To amend the University of Minnesota Uniform Grading and Transcript Policy, as follows: [new language is underlined; language to be deleted is struck out]

I. Reword the definition of the "D" grade to eliminate ambiguity in meaning:

D

1.00 . . . .

Represents achievement that is worthy of credit even though it fails fully to meet fully the course requirements.

II. Eliminate the "D-" grade

D-

0.67

III. Clarify that a grade of "F" carries 0 gradepoints and counts in the gradepoint average; for the purposes of the gradepoint average and credits awarded, distinguish more clearly between the meaning of the F and the N; eliminate the "0" gradepoints for the S, because it has no gradepoints associated with it, as does the F.

1. There are five permanent grades given for a single course for which credit shall be awarded, which shall be acceptable for the completion of a single course which will be entered on a student's official transcript. A-B-C-D-F grades include pluses and minuses, as follows, and carry the indicated grade points. The S grade shall carry no not carry gradepoints 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.

A	4.00 . . . .	Represents achievement that is outstanding relative to the level necessary to meet course requirements.
. . . .
D	1.00 . . . .	Represents achievement that is worthy of credit even though it fails to meet fully 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 Section V (1)). 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.

F

-0-

Represents failure 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 Section V (1)). The F carries 0 gradepoints and the credits for the course do not count toward any academic degree program. The credit hours for the course shall count in the gradepoint average.

N

Represents 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 Section V (1)). The N carries no gradepoints and the credits for the course do not count toward any academic degree program. The credit hours for the course do not count in the gradepoint average.

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.

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.

. . . .

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 attempted with grades of A-F (including pluses and minuses). Both the periodic and cumulative grade point average will appear on each student's record.

IV. 3. Repeating Courses

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]) The preceding sentence 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.

COMMENT:

One of the changes (III) responds to comments that the Senate Committee on Educational Policy has heard repeatedly: that the D-grade should not be an option and should not be a grade awarded to a student permitting credit for a course to be earned. Elimination of the D- also makes the actual grades of the grading policy for the Twin Cities, Crookston, and Morris parallel that of the Duluth campus.

The other changes are intended to clarify points of misunderstanding that have arisen since the initial policy was adopted by the Senate.

LAURA COFFIN KOCH, Chair

DISCUSSION:

Professor Koch also introduced the proposed amendments to the Uniform Grading and Transcript Policy. They include elimination of the D- grade and clarification of the meaning of the N and F grades.

The motion was unanimously approved with no further discussion.

APPROVED

To amend Section 4 of the Policy on Classes, Schedules, and Final Examinations, as follows: [new language is underlined; language to be deleted is struck out]

4. Final Examinations and Study Day

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.

b) Each campus shall decide whether or not to have a study day. For those that choose to have one, 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.

c) The requirement that the final examination schedule be five or six days shall not apply to units which have been granted an exemption from the University calendar, pursuant to the provisions of the Semester Conversion Standards.

COMMENT:

At the February 20 Senate meeting, when one Senator raised the question about the locus of authority to grant exemptions to the Semester Conversion Standards, his point was raised in connection with the proposed new language of this policy. The Senate Committee on Educational Policy (SCEP) has proposed changing the process for granting exemptions, elsewhere in this docket, but also wishes now to propose a change in the Semester Conversion Standards that was withdrawn at the last Senate meeting, in light of the discussion over who should have the authority to grant exemptions. This amendment to the policy on classes, schedules, and final examinations was held up because it referred to exemptions from the Semester Conversion Standards granted by the President. The language now provides for the different final examination periods if the exemption has been granted under the authority of the Semester Conversion Standards.

With respect to changes proposed in Section 4(b), SCEP listened to comments from its colleagues from Crookston and Morris, and was persuaded that while a study day makes sense for the Twin Cities campus, the same logic does not necessarily apply to other campuses. The timing of classes and examinations and the pattern of student academic behavior make it less important that there be a study day. SCEP concluded, therefore, that whether to have a study day should be optional with each campus.

With respect to the language of Section 4(c), SCEP notes that the President's Office, pursuant to authority granted under the original Semester Conversion Standards, had granted exemptions from the University calendar to Crookston, Morris, and the Law School. In all three cases, it allowed them to begin classes before Labor Day. This provision would allow deviations from the standard final examination schedule when a campus or unit has been granted an exemption from the standard calendar: Crookston and Morris, with their much smaller student bodies, do not need five or six days for final examinations; the Law School, for accreditation purposes, requires two weeks.

These seemed to SCEP to be reasonable accommodations to the needs of these units, and thus urges the Senate to accept them.

