At its meeting on December 4, 1997, the Senate Consultative Committee (SCC), exercising its authority to act on behalf of the Senate when a decision is required prior to the next scheduled meeting of the Senate, unanimously approved one clarification and one minor change in the Senate's uniform grading policy. The proposed clarification and change were recommended by the Senate Committee on Educational Policy (SCEP). As required in the Senate Bylaws, the SCC is reporting its action to the Senate. The Senate has the authority to overrule the Consultative Committee, if it so chooses.

The clarification is that the automatic conversion of an I to an F or an N, after one quarter, does not apply to graduate and professional students. The uniform grading policy appeared inadvertently to change the long-standing policy of the Graduate School and professional schools with respect to an Incomplete (I). For graduate and professional students, an I is to remain on the transcript until changed by the instructor or department.

The change in the policy recommended by SCEP is that it is not necessary to have a written agreement for an I between the instructor and the student in the case of graduate and professional students, so that requirement is eliminated for those students.

Professor Koch, chair of the Committee on Educational Policy, explained that SCEP intended that no graduate and professional students should be affected adversely by the existing provisions of the uniform grading policy, and requested the Senate Consultative Committee to exercise its authority to act on behalf of the Senate between Senate meeting and to approve the changes recommended by SCEP.

LAURA COFFIN KOCH, Chair
EDUCATIONAL POLICY COMMITTEE

DISCUSSION:

Professor Victor Bloomfield, chair of the Senate Consultative Committee (SCC), explained that in the passage of the grading policy last year it was overlooked that the policy of converting incompletes to fails was not consistent with the practices of the Graduate School. To correct the error, the SCC acted on behalf of the University Senate and approved the above change. It is being presented for information, but the University Senate has the authority to overturn the decision of the SCC if it so chooses. There was no objection to the SCC action.

MOTION:

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

II. PERMANENT GRADES FOR ACADEMIC WORK

There are five permanent grades given for a single course for which credit shall be awarded</b>, 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 not carry 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.

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 to meet fully the course requirements.

_________________________________

S Represents achievement that is satisfactory, i.e., is equivalent to a 2.00 and meets or exceeds the course requirements in every respect which is equivalent to a C- or better.

. . .

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-.

COMMENT:

The change incorporated in the recommendation is to set the "S" equal to the "C-" rather than the "C." Existing policy sets the S equal to the C; this sets it equal to the C-.

The Committee on Educational Policy, in the course of reviewing a large number of policies for consistency across the Twin Cities campus, encountered at several occasions the definition of "S" and the implications of the definition for policies relating to transfer (within and from outside the University), course repetition, and the Graduate School. The Committee concluded that in order to bring conformity to the policies, and to align common understanding with policy, the "S" should be set equal to the "C-" rather than the "C."

LAURA COFFIN KOCH, Chair
EDUCATIONAL POLICY COMMITTEE

DISCUSSION:

Professor Laura Koch, chair of the Educational Policy Committee (SCEP), introduced the motion. She explained that when the grading policy was passed last year, an "S" grade was defined as equivalent to a 2.0. In reviewing policies this year, SCEP noticed a number of inconsistencies in the definition of "S" and the implications of the definition for policies relating to transfer and course repetition. Therefore, to provide conformity, SCEP is recommending that the ëSí grade be redefined as equivalent to "C-" or better.

Several senators spoke in favor of the motion stating that since a "C-" is still within the range of "C" grades and permits credit for a course within a students major, an "S" should be equivalent to a "C-" or better.

One senator emphasized the need for the transcript to describe the grading system clearly and suggested that we also aim for uniformity with other major universities."

The following questions were then raised to which Professor Koch responded:

Q: Why is it any less consistent to require that an "S" be equal to a "C"? This seems proof positive of grade inflation.

A: Prior to the Uniform Grading Policy, an "S" grade was not defined except by the instructor. In many cases it could be as low as a "D-".

Q: If a student needs a 2.0 to graduate, how can we say that a "C-", which equals a 1.67, is satisfactory?

A: This is a good question and one that SCEP discussed. In coming to its decision, SCEP took into account that "S" grades do not count toward a student's GPA.

A Duluth senator reported that UMD has utilized the plus/minus system for many years and its policy equates an "S" with a "C". In a recent review of the policy, UMD voted to continue this practice.

As the time for discussion had expired, a motion to extend the debate for three minutes was called for and approved.

Q: Does the motion just set the minimum requirement for an "S" grade?

A: Yes. An instructor can decide to set the "S" at a higher level.

With no further discussion, the motion to amend the grading policy was approved on a voice vote by a majority of members present and voting.

APPROVED

MOTION:

To approve the following Resolution:

WHEREAS during the past few years the Senate Committee on Research has been asked to provide comments and make suggestions for changes to various University and Regents policies and procedures which come under its purview. The overall goal of reviewing all the policies and procedures in a systematic way to bring them into compliance with present agency requirements and other regulations as well as ultimately to simplify (and even eliminate) those policies and procedures and make them more uniform is a noble one which the committee heartily endorses.

WHEREAS during the course of the committee's deliberations it has become increasingly clear that policies and procedures imposed on the University often deal with progressively finer detail and regulation. Such policies and procedures range from financial procedures to protection of human and animal subjects; the committee is concerned with the increase in regulation above and beyond the needs to meet normal fiscal, moral and ethical responsibilities in the conduct of research. The increase has come about in two ways: 1) increased regulation on the part of the federal government and its funding agencies and 2) overinterpretation of those regulations by the University in setting its own policies and procedures.

WHEREAS implementation of these policies and procedures exact a substantial cost on the University, both in terms of specially dedicated personnel, together with the necessary support for them, and a substantial distraction of its other personnel from their principal missions (which is another form of significant cost). Full compliance with such policies and procedures may therefore result in a counterproductive drain of resources with an incommensurately small recognizable benefit, even for those situations which the policies and procedures were designed to address. It is not at all clear that the regulations and reporting requirements actually result in a clear benefit to the University.

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Senate recommends that the administration undertake a systematic cost/benefits analysis of all major existing and new policies and procedures to see whether there is really any net gain from the complex regulations imposed upon the research community. If the costs outweigh the benefits then changes in policies and procedures would be clearly called for. The Senate recognizes the complexity of this task and recommends that the first step be a realistic assessment of all the costs involved, including faculty and staff time. The benefit side of the analysis would clearly be more difficult to carry out but should estimate the value of the actual changes in outcomes produced by the University's regulatory activities.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Senate recommends that the President recommend to the American Association of Universities and other appropriate national organizations the urgent undertaking of a similar cost/benefit review on a national scale.

