Minutes*
Faculty Consultative Committee
Thursday, August 24, 1995
9:00 - 12:00
Room 238 Morrill Hall
Present:
Carl Adams (chair), John Adams, Carole Bland, Victor Bloomfield, Dan Feeney, Virginia
Gray, James Gremmels, Kenneth Heller, Roberta Humphreys, Robert Jones, Laura Coffin
Koch, Geoffrey Maruyama, Fred Morrison, Harvey Peterson, Michael Steffes
Regrets:
Lester Drewes
Guests:
Provost C. Eugene Allen; Provost W. Phillips Shively
Others:
Rich Broderick (University Relations); Martha Kvanbeck (University Senate)
[In these minutes: Miscellany, KIOSK, re-engineering; new issues in implementing U2000; governance
and U2000 with Provost Allen; community, nimbleness, and governance with Provost Shively]
1.
Various Items of Business
Professor Adams convened the meeting at 9:10 and quickly reviewed several items of business.
--
The letter to the ad hoc committee on a governance task force, reporting that FCC believes that no
action is appropriate at the present time, has been sent, Professor (John) Adams reported.
--
Professor Gray will work on setting up meetings between FCC members, the deans, and the
senators from each college.
--
The question of whether or not the Regents Professors should be assisted in meeting in a more
organized fashion will be discussed with them. They spoke on the provostal search last spring, but
there is sentiment that this group would only be expected to publicly engage very major issues.
--
Professor Adams committed himself to meeting with department chairs during Fall Quarter, at
least on an experimental basis. He agreed that there should be one or two specific questions to
focus the discussions.
--
A review of KIOSK is taking place; it appears that any additional participation by this Committee
is at present unnecessary. The question that FCC needs to consider at some point is whether or not
there are attributes of UPDATE and FOOTNOTE--which are presently "on hold"--that the faculty
wish to see continued. It was noted that KIOSK went through an intensive market research
program to learn what people wanted; changes will be made, and the result will be mostly budget*
These minutes reflect discussion and debate at a meeting of a committee of the University of Minnesota
Senate or Twin Cities Campus Assembly; none of the comments, conclusions, or actions reported in these minutes
represent the views of, nor are they binding on, the Senate or Assembly, the Administration, or the Board of Regents.
Faculty Consultative Committee
August 24, 1995
2
neutral.
Professor Adams recalled that he wished to enlist the chairs of Educational Policy, Faculty Affairs,
and Finance and Planning to contribute articles on the issues of the day to KIOSK on a rotating
basis with him and with Professor Gray, FCC vice chair. Professor Heller will take the upcoming
column. It was agreed that Professor Feeney, Professor Gray, and Professor Morrison would make
the following three contributions.
--
Professor Adams reported that he has not learned, since the last meeting, a great deal about
Responsibility Center Management (RCM) or re-engineering; he will keep the issues on the
agenda.
Many have heard about RCM but little has been heard about re-engineering, said one Committee
member; what is going on? The President has charged a group, including Dr. Infante, two faculty
members, and others; it grew out of the effort to improve the grants management process but will
have broader application. It may be that there will be no major push on this issue until the new
finance vice president is hired.
The news of a committee prompted one Committee member to observe that every year there are a
lot of groups nobody knows about working on a variety of projects, many of which produce reports
people know nothing about. It would be helpful if Committee members were provided a summary
sheet that contained a list of groups at work, their membership, and their charge. Other Committee
members concurred.
The chair and vice chair of the Committee, said one Committee member, need to review and assess
the volumes of material that are forwarded to them and identify what should be brought to the
attention of Committee members. The administration does a good job of letting FCC know,
through the chair, what is happening; the challenge is filtering out what needs attention.
--
The Committee affirmed its decision of last year that it wishes to have quarterly meetings with the
chair and vice chair of the Board of Regents, if they remain willing to meet.
2.
U2000
Professor Adams then recalled that he had reported at the last meeting about the efforts being
undertaken to improve the articulation of U2000 in order to better effect its implementation. It has been
assumed that the mission and vision in U2000 need not be revisited; what some operating officers believe
missing is the identification of key institutional issues and the position the University takes on them. If
those issues and positions were identified, the operating officers would better be able to implement
U2000.