LAURA COFFIN KOCH, Chair

DISCUSSION:

The proposed amendments to the Policy on Classes, Schedules, and Final Examinations were introduced by Professor Koch. She explained that the changes reflect concerns raised at the February 20 Senate meeting and from colleagues from the Morris and Crookston campuses. More detailed information concerning the proposal may be found under the "comment" section.

With no discussion, the motion was unanimously approved.

APPROVED

To adopt the following as Senate policy:

• the mission of the institution from which credits would be transferred,
• the comparability of the course work with University of Minnesota course work, and
• the appropriateness of the course work for meeting baccalaureate degree requirements at the University of Minnesota.

Regional accreditation shall usually serve as the primary criterion for determining the transferability of course work from another institution. Credits from Minnesota Technical Colleges may be considered for transfer when appropriate to a student's degree program. Credit is not normally transferred from specialized or proprietary institutions, military schools, or industry-based education programs.

It shall be the responsibility of the Director of Admissions on each campus to identify those institutions from which credit can be transferred and to determine whether course work is college level. If questions arise with regard to transfer of specific courses, the Director of Admissions will confer with the appropriate college or departmental faculty. When transfer of credits from Minnesota Technical Colleges, from specialized or proprietary institutions, military schools, or industry-based education programs is sought, the request shall automatically be referred by the Director of Admissions to the appropriate college or departmental faculty.

Credit granted by another institution for non-traditional experiences (CLEP, AP, IB, military training) will be re-evaluated for content and comparability by the Office of Admissions. Religious studies courses transfer if they are not doctrinal, confessional, or sectarian in nature. Religious studies courses from public institutions transfer without special review; religious studies courses from all other institutions will be evaluated by appropriate college or departmental faculty.

The University Senate endorses formal articulation agreements with other post-secondary institutions, with the understanding that the agreements are consistent with Senate policy.

Appeals of decisions made under this transfer of credit policy shall be directed first to the Director of Admissions on each campus, who shall consult with the appropriate college or departmental faculty.

COMMENT:

This policy reaffirms and unifies previous Senate policies relation to transfer issues. The only change proposed is that this policy would permit the transfer of credit from Minnesota Technical Colleges, if the faculty of the appropriate academic unit--college or department--approve.

LAURA COFFIN KOCH, Chair

DISCUSSION:

Professor Koch also introduced the Policy on Transfer of Credit. She said it relates exclusively to credit transfer from Minnesota Technical Colleges for courses taken through their system that might apply to a degree program at the University. Before the credit can be transferred, it must be approved by the appropriate department or college.

With no further discussion, the vote was taken and the motion was unanimously approved.

APPROVED

That the Senate adopt the following new policy:

The Award for Outstanding Contributions to Post-Baccalaureate Graduate and Professional Education will be given annually to faculty nominated by the colleges.

Criteria

In general, the award is to recognize faculty who engage post-baccalaureate, graduate, and professional students in a community of intellectual inquiry, who provide a model of how to fulfill the role for which the student is obtaining the education, and who develop and promote activities which help the student understand the larger context of his or her intended profession. The award will be made to exceptional candidates in recognition of outstanding performance in post-baccalaureate, graduate, and professional education in the following areas: excellence in instruction; involvement of students in research, scholarship and professional development; development of graduate or professional instructional programs; and advising and mentoring.

Policy

1. The Committee on Educational Policy shall appoint annually a nominating committee that shall (1) review nominees for both the award and for the Horace T. Morse-Alumni Association award and (2) recommend to the Committee on Educational Policy those individuals who should receive the awards. The number of recipients will be dependent on the funding available. No individual may receive both awards in the same year.

2. All recipients of the award shall receive a continuous augmentation to their salary, the amount to be recommended by the Committee on Educational Policy and approved by the President.

3. The department of each recipient of the award shall be provided funding for three years for the use of the award recipient for the development of teaching, advising, and program development materials and training in order to promote excellence in graduate and professional education among all of the faculty.

4. The Committee on Educational Policy shall have the authority to establish operational details associated with the granting of the awards and shall report annually on those details to the Senate for information.

FOR INFORMATION:

Operational Guidelines

1. Faculty are to be nominated for the award by colleges, in accord with procedures recommended by Academic Affairs and approved by the Committee on Educational Policy.

2. The salary of each award winner shall be increased by a continuous augmentation. It is expected that as funding becomes available, the augmentation of the award winners will equal that of the Morse-Alumni award winners.

3. The annual award ceremony shall be a large public event to which the students and colleagues of the winners will be invited. When appropriate, individuals from the winner's external professional community may also be invited. This event would be in addition to a smaller event with the President and the Alumni.

4. At the discretion of the award winner, the award may include, for each winner, an appropriate, well-publicized lecture, seminar, or exhibition in the individual's specialty.

5. At least every ten years, beginning with the tenth anniversary year, a special recognition event will be held for all of the winners over all of the years of the award and a special memento, such as a lapel pin, will be designed and given to the award winners.

6. All faculty who have been awarded these awards shall be designated throughout their careers at the University of Minnesota as "Distinguished Teaching Professor of [field]." This title can be used in correspondence, on business cards, and wherever else appropriate.

7. Any faculty member who has received the award shall be designated by an asterisk and accompanying footnote in the appropriate college catalogues and bulletins for the duration of the recipient's academic career at the University of Minnesota.

COMMENT

This policy establishes a new award, parallel to the Morse-Alumni award for contributions to undergraduate education, but directed at graduate and professional education. SCEP has received suggestions from a number of sources over the years, believes that recognition of efforts in graduate and professional education is both worthy and overdue, and thus recommends this policy to the Senate for action.

SCEP will, within the near future, identify a permanent name for the award, and will make a recommendation to the Senate.

Funding for award winners will have to be sought; this will be up to the administration, working with SCEP. It is the intention of SCEP, however, that the award be initiated once approved by the Senate, irrespective of whether funding is immediately available; the salary augmentation to be attached to the award will be provided when funding is obtained.

LAURA COFFIN KOCH, Chair

DISCUSSION:

The Policy on Award for Outstanding Contributions to Graduate and Professional Education represents a new policy at the University, parallel to the Morse-Alumni Award for contributions to undergraduate education, remarked Professor Laura Koch, chair of the Educational Policy Committee (SCEP). While the award is not currently named, it is the intent of the SCEP to recommend a permanent name to the Senate within the near future. Funding will also need to be sought, she added, which will be up to the administration working in conjunction with the committee.

Professor Koch clarified for the Senate that the SCEP will be responsible for both the Morse-Alumni Award and the new award.

It was brought to the Senate's attention that the policy does not clearly indicate whether or not one person can be the recipient of both awards. Professor Koch responded that it is the SCEP's intent that one person should not receive both awards in the same year and, thus, accepted the following clarifying language as a friendly amendment: (new language is underlined; language to be deleted is struck out)

Policy

1. The Committee on Educational Policy shall appoint annually a nominating committee that shall
(1) review nominees for both the award and for the Horace T. Morse-Alumni Association award and
2) recommend to the Committee on Educational Policy those individuals who should receive
the awards. The number of recipients will be dependent on the funding available. No individual
may receive this awards and the Horace T. Morse-Alumni Award in the same year.

. . . .

Operational Guidelines

. . . .

8. The chairs of the nominating committees for this award and the Horace T. Morse-Alumni
Association Award shall consult to determine that no individual shall receive both awards in
the same year.

Hearing no further discussion, the vote was taken and the motion was unanimously approved.

APPROVED, as amended

The draft policy on Sexual Harassment and Consensual Relationships is the result of substantial efforts by the Sexual Harassment Board to develop a policy that is broadly supported by the University community. The Board has spent over a year consulting with a wide range of university committees, groups, and administrators in order to achieve this goal. The policy has been unanimously endorsed by several Senate Committees (including SCFA, EEOWC, and SSCC), and University committees representing other groups on campus (Academic Staff Advisory Committee, Civil Service Committee). The Executive Committee of the Commission on Women also has unanimously endorsed the policy as has the CLA Council of Chairs. Finally, the Board has consulted with, and the policy has been endorsed by, appropriate administrators (including Marvin Marshak, Senior VP for Academic Affairs; Carol Carrier, Associate VP for Human Resources; and Stephanie Lieberman, Director of OEE/AA).

Section 1: Introduction

Sexual harassment in any situation is reprehensible and will not be tolerated in this University. It subverts the mission of the University and threatens the careers and well-being of students, faculty and staff. In a university setting, a power differential is inherent in a faculty member's or supervisor's relationship to his or her students or subordinates. However, this policy takes into account all instances of sexual harassment irrespective of university status. It is viewed as a violation of Title VII, Title IX of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the Minnesota Human Rights Act.

Section 2: Policy

Sexual harassment is prohibited. Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and/or other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature constitute sexual harassment when:

(1) submission to such conduct is made either explicitly or implicitly a term or condition of an individual's employment or academic advancement,

(2) submission to or rejection of such conduct by an individual is used as the basis for employment or academic decisions affecting this individual, or

(3) such conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual's work or academic performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working or academic environment.

