitration by a three person panel.
Staff
During 1995-96, the Grievance Office functioned primarily with 2.0 FTE staff: the University Grievance Officer (1.0) and the Executive Assistant (1.0). An additional University staff member served in an "on call" capacity as Deputy University Grievance Officer -- to administer the grievance process in cases in which the University Grievance Officer could not serve.
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 (validity of grievances / advisory determinations), informal meetings at Phases I and II of the grievance process, panel hearings, and arbitration hearings.
Inquiry Meetings
Many employees who inquire about the grievance process want assistance with a "problem" in their work environment, but do not know, for example, whether they have a "valid" 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 develop strategies for resolving their employment problems in their work setting, most visitors to the Grievance Office would prefer to avoid filing a formal grievance. By way of illustration, of the 110 employee/clients who requested inquiry meetings during 1995-96, 74 (67%) decided not to file a grievance.
Number of Grievances Filed
The following data describe the number of grievances filed during 1994-95 and 1995-96, by employee category:
1994-95 1995-96 Faculty 12 10 Professional & Administrative 7 10 Civil Service 28 15 Student 10 9 TOTAL 57 44
Validity of Grievances/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."
In four cases, the University respondent challenged the "validity" of a complaint that the Grievance Officer had accepted as a valid grievance. In each case, a panel was appointed to review the advisory determination and to make a decision regarding the validity of the grievance. In three of the four cases, the panel upheld the Grievance Officer's initial determination that the complaint in question was a valid grievance.
Issues Grieved
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, the types of complaints vary widely. During the last academic year, the most common grievances involved termination, rules application, or discipline.
The following table shows the types of issues grieved in 1995-96, 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 filed.)
Issue Grieved Faculty P & A Civil Service Student TOTALContractual 1 1
Data Practices 1 1 1 3
Discipline 2 1 4 1 8
Discrimination 3 2 5
Due Process 1 1
Performance Evaluation 1 1 2
Reclassification 1 1
Rules Application 4 5 3 12
Salary 2 1 3 6
Termination 2 4 6 12
TOTAL 12 12 16 11 51
Informal Meetings
The Grievance Policy provides two opportunities for informal resolution of a grievance: Phase I - informal meeting between the parties, and Phase II - meeting with administrator. The purpose of these meetings is to facilitate grievance resolution through informal discussion and negotiation between the parties and/or between the grievant and 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 can, and often do, require more than one meeting, which occurs only with the express mutual consent of the parties. During 1995-96, the Grievance Office held 59 informal meetings -- 46 at Phase I, and 13 at Phase II.
Of the 44 grievances filed during 1995-96, 28 (64%) were resolved informally at Phase I or Phase II. Five others (11%) had good promise for being resolved informally. Eleven others (25%) 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 75% 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
Faculty Number of grievances: 10 Informal resolutions: 5 Probable informal resolutions: 3 Anticipated percent resolved: 80%
P & A Number of grievances: 10 Informal resolutions: 7 Probable informal resolutions: 0 Anticipated percent resolved: 70%
Civil Service Number of grievances: 15 Informal resolutions: 9 Probable informal resolutions: 0 Anticipated percent resolved: 60%
Students Number of grievances: 9 Informal resolutions: 7 Probable informal resolutions: 2 Anticipated percent resolved: 100%
TOTAL Number of grievances: 44 Informal resolutions: 28 Probable informal resolutions: 5 Anticipated percent resolved: 75%
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/recommendation, which is distributed to the parties and to the Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs for acceptance or non-acceptance by University administration.
In 1995-96, eight panel hearings were held -- four evidentiary hearings on the merits of the grievance, and four panels which met to review challenges to the validity of grievances. Two of the full evidentiary hearings produced results that were "favorable" to the grievant, and two outcomes were "favorable" to the University. Three of the four validity hearings were "favorable" to the grievant. The Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs accepted the decision/recommendation of the hearing panel in all eight grievances.
The following table shows a summary of panel hearings, including employee classifications, the related issues(s), and the action taken by University administration in relation to the decision/recommendation of the respective hearing panel.
Employee Classification Issue(s) Action by Administration on Decision/Recommendation of PanelAccepted Partially Not Accepted Accepted
Civil Service Termination X Civil Service Rules application X Civil Service Rules application X Civil Service Layoff X
Civil Service Validity of grievance X Civil Service Validity of grievance X Civil Service Validity of grievance X Civil Service Validity of grievance X
Arbitration
Phase IV of the grievance process provides an opportunity for the parties to engage voluntarily in final and binding arbitration by a three person panel, chaired by an arbitrator selected by the parties from a list provided by the Minnesota Bureau of Mediation Services. Under the Grievance Policy, grievants who choose to proceed to arbitration must sign an acknowledgment of their voluntary choice to proceed to binding arbitration, and must waive and release their right to pursue substantially the same claim in any other forum. The grievant and the University are each responsible for one-half of the arbitrator's fees and expenses.
During 1995-96, two grievances were addressed by arbitration panels; one involved a termination, and the other decided the grievability of a grievance that had been filed originally under the previous grievance policy. Both arbitration decisions went against the grievant(s).
Responses were received from 38 people, a 52% return rate, in the following proportions of surveys returned/sent: grievants - 9/18; respondents - 17/26; inquiries - 4/5; others - 8/24. On a scale of 1-5, with 1 being "unfavorable" and 5 being "favorable," the following average ratings were generated by the section of the survey asking participants to rate the grievance process.
Please indicate your opinion of the following aspects of the grievance process:
Accessibility to University employees: 4.3 Informal method of resolution: 4.0 Formal method of resolution: 4.0 Speed of grievance process: 3.0 Fairness of grievance process: 3.8 Overall opinion of grievance process: 3.6
NONE
XII. NEW BUSINESS
NONE
XIII. TRIBUTE TO DECEASED MEMBERS OF THE UNIVERSITY COMMUNITY
FACULTY
Timothy Trent Blade
1940-1996
Dennis D. Brissett
1940-1996
Franklin D. Enfield
1933-1996
Wesley J. Grabow
1921-1996
Carl V. Hegastad
1930-1996
Edward P. Ney
1920-1996
Warren Stenberg
1922-1996
Helen M. Dahlstrom
1924-1996
Professor Dahlstrom's expertise was in the area of physical rehabilitation of adults and children. After working three years at Kessler Institute in New Jersey, she returned to Minnesota to work, first at St. Paul Rehabilitation Center and then Sister Kenny Rehabilitation Institute. It was during her affiliation with the Sister Kenny Institute that Professor Dahlstrom was sent to Argentina for a year to lend her expertise during their polio epidemic.
In 1961 Professor Dahlstrom joined the staff of University Hospital, and by 1963 she had joined the faculty of the Program in Occupational Therapy. She was an inspired teacher who considered her students' needs and the needs of the profession above all else. She saw the coming shift of education for disabled children to the public schools rather than hospitals and made sure the graduates of this Program were prepared to provide service from an "educational" rather than strictly "medical" model. As a result, Professor Dahlstrom's graduates were sought for their unique preparation.
She was a pioneer in the specialty area of sensory integration and sought to blend advanced concepts from neuroscience with occupational therapy theory and practice. At a time when the field of occupational therapy was still developing into an academic discipline, Professor Dahlstrom was a leader in holding high standards of scientific rigor. She served as president of the Minnesota Occupational Therapy Association, Minnesota delegate to the American Occupational Therapy Association, and University Senator from 1978 to 1981, retiring from University service in 1986. She was recognized for her contributions by being made a Fellow of the American Occupational Therapy Association.
Professor Dahlstrom was best known for her generosity of spirit and was unstinting in giving of her time and energy. She is survived by a sister, Marion Knode, nephews, a niece and many cousins. She will be greatly missed by a multitude of friends, colleagues and former students.
Davis, a native of Chicago, earned B.S. and M.S. degrees in chemistry from the University of Chicago. Following graduation, she worked for the Illinois Institute of Technology Research. While at the University of Chicago, she met H. Ted Davis, now dean of the Institute of Technology at the University of Minnesota, and they married in 1960. In 1962 they moved to Brussels, Belgium where she earned a Ph.D. in organic chemistry from the Free University of Brussels in 1967. At that time, the Davis' moved to Minnesota, and Eugenia worked for the University of Minnesota Health Sciences Center before joining FScN.
During a sabbatical year in 1992, Davis researched food processing at the University of Compiegne in France. She was a member of AACC, IFT, ACS, AAAS, Sigma Xi, Sigma Delta Epsilon, International Scanning Society, and Phi Upsilon Omicron. Among the journals for which she was a reviewer are Cereal Chemistry, Food Microstructure, Cereal Foods World, Journal of Food Science, and Journal of Food Processing and Preservation.
