The President opened his remarks with a comment on the recent faculty unionization election, noting that while the union did not prevail, the faculty had sent a strong message to the Regents that faculty governance is still on trial. It is the President's opinion that continuation of faculty governance is critical to a major research university such as the U of M. The tenure issue, he believes, is close to resolution and the amendments approved by the Faculty Senate in January are being considered.

Faculty compensation is high on the administration's priority list, said the President, and the compensation report prepared by faculty is being used to guide the administration's direction. The University is pursuing a wage scale at the mean of the top 30 research universities in the U.S., and a major initiative in this direction is anticipated in 1998.

Next, the President told senators that the University is receiving favorable attention from the Legislature, which is due, in part, to the improvements in undergraduate education. President Hasselmo said that preliminary figures demonstrate that interest in the University is growing among students. Applications from students of color have increased 8 percent from last year, and 77 percent from 1992. Increases are also evident in honors student applications demonstrating the growing quality of the students at the University. Faculty sponsored research amounted to $304 million last year. This is twice the amount that was present 10 years ago. The Crookston campus is taking a lead role in the development of computer literacy in K-12 education in Northwest Minnesota. The Morris campus is developing service-learning opportunities for students through their Center for Small Towns. These efforts and others have demonstrated to the Legislature that the University is in the business of developing Minnesota's communities.

Finally, the President said he is working closely with President-Designate Yudof in his orientation on all activities and challenges facing the University.

At this time, the President excused himself and turned the meeting over to Vice Chair Collins.

Approved by: Implemented by:

the University Senate - December 5, 1996 the Administration - January 1997 the Board of Regents - no action required

APPROVED

To approve the following calendar:

Fall Semester 1999 (70 class days)

September 6 September 7 November 25-26 December 15 December 16 December 17-23 To be determined

Monday Tuesday Thurs-Friday Wednesday Thursday Friday-Thurs

Labor Day Classes begin Thanksgiving holiday Last day of instruction Study day Final examinations Final grades due

Spring Semester 2000 (74 class days)

January 17 January 18 March 27-31 May 5 May 6-7 May 8-13 May 17

Monday Tuesday Monday-Friday Friday Saturday-Sun Monday-Sat Wednesday

Martin Luther King holiday Classes begin Spring break Last day of instruction Study days Final examinations Final grades due

Intersession 2000 (14 class days)

May 22 May 29 June 9

Monday Monday Friday

3-week Intersession begins Memorial Day holiday 3-week Intersession ends

Summer Session I 2000 (24 class days)

June 12 July 4 July 14

Monday Tuesday Friday

Summer Term I begins Independence Day holiday Summer Term I ends

Summer Session II 2000 (25 class days)

July 17 August 18

Monday Friday

Summer Term II begins Summer Term II ends

-----------------

LAURA COFFIN KOCH, Chair

DISCUSSION:

Professor Laura Koch, Chair of the Educational Policy Committee, introduced the proposed first semester calendar noting that it would be utilized system-wide if approved. Units that have been granted an exemption from the calendar include the Morris and Crookston campuses and the Law School. Professor Koch made one correction to the calendar which was to change the date final grades are due during fall semester from December 29 to "to be determined."

During the discussion, the following points were addressed:

• Although the formal calendar lists Intercession and two summer sessions, units may use this time for an additional academic term.
• The Martin Luther King Holiday was chosen as the holiday for the spring semester to maintain continuity, especially since a spring break is also provided.
• The fall semester has 70 days while the spring semester has 74 days. This was selected due to limited options in the fall semester schedule.

With no further discussion, the motion was approved, as amended by Professor Koch, on a voice vote by a majority of members present and voting.

APPROVED

To amend Section 1a, paragraph 9 of the Semester Conversion Standards adopted by the Senate on April 18, 1996, and amended December 5, 1996, as follows: [new language is underlined; language to be deleted is struck out]

"The standard class period during fall and spring semesters shall be 55 50 minutes. [Further policy needs to be developed with respect to classes of greater than 55 minutes in length.] The standard class period during the summer term(s) shall be in proportion to the length of the summer term vis-a-vis the two semesters."