COMMENT:

The Resolution was adopted by the Senate Committe on Research January 23, 1998, and endorsed by the Senate Consultative Committee February 5, 1998.

LEONARD KUHI, Chair
RESEARCH COMMITTEE

DISCUSSION:

Professor David Hamilton, member of the Research Committee, presented the Resolution. He explained that the Research, Faculty Affairs, and Faculty Consultative Committees, and some other Senate committees have found during the course of their work in helping to develop and modify University policy that oftentimes policies and procedures imposed on the University deal with progressively finer detail and regulation than what may be necessary. The Resolution outlines the committees concerns and calls for the administration to undertake a systematic cost/benefits analysis of major existing and new policies and procedures to see whether there is any real net gain from the complex regulations imposed upon the research community.

One sentor inquired whether the Resolution is limited to policies dealing only with research? Professor Hamilton responded that the intent is to review any policy that has an effect on the academic mission of the institution.

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

APPROVED

PREAMBLE:

In June 1997 the Faculty Consultative Committee (FCC) appointed the Task Force on Faculty Consultation to make recommendations to the FCC for a system of faculty consultation that takes into account the new central administrative structure. To accomplish its work, the Task Force interviewed key administrators, former provosts, deans, chairs of major Senate committees, and faculty representatives of the local AAUP chapter. Input was also welcomed and received from individual faculty members and a survey was conducted to determine the existence and functions of college-level consultative mechanisms on the Twin Cities campus.

In January, the Task Force presented its report to the Faculty Consultative Committee and a notice was sent to all faculty advising them of the Task Force recommendations. The FCC has endorsed the report as well as the following proposed amendments necessary to implement the recommendations. Additional amendments appear on the Twin Cities Campus Assembly agenda..

MOTION 1:

To amend the Senate Constitution, Article III. 1., University Senate Membership, as follows: [new language is underlined]

ARTICLE III. UNIVERSITY SENATE

1. Membership

The University Senate shall be composed of the following voting members: (a) the president of the University; (b) members of the Senate Consultative Committee, who shall serve as ex officio voting members; and (c) the elected faculty, academic professional, and student representatives of the various institutes, colleges, and schools of collegiate rank, and the Graduate School. Only elected faculty or academic professional representatives or properly designated faculty and academic professional alternates shall serve as the Faculty Senate; the elected student representatives shall serve as the Student Senate. Each member of the University Senate shall represent the University as a whole, but members are expected to communicate on a regular basis with their respective college governance bodies and constituent groups concerning University governance issues. Academic officers with class titles 9302-9329 shall serve as ex officio nonvoting members. Chairs of the college faculty consultative committees and the chair of the Academic Health Center Faculty Consultative Committee shall, if not otherwise elected, serve as ex officio nonvoting members. Student body presidents of the Twin Cities, Duluth, Morris, and Crookston student bodies, and the president of the Graduate and Professional Student Assembly, shall, if not otherwise elected, serve as ex officio nonvoting members.

DISCUSSION:

Professor Victor Bloomfield, chair of the Faculty Consultative Committee (FCC), introduced this item by saying that when the President restructured his administration and abolished the provostal system, the FCC appointed a task force to recommend ways in which the faculty governance structure might be modified to more effectively interact with the new central administrative structure. This included looking at faculty governance at the collegiate level as well.

Professor Mary Dempsey, chair of the Task Force on Faculty Consultation, then presented the committeeís report and briefly summarized the process followed and resulting recommendations. Because the task force wanted the report to reflect a broad faculty voice, interviews and surveys were conducted. The task force learned that some colleges have a high degree of faculty governance while others have none. Its report, which was distributed to senators and placed on the web for review by all faculty, was presented to the FCC in January, at which time it was accepted and its recommendations endorsed. To implement the recommendations, a number of amendments to the Senate and Assembly constitutions and bylaws are required and are presented to the Senate for action.

Motion 1, Professor Dempsey said, is intended to make senators more accountable to their respective colleges or units and make the chairs of college consultative committees ex officio non-voting Senate members. The floor was then opened for discussion.

Several senators expressed concern about the proposed dissolution of the provostal consultative committees. While they were pleased to see that the Academic Health Center would continue to have a functioning consultative body, they argued that there continues to be a need for consultation in other areas of the University regardless of the administrative structure. In response, Professor Dempsey noted that a number or provostal consultative committee members served on the task force and supported the recommendations.

At this time, senators were urged to focus on the motion at hand as the amendments relating to the provostal consultative committees appear on the Assembly agenda.

Many senators appeared to be confused about the overall recommendations of the task force, particularly the links between the colleges and the AHC Faculty Consultative Committee and the Senate. The division of the motions appeared to add to the confusion. Professor Dempsey attempted to clarify the connections, the rationale of the task force in its recommendations, and the necessity of dividing the motions because some amended the Senate constitution and bylaws and some the Assembly.

With respect to Motion A, one senator said he didn't believe the chairs of the collegiate consultative committees would attend Senate meetings if they simply held ex officio non-voting status.

Another senator suggested that interviews and surveys should also have been conducted at the departmental level.

The vote was taken and Motion 1 failed to receive the required votes necessary for approval of a constitutional amendment. For approval, it required 141 affirmative votes at one meeting or 106 at each of two consecutive meetings. The vote was 102 in favor of the motion and 19 against.

NOT APPROVED

MOTION 2:

To amend the Senate Bylaws, Article III. 3., Consultative Committees, as follows: [new language is underlined]

Faculty Consultative Committee

. . . .

Duties and Responsibilities

a. To meet separately, when necessary, to discuss with the president, or others, matters of concern to the faculty.

b. To serve as the executive committee and steering committee of the Faculty Senate.

c. To act on behalf of the Faculty Senate when a decision is required prior to the next scheduled meeting of the Faculty Senate and when a decision is required when it would not be possible to convene a special meeting of the Faculty Senate in a timely fashion; such actions will be reported to the Faculty Senate at its next meeting and the Faculty Senate may then overrule the Faculty Consultative Committee.

d. To jointly appoint with the administration ad hoc task forces to address issues deemed of concern to the faculty.

e. To orient newly elected faculty senators concerning their roles and responsibilities to the University.

f. To meet periodically with the Academic Health Center Faculty Consultative Committee to ensure coordination and communication between the faculty consultative bodies.

g. To sponsor an annual workshop for the chairs of the college consultative committees to assist them in establishing more effective consultative mechanisms.

h. To organize orientation sessions on faculty governance each year for newly appointed faculty, administrators, and Regents.

