Chair Smith convened the meeting at 2:30 P.M.; the draft agenda was approved. 

CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES
The minutes of 11September 2006 were approved as submitted.
The minutes of 18 September 2006 were approved as submitted.

ANNOUNCEMENTS

The chair announced:

1. The chair and Professor Seabury met with the provost on 20 September.  The Faculty Handbook is being revised with updates to telephone numbers.  The chair asked Mr. Schneider to check with the provost's office about whether changes were being contemplated about the description of the Faculty Hearing Committee.
2. Smith and Seabury proposed to the provost the establishment of a Benefits Oversight Committee.  The provost reacted positively, and suggested direct negotiation with Laurita Thomas.
3. The sale of M-Care had been approved by the Board of Regents.
4. Smith and Seabury asked the provost whether there was a response being prepared to SACUA's letter to President Coleman.  She said yes, and the next day a letter arrived from deputy general counsel D. Sharphorn.
5. The provost reported on 20 September that she had received no revised report from the McDonald-Weiss committee.  The report was subsequently transmitted and was dated 21 September 2006.
6. The chair informed the provost that faculty governance planned to propose reforms to the Faculty Grievance Policy, and pointed to the model employed at the University of Texas at Austin.  He noted that under the Texas system, recommendations from a faculty review committee are determinative.
7. On 9 October, beginning at 8 A.M., the president and provost are hosting the Fall Diversity Summit (distributed item 8); all members of SACUA have been invited to attend. 
8. Professor Seabury asked whether adjuncts and clinical faculty at the University of Texas were voting members of faculty governance.  The provost expressed uncertain knowledge, but said the numbers were small and that they might have voting rights.
9. The Regents' Candidate Forum will be held in October.  Members should transmit their suggestions for questions by e-mail.

LIAISON REPORTS
Weekend School-

Professor Meerkov reported that no member of the central administration has been forthcoming with help for the project, but that there is support for the initiative within the College of Engineering, including at the dean's level and at the office of minority students.  Professor MacAdam commented that she understood that there will be a campus-wide initiative in K-12 outreach activities.

Grievance Policy Reform Taskforce-
Chair Smith reported that Professor Kim Kearfott has joined the committee.

Financial Affairs-
Professor MacAdam reported that the committee developed agenda items, heard about the M-Care sale, and discussed IT security and privacy initiatives.  She said that users of the MAIS system are being provided with additional security measures.

AAAC-
Professor Riles reported that AAAC has been engaged with setting its agenda for the year.

AEC-
Professor Riles reported that the AEC developed a question set and timing for the evaluation (1 to 15 November).

Government Relations-
Professor Combi said the committee received a presentation about budget that indicated general satisfaction with the 3% increase.  No change in outlook is foreseen, pending outcomes in the general election.

VISIT OF PROVOST SULLIVAN
The guest and K. Gibbons arrived at 3 P.M.  The provost reviewed recent developments in her office.

Response to CESF-
The provost reported that she delivered a response to the CESF report at the September meeting of the Board of Regents, and she provided a copy of the report to SACUA.

McDonald-Weiss Report-
The provost reported that she has received a revised report from the McDonald-Weiss committee, but has not yet read it.  She said that she understood that a procedure had been worked out with the previous provost to engage faculty governance review and advice.  She added that the message of transmission with the report indicates that the work of the committee has now been discharged.

            Chair Smith pointed out that the timing is well behind that originally planned.  The provost replied that the report needs a response from her, and that she prefers to have prior input from faculty governance.  She acknowledged that the timing has already slipped.  She remarked that her recommendations based on advice may be tangential to those of the report.

M-Care-
The provost noted that the sale of M-Care has been approved, but that there are remaining questions from faculty.  She said that she has asked the EVPMA to meet with SACUA.  She said she understood that the money from the M-Care sale will be redirected to the health care system, but that the EVPMA could explain the situation better than she.  She noted that there will also be a joint venture with BC/BS on health management research.  Mr. Schneider reported that the visit with the EVPMA is already scheduled for October.

