Minutes of 5 March 2007 SACUA Meeting

Present: Combi, Frier, Giordani, MacAdam, Meerkov, Potter, Riles, Seabury, Smith (chair); Lehman; Carr, Schneider

5. Facsimile dated 26 February 2007 to Chair Smith and Secretary Lehman from Lenore M. Ferber, Esq. regarding "Representation of C. William Kauffman".

6. Memorandum dated 14 February 2007 to Chair Smith and President Coleman from David Munson, Dean of Engineering, regarding "Report of Regents Bylaw 5.09 Hearing Committee".

10. "Letter of Concern from the University of Michigan Faculty and Staff" dated February 2007.

11. "Proposal to Establish the University of Michigan Pre-College Academy (UMPA)", submitted to the University of Michigan College of Engineering, by P. Kabamba, E. Kannatey-Asibu, J. Lehman, S. Meerkov, G. Ulsoy and H. Winfull.

12. Electronic mail from S. Meerkov to T. Schneider regarding Peer Advisory Committee on Mutual Fund Choices.

13. Letter sent to D. Munson, Dean of Engineering, from R. Convertino Esq. regarding Munson’s response to the "Report of the Hearing Committee Regarding Regents Bylaw 5.09 Dismissal Proceedings Against Prof. C. William Kauffman" dated 26 February 2007.

14. Memorandum to Prof. C. William Kauffman from D. Munson regarding Response to "Report of the Hearing Committee Regarding Regents Bylaw 5.09 Dismissal Proceedings Against Prof. C. William Kauffman" dated 1 March 2007.

Chair Smith convened the meeting at 2:30 P.M. The proposed agenda was approved with two additions.

Consideration of the minutes of 5 February was postponed pending comments from the provost.

The Chair stated that Senate Assembly committees should prepare a one-page report on their activities and transmit it to the Senate Office in advance of the April meeting of Senate Assembly.

The meeting entered executive session at 3:10 P.M. to discuss matters stemming from the action under Regents’ Bylaw 5.09 brought by the administration against a professor in the College of Engineering. The chair instructed the secretary in accordance with discussion of personnel matters to report the substance of discussion but to omit individual names and reference to one particular item of correspondence.

The case involved a full professor who was accused of "serious breach of duty" for declining to teach a 400-level course assigned to him for the first time. The unit administration sought to have the professor stripped of tenure and dismissed from the university. Documentation revealed that the College Hearing Committee that convened under Regents' Bylaw 5.09 concluded that "the response of the UM administration to pursue dismissal … is unprecedented and disproportionate." They recommended a face-to-face meeting between the professor and the dean in a "good-will attempt to resolve the conflict." Such a meeting did occur, at which time documentation states that the dean informed the professor that his office would be moved to a different building within the College, and that the professor’s entire accumulated sabbatical credit was rescinded. The dean also informed the professor that he was again assigned to teach the same disputed course, this time in both Fall 2007 and Winter 2008, under threat of renewed dismissal proceedings.

SACUA members suggested that the professor could perhaps look on the bright side of things and recognize that he might at least be moved to a location where he might cease to be ridiculed and insulted on a daily basis. They noted that the department and unit administrators freely acknowledged that they had never contemplated any other action against the professor except dismissal, even after they admitted that at least two other faculty members in the same department had also declined their course assignments without reprisal. Members even wondered aloud why a reasonable administration would want to force a professor to teach one course when he had demonstrated capability, willingness, and long history of teaching many others successfully. They expressed concern that an interim dean had proudly asserted that he had met with the faculty of the department and instructed them that he "expected" their "unanimous" support for the administration's effort.

SACUA members concluded that there was no further role for the Tenure Committee or for SACUA itself in the current matter, but that the professor could appeal the dean's actions through the grievance procedures of the unit, feckless though the appeal would be under existing procedures. They expressed disappointment at the lack of reasonableness and humanity that seemed to permeate all aspects of the case, save for the deliberations and actions of the Faculty Hearing Committee. SACUA instructed the chair to send a letter to the attorney representing the professor and to inform him of SACUA's opinion.

The guest arrived at 3:30 P.M. She provided status reports on a series of initiatives.

The president is about to send letters of invitation to about 22 individuals asking them to join an advisory committee chaired by EVPMA Kelch. There will also be a steering committee of 7 or 8 that will focus on developing a strategic plan. Professor Riles asked whether the chair of CESF would be included in the membership. The president replied no, that the people were invited on the basis of their specific expertise, not because of their positions. Professor Meerkov asked whether the president has visited either of the campus recreation buildings and observed how dilapidated and unclean they are. The president replied that there have been many discussions about them and how to upgrade them. She noted that some other universities have separate, steep student activity fees, but Michigan has not followed that model. She allowed that maybe it would have to be considered in the future. Professor Meerkov stated that the buildings are not being cleaned on a regular basis, and that although he is on the advisory committee, it has never met. The president stated that she would make inquiries about the situation. Professor Potter pointed out that whereas the facilities are heavily used during the academic year, they are almost empty during summer. He agreed that the facilities seemed to operate under budget limitations.