One possibility would to be identify "area priorities" or "signature recognition" areas the
University will promote, and there are different ways to think about these. One example might be that
the University will be the information technology environment leaders. Others might be that it will have
the greatest medical complex in the country or have the best biological sciences. Whether or not this is a
good idea is not settled. If it is important, the University could make appropriate decisions; if there is a
Faculty Consultative Committee
August 24, 1995
3
need for such a "signature profile," what would it be?
Professor Adams then reviewed with the Committee a set of slides concerning refinement of
U2000 that identified seven major institutional issues. They are based on discussions with the deans and
provosts and some of the major support officers. These are issues, he said in response to a comment,
rather than identification of positions the University will or should take.
The first "issue," that of area priorities, might be posed as "should there be area priorities?" And if
they are needed, who should decide what they are?
The second issue deals with financial stability, the need for units to have firmer knowledge sooner
on what their funding will be. Another element of this issue is taking into account all funds, including
gifts and grants.
The third issue is productivity in both faculty and administrative units. It might be possible to
reduce recurring costs by 25%, funds which would then be used for other institutional priorities (e.g.,
faculty salaries). The notion is to seek dramatic changes so that units are not continuously "nickel and
dimed" as they have been. There is an assumption that inefficiencies are built into institutional processes
over time which, if rethought, could be reduced or eliminated.
The fourth issue is marketing and delivery of programs to constituents and customers; this is of
particular application to the new University College. There is also a question about the role of the
Graduate School in delivery and marketing, rather than serving as an operational unit.
The fifth issue is recognition and rewards, such as compensation, tenure, and incentives. This
includes concerns being expressed about tenure; does it contribute to inefficiencies? The President has
expressed commitment to tenure to protect academic freedom, but the University must deal with the
perception in many quarters that the tenure system apparently creates difficulties that the institution is
unable to police. Another aspect of this issue is broadening the basis for recognition so that not just
certain kinds of performance are rewarded.
The sixth issue is diversity, and the need to review some of the targets that have been set. There
are two concerns. One is that the University has spent a lot of money and energy on diversity and
apparently not accomplished a great deal; it may be time to rethink the tactics (not the goal). Should
subunits be provided more specific expectations?
The seventh issue is management systems and the need to develop a strong management
infrastructure throughout the University, including buildings, facilities, technology, and support systems.
One Committee member returned to a theme that had recurred constantly in these discussions: the
need for investment in unit leadership and management. As long as there has been talk about these kinds
of issues, unit management has been a constraint. Even if all seven issues were clarified, there would
still be big problems because people at the unit level don't know how to do their jobs. This is an eighth
issue. Much that is broken is attributable to systems or procedures that should not be.
Another Committee member expressed difficulty seeing the link between the goal of excellence
Faculty Consultative Committee
August 24, 1995
4
and survival as a major research university and these issues; with the exception of the first, none are
related to it. If one agrees that the University wants to survive and excel--which all may not agree on-then these issues become a question of means to the end: what institutional positions should be taken so
that operating units know what needs to be done. A lot of units within the University, pointed out one
Committee member, do NOT have excellence as a goal; they do business as usual and have no prod to
improve.
One difference is between a problem-based and a goal-based approach; this is problem-based.
What is the goal? To be among the surviving 25-30 best research universities in the world in the next
millennium, it was said. The six strategic directions identify aspirations (which can perhaps be
sharpened) that could be called goals. There are a number of reasons why some feel unmotivated by
them.
There was a problem with getting faculty support for U2000, emphasized one Committee member,
and the source of the problem was that a clear vision of academic excellence was not articulated. If these
issues are the next stage of implementing U2000, when only one of the seven issues has to do with
intellectual endeavor and the rest with administrative back-up, it will be a great way to turn off the
faculty.
This is business as usual, commented another Committee member. If there is a vision statement,
there should be a hierarchical set of goals; this is a problem list. Setting up goals means that there are
things the University will not do--things that are valid to do, but which the University will no longer do.
That is the pain that all have been trying to avoid, so units all scramble around trying to get money so
they can survive. This list will not go anywhere. In the last budget, there was complete disconnection
between the money and vision.