This policy applies to the conduct of all persons involved in the mission and/or services of the University, except those whose conduct may be covered under separate university collective bargaining contracts.

Section 3: Procedures and Guidelines

The law requires the University as employer and educator to take timely and appropriate action when it knows or should know of the existence of sexual harassment.

(1) It is the legal responsibility of department heads, supervisors, managers, deans, provosts, chancellors and vice presidents to respond to all instances of sexual harassment. Other persons who know of sexual harassment may report the harassment.

(2) Responsibility for administering the policy and procedures generally lies with the Office of Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action with review by the Sexual Harassment Board.

(3) Each campus will develop procedures for investigating complaints of sexual harassment. These procedures will adhere to due process for all concerned. They must be approved by the Director of the University Equal Opportunity Office prior to implementation.

(4) Violations of this policy could lead to disciplinary action up to and including termination.

CONSENSUAL SEXUAL OR ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS

Section 1: Introduction

Decision-making responsibilities should not restrict individuals' rights of association and expression unless the exercise of those freedoms conflicts with the institutional necessity of impartiality in academic and employment decisions. As a consequence, the University's Nepotism Policy prohibits persons who are related through blood, marriage or other committed relationship to evaluate, supervise, or participate in employment decisions regarding the other person. The same rules should apply to sexual or romantic relationships between supervisors and their subordinates because these relationships may also call into question the ability of the supervisor to assess the performance of another solely on academic or professional merit. Similarly, the University Code of Conduct states that members of the University community must not abuse the authority they have been given and must take care to ensure that any personal relationships do not result in situations that might interfere with objective judgment.

The power disparity in supervisor/subordinate relationships make them vulnerable to exploitation as well as claims of exploitation. This is particularly true in faculty/student relationships. The respect and trust accorded a member of the faculty by a student as well as the power exercised by faculty in giving grades or recommendations for future study and employment make voluntary consent by the student suspect.

Section 2: Policy

Relationships of a sexual or romantic nature are prohibited between supervisors and their subordinates. For the purposes of this policy, the term supervisor refers to any employee, student, or other person in a position to hire, supervise, grade, advise, evaluate, or otherwise directly influence the academic progress or employment of another employee, student, or other person. The term subordinate refers to any employee, student, or other person who is hired, supervised, graded, advised, evaluated, or otherwise directly influenced by the supervisor.

Given the complexity of the University and the variety of relationships that can exist, different standards apply to different types of relationships that generally fall under the above category.

(1) Sexual or romantic relationships between instructors and advisors and their current students, and between supervisors and their immediate subordinates, are always prohibited whether or not the relationship is consensual.

(2) In other situations involving less direct supervisory relationships, it may be possible to eliminate the conflict of interest by ensuring that the individuals do not evaluate or otherwise directly influence each other's employment. In these cases, the individuals must consult an appropriate responsible administrator regarding the relationship so that such arrangements to eliminate the conflict can be made and documented. This could include a supervisor, Department head, human resources consultant, EEO officer, or Dean.

(3) Individuals should be aware that consensual sexual or romantic relationship can result in claims of sexual harassment because the voluntariness of the consent may be questioned when a power differential exists. If a sexual harassment claim subsequently is filed, the argument that the relationship was consensual will be evaluated in light of this power differential.

Section 3: Procedures and Guidelines

The Office of Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action may be consulted with respect to the appropriate procedures to be used in making alternative arrangements to eliminate conflicts of interest. It is the responsibility of the supervisor(s) of the parties to address violations of this policy. Violations of this policy could lead to disciplinary action up to and including termination.

This policy should be reevaluated three years following its adoption.

DANIEL FEENEY, Chair, Faculty Affairs Committee
VIRGINIA GRAY, Chair, Senate Consultative Committee

DISCUSSION:

Professor Daniel Feeney, chair of the Faculty Affairs Committee (SCFA), introduced the discussion on the proposed Policy on Sexual Harassment and Consensual Relationships. The SCFA, he said, has reviewed and discussed the proposal at numerous meetings over the past couple of years and strongly supports the proposal currently before the body. He reminded senators that the proposal was on the agenda for discussion and will be brought back for action at the May meeting.

Professor Feeney then introduced Professor Patricia Frazier, chair of the Sexual Harassment Board. Professor Frazier reviewed the background on the policy and a number of key elements. The current sexual harassment policy, she said, was passed by the Senate in 1984, and in 1994 the Regents requested a report from the Sexual Harassment Board for the purpose of approving policies regarding sexual harassment. This opportunity was used to review the effectiveness of the current policy, related policies, federal and state laws on discrimination, policies at other institutions, polices of other professions, and research on sexual harassment and consensual relationships. Based on this extensive review, the Board concluded that some changes were needed in the current policy, particularly regarding consensual relationships.

