Minutes of 25 October 2004
First Circulated 5 November 2004
Approved 13 December 2004

25 OCTOBER 2004

ATTENDANCE

Present:  Agrawal, Albers, Berent, Brown, Cebulski, Chang, Combi, Fricke, Giordani, Goldman, Green, Gull, M. Holland, Hollar, Hu, Hutchinson, Kahn, LaChance, Lange, Lehman, Lemos, Luera, Matjias, Meerkov, Mitani, Moran, Ohye, Pedraza, Peters, Pohl, Prygoski, Quint, Robertson, Rush, Sahiner, Schultz, Seabury, Sension, Smith, Smock, Thouless, Wechsler, Whatley, Younker, Ziff, Zorn

Alternates: K. Akingbehin (Dearborn for Huntley), R. Alfred (Education for Carlisle), T. Brock (Medicine for Sagher), B. Cimprich (Nursing for Abdoo), S. Murphy (LSA for Benamou)

Absent:  Adriaens, Aller, Andersen, Annich, Bartlett, Ben-Shahar, Bhavnani, Ceballo, Colas, Ensminger, Fishman, G. R. Holland, Koopmann, Ludlow, Macoska, Liu, Orr, Potter, Pritchard, Ross, Ruffin, Schwendeman, Senkevitch, Severence, Seyhun, Tropman, Watkins

MATERIALS DISTRIBUTED

1. Senate Assembly agenda
2. Draft minutes of the Senate Assembly meeting of 15 March 2004
3. Format for Regent Candidates’ Forum, October 25, 2004
4. Item for Action: Proposed resolution regarding Administration Evaluation Committee
5. Design and Implementation of a System of Administrator Evaluation by Faculty, Presentation materials from the University of Michigan Faculty Senate meeting of 20 September 2004
6. Senate Action of 15 March 2004
7. Letter to S. M. Meerkov from O. P. Maynard, dated 16 April 2004, regarding administrator evaluation
8. Message from C. F. Koopmann and S. Berent to the University Senate, dated 29 April 2004, regarding faculty evaluation of administrators
9. Childcare Taskforce Report, dated 25 October 2004
10. Item for Action: Committee memberships and committee chairs for the 2004-05 academic year

Chair Berent convened the meeting at 3:17 P.M.  The proposed agenda was adopted.

ANNOUNCEMENTS
Chair Berent announced:

1. The Academic Freedom Lecture will be delivered by Noam Chomsky on Thursday (28 October 2004) in the Law School auditorium.
2. A candidates’ forum for the U-M Board of Regents will follow the Assembly meeting today.

CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES OF FROM 15 MARCH 2004
The Minutes were approved as submitted.

ADMINISTRATION EVALUATION COMMITTEE
Chair Berent called attention to the proposed Item for Action (distributed item 4) plus additional background material (distributed items 5, 6, 7, and 8).  He said that he and past-chair Koopmann had distributed item 8 in reaction to item 7 transmitted on behalf of the Regents.  He said that a progress report regarding administration evaluation had been delivered at the September meeting of the University Senate, and that Action Item (4) is placed before the Assembly by SACUA.   

MOTION PROPOSED BY SACUA (MAIN MOTION):

WHEREAS on 15 March 2004 the University of Michigan Senate acted to adopt a system of periodic evaluation by the faculty of administrative officers;

WHEREAS the Senate acted to implement the evaluation process as a web-based procedure to be developed and implemented by the Administration Evaluation Committee (AEC) with the first evaluations to be carried out in the Fall of 2004; and

WHEREAS faculty governance volunteers and elected faculty governance members formed a provisional AEC over the summer to fulfill the charge from the University Senate;

THEREFORE, the Senate Assembly:

1. Ratifies the design and implementation recommendations developed by a provisional AEC composed of faculty governance volunteers and elected faculty governance members;
2. Creates the Administration Evaluation Committee (AEC) as a standing committee of the Senate Assembly and University Senate, and accepts the provisional AEC as the first AEC for at least the inaugural round of evaluations in Fall 2004;
3. Charges the AEC to report its operational experience, issues arising, and recommendations for improved functioning of the AEC process to the Senate, Senate Assembly, and SACUA during Winter Term 2005;
4. Appoints the members of the AEC, after the provisional AEC has done its work in the initial round of evaluations, to be chosen by the same process as all other standing committees of the Senate Assembly and the University Senate, with the Chair being the Senate Secretary;
5. Asks that the University Senate at its next meeting ratify the present proposal and accept these actions as satisfying the intent and actions of the original proposal passed by the University Senate 15 March 2004.