What the Committee seems to be saying, summarized one, is that it wanted the priorities of the
first issue clarified. There is only one goal here, said one Committee member; all the rest are
implementation. The question is what happens with the money. If it goes for new management efforts
and information servers that no one can use, it will not be used to address problems in the best units.
The list contains six management items and one academic item, said another Committee member,
and nowhere are faculty mentioned as part of U2000.
One Committee member wanted it on the record it is important that Professor Adams, as the "point
man" for the Committee with the President and the administration, convey the sense of the Committee
that it is NOT happy with this set of emphases.
One way to achieve the goal of being one of the top 25-30 surviving research universities is to
consider what characteristics it would have. The next set of goals should have to do with student-faculty
ratios, the ratio of graduates to undergraduates, the kinds of faculty it has, the revenue streams, the
personnel structure, the technology, and so on. That is what is missing from this list. Correlates are not
causes, cautioned another Committee member; the University could have a good profile with no changes.
Problem-based lists, however, will get nowhere.
Professor Adams reviewed the intent of the list, to outline issues upon with the institution might
Faculty Consultative Committee
August 24, 1995
5
take a stand. The operating unit heads believe they know to a satisfactory degree what the goals are, but
say they cannot move on U2000 because there are a number of issues that need to accompany it upon
which the institution has not taken a stand. This, said one Committee member, is a mixture of
institutional and unit issues; it is intended to be, it was said, central issues.
Professor Morrison then reported that the Finance and Planning Committee will meet next
Tuesday and will take up the next round of retrenchments; they will also take up the capital budget.
They will report back to FCC; what does it wish to hear? Professor Adams said the Committee would
rely on him to judge what should be reported but that the retreat at the Morris campus would be good
time for further discussion.
3.
Discussion with Provost Allen
Professor Adams welcomed Provost Allen to the meeting and explained that it would be helpful to
discuss issues the Committee could take up that would be helpful to the institution and also to consider
how the governance system is or should be set up in provostal areas. It would also be useful, it was said,
if he would talk about what he hoped to get from a provostal senate structure and the difficulties with the
existing system that he would like to avoid. Some, it was noted, do not see the current Senate structure
as effective as might be desired.
This second point needs clarification, said one Committee member. A senate or governance
structure can have a legislative role, because it has responsibilities legitimately delegated to it by the
President or Board of Regents. It may also have a consultative role, something helpful for the central
officers. How are these questions translated into the provostal structure?
Dr. Allen began by saying he wants to spend time as provost consulting but wants to avoid the
creation of a gigantic system that no one can deal with. He said he wished to be able to meet with a
consultative faculty group that represents all ten units that report to him. If such a group is established,
what would its relationship to the all-University governance system be? It would seem logical that they
should be connected.
One can understand college issues, and institutional issues, but what are the issues that would arise
in a provostal area that would cut across all ten units, asked one Committee member? Programs and
budgets, Dr. Allen commented. They have identified a number of opportunities that units did not know
about but learned of by interacting--and this is part of what the President envisioned when he established
the provostal structure. He would have liked to have a faculty group last spring to discuss budgets and he
wished he had one now to discuss the vision for these units; they provide an opportunity to brainstorm
and can generate a lot of good ideas on how to do business.
The change to semesters creates an enormous opportunity for the University, Dr. Allen maintained.
Everything must change at the same time; the University should capitalize on that situation because it
will NOT be business as usual. It must rethink its programs, and some will come together, in different
ways.
He said he is not a strong supporter of many of the ways the University now does business,
including in Senate committees. Governance and management should not be confused. Mandates to the
Faculty Consultative Committee
August 24, 1995
6
administration that have not had serious consideration must be rethought. Management is making
decisions about what will be done after consulting widely with faculty, students, staff, and so on. One
example he cited was the administrative review process, which in a recent case took 18 months. The
process is indefensible and the faculty must help correct it. Some Committee members took exception to
the suggestion that the governance system was responsible, and pointed out that the Committee itself had
complained about the administrative review process.
What results from the policy-making process, Dr. Allen observed, when something emerges from
faculty, student, and administrative groups, is a set of compromises that is sometimes not what the
University needs. The discussions also often confuse what is going on.
It may be that the Board of Regents or others may be confused when it receives opinions from
several groups; getting input from two or three groups could be good or bad, it was said. But there
should be clarity about what kinds of issues are assigned where, and that is absent. In terms of
governance versus management, said another, the Senate is governance.
