Minutes*
Faculty Consultative Committee
Thursday, June 1, 1995 (Part 2)
1:30 - 2:30
Room 238 Morrill Hall
Present:
Carl Adams (chair pro tem), Carole Bland, Victor Bloomfield, Sheila Corcoran-Perry, Dan
Feeney, James Gremmels, Kenneth Heller, Roberta Humphreys, Robert Jones, Laura
Coffin Koch, Geoffrey Maruyama, Harvey Peterson, Michael Steffes
Regrets:
John Adams, Thomas Burk, Lester Drewes, Virginia Gray, Morris Kleiner, Gerhard Weiss
Guests:
Acting Vice President Mark Brenner
[In these minutes: Professional commitment policy]
Professor Adams adjourned the Senate Consultative Committee and reconvened the Faculty
Consultative Committee at 1:30 to discuss the Professional Commitment policy with Acting Vice
President Brenner; he welcomed Dr. Brenner to the meeting and commented that if necessary, he would
relinquish the chair in order to debate the proposed policy.
Dr. Brenner distributed a revised version of the proposed policy, reflecting changes approved by
the Academic Integrity Committee. The changes try to eliminate redundancy and language that
consistently caused difficulties. One such instance involved clarification of time limits on extra
professional activities and its application only to the individual's contractual time with the University.
In several places there have been additions in an attempt to clarify how the policy deals with
competition. One activity has been clearly acknowledged not to be competition: participation of faculty
in private practice plans. That participation is now seen as part of one's responsibility to the University.
That model might be used in other parts of the University outside the Academic Health Center, he noted.
[This is discussed further below.]
One issue that has caused considerable concern is the instance of the faculty member entrepreneur
who starts something good, an activity that may support the mission of the department, and from which
the faculty member derives extra income--and which the department subsequently decides it wishes to
take over. How is the faculty member protected? One way to do so is to establish a practice plan, which
would protect at least some of the income, and could even increase it because of exposure to a larger
clientele and a reduction in management responsibilities. This represents a change of view, he said. It is
not suggested that they should be developed everywhere, but they may be useful in some places.
One Committee member inquired about legal testimony under the practice plans; legal testimony is
something clinical faculty often provide. There is no mention of such testimony in the policy, but it now
*
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
June 1, 1995
2
explicitly mentions private practice plans. Does this mean that legal testimony could be part of the
private practice plan, so the faculty member could not engage in testimony? It would become part of the
extra income package of the practice plan, Dr. Brenner said, the income from which is shared among
practice plan members.
This is a restriction on practice plan member faculty that does not exist in other parts of the
University, Dr. Brenner agreed in part. The faculty member loses 100% control of the income stream,
but was presumably a member of the group that adopted the practice plan. This also means that time
spent in the activity does not count in the limits on extra professional activity--it is part of the practice
plan, which is part of the University responsibility. But such testimony could not be offered OUTSIDE
the practice plan, if that were a covenant in the practice plan. It depends on the covenants in the practice
plan. (The plans are voted on by the faculty and must also be accepted by the dean; they are negotiated.)
What is trickier, said one Committee member, is that some of these practice plans are going to
move to a variable income feature; one's income from the plan will depend on what one does. That
creates a difficulty. Previously, one received a University salary, set at a certain level assuming that
there was also income coming from clinical practice; what happened beyond that could be discussed as
"extra work." If the practice plan ITSELF is variable, there are TWO sources of "extra work": extra
work within the practice plan, for which one receives compensation, and extra work OUTSIDE the
practice plan, also for compensation. This gets complex. It appears the University is moving in that
direction, where there will be base practice plan compensation for base levels of activity and
performance, and then, in an XYZ model, additional compensation for additional activities.
This approach is amenable to other parts of the institution, Dr. Brenner observed, where individual
activity is highly variable, and should be related to their entrepreneurial activity. If that develops, it was
said, at the X level there is no restriction except the general one on outside activity; at the Y level some
of the outside time is used; at the Z level there is either no or a further reduced time left for outside
activity. If an approach like this is not taken, there are two sources of variability. An understanding of
this XYZ system is by no means universal, observed one Committee member.
