MOTION:

To approve the following Sexual Harassment Policy:

Sexual harassment subverts the mission of the University and threatens the careers and well-being of students, faculty, and staff. The harm may be compounded in cases of sexual harassment of students by faculty or subordinates by their supervisors 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.

"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.

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.

KENT BALES, Chair
FACULTY AFFAIRS COMMITTEE

Professor Kent Bales, chair of the Senate Committee on Faculty Affairs (SCFA), introduced the discussion of the Sexual Harassment Policy and drew senators attention to a handout that identified the changes in the policy. He then introduced Professor Patricia Frazier, chair of the Sexual Harassment Board and member of the SCFA subcommittee charged with revision of the policy.

Professor Frazier recalled for senators that last spring the Senate approved a Sexual Harassment and Consensual Relationships Policy, which was then forwarded to the President for consideration. The President recommended that the policy be divided into two distinct policies and expressed concern with some of the provisions. In accordance with Senate pactice, he returned the document to the Senate for reconsideration. The SCFA subcommittee charged with the task of separating and revising the document has consulted with the Senate Consultative Committee (SCC), the Academic Staff Advisory Committee (ASAC), Commission on Women, Equal Employment Opportunity for Women Committee, Civil Service Committee, General Counsel’s Office, the administration, and the Regents’ Office.

Only one change has been proposed and that involves the Purpose section. Th change was made as a result of feedback following the last Senate meeting. Before the change, there was an implication that some forms of harassment are more reprehensible than others. The change is not considered substantive. The substance of the policy is the same as the policy the University has been operating under since 1984 and uses the standard definition of sexual harassment according to both federal and state law.

With no discussion, the proposed policy as presented was overwhelmingly approved.

The Nepotism and Consensual Sexual and Romantic Relationships Policy below differs in several ways from the version distributed for information in the agenda of the meeting 19 February. The policy has benefitted from discussion by the Senate Consultative Committee and other interested boards and committees and has been approved by the Senate Committee on Faculty Affairs. As a consequence, Section II ("Definitions"), Subd. 1, of the policy has been rephrased and Section IV ("Compliance") reordered and rewritten. In the "Administrative Procedures," the "Compliance" section has been changed to echo the revisions in the policy. Also, "Consultation" has been changed in two ways, a redundant sentence removed and a requirement added that the Office of Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action approve "any implementation arrangements." Finally, "Potential Violations of the Code of Conduct" has been added as a companion to "Potential Connections with Sexual Harassment Claims." Together they delimit the scope of a policy, such as this one, that manages conflicts of interest rather than prohibiting them. A variorum version of the changes will be made available.

If approved by the Senate, this policy will be forwarded to the President for his approval and submission to the Board of Regents as a Regents policy. The Administrative Procedures will be sent to the President for his approval and their adoption as the procedures implementing the policy as called for within the policy.

To approve the Nepotism and Consensual Sexual or Romantic Relationships Policy and attached Administrative Procedures:

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 decisionmaking 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.

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

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

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 Universitywide 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. Under such circumstances, safeguards must be provided so that decisions made by either of the parties will be made impartially.

When a power disparity exists in the employment or academic association of the individuals in the personal relationship, special care must be taken to protect the interests of the subordinate, especially when dealing with relationships between instructors and their current students or between advisors and their current advisees. Because of the trust accorded to the faculty member or advisor by the student, the power differential inherent in the academic association, the difficulty of making alternative arrangements for grading and evaluation, and the risk of real or perceived favoritism toward the student in the relationship and potential harm to this student and other students, such relationships are very unwise and may violate other University policies, even when the prohibited activities have been eliminated.

The President shall adopt procedures to implement this policy.

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.

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 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. In rare circumstances, the EOAA may determine that a prohibited activity should not be eliminated because to do so would unreasonably disadvantage one or both of the parties. Under such circumstances, safeguards must be provided so that decisions made by either of the parties will be made impartially. 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 personal relationship, special care must be taken to protect the interests of the subordinate, especially when dealing with relationships between instructors and their current students or between advisors and their current advisees. Because of the trust accorded to the faculty member or advisor by the student, the power differential inherent in the academic association, the difficulty of making alternative arrangements for grading and evaluation, and the risk of real or perceived favoritism toward the student in the relationship and potential harm to this student and other students, such relationships are very unwise and may violate other university policies, even when the prohibited activities have been eliminated.