Dr. Allen agreed, noting that the Senate could not manage anything. If he cannot lead and manage,
he said, he should be fired. A committee cannot be held accountable. Committees make
recommendations, it was said; the administration still makes the decisions. Dr. Allen agreed, saying that
recommending policy is part of governance.
In some areas of the institution the President has delegated to the faculty responsibility to do
things, observed one Committee member. In other realms, that role has not been turned over, but the
faculty are asked what they think. In other areas, he asks the Board of Regents, and sometimes not. One
needs to distinguish between governance, which is consultation and policy recommendation, and
management, which is the responsibility of line officers. There is overlap between the two, but they are
separate. There has been confusion in Senate committees about this; some think the group should decide
matters. They do not.
Asked if he believed in additional governance groups, ones that might work with the provosts, Dr.
Allen said he wanted a consultative group but with the caveat that its interface with others had to be
considered.
The interim guideline was that in each provostal area the members of the Senate should be relied
upon, but no structure beyond the one suggested in the Transition Advisory Committee recommendation
was identified. Committee members discussed the relationship between the Senate and any provostal
structures as well as the relationship and parallel between the FCC and a consulting body for the
provosts. It was agreed that Professor Adams, in concert with the provosts, should work on development
of the provostal consultative groups and structures.
Dr. Allen observed that the University sometimes fails to distinguish between a meeting and a
group that can carry on a discussion, and this Committee is close to the maximum size that can do so; one
cannot consult with a group that is more than 10 or 12 people. Another problem is that people come to
"represent" rather than discuss.
The same is true for search committees, he added: the University comes under enormous pressure
Faculty Consultative Committee
August 24, 1995
7
to have "representatives" on them. He said he has decided one cannot keep everyone happy, so will insist
on smaller committees where people do NOT "represent" groups. Everyone on the committee will be
responsible for representing the entire unit.
Before he joined the meeting, one Committee member recalled, they had been discussing U2000,
how faculty were mystified about it and mistrusted it, while the University had staked its future on it
without faculty support. This is a big problem; what could a new provostal faculty governance structure
do about it? How could such a structure help to move U2000 along?
Dr. Allen said the questions were good but that he did not know how to do it. This happens in the
University a lot; no matter how hard they try, in many ways, many things are not communicated. Many
would prefer to have the minutes of the FCC meetings immediately after the meeting is over; they are
widely read, and also read between the lines. The perceptions created by the readings become reality.
His vision of a consultative committee--which should not be one-third of the Senate--is a small group of
interested faculty who know the programs and who can discuss a variety of issues. That will not happen
in a large body; the dynamics will not encourage such discussion.
How can those discussions be shared more broadly with colleagues? The FCC minutes, despite
the best efforts, often do not communicate what should be communicated. One Committee member
disagreed, saying that many discussions do not focus on the most important issues but get hung up on
legalities and so on--which BECOME the most important issues. People do not keep their eyes on the
principles. What is reported is what people think. And most of what is on the table, added another, is
put there by managers with problems--legal, financial, personnel--that make teaching, research, and
outreach take second place, even though they are the heart and soul of the University's activities.
There is an opportunity for the Committee to be helpful, offered one Committee member, in setting
up a series of consultative structures across provostal units. It is important that the three provosts get at
this issue with the Committee so there is some consistency across the units. If the provosts, who it is said
work well together, could indicate what their needs are, the Committee could work with them.
Another Committee member concurred, but pointed out that as discussions with the provosts take
place, the responsibility for establishing the mechanisms lies with the Senate and the Consultative
Committee. Another factor that must be kept in mind, said another Committee member, is the support
required; any structure established will not work if it must rely on volunteer faculty time. There must
adequate support provided.
Dr. Allen said he was not as interested in a provostal senate as he was in a consultative committee,
which Committee members said may be entirely appropriate.
Asked about the governance structures in the units that report to him, Dr. Allen said they are very
different. It was pointed out that the interest of the Senate is in cross-collegiate issues, by constitutional
provision; it has no role in matters exclusively within one college. The Senate structure can connect with
college representatives, but it does not have responsibilities for the issues. Is it not a governance problem
if units do not cooperate or connect with each other, asked one Committee member? What is key, said
Dr. Allen, is that whatever a unit has, it must work for that unit; what is unclear is how to draw on
numerous units for cross-collegiate discussions.