Davis balanced her active professional career and her family life with unusual poise. She was a loving wife and mother who was also a dedicated scholar and teacher. The well-being of her students remained of great interest to her long after they had graduated, and she stayed in contact with them, helping them find jobs and keeping track of their careers.
In addition to her husband, Davis is survived by her children, William Davis, Charleston SC, and Maria Davis, Minneapolis; her mother, Mary Asimakopoulos; and her sister Kathy Asimakopoulos, both of Minneapolis. Memorials are suggested to the Eugenia Davis Scholarship Fund at the University of Minnesota.
Graham served as a faculty member at the University of Minnesota from 1948 through 1980. Between 1964 and 1971, he was Chairman of the Department of Speech-Communication and Theater Arts. When the Department of Theater Arts was founded in 1971, he chaired that department and served as University Theater Artistic Director until his retirement in 1980. His legacy continues through the Kenneth L. Graham Theater Fellowship Fund which he established in 1979.
Graham was a member of Actors Equity, the Screen Actors Guild, and the American Federation on TV and Radio Artists. He was a fellow, past president and board member of the American Theater Association. He was also a board member of the Guthrie for one term. In 1985, Graham received the Campton Bell Lifetime Achievement Award from the American Alliance for Theater in Education. He directed more than 50 plays, as well as acting in productions at the old Cricket Theater, and the Missouri Repertory Theater of Kansas City. He also had small roles in several television shows, as well as appearing in television, radio, and print ads.
Graham passed away in February of 1996 of cancer. He is survived by his daughter Sherry Graham Nelson, son Greg Graham, and five grandchildren.
A native of Atlanta, GA, Hexter was raised in the Twin Cities. He earned a bachelor's degree from the University in 1948, and went on to earn masters and doctorate degrees from Columbia University in New York City. A veteran of World War II, Hexter was both a Guggenheim Scholar and a recipient of a Fulbright scholarship, which he used to study at Israel's Technion Institute from 1961-62.
In 1957, Hexter and his colleagues formed the Fundamental Research Group of the Mellon Institute in Pittsburgh. He later became a professor of chemistry at Carnegie-Mellon University, and held that position until he returned to the University of Minnesota to chair the department of chemistry in 1969.
Hexter's scientific achievements include the introduction of the theory of vibrational spectra of molecular crystals, infrared-ultraviolet double resonance and work involving spectroscopy of metal surfaces.
Hexter was preceded in death by wife Norma and is survived by children Claudia Sue Hexter, Nancy and Jerry Lehrman, Daniel, Jonathan, and Teresa Hexter; grandchildren Matthew, Cory, Joey, Aaron, Ben, John and Hannah; brother and sister-in-law J. Lawrence and Esther Hexter; brother-in-law and sister-in-law Melvin and Paula Goldberg.
Professor Lofquist was known for his work in counseling and vocational psychology. With colleague Professor Rene Dawis, he founded the University's Vocational Assessment Clinic, which provides information to people about their potential for success and satisfaction in various careers. Lofquist was a fellow in the American Psychological Association, a past president of the American Rehabilitation Counseling Association and a member of American Personnel and Guidance Association. He was active in the Mount Olivet Lutheran Church in Minneapolis and Memorial Lutheran Church in Afton.
Lloyd Lofquist's service to the Department of Psychology, to the University, to the state of Minnesota, and to the profession of psychology was distinguished and memorable. He had as much to do with the national prominence of the Counseling Psychology program of the Department of Psychology as anyone in the history of the department and psychology. With longtime collaborate Rene Dawis, Lofquist enriched in substantive ways the fields of counseling and vocational psychology with the theory of work adjustment and, for over 35 years, the widely acclaimed Work Adjustment Project. He trained numerous counseling Ph.D. students over the course of his career, many of whom trained in the Vocational Assessment Program and the Vocational Assessment Clinic. His contributions to the mission of the Department of Psychology and to the University have been tremendous. At the time of his appointment as assistant vice president, he was described by then CLA Dean E.W. Ziebarth as "one of the most remarkable scholar-administrators I have known, combining as he does the very best qualities of both." He was truly a fine administrator, a first-rate and a kind, decent person.
He and his beloved wife, Lillian, were married 48 years before her death in 1989. He is survived by a daughter, Mary Yanchar, of Lake St. Croix Beach; a son, Mark, of Hudson; and six grandchildren.
Moscowitz was born in Manchester, New Hampshire, in 1929. He did his undergraduate studies at the City College of New York and obtained his Ph.D. Degree from Harvard University in 1957. Following two years as a postdoctoral fellow at Washington University in St. Louis, he joined the University of Minnesota chemistry faculty in 1959.