Another Committee member inquired about language of the policy that declared extra professional
activities acceptable unless they "compete inappropriately with the services or missions of the
University." As it reads, it was said, doing things in competition with the University even if those things
are not part of one's regular job at the University would be prohibited.
The way the issue of competition is framed is clarified in the policy, Dr. Brenner said. The
University has some interest in a faculty member competing with it in an area that relates to his or her
responsibility at the University. If an individual has another expertise unrelated to his or her
appointment, even though it may also be an activity in which the University engages, that is not covered
by the policy. The interest is in activities that compete with one's professional responsibilities. Dr.
Brenner agreed that the two different provisions in the policy should be coupled in order to clarify the
point.
There are a number of individuals who want the policy to be more definitive in controlling
business activities that fall outside one's professional activities, Dr. Brenner commented. The policy now
says the University's interest is invoked only if the activity affects one's ability to do his or her job; to
Faculty Consultative Committee
June 1, 1995
3
start trying to control individuals' businesses is so complicated and so intrusive that the integrity
committee decided against trying.
The Adams alternative [an alternate draft of a policy on professional commitment prepared by
Professor Carl Adams] is much more restrictive, Dr. Brenner observed. There are some who would
prefer the more restrictive approach, who would prefer to count the time for business activities.
The Adams version was far more restrictive in the sense that it does not differentiate among
activities, it simply declared there is only a certain amount of time one can do "business" or work-related
activities outside the main University appointment, Professor Adams agreed. It is not known that the
activities will impinge on University performance, but by virtue of history and tradition, the policy
declares that they will, he explained; anything beyond the stipulated limit, no matter what it is, is too
much. The Brenner policy, in contrast, says that if one does things directly related to their University
appointment, there will be restrictions on them; if one is pumping gas or running a flower store, that is
the individual's business and they can spend 85 hours a week on it. In this sense, Professor Adams noted,
his proposal is much more restrictive.
Concern was expressed about the loophole in the Brenner draft, where one who has expertise in a
certain area is restricted in outside activities, but if they engage in activities in another area unrelated to
their professional appointment, there is no restriction, so long as there is an agreement with the
department head that the individual is performing his or her teaching and research responsibilities. To
take it one step farther, Dr. Brenner said, workload guidelines can be used, but ultimately how one
defines "performance" is arguable in an academic institution; it is a very subjective assessment. He
agreed with the concern, and said it would not take a great deal to convince his committee that there
should be a limit on time allowed for extra professional business. They at one point contemplated
proposing a limit similar to that in the Adams draft.
One Committee member voiced support for a flat restriction on "extra work," which is not the
same as a hobby. In terms of a definition, one typically associates compensation with work. There
should be a limitation on such extra work, no matter what the "work" is.
Dr. Brenner explained that the policy definition of "business" includes working charitable
organizations; this could include becoming an officer in a church. That is not work, it was said; that is
one difference between the Adams and Brenner alternatives. The Adams version is keyed to "work":
one does one's work for the University, and then one might do "extra work."
One Committee member expressed dismay at the entire concept of competition. What about a
faculty member who spends time every week teaching a troop of boy scouts about his or her field; is that
a conflict? It absolutely is not, Dr. Brenner, if it does not include compensation. A church officer, in
comparison, could be earning an income.
He raised this issue because he is somewhat concerned about the definition of business, Dr.
Brenner told the Committee; should it be toned down? The policy tries to distinguish "extra professional
activities" from "business" activities, said one Committee member, but in truth it does not do so.
"Business" is "anything I do": "extra professional activities" is a subset of "business." The distinction is
not between two mutually exclusive sets.
Faculty Consultative Committee
June 1, 1995
4
What they were trying to do may have been folly, Dr. Brenner conceded; there is considerable
sentiment for removing the term "extra professional" and substituting "work" for it. Then there must be
agreement on what extra work is.
The Adams alternative defined work as what one does for the base salary, which is defined by the
workload rules that are in place. "`Extra work'" refers to work activities beyond those expected relative
to one's basic appointment. Work activities are generally related to job or employment; they would also
include significant activities in pursuit of a particular job, for example, campaigning for public office."