DISCUSSION:

Professor Dempsey turned to Motion 2, which proposes to amend the duties and responsibilities of the Faculty Consultative Committee to again reflect recommendations outlined in the task force report.

A suggestion was made to include in "f" that regular meetings be held between the Faculty Consultative Committee and the chairs of the collegiate consultative committees. Professor Bloomfield noted that that point is addressed in the proposed amendments on the Twin Cities Campus Assembly agenda. Amendments involving the AHC are addressed on the Senate agenda because the AHC includes the Duluth School of Medicine.

In point "d" it states that the Faculty Consultative Committee (FCC) can appoint task forces with the administration. Can the FCC appoint them without consulting the administration? "Yes and they currently do," replied Professor Dempsey.

The vote was then taken and the motion failed to receive the 106 affirmative votes required to amend the Bylaws. [vote: 99 yes, 13 no, 4 abstentions]

NOT APPROVED

PREAMBLE:

Reproduced below is the section on sexual harassment of the "University of Minnesota Policy on Sexual Harassment and Consensual Relationships" adopted by the University Senate on May 15, 1997. The President subsequently, among other things, recommended separating the two subjects of that policy, and as a consequence a subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Faculty Affairs was formed. One result is the draft policy on "Nepotism and Consensual Sexual and Romantic Relationships" which also appears below for information and discussion. This version of the policy on sexual harassment is also submitted to the Senate for information and discussion, after which the drafting subcommittee will reconsider it in light of comments and discussion by the Senate and of messages sent to kvanbeck@mailbox.mail.umn.edu by individuals and committees. A revised draft "Policy on Sexual Harassment" will then be submitted to the Senate for action on April 16, 1998.

SEXUAL HARASSMENT

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 memberís or supervisorís 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 and 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

It is the responsibility of department heads, supervisors, managers, deans, provosts, chancellors and vice presidents to take timely and appropriate action when they know or should know of the existence of sexual harassment. Other persons who suspect sexual harassment should report it to the Office of Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action. 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. 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. Violations of this policy could lead to disciplinary action up to and including termination of employment or dismissal from an academic program.

VICTOR BLOOMFIELD, Chair
SENATE CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE

KENT BALES, Chair
FACULTY AFFAIRS COMMITTEE

DISCUSSION:

Professor Kent Bales, chair of the Faculty Affairs Committee (SCFA), introduced the discussion of the Sexual Harassment policy. He clarified that the policy in the printed agenda (above) represents language approved by the Senate in May 1997, and the proposal on the printed handout (reprinted below) represents new language proposed by the drafting committee.

SECTION I. PURPOSE

Sexual harassment subverts the mission of the University and threatens the careers and well-being of students, faculty, and staff. Sexual harassment of students by faculty or subordinates by their supervisors is especially reprehensible because of the power differential inherent in such academic or employment associations and the damage such acts cause to the environment of mutual respect and trust necessary for teaching, learning, and working together.

SECTION II. DEFINITIONS

Subd. 1. Sexual harassment. "Sexual harassment" shall mean unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and/or other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature when:

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

(2) submission to or rejection of such conduct by an individual is used as the basis or 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.

SECTION III. POLICY

Subd. 1. Prohibition. Sexual harassment is prohibited in all university activities and programs.

Subd. 2. Responsibility to report. It is the responsibility of department heads, deans, provosts, chancellors, vice presidents and other supervisors and managers to take timely and appropriate action when they know or should know of the existence of sexual harassment. Other persons who suspect sexual harassment should report it to the unit or university equal opportunity officer.

Subd. 3. Administrative Responsibility. Each campus will adopt procedures for investigating and resolving complaints of sexual harassment in coordination with the university's central equal opportunity officer.

Subd. 4. Disciplinary Action. A violation of this policy may lead to disciplinary action up to and including termination of employment or academic dismissal.

Professor Bales introduced Professor Patricia Frazier, chair of the Sexual Harassment Board and member of the SCFA Subcommittee, to lead the discussion.

Before opening the floor for discussion, Professor Frazier provided a brief history of the Sexual Harassment Policy. The current policy was approved by the Senate in 1984, and in 1994, the Regents requested a report from the Sexual Harassment Board for the purpose of approving a new policy. Based on a review of other policies and case law, the Sexual Harassment Board concluded that changes were needed in the current policy, particularly regarding consensual relationships. Following extensive consultation with the Board and numerous groups on campus, the Sexual Harassment Board drafted a new policy that was consist with other universities and professions as well as presenting clearer guidelines regarding consensual relationships. These were passed by the Senate last May. However, the former administration had some concerns about the policy and, thus, returned it to the Senate for reconsideration. At that time a subcommittee of SCFA was formed to review the administration's concerns. Its membership includes Kent Bales, Carol Chomsky, Patricia Frazier, Carol Carrier, Kris Lockhart, Julie Sweitzer, and Martha Kvanbeck. The subcommittee has been meeting since October, focusing primarily on the Nepotism and Consensual Relationships Policy. It has consulted with or will be consulting with the Faculty Affairs Committee (SCFA), Senate Consultative Committee, Sexual Harassment Board, General Counsel's Office, central administration, Regent's Office, Equal Employment Opportunity for Women Committee, Commission on Women, Academic Staff Advisory Committee, and Civil Service Committee. The prosposal is on the agenda for information and action is expected at the April Senate meeting.

The Sexual Harassment Policy distributed on the handout is very similar to the one passed by the Senate last May. It looks different because it has been reformatted to conform with Regents' policy. It has also been separated from the policy dealing with nepotism and consensual relationships. The primary changes involve: Section I, which was retitled and reworded slightly; Section 2 was relabeled as the definition section but otherwise unchanged; and Section 3, which previously was the procedures and guidelines section, is now the policy portion and includes procedures for reporting. The procedures were modified to reflect the Regents desire not to name specific offices or groups in its policies. The floor was then opened for discussion.

One person asked for clarification of the phrase "or should know of" in the policy. Julie Sweitzer, Interim Director of the Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action Office and member of the subcommittee, responded that that is standard language in sexual harassment laws.

