Approved by the:	Faculty Senate October 24, 1996


WHEREAS the Regents of the University of Minnesota are currently under a cease and desist order preventing them from changing or negotiating about terms and conditions of employment regarding faculty members in units in which collective bargaining and severence elections are pending; and

WHEREAS the University of Minnesota Law School is currently the only academic unit in the University not covered by the cease and desist order; and

WHEREAS no circumstances within the Law School require immediate revisions to the existing Tenure Code; and

WHEREAS elections to be conducted by the Bureau of Mediation Services among faculty members within the next several months will determine which, if any, portions of the faculty will be represented for purposes of collective bargaining and therefore which faculty members will ultimately be governed by a common Tenure Code; and

WHEREAS appropriate discussion of proposed Tenure Code revisions for the Law School cannot take place without knowing whether the Law School will ultimately have a tenure structure independent of other units;


  1. That the Faculty Senate strongly recommends that the Regents of the University of Minnesota take no action regarding any revisions of the Tenure Code to be applicable to the University of Minnesota Law School until all of the elections to determine collective bargaining structures at the University have been resolved and an appropriate consultative process with faculty has been conducted.

  2. That, if the Regents insist on taking action now with regard to Tenure Code revisions for the Law School, they:

    (a) Reject the Reagan/Spence proposal because it impairs academic freedom, denies due process and impedes appropriate change.

    (b) Adopt the Tenure Code revisions recommended by the Faculty Senate in May and June 1996, which were themselves the product of substantial compromise of interests between the faculty and the administration.

    (c) Not adopt the Sullivan proposal now because, although it may provide the basis for a possible alternative solution, it has not undergone a comprehensive review and this review would prolong the period of uncertainty which is demonstrably harmful.

The Faculty Senate divided this question. It approved the Resolution as follows: