Minutes*
Faculty Consultative Committee
Thursday, March 31, 1994
10:00 - 2:00
Room 238 Morrill Hall
Present:
Judith Garrard (chair), Mario Bognanno, James Gremmels, Kenneth Heller, Karen
Seashore Louis, Geoffrey Maruyama, Toni McNaron, Michael Steffes, Irwin Rubenstein,
Shirley Zimmerman
Regrets:
Carl Adams, John Adams, Lester Drewes, Robert Jones, Cleon Melsa
Absent:
none
Guests:
Senior Vice President E. F. Infante, Executive Director Barbara Muesing (Board of
Regents)
Others:
Michele Ames & another reporter (Minnesota Daily), Martha Kvanbeck (University
Senate), Maureen Smith (University Relations)
[In these minutes: Structure and operation of the Board of Regents; various (primarily budget) items
with Senior Vice President Infante; Committee business]
1.
A Primer on Regents
Professor Garrard convened the meeting at 10:15 and welcomed Regents' Executive Director
Barbara Muesing, who was invited following the discussion the Committee had with its three former
FCC chairs about relationships with the Board of Regents. The point of the discussion is to understand
how regents are chosen, what orientation to the University they receive, and how the faculty might help
regents understand the faculty role.
Ms. Muesing thanked the Committee for the opportunity to join it and began by cautioning that she
would respond to factual questions about how the regents are selected and how the Board operates;
questions about how the Board members feel or what they believe should be done should, she said, be
directed to the Board members themselves.
Ms. Muesing distributed a number of handouts, including a brochure with brief biographies of
Board members, an enumeration of individual and collective regent responsibilities, the 1851 territorial
laws chartering the University, the statutory provisions requiring a student regent and creating the Regent
Candidate Advisory Council (hereinafter RCAC), and the bylaws of the Board of Regents.
In terms of the selection of regents, Ms. Muesing pointed out, the 1851 territorial laws--which
*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
March 31, 1994
2
were perpetuated in the Minnesota Constitution--provided for a governing body of 12 regents elected by
the legislature in joint session (which is the only time the two houses meet together to take action).
Regents serve 6-year terms; Board membership is staggered so four terms end every two years. The laws
also provide that in the case of unexpected vacancies, the Governor appoints a regent. The constitutional
language also creates the Regents as a corporate body that can sue and be sued, make contracts, and so
on.
Asked if the legislature could amend the charter, as appears to be suggested in one provision of the
territorial laws, Ms. Muesing said it is her understanding it cannot. When the territorial laws were
perpetuated in the Constitution, the constitutional autonomy of the University was established and it
would take a constitutional amendment to change that charter. That is also why, for example, the Board
of Regents enacts "laws" for the University and the legislature does not. For that same reason, the
legislature cannot insist that the RCAC be used to fill unexpected vacancies on the Board--it cannot
abrogate the constitutional right of the Governor to fill those vacancies.
The question of the legislature's authority to amend the act, said one Committee member, can be
related to the provision in the territorial laws about tuition, which provides that "The admission fee to the
University and the charges for tuition . . . shall be regulated by the Board of Regents; and as soon as in
their opinion, the income of the University fund will permit, tuition in all of the Departments shall be
without charge to all students in the same, who are residents of the Territory." The legislature, it was
noted, HAS changed that part of the law. Ms. Muesing, noting that a lawyer could better answer some of
these questions, explained that the Board of Regents can set whatever tuition rates it deems appropriate-and the legislature can provide whatever funds IT deems appropriate. Board members in recent years
have been heard to say, she recalled, that they FEEL they have no choice about the levels of tuition,
given the levels of state funding being appropriated. The call for free tuition can be seen, now, to
conflict with other Board responsibilities (e.g., its obligation to find adequate resources to operate the
University).
The Board has largely been selected and operated in the fashion prescribed by the territorial laws,
Ms. Muesing commented, and when challenged, the courts have invariably resorted to the territorial laws.