"Isn't the use of the term 'offensive' 'subjective' and vague?" asked another. Ms. Sweitzer again responded and said the term is from State statute, so whether or not it appears in the University policy, it is the law. If the word is taken out of context it can apply to many situations, but it is only one word in a complete definition.

Another senator commented that just because a term is in State law, it does not have to be used in University policy.

"Why was 'due process' dropped in this version?" inquired a senator. Ms. Sweitzer replied that even though that term is not in the policy, it does not take away due process protection since it is in the U.S. Constitution.

Some asked why the University needs a separate policy on sexual harassment if it is regulated by State statute. The policy, Ms. Sweitzer replied, does not change a person's legal obligation. The reason for developing a Regents' policy is to have a standard that is adopted by the people that it governs and carries consequences for violators within the University.

SECTION I. PURPOSE

The University of Minnesota is committed to the highest standards of professional conduct and integrity and expects all members of the University community to adhere to them. Members of the University community have the obligation to respect and be fair to other members of the community, and must take care to ensure that personal relationships within the community do not result in conflicts of interest and situations that might impair objective judgment.

Whenever members of the University community hire, promote, supervise, evaluate, determine salary, grade or advise, or otherwise directly influence the employment or academic progress of other individuals with whom they have personal relationships, the impartiality of any such action or decision is called into question. Moreover, when two individuals have both an academic or employment association and a personal relationship, the dual relationships may adversely affect the academic or work environment of the University, and others may lose confidence in the integrity of academic or employment decision-making more generally. In order to ensure that members of the University community fulfill their ethical and professional responsibilities to act impartially and without conflicts of interest, the University adopts this policy.

SECTION II. DEFINITIONS

Subd. 1. Members of the University community. "Members of the University community" shall mean faculty, students, staff, and any individual supervising or evaluating university faculty, students, or staff in the performance of University activities.

Subd. 2. Personal relationship. "Personal relationship" shall mean marital or other committed relationship, significant familial relationship, or consensual sexual or romantic relationship.

SECTION III. PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES

Members of the University community may not participate in or directly influence the hiring, promotion, supervision, evaluation, determination of salary, grading or advising, or otherwise directly influence the employment or academic progress, of individuals with whom they have a personal relationship. This policy does not supersede University-wide provisions relating to noncompetitive appointments of spouses and partners.

SECTION IV. COMPLIANCE

Compliance with this policy may be achieved either by structuring the conditions of the employment or academic association of the related parties so as to avoid or eliminate the prohibited activities or by avoiding the personal relationship that may lead to the prohibited activities. The structuring of the employment or academic association must be done after appropriate consultation and must not unreasonably disadvantage either party. In rare circumstances, the University may determine that a prohibited activity should not be eliminated because to do so would unreasonably disadvantage one or both of the parties, although the conflict of interest still must be addressed.

When a power disparity exists in the employment or academic association of the individuals in the relationship, special care must be taken to protect the interests of the subordinate in any restructuring. Some employment or academic associations cannot be restructured because they involve inherent conflicts of interest that cannot be eliminated without unreasonably disadvantaging either party. Relationships between instructors and students currently in their classes and those between advisors and their current advisees will almost always fall within this category.

The President shall adopt procedures to implement this policy.

SECTION V. CONSULTATION

Consultation regarding compliance is necessary to ensure that appropriate steps are taken to eliminate conflicts of interest, to avoid the compromised objective judgment likely to result from such conflicts, and to ensure that the steps taken will not unreasonably disadvantage either party.

SECTION VI. DISCIPLINE

Engaging in the prohibited activities is a violation of this policy and may lead to disciplinary action up to and including termination of employment or academic dismissal. When violations occur, the nature of the consultation undertaken or the failure to consult will be considered when determining the appropriate discipline. All such discipline shall be in accordance with the appropriate University employment policies.

PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES

In order to ensure that academic and employment decisions are free from conflicts of interest and the compromised objective judgment likely to result from such conflicts, and to protect the integrity of the academic and work environments of the University, the University's Policy on Nepotism and Consensual Sexual or Romantic Relationships states that members of the University community who are in personal relationships with each other, as defined in that policy, may not participate in or directly influence the hiring, promotion, supervision, evaluation, determination of salary, or grading or advising of one another, and may not otherwise directly influence the academic progress or employment of one another.

COMPLIANCE

Compliance with this policy may be achieved either by structuring the conditions of the employment or academic association of the related parties so as to avoid or eliminate the prohibited activities or by avoiding the personal relationship that may lead to the prohibited activities. The structuring of the employment or academic association must be done in consultation with an appropriate administrator, and must not unreasonably disadvantage either party. Under this policy, an appropriate administrator is a supervisor, department head, unit or University human resource consultant or equal opportunity officer, or dean.

When a power disparity exists in the employment or academic association of the individuals in the relationship, special care must be taken to protect the interests of the subordinate in any such restructuring. Some employment or academic associations cannot be restructured because they involve inherent conflicts of interest that cannot be eliminated without unreasonably disadvantaging either party. Relationships between instructors and students currently in their classes and those between advisors and their current advisees will almost always fall within this category.

CONSULTATION

Members of the University community who are in personal relationships with each other and are likely to be placed in a position to hire, promote, supervise, evaluate, determine salary, grade or advise, or otherwise directly influence the academic progress or employment of the other person in the relationship, must consult with an appropriate administrator to seek guidance about eliminating and avoiding existing and potential conflicts arising from the relationship. Individuals are also encouraged to consult with an appropriate administrator to determine whether a particular relationship falls within the scope of the policy. The Office of Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action (EOAA) is the primary Presidential designee for implementation of the policy. EOAA is the primary resource for consultation because of its familiarity with the issues raised; its expertise in handling such situations, some of which are very sensitive matters; and its ability to ensure that cases are handled fairly and consistently. However, if they prefer, individuals in the relationship may consult with one of the following administrators: a supervisor, department head, unit or University human resources consultant or equal opportunity officer, or dean. The purpose of the consultation is to ensure (1) that arrangements are made to eliminate and avoid conflicts of interest and compromised objective judgment, when that can be done in conformity with this policy, (2) that the individuals do not hire, promote, supervise, evaluate, determine salary, grade or advise, or otherwise directly influence each other's academic progress or employment, (3) that the arrangements do not unreasonably disadvantage either party, particularly a subordinate in the employment or academic association, and (4) that the arrangements are disclosed, as necessary and appropriate, to the administrators who need to know about them in order to implement the arrangements or the policy. In rare circumstances, the EOAA, in consultation with an appropriate administrator, may determine that a prohibited activity should not be eliminated because to do so would unreasonably disadvantage one or both parties, although the conflict of interest still must be addressed.