Faculty Consultative Committee
August 24, 1995
8
Discussion turned to U2000. One Committee member inquired if there has been talk about areas
that would define the University's profile. How would they be approached? Profiles imply difficult
decisions, and it is important for faculty to know how that would happen.
Dr. Allen explained that the three provosts have discussed during the summer how to move the
agenda ahead and have shared their views with the central administration. The effort must start this fall,
and is one that this Committee and provostal consultative committees could be helpful with. The
discussion should NOT start with a structure, he said, but with mission and vision; the structure will
evolve.
Dr. Allen again noted the opportunity presented by the change to semesters, and reported that the
provosts believe it should take place in the fall of 1999; to do it earlier will not leave enough time, when
one takes into account the lead time required for publications, etc. If the process is shortened, some
programmatic opportunities will be missed. His fear, he said, is that this large and complex university,
with multiple places of excellence, may try to narrow itself too far and end up doing harm. A few years
ago 30 outstanding departments were identified; that did a considerable disservice to the University, in
his view, because it was taken as a negative. The institutional culture here is not the same as at other
places; one must be careful in Minnesota when one talks about singling out excellence.
With respect to "signature" areas, he said, there must be exploration of cross-cutting colleges and
departments. In the process of doing so, it should be possible to identify things the University should
NOT do any longer. A better job must be done in the planning effort to plan curricula and courses, rather
than focus on strengths within a college. He related that he has talked with Provost Shively about
signature areas; they prefer that each faculty be responsible for the whole curriculum in that area. To the
extent there are strengths, there will be "magic" (e.g., in terms of courses and grants); they want to
capture some of that potential "magic."
One Committee member expressed support for Dr. Allen's comments and the damage that can
result from identifying outstanding departments. There also need to be identified areas that are not as
outstanding as they should be so that resources can be put into them--areas that NEED to be outstanding.
As these discussions take place, Dr. Allen said, what is core to the University will emerge. He
learned from the strategic planning process for outreach that if one spends a painful amount of time on
mission, vision, and strengths/needs, the rest will largely fall into place.
When he meets with the Committee in the future, Dr. Allen concluded, he would like to spend time
on only one or two topics, not just on management crises, so they can discuss things in depth.
Professor Adams thanked Dr. Allen for joining the Committee and said he would contact him
about setting up a governance mechanism.
4.
Discussion with Provost Shively
Professor Adams next welcomed Provost Shively and outlined for him the same points he had
made with Provost Allen.
Faculty Consultative Committee
August 24, 1995
9
Dr. Shively began by saying he wanted ideas from the Committee on what would be an appropriate
governance structure and said he wanted a mechanism to consult with the faculty.
Dr. Shively expressed mild disagreement with Provost Allen on the issue of outstanding
departments; he recalled that when he was faculty lobbyist, he had played a role in obtaining funds from
the legislature that were set aside for special merit. The University identified 20 departments that were
then given the extra salary money. That, he said, was a fine hour for the University.
The Committee is interested in learning what he believes should be taken up. As he thinks about
the most important issues for the future of the University, for faculty, two basic things emerge.
The first is building communal identification and responsibility--so that every faculty member in a
field feels responsible for what happens in that field and internal boundaries become less important.
What is more difficult, in a time when there is increased emphasis on personal careers, is to get people to
perform tasks for the common good. That depends in part on how one identifies oneself--as part of a
community or as part of a national discipline. The University needs to build incentives for leadership
and for faculty to take responsibility for their area--and see it as a contribution to the common good.
The second important issue for the University is developing nimbleness, both personal and
institutional, in response to a more rapidly changing financial, political, and intellectual environment.
This ties into Responsibility Center Management and the re-examination of structures. The more the
University can do to retool its structures to make itself more nimble, the better off it will be.
One Committee member inquired if the two issues are linked; Dr. Shively thought not. Another
said a nimble university conjures up visions of dancing millipedes; it is hard for them to get all their feet
off the ground at the same time. The two ideas ARE linked, in that all must feel responsible for what
happens if there is to be any concerted action.