There is also statutory language about the selection of the 12 regents, providing that one is from
each of the eight congressional districts and four are at-large and that one of the at-large seats shall be
held by a student. The RCAC was created in 1988; it consists of 24 members, half of whom are
appointed by the House and half by the Senate. The RCAC develops criteria for and recruits candidates
for the Board, it conducts interviews, and recommends to the legislature two to four candidates for each
seat. The legislature is not bound by the recommendations but has, since its inception, selected regents
from those recommended by the RCAC. Legislators from the congressional district typically caucus
when "their" regent seat is vacant to recommend nominees; occasionally there may be a difference--and a
fuss--between the caucus recommendation and legislative action (as when, as recently occurred, the
majority party in the district caucus is the minority party in the legislature as a whole). The intent in
creating the RCAC was to make the process of regent selection less political; some would say it has
succeeded, Ms. Muesing observed, while others would say it has not.
Ms. Muesing told the Committee she has not received any formal allegation of violations of the
ethics code of the Board. On occasion, Board members will recuse themselves from voting on an issue
Faculty Consultative Committee
March 31, 1994
3
because doing so might be a conflict of interest, real or perceived. Regents also file disclosure forms
about their employment and interests, she said, which are public documents.
There is nothing in the list of regent responsibilities, one Committee member pointed out, that calls
for them to act as a liaison to the legislature on behalf of the University--but it seems that they would be a
natural group to do so, given the way they are selected. The Board does have an obligation to ensure that
there are adequate resources for the University from the legislature and from other sources, Ms. Muesing
said. Another Committee member noted that the Board is co-equal with the legislature and said that for
Board members to intervene with the legislature would be like the Supreme Court lobbying Congress.
Traditionally, Ms. Muesing observed, the administration has presented testimony and information to the
legislature; often Board members are present in a supporting role.
One of the most important questions, said another Committee member, is how regents come to
understand the University. Administrators who come here, it was pointed out, often say it takes them
years. Board members come from a wide variety of backgrounds, Ms. Muesing said; some know the
University very well, others less well. When regents are elected, they are provided an individual
orientation that is geared to the time available and their style. Some have intense sessions; others learn
over time. The RCAC process itself is an educational experience, she pointed out; all of the candidates
have received the U2000 documents, financial reports, and so on. It sometimes appears, it was said, that
the University does more to educate legislators than regents, so that they understand what they are
appropriating funds for; what assurances are there that regents are equally well-informed?
One nagging issue over the last several years, pointed out one Committee member, is that there
have been a number of new regents who interact with administrators and with students on Regents'
committees. They see the student perspective and the University as cast by administrators, but they are
missing a large part in that they do not see what is happening from a faculty and academic staff
perspective. They may learn something in a crisis but there is no systematic introduction of regents to
faculty and academic programs.
Ms. Muesing recounted the interactions that do occur. The FCC chair reports to the Board three or
four times per year, FCC is typically invited to participate separately when open forums are held by the
Board, and dinner and lunch gatherings with the Board and FCC have been arranged. Ms. Muesing said
she would not begin to contend that these are the same as the student at the meeting table, but efforts
have been made. She said she believed the chair of the Board would be open to suggestions about how
best to have a meaningful dialogue. She also told the Committee that regents receive hundreds of
invitations to collegiate events, both ceremonial and substantive, events which the Board members find
instructive. One regent appears at virtually every commencement, a responsibility they take very
seriously. So they do get at least a glimpse into the University over a period of a year or two.
One infers, from the news accounts of the meeting, that when Win Wallin spoke to the Board
about the difficulties in the Medical School, he challenged them to meet people and to learn what is
going on. It is too bad it takes an outsider to issue that challenge.
The at-large regents, reflected one Committee member, also sometimes represent constituents;
there has long been one seat traditionally allocated to labor, one seat is now statutorily reserved for a
student, and there has also been one seat allocated to a person of color. What is baffling for the faculty is
Faculty Consultative Committee
March 31, 1994
4
where their representative is. The faculty want to believe the President and Senior Vice President for
Academic Affairs ought to represent the faculty, and that it would not be wise for them to have separate
representation, but there are many constituent groups that have a strong interest in the University that
also have representation. Ms. Muesing commented that the RCAC does consider diversity--in the broad
sense of the term--in identifying regent candidates, in that it considers what backgrounds would be of
benefit to the University. That is not quite constituent representation, but there is attention to issues of
diversity.
