University of Minnesota, Morris
April 19, 2004
The Campus Assembly met on Monday, April 19 at 4:30 p.m. in the Science Auditorium.
I. Chancellorıs Remarks.
Schuman made several announcements about the agenda. 1) Changes in the proposed committee roster include determine new chairs for several committees. 2) The Mascot Policy will return after further work by the Student Services Committee. 3) The Executive Committee did determine it appropriate for the Assembly to discuss and vote upon the proposal from the Curriculum Committee requiring approval of all courses, including topics courses. 4) The Faculty Affairs Committee proposal from the Faculty Development Committee is on the agenda for discussion, debate and vote. We anticipate a motion to vote by mail ballot, since this requires a two-thirds approval of all eligible Assembly members to change the Constitution (138 ³yes² votes). The motion to require a mail ballot needs only a simple majority of those present to pass, and is not debatable. He went on to say,
³These procedural nicetiescoupled with the fact that at the last Assembly meeting my performance as a parliamentary chair was even more than usually ineptinspires me to make a few additional comments. I assume many of you will be shocked by the revelation that chairing the meetings of the Campus Assembly is not one of the best cherished assignments in the chancellorial portfolio. Moreover, I think the task has grown more difficult over the past decade, for very understandable reasons.
In fact, there are not one, not two, but three documents (one of which is bifurcated, and a second of which is unwritten and nearly infinitely multiple) which govern our work. We are, I suggest, governed by Roberts Rules of Order, by the UMM Constitution and the UMM Bylaws, (which mostly agree with each other) and by custom and convention (which seems to me variously interpreted by almost everyone). Thus, for example, there is no provision except in Roberts Rules for mail ballots. On the other hand, I donıt believe you would find in Roberts anything remotely resembling the mixed membership of this organization, in which each faculty member has a vote, each one hundred students have a vote, and for each 50 of the staff, but wherein, Union staff members are referred to as ³civil service² and there is no classification called ³P&A² whatsoever. There is no proviso in the UMM constitution about whether the ³old² or ³new² executive committee appoints ³new² committees, but there is language in the bylaws which says that the new committee gets together in the spring to ³begin² that process. Nowhere but in convention is the tradition of the Executive Committee counting ballots documented, or our process for extending the time of meeting, etc.
In point of fact, it seems from the unique, and uniquely uncomfortable place from which I watch Assembly meetings, that the dominant determinant of how we are going to do much of what we do is: How do we do this; how have we done it in the past? This is punctuated, often, by plaintive cries to consult Roberts or the Constitution or both.
What makes this increasingly a problem is that the membership of the Assembly has, in the past half-dozen or ten years, shifted to one dominated by individuals who have not been at UMM for most of the life of the institution. Those who came a year or five ago have less knowledge of, and reverence for, the unwritten, cultural practices of this, our dominant governance body. Conversely, those who have been present for all or most of our history are a diminishing number, and have as a consequence both a greater weight but fewer compatriots.
Donıt get me wrong. I am no fan of Robertıs Rules of Order, which seems to me far too susceptible to being used to deflect discussions of substance into debates on process. If given my choice, I would plump every time for George Foxı process of meeting for businessı over Parliamentary procedure. I am not, obviously, given my choice in this as in much else.
I do not have a solution to propose for this dilemma, but would be interested in your reactions to my diagnosis. It is not impossible that I am misreading all this because Iım such a pill when it comes to parliamentary manouevering. Nor do I believe we need to solve, or even discuss this issue today. If I get the sense that many of the members of the CA agree with my analysis, letıs think together of how we might move towards a greater shared sense of procedural clarity in our work together, next fall. I hope we will not plunge into the morass of revising our constitution, nor of affirming with morale-sapping rigor dogged adherence to parliamentary rigidities. I have a vague yearning for some sort of reasonable procedural guidelines, which perhaps seek to codify somewhat the decision-making processes of the Campus Assembly.
Again, let me know, over the coming weeks, if you have thoughts or reactions to these thoughts, and perhaps we will return to them next year. Now, then, on with the show ²
III. Proposed 2004-2005 Assembly and Adjunct Committee Rosters were approved as presented.
IV. From the Curriculum Committee. Spring 2004 Curriculum Changes were approved as presented.
1 New Course
WSS 1412 Womenıs Swimming
2 Revised Courses
WSS 1409 Wrestling
WSS 2007 Wrestling Coaching
1 Revised Course
Th 2111 Creative Drama with Children
1 Revised Course
Psy 3541 Cultural and Cross-Cultural Psychology
V. From the Scholastic Committee. Resident Credit for Study Aboard.
RESIDENT CREDIT FOR STUDY ABROAD
The Scholastic Committee proposes the following change in UMMıs resident credit policy to bring UMM policies in line with a system-wide change.