COMMENT:

This changes the standard class period from 55 minutes to 50 minutes.

LAURA COFFIN KOCH, Chair

DISCUSSION:

The above motion, Professor Koch explained, changes the standard class period from 55 minutes to 50 minutes. Some senators voiced opposition to the change arguing that the need is for more class time with students, not less. Professor Koch clarified that the original proposal called for 15 week terms with 50 minute class periods. That was changed to 14 week terms with 55 minute class periods. The above proposal is somewhere in between and, if approved, would result in one 14 week semester and one 15 week semester (or close thereto) with 50 minute class periods.

With little further discussion, the motion was approved 92 to 30 with 1 abstention.

APPROVED

To approve the following Policy on Classes, Schedules, and Final Examinations:

1. Standard Class Schedule and Class Period

   Each campus of the University shall adopt a standard class schedule of 50-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 50 minutes are permitted, subject only to the Senate policies governing the relationship between contact hours, credits, and student workload.

2. Overlapping Classes

   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.

3. Mandatory Attendance at First Class Session

   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.

4. Final Examinations

   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) 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.

   g) 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.

5. Classes and Events during the Study Day/Finals Week Period

   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.

6. Implementation

   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 Koch introduced the proposed Policy on Classes, Schedules, and Final Examinations. She said the Senate Educational Policy Committee (SCEP) was interested in bringing order to the present rather chaotic rules, or lack thereof, governing the scheduling of classes and final exams and believes the Senate should establish a clear policy for the semester conversion. Professor Koch briefly reviewed changes from the previous draft discussed by the Senate at its December 12 meeting.

Several student senators objected to the provision that prevents students from registering for overlapping classes. This infringes on student freedom of choice, one senator said. Professor Koch replied that the SCEP believes that a responsible university should not allow students to so register except under extenuating circumstances. Faculty value their class time with students and believe students need to be in class. Moreover, having students walk in late or leave early from a class is very disruptive.

Other students expressed concern that the final exams are often not scheduled at a time close to the normal class time and asked if this could be corrected. Professor Koch replied that it is because many classes meet only for one hour while finals are for two hours. This could be addressed by those who design the final examination schedule. She further clarified that if a faculty member or department wants to move the exam time, it must follow a prescribed procedure for doing so.

The Educational Policy Committee was asked to consider a recommendation to allow students to reschedule a final examination in case of an emergency and Professor Koch agreed to propose such an amendment to the committee.

At this time the motion, as presented, was approved by an overwhelming majority.

APPROVED

On May 2, 1996, the University Senate voted to send the Uniform Grading and Transcript Policy to the four campus assemblies for consideration and action. The TC, UMC, and UMM campus assemblies have approved the policy as forwarded to them by the Senate. At the present time, faculty at UMD (except for those in the School of Medicine) are not represented in the University Senate. UMD's current grading policy is similar to the policy approved by the TC, UMC, and UMM campus assemblies, and its campus assembly is in the process of revising it to make it align more closely to the policy approved by the other three campuses.

MOTION:

To adopt as Senate policy the following Uniform Grading and Transcript Policy that has been approved by the TC, UMC, and UMM campus assemblies:

1. There are two distinct grading systems on each campus of the University of Minnesota, A-B-C-D-F (with pluses and minuses) and S-N. 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.

2. There are, in addition, registration symbols identified and described in this policy that carry neither grade nor credit.

3. 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 (with or without a plus or minus attached to it). Colleges and units may choose not to accept academic work receiving a D (with or without a plus or minus).

4. 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, or program is required to offer a course on the S-N grading system. Any unit may choose to limit grades in a particular course to the A-F or the S-N system.

5. 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).

6. Except as provided in this policy in Sections I (8) and IV (5), no college 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 or in accord with state or federal statutes; 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, except when they have a transcript hold on their record.

8. The Law School and the Medical School 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 are 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 include pluses and minuses, as follows, and carry the indicated grade points. The S grade shall carry no grade points but the credits shall count toward the student's degree program if allowed by the college, campus, or program.

   These definitions apply to grades awarded to students who are not enrolled in graduate programs, but the grade points are the same no matter the level or course of enrollment. It is understood throughout the University that grades at the graduate level have different meaning.