One Committee member maintained that U2000 reflects the fact that there will be a dramatic
change in the University in the future--what it does, how it does it, and at what cost. Ways must be found
to make sure that faculty and academic professional channels to the Board of Regents are clear. There
are no proposals being made, but one idea to increase the faculty voice with the regents it was suggested
that Ms. Muesing bring to the Board is an ex-officio, non-voting faculty representative to sit with the
Regents. This might help improve the dialogue. There is no faculty and academic program committee at
the Board level, it was noted, that focuses on problems of instruction and research. The latter, observed
another Committee member, may come close to micromanagement. Another possibility would be to have
part of the Committee's meetings with the Board be structured to inform regents about the faculty
experience and what is going on in faculty lives. Three 20-minute presentations by the FCC chair are not
enough, concluded one Committee member; the times require maximum communication.
There have been faculty at every Board meeting this year, Professor Garrard pointed out, which
has been helpful. But that, of course, is one-way communication. What is needed is two-way
communication, at the table.
One Committee member inquired about the student representatives to the Board. Ms. Muesing
reported that the student reps to the Regents were established in 1974; there are seven, four from the
Twin Cities and one each from the coordinate campuses. They organize themselves--elect a chair and
vice chair, assign reps to the Regents' committees--they sit at the table and participate in the discussions,
although do not vote. They also meet in advance to review the agenda and meet with the President to ask
questions. The chair of the student reps also sits as a non-voting member of the Committee of the Whole.
Ms. Muesing said she did not know the rationale for having both a student regent and the student
representatives to the Board. She said she understands that in comparison with other institutions,
Minnesota has more student representation than is usual. Some institutions, she reported, do have faculty
representatives to the Board.
This is a wonderful student leadership experience, Ms. Muesing commented; one can imagine
what is learned, both about organization process as well as about the University. Would that faculty
could have that same experience, rejoined one Committee member. At the last discussion on this subject,
pointed out another Committee member, FCC members did not realize the extent of student
representation to the Board; this information casts a different light on what the Committee might
recommend.
Asked about the source of resistance to non-voting faculty representatives, Ms. Muesing said such
recommendations have not in the past been considered as the answer. There are administrators at each
meeting, it was noted, but one cannot assume they represent the faculty; they often must function as
Faculty Consultative Committee
March 31, 1994
5
neutral presenters of information.
The proposal for faculty on the committees should be considered, said one Committee member,
but not to "represent" faculty--representation is a bad idea and the wrong approach for a strong
university. What they should do is bring the faculty perspective to the table; they have knowledge and
experience that is not now presented. Other Committee members concurred in this view.
Ms. Muesing recalled that she has been Executive Director for nine years and said she wanted to
be clear that she has nothing but the greatest respect for all of the people who have served on the Board
of Regents. If one reflects on the time and commitment that goes with the role of regent--they are
volunteers who are reimbursed only for their expenses (and some decline even that) and who give freely
of their time. They try to make decisions as a body in the best interests of the University and state. She
said she hoped everyone else felt that way as well. One might take issue with a particular decision by the
Board, but over time the University has been well served by the governance of the Board of Regents.
Professor Garrard thanked Ms. Muesing for joining the Committee.
2.
Discussion with Senior Vice President Infante
Professor Garrard welcomed Dr. Infante to the meeting and asked him to comment on what was on
his mind.
Dr. Infante related that he has recently been spending the vast majority of his time on the budget;
he told the Committee he is pleased with how the process is working but not pleased to learn of problems
that were not expected. He also said that after spending a lot of time on promotion and tenure
documents, he finds them to be a source of enormous pride--and sees a significant improvement in the
quality of people who are being attracted to the University. This serves to reinforce his conviction that
they need to be supported, he declared!