The difficulty with the concept of community, said another Committee member, is that it cuts a lot
of ways, across all areas of faculty responsibilities. There are many communities. The external world is
putting a lot of pressure on the University, which makes it harder to think about the institution as has
been done in the past. Society wants application in a lot of areas.
Dr. Shively said he was thinking more of public-spiritedness, which ties to how the University
organizes itself. Everyone at this meeting, he pointed out, is giving their time to the University as a
whole, not to their department or discipline; it is this kind of contribution that he is thinking. There are
many roles the faculty play simultaneously in a university--overall governance, undergraduate education,
member of a discipline, participant in cross-disciplinary activities, and so on. Normally one is not
troubled by these different roles in daily life--in his case, father, husband, citizen, faculty member, and so
on. The problem at the University is that of the roles one may play in it, some have become petrified
while others are free-floating--and the latter are not rewarded. Some FCC members are punished for
their service because service outside the department is not regarded positively. The problem is to work
out roles so that people contribute in the many ways needed by the University. One way to do so might
be to reward departments as teams, and let them decide on individual rewards. If a department is
rewarded for contributions to the University, for research productivity, undergraduate instruction, and so
Faculty Consultative Committee
August 24, 1995
10
on, it would become important to EVERYONE in the department that those activities were handled well
and rewarded concretely--and in important social ways as well. Right now the University has an
ambiguous or even perverse system for distributing rewards.
This strikes at the conflict at the heart of the modern research university: the faculty are rewarded
for efforts recognized outside the institution. There is always a tension between time spent on those
activities and time spent on institutional activities. One could argue that the balance is changing, both
locally and nationally, with research funding declining and an increased insistence on teaching. If this is
true, how should faculty think about it? Or will it be business as usual?
Dr. Shively said he was not certain that things were changing to the extent suggested. The
argument he is making, he said, is not that service on FCC is equivalent to research. This is to be a
research university, and if it is not, there is no reason for it to be here, because there are cheaper ways to
handle thousands of students at different kinds of institutions. If the University is doing mediocre
research, it is a mediocre research university--research, he maintained, must be central, and tie to national
disciplines is important. Younger faculty are now tied into their discipline far more than was the case for
faculty 40 years ago; this development should be welcomed and worked with so those faculty can also
make positive contributions to the University.
He also agreed that research funding will likely decline, but that does not mean research will stop.
There are some very distinguished research programs at the University that do not receive a lot of
external funding.
Another Committee member said the point is that as the opportunity for competitive research
funding declines, as opposed to support from other sources (such as gifts or tuition), the position of the
individual faculty member vis-a-vis the group changes. It will change the internal dynamics of the
department or college. Faculty will see themselves as part of a group, rather than as individuals
competing in their field. If so, there are implications for activities in each provostal area.
But mobility of faculty will actually increase because there will also be a decline in the production
of the number of first-rate Ph.D.s. The demographics of the faculty are such that there will be a large
number of retirements in the near future, which creates a danger; there will be a lot of fluidity among
universities. All will need to replace faculty, even if the size of the institutions shrinks, and there will be
a limited supply of highly qualified new people. In five to ten years the University may be in terrific
competition for the small number of good faculty, which will mean increased mobility.
One Committee member agreed with the ideas about community and responsibility that Dr.
Shively had propounded, but argued that the financial rewards to faculty are so low that they won't
motivate ANY behavior--forget community. Faculty will turn to consulting or "retire on the job." For
those who become full professor at age 35, there is no opportunity for promotion for the remaining 30
years of their career; institutions must rely on their professionalism. The administration must consider
how much it is relying on faculty professionalism, the financial rewards are not sufficient to maintain it.
What role does he want the Senate to play, inquired one Committee member? Provost Allen made
the point that the Senate should be a governance body, not a management body. What does that mean?
Does it mean that those who are in management want the faculty to wait on the development of policy?
Faculty Consultative Committee
August 24, 1995
11
Most governance activities involve leadership, not management; leadership by definition means
working with groups of people to make changes. When he was chair of FCC, he said, it was important to
President Keller that the chair exercise leadership. As a Senate member while on FCC, he recalled, he
felt that what the Senate was doing was only sporadically important, but the work of the Consultative
Committee and what it did with the President was EXTREMELY important. But FCC needs the Senate
as a base, and it may be important to have a structure in Arts, Sciences, and Engineering.