   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 are 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. Neither the F nor the N shall carry any grade 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]).

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 grade 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.

   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 symbol 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, work to make up an I must be submitted within 72 hours of the last final examination of the student's next period of enrollment at the University; if not submitted by that time, in the sixth week of the next term the I will automatically change to an F (if the student was registered on the A-F system) or an N (if the student was registered on the S-N system) for the course.

   When an I is changed to another symbol, the I is removed from the record. Once an I has become an F or an N, under the provisions of the preceding paragraph, it may subsequently be converted to any other grade, upon petition by the instructor (or the department if the instructor is unavailable) to the college.

   A student does not need to be registered at the University in order to complete the work necessary to convert an I to a grade with credit in the time and manner previously agreed upon between the student and the instructor. The instructor is expected to turn in the new grade within four weeks of the date the work was submitted by the student.

2. There shall be a symbol T, transfer, posted as a prefix 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.

3. There shall be a symbol V, visitor, indicating registration as an auditor or visitor, which shall carry no credit and no grade.

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). Withdrawal in the seventh or later week of classes (fourth or later in summer sessions) shall require approval of the college and may not be granted solely because a student is failing the course; there must extenuating non-academic circumstances justifying late withdrawal.

   Each student may, once during his or her undergraduate enrollment, withdraw from a course without college approval, and receive the transcript symbol W, after the sixth week of class and at any time up to and including the last day of class for that course.

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.

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. In those instances when a college or campus permits a student to repeat a course, (a) all grades for the course shall appear on the official transcript, (b) the course credits may not be counted more than once toward degree and program requirements, and (c) only the last enrollment for the course shall count in the student's grade point average. Section (IV [1] [b]) 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 term.

4. This grading system shall go into effect fall quarter 1997, thereby replacing all previous University, campus and college grading systems except those of the Law School and the medical schools. 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 6, no college 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 and medical schools).

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 or across campuses. They should bring to the Senate Committee on Educational Policy issues they are unable to resolve informally through negotiation, with recommendations for resolution.

7. A student shall have the right to petition the college scholastic committee or other appropriate body concerning any of the provisions of this policy.

LAURA COFFIN KOCH, Chair

DISCUSSION:

Professor Koch introduced the proposed grading policy and reported that it was approved by the Morris, Crookston, and Twin Cities campus assemblies. If the motion is approved, the policy would apply system-wide. Because faculty on the Duluth campus, other than those in the Medical School, do not participate in the Senate, the UMD campus has taken the position that a Senate approved policy would not apply to their campus. They have, however, modified their grading policy to conform with the policy before the Senate.

Professor Koch noted one editorial correction in Section III. 1. to change the word "grade" to "symbol."

A proposed amendment to the Grading Policy was deferred to New Business in order that the Senate could first vote on the motion. She reminded senators that the motion was not a motion to approve the text of the policy, but rather whether the Senate should adopt the proposal as a system-wide policy. If the policy is not approved, each campus would resume responsibility for setting and maintaining its grading policy.

With no further discussion, the motion was overwhelmingly approved with the one editorial correction to Section III.1.

APPROVED

To adopt the following as Senate policy:

1. Proficiency Examinations shall be administered by the appropriate academic department, require no fee, and yield no credit or grade. Proficiency examinations may be taken at any time, and if the student's work is of passing quality, a notation shall be made on his/her transcript saying "Course X satisfied by proficiency examination."

2. Examinations for Credit shall be without fee if taken during the student's first term in residence or the first term after an absence of a year or more, otherwise a fee will be charged. Credits earned by examination shall not count as residence credit.

   A student must do "C" quality work on an "examination for credit" to earn credit, and a notation shall be placed on the transcript showing the course and credits earned. The department awarding the credit by examination shall determine whether or not a grade is to be assigned, in addition to the notation of credits earned. If a grade is assigned, it shall count in the grade point average. If the student fails to do "C" quality work on the examination, no notation shall be made on the transcript.

   The "examination" administered by a department may be a typical final examination, an oral test, written papers or projects, or any other combination of work which will satisfy the examiners that the student has adequately achieved the values of the course.

