The administration has proposed 1) Regents' Bylaw changes to the Board in Control of Intercollegiate Athletics' Bylaws and has proposed 2) additional Bylaws for the creation of an executive committee for the Life Sciences Institute.

SACUA is still carefully developing its position on both of these proposals.  SACUA will meet on December 3 and 10 for discussion and SACUA Chair Mojtaba Navvab will make a presentation to you on these proposals and other matters at your meeting on December 13.

-------------

M   E   M   O   R   A   N   D   U   M

TO:              Board of Regents of the University of Michigan

FROM:        University Senate Chair Mojtaba Navvab

RE:              2001 Faculty Governance Annual Report

DATE:         December 13, 2001

As has been established by the Regents' Bylaws since 1928, the Senate Advisory Committee on University Affairs (SACUA) is the executive arm of the Senate Assembly while Senate Assembly itself is the legislative arm of the University Senate.  The University Senate is defined by Regents' Bylaws as all members of the professorial staff, the executive officers of the University, the deans of the schools and colleges, as well as some members of the research and library staff.

In addition, Regents' Bylaw Section 4.08, states:

                    [SACUA] on behalf of the assembly, shall advise and consult with the president of the University on matters of University policy and shall serve as an instrument for effecting the actions of the senate and the assembly.  It shall nominate and supervise the committees of the assembly [a majority are advisory to an executive officer] and shall perform other functions delegated to it by these bylaws or by the assembly. 

This year, as in the past, SACUA responded to this Regental charge by 1) meeting with executive officers or other administrators each week, 2) arranging Senate Assembly meetings each month, and 3) constituting and directing the seventeen committees of the Senate Assembly.

In May, SACUA held its annual planning retreat to review the past year's activities and to identify topics of special concern for the year ahead.  SACUA determined for the 2001-02 academic year to follow through with the previous year's issues nearing completion including:

-       proposed prescription drug benefit changes;

                   -    copyright policy clarification; and

-       the Board in Control of Intercollegiate Athletics review.

The following is a status report of SACUA's activities, as of December, on these and other issues of this past fall:

Presidential Search - SACUA is deeply appreciative of the participation of Regents Deitch, Horning, Maynard and McGowan in the Senate Assembly Presidential Search Forum held on October 29.  We look forward to continuing interaction and exchange with the Regents during the upcoming search process.

Prescription Drug Benefit Changes - SACUA, in consultation with the Committee on the Economic Status of the Faculty (CESF) and the Financial Affairs Advisory Committee, has been involved in the ongoing process of providing input to CFO Robert Kasdin and the administration's Prescription Drug 2002 Work Group.

Copyright Policy - SACUA and Senate Assembly have endorsed the recommendations in the report of the President's Copyright Policy Commission chaired by Associate Provost James Hilton.

Electronic Privacy - President Bollinger has agreed to form a privacy oversight committee as recommended by Senate Assembly's Civil Liberties Board (CLB).

Teaching Principles and Tenure Guidelines - The Provost's office is currently reviewing recommendations contained in the reports of the Academic Affairs Advisory Committee (AAAC) and Senate Assembly's Tenure Committee.

Board in Control of Intercollegiate Athletics (BICIA) - The administration has presented you with a proposal to change your Bylaws pertaining to the BICIA.  We have enclosed a separate letter to you to state SACUA’s position on the proposal.

Life Sciences Institute Bylaw Proposal - Also by separate letter, SACUA requests opportunity for campus-wide debate on the administration's proposal to create an executive committee for the Life Sciences Institute for the reason that the proposal proposes a different make-up of individuals for the executive committee than with other units.  While an initial special status for the Institute might exist, the proposed Bylaw should contain a "sunset" clause for later review.

Also, SACUA has begun preliminary discussions on the following issues:

1.      Grade Alteration Policies

2.      Grievance Procedures Changes

3.      Faculty Composition/Non-Tenure Track Increases

4.      Procedures for Handling Allegations of Faculty Misconduct

5.      Tuition Reimbursement

6.      Child Care

Finally, given President Bollinger's departure soon from the University, it is very important for me to convey to you SACUA's appreciation for his attention to faculty concerns.  Lee has responded to every one of our requests.  Similarly, this is a very appropriate time to thank Interim Provost and Secretary Lisa Tedesco for her consistent support of faculty, particularly as she transfers the role of Interim Provost to Paul Courant.  SACUA looks forward to a continuation of the excellent relationship it has enjoyed with Lee and Lisa to Interim President Designate B. Joseph White and Interim Provost Designate Paul Courant.  Both Joe and Paul have been extremely receptive and have already met and discussed matters with the SACUA leadership.  Furthermore, the University community has also shown an interest in the activities of SACUA as evidenced by 22 articles in the University Record and the Michigan Daily about SACUA, Senate Assembly, and other central faculty governance committees since the beginning of the year.

