APRIL 7, 1997

Senators Excused: Thomas Angell, Pamela Cummings, Roberta
Golinkoff, Alan Horowitz, Dana Johnson, Lawrence Kalkstein, Kevin 
Laverty, Ajay Manrai, Betty Paulanka, Carlos Plata-Soloman, and
Roland Smith

Senators Absent: Steve Bennett, Edmunds Bunske, Barbara Curry,
Rudy D'Souza, Steven Helming, Paul Hooper, Dene
Klinzing, Nancy Nobile, Shawn Phillips, Mary Richards,
and Richard Wolbers


      The agenda was modified by consent, to consider
the items under New Business before Old Business.


      The Minutes of the March 3, 1997 minutes were
approved as distributed.


      The Provost reported that as of this date there
were over 16,000 applicants for admission, as
contrasted with 14,000 last year.  The test scores of
the ones admitted as of this date are superior to those
of last year, and 70% are from out of state.

      He emphasized two concerns shown by our better
applicants and parents: concern for a coherent
educational experience (and he commended the University
Senate and the College of Arts and Science Senate for
their committees which are exploring this issue); and
concern for opportunities to do undergraduate research,
for which there are many opportunities organized by the
Honors Program at present.


      President Palley announced some changes in the
announcements for challenge, deleting #3, and adding
the fact that items #1 and #2, the BS and BA degrees in
Economics, contain a reduction in the number of hours
required for graduation from 124 to 120.

      The list of items for challenge, as modified,
received no challenges.


      On the recommendation of the Graduate Committee,
with concurrence by the Coordinating Committee on
Education, the approval of the request of the
Department of Bioresources Engineering (formerly
Agricultural Engineering) to participate in the
Operations Research Ph.D program was passed


      President Palley announced that in the event that
this meeting was not completed by 5:30, that the
meeting would be adjourned until the 14th of April, and
even to the 21st of April if needed, to allow ample
time to complete the discussion of the Tenure and
Promotion Document revisions.

      Senator Nees, who chaired the task force that has
been working on revisions of the University Policy on
Promotion and Tenure, introduced the document with its
ten resolutions.  These considerations have been
developed over a two year period and have been the
subject of a public hearing, and have been modified as
a result of that hearing.  He said that the proposed
changes were primarily for the purpose of
clarification, of simplifying the procedures at all
levels, and of highlighting those respects in which
individual units differ from the standard.  There are
only a few changes that alter existing policy.

      He also observed that current faculty are
"grandfathered," that is, will be able to continue to
seek promotion under the policies and procedures which
were in operation when they were hired, and that a
section on pp 7-8 should be highlighted and included in
brackets because the text presents new wording.

      Resolution #1 was introduced as moved and
seconded.  A question was raised about the word
"generally" as it pertained to persons who were
promoted to Associate Professor but without tenure.
Senator Nees and Vice-Provost Andersen both mentioned
that such a class of persons already exists, Associate
Professors who have been promoted but are members of
the University Parallel Faculty (and cannot have
tenure) and Professionals who have secondary
appointments as faculty and who do not receive tenure
when promoted to Associate Professor.

      Resolution #1 was approved unanimously.

      Resolution #2 was introduced as moved and
seconded.  Questions were raised about deleting the
present opportunity faculty have to go up for promotion
in the seventh year.  One clarification was that the
policy would not go into effect on faculty currently
employed at the University, but would apply only to
faculty hired subsequent to the policy change. 
Questions were also raised about including specific
dates in this section of the policy.  An amendment was
introduced which replaced the specific dates with the
phrase "in accordance with the calendar" and this
amendment was adopted [with 9 dissenting votes.]    
[32 yes, 9 no]

      Resolution #2 as amended was adopted [with three
dissenting votes.]    [44 yes, 3 no]

      Resolution 3 was introduced as moved and seconded. 
It was explained, in response to a question about the
purpose of the resolution, that the intent of the
section is to highlight the distinctive features of
unit policies which, in current practice, are easy to
overlook. An amendment was introduced which replaced
the existing language with  "After approval at all
levels, any special interpretations specific to that
discipline or unit must be published and distributed to
all etc."  That amendment was adopted unanimously.

      Resolution #3 as amended was adopted unanimously.

      Resolution #4 was introduced as moved and
seconded.  Questions were raised about the desirability
of changing practices awhich currently work and which
allow faculty at all levels to vote. It was moved and
seconded to amend the document to read "comprised of
tenured faculty of the college". This amendment was
adopted [with 13 dissenting votes.] [34 yes, 13 no]

      A question was raised about the rule prohibiting
members of departments from participating as well as
voting on college level committees, but there was no
formal motion to amend.

      The amended resolution was adopted [with 16
dissenting votes.]   [25 yes, 16 no]

      President Palley then announced that as the
adjournment time of 5:30 had arrived, the meeting would
be adjourned until 4:00pm on the 14th of April.

The meeting adjourned at 5:40 pm.

                              Respectfully submitted

                              Frank Dilley
                              University Faculty Senate