Stadium Renovation-
The provost commented that she thought the stadium renovation would enhance the security of the General Fund.

Space Allocation Project-
Professor Giordani inquired about the review of building space use that is being conducted by P. Hanlon.  Provost Sullivan explained that the administration is interested in learning how all space is being used.  She noted that the U-M has the largest physical footprint of any university in the U.S.  The question is whether space is being used wisely.  She said that the project will take two years to complete.  She said there was no intent to take space away from anybody.

            Chair Smith asked whether the study portends a return to former provost Whittaker's Value Centered Management model.  The provost indicated that was not the case.  She explained that when she arrived she discovered that there were a large number of building projects underway, and that maintenance costs had not been provided in some of the donor-driven projects.  She noted that some units, like architecture, have small faculty offices, ca. 95 square feet.  She said it was a fair question whether they should be given priority for new building space.  Professor Giordani expressed concern that space needs will lead to creeping escalation of charges to departments.

Administration Evaluation-
Professor Riles reviewed the recent history of administration evaluation and invited the provost to participate actively and to encourage the participation of deans and chairs.  She replied that she would like to see the current questions.  Professor Meerkov pointed out that all existing data are accessible at the AEC website, http://aec.umich.edu.  Several members offered positive comments about the evaluation system and reported the positive responses from past provosts Courant and Gramlich.

On-line Evaluation of Instructors-
Chair Smith remarked that the pending on-line evaluation system overseen by L. Monts has resisted any faculty input.  Professor Potter noted that there are differences of culture between the provost's office and the units in terms of the way that evaluation results are interpreted and used.  Professor Giordani expressed faculty concern about how well the new system has been vetted, and why there had been so little faculty involvement. Professor MacAdam remarked that the evaluation process has evolved from one designed to improve teaching to one aimed at merit review.  Professor Seabury pointed out that a big concern is that response rates fall off greatly with the on-line system compared to the current practice.  Professor Potter added that no one has looked at security issues or other problems with database management that the new system will evoke. 

            Provost Sullivan said that she recognized the dimensions of the subject.  She then asked what would be the appropriate group to work with if there was interest in reviewing the issue of how well we are teaching.  Professor Giordani pointed out that both AAAC and Student Relations engaged with the topic last year.

            Professor Meerkov observed that an on-line system for teaching evaluation is a unitary project, and as such, calls for a special task force of people with special knowledge

Shared Governance-
Professor Meerkov noted that the Assembly's initiative on shared governance was featured in faculty governance's September report to the Board of Regents.  He said that at some point it would be good to learn Sullivan's opinion about those recommendations.  The provost responded that she has already spoken to the deans about having discussions of the Assembly proposals in the Units this Fall.

The guests left the meeting at 3:52 P.M.

RESPONSE TO SACUA LETTER TO UNIVERSITY PRESIDENT
SACUA members discussed a letter that had been written and transmitted to SACUA in response to a letter from SACUA to the university president.  The topic involved procedural issues under Regents' Bylaw 5.09 for dismissal or demotion of a tenured professor.  Members emphasized the need to have the bases of the charges against a professor fixed at the outset, noting that it would be a violation of stated 5.09 procedures to change the basis of the complaint after the process had been initiated.

VISIT OF RACKHAM DEAN JANET WEISS
The guest and S. Newman arrived at 4:00 P.M.  After introductions dean Weiss said that she had come to talk about an impending assessment of research doctorates by National Research Council of the National Academy of Science.  She explained that the study is designed to provide benchmarking across universities and to improve programs.  She said that the quality of university programs will be assessed by measuring the quality of faculty productivity for those who are involved with Ph.D. education in selected fields.  She said that funding for the study is being provided by NIH, NSF, the Sloan and Mellon Foundations, and 200 universities including the U-M.  She explained that assessments have been periodic activities dating back to the 1920s, and that U-M participation goes back to the 1930s.  She said the results receive substantial media coverage.

Respectfully submitted,