   Minimum standards for awarding credits by examination shall be determined by the academic department giving the examination. Minimum standards for awarding credits on nationally-administered examinations shall be established by the appropriate academic department. The national examinations shall be reviewed every five years to determine whether the minimum standards remain appropriate.

   No department shall be required to give examinations for credit or to offer credits for nationally-recognized tests.

   Credits may be awarded for a particular course if the academic department reviewing the national examination determines that the material in the test is substantially similar to that of an existing course; if the material is judged to be of college level but not substantially similar to an existing course, general departmental credits are assigned.

3. Procedures for handling examinations shall be established by the Office of the Registrar.

COMMENT:

The proposed policy consolidates and affirms existing Senate policy; no significant changes are proposed.

LAURA COFFIN KOCH, Chair

DISCUSSION:

Professor Laura Koch introduced the proposed policy on Examinations for Credit and Proficiency explaining that it consolidates and affirms existing Senate policy.

With no discussion, the motion was unanimously approved.

APPROVED

To amend Articles VIII. and IX. of the Senate Constitution as follows: [additions are underlined; deletions are struck out]

ARTICLE VIII. AMENDING PROCEDURE

An amendment to this Constitution shall be approved either by a two-thirds majority of all voting members of the University Senate vote of the senators present and voting at a regular or special meeting of the University Senate, or by a majority of all voting members of the Senate at each of two meetings, the second of which shall be the next regular meeting; and provided the proposed amendment has been distributed, in writing, to the persons and in the manner provided in Article III, Section 7, for distribution of the Senate agenda, at least ten days prior to the date of the vote on the approval of the proposed amendment. An amendment shall be effective following approval by the University Senate and by the Board of Regents.

ARTICLE IX. BYLAWS

The University Senate may enact or amend its Bylaws by majority a two-thirds vote of the senators present and voting, total membership of the Senate provided the proposed change has been submitted, in writing, to each member of the Senate at least ten days prior to the date of the vote on the approval of the proposed change.

COMMENT:

Over the years the University Senate has experienced considerable difficulty in securing the required attendance at its meetings to adopt constitutional and bylaw amendments. As a result, the Business and Rules Subcommittee of the Senate examined the practices of other institutions as well as Robert's Rules of Order, which is the parliamentary authority for the Senate. It learned that the current requirements for amending the constitution and bylaws are not only inconsistent with other institutions but are discouraged by Robert's Rules of Order. As a result, the Subcommittee proposed, and the Senate Consultative Committee endorsed, the above motion to change the vote requirement as indicated.

VIRGINIA GRAY, Chair

DISCUSSION:

Professor Virginia Gray, chair of the Senate Consultative Committee (SCC), introduced the motion to amend Articles VIII and IX of the Senate Constitution. For many years the Senate has experienced problems passing constitutional and bylaw amendments, she said, and in response the SCC asked the Business and Rules Subcommittee to review the matter. After careful study of eleven institutions and Robert's Rules of Order the Subcommittee concluded that the Senate's current requirements for amending its Constitution and Bylaws are not only inconsistent with other institutions but are discouraged in Robert's Rules of Order. The proposal, as suggested by the Business and Rules Subcommittee, would bring the Senate's amending procedures more closely in line with other institutions and with Robert's Rules while at the same time retain safeguards to ensure appropriate notification of such amendments to senators.

A number of student senators were opposed to the motion arguing that students would be the most disadvantaged by the change because of their low attendance at meetings. Senators were reminded that a quorum at meetings would still be required before action could be taken and that senators would have received written notification of any proposed constitutional or bylaw amendment at least ten days prior to the meeting at which a vote is taken. If a senator is unable to attend a meeting, it is his/her responsibility to ensure that an alternate attends in his/her place.

Other student senators argued that to be fair, mail balloting should be allowed. The Business and Rules Subcommittee, however, learned that mail balloting is not normal Senate practice at other institutions and is discouraged in Robert's Rules, except in certain circumstances such as officer elections, because it does not allow for debate.

At this time a motion to extend the time for debate failed and a senator called for assurance that only voting members participate in the tally. The Parliamentarian ruled that a challenge to the validity of a vote must be proven by the challenger. The senator explained that he was only questioning procedure, not validity.