The Adams version then proceeds to talk about what reasonable limitations on extra work might be. This
seems to be much cleaner. It is also much more restrictive; extra work includes a lot of different things,
but it is all related to work, and limits it to one day per week.
One Committee member agreed that the Adams version is stricter, but also clearer. Another
Committee member said that in addition to being clearer, it is more enforceable. The difficulty with the
Brenner version is that it requires a lot of sorting and judgments, which can cause trouble. Other
Committee members also expressed reservations about the "business" loophole in the Brenner version.
Dr. Brenner said he would have to check with the Academic Integrity Committee, but that he
personally would support changing the policy and eliminating the business loophole. Asked what the
objections were to eliminating the provision for business, Dr. Brenner cited the example of someone who
wants to play in a pick-up band on weekends, for pay. Does the individual have to count each gig as half
a day's work? The Academic Integrity Committee thought that too repressive; the Adams alternative
would count it.
To have the Adams proposal be less oppressive, it was said, the amount of time allowed for extra
work could be changed. But to try to categorize the things that are allowed and those that are not is too
complicated. And one day a week ought to be enough, excluding hobbies.
What if one ends up making money at one's hobby? Being an artist who ends up selling paintings?
Then it may have changed into work, surmised Committee members.
Part of the problem is that these are value-laden examples; being artists and musicians is a "good
thing." What about the case of a faculty member who gets tired of being a chemist and opens an antique
store, and spends most of his time selling antiques? A lot of faculty are realtors and lawyers and so on,
Dr. Brenner said, and those would be business activities, so long as unrelated to University
responsibilities.
What is the purpose of this document, asked one Committee member? It is an issue of developing
a system whereby faculty are accountable among themselves and to the public for their professionalism.
Is the purpose of the document to say that time is a limited quantity, and that if one is doing a University
job, it will take X amount of time, and one cannot spend the time on anything else? If so, then all the
discussion about business and making money and so on is all irrelevant. It could also speak to hobbies
such as tennis and golf, Dr. Brenner observed, but "you're supposed to be human; let's not get into all of
that."
Faculty Consultative Committee
June 1, 1995
5
Is the issue not really compensation, asked another Committee member? If one is going to teach a
boy scout troop, no one cares. If one teaches at another local institution in one's own field, then the
University will get upset. No, said another, if a faculty member spent all his her time on charitable good
works around the Twin Cities, the University would get upset about that as well, even if there is no
compensation involved. No, it was rejoined, the proposed policy seems to differentiate between
compensated and non-compensated activities.
The logic is this, suggested one Committee member. People have a job to do, and the University
recognizes that people can engage in activities besides the job that would diminish their performance on
the job. The potential for abuse is recognized. How does the University say anything about
responsibility with respect to the potential for that abuse? One possible form of abuse is a lot of
charitable activity; that is not too worrisome, so nothing is said about it. Another possible form of abuse
is someone who is out for the cash, some who sells his or her services to other institutions or in the
private sector for money. The University is worried about that, because there are reasons to believe that
some people might see that as acceptable, and that is a concern. So, "as a very arbitrary way of trying to
protect ourselves, and to have some kind of professional standard, we will say that if it is related to these
activities [called] work, then we will limit them to a certain amount of time, because we have determined
through experience and culture that that is an appropriate limit."
There is no other profession or corporation that does this, claimed one Committee member. Both
Dr. Brenner and others demurred, noting that private corporations have no tolerance for engaging in a
number of activities that the University believes are entirely appropriate. That varies with the nature of
the job, it was said in response; if one works on a production line for 40 hours, the company will say
nothing about what the individual does the rest of the time. If one goes to work as a professional in
certain kinds of organizations, they have a great deal to say about what the individual can do. How the
outside world treats other activities varies greatly by the nature of the job.
Most people handle this, it was argued, by outlining what one is supposed to do on the job and
evaluating whether it is done and acting accordingly. That is it. The University does that as well, it was
said, except that it also acknowledges that it is not that easy to evaluate people in terms of their
performance. "We do the best we can, but this is not a perfect world."