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.

The administrator consulted pursuant to this policy shall take the following steps in a timely manner:

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 reviewed, 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. Approval by the EOAA is required for any implementation arrangements to ensure fair, reasonable, and consistent implementation of this policy. The discussion with EOAA may be accomplished without revealing the identities of the individuals in the relationship.

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.

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.

The Code of Conduct establishes that members of the university community (as there defined) "are expected to adhere to the highest ethical standards of professional conduct and integrity." Because of the special obligations of faculty (including all instructional staff) toward their students and of supervisors toward their subordinates, actions taken by faculty members or supervisors in pursuing consensual sexual or romantic relationships with their current students or subordinates may harm the academic and work environment, whether the advances are welcomed or rebuffed. Such actions may violate the standards articulated in the Code of Conduct, even when the activities prohibited by the Nepotism and Consensual Sexual or Romantic Relationships Policy have been eliminated.

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.

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

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.

KENT BALES, Chair
FACULTY AFFAIRS COMMITTEE

Professor Frazier highlighted the changes to the Nepotism and Consensual Sexual or Romantic Relationships Policy. One involved the definition of "members of the University community" and another, in the Compliance section, clarified what is meant by addressing the conflict.

The most substantive change appears in the second paragraph of the Compliance section and is an articulation of why certain kinds of relationships pose difficulties.

A few changes were also made to the Administrative Procedures. In the Consultation section, the role of the Office of Equal Employment Opportunity is clarified, and a new section was added explaining the links to the Code of Conduct Policy. The Commission on Women supported the addition of this new section as an alternative to the ethics statement that was discussed at the February Senate meeting.

A senator asked whether the authors would accept as a friendly amendment language that would ‘encourage’ rather than ‘madate’ consultation since it is an invasion of privacy and would increase the administrative workload. Responsibility should rest on the individuals involved in the relationship, he argued. The Subcommittee said it could not accept the proposal as a friendly amendment. Discipline is only needed when individuals engage in prohibited activities. The consultation is not intended to be an item of discipline, but as a way to ensure that all potential conflicts have been considered.

The senator then moved for a suspension of the rules to consider a formal amendment to the document, but the motion to suspend failed on a vote of 40 in favor and 61 opposed.

Another senator said he would be more comfortable with the policy if the definition of personal relationship in Section II.2 was amended to clarify that ‘personal relationship’ does not include the commitment that members of the University community may have towards others as members of that community. It may be argued that this is not a personal relationship, he said, but many feel a strong sense of loyalty and commitment to others as members of the University community.

With no further discussion, the policy and procedures as presented were approved on a vote of 102 to 11.

To amend the Uniform Grading and Transcript Policy, effective Fall 1999, as follows: (language to be deleted is struck out; new language is underlined)

. . . .

If a student officially withdraws from a course during the first two weeks of classes, there shall be no record of that course registration entered on the student's transcript.

There shall be a symbol W, withdrawal, entered upon a student's record when the student officially withdraws from a course in accordance with procedures established by the student's college or campus. The W will be entered on the transcript irrespective of the student's academic standing in that course if the student withdraws from the course during the third through sixth eighth week of class (second or third weeks of summer sessions). Withdrawal in the seventh ninth or later week of classes (fourth or later in summer sessions) shall require approval of the college and may not be granted solely because a student is failing the course; there must extenuating non-academic circumstances justifying late withdrawal.

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

The Committee on Educational Policy recommends this change to accommodate the grading policy to the change to semesters.

LAURA COFFIN KOCH, Chair
EDUCATIONAL POLICY COMMITTEE

Professor Laura Koch, chair of the Educational Policy Committee (SCEP), introduced the above motion to amend the Uniform Grading and Transcript Policy for the conversion to semesters.

With no discussion, the motion was unanimously approved.