Asked why FCC activity was so important, Dr. Shively said it was because of the frequency of
discussion on specific policies and general principles. One cannot exercise leadership without working
with people.
The importance of its activities, said one Committee member, are directly proportional to the
extent that the President pays attention to them. When he does, participation is elicited. In surveys of
institutions, where governance activities are sneered at or taken lightly, lightweights participate. At
Minnesota, governance is taken seriously and the participants are serious. The same principle will obtain
with the provosts.
He wants a consulting body, Dr. Shively affirmed. The lack of importance of some Senate activity
is no reflection on the people who serve in it; any group that meets only three or four times a year for two
hours will not have a large impact. The FCC meets often and has a large impact. He wants a group
because it is important, although he does not want to impose on faculty. His own thought would be to
convene the Arts, Sciences, and Engineering faculty and identify an executive committee for it. Or FCC
could name an initial steering group. It will be important they be elected, commented one Committee
member, rather than selected by this Committee. Dr. Shively concurred.
Professor Adams noted again, as he had with Provost Allen, that the structure is the responsibility
of the governance system. The message from the two provosts appears to be that the most valuable part
of it would not be a senate but a consultative group. Dr. Shively said he was comfortable having no role
in the selection or the structure, but he DOES want a body to work with and there must be a core
leadership group from the beginning. A critical element, Professor Adams observed, will be that it have
support.
A consultative body will work only if it is seen as legitimate by the faculty and the senior officers
pay attention to it, Dr. Shively observed--election legitimacy is not enough. The genius of the present
system is that nominations to FCC consistently get first-rate faculty, so it is taken seriously by the
President. He also agreed that funding is important; the provosts could provide some reasonable support,
although not at the same level provided to the Senate--a whole Senate structure is not needed.
The colleges frequently have consultative committees, but they are largely ineffective, said one
Committee member. Perhaps that is because they have no connection with the rest of the University;
they have no minutes and if they take something to the dean, who refuses to listen, that is the end of the
matter. Maybe there should be a connection between collegiate consultative committees and other bodies
so there is communication.
Dr. Shively disagreed, saying that in its early days the Faculty Consultative Committee was strong
Faculty Consultative Committee
August 24, 1995
12
and effective but it didn't have public minutes. The college committees often don't have all three legs:
faculty legitimacy, first-rate participants, and serious attention from administrators; provostal governance
should operate as does FCC and the Senate.
How important will it be for there to be some consistency in the provostal structures, whatever
they are? If there is to be linkage to the University Senate and this Committee, there need to be at least
some similarities. The responsibility of this Committee, said another, is to see that the structure performs
adequately, and agreed that there may be wisdom in seeking some similarity.
The Senate structure has no role with respect to individual colleges, pointed out one Committee
member, but it does with respect to cross-collegiate matters. The provosts deal with cross-collegiate
matters, so this Committee has some responsibilities for what occurs. Moreover, Dr. Shively added, the
provosts are central officers who sit on the Cabinet and make institutional decisions on policies, which is
what the Senate is set up to address.
Nimbleness is a central issue, said one Committee member. The provosts want to consult with
faculty who can contribute to the consultative process, so the group cannot be too big. This university
has a long tradition of big assemblies, but one cannot talk to them, so smaller groups are created. Big
assemblies are nothing more than legitimizing devices; it is the small groups that deliver the nimbleness.
His advice, Dr. Shively said, would be to see the provostal senates as extensions of the Twin Cities
Campus Assembly, and that FCC should retain control over the consultative committees, and perhaps
obtain support from the Senate office. If that does not exist, the connections with the provostal
consultative committees will be hollow and FCC will lose control. If a provost decided to retrench funds
for governance, for example, FCC could do nothing about it.
The system is changing; that means the institution needs to take the responsibility for keeping
everyone informed. The structures set up should do so. Dr. Shively agreed; in talking about nimbleness,
he said, he was speaking of the organization, not individuals, but everyone will have to be nimble.
Professor Adams thanked Dr. Shively for joining the Committee and adjourned the meeting at
noon.
-- Gary Engstrand
University of Minnesota