Minutes*
Faculty Consultative Committee
Thursday, April 20, 1995
11:00 - 1:30
Dale Shephard Room, Campus Club
Present:
John Adams (chair), Carl Adams, Victor Bloomfield, Thomas Burk, Sheila CorcoranPerry, Lester Drewes, Dan Feeney, James Gremmels, Roberta Humphreys, Robert Jones,
Morris Kleiner, Geoffrey Maruyama, Harvey Peterson, Gerhard Weiss
Regrets:
Virginia Gray, Kenneth Heller, Michael Steffes
Guests:
Professor Mary Dempsey (Chair, Tenure Subcommittee); Senior Vice President E. F.
Infante
Others:
Maureen Smith (University Relations)
[In these minutes: Tenure code interpretations; various items of business; discussion with Senior Vice
President Infante]
1.
Revisions to the Tenure Code
Professor Adams convened the meeting at 11:00 and welcomed Professor Mary Dempsey to
discuss revisions to the tenure code to accommodate the reorganization of the central administration into
the provostal structure. The Tenure Subcommittee, he recalled, was reluctant to precipitously open the
code to review because there are a lot of issues it might be ill-advised to raise without considerable care.
Professor Dempsey explained that they have thought a great deal about amendments to the code,
and concluded that the faculty are not fully informed about them, and many faculty may oppose them.
The Tenure Subcommittee, however, has the authority to issue interpretations of the code, which do not
require Faculty Senate action but which are submitted to the Board of Regents. They propose to do that
in this case; they propose that the code be interpreted, for one year, to permit promotion and tenure
decisions by the provosts. The process could be used for a year, allowing faculty and central
administration evaluation. She suggested that in this case, the Faculty Senate be asked to approve the
interpretation.
This proposal, Professor Adams pointed out, avoids raising all the associated issues that could
arise in connection with termination for cause, denial of tenure, unrequested leaves, and so on. This
ONLY changes the responsibility for decisions in promotion and tenure. Committee members offered
several observations.
--
One year may not be enough experience with the process; if not, the interpretation can be extended
*
These minutes reflect discussion and debate at a meeting of a committee of the University of Minnesota
Senate or Twin Cities Campus Assembly; none of the comments, conclusions, or actions reported in these minutes
represent the views of, nor are they binding on, the Senate or Assembly, the Administration, or the Board of Regents.
Faculty Consultative Committee
April 20, 1995
2
for another year.
--
There will have to be announcements and meetings for faculty to discuss proposed changes to the
tenure code, and the sooner the better.
--
The Dean of the Graduate School would continue to provide technical advice to the provosts,
ensuring that no procedural flaws occurred. Presumably the Dean's office would also continue to
play its role in program reviews and monitoring quality.
--
Level two committees would also continue, presumably. In the case of larger colleges, the
committee operates between the dean and the department; in the case of campuses, between the
department and the chancellor. In those units on the Twin Cities campus that do not have
departments, the level two committee reviews files before they are forwarded to the office of
Academic Affairs (or, in the future, the provost's office). These committees are understood to be
advisory, and check the quality of the files.
As these complicated procedures play out--and many faculty are unfamiliar with them--they will
now do so in six different divisions of the University. The Dean of the Graduate School must keep
an eye on what is going on.
This interpretation of the code will be brought to the May Faculty Senate meeting.
On the issue of quality control, one Committee member observed, the responsibility for it will rest
with the provosts and chancellors. If there is a problem with quality in the next few years in one of the
six areas, presumably there will be a question about whether the provost or chancellor is doing his/her
job.
Professor Dempsey then reviewed two other proposed interpretations of the tenure code. One
would define "days" as used in the code as "working days." This has been a source of some confusion
and this interpretation would clarify the intent. The issue arises primarily in timelines for dealing with
complicated cases and the response times for both faculty and administrators.
The third interpretation involves extending the time for response by either faculty members or the
administration in cases of unrequested leaves of absence, termination, or suspension. Last year the
Faculty Senate adopted deadlines for administrative responses (such deadlines for faculty members were
already part of the code), because there were instances of long delays on the part of the administration.
The administration has proposed that there be some flexibility in unusual circumstances, because they in
some cases they simply cannot meet the deadlines (the involvement of legal counsel may slow the
processes down, people may be on vacation, responses in the summer are more difficult, and so on).
Discussion turned to the question of who would decide when the time should be extended. One
suggestion was that it could be by mutual agreement; another Committee member pointed out that a
faculty member could be as much at fault as the administration, and might choose to go to Europe for
research in order to suspend the proceedings. The problem is that in these cases, the people involved are
not usually "mutually agreeable," so the faculty members and administration could be at loggerheads.