To amend the Classes, Schedules, and Final Examinations Policy, as follows: [new language is underlined]

In order for students to advance their educational programs, plan their class schedules in a rational manner, be certain of the final examination schedule, and maximize the efficient use of University facilities, the Senate adopts the following policies governing classes, schedules, and final examinations.

a) Each campus of the University shall adopt a standard class schedule of 50-minute classes with an appropriate change period between classes. These class schedules will be reported annually to the Senate for information. Classes of lengths other than 50 minutes are permitted, subject only to the Senate policies governing the relationship between contact hours, credits, and student workload.

b) Examinations during the term (e.g., mid-terms) shall be given only during the regular class sessions, and may not be held at times other than the regularly scheduled class period, subject to the following conditions.

1. Exceptions may be made by instructors only for the purpose of giving make-up exams.

2. Any examinations outside of regular class time during the term must be approved by the dean of the college.

3. Any examinations to be held outside of regular class time must be listed in the

   published class schedule.

4. Accommodation must be provided to any student who encounters an academic conflict, such as between an examination scheduled outside of regular class time and the regular class period of another course, or if two exams are scheduled to be held simultaneously outside of regular class time.

5. 5. Take-home examinations, by their very nature, are specifically exempted from this policy.

No student shall be permitted to register for classes that overlap. Classes that have any common meeting time are considered to be overlapping, as are any . . .

. . . .

Professor Laura Koch, chair of the Educational Policy Committee (SCEP), introduced Motion 1. It originated as the result of the increasing number of complaints SCEP has received that exams, excluding final exams, are being given at times other than when classes are regularly scheduled to meet. This is causing considerable problems for students who do not know before registering for a class that exams may be given at times outside the regular class hour.

"Can an exam be given during the lab instead of during the lecture time?" inquired a senator. Professor Koch said that was permissible if the lab schedule was published in advance.

Some student senators inquired about work conflicts and Professor Koch said that while the motion does not address that issue specifically, the exam schedule would be published in advance so students would know if a work conflict exists.

Professor Koch also clarified that the policy applies to both undergraduate and graduate courses.

"Does it apply to take-home exams?" asked another. Professor Koch said that it doesn’t and that the motion should be amended to exclude take-home exams. The motion was so amended with the addition of item 5 above.

Another person asked if it would be permissible in cases where there are multiple sections of a class to coordinate a time when students from all sections can take the same exam together, therefore reducing cheating and the need to develop separate exams for each section. Professor Koch replied that it would not be permissible unless it was approved in advance and published in the schedule.

"What happens if students in a small seminar class request a time change?" asked a senator. Again, Professor Koch replied that this would not be permissible under the policy.

In response to a question about implementation, Professor Koch clarified that if approved, the policy would take effect Fall 1999.

The motion, as amended, was then overwhelmingly approved.

To adopt, for 1998-99, the following policy:

Examinations during the term (e.g., midquarters) shall be given only during the regular class sessions, and may not be held at times other than the regularly scheduled class period, subject to the following conditions.

1. Exceptions may be made by instructors only for the purpose of giving make-up exams.

2. Any examinations outside of regular class time during the term must be approved by the dean of the college.

3. Any examinations to be held outside of regular class time must be listed in the published class schedule.

4. Accommodation must be provided to any student who encounters an academic conflict, such as between an examination scheduled outside of regular class time and the regular class period of another course, or if two exams are scheduled to be held simultaneously outside of regular class time.

5. Take-home examinations, by their very nature, are specifically exempted from this policy.

   This policy shall be effective Fall Quarter, 1998.

The Senate Committee on Educational Policy (SCEP) has become aware that in some instances, midquarter and other examinations for a course are scheduled at a time other than that when the class normally meets (for example, a class meets M-W-F 8:00 - 8:50 a.m., and the midquarter exam is scheduled for a Thursday evening at 7:00 p.m.). SCEP finds this practice unacceptable.

In SCEP's judgment, there is an implied agreement with a student who enrolls for a course that has regularly scheduled class meetings during the week: that schedule is the expected and only fixed commitment by the University and by the student. Additional work is expected of students outside of class, but when that work is to be done is largely at the discretion of the student. When instructors schedule in-term exams at times other than the regular class period, it has the potential to create conflicts for a student in other academic course work, in their employment, or in other commitments they may have made, premised on the schedule of classes for which they enrolled. SCEP learned, for example, of a number of students who were enrolled in evening courses and who were forced to choose between taking the mid-quarter exam or attending (another) regularly scheduled class.