The administrator consulted pursuant to this policy shall take the following steps:

1. Discuss the employment or academic relationship, and resulting conflicts of interest, with each individual in the relationship.

2. Discuss with each individual in the relationship the steps to be taken to eliminate and avoid compromised objective judgment and existing or potential conflicts of interest.

3. Document the information received from the individuals, the conflicts considered, the steps to be taken to avoid and eliminate the conflicts, the manner in which the planned changes will be accomplished, and the necessary and appropriate disclosures. The documentation should be kept in a secured file, separate from any employee's personnel file. The documentation may be forwarded to EOAA for safekeeping.

4. Protect the privacy of the individuals involved and the security of the documentation created during the consultation, to the extent appropriate under the circumstances.

5. In cases where the consultation takes place with an appropriate administrator other than EOAA, the administrator must contact EOAA before implementation to discuss the conflicts considered, the steps to be taken to avoid and eliminate the conflicts, the manner in which the planned changes will be accomplished and periodically reviewed, the necessary and appropriate disclosures, and the relevant documentation. Consultation with EOAA will help to ensure fair, reasonable, and consistent implementation of this policy. This discussion with EOAA may be accomplished without revealing the identities of the individuals in the relationship.

POLICY VIOLATIONS

EOAA is available to assist administrators, when requested, in determining whether a violation of this policy has occurred and in addressing policy violations in a fair and consistent manner. As with other University policy violations, discipline is issued by the unit or department, and not by EOAA. Third party complaints concerning possible violations of this policy are to be directed to EOAA.

RELATED MATTERS

Potential Connections with Sexual Harassment Claims

Individuals should be aware that consensual sexual or romantic relationships may result in claims of sexual harassment because the voluntariness of the consent may be questioned when a power differential exists between the individuals in the relationship. The power disparity between a supervisor and a subordinate makes such relationships vulnerable to exploitation and to claims of exploitation. This is especially true of relationships involving faculty and their students. If a sexual harassment claim subsequently is filed by one of the individuals in the relationship, the argument that the relationship was consensual will be evaluated in light of this power differential.

Individuals should also be aware that consensual sexual or romantic relationships may give rise to third party claims of sexual harassment based on allegations that real or perceived favoritism, or a resulting change in the employment or academic environment, unreasonably interferes with the third party's employment or education by creating an environment that is intimidating, hostile or offensive. Such claims are often avoided through proactive consultation regarding the potential negative impact of personal relationships on the employment and educational experience of others and regarding ways to ameliorate or minimize the potential for such negative impact. Supervisors and other responsible administrators must take timely and appropriate action when they know or have reason to know that behavior that might be sexual harassment is occurring. EOAA is available to consult on these matters.

PRIOR RELATIONSHIPS

When a personal relationship as defined in Section 2 of the policy has ended, there may be existing or potential conflicts of interest, and the compromised objective judgment likely to result from such conflicts, that warrant the type of consultation described above.

NONCOMPETITIVE HIRES

This policy does not supersede the provisions of the Guidelines for Academic Searches relating to Noncompetitive Appointments of spouses and partners.

AMENDMENTS AND INTERPRETATIONS OF ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

Proposals for amendments to these procedures may be submitted at any time to the Senate Committee on Faculty Affairs, which, after consulting with the Sexual Harassment Board, will seek the concurrence of the Senate Consultative Committee for any amendments. The Senate Consultative Committee will refer the recommended amendments to the President or a designee for review and final approval.

VICTOR BLOOMFIELD, Chair
SENATE CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE

KENT BALES, Chair
FACULTY AFFAIRS COMMITTEE

DISCUSSION:

Before turning to Professor Frazier to lead the discussion of the proposed Nepotism and Consensual Sexual or Romantic Relationship Policy, Professor Bales drew senators attention to a proposed resolution on Faculty-Student Relations prepared by and currently under consideration by the Policy Anaylsis and Gender Impact Committee of the University Commission on Women. While the Faculty Affairs Committee has not voted on the resolution, he said, it has discussed it and a clear majority appear friendly to it.

Professor Pat Frazier, chair of the Sexual Harassment Board, said the existing Nepotism Policy was combined with the Consensual Relationships Policy because they deal with similar issues (i.e. conflicts of interest).

The purpose section lays out the philosophy of the policy which is that dual relationships in which individuals have both a personal relationship and academic or employment association, can lead to conflicts of interest that impair objective judgment. The focus of the policy is to eliminate these conflicts of interest which is similar to the policy passed by the Senate last May.

The definition section defines the scope of the policy and to whom it applies, which is faculty, staff, students, and any individual supervising or evaluating University faculty, students, or staff in the performance of University activities. The May 1997 Senate policy applied to all persons involved in the mission and services of the University and the Subcommittee felt that was too broad. Personal relationship is defined as a marital or other committed relationship, significant relationship, or consensual sexual or romantic relationship. This reflects the merging of the Nepotism Policy and the May 1997 Senate policy on consensual sexual or romantic relationships.

The heart of the policy is in the prohibited activities section. It states that members of the University community may not directly influence the employment or academic progress of individuals with whom they have a personal relationship. Again, this is similar to the May 1997 Senate policy.

Section IV deals with compliance which may be achieved either by restructuring the conditions of employment or academic association or by avoiding the personal relationship. The restructuring must be done in consultation with an appropriate administrator and must not unreasonably disadvantage either party. In rare circumstances, it may be determined that a prohibited activity should not be eliminated because to do so would result in unreasonable disadvantage to one or both parties.

The May 1997 Senate policy contained language prohibiting relationships between faculty and students currently in their classes and between advisors and their current advisees. Because the new proposal was broadened to include other kinds of relationships, such as family relationships, the revised proposal recognizes that some employment or academic associations cannot be restructured because they involve inherent conflicts of interest that cannot be eliminated without unreasonably disadvantaging either party. The above-described relationships will almost always fall within this category.

Section V describes the purpose of the consultation, which is to ensure that appropriate steps are taken to eliminate conflicts of interest, to avoid the compromised objective judgment likely to result from such conflicts, and to ensure that steps taken will not unreasonably disadvantage either party. The consultation process is described in detail in the procedures. The philosophy behind the consultation process is similar to the May 1997 Senate policy although it is much more detailed.