The University could take that stance, it was said, except--and that is a big exception--that the
imagery in the outside world seems to be that faculty all put in about 20 hours a week on their job and
they're all running around making money on the side doing a lot of other things. From the standpoint of
accountability, while one can accept the managerial argument, at this moment in time the University
would be in better shape if it had a fairly clear sense that this abuse is possible but is unacceptable.
This may be arbitrary. Some people can drive as safely at 60 MPH in certain road conditions
while others can only drive safely at 40 MPH in the same conditions. The speed limit is set at 45 MPH
and that's the way it goes; there is not a lot of differentiation for varying abilities. It would be wonderful
if one could say that an A+ driver can go 65 MPH in this zone but a B- driver can only go 40. But it
doesn't work that way. Dr. Brenner agreed, saying he believed in the philosophy, but pointed out that it
is difficult to implement.
The problem, said one Committee member, is that there is so much gray area in defining "work."
Faculty Consultative Committee
June 1, 1995
6
What about a writer who wants to write about railroad labor unions, so goes to work for a railroad? How
is that defined? One would be getting paid for it. One option would be to reduce the University
appointment, it was said in response.
One of the notions that has floated around the legislature for a long time, maintained one
Committee member, is that faculty don't work hard enough. If the faculty do not develop policies like
this one, they will develop policies for the faculty. A reasonable policy needs to be developed.
Moreover, if someone flagrantly violates the policy, but there is no policy, there is nothing the University
can do. It seems like the University should have been able to act quickly in the case of someone who
holds two appointments. Something is needed; the question is what is reasonable.
The need for a policy is not in question, responded another Committee member; what is
bothersome about the Brenner version is the tone. The Adams version is more restrictive, but the tone is
more agreeable. It is written by a professional to other professionals; the Brenner version does not have
that tone.
A question was raised about the section of the Brenner report itemizing activities that are
considered part of faculty workload (e.g., serving as an editorial officer or having other duties for a
learned journal, serving on academic or government panels, serving on the board of a professional or
scholarly organization, etc.). For ordinary faculty who do not have a private practice or a business or any
other outside income, but who work very hard, some of the few "perks" in life are attendance at
professional meetings or conferences, serving on editorial boards, and so on. This section addresses
some of those "perks." In one college cited, the items listed in the policy are considered part of the
criteria for promotion and tenure; they are things to be looked for in a professional record as evidence
that the person has achieved a certain standing and are encouraged. But the tone of this policy is that
they should not be pursued if "they interfere with agreed-upon teaching, research, and outreach
activities" and that "the specific effort allocated these activities should be agreed upon with the academic
employee's department head at least once a year" and so on. But at the same time, at least one college is
using them as criteria for promotion and tenure.
Dr. Brenner said he agreed with the point, and explained why these items appear in the policy.
The existing policy on consulting lists these as outside activities that count against the time limitations;
this policy is a liberalization of existing policy. The concern is that while the University wants faculty to
do these things, there are some who take on responsibilities that are excessive. An individual may write
"the big paper" and get on the star circuit, and then start canceling classes and meetings, because they
have so many seminars to go to. What this policy is trying to address is the instance where a faculty
member may have a reasonable work plan but then changes it exponentially; it is the latter case that
requires approval. If it comes across as offensive, it can be changed.
One Committee member applauded the effort to loosen the existing policy, but said that these
items should be part of the faculty workload, and should not be addressed in this policy except to
mention that they should be included in the workload. The level they will be at is between the faculty
member and the department.
Dr. Brenner said he agreed that they should be part of the workload; the point is that when a
faculty member wants to triple such activities, that is the time that he or she should have to seek
Faculty Consultative Committee
June 1, 1995
7
approval. One would hope, it was said, that when the department chair is told that a faculty member has
been asked to take on a responsibility, that he or she would say "great." In some cases, Dr. Brenner
agreed, the chair may even grant released time; the workload should be adjusted if they really want the
faculty member to do these things. The point is, it was said again, is that the Adams version is friendlier.