Motion 1 incorporates the proposed change in the policy governing classes, schedules, and examinations after the University converts to semesters. Motion 2 adopts the policy effective for the 1998-99 academic year, for the remaining time the University is on quarters.

LAURA COFFIN KOCH, Chair
EDUCATIONAL POLICY COMMITTEE

Professor Laura Koch, chair of the Educational Policy Committee (SCEP), explained that Motion 2 is the same as Motion 1 except that it applies to quarters and would be in effect during 1998-99. She clarified that the same clause concerning take-home examinations that was added to Motion 1 would be added to Motion 2 as well.

Professor Koch was asked whether Saturday exams would be permissible if they were approved by the dean and published in the class schedule and she said, "Yes."

With no further discussion the motion, as amended, was overwhelmingly approved.

To approve the following policy:

The overall performance of degree candidates in each undergraduate collegiate unit shall be judged in relationship to the performance of their peers, and not in relationship to other University students. While many students may be outstanding when they are admitted to a program, the recognition of achievement shall be reserved to those who have excelled in the program itself, relative to their peers.

This policy, for all campuses of the University, is essentially adapted from three earlier policies adopted by the University Senate and Twin Cities Campus Assembly. This proposal differentiates between degrees with distinction and degrees with honors. It requires campuses, colleges, and departments to conform to general guidelines in awarding these degrees.

One new element of this policy is the specific grade point average standards, which are set as part of the larger effort to bring consistency to University policies. In the case of degrees with honors, departments and colleges are expected to set additional requirements (e.g., an honors thesis, completion of honors seminars, etc.). A degree is awarded by the University, not by a college or department or campus, so it seems to the Senate Committee on Educational Policy (SCEP) appropriate that there be University-wide standards with respect to degrees with honors and with distinction.

SCEP does NOT propose a fixed percentage limit of students who may obtain a degree with distinction or with honors. To set a percentage would mean that students would not know, at the time of graduation, whether or what level of honors or distinction they had received, because those calculations could not be made until after all grades were turned in. Use of a percentage would also mean that there would be a floating target for students seeking to obtain a degree with honors or with distinction. For these reasons, SCEP concluded after considerable debate that stipulation of grade points averages was the most reasonable course. degrees.

SCEP may periodically review all existing honors programs for appropriate consistency throughout the University, and will report the results of those reviews to the Senate.

LAURA COFFIN KOCH, Chair
EDUCATIONAL POLICY COMMITTEE

Professor Laura Koch, chair of the Educational Policy Committee (SCEP), presented the Degrees with Distinction and Degrees with Honors Policy. She said it brings together several polices that are currently in effect and provides agreement as to what the requirements are for graduating with distinction and/or honors from the University.

The initiative in establishing degrees with distinction lies within the colleges and can either be "with distinction" or "with high distinction." It is based solely on a student’s GPA. Colleges and campuses can choose whether or not they want to offer degrees with these titles.

The initiative for establishing degrees with honors shall lie with the departments, colleges, or campuses. Units that want to grant degrees with honors must have an honors program and specify how honors students are to be selected. The minimum GPA for cum laude would be 3.5, magna cum laude would be 3.66, and summa cum laude would be 3.75.

One senator noted that students must apply for graduation two quarters before they actually graduate and wondered how that affects degrees with distinction. Professor Koch said that grades from the last two quarters should be included in determining the final GPA and the motion reads incorrectly. It should be modified to say that to graduate "with distinction," a student must have a cumulative grade point average of 3.75 or higher at the time of graduation--not when the student "applies" for graduation.

Another person noted that current University policy only takes into account upper division work in awarding degrees with honors. Is this being changed? Professor Koch replied that the proposed policy does represent a change from current policy and uses a person’s GPA for all University courses.

Several senators voiced opposition to this change arguing that many students struggle their freshmen year and then blossom in upper division classes. They did not feel these students should be penalized. Other senators favored the change arguing that students need to be sent the message that their academic performance should be consistent from the start if they want to graduate with honors.