SEPARATION OF THE MAIN MOTION
Professor Lehman moved to separate the main motion into two parts:  the first part consisting of items 1, 2, and 3 based on their unanimous support within SACUA, and a second part consisting of items 4 and 5 based on the fact that their support was by majority vote only (multiple seconds).

Professor Pedraza said that she did not believe the motion should be separated into parts just because two SACUA members had voted against items 4 and 5.  Professor Schultz said that he thought all the points should be considered together.  Professor Smith pointed out that items 1, 2, and 3 can stand alone, and that there are problems recognized with points 4 and 5.

Vote on the active motion (separation of the main motion):
Number approving- 25
Number disapproving- 16
There were no abstentions of record.

The main motion was separated and considered in two parts.

CONSIDERATION OF ITEMS 1, 2, AND 3 OF THE MAIN MOTION
A member of the Assembly asked if the regional campuses would be evaluated this Fall Term along with the Ann Arbor campus, and also whether the same evaluation questions would be used in all cases.  Professor Lehman responded that the issue had not been resolved but that input would be sought from the faculty governance groups of both regional campuses before evaluations were conducted there.

Vote on the active motion (approval of items 1, 2, and 3):
The action was approved with none opposing and 3 abstentions of record.

CONSIDERATION OF ITEMS 4 and 5 OF THE MAIN MOTION
Professor Meerkov moved (multiple seconds) to delete item 5 and to amend item 4 to read:

4.  The Senate Assembly resolves that the final structure and composition of the AEC will be determined by the Senate Assembly during Winter Term of 2005 based on the experience and recommendations of the inaugural AEC.

A member of the Assembly asked how other committees are formed.  Chair Berent responded that committees are filled by volunteers following a Call for Nominations that is sent to all faculty that produces nominations or self-nominations, and that SACUA may propose additional names for membership.  He said that the slate of committee nominees is then brought before the Senate Assembly for ratification.  The member sought assurance that when a slate is brought before the Senate Assembly, Assembly members would have adequate opportunity to propose additional names.  Berent replied that this is indeed the case and that committee assignments were an action item for later in the meeting, and would demonstrate the process.

Chair Berent stated that he had proposed item 5 because the proposed Assembly resolution was in fact changing the language from the original Senate action of March 2004.  He added that he did not have a strong feeling about it.   

Vote on the active motion (delete item 5 and amend the language of item 4):
Number Favoring- 14
Number Opposing- 26

Professor Smith moved to postpone consideration of items 4 and 5 (multiple seconds).  He stated that the items deserved deliberative debate, and that allotted time on the agenda had expired.  The motion to postpone action was defeated by majority vote.

ELIMINATION OF ITEM 5 FROM THE MAIN MOTION
A member of the Assembly moved to eliminate item 5 from the Main Motion (multiple seconds). 

Vote on the active motion (elimination of item 5):
Number approving- 26
Number disapproving- 8

ADOPTION OF ITEM 4 FROM THE MAIN MOTION
A member of the Assembly moved to adopt item 4 from the Main Motion (multiple seconds).   

Vote on the active motion (adoption of item 4 from the Main Motion):
The action was adopted by majority vote.

Chair Berent declared that it was not his intent to curtail debate on the subject of committee composition and appointment.  He said the topic could be brought back as an agenda item in a future meeting.

CHILDCARE TASKFORCE REPORT
Chair Berent yielded the floor to Professor Yeo at 3:55 P.M. for presentation of the Childcare Taskforce Report (distributed item 9).  Professor Yeo made her report assisted by a PowerPoint presentation containing the main elements of distributed item 9.  She reviewed the statistical summaries from a survey of faculty as well as committee recommendations. 

At the conclusion of her remarks, Professor Yeo expressed thanks to the taskforce members; Chair Berent invited a round of applause for the work of the group. 

ACCEPTANCE OF THE CHILDCARE TASKFORCE REPORT
Professor Rush moved that the Senate Assembly accepts the report of the Childcare Taskforce (multiple seconds). 
The report was accepted with no disapproving votes.

APPROVAL OF SENATE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIPS
Chair Berent invited a motion to approve the nominations as submitted by SACUA for membership on Senate Assembly committees (distributed item 10). 

Approval was granted with no objections or abstentions of record.  

Respectfully submitted,

John T. Lehman
Senate Secretary

University of Michigan Bylaws of the Board of Regents, Sec. 5.02: 

Governing Bodies in Schools and Colleges