The 2001 SACUA membership has been:

              Chair Mojtaba Navvab                   Architecture and Urban Planning

              Vice Chair Jack Gobetti                  Dentistry

              Bruce Karnopp                               Engineering

              Charlie Koopmann                          Medicine

              Rudi Lindner                                   Literature, Science, and the Arts

              John Riebesell                                 U-M Dearborn

              Jon Rush                                         Art and Design

              Peter Ward                                     Medicine

              SeonAe Yeo                                   Nursing

              Secretary John Lehman                  Literature, Science and the Arts

 ----------

December 13, 2001

Members of the Board of Regents
2012 Fleming Administration Building 1340

Re: Proposed BICIA Bylaw Changes

Dear Members of the Board:

In response to the administration's proposal to amend the Regents' Bylaws pertaining to the faculty role on the Board in Control of Intercollegiate Athletics (BICIA), on behalf of SACUA, I request that you postpone your vote on the proposal until a later date to permit University-wide comment on this very important question. 

While the Board may act on the proposal in December according to your rules, such a swift action does not seem to us to convey a spirit of open comment and thoughtful debate.  We understand that President Bollinger has special knowledge concerning many athletics questions and that he has devoted a great deal of time and energy to this particular matter.  Therefore, in fairness, the Regents should hear President Bollinger's arguments for the proposed changes this December.  However, we also feel it is possible to respect the needs of the administration as well as the faculty, students and alumni by postponing the vote.

Furthermore, SACUA feels that further reflection and refinement of the proposal will ultimately enhance whatever outcome results.  After a review of the proposed revisions, we have compiled and attached a list of inconsistencies, ambiguities in wording and intent, and matters of real disagreement that we feel need clarification and further debate.  Also, SACUA believes the successor to President Bollinger should have input into the Bylaws that he or she will eventually have to work within.  Finally, we feel BICIA itself, MSA and the Alumni Association, at a minimum, should be consulted before these changes are made.  It is unclear to us to what extent this has occurred.

From our discussions with President Bollinger, we are under the impression that the administration's proposal is based upon a belief 1) that university presidents should be in control of their athletic programs, 2) that the proposal will bring Michigan in line with the other Big Ten universities, and 3) that it is unreasonable to expect that volunteer faculty serving on the Board are in a position to handle big-time athletic department financial decisions. 

With respect to the administration's first concern, we feel that the 1991 amendments to the BICIA Bylaws addressed this by adding the language "[s]ubject to the ultimate authority of the president and the Board of Regents" prior to every description of the role of the BICIA.  In some ways, it has seemed that the National Collegiate Athletics Association (NCAA) rule requiring chief executive officer control of a university's athletic program conflicts with the Big Ten Conference rule requiring faculty control.  However, we feel both rules are consistent with each other in the sense that the stipulated control is layered.  The faculty should have some control over athletics even if it is subject to the ultimate control of the President.  We question whether 1) the proposal to replace the word "control" in the BICIA title to "advisory" and 2) the proposal to change the reporting line of BICIA from the President to the Athletic Director comply with the Big Ten rules. 

Second, other than the aspects of the current Bylaws that give authority to the BICIA over athletic department financial matters, Michigan does not seem to be out of line with other Big Ten universities.  Please review our attached table that sets forth the make-up and duties of the faculty boards at these other universities.  We believe you will see that there is great diversity among the Big Ten universities.  In fact, some other Big Ten universities may have greater faculty control than us by virtue of having a faculty chair of their board.  By control we mean the same level of faculty control that President Bollinger referred to when he told the Detroit Free Press recently there was a need for stronger faculty governance at the University.

Third, in many ways, Michigan does seem different from the other Big Ten universities by its maintaining faculty control of athletic department financial matters.  We concede that volunteer faculty serving on the Board, by definition, will have limited ability to make informed financial decisions.  Also, we wholeheartedly agree that faculty BICIA members should not place themselves in a position of micro-managing the athletic department finances.  However, we feel equally strongly that the faculty should be informed of all financial matters and should have some control, subject to the President and the Board of Regents, of broad-range financial decisions.  This financial oversight function is similar to the Regents' function for the entire University.   

We hope you will agree to hear President Bollinger's point of view to in December but that you postpone your vote until January, February, or even later if necessary.  We acknowledge that the administration has made some concessions in the proposal but we feel there remain several questions unanswered. 

Best regards,

Mojtaba Navvab

Cc: L. Bollinger

-----------

December 13, 2001

Members of the Board of Regents
2012 Fleming Administration Building 1340

Re: Proposed Life Sciences Institute Bylaws

Dear Members of the Board:

With regard to the administration's proposal to amend the Regents' Bylaws to create an executive committee for the Life Sciences Institute, SACUA again requests that you postpone your vote on the proposal until a later date to permit University-wide comment.

The administration's proposal establishes an unprecedented and nearly total executive committee membership of high-level administrative officers.   While this may have its advantages during the start-up of the Institute, the proposal should contain a "sunset" clause for the not so distant future when these preliminary advantages no longer exist.   

Best regards,

Mojtaba Navvab

Cc: L. Bollinger