Section VI concerns discipline and states that engaging in the prohibited activities is a violation of the policy and may lead to disciplinary action up to and including termination of employment or academic dismissal. The nature of the consultation undertaken or the failure to consult will be considered when determining the appropriate discipline. Again, this is similar to the 1997 Senate policy.

The administrative procedures document is not intended to be a Regental policy and therefore does not require action, but it is being presented for information. The consultation process is described in detail and allows individuals some flexibility with whom they may consult about restructuring their academic or employment associations in order to eliminate conflicts of interest arising out of personal relationships. Although the Office of Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action (EOAA) is the primary resource for consultation because of its expertise in this area, individuals may also consult with various other administrators, such as a supervisor, department head, human resource consultant, etc. If the consultation is done with an administrator outside the EOAA, that administrator must contact the EOAA to ensure that the restructuring is appropriate, although the identities of the individuals involved do not need to be disclosed. Although individuals have flexibility with regard to whom they may consult, part of the consultation process is determining who needs to know about the arrangements in order to implement them.

The procedures also address potential conflicts that may arise from prior relationships.

The final section describes the amending process. The suggestion is that proposals for amendments should be submitted to the Senate Committee on Faculty Affairs (SCFA) which will consult with the Sexual Harassment Board and seek the concurrence of the Senate Consultative Committee (SCC). The SCC will refer the amendments to the president or a designee for review and approval.

Dr. Jane Whiteside, chair of the Policy Analysis and Gender Impact Committee of the Commission on Women for the Twin Cities Campus, said that last year the committee reviewed the Senate policy and made two recommendations. The first concerned problems associated with favoritism that arises from consensual relationships. The current version of the policy addresses this issue more than the version from last spring, which Commission members were pleased to see..

The second recommendation related to the prohibitive language in the earlier document, particularly for students and faculty. That language has been removed from the new proposal and is an area of concern. Although there are issues of favoritism in consensual relationships, other issues are also important such as the power and responsibility of the faculty and the vulnerability of the students. Many Commission members do not believe this issue is adequately addressed in the current version.

Dr. Whiteside said the resolution distributed by the Policy Analysis and Gender Impact Committee is an attempt to develop some language to illustrate the committeeís concerns that are not addressed in the new policy. The first paragraph describes the problem and what can result from consensual sexual or romantic relationships between students and faculty or between supervisors and subordinates. The second paragraph includes some of the language from the 1984 policy and then elaborates on it. The last paragraph discusses the potential for abuse of the power differential between supervisor and subordinate and urges the Senate to issue a statement concerning those circumstances.

The floor was then opened for discussion.

A senator urged the Senate to avoid using wording that says romantic relationships between faculty and students are inappropriate. In an institution of this size, he argued, it is not uncommon for graduate students and faculty to be the same age and choose to engage in a relationship.

"Is notification of consensual relationships mandatory?" inquired another. "Yes," replied Professor Frazier.

This policy represents a potential invasion of privacy and more administrative overload, said one person. Has the committee considered whether it might be better to advise faculty members of conflicts of interest and if they fail to follow the rules, then they will suffer the consequences? Professor Frazier said the committee discussed the need for consultation, which the EOAA already engages in. It is the perspective of the EOAA and Subcommittee that consultation is important and the intent of it is to be helpful rather than disciplinary.

Several other questions were posed: How does notification work with the relatively short life of an administrator and the long life of a consensual relationship? Is a person protected by disclosing the relationship once? Whose responsibility is it to keep new people informed? Professor Frazier responded that individuals can consult directly with the EOAA, where personnel may change but records remain, or with a supervisor or EEO officer in a unit. Even if consultation is with someone outside the EOAA, there will be a record because that person must consult with the EOAA. The Subcommittee discussed on several occasions the importance of a paper trail as protection for individuals who have done what they are supposed to do.

Is it mandatory that relationships that are disclosed be put in writing? When there is a paper trail, to whom does this trail go and for how long? Professor Frazier said the EOAA is not trying to keep a list of all consensual relationships. Written information is part of the protection. Data privacy laws cover these kinds of records.

Another senator expressed concern over the power being vested in administrators who may change over time and whose personal views on these issues may vary. He preferred the involvement of the EOAA and asked whether the department head had to be involved? Ms. Sweitzer responded that the only involvement necessary by anyone other than the EOAA is in the implementation of the restructuring.

In a final comment, a senator noted his concern that with this policy the University will be compelling members of the University community to disclose that they are gay, even though they may not want to do so.

President Yudof discussed the capital and supplemental requests to the State of Minnesota using a slide presentation. He said support within the legislature has been unbelievable, as well as from faculty, students, and alumni. Although most of the money requested is for facilities, the President is stressing a people-centered strategy. This means that academic excellence is driven by top-notch faculty working with highly-trained support personnel. Recruitment and retention are dependent upon facilities and equipment that meet instructors needs, an environment that values and cultivates intellectual vitality, and competitive compensation. Students will be drawn by an excellent faculty, highly ranked programs, and state-of-the-art facilities.

The capital plan is a four-year plan that has a number of parts. It differs from past requests in that two-thirds of the request is for renovation and only one-third is for new buildings. It tries to preserve the past by designating the Mall area as a historic district and extending the Mall to the Mississippi River. It also identifies key academic programs in conjunction with the preservation.

The proposal as a whole includes benefits for Womenís Studies and the language departments, but the emphasis has been placed on items that will receive votes from the legislature since they see it in terms of employment and job creation. Humanities have not been abandoned. Other areas to be emphasized are a student and University friendly community through new residence halls, new parking, improving classrooms, compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, improved tunnel system, and health and environmental safety. It is being hooked into the sesquicentennial celebration in 2001.

The areas that were identified for deferred capital expenditures include the Mall, Historic Knoll, Health Sciences, St. Paul, West Bank, sports and recreation on the Twin Cities campus, a new math and science building at Morris, a library at Duluth, new housing for existing programs at Crookston, and investments in the Agricultural Experiment Stations. The President then presented a slide showing the breakdown in dollars. Unlike previous budgets, there are no rankings attached to the items.

The budget has received the full support of Governor Carlson. The House has left the bill intact through the Education Committee and it is now before the Capital Investment Committee. The Senate is putting their bill together this week.

