The University Record, October 1, 2001

Assembly motion requests action from President, executive officers

By Theresa Maddix

The Senate Assembly passed a motion Sept. 24 asking President Lee C. Bollinger and the University’s executive officers to respond to five key reports the Assembly has provided for review, some more than a year old.

Reports and dates submitted include:

  • Report from the Academic Affairs Advisory Committee (AAAC) on Teaching Principles, June 2001.

  • Administrative proposals regarding a Conflict of Commitment policy, July 2001.

  • Report from the Tenure Committee regarding Tenure Guidelines, Winter 2000.

  • Report from the Civil Liberties Board and Senate Assembly regarding electronic privacy, April 2001.

  • Administratively proposed changes in Regents’ Bylaws regarding the Board in Control of Intercollegiate Athletics, November 2000.

    Senate chair Mojtaba Navvab reported that the Assembly has received no response to these items, despite repeated requests.

    The approved motion states, “The Senate Assembly respectfully requests that the President and executive officers respond to the attached list of issues, reports, and requests for information that Senate Assembly and SACUA have brought before them during the previous year.”

    Prescription Drug 2002 issues posed, questions answered

    Marty Eichstadt, director of the benefits office, and Barbara Butterfield, associate vice president of human resources and affirmative action, and chief human resource officer, addressed Senate Assembly questions at the September meeting.

    Chair Navvab shared requests from the Senate Advisory Committee on Academic Affairs (SACUA) to the Prescription Drug 2002 work group report. These items include:

  • No higher co-pays when equivalent drugs are not available either for medical reasons or because a generic choice does not exist.

  • A cap on annual out-of-pocket expenditures for all plans including retiree plans.

  • Accommodation for retirement, travel and living outside of Ann Arbor.

  • Preservation of employee choice of health plans at reasonable cost.

  • Continuous involvement of elected faculty governance in the development of the specific plan.

    This past summer, the Committee on the Academic Status of the Faculty (CESF) and SACUA posed a series of questions to the Prescription Drug work group. These questions and the corresponding answers are available on the Web at

    For more information on the Prescription Drug 2002 Benefit Proposals, visit the Web at