The current policy, Professor Frazier said, states that consensual relationships between faculty and students and between supervisors and subordinates are unwise. However, emerging case law in this area indicates that universities need to set clear guidelines for behavior, so the University needs to clarify the language in this section of the policy. The proposed new policy is more consistent with other policies at the University as well as other institutions and other professions.

The first section concerns sexual harassment and contains the standard language from the Office of Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action. It contains no substantive changes from the current policy. The second section deals with consensual sexual or romantic relationships. The intent of this section is to eliminate conflicts of interest, not to prohibit relationships.

In discussing this section with several groups, Professor Frazier said, it became clear that there is a narrow category of relationships which need to be prohibited. These are sexual relationships between a faculty member and a student currently in his/her class and relationships between supervisors and immediate subordinates. Otherwise, relationships between supervisors and subordinates are not prohibited, but conflicts of interest need to be eliminated by ensuring that the individuals do not evaluate or otherwise directly influence each others employment. A supervisory relationship is described in terms of being in a position to hire, supervise, grade, advise, evaluate, or directly influence the academic progress or employment of the other person in the relationship. The policy also states that in these instances, the parties need to consult with an appropriate administrator regarding the arrangements that are being made to eliminate conflicts of interest and to protect both parties, those arrangements should be in writing.

A question was raised concerning Section 2: Policy, item 1, under the Consensual Sexual or Romantic Relationships portion of the policy that prohibits sexual or romantic relationships between supervisors and their immediate subordinates. It seems the University should not be in the business of prohibiting relationships between two consenting adults, but instead should ensure that the evaluation of the subordinate by the superior does not lead to a conflict of interest. Professor Frazier responded that the language in the first paragraph of the policy talks about operative behaviors rather than defining specific relationships, which is the way other professions have addressed this issue. The University needs the ability to work around and eliminate these situations. When the relationship is not an immediate supervisory relationship, it then automatically falls into the second category.

What would happen in a case where there is a married couple in a department and the department rotates the department head position annually amongst its faculty. Would this policy preclude the couple from holding the department head position? asked a senator. Professor Frazier said this situation is covered under the University's Nepotism Policy.

It was suggested that since there are many unmarried relationships, a distinction should be made between faculty/student relationships and faculty/non-student relationships. Professor Frazier believes it would send the wrong message to employees of the University if we were to protect students who were in a differential power relationship but then ignore the employees who are in the same situation.

"What does 'consultation' imply? If this is a noncommitted relationship, should consultation occur before the first date?" queried a senator. Professor Frazier replied that these situations arise when there is talk in a department about the fact that a relationship exists. It should be a self-actualizing policy. Supervisors should have no responsibility to enforce the policy. At the point when a person thinks that they are in a relationship that may impact their professional judgment, then that is when consultation should occur.

Next, the President commented on the salary plan for faculty proposed in the Phase II budget instructions. It would put $13 million into compensation increases for the next year. This item was given a high priority in the budget and there is no reason to think it won't be approved, said President Hasselmo. The Board will review the budget in June and then take action on it in July. For distributing increases on an individual level, the merit principle will continue to apply.

Last, President Hasselmo reported that he had recently attended the meetings of the Association of American Universities (AAU), of which the University has been a member since 1909. The AAU consists of the 62 leading public and private research universities in the country and is a national barometer to see what issues are being discussed at other institutions. The recent meetings included a discussion on 1) information technology and its effects on what we do, 2) bioethics at the University, and 3) student financial aid.

Response: Regular status reports have been given to the Faculty Consultative Committee. Two formal meetings have occurred between the administration and the Committee of Eight, which was appointed by the faculty leadership to represent the faculty in the tenure discussions, and a third is scheduled for the end of April. It is hoped that the issues, including those raised by the Faculty Senate, can be ironed out before action is taken on a final Tenure Code by the Board of Regents. All involved are hoping this issue can be resolved by the end of the academic year.

The 1995-96 academic year for the SCFA was dominated by the tenure code revision process. The process of tenure code discussion and revision occurred in two phases. Between October 1995 and late March 1996, the Committee as a whole plus its Tenure Subcommittee and a Faculty Consultative Committee-designated "Tenure Working Group" held joint meetings among themselves and at least four major tenure forums across the Twin Cities campus. In addition to the tenure forums wherein faculty discussed the various issues posed by the Board of Regents and the administration, the provisions in tenure codes from other institutions of equivalent research stature were compared. The issues discussed centered around

1. post tenure review,
2. flexibility of appointment [including the option for long term contract appointments],
3. tenure guaranteed based salary versus other flexible salary augmentations [including clinically generated income],
4. the possibility of flexibility in the probationary period [either across the institution or based on individual discussions within colleges], and
5. how to foster public understanding of the background and meaning of tenure and the process of achieving it.

