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.
Rationale:
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 elected
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.