The vote was then taken and the motion failed to receive a two-thirds majority approval (vote: 62 in favor, 65 opposed).

NOT APPROVED

President Nils Hasselmo
President's Office
202 Morrill Hall

Dear Nils:

The Senate Consultative Committee unanimously voted to ask that I send you this letter concerning Incentives for Managed Growth (IMG).

Following lengthy deliberation on IMG by the Committee on Educational Policy, the Committee on Finance and Planning, and the Senate Consultative Committee, we remain deeply concerned about the its implementation.

While we recognize that there are problems with the current systems of accounting for revenues and expenses, and that IMG is an attempt to respond to those problems by better correlating resources with student enrollment, we are concerned that the convergence of the change to semesters and IMG will create an environment that could cause a decline in the quality of our academic programs and our stature as a highly-respected academic enterprise. We believe that the direction this University is taking, through the implementation of IMG, may create an environment where decisions are driven solely by financial considerations, with little regard for academic issues and the educational mission of this institution.

One significant problem is the lack of any apparent relationship between IMG and the critical measures approved by the Board of Regents. The incentives of IMG may work directly in opposition to the outcomes sought by the critical measures. We ask how the incentives under IMG will be reconciled with the expectations of the critical measures.

Other concerns are that IMG will:

• provide incentives to departments to increase class sizes in order to generate more tuition revenue, and cheapen the curriculum by emphasizing formula instruction rather than quality;

• damage the many graduate programs that are interdisciplinary and that cross collegiate lines, by creating financial disincentives for such activities;

• threaten the reorganization of the biological sciences and other possible plans for cross-college reorganization;

• encourage colleges to accept large numbers of students who may not meet the admissions standards;

• create an environment of competition for students and resources among colleges and provostries, which threatens the environment of cooperation and collaboration which the University seeks;

• invite academic units to base programs on what is financially feasible and not on academically sound grounds;

• create unnecessary problems for small colleges;

• and create serious financial and educational problems for University College, as IMG has not been thought through for UC.

Because of these concerns, the Senate Consultative Committee requests the administration to meet with appropriate Senate committees, especially the Committee on Educational Policy, to identify specific mechanisms for review and evaluation of the implementation of IMG, and to identify the mechanisms with which problems attributable to IMG will be dealt with.

Please be assured that our goal is not to stymie financial planning, but to preserve and protect the academic mission of the University.

Sincerely,

Virginia H. Gray, Chair
Senate Consultative Committee

cc: President-elect Mark G. Yudof
Senior Vice President Marvin Marshak
Senior Vice President JoAnne Jackson
Associate Vice President Robert Kvavik

The Faculty Consultative Committee (FCC) has invested its time in the presidential selection process. While the committee is not involved in briefing the president-designate during the time of transition, Professor Gray does serve on the presidential transition team. The issuues of Tenure and a faculty union continue to occupy the FCC's agenda. At this time, the FCC is discussing the results of the election and ways to improve the University's system of shared governance.

The FCC has also held a series of lunches with assistant professors and department chairs to better understand their issues and concerns, and has met with Provost Cerra and other senior academic officers. Two White Papers were prepared by FCC subcommittees. One on The Future of the Research University and a second on Faculty Vitality. A communication plan has been completed by the recently established Committee on Public Understanding concerning contact with the Legislature, the media, the Alumni Association, etc. Finally, the FCC is discussing ways to improve the relations between the faculty and Regents.

Professor Cushing then introduced the following motion:

To amend Section II, 1, as follows: (language to be deleted is struck out)

. . .

The definitions apply to grades awarded to students who are not enrolled in
graduate programs, but the grade points are the same no matter the level or
course of enrollment. It is understood throughout the University that
grades at the graduate level have different meaning.

Professor Cushing said he proposed deleting the sentence noted above because interpretation of the phrase is not universal throughout the University and contributes only ambiguity. Professor Laura Koch, Chair of the Educational Policy Committee, said a poll of her committee showed support for Professor Cushing's amendment.

With no further discussion, the amendment to the Grading Policy was overwhelmingly approved.

APPROVED