There remain contentions over the budget, Dr. Infante related. One of the problems uncovered, to
their dismay, is the continued level of legal expenses beyond what was expected, and in particular the
legal expenses associated with ALG.
Another wild card in the budget process has been the new OMB A21 regulations on indirect costs.
The regulations are evolving; they have received a lot of attention in recent years because of problems at
some institutions. Two things are happening: First, OMB has a strong desire to constrain indirect costs;
their latest proposal is for a "pause" in ICR funding, to be accomplished by holding 1995 amounts to
those of 1994 PER UNIVERSITY. That is "bizarre," said one Committee member. Dr. Infante agreed
and said he believed the proposal would not be adopted--but if it were, it would save the federal
government $140 million. The second thing is that certain expenses formerly categorized as direct are
now being disallowed and characterized as indirect instead--meaning only 40% of the cost can be
recovered, through ICR funds. The University's 40% ICR rate, he commented, is no badge of honor; it is
ridiculous. Especially, chimed in another Committee member, when some non-academic organizations
charge 100% or more. A faculty committee developed a proposal to handle the difficulties; Dr. Infante
said he rejected their recommendations and asked that they be reworked.
Faculty Consultative Committee
March 31, 1994
6
There are serious budget problems that must also be addressed. Some units have a structural
problem, especially in the health sciences (where there have been shortfalls in reimbursements for patient
care).
Dr. Infante reported briefly on the status of the various searches in progress; all appear to be
drawing to a satisfactory close and should be completed in the very near future. One Committee member
told Dr. Infante there have been some concerns expressed about whether or not the University can offer a
competitive salary to the health sciences provost. Those people, he responded, do have very high
salaries; in looking at the range of salaries for chief academic officers in health sciences, one sees they
can run as high as $350,000. There appears also to be a significant difference between the public and
private institutions in this respect. His view is that the University must be competitive--although there is
the contrary view that senior University officers are not practicing physicians, they are public servants.
This is an example, it was said, of the marketplace at work. The faculty wish the marketplace to
be considered in evaluation of THEIR salaries as well, it was said. There is always a concern, Dr. Infante
said, about the salaries of public servants; there are those in St. Paul who dislike it when people make
more than the Governor. But it is Regents' policy that the University will be competitive. It must be
recognized, he said, that there is a stress. Ideally, it was rejoined by another Committee member, the
University would be consistent in its use of the market in determining salaries, so it would be used for
faculty and student salaries as well as those of administrators. There is agreement on the problem-faculty are paid below the market--what is wanted is agreement on the commitment to the solution. In his
discussions with the Regents on this issue, Dr. Infante related, he has told them that the faculty are
committed to being competitive but that there could be consequences that many will not like. Such as the
need to cannibalize units, responded another Committee member.
Dr. Infante was asked about the recommendations on transitions for maturing faculty. He said he
will be meeting soon with Associate Vice President Carrier on it; his own sense is that the University
should do whatever it can to make retiring faculty welcome. There is much to be gained from the
contributions these individuals can make. One problem is that the University does not control its
retirement funds nor does it have much room to maneuver on health care coverage; any actions it wishes
to take must come out of operating funds.
Specifically on health care, Dr. Infante recalled saying--when the University was contemplating
changing its health care coverage a few years ago--that things are changing so fast that he was wary about
the University acting alone. It made more sense, he said, to wait and be a part of a larger community.
Things will likely be very different in 18 months and he wants to be sure the University does not make a
decision that will put it at a disadvantage. His own view, he said, is that the University should be part of
a larger endeavor.
Dr. Infante was next asked about the status of 1-2-3 provosts. The President is mulling over the
alternatives, he told the Committee; he has urged that the structure be kept as simple as possible. There
is nothing more "disempowering" than for people not to know who does what when. There are problems
with his position, with both campus and system responsibilities. When he took the position, he thought it
would be 80% provost and 20% vice president; it has turned out to be 90% vice president and 10%
provost. That has been a disappointment, he said, and he often feels like a dime-counter.