Proposed change: Credits earned through study abroad programs that are sponsored by or co-sponsored with the University of Minnesota (all campuses) will be treated as resident credit, be posted on the transcript, and will count toward the UM transcript GPA.
UMM currently grants resident credit to study abroad courses sponsored by the University of Minnesota; non-resident credit is awarded to co-sponsored or official exchange programs.[i]
The University of Minnesota Learning Abroad catalog identifies most of the programs to be granted resident credit. Though numerous, these programs have been carefully selected, judged to be of high caliber, and complement the Universityıs offerings. They have been approved through those faculty review processes particular to each campus.
All campuses of the University of Minnesota have been involved in a three-year Bush Grant to integrate study abroad into the curriculum. Its purpose is to make it as easy as possible for students to study abroad within a four-year degree program and to have the credits they earn apply to the majors, general education or elective requirements of each college. With this change, those credits earned through approved study abroad programs will be posted on the UM transcript and count in the transcript GPA. All other study abroad credit will be treated as non-resident.
The other campuses of the University of Minnesota now grant resident credit for study abroad courses earned through approved sponsored or co-sponsored programs. Making this change at UMM will allow the University to speak with one voice system-wide, reducing the barriers to financial aid, registration, and fees.
The proportion of work to be completed in each major will continue to require faculty guidance and approval. Faculty will continue to determine whether credits are accepted in the major prior to a studentıs departure and later will be asked to sign the graduation application, indicating support for the choices made.
[i]Current policy: Resident credit is assigned to courses carrying UMM course numbers and to any UM Continuing Education course. A UMM student must earn 30 credits from UMM; 15 must be in residence in the senior year. All non-UM courses, whether consortial or not, are considered transfer coursesand non-resident credit is awarded. As an exception, for the past decade credits earned through sponsored UM study abroad courses have been considered to be resident credit and have counted in the UM transcript GPA.
An assembly member asked if there were any loopholes and ways in which the policy could be abused. Leslie Meek said the worst case scenario would be that a student could transfer, go abroad and get 30+ credits. Ruth Thielke said a student has to have course approval before they leave adding that faculty have authority on how the course will apply towards the major. Korth made a motion that the proposed policy be amended to increase the credits from 30 to 60. Second by Margaret Kuchenruether. Sam Schuman noted that this policy should not be voted on at the same meeting where it is introduced. Thielke said the 30 credit requirement is a Board of Regent policy. If we go beyond the 30 credits, approval is needed from the Regents. Jeff Ratliff-Crain called the question on the amendment. Second by Schwaller. Rich Heyman called for point of order stating the motion is not germane to the proposal. Schuman stated there would be a voice vote to determine whether or not members were ready to vote. Voice vote approved. Next was a voice vote on the proposed amendment. Voice vote failed. There was another voice vote for those in favor of calling the question on the amended policy. Voice vote was approved. The vote for those in favor of the amended proposal failed by a show of hands. Schuman said he would ask Thielke to inform the campus community if a student has applied for graduation without having spent a year physically on campus. A voice vote in favor of the policy was approved.
VI. From the Faculty Development Committee. Amended proposal to create a Faculty Affairs Committee.
The amended proposal was presented as follows:
Proposed Amendment to the UMM Constitution for the Creation of a Faculty Affairs Committee
Article VI. Faculty Affairs Committee (renumber Articles VI-XI)
The Faculty Affairs Committee is concerned with policies and procedures that influence the personal and professional welfare of the faculty (including academic staff).
Section 1. Organization
A. The Faculty Affairs Committee consists of one representative elected from each academic division, the UMM representative to the Senate Committee on Faculty Affairs (SCFA), one academic staff member to be elected by the academic staff, a student representative, and the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs, who serves ex officio and without vote.
B. The Faculty Affairs Committee elects its own chair.
C. The terms of office for faculty (including academic staff) are for two years with a maximum of two consecutive terms. The term of office for the student member is for one year. Elections are held in the spring in accordance with the by-laws.
Section 2. Powers
The Faculty Affairs Committee has the following powers and responsibilities:
A. To examine all policies and procedures of the University that influence the professional and personal welfare of the faculty (including academic staff) and to recommend improvements in the design and implementation of personnel policies, including such matters as tenure and promotion, workload, salary and benefits, and hiring and retirement alternatives.