Among people of good will, "mutually agreeable" would work. That may not be true in these kinds of
Faculty Consultative Committee
April 20, 1995
3
cases.
One Committee member noted that the administration does not usually WANT to extend these
proceedings; it makes them more expensive and more complicated. But they also do not want to be
"boxed in" by deadlines they cannot meet; a balancing act is required.
Another possibility might be arbitration, said one Committee member; as things become more
legalistic, there may be more conflicts over interpretations of the code. The use of an impartial party to
advise on delays might be considered.
It was agreed that Professor Dempsey would consult with Professor Morrison on the possible use
of a third party to determine if "unusual circumstances" exist, and she would bring back to the May 4
meeting a recommendation.
Professor Adams and other Committee members thanked Professor Dempsey for the time and
thought she has given to resolving these issues.
2.
Various Items of Business
Professor Adams then reported to the Committee on a number of issues.
--
President Hasselmo accepted the sentiments of FCC about construction of a new football stadium,
and assured him that there are no plans afoot for it.
--
Senior Vice President Infante has asked for the names of individuals to serve on a small working
group to help with contingency planning as the budget picture becomes clearer. The action of the
legislature and Governor will set in motion a process for setting the budget; decisions will need to
be made about tuition, and internal reallocation. (Committee members identified a number of
faculty who might serve.)
--
Senior Vice President Infante has also asked for suggestions of individuals to serve on a working
group to deal with calendar changes; to think through how to modify the calendar. The possible to
move to a uniform calendar offers an opportunity, with six divisions, to unify the institution;
thought must be given to transfer credits, registration, rationalized use of classrooms, etc. (The
Committee developed a list of faculty members who might serve.)
--
The Committee heard from legislative liaison Morris Kleiner on his activities and about what is
occurring at the legislature.
--
The "lame duck" committee must be convened to nominate individuals to serve as chair and vice
chair of the Committee next year; Professor Adams promised to contact one of the lame ducks to
ask them to serve as convenor.
--
In the wake of events and newspaper articles in the last could of weeks, both the Committee and
the Regents' Professors adopted statements. Those statements were distributed to the University
community and to the legislative leadership. He reported that he had received perhaps 25 calls and
Faculty Consultative Committee
April 20, 1995
4
email messages, two-thirds of which approved statements and some of which approved the
statements with qualifications. A few raised questions about the extent of faculty support for the
President. He said he made a distinction between FCC and the faculty generally; FCC members
are elected and the Committee must make up its mind what to say. He understands, he said, that
faculty are not necessarily of one mind on this issue.
One Committee member expressed appreciation to Professor Adams for acting swiftly and
appropriately. Professor Adams observed that one never knows what the right thing to do is; he
thought it was best for the Committee to say what it believed, as faculty members. Events go on,
but concerns remain about diversity, whether the University is moving too fast or slow on U2000,
and the financial problems of the institution.
--
The summaries of Pew roundtable discussions will be distributed to the recipients of FCC minutes,
and comments and suggestions on those discussions will be solicited.
--
The proposed changes in the sexual harassment policy have been pulled from the Senate docket.
Professor Poppele asked that the Sexual Harassment Board have an opportunity to revisit the
proposal, given the disinclination of the Committee on Faculty Affairs and this Committee to
endorse the proposal. They want to develop a proposal that will be supported. Present plans are to
bring a revision to the Senate in May, with action then scheduled for next fall.
--
The professional commitment policy will be brought to the Faculty Senate for information in May
and action in June. Professor Adams urged Committee members to read it carefully. Once
approved, he pointed out, the faculty will be obligating themselves and their colleagues. Some on
the faculty take strong exception to items in the draft policy.
--
There is "an avalanche" of Senate policies coming for review. The Senate staff, and the
Committee on Educational Policy, have been reviewing all Senate policies; the intent is to endorse,
modify, or repeal existing policies so that the ones on the books are the ones that should be in
place.
--
The Committee has been asked to review the Regents' policy on diversity. The President's staff
has reviewed several policies and rewritten them into one unified document. This will need to go
to the Senate.
--
The task force to review the structure of the governance system in light of the establishment of the
provostal structure will be appointed soon.
--
The Committee will need to decide who it wishes to nominate for vice chair of the Senate.
After the Committee broke for lunch, Professor Adams welcomed Senior Vice President Infante to
the meeting. A number of items were touched upon in the ensuing discussion:
----
Legislative and budget issues
Semesters and calendar questions
University compliance with federal rules and regulations
Faculty Consultative Committee
April 20, 1995
---
5
The need for and implications of Responsibility (Value) Center Management
The revised Academic Freedom and Responsibility statement
Professor Adams thanked Dr. Infante for joining the meeting and adjourned it at 1:30.
-- Gary Engstrand
University of Minnesota