The subject of his doctoral thesis, the interaction of polarized light with unsymmetrical molecules, remained his principal research interest throughout his career. Although primarily a theorist, he developed extensive collaborations with experimental colleagues, both in this country and abroad. Many of these were in biomedical areas. An example is his work on the structure of bile pigments, a joint project with the late Professor Cecil J. Watson of the University of Minnesota Medical School. Moscowitz was internationally known as a leading authority on the prediction and interpretation of molecular spectra. His honors included election as Fellow of the American Physical Society and as Foreign Member of the Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters. He held visiting professorships at the University of Copenhagen (1961 and 1977), New York University (1963), the Georgia Institute of Technology (1966) and the State University of New York at Albany (1970). He served on the editorial boards of the Journal of Chemical Physics (1970-73) and of Chemical Physics Letters (1970-79).
Albert Moscowitz was widely admired and respected by his many students, colleagues and friends, not least for the extraordinary courage and endurance he displayed in the face of a lengthy illness. He is survived by his sister, Yetta Roth of Beechhurst, NY; his nephews, Robert Roth of Newtonville, MA, and Arthur Roth of Skokie, IL; and his cousin, Dr. William Kavesh of Philadelphia, PA.
Dr. O'Leary was born August 6, 1947, in Minneapolis, MN. He graduated summa cum laude from the College of St. Thomas, St. Paul. In 1969 he entered the University of Minnesota Medical School and in 1970 the Biophysics program of the Graduate School of the University of Minnesota. He received his Ph.D. in 1979 simultaneously finishing the third year of his residency training in Clinical Pathology. He was immediately appointed assistant professor in the Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, University of Minnesota.
Dr. O'Leary received the Watson award from the Medical School for outstanding research by a fellow in clinical training in 1979, and in 1980 a John A. George W. Hartford Foundation fellowship. A highly coveted and nationally contested honor. He was appointed associate professor in the Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology in 1980. Dr. O'Leary fell ill in 1991 and went on extended medical leave in 1992.
In the short period of time available for O'Leary he showed remarkable energy and creativity. He built up a research group in the study of the depressed immune function in aging humans and gained rapidly federal support in the form of two series of individual NIH grants. He advised four graduate students in the pathobiology program and one in the biophysics program. His contagious energy and good relationships with all students made him an exceptional advisor. His ability to concentrate and produce grants and manuscripts in nightly sessions was legendary. Starting in 1987 he entered into productive collaboration with investigators from Hungary and Italy in the framework of the Franz Verzhar International laboratory for Experimental Gerontology. He visited Ancona, Italy often and postdoctorals from Europe worked in Dr. O'Leary's laboratory. The highpoints in his research on lymphocyte properties were early observations of the many faceted roles heat shock proteins played and the delineation of shifts in the subpopulations of lymphocytes associated with aging.
Dr. O'Leary was an exceptionally talented scientist with a broad background in literature, art and world history. He was a very strong chess player compensating these cerebral tendencies by retaining his childhood passion for fishing. Dr. O'Leary is survived by his wife Denise and five daughters.
Shirley joined the staff of University Libraries in 1968 as Head of the Reserve Unit just before its move from Blegen Hall to Wilson Library. From Reserve, she went to the Reference Division in 1975 and eventually to the Subject Bibliography Unit as a bibliographer. In all of the areas she served, she made numerous and lasting contributions. She created an organizational notation newspaper course in basic library skills in the Minnesota Daily. She was one of the first of the library staff members to gain computer expertise and used her knowledge to develop computer-assisted bibliographic instruction courses and to serve as micro-computer consultant in Wilson Library. She played a leadership role in the successful class action sex discrimination suit brought by University women librarians under the Rajender Consent Decree.
Throughout her career she maintained an interest in English literature and in January 1995, just months before her retirement, she presented a paper at the annual Joyce conference in Miami.
Friends and colleagues will miss her lively presence, her humor and her sympathetic ear. She is survived by sisters Sheila Meyers and Mary Hackworth and brother Fred Smith.
Muriel J. Rossman
1943-1996
STUDENTS
Michael A. Griffin
College of Liberal Arts
Christa M. Gruett
General College
Jennifer M. Mahn
College of Liberal Arts
David M. Rathke
College of Natural Resources
Che Lee Whiteside
College of Liberal Arts
Robert N. Zencuch
University College
V. ADJOURNMENT
Martha Kvanbeck
Abstractor