What it also does, said another Committee member, is re-emphasize the notion that a faculty
member has a workload, and there is a workload document, and the things that belong in the workload
document should be in it. Then there are other activities, subject to this policy. The workload items
should not even be mentioned here, except to say it is covered by the workload policy. The point is to be
positive about the workload activities.
All parts of one's workload interfere with all other parts of the workload, by definition, observed
one Committee member. Research interferes with teaching and teaching interferes with research, and
both interfere with outreach. Having the Brenner version language is totally inappropriate because
workload is all one big compromise.
Dr. Brenner said he would change the language to indicate the activities should conform to the
workload. What about the instances when new activities arise that deviate from the workload, he asked?
It is then that approval should be sought, he said. Those are typically short-term, it was said, and they
can be negotiated a year in advance. No, Dr. Brenner said, that is the point; they do not. The Academic
Integrity Committee thought that when they do arise, the faculty member should have a discussion with
the department head before accepting them. Then the workload policy should be refined to address
things that come up unexpectedly, it was said; they should not be in this policy.
The fear, said one Committee member, is that it opens the door for a department head to come in
mid-year and say "you can't do that." That is not at all what was intended, Dr. Brenner responded.
These comments reflect concerns by individuals from different cultures, pointed out one
Committee member. What seems rational and sensible at this meeting is not necessarily rational and
sensible when it is interpreted in the trenches, depending on the chairs and deans. It also appears that this
policy arose from a series of occurrences that gave people concern; it is for this reason that there has
been a certain amount of backlash. Because one person may have had two full-time academic
appointments or operated a 75% time professional practice on the side, every faculty member at the
University is therefore potentially guilty of that kind of abuse. That is why people look at this policy
askance, and say that if faculty are not doing their job at the University, there is something wrong and
there ought to be something that can be done about it. But to tell them that they cannot decide to work on
something on the weekends if they want to is going too far. This begins to compromise people's
freedoms.
There are other areas that warrant comment, Professor Adams said, and a resolution of the
"work"/"extra professional activities" question is also needed. One additional item is the issue of
competition; another is the enumeration of special cases (internal and external consulting, business
commitments, research, instruction, and international activities). The logic of this group of special cases
is not clear, except that they were on somebody's mind. The final issue is the question of prior approval.
On competition, said one Committee member, everyone has a different idea of what it is. A
Faculty Consultative Committee
June 1, 1995
8
certain amount of competition is healthy, such as when one has finished one's job with the University and
is then doing something in competition. On the other hand, if there were no demand for what people are
doing on the outside, then no one would do it. One hears arguments that "the University should be doing
that." If the University were doing it efficiently, cost-effectively, in a user-friendly way, etc., then there
would be no demand for faculty services on the outside.
There is no prohibition on competition, Dr. Brenner responded. The point is that there should be a
dialogue about activities in which the University might have an interest so that the air can be cleared
before a faculty member proceeds. Related to this, he said, is that another section of the policy has been
added and recast, taken from the conflict of interest policy. This policy now says that once the dialogue
has been held, and the faculty member is engaged in the activity, the University has a responsibility to
back him or her up in doing it. The faculty member cannot be "hung out to dry" in the public; if the
activity has been approved, the University can no longer be a silent partner.
The philosophy on competition, he said, is not a prohibition, it is a dialogue. Once approved, the
University has an obligation to defend the activity if questioned.
On both conflict of interest and professional commitment policies, it was said, the idea of a
dialogue should be emphasized. There have been knee-jerk reactions to items in the policy, where an
administrator will abstract items from this policy and say "no, no, no, no, no." He has been talking about
the conflict of interest policy within the institution, Dr. Brenner said, and he has been emphasizing the
notion of the dialogue. The question, it was said, is whether that message is getting to the deans and
departments.
One Committee member expressed concern about the imagery that the University does not want to
be competitive. This is not attractive. If there is something unfair about the competition, that is a
different issue that should be dealt with. But to say that the University does not want its faculty in
competition is not a very good position.
That is not what the policy says, Dr. Brenner maintained. The point of this policy, said another
Committee member, is not the University's competitiveness; it is that a faculty member should not be
able to cause the University and another organization to compete for his or her service. The primary
allegiance of the faculty member, in professional activities, is to the University, and one does not bid
against the University for services.