After a discussion between the administration and various members of the involved faculty, a so-called "worst case scenario" tenure code was drafted by four attorneys (two from the U of M faculty, one from the U of M General Council's Office, and one from the law firm retained by the Academic Health Center (Hogan and Hartson). When this was disclosed for faculty discussion and modification, there was extreme anger and anxiety which culminated in a Faculty Senate vote to disband the Tenure Working Group. While in the opinions of the Chair of Faculty Affairs and the Chair of the Tenure Subcommittee, this was not necessary and things had not gotten out of hand, the Senate resolution forced to become an exclusive activity for Faculty Affairs and its Tenure Subcommittee.

Between early April and early June of 1996, the second phase of the tenure review process began. This was limited to joint meetings of the Tenure Subcommittee with Faculty Affairs and occasional independent meetings of the Tenure Subcommittee. The meetings were held biweekly and led to modifications in the tenure code presented to the Faculty Senate for final vote on June 6, 1996. After faculty approval with a follow-up discussion with the Administration, the tenure code revisions were presented to the Board of Regents at their June 1996 meeting. No response was received by the time the July 1996 Board of Regents meeting occurred. Faculty representatives on the tenure issue were at the July meeting, but the topic was tabled.

The revisions of the tenure code included a broader definition and increased flexibility for nonregular faculty; an option that the probationary period for tenure track faculty would be six years with a decision in the seventh year, or using a secret ballot voting option, the faculty in a given college could extend it to nine years; streamlining of the removal for cause procedures; a clarification of the tenure related guarantee of base salary; and a preamble for public and legislative understanding was added. The most controversial discussion centered around the post tenure review clause. However, a functional post tenure review clause was put in place eliminating most concerns about the inability to eliminate tenured faculty viewed by their peers as deadwood. Unfortunately, as the summer of 1996 unfolded, the Board of Regents hired an outside consultant, Professor Richard Chait, and retained the services of the law firm of Hogan and Hartson. Based on small group meetings within the Board of Regents, input and discussion with Consultant Chait, the representative from the Hogan and Hartzen law firm drafted another version of the tenure code without any formal dialogue with the faculty. This was presented to the faculty in a meeting wherein no commentary was allowed. This presentation occurred just prior to the beginning of fall quarter 1996.

When not occupied with the tenure issue and the overall tenure controversy, the Senate Committee on Faculty Affairs discussed a number of issues. These included the delayed biweekly payroll [the SCFA came out firmly against the idea of A (12 month) or B (9 month) appointment faculty being on delayed biweekly payroll]. An ongoing process by the Nonretirement Benefits Subcommittee was to explore the possibility of flexible benefits for faculty and staff which unfortunately turned out to be, administratively difficult. In addition, this group explored the possibility of a faculty/staff discount program for items such as tickets to various entertainment options in the Twin Cities. This was to be a morale booster, if/when implemented. There is a reasonable likelihood that something will be worked out, but not until the end of the 1996-97 academic year. The Health Care Subcommittee was relatively quiet because this was not a year wherein health plan negotiations were occurring. However, concerns were raised that the possibility of changes in the health care plan available to the University through the State of Minnesota were on the horizon. A Subcommittee on Administrative Review & The Minnesota Data Practices Act was charged. The first concern was the limitations imposed on administrative reviews and general faculty discussion of issues as they may relate to interpretation of the Minnesota Data Practices Act. The committee drafted a summary of faculty guidelines for approach to the Minnesota Data Practices Act. This is currently undergoing modification and will be distributed with the administrative review to follow. A joint administrative and faculty affairs group developed an administrative review protocol. This was intended to involve senior administrators through deans. This was to be piloted for "debugging" during the summer and fall of 1996 and a follow-up report on the process, the strong and weak points, and a timetable for future implementation would be presented to the Faculty Affairs Committee in winter quarter of 1997. The Retirement Subcommittee was quite active in that there was an enhanced settlement made for the retirees with pre-1963 U-MN service. These were individuals who were employed as faculty prior to the initiation of the current U of M faculty retirement plan. In addition to the settlement, the committee monitored the utilization and performance of all retirement options with particular concern about the new options in the basic plan from Fidelity. Plans were made for in-depth analyses and presentations by the various brokerage houses providing services to the basic and optional faculty retirement plans. These were being scheduled by the office of the University Treasurer and would take place during the 1996-97 academic year.

