March 18, 2003
The Campus Assembly met on Tuesday, March 18, 2003 at 4:30 p.m. in the Science Auditorium.
I. Chancellor's Remarks
Chancellor Schuman began by saying it was good to be gone and good to be back. He thanked the vice chancellors for their work during his leave.
Schuman reported that as a result of his meetings last week with the Provost and President, he has a pretty clear sense of what we need to do to cope with the projected budget shortfall at UMM even though we do not have a final number. He noted that we are facing serious budget problems and added that President Bruininks recently said at the Regents meeting that this may be the worst fiscal picture the University has faced since the depression. Schuman would like to create a Budget Task Force that would include the following members:
3 from Campus Resources & Planning Committee (chair + 2)
3 from Consultative Committee (chair + 2 - one of which would represent USA group)
2 from Administrative Committee (1 Division Chair + 1)
2 from Vice Chancellor Group (VCAA + VCSA)
MCSA President or designee
Lowell Rasmussen will chair; Gary Strei will serve as staff
This group will be charged to report to the chancellor on two issues: reallocations and reductions. He will ask the task force to estimate the following over the next two years: $500,000 in reductions, which will carry over into the following year and $250,000 in reallocations which, would carry over in the following year. An additional $500,000 in reductions and $250,000 in reallocations would be estimated in 2005. The total cuts over the next biennium at UMM would be $2.25 million. Tuition is not under the purview of the task force. President Bruininks expects the outstate campuses will have a 14 percent tuition increase and the Twin Cities campus will have a 15 percent increase.
He will ask the group to define the process and implementation for the recommendations they make to him keeping in mind two principles:
1. That we defend our core mission as an undergraduate liberal arts
college of uncompromising rigor within the public sector and with integrity.
2. That we maintain the infrastructure that lets us do the first one.
He promised to take those recommendations seriously although he cannot promise he won't amend them because ultimately the decision must rest with him. The President has set the June Regents meeting as the deadline although final budget decisions are subject to the legislature. Schuman would like us to finish, to the extent we can, by graduation. There are a number of possible mitigations that could help or hurt us, for example: all university cuts (benefits) would be done centrally, private gifts could increase, increased student population and federal support to keep our Native American tuition money would help us. Decreased population, the possibility that the legislature may take away more than the Governor has recommended, and the impending war would hurt us.
He added that we are getting ahead of the game because the President has not asked us to do this yet so it feels like we're jumping the gun a bit. One of the risks of jumping the gun is that figures may change. Additionally, he noted that the Governor has recommended a two year salary freeze. President Bruininks said the university could do this for one year but he is unwilling to do it for two years. At the University of Minnesota, 60% of their budget goes to salary and fringe benefits. At UMM, 80% of our budget covers salary and benefits. Schuman added is he reasonably confident that we can move through this process without actually firing anyone. He is convinced we will do better because of our tradition of having an open, democratic campus governance and our clear, focused mission.
Chris Pifer and Kevin Vogeltanz expressed concern about the lack of student representation on the task force and would like an additional student added to the group. Stephanie Looney said that as we define our core mission we should not forget about athletics and the importance of how athletics contributes to the student experience. She would not want to see athletics cut without hearing from the students.
II. Minutes of January 21, 2003 Campus Assembly meeting were approved as presented.
III. From the Functions & Awards Committee. Scholar of the College Nominations were approved as presented.
Barbara Burke added that Jill Schreck's paper was accepted at the 18th Annual Red River Student Communications Conference and, in fact, won the top conference paper award.
IV. From the Functions & Awards Committee.
UMM Policy on Naming Parts of Buildings was presented as follows:
UMM POLICY ON NAMING PARTS OF BUILDINGS
The Functions & Award Committee
January 29, 2003
UMM POLICY ON NAMING PARTS OF BUILDINGS
Parts of University buildings may be named to honor one or more individuals. Living or deceased individuals associated with the University who retired or left the service of the University may be recognized on the basis of their philanthropic activities toward UMM. Deceased individuals may additionally be recognized for extraordinary achievements, contributions, or service to UMM. Separate names may be given to rooms, laboratories, lecture halls, or auditoriums within a building.
Procedures for Naming Parts of Building in Recognition of Extraordinary Achievements, Contributions, or Service
Recommendations should be initiated by a division or administrative unit, and submitted to the Functions and Awards Committee (F&A). Recommendation sent to and approved by F&A will be submitted to the Chancellor and, finally, to the Campus Assembly for approval.