Speaking in opposition to the motion a senator noted that in his college a student only needs half of his/her grades to be As, not a specified GPA, to graduate with honors. This provides for students who performed poorly at the beginning of their college careers, but excelled later on.

Professor Koch was asked how the policy will be phased in, and she replied that while SCEP had not addressed that issue, it was her thought that it should not effect students who are currently in honors programs, but apply only to new entrants.

"Does the policy apply to all grades or only University grades?" inquired a senator. Only U of M grades, replied Professor Koch.

A friendly amendment was then proposed and accepted that all students currently enrolled in honors programs not be effected by this policy.

Another friendly amendment regarding the phase-in process was also proposed. Since the proposal for graduating with distinction is new, this should go into effect immediately and apply to current students, not just new entrants. This was also accepted as a friendly amendment by the committee.

Issues of implementation were also raised and Professor Koch clarified that the Degrees with Distinction section would go into effect Fall 1998 for all students and the Degrees with Honors section would apply to students entering the University in Fall 1998.

Another senator recommended that students with GPAs of 3.9 graduate with "highest distinction" not just "high distinction." Professor Koch said SCEP will consider the suggestion.

Since time had elapsed for discussion of the policy, a motion was made and seconded to extend debate by 2 minutes. The motion was approved.

In a final comment, a senator noted that a freshman’s first year in college involves adjusting to University life and often is a time when he/she tries new classes. Some students come from high schools without strong academic programs and are at a severe disadvantage. If these students overcome disadvantages, such as these, they would not be given the recognition they deserve under the proposed policy.

To approve the following calendar:

(This calendar applies to the entire University, except for those units that have been granted an exemption by the President, as provided for in the Semester Standards adopted by the University Senate 4/18/96.)

(The four floating holidays for civil service and non-academic bargaining unit employees are not yet determined.)

LAURA COFFIN KOCH, Chair
EDUCATIONAL POLICY COMMITTEE

Professor Laura Koch, chair of the Educational Policy Committee (SCEP), introduced the 2000-2001 Calendar. She said it parallels the 1999-2001 calendar, which is the first semester calendar. She also noted several changes to be made that related to the Law School schedule.

There was an inquiry about the due date for final grades for Fall Semester and Professor Koch replied that in accordance with the semester standards, that date is determined by the Office of the Registrar. She assured senators grades will not be due on Christmas Day.

In response to a question concerning the Martin Luther King Holiday, Professor Koch clarified that it is not a holiday from classes, except for Crookston and the Law School, since classes on the Twin Cities, Morris and Duluth campuses do not start until the Tuesday after that holiday.

With no further questions, a vote was taken and the calendar was approved.

President Yudof reported on the outcome of the recent legislative session. The University received $36 million in supplemental funds, which will be used to fund 40 faculty positions and to provide additional compensation for faculty and staff. The University received $206 million of the $249 million in capital funds requested. The only projects not funded were half of the molecular and cellular biology building and some digital technology improvements. The President praised the faculty and students for their dedication to and involvement in the process.

Next, the President provided an update on the planning and budgeting framework accompanied by slides. He outlined the management strategies for decentralizing the University, which include: expanding collegial discussions of issues and fostering joint agreements through compacts; supporting Incentives for Managed Growth (IMG) and rewarding productivity increases; administrative reorganization and cost reductions; consultation with the Faculty Consultative Committee (FCC), the Dean’s Council, students, and staff; the Enterprise Project; and the Human Resources policies.

The President briefly reviewed the University’s $1.5 billion budget, indicating that 58% goes toward faculty and staff compensation, 19% supplies and equipment, 6% utilities, 7% operation and maintenance of plant, 5% student aid, and 5% all other expenses. Revenues are generated by local units through such things as auxiliary operations, clinical income, grants and contracts, sales and service fees. Centrally distributed and attributed funds, which make up $815,245,000 of the budget, include state O & M appropriations, state specials, tuition, indirect cost recovery (ICR), and central reserves. State O & M funds are the greatest piece, contributing 57% of the central funds, while tuition contributes 27%.