The 1995-96 academic year was a challenging one for the Faculty Affairs Committee and its Tenure Subcommittee. Unfortunately, there are numerous loose ends. The strong hope that there would be an approved tenure code and general agreement among the administration, the faculty, and the Board of Regents regarding the tenure issue by mid-summer were dashed by the action of the Board of Regents. The 1996-97 academic year is approached with trepidation because of the tenure issue and the concern that faculty are perceived as the problem rather than an appropriate route through which to arrive at the solution. The Faculty Affairs Committee will continue its service and vigilance, but with concern that the seeming disengagement between the Board of Regents and the faculty governance system is a serious hindrance to progress.

Daniel A. Feeney, Chair

1. Faculty salary increases that have been proposed in the four-year budget plan (increases sufficient to reach the mean of the top 30 research universities within the next two to three years) should not be reduced, nor should the schedule for achieving the goal be extended.

2. The proposed tuition increases, in the aggregate, should not in general be more than the rate of inflation, and perhaps slightly less, given the accelerated rate of increases in the past several years. The University should continue to seek external funding to bolster student financial aid.

3. Retrenchments at all levels should be based on judgmental decisions and not on an across-the-board basis.

4. There should be no further expenditures on administrative process redesign (for new computing systems in human resources, student systems, grants management, and financial management) until (a) there are plans, budgets, and systems, and (b) those plans are oriented toward simplification of process and enhancement of accountability and efficiency.

5. That the administration produce a budget for the parking operations of the University for 1997-98 with no increase in general parking fees.

6. That as the process unfolds to consider alternatives for future management of food service operations on the Twin Cities campus, the administration identify who will make decisions during negotiations with prospective vendors; advisory councils that include students, faculty, and staff be established now, not after negotiations with a vendor have been completed; and required contract provisions be identified early in the process.

7. That access to all public information be granted to employees who need it, and that filtering be eliminated except as required to protect information determined by statute to be private.

The following motion was then presented for action:

MOTION:

To approve the following Resolution:

WHEREAS, a diverse student body and a wide range of educational opportunities are of benefit to individual students, to the student population as a whole, to the excellence of the University, and to the social and economic welfare of the state; and

WHEREAS, the University is committed to the value of race, class, and gender diversity in its programs and among its students; and

WHEREAS, impending changes in welfare progams jeopardize these commitments and benefits; and

WHEREAS, within the new federal guidelines, Minnesota has the opportunity to define college education as one of the acceptable work activities for AFDC/TANF recipients;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT, the University Senate strongly supports the efforts of Minnesota state legislators to create programs and guidelines that enable AFDC/TANK recipients to pursue a college degree, following an approved educational and training plan, including work-study jobs and internships.

Professor Scheman read the Resolution and encouraged senators to support it in order that a timely message could be sent to the Legislature concerning the Senate's position on this issue.

With no further discusson, the motion was overwhelmingly approved.

APPROVED

Born in Sandstone, Minnesota, Keith Loken graduated from Sandstone High School and earned his Bachelor of Science degree in 1951, his Doctor of Veterinary Medicine degree in 1953, and Ph.D. degree in 1959 from the University of Minnesota. Keith was in the United States Air Force Veterinary Corps functioning as an environmental health officer from 1953-1955. He served with the Air Guard in the 133rd Medical Squadron and retired in 1986. Keith was awarded a Fulbright Scholarship in 1965 and studied at the Ruakura Agricultural Research Center in New Zealand. Dr. Loken was a faculty member in the College of Veterinary Medicine from 1955-1993. He was section head, microbiology (1975-1976), and director of undergraduate and professional education from 1976-1990. He was the liaison officer, Air Force Health Professions Scholarship Program in addition to numerous department, collegiate, and University committees. After 38 years of teaching and research, Dr. Loken retired from the University of Minnesota in 1993. Keith taught a variety of classes while at the College of Veterinary Medicine, including Diseases of Wildlife, Physical Diagnosis, Veterinary Virology, Veterinary Microbiology and Fungi, Pathogenic Bacteria and Fungi, and Advanced Veterinary Microbiology. He was a mentor and friend to many graduate students.

Keith's career was distinguished by his being the first person to isolate the etiologic agent of Lyme disease in the Midwest and Minnesota and determine the geographic distribution of the tick (Ixodes scapularis) responsible for its spread. In addition, he was the first to suggest and evaluate tetracycline for the treatment of Lyme disease in animals. Keith was always interested in new and emerging diseases of domestic animals. In addition, he had a strong interest in wildlife and diseases of wildlife. Dr. Loken was an active member of the Wildlife Disease Association, American Society for Microbiology, American Veterinary Medical Association, Minnesota Veterinary Medical Association, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science. He was also a member of the Society of Phi Zeta, Gamma Sigma Delta, and Society of Xi honor societies.