B. To monitor any legislation and other policies affecting faculty (including academic staff) welfare.
C. To recommend to the Campus Assembly and/or faculty (including academic staff) such actions or policies as it deems appropriate, and facilitate discussion thereon.
D. The power and responsibility of the committee must be exercised in accordance with University of Minnesota all-university policies, as well as other existing constitutional provisions, including the overall limit on the authority of the Campus Assembly as described in Article III, Section 7, and by Article I, Section 3, which assigns the chancellor, as chief executive officer of the campus, the responsibility for the expenditure of funds, as well as the final authority to make budgetary recommendations to the president of the University.
Proposed Amendment to the UMM Bylaws for the Creation of a Faculty Affairs Committee
Article III. Election of Members to the Executive, Campus Consultative, and Faculty Affairs Committees
Section 3. Faculty Affairs Committee
The Faculty Affairs Committee is elected during spring semester by each of their constituencies to serve for their respective terms. The constituencies determine their own election procedures. Two year terms on the committee shall be staggered among the members. Interim vacancies are filled by special election.
Rich Heyman offered the
following amendment under section 1:
The Faculty Affairs Committee (shall) consist of one representative
from each academic division, (one at-large, non-tenure track faculty member),
the UMM representative to the Senate Committee on Faculty Affairs (SCFA), one
academic staff member to be elected by the academic staff, a student
representative, and the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs, who severs ex
officio and without vote.
Chris DeVries asked how academic staff will be selected if this portion is taken out. Greg Thorson said the language does not suggest how academic staff will be elected. He added that the constitution does not acknowledge non-tenure track faculty as a classification. All are defined very broadly, additional insurance was made to academic staff. Currently, non-tenure track faculty can represent divisions. He recommends using the language that the Faculty Development Committee originally suggested. Margaret Kuchenreuther expressed concern about the workability issue with the proviso. Under Section III, when the election occurs, if faculty are only here one year, buy the time this person was asked to serve, they might not be here. She believes voting in the fall would have to occur if this proposal passes. Heyman said he wants to reinforce the notion that non-tenure track faculty are a transient population. Peter Wyckoff asked if it was his intention that the VCAA disappear? Heyman said no. Schuman asked if Heyman would accept a friendly amendment, changing non-tenured to untenured. Heyman said no. Keith Brugger was concerned about the makeup of a faculty committee involving a student. Nic McPhee pointed out according to the committee rosters, that there are several tenure track and non-tenure track faculty serving on committees. Thorson said this discussion is moving quickly to becoming a huge committee and he pointed out that committees are already stretched too thin. He added that the FAC has to represent all faculty. Debra Blake believes that it is essential to look out for the well being of all faculty members. Pieranna Garavaso said it would be helpful to hear different points of view that might ultimately lead to better decision-making. She suggested restricting membership to those with a 75% appointment or a member of assembly. Kevin Ely said students have a lot of contact with non-tenure track faculty. Roland Guyotte suggested a friendly amendment to include to say non-tenure track faculty member who is eligible for the assembly. Mary Elizabeth Bezanson asked for a point of clarification stating the amendment to this document should be voted on by the people in this room. Schuman asked if the campus should vote on the amendment by mail ballot. Thorson believes the proposal does represent all faculty, thereıs not an issue of being against or for non-tenure track faculty members. Schuman asked for all those in favor of calling the question. So moved. A vote for those in favor of the amended proposal passed by a show of hands. Brugger again expressed serious concerns about a student serving on this committee. Ely said students have a right to serve on committees and its very disheartening to hear Bruggerıs comments. Paula OıLoughlin asked if our constitution indicates that all committees have student representatives. She added that if we take the student off the FAC then it undermines the role students play on every other committee. Nancy Carpenter said she cannot support this proposal because she doesnıt see how this will address previous issues like student recruitment and money we receive from legislators. Julie Pelletier feels you canıt address student recruitment if you canıt hold on to your faculty. She was surprised to feel as disempowered as she feels here. Roland Guyotte made a motion to extend the meeting by 10 minutes. So moved. Eric Klinger said he feels UMM has become less faculty friendly than it was 30-40 years ago. Roland Guyotte made a motion to vote on FAC proposal by mail ballot. Second by Mary Elizabeth Bezanson. If the mail ballot motion passes, the ballots will be distributed immediately, making allowance for the mandated two week period between introducing the motion and voting on it. OıLoughlin called the question. Schuman asked for a vote for all those in favor of distributing mail ballots. Motion passed.
VII. From the Executive Committee. Variable Topics Courses.
Discussion was just about to begin when Roland Guyotte moved to adjourn the meeting, second by Mary Elizabeth Bezanson.
Adjourned at 6:10 p.m.