Turning to IMG, President Yudof detailed the changes under the IMG model. Prior to IMG, all income streams were channeled through central funds and then distributed to academic and support units. Under IMG , state appropriations still go into central funds, but the distribution of tuition and ICR dollars has changed--49% of ICR dollars goes into the central pool and 51% goes directly to local units; 100% of tuition revenue goes directly to the academic units.

The President was pleased to announce that through administrative cost reductions, the new State appropriation, savings, and the central share of ICR, the recurring revenues available to meet expenditures increased from $7 million to $34 million. The expected expenditures for the coming year include institutional obligations (facility operations, debt repayment, financial aid), faculty and staff compensation, and academic programs. The distribution includes approximately $34 million from central funds and $12 million from the academic units. According to the compensation model, two-thirds of the money will be distributed from central funds and then it will be up to each unit to allocate the additional one-third. Units that do not have the resources to fund compensation will need to apply to the dean for additional resources.

Q:	According to one of the slides, three times the amount of funds are spent on supplies than student aid. How is this justified?
A:	I am not sure, but I will look into this. The University is under-funded in both areas. The relevant question is what percentage of these needs are met, not what percentage of funds are spent in each area.
Q:	In the O & M/ICR swap, the School of Public Health was short of funds. Is there any plan to revisit this issue?
A:	No. I am committed to the IMG project. I would prefer to put more money into the School of Public Health, as well as other areas where it is needed, than abandon the IMG process.

XII. OLD BUSINESS

Senator Marvin Marshak called for a suspension of the rules to consider an item of new business. The motion to suspend was approved and the following motion was introduced:

To approve the following Resolution:

The University of Minnesota Senate enthusiastically thanks Governor Arne H. Carlson for his energetic support of the University funding requests during the 1998 Legislature. Through his support of the University, Governor Carlson has demonstrated the leadership required to more fully implement the land-grant, research University mission--that higher education can intellectually, socially and economically enrich the lives of all Minnesotans. Minnesota's 1998 investment in the University will provide significant dividends to future generations of citizens of our state, nation and world.

The University of Minnesota Senate enthusiastically thanks the Senators of the State of Minnesota for their strong support of the University funding requests during the 1998 Legislature. The Minnesota Senate has demonstrated the leadership required to more fully implement the land-grant, research University mission--that higher education can intellectually, socially and economically enrich the lives of all Minnesotans. Minnesota's 1998 investment in the University will provide significant dividends to future generations of citizens of our state, nation and world.

The University of Minnesota Senate enthusiastically thanks the Representatives of the State of Minnesota for their strong support of the University funding requests during the 1998 Legislature. The Minnesota House of Representatives has demonstrated the leadership required to more fully implement the land-grant, research University mission--that higher education can intellectually, socially and economically enrich the lives of all Minnesotans. Minnesota's 1998 investment in the University will provide significant dividends to future generations of citizens of our state, nation and world.

With no discussion, the resolution was unanimously approved.

Senator V. Rama Murthy also called for a suspension of the rules to consider a second item of new business. The motion to suspend was approved and the following item introduced:

To approve the following Resolution:

President Yudof has boldly communicated to the citizens of the State and their elected representatives the value of higher education and research at the University of Minnesota and of the importance of the University as an economic engine of the State, and,

President Yudof has set new directions for the academic excellence of the University and has tirelessly championed the need for support of these initiatives, and for an adequate support of the faculty so that the University can maintain its ability to retain and recruit the best of faculty, and,

President Yudof has helped restore a sense of trust and harmony in the University community (the students, staff, faculty, academic professionals, administration and Regents), after the fractious and discordant times of the recent past, and,

The University community has affirmed with one voice its aspirations and goals of the University of Minnesota to remain one of the strongest institutions of higher education and research in the country as we enter the new millennium, and to fulfill its land-grant mission to the citizens of the State,

Therefore, the University Senate congratulates and commends President Yudof on his skills of leadership and effectiveness in dealing with the various external and internal constituencies, and conveys its sincere gratitude for his efforts,

And, that the University Senate gratefully acknowledges the help of many in the University Community and numerous friends and well-wishers outside the University for their diligent efforts in helping the University’s case to be heard and understood in the Legislature and across the State.

