Minutes of 20 November 2006 SACUA Meeting

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

Guests: J. May, J. Duderstadt, T. Sullivan, K. Brown, J. Lee, B. van der Pluijm

6. Electronic mail message from B. Frier to SACUA regarding Michigan case Bundo v. City of Walled Lake

7. BUNDO v CITY OF WALLED LAKE, Supreme Court of Michigan, 395 Mich. 679; 238 N.W. 2d 154; 1976 Mich. LEXIS 287, January 27, 1976, Decided

8. Electronic mail message exchange between K. Riles and C. B. Smith dated 16-17 November 2006 regarding meeting with the Regents

9. 16 November 2006 Snapshot Summary of Ann Arbor and Dearborn Faculty Response to AEC Questions 1 and 7

10. UM's Faculty & Staff Campaign: maize blue & you! (related to The Michigan Difference Campaign for Michigan website for the Faculty/Staff Campaign at http://www.giving.umich.edu/facultystaff/flash.htm )

11. PowerPoint slides provided by V.P. May on University of Michigan's Faculty and Staff Campaign "The Heart of the Michigan Difference"

Chair Smith convened the meeting at 2:30 P.M. The meeting immediately entered Executive Session to discuss personnel matters. The meeting entered open session at 2:55 P.M.

The minutes of 13 November 2006 were corrected and approved. Professor Frier commented that he has discussed with Professor St. Antoine the options available when alleged behavior does not rise to the level appropriate for a 5.09 proceeding. He said that existing policy is poorly suited for such cases, and that the topic warrants further discussion within SACUA.

VISIT OF VP FOR DEVELOPMENT MAY

The vice president arrived at 3:00 P.M. He called attention to a series of items that he had provided with the distributed materials. He paid particular attention to the Faculty and Staff Campaign (distributed item 11). His presentation closely paralleled the distributed item. The vice president emphasized the positive responses that have been shown by outside donors to the generous giving by faculty and staff. Professor Riles suggested that Development consider alternatives to lapel pins, such as coffee mugs, etc. to recognize gifts from faculty and staff.

Chair Smith inquired about the status of endowment gifts for scholarship and faculty salaries. Vice president May responded that the faculty salary endowment stands at $227M, or 53% of the stated goal, and that it has lagged behind building initiatives. He noted that the current price of an endowed chair is $2M, which is higher than at most public universities. He reminded the group that President Coleman has made a challenge: she will contribute $0.5M toward each new chair endowment for up to 20 chairs.

Chair Smith asked about endowments that are targeted for minority groups. The vice president replied that his experience has been with respect to scholarships. He said that his office has been told that under the new law, earmarking funds for specific ethnic groups may be problematic.

Professor Seabury asked whether there are differences in donations from faculty who are also alumni versus faculty who are not. The vice president acknowledged that the question was worthy of research; he said he suspected that alumni give more. He added that giving is known to be greater if both spouses are alumni.

The chair asked how much gifts of annuities contribute to the gift totals. The vice president replied that about 90% comes from cash or trade of stock. Only 10 to 15% come from annuities or charitable remainder trusts. Professor Riles inquired how much development money is unrestricted in its uses. Vice president May responded that about 99% of the money given is restricted. Unrestricted money goes into the President's Fund, but that is only about $1M per year. He added that some deans and department chairs also receive gifts that are relatively unrestricted. He noted that the provost has committed additional money to units for them to try to cultivate donors at the unit and department level, with the expectation that these efforts will pay off in the long run.

Professor Meerkov asked whether the vice president saw a positive, active role for elected faculty governance in development activities. He suggested a campaign for undergraduate need-based scholarships initiated by the U-M Faculty Senate. He pointed out that such an initiative could take advantage of matching funds offered by the university president. Vice president May replied that it was a good idea.

Professor Riles offered to prepare a draft of the December Faculty Governance Update, focusing on AEC survey results.

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

Professor Seabury moved that SACUA endorses closing the 2006 AEC survey at midnight on Wednesday, 22 November (multiple seconds).

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

The guest arrived at 4 P.M. Following a round of introductions, Professor Duderstadt reviewed his experience serving on the Spellings Commission. He remarked that although the report focuses primarily on undergraduate education and general education, it would be naive to think it does not have implications for research universities like the U-M. He pointed out that the charge to the commission included issues of accessibility and accountability. The force behind the initiative was Charles Miller, friend of George W. Bush, and architect of the "No Child Left Behind" plan. Only about 25% of commission members were drawn from higher education. Initially, the commission tended to act as a legislative committee; the chair hired consultants and turned out a series of position papers that did not reflect the activities of the commission. The initial draft report was written by consultants, and represented the views of the consultants; it was rejected by commission members. Ultimately, the commission converged on a unanimous consensus for the principal findings, but some of the language from the consultants remained. In part for this reason, one member from academe, David Ward, dissented from the final report, but not from the findings.

Professor Duderstadt pointed out that the commission concluded that too few Americans participate in higher education, particularly those from underrepresented groups. He said the reasons include inadequate preparation, financial barriers, and limited information about access. He reported six recommendations produced by the commission:

1. Remove barriers and thereby expand higher education access and student success. Involve higher education with the task of improving secondary education.