In response to the written ìQuestion to the Presidentî that was submitted (see Item XI below), the President said the total request is $249 million. In previous years, the Senate has structured the bill such that the University pays one-third of the principle and interest on money borrowed for capital improvements. This year, the Governor proposed that the State pay off the principle and interest on $172 million and the University on $77 million. The Universityís portion does not need to be paid off in 4 years. Instead it will likely be 20-25 years. This cost represents approximately 0.7% of the total University budget or 1.3% of O & M, state specials, and indirect cost recovery budgets. Options to pay for this include indirect cost recovery, internal budget modifications, or other unrestricted revenue growths.

The supplemental request of $41.5 million includes $13 million for recurring salary increases for faculty and staff, $15 million in non-recurring funds for faculty setup and equipment, $4.5 million in non-recurring funds for classroom improvements, and $9 million in recurring funds for academic program initiatives. This request has also received Governor Carlsonís full support. The House and Senate are currently at or above $22 million for recurring funds which is very good news, although there is hope to still get more. The bad news is that non-recurring funds have been cut to between $10-14 million.

In conclusion, the President said he believes the University has launched a good campaign. Endorsements have been received by the major agricultural organizations, the Minnesota Newspaper Association, the Student Legislative Coalition, and the Minnesota Medical Association.

The following written question was submitted and the President incorporated the response during Item X. Presidentís Report.

I understand that the University estimates that our portion of the capital improvement request will be approximately $80 million over the next four years. Would you please describe what sources of funds will be used to cover this obligation, and what effect this will have on other aspects of the University budget (including faculty salaries, IDC expenditures, etc.)?

Professor Victor Bloomfield, chair of the Senate Consultative Committee (SCC), kept his remarks brief because the Senate was running overtime. He updated senators on issues under discussion by SCC, which include identifying new resources for professional development leaves or sabbaticals, health insurance options, Academic Health Center concerns, implications of overcomplicated or over-interpreted policies, policies relating to non-tenure track faculty, student evaluations of teaching, consultation with college consultative committees , discussions with President Yudof and Vice President Bruininks, and developing relations with the Regents.

The campus community of the University of Minnesota, Morris, mourns the sudden death by stroke, on January 2, 1998, of Edith Rodgers Farrell, professor of French. Dr. Farrell, an internationally recognized authority on Marguerite Yourcenar and president of the North American Marguerite Yourcenar Society, was also an enthusiastic classroom instructor and student adviser. She encouraged undergraduate research, working with teams of Morris students on the translation and annotation of early documents in French from the Archives of the Archdiocese of St. Paul, Minnesota. She promoted the enjoyment of French culture at Morris by founding the UMM French club, "Entre Nous," and the local chapter of the national honorary society for French, Pi Delta Phi. It was she who organized an annual French poetry-reading contest, arranged for French satellite television reception on the campus, developed an electronic archive of Francophone literary selections, and carried out many other projects of benefit to students.

Edith Farrell, with her spouse, Professor C. Frederick Farrell, Jr., who co-authored many scholarly works with her, was a member of the Modern Language Association, the American Association of Teachers of French, and the Foreign Language Association of the Red River, among other organizations. She held a B.A. (with honors) from Allegheny College in Pennsylvania and the M.A. and Ph.D. in French from the University of Iowa. She was a member of Phi Beta Kappa. She taught at Lake Forest College in Illinois before coming with her husband to UMM in 1965.

Funeral services for Edith Farrell were held on January 6, 1998, at the Federated Church, Morris, with burial at Summit Cemetery in Morris. The immediate surviving family includes -- in addition to her husband, Fred -- two sons, Charles and Stephen, and two grandchildren. Contributions in memory of Edith Farrell may be made to the University of Minnesota, Morris, c/o Office of Fund Development, UMM, Morris, MN 56267, or to an environmental cause of the donor's choice.

Esther F. Freier, endowed professor of medical technology and chemist in the laboratories of the former University of Minnesota Hospital and Clinic, died of cancer on December 17, 1997, at the age of 72.

Professor Freier was born on March 3, 1925 in Hibbing, Minnesota, the daughter of a rabbi, Ephraim Freier and his wife Regina. Her family moved to Minneapolis when she was a child. She graduated "with distinction" in medical technology from the University of Minnesota in 1946 and earned an M.S. degree in physiological chemistry in 1956. Professor Freier spent her entire career at the University, of which 45 years were in the clinical chemistry laboratories and 40 years as a faculty member. She rose through the ranks of the Medical School, achieving the rank of professor in 1969. When she retired in 1991, Professor Freier held the only endowed professorship in medical technology in the nation.

One of her many achievements was co-authoring the first paper dealing with quality control in clinical chemistry (1958). It won a number of awards including the Hilkowitz Award for original research and the Scientific Products Foundation Award for contributions to clinical chemistry. She later received a Professional Achievement Award from the American Society for Medical Technology for innumerable contributions to medical technology and the G.T. Evans Award for scientific achievements from The Academy of Clinical Laboratory Physicians and Scientists. Her honor societies included: Orbs, Sigma Delta Epsilon, Iota Sigma Pi, Alpha Mu Tau, and Sigma Xi.

Among her professional accomplishments, Professor Freier was president of the Minnesota Society of Medical Technologists (1958-59); editor of the Journal of Medical Technology (1952-72); and president of The Academy of Clinical Laboratory Physicians and Scientists (1992-93), the only woman to hold this position.

Professor Freier was a perfectionist, who had high expectations for others. Her graduate students' research was impeccable and their theses reflected excellence in research design, performance, and writing.

Many individuals would characterize Professor Freier as a highly competent, but rather quiet and unassuming individual. However, she was a champion of many causes, especially those involving women. She mentored several for academic and scientific positions, some of whom are employed at the University of Minnesota today.

Professor Freier is survived by several cousins.

Professor Emeritus Jerome (Jerry) E. Gates of Crystal, Minnesota, died in an accident by Lake Mille Lacs on January 24, 1998. Professor Gates was a life long teacher and an example to all with whom he had contact. His tenure at the University of Minnesota was highlighted by many teaching and service awards, including the H. T. Morse-Amoco Award for Outstanding Contributions to Undergraduate Education; recognition for Meritorious Contributions to Student Life by the U of MN Student Alumni Association and other Student Organizations; and the Alfred L. Vaughan Award for Outstanding Service to the General College.

Students were eager to enroll in his courses which included crafts and related subjects; culturally diverse art and architecture explorations; restorative art for mortuary science students; general arts; commercial art; and sculpture. He supervised graduate teaching associates from the departments of design, studio arts, art education and art history who taught in General College art laboratory courses.