With no discussion, the resolution was unanimously approved

The Senate then gave a warm round of applause to Professor Marshak and Ms. Cheryl Jorgensen for their outstanding work throughout the legislative session.

XIV. TRIBUTE TO DECEASED MEMBERS OF THE UNIVERSITY COMMUNITY

Thomas L. Anding died of cancer March 16,1998, at the age of 65 in his adopted home of Tucson, Arizona. Tom was a native of Minnesota having grown up in Wabasha and in near-by Southeast Minnesota communities. He had been closely associated with the University of Minnesota for most of his adult life, first as an undergraduate and then as a graduate student in Geography.

After military service and a period as Planning Director for the city of Los Alamos, New Mexico, Tom returned to the Twin Cities and the University where he became a project associate with the Upper Midwest Economic Study in the mid-1960's. He became Associate Director of CURA (The Center for Urban and Regional Affairs) on a half-time basis in 1969, and full-time in 1971 and continued in that capacity until his partial retirement in 1991. He continued to work on CURA projects until his death, most recently a study of recent changes in Minnesota retail trade centers.

Like most at CURA, Tom had some management duties but he was more interested in substantive research and policy issues and he was involved in or led many of CURA's projects ranging widely from Minnesota educational reform, to peat management in the northern part of the state, to rural ground water quality, to planning and transportation issues on Indian reservations. Tom brought two great strengths to his work at CURA; first was his extraordinary knowledge of and love for Minnesota; its people, politics, and diversity. And, second, Tom was one of those rare individuals who knew both intellectually and instinctively how to bridge the gaps between town and gown.

He is survived by his wife Connie of Tucson; son Matthew of Dallas; daughter Amy (Ned) Graham and granddaughter Isabel Graham of Austin, Texas.

William C. Gentry, Jr., M.D., died after a long illness. Dr. Gentry joined the University of Minnesota Medical School faculty in 1971, and acted as interim department head from 1971 to 1972, and from 1985 to 1986. He served as assistant department head from 1971 to 1993. At his retirement in July 1993, he was a tenured associate professor of dermatology.

Dr. Gentry believed the cause or exacerbating factors for many skin disorders lay rooted in the environment. He was especially adept at identifying scabies infestations, fungal and bacterial infections, and reactions from irritation or allergy. At the same time, he had a deep interest in genetic disorders. He defined many features of Cowden's disease, and knew a great deal about various genetic syndromes involving the skin, hair, nails, and mucous membranes.

He was an excellent teacher, blending his quick wit with a perfectionist's delivery. He served on numerous department, medical school, and American Academy of Dermatology committees, and advised enormous numbers of students and residents. He exuded professionalism, and spent long hours caring for his patients and for dermatology. He was a quiet gentleman, with an engaging smile, and a quick laugh. As his son, Scott, said after his death, "Dermatology was his life." Dermatology, dermatologists, former students, and others truly miss his life now.

Rev. Dr. "Gus" Nelson, assistant professor (retired) in the Department of Family Practice and Community Health, University of Minnesota Medical School, died on March 25, 1998, in Asheville, North Carolina. He is survived by his wife, Marette Johnson Nelson, four daughters and one son and their spouses, two brothers, and three grandchildren. Rev. Dr. Nelson attended Gustavus Adolphus College, Luther Theological Seminary, Andover Newton Theological School, and San Francisco Theological Seminary.

Rev. Dr. Nelson was the director of the Program in Human Services at Fairview Community Hospital from 1959 to 1973. He joined the University of Minnesota as a part-time faculty member in 1971, and became a full-time member in 1973. His teaching, research and service in the Department of Family Practice and Community Health were concentrated in the area of behavioral medicine. Rev. Dr. Nelson was a family therapist and the author of many articles and books dealing with stress management in the context of family and professional life. He had a deep interest in the relationship between medicine and the humanities. Rev. Dr. Nelson was a compassionate teacher of family practice residents, and will be greatly missed by his former students, faculty and staff colleagues, family, and friends.

The meeting was adjourned at 4:02.