Faculty Consultative Committee
March 31, 1994
7
Discussion turned to Responsibility Centered Management (hereinafter RCM). In preparation of
the budget, Dr. Infante related, he has taken the view that problems should be straightened out. That has
involved a little bit of RCM--giving credit where it is due and urging better use of resources where they
are being underutilized. The concepts of RCM have value; they also have shortcomings that must be
explored. Associate Vice Presidents Kvavik and Pfutzenreuter are visiting other institutions at which
RCM is being used or being considered. Any decision must be made carefully, Dr. Infante observed. He
agreed that any trial of RCM should be first on paper and that the budget hearings are going in that
direction in that every effort is being made to have all costs considered (including, e.g., space). The
University is not yet at the point of having all-funds budgets because they do not include expenditures on
items such as space--capital costs, replacement costs, and operating costs. But when space is a free good,
it is not treated well.
Efforts to make buildings more energy efficient are part of deferred maintenance, Dr. Infante
affirmed, and he noted that the University received a large check from NSP last year because it reduced
energy costs. There was also a recent building competition to save energy; Morrill Hall, he noted,
finished dead last.
One Committee member inquired about the problems being uncovered in the budget hearings; have
there been identified units that have not been as responsible in their expenditures as they should be?
How are such units being dealt with--being told not to do it again? Given a loan? Dr. Infante replied that
the administration is insisting that the money be paid back with all deliberate speed for any deficits the
units incur. In some cases, however, there has not been the oversight there should have. But it is the
responsibility of the units to stay within their budgets, it was exclaimed. The circumstances of each unit
must be understood, he said, and he wants to have both carrots and sticks available. There has been some
faculty perception, he was then told, that a unit can overspend and it will just receive a check in the mail
to cover the shortfall; while that impression may be incorrect--Dr. Infante affirmed that it is NOT
correct--nonetheless the impression should not be reinforced. Dr. Infante said it would not be.
According to the newspapers, one Committee member then commented, there is an alarming
proposal from CLA to the effect that one contingency plan, if funds are reduced, is to scrap funding for
all 3000-level writing courses. Writing cannot be taught in 10 weeks of freshman composition; if it will
indeed take 10 years to achieve the writing-intensive courses proposed by the Task Force on Liberal
Education, and support for the 3000-level writing courses is now eliminated, the University will be
giving up its responsibility for literacy a long period. This at a time when employers are increasingly
saying that students must be able to write. This is not so much a question for Dr. Infante, he was told,
than an expression of concern aired publicly. Dr. Infante responded that he would want to hear faculty
discussion of the issue--and noted that World War II was won in five years, so that implementing
intensive writing courses ought to be able to be accomplished in less than a decade.
Writing courses are the hardest ones for faculty to teach, pointed out one Committee member, and
cannibalizing programs will mean it will not be taught well. One can say there are other ways to do it,
but if it is not taught by people who know what they're doing, it will not be done. That is one of the
reasons for RCM, Dr. Infante said; that decision should not be in the Provost's office. But this is a
University-wide problem that costs money, said one Committee member, and should be part of the
budget process; another observed that the decision should not be made by the CLA dean because writing
courses affect every other college.
Faculty Consultative Committee
March 31, 1994
8
One Committee member then took issue with Dr. Infante's assertion that the true cost of "free"
goods are not appreciated. Faculty and staff DO understand the cost of space and energy, for example,
and have become more educated about them. Dr. Infante observed that people at universities take pride
in being teachers and researchers, not managers, and some decisions are made without an awareness of
the costs associated with them. It would be terrible if the system were driven solely by what is cheapest,
but it would be helpful if decisions were informed by knowledge of their associated costs. Traditionally,
he mused, department chairs never give up faculty lines or a square foot of space. And people are not
rewarded for managing space well. The University is just beginning to learn about its investment in the
capital budget, and it is salutary knowledge.
Dr. Infante then provided Committee members with a status report on the supplemental request to
the state for $16.5 million dollars and on the bonding bill. The situation, in both cases, is fluid. He also
discussed the Strategic Investment Pool requests ($71 million in requests for $8.5 million projected to be
available).
