Minutes of 16 November 1998
Circulated 17 November 1998
Approved 7 December 1998

MATERIALS DISTRIBUTED
1. Agenda for 16 November 1998
2. Senate Assembly Skeletal Agenda
3. Draft Minutes of 19 October 1998
4. Approved Minutes of 28 September 1998
5. Letter from B. E. Ensminger, dated 6 November 1998, to members of the Senate Assembly
6. Articles from the University Record regarding the Provost's Retreat on 27 October 1998
7. Announcement of forum: Discrimination and Affirmative Action Law: Challenges for the Next Millennium, 2 December 1998
8. Announcement from the Office of Human Resources and Affirmative Action regarding M-Care preference, undated.
9. Revised Table One from the Report of the Study Group on the Changing Nature of the Professoriate, revised by Provost, 10/98

Chair Ensminger convened the meeting at 3:15 P.M.

CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES OF 19 OCTOBER 1998
The minutes of 28 September 1998 were approved with amendments submitted by R. Kasdin.

ANNOUNCEMENTS
Chair Ensminger announced:
1. The next meeting of the Senate Assembly will be held on the North Campus, in Pierpont Commons, East Room.
2. The new grievance policy model has been approved by one unit and is under consideration by the others.
3. A statement received recently from the office of Jackie McClain (item 8) states that M-Care steerage plans have been abandoned in favor of alternative strategies.
4. A new revision of the Faculty Handbook has been published on the Worldwide Web and is in production for publication in hard copy.
5. The U-M chapter of AAUP will hold a forum on Affirmative Action Wednesday, 2 December 1998 (item 7).
6. Video tape copies of the Faculty Forum on Undergraduate Education are available from M. Mandeville in the SACUA office.

REPORT FROM AAAC CHAIR SHEILA FELD
Chair Ensminger introduced Professor Sheila Feld at 3:20 P.M. Professor Feld said that she wished to report the activities of the Academic Affairs Advisory Committee and to seek input on the AAAC agenda for the future year.

Professor Feld said that the AAAC was
1. considering ways of enhancing teaching and planned to develop a set of principles that it hoped to bring before the Senate Assembly in the future.
2. reviewing the implementation of the report: Principles of Faculty Involvement in Unit and Central Governance.
3. evaluating the effectiveness of the current practice of faculty evaluation of deans.
4. evaluating the results of the Provost's Retreat on the Professoriate.
Professor Feld concluded her remarks at 3:26 P.M.

ADDRESS BY PROVOST NANCY CANTOR
Chair Ensminger introduced Provost Cantor at 3:28 P.M.

The provost reviewed the activities at her retreat on the professoriate, which she said had been fully reported in articles published in the University Record (item 6). She completed her prepared remarks at 4:02 P.M. and invited questions from the audience.

Professor Zorn asked if efforts to ensure consistency in appointments could be achieved, given such differences as the appointment of lecturers in English and supplemental faculty in the Medical School. Provost Cantor replied that it was important, therefore, that discussions about supplemental faculty be conducted at unit levels. She said that from her perspective there was more consistency in appointment protocols than people think. She said that the least consistency may exist in appointments of lecturers, adjuncts, and visiting faculty.

Professor Rosenthal called attention to distributed item 9 and noted that there were enormous differences in the growth of non Tenure Track faculty among units from 1987 to 1996. She asked why Clinical Track I faculty from the Medical School were not included. The Provost replied that her offer had not generated the table categories, but had only tried to supply accurate figures for the specified categories.

A member of the Assembly asked about the status of gender equity in faculty salaries. The provost answered that she did not know if recent data exist, but that an updated survey has been called for.

Professor Ward commented that it would be helpful to break out the data for Clinical II faculty according to whether they work on campus or off-site.

Another member of the Assembly asked how the increases in non tenured categories reflect the need by U-M administration to expand the funding base for the institution. Provost Cantor replied that she thought funding needs were a big part of the changes. She referred to industry connections and connections with practice in the professional schools. She added that the national mood calls for Higher Education to do more with less. She said that the funding profile was critical as a backdrop for maintaining a quality faculty in the future.

Professor Burdi asked how students feel about the move to staff with more non-tenure-track faculty. The provost responded that she did not know, but that she thought students might not make the same distinctions as faculty.

Professor Voss stated that he would like to attend a point-counterpoint discussion about the pros and cons of growth in non-tenure-track faculty. Provost Cantor said that there had been lots of talk at her retreat about the subject, but that the subject had not been framed in a cost-benefit analysis. Professor Voss replied that it is possibly a mistake not to approach the subject in the context of strong debate. The provost said that diverse opinions were represented at her retreat.

Chair Ensminger said that in a resource-rich world, it seemed that most appointments might be tenure track, but that perhaps sufficient resources were not available. Provost Cantor said that she was not sure Ensminger was correct, and that many of the clinical faculty preferred not to have tenure. Ensminger pointed out that the people identified by the provost were allowed to maintain lucrative alternative earnings from employment. Professor Ward pointed out that it was possible to use different criteria for hiring and promotion for the non-tenure track appointments.

Professor Burdi stated that recent articles in the Chronicle for Higher Education articulated concern about "disposable faculty", but that in fact, the individuals might have contributions to make to the institution.

Professor MacAdam observed that item 9 makes it look like broad resource allocation decisions are at work and that there might be disciplinary reasons why the decisions are being made.

Professor Schneider asked if the Provost was satisfied with the guidelines for appointment of supplemental faculty. Provost Cantor replied that former Provost Machen and VP research Neidhardt had developed a set of guidelines, and that the guidelines were being re-examined.

Professor Zorn pointed out that the title of professor seems to be spreading to people who do not teach, and the title of dean is being extended to people who do not lead academic units. Chair Ensminger expressed thanks to the provost for her visit and discussion.

OLD BUSINESS
There was no old business.

NEW BUSINESS
There was no new business.

The meeting adjourned at 4:35 P.M.

Respectfully submitted,

John T. Lehman
Senate Secretary

Return to Faculty Governance Home Page

Return to Senate Assembly Minutes Index