His commissioned work ranged from church furnishings, vitreous enamel work and kinetic sculpture to jewelry design and light/sound show accompaniment. In recent years he found another outlet for his creative genius on the computer. His brilliant, but short-lived forays into the possibilities for producing art through technology are reflections of what might have been.

Programs that Professor Gates designed and/or developed include:

University of Minnesota Upward Bound Program, Oak Park Heights State Prison

Art Program, Antioch-Minneapolis Communiversity, and Project Newgate

Professor Gates was active in his community, both spiritually and civically throughout his life. He was a passionate genealogist and horticulturist. He is survived by his wife, Marty and children, Mary, Elizabeth and Pat, siblings, Dolly, Jim and Greg, seven grandchildren and a multitude of extended family and friends.

A letter that was penned by a friend of Professor Gates for his final passing expresses how his family and friends regarded him. It reads:

Dear Jerry:

How can we all thank you for the joy you've brought to our lives? Today we're sitting together in pain and frustration wondering if we took enough time to let you know what a treasure you were to all of us.

And now as we reflect on your life we appreciate once again what made you wonderful.

Where is there a father that talks with his children, instead of at them?

When we asked for your opinion Pop, you wanted to listen to ours.

Where is there a teacher who thinks that sharing wisdom is more important than giving information?

When our class art project looked awkward to us you said it looked Avant-garde to you.

Where is there a neighbor whom we can ask for help with dignity?

When we needed assistance, you shared what was yours, without making us feel poor or defeated.

Where is there a husband that thinks that falling in love should last a lifetime?

When I felt tired and rumpled, you called me your Moonbeam.

Where is there a friend who knows our weaknesses but only acknowledges our strengths?

When we did something right you called us amazing.

Where is there a home that welcomes strangers with the warmth of family?

When we were lonely you said? "Pull out the table and sit down there's more chairs in the garage."

Where is there a sage who can talk about theology and archeology, about sociology and fishing-ology, all in the same visit?

When we were ignorant you taught us without making us feel embarrassed.

Where is there a man of faith who lives it louder than he preaches it?

When we were discouraged you shared your belief like a soothing balm.

Jerry, you were the only person in our lives who ever said we did something that was stupendous. Jerry, did you even have a clue about how many lives have felt blessed by your humor, your patience, and your selfless love? There is a separate and deep-felt reason for each person sitting here today to stand and say: "Jerry Gates is the finest man I've known. "It's true; you were always there for us, and whether we called you Jerome or Jerry, Romie or Pop, today we are all calling you: simply the best.

Sincerely,

Your Family and Friends

Professor Donald Keith began his employment with the University of Minnesota, Crookston (UMC) in September of 1971 as a faculty member of the Agriculture Division. He served for over 20 years as an exemplary faculty member. He taught courses in agronomy, was coordinator of the Division internship program, and served as academic advisor to numerous students. He received outstanding service awards from UMC student organizations six different years during his UMC tenure. He served on numerous campus committees and was held in highest esteem by everyone on campus. He was an inspirational teacher, a concerned caring adviser and counselor, a service-oriented individual and a thoughtful person who challenged students to achieve their potential. The UMC students, faculty, and administration and Crookston community appreciate his contributions and will miss him.

The Department of English announces with much sadness the death of Justin O'Connell, longtime adjunct faculty member of Composition, in December; he had just turned 80.

Justin began his teaching career at the University in 1952 as a teacher of evening classes while employed at Honeywell, where he worked in sales promotion and often taught classes on writing and editing for his colleagues. Throughout much of his long association with the University, he taught at least two classes a week, most focusing on introductory composition, professional or business writing, and editing. In recent years Justin had with great enthusiasm taught sections of the first-year required composition course; one of his favorite offerings was a course in professional editing, which he developed himself and taught for over a decade. A shrewd editor and excellent writer, Justin was known for bringing to the editorial process the kind of humane, sensible approach that motivated students to learn and boosted their self-confidence.

Justin's devotion to his students was legendary. He would often come to campus early and stay well beyond the end of his evening class to work with students individually, and was known to call them or send follow-up information between classes. He urged his students to call him at home and to stay in contact with him after they finished his classes if they needed any professional advice or a letter of recommendation. Many did, and he continued to advise alumni who took his courses years ago. His students expressed profound appreciation for his guidance and excellent teaching; many felt he was the finest teacher they had in their undergraduate careers. In 1995, he was honored with the CEE Distinguished Teaching Award for his outstanding instruction in the Program in Composition.

Justin had a great passion for teaching, often saying that he felt blessed to be able to teach classes at the University. He believed that it was his mission to pass on to his students those talents that God had given to him. He remained active as a teacher of composition courses in CEE, usually teaching one section of introductory composition each term. He had just returned from teaching his class on the night of his death.

Justin was also very involved in his church, St. John's Byzantine Catholic Church, where he was ordained as a Deacon on July 29, 1995.

Justin is survived by his wife Margarite, six children, and 14 grandchildren.

The University community will miss Justin--a dedicated teacher and fine colleague with a wonderful sense of humor and a lifelong devotion to helping others.

Robert Orton III, associate professor of mathematics education in the Department of Curriculum and Instruction, died of cancer at Unity Hospital in Fridley on January 12. He was 43.

Orton joined the college in 1986 as an assistant professor. Before his appointment to the faculty, he taught high school mathematics in California and Virginia.

He graduated as valedictorian of his high school class in 1972 and summa cum laude with a degree in mathematics from Dartmouth College in 1976. He studied mathematical logic at Friedrich-Wilhelms Universitat in Bonn, West Germany, as both a Fulbright and Rotary Scholar in 1978-79.

Orton received two masterís degrees, one in philosophy and one in statistics with an emphasis in educational measurement, from Stanford University in 1983. In 1984 he received licensure as a secondary school mathematics teacher from Stanford, and in 1985, he received a Ph.D. in education, also from Stanford.

In addition to his wife, Marianne, Orton is survived by four children; Robbie, John, Clare, and Neil. The Rob Orton Childrenís College Tuition Fund has been established; contributions may be sent to Marianne Orton, 3425 Rodeo Dr., Blaine, MN 55449.

Graduate students and faculty members in the college are developing a book of remembrances. To contribute to this project, contact Margaret DiBlasio (C&1) at 5-7818 or dibla001@tc.umn.edu.

The meeting was adjourned at 4:55 p.m.

Martha Kvanbeck
Clerk of the Senate