Professor Garrard noted that FCC will have the opportunity to meet with the Board of Regents
between the time it receives the 1994-95 budget recommendations for information in April and the time
of its May meeting to act on them; the Committee must decide what advice it wishes to offer the Board.
After that, the 1995-97 biennial request must be taken up.
Dr. Infante said he was pleased with the new budget process, although it is more demanding.
Many believe it will permit the University to make a clearer case to the legislature for its needs for the
next biennium. The process has not changed his mind on priorities--infrastructure and faculty support.
He urged the Committee to examine the budget-neutral fund shifts that have been made between 0100
and ICR funds. Faculty will not be hired into tenure or tenure-track appointments on ICR funds any
more, he emphasized. He also pointed out that the percentage of unit budgets devoted to salaries and
fringe benefits ranges between 86% and 93%. That is too high, remarked one Committee member.
A question was raised about fringe benefit expenses and the overage from previous years that was
left with the colleges to use to cover increased expenses this year due to salary increases. For the
University as a whole, the funds available due to the earlier decline in costs earlier can be used for
increased costs this year and the result is a wash. But are the increased expenses matched by the overage
IN EACH UNIT? There is reason to believe that in some units there were insufficient funds to cover the
increased costs. There are units that have problems, Dr. Infante agreed, but they have been a recurring
problem for them and they are not surprising, given the pattern of faculty appointments in those units.
The units have the responsibility to fix the accounts, he said, rather than repeatedly claim there is a
shortfall. All of the deans were asked about their problems and possible solutions; the fringe benefit
problem, he added, is minuscule compared to the others the units face.
There was news, several years ago, recalled one Committee member, that two or more colleges
were consistently running deficits that were covered by the University. It began to make sense to plan
deficits because someone else would clear them up. Are those the same units that are now running
deficits, Dr. Infante was asked? They are not, he said, and in some instances, deficits have arisen
because income has fallen (such as in the Medical School). Morris also has had a structural budget
problem, in part because of the waivers granted to Native American students (Morris was originally
Faculty Consultative Committee
March 31, 1994
9
chartered as an Indian school and under its terms tuition waivers are still granted); Dr. Infante said that
should be a system expense.
What will be done with all of the results of the new budget process, inquired one Committee
member? One result will be understanding, Dr. Infante replied. The University must be responsible, but
it is a university, not a business that supports only that which pays off. Recognition must be given to
certain facts, such as that Medical School income may not be what it has been and that instruction at
Morris will be more expensive than elsewhere because of the size of the campus. Another result will be
that decisions will be clear and people will take responsibility for them.
Asked who would choose the health sciences provost, Dr. Infante said the President will. Concern
was expressed that in the selection, integration of the Health Sciences with the rest of the University be a
criterion. It may be that some candidates do not understand that there is anything else at the University
except a medical school. Integration, however, is vital to both the Medical School and the University.
Professor Garrard thanked Dr. Infante for joining the meeting.
3.
Other Business
Professor Garrard then made several announcements:
--
There will be no Faculty or University Senate or Twin Cities Campus Assembly meeting
in April.
--
FCC plus the faculty members of the Finance and Planning Committee will meet with the
Board of Regents on April 26 to discuss the budget recommendations.
--
The Committee will discuss reorganization of the central administration with President
Hasselmo on April 14.
--
Two of the members of the Committee will resign at the end of this academic year, one
year early (she and Professor McNaron). Under the rules of the Senate, the Committee
itself fills the vacancies until the next election. The Committee identified possible
candidates and agreed on a rank-ordered list of faculty members whom Professor Garrard
was asked to contact about serving out the two terms. The Committee also discussed
possible candidates for vice chair of the University/Faculty Senate.
There was then brief discussion of the possibility of imposing a $50-per-quarter registration fee.
Those several Committee members who spoke about the proposal favored it; one noted that a flat fee
would encourage students to take more credits per quarter. The Committee continues to advocate a 5%
tuition increase, but such a fee could provide an alternative source of income, it was noted.
Professor Garrard adjourned the meeting at 1:45.
-- Gary Engstrand
Faculty Consultative Committee
March 31, 1994
University of Minnesota
10