National Research Council Survey-

The U-M currently has a 74% participation rate in disciplinary surveys conducted by the NAS/NRC. The president asked SACUA members to encourage their colleagues to participate if they have not done so already.

Health Benefits-

The president stated that U-M policy about health benefits for same sex domestic partners was an important issue, and was critical to many people. She characterized it as an issue of equity and fairness. She said that under her direction the U-M was following two tracks: (1) vigorous support to the ACLU in its court actions, and (2) examination of ways to protect benefits for U-M employees. She said that if the court actions fail, the community would hear from her again about how the benefits can be protected. Professor Frier declared that the gay and lesbian community has been struck very hard by the recent court decision. He said that people are becoming fed up with the State of Michigan. The president pointed out that everyone who contacts Human Resources with concerns receives a personal response. Professor Frier replied that it is possible that the Senate Assembly may debate the subject, and he asked whether the debate would help or hurt the cause. The president suggested that he ask advice from the legal team. She added that she would think about it some more and get back to him.

E-mail systems-

The president pointed out that she constantly gets requests from students asking for blanket e-mail requests about funding drives for their organizations. She said that J. Bernard from the Office of General Counsel would discuss policy issues with SACUA later in the meeting.

Faculty Rights and Responsibilities-

President Coleman said that it is extremely important for faculty to design courses and curriculum because doing so is clearly a faculty right and responsibility. She added that at some point, chairs and deans need to assign people to teach those courses. She said that sometimes there are disputes, and usually they can be worked out amicably. She said that as a faculty member she always understood that she should be prepared to teach any introductory course in the biochemistry department. Professor Lehman pointed out that the central ombuds has reported to SACUA and the Senate Assembly an alleged pattern of "ageism" that she characterized as including as hallmarks punitive teaching assignments. The president suggested that there could be abuses on both sides. Professor Frier asked how abuses at the assignment level should be handled. He noted that without care things can break down to the degree that there is no desire for amicable solution on either side. The president said that grievance appeal procedures could be followed in such cases. Professor Potter pointed out that there are many ways for faculty members to be sanctioned, but if department chairs behave vindictively in assigning courses, there is no sanction against them. He suggested that the topic warranted attention. The president replied that the topic is a good one for SACUA to get involved in, and that SACUA should work with the provost's office on finding a solution. She noted that Provost Sullivan is trying to do more orientation training for new chairs.

Professor Riles commended the president on the fine prospective planning for a potential future pandemic outbreak that has been conducted under the direction of R. Winfield.

Professor Riles made reference to a recent murder of a student at Eastern Michigan University, and inquired whether crime alerts are routinely issued to dormitories, depending on the nature of the crime or other danger. The president replied affirmatively and added that she plans to review protocols with DPS.

Professor Giordani commented that he recently learned that some students learn, even after five years in their programs, that they are a number of credits short of graduation requirements. He suggested that there may be a failing in the advising system, and he wondered how often the problem arises. Professor Riles who is a Physics Department concentration counselor reported that the new automated senior audit system has successfully alerted some inattentive students to missing requirements.

The final report from the DBTF is due on 15 March. The plan is to present it to Senate Assembly on 19 March. The provost has been in discussion with the president about the details.

University of Michigan Pre-College Academy (UMPA)-

Professor Meerkov reported that he and his colleagues have met with the principals of all high schools and middle schools in Ann Arbor. He said the principals pledged cooperation, and offered the possibility that participating students could receive high school credit for math and physics courses. He noted that the only thing that is missing is university support. The president suggested that the College of Engineering should take the proposal to the provost because the provost has money to fund such initiatives.

J. Bernard joined the meeting at 4:25 P.M. Chair Smith pointed out that the general counsel has spoken about appropriateness of e-mail use on several occasions. He said that advocates for domestic partner benefits wanted to circulate a petition by e-mail, but that an individual in the general counsel’s office declared that doing so would not be a proper use of U-M e-mail. The guest explained that the U-M has no formal policy that precludes using e-mail as the example case proposed, but he offered the following advice for minimizing repercussions from recipients when sending unsolicited messages:

(a) It is always a good idea to have a way to ensure that a recipient can remove their name from future mailings.

(b) It is a good idea not to include a block signature file in communications that are personal, to avoid the impression that the message is from the institution.

(d) Consider not sending personal messages during work hours if you are a staff member.

Professor Meerkov reminded SACUA that Professor Miles Kimball expressed to the Senate Assembly his interest in establishing a committee that could offer informed advice to faculty about retirement investments. He recommended that Professor Kimball be invited to make a presentation to SACUA. The membership supported the idea and Mr. Schneider agreed to make arrangements for his visit.

Professor Meerkov reported that he and his colleagues are encountering difficulties gaining administrative support for the UMPA. He noted that his group has developed a proposal and submitted it to the CoE dean's office.

In each school, college, or degree granting division of the University, including those at the University of Michigan-Dearborn and at the University of Michigan-Flint, the governing faculty shall be in charge of the affairs of the school, college, or division, except as delegated to the executive committee, if any, and except that in the School of Graduate Studies the governing board shall be the executive board, and in the Medical School shall be the executive faculty.