5. Lifelong learning- provide access to post secondary education throughout life.

6. Encourage federal investment in the capacity of universities to help achieve national objectives.

Significantly, Duderstadt stated, there was no call for standardized testing or national accreditation, and the commission offered no advice about accessing added value. He noted that Secretary Spellings has expressed agreement with some of the recommendations, but that she also favors instituting a unit student record, despite opposition from private colleges. He acknowledged that the November elections could have an impact on future developments; at the highest levels, some recommendations may be more strongly supported by a Democratic Congress than by a Republican one.

Professor Frier asked why there was no focus on graduate education. Professor Duderstadt replied that 75% of commission members did not know about graduate education. Professor Meerkov asked what kind of accountability the commission had in mind. Professor Duderstadt replied that the challenge to faculty is for them to publicly state their objectives and then to demonstrate their outcomes. He noted that U-M provost Sullivan is possibly the nation's leading expert on this subject. The issue is about educational effectiveness. It is a sensitive issue, particularly about whether there should be an effort to standardize the assessment.

Professor MacAdam asked what role could be played by the U-M. Professor Duderstadt replied that there is no secret that secondary education is the great failure of American Education today. He suggested there might be greater engagement with K-12 education. Further, on the financial front, he noted that the U-M is becoming a university for the affluent, no longer a place "to provide an uncommon education to the common man." He added that there might be a role for the U-M in the goal of lifelong education, particularly in exploring the fundamental questions of mechanism.

Professor Riles asked whether there is any chance that the days of virtually free college education will return. Professor Duderstadt expressed pessimism about the prospect given the array of budget challenges facing state governments. However, he noted that the Governor of North Carolina has argued that education trumps all other budget needs.

The provost and K. Gibbons joined the meeting at 4:40 P.M. The provost said that her office was watching the accreditation conference in Washington, D.C. with the expectation that its outcome will affect the accreditation process for the U-M. She said that she suspected that future accreditation studies may start to resemble those of the Engineering College. She explained that the federal government will not allow an institution to administer federal financial aid without regional accreditation.

The provost said that assessment is different from accountability. Assessment is at level of student, whereas accountability is at the level of the institution. The traditional method of assessment is by grading and tests, but these traditional methods are being rejected by regional associations. External licensing examinations used by professional schools are different because they are conducted by external bodies. She cited the example of Alverno College, a private, Catholic college for women in Milwaukee, which requires a demonstration in every course and thereby develops a series of assessment projects. The greatest challenge seems to be in the humanities. She also cited a learning assessment used in the University of Texas system whereby a problem solving situation was presented to a sample of freshmen and also to a sample of seniors. She noted that the assessment seemed to have merit at lower tier institutions, but that it did not work well at UT Austin. She expressed the belief that there may not be an external assessment that could come to the aid of the U-M, and that it will be necessary to develop something.

The provost also described a portfolio approach to assessment that gives each student computer disk space, and asks them to build artifacts from different courses over their undergraduate years. Then, external referees could then judge the portfolios. Professor Seabury remarked that the School of Social Work was using the portfolio model. He said that the hardest part is coming up with a philosophy of education. He noted that portfolios are student-specific, and do not measure the educational priorities of faculty. Professor Riles commented that the Physics GRE could be a useful tool in his department, but its drawback is that one cannot identify future Physics majors when they are still freshmen.

The provost stated that she agreed with the Spellings Commission recommendation to reform student financial aid. In particular, she expressed the need to reform the FASAP application schedule. She said that applications in the junior year rather than the senior year would be more effective. She said the U-M has volunteered to be a pilot site for trials. Nonetheless, the proposal is opposed by private schools. Professor MacAdam asked if the U-M provides advice about applying for financial aid. The provost replied that it does provide workshops, but that many parents work in the evening.

Professor Meerkov asked what outcome the provost wanted to receive from the accountability committee that she constructed. Provost Sullivan replied that she needs a short but reasonable set of indicators. Professor Meerkov pointed out that several constituencies might be interested in different indicators; he cited legislators, parents, and employers as examples. The provost said that was a good point; she noted that the University of Texas compiled 180 indicators in total, and that the U-M probably needs at least 50.

Professor MacAdam reported that the CLB was reviewing proposed changes to the statement of student rights and responsibilities.

Chair Smith reported that the task force will meet the next day to finalize its report.

SACUA reviewed the draft agenda for the Assembly meeting. SACUA members instructed the chair to develop alternative resolutions regarding formation of a faculty and staff benefits oversight committee, and to circulate them by electronic mail for feedback and possible approval.

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

The chair brought forward a motion that had been proposed at the previous meeting: SACUA endorses the proposed revision of SPG 201.92.

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

Professor Meerkov proposed the following resolution for presentation to the Senate Assembly at its 27 November meeting (Riles seconded):

Whereas the faculty governance recognizes need-based fellowships as an important tool for attracting students from low income families to the University of Michigan;

Whereas the University announced a 50% matching fund program for all donations towards undergraduate need-based fellowships;

Therefore, the Senate Assembly resolves to actively support this program by encouraging faculty to contribute to a special account in support of these fellowships. The resulting fellowships will be allocated with the participation of the elected faculty governance and will be referred to as the UM Faculty Senate Undergraduate Fellowships.

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

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.