Procedures for Naming Parts of Building in Recognition of Philanthropy
The Office of External Relations/Fund Development will prepare guidelines to ensure consistency between contribution levels and opportunities to recognize donor generosity through the naming of part of a building. These guidelines will be submitted by the Office of External Relations/Fund Development to F&A for information and coordination prior to any public announcement or publication of the naming opportunities. For gifts that qualify, recommendations should be initiated by The Office of External Relations/Fund Development, and submitted to the Functions and Awards Committee (F&A). Recommendations sent to and approved by F&A will be submitted to the Chancellor and, finally, to the Campus Assembly for approval.
Forwarding of Recommendations
The format for recommending the naming of parts of building to F&A shall be as follows:
Nominee -- see requirements noted above.
Nominator -- must be an alumnus or a current member of the faculty or staff. [Board of Regents policy requires that no disclosure is to be made to the nominee, or persons other than those writing supporting letters, until a decision is forthcoming.]
Nomination Summary -- 50 words or less.
Reasons for Nomination (including a description of the space under consideration) -- single page, 12-point type.
Letter from Nominator -- should focus, from personal knowledge, on the extraordinary achievements, contributions, or service of the nominee or the philanthropic activities that justify the nominati0on.
Supporting Letters -- at least 2, not more than 4, focusing on the above criteria.
Maximum Length of Dossier -- not more than 12 pages.
Number of Copies -- 7 of each item; collated, stapled, and clipped (no binders or folders).
Date of Submission -- at least 6 months before the naming is to take place. Later submission will be considered, but without any guarantee of timely decision.
Submit to Maggie Larson, the Functions and Awards Committee.
Note: Persons writing letters of nomination should know that such letters will be legally available to the nominee upon request, even to an unsuccessful candidate who becomes aware of the nomination. Nominators should also make sure that writers of supporting letters are aware that their letters, too, will be available on request.
A nomination approved by F&A will be submitted to the Chancellor and, finally, to the Campus Assembly for approval. The Chancellor may reject the nomination. The Campus Assembly requires a positive two third majority vote of all eligible members to approve the nomination.
Procedures for the naming of parts of buildings will be reviewed periodically by the F&A in consultation with the Chancellor and the External Relations/Fund Development Office.
Once part of a building of UMM is approved, the following should be
notified in writing by F&A:
ï External Relations/Fund Development Office
ï Plant Services Office
Michael Korth thought the nominator portion should be clearer. Shaun Hainey made an amendment to change the wording regarding assembly approval to members present instead of eligible members, second by Tap Payne. Roland Guyotte added that mail ballots could be used as an alternative. Stephanie Looney expressed concern about the use of mail ballots because if people weren't present at the meeting, they wouldn't know what was discussed. Payne wondered how many agenda items required a two third majority vote. Guyotte responded that this is in our constitution. A vote was called on the two third majority vote and failed. Payne wondered why we would exclude honoring living individuals and added that this doesn't seem like a very strong way to honor someone. Seung-Ho Joo said the committee seriously discussed this and the concern was that if we honor living persons, there would be not be enough parts of buildings because there are many people who would be truly deserving. Schuman added that if you start naming things after living people, it can be somewhat difficult to figure out where to stop. Payne said he would argue against this and added that it seems ridiculous that a person would have to be dead and offered an amendment to eliminate death as requirement. Schwaller said he would speak against Payne's amendment because he has been at institutions where they seminar rooms were named after people, then classrooms were named and eventually the college ran out of rooms and ultimately began naming rocks. By not adopting some concrete procedures, you end up hurting people. The following editoral comments were suggested: change University of Minnesota-Morris to University of Minnesota, Morris; the word nomination is spelled incorrectly under the section Letter from Nominator; and specific names should be taken out of this document is to be long lived. Payne moved to call the question on removing the word deceased. Motion failed. Payne asked what happens if this is voted down. Schuman said an alternative would be to send it back to the committee. Schwaller moved to call the question to approve the policy as presented. Motion passed.
V. From the Scholastic Committee. Mid-term Alert Policy.
Nic McPhee reported that based on discussion in the Assembly and a review
of student responses to receiving a web-based mid-term alert last semester,
the Scholastic Committee proposes the following policy: "UMM faculty
are encouraged to alert all students in their classes who are earning a
C- or less at mid-term."
Guyotte moved to extend the meeting five minutes. Motion passed.
Kevin Vogeltanz expressed concern about the ambiguous wording of encouraged. McPhee said that we cannot require faculty to do this. Bert Ahern asked how this fits with the All-University policy. McPhee said the Twin Cities mid-term alert only applies to first year students and 1000 level courses. UMM's policy would be for all students in all courses.
Guyotte moved to extend the meeting another five minutes. Motion passed.
Vogeltanz felt that unless the word encouraged was changed to required, students would have no recourse in the event their instructor did not alert the student. He believes that unless the wording is changed, this should not be passed. Guyotte moved to call the question to approve the policy as presented. Motion passed.
Adjourned at 6:10 p.m.