Dr. Loken was a man who was extremely competent and straight forward. He had substance and unselfishness and a strong set of principles. As a result, he was frequently asked for advice by department chairmen, colleagues and students. He had a remarkable ability to see an issue and make a quality decision for the good of all involved. Based on his insight, he was able to see issues as right or wrong, ethical or not. He had integrity. Dr. Loken was very student oriented, always being open and willing to help.

He is survived by his wife Marlene; two sons Mark, of Arden Hills, and Richard, of Bloomington, and daughter Julie of Roseville, two grandchildren, and two brothers, Frank of Sandstone and Richard, of Royal Oak, Michigan.

Robert Slater was born in Isanti, Minnesota on March 12, 1923. He graduated from Cambridge High School on 1940. Following high school he entered the University of Minnesota and completed an associate degree in mortuary science in 1942. He then enlisted in the Navy, where he was assigned to the Naval Medical Corps. He served with the 3rd Marine Battalion during much of the heavy fighting in the South Pacific. Bob received a Purple Heart after being wounded at Guadalcanal. He returned to the University of Minnesota where he taught part time in the Department of Mortuary Science while he completed a bachelor of science degree in Education. Upon completion of his bachelor's degree in 1950, he began teaching in mortuary science as a full time instructor. He was named Director of Mortuary Science in 1961, and awarded full professorship in 1963. During his tenure, mortuary science became a four year bachelor of science degree program. Bob retired from the University in 1988 due to on-going health problems.

He was a member of the Board of Trustees of Northwestern Lutheran Theological Seminary, serving as Secretary and as President of the Board from 1962 to 1973. In recognition of his contributions, Northwestern Lutheran Theological Seminary bestowed an Honorary Doctor of Human Letters upon him in 1975.

Robert Slater was a national figure in funeral service. He was a frequent speaker for the Minnesota and National Funeral Directors Associations and served as a member and officer of many national boards. He was especially proud of his efforts to establish the Academy of Professional Funeral Service Practice.

W. Dixon Ward ("Dix"), Professor Emeritus of Communication Disorders and of Otolaryngology, died December 19, 1996, at his home in St. Paul at the age of 72. He also held adjunct professor appointments in psychology and public health. Ward received his Ph.D. in psychology from Harvard University in 1953. After appointments as a Research Engineer at the Baldwin Piano Company in Cincinnati, Ohio, and as a Research Associate at the Central Institute for the Deaf in St. Louis, Missouri, and the Research Center of the American Academy of Ophthalmology and Otolaryngology in Los Angeles, California, he joined the faculty of the University of Minnesota as an Associate Professor in 1962.

Professor Ward was a pioneering scholar in musical perception and in noise-induced hearing loss, and he received numerous honors in recognition of his substantial impact on the scholarly community. He was a member of 12 scientific societies, Fellow of the Acoustical Society of America and of the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, and he was elected to the offices of Vice President of the International Society of Audiology (1976-1978) and of the Acoustical Society of America (1986-1987) and President of the International Society of Audiology (1978-1980), the American Auditory Society (1976), and the Acoustical Society of America (1988-1989).

Ward, an internationally acclaimed scholar, authored 196 published manuscripts and made 173 scientific presentations in 19 countries. He was an Associate Editor for the Journal of the Acoustical Society of America (1983-1987 and 1992-93), Audiology (1973-1993), and Music Perception (1984-1993), and a reviewer for 20 scholarly journals. His research on susceptibility to hearing loss and intermittent noise exposure was supported without interruption from 1971 through 1990 by the National Institutes of Health. In 1971 he received an honorary D.Sc. degree from the South Dakota School of Mines and Technology, and in 1991 he was awarded the Silver Medal in Psychological and Physiological Acoustics, Musical Acoustics, and Noise by the Acoustical Society of America.

In addition to his scholarly career, Ward is also remembered fondly as an avid outdoorsman, for his persistent efforts to "slow the encroachment of government on personal liberty," for his numerous, cut-to-the quick, and humorous letters to the Minnesota Daily, and, of course, for his red socks.

Professor Ward was born in Pierre, South Dakota. He is survived by his wife, Edith Marion Ward; four daughters, Marnie Cushin, Laurie Ward Gardner, Chris Lacy, and Holly Ward; and two grandchildren. A memorial celebration was held at the Campus Club on January 11, 1997.