One Committee member said that in his environment, there is as much opportunity for abuse of the
application of the competition clause against faculty as there ever was for the faculty to abuse their
responsibilities to the University. There have been a number of instances, in one unit, where the
institution would like to have a faculty member do what he or she is doing with another organization do it
instead under the University's auspices, but with very restrictive compensation policies and for no
particularly good reason except that the unit would rather have the profit than let the faculty member
have it. That, it was said, is the case of the expert witness in medical cases.
The University's mission is defined as teaching, research, and public service, said one Committee
member. While public service is a gray area, things that are not teaching, research, and public service are
almost by definition not University related and should not be proscribed by this policy.
Faculty Consultative Committee
June 1, 1995
9
Then consider the definition of competition, Dr. Brenner suggested. "Competition is undue if it
draws students, clients, or patients, or substantial resources from University offerings and facilities, or if
the academic employee's connection with the University is exploited for the purposes of the other
institution or business." This is the heart of it. It may be that a well-intentioned committee spent a lot of
time on this but inadvertently developed something that missed the perspective, he said, and asked the
Committee to consider it.
This language is troubling, said one Committee member. What if, hypothetically, the X
department is doing a bad job of teaching ill-prepared students, and a faculty member thinks it important
but cannot get a hearing on the issue. As a result, the faculty member starts an X academy outside the
University to help these students, and charges sufficient tuition to make ends meet. That would be undue
competition, according to this policy. One could seek approval for the activity, said another Committee
member, and might obtain it--but one might also have the approval denied as undue competition.
In some sense the University is on the open market, it was argued. If it cannot do things better,
then it deserves to have the competition.
The case where the competition is unfair, said one Committee member, is if the University has
made a special investment in a faculty member or provided equipment or something, and the faculty
member turns around and sells a service or activity to another institution at marginal cost, without
recovering any of the University's investment. That is unfair; how can the University compete when it
had all the investment costs? The case of the X academy does not fit this example, and the University
ought to stand the competition in that instance. It should either live with the competition or fix the X
department.
One Committee member asked for an explanation of the language "the University is exploited for
the purposes of the other institution or business." One case would be the example just cited--the
University made an unusual investment in someone, and the individual then sold the product at marginal
cost. That is what the policy is directed at, Dr. Brenner affirmed.
The reality is that the University is much more concerned about the flow of resources to support its
activities, Dr. Brenner said. If the faculty who it is supporting are also engaged in activities that are
drawing away students or resources, it has a legitimate concern. The appeal on this is not just the
department head; it includes the dean and provost. Apropos the X academy example, if the individual
can make the case that the University is not doing the job and should be doing it better, the activity
should probably be within the institution. The greater concern is the example of University investment in
someone who is cashing in on the side.
What is the rationale for the University's interest in a faculty member teaching a course at a local
college that he or she is also teaching at the University, and thus drawing students to that college rather
than to the University, asked Dr. Brenner? One Committee member pointed out that students would not
be going to the other college if the University would offer another section of the same course. The only
reason they're going to the other school is because the University doesn't have room for them. The
assumption should not be that people are fundamentally disloyal to the University; the presumption
should be that they are loyal and doing this other activity for some reason. Some might abuse it, and do it
Faculty Consultative Committee
June 1, 1995
10
for extra pay; if they do so too extensively, it's a problem. But that is covered under the policy, pointed
out another; the fact that it is competition is not relevant.
Discussion turned to presentation of the policy to the Faculty Senate and the possible reaction of
the Senate when this Committee was of a divided opinion. One suggestion was that it be adopted for one
year, and data gathered on its implementation. Another question was whether it should remain an item
for action (as it now stands). It is unlikely, said one Committee member, that Dr. Brenner would be able
to develop any policy that would make everyone on the Committee happy. Go with the best document
that Dr. Brenner can develop and put a sunset clause on it.
Dr. Brenner said he planned to produce another draft, as a result of this meeting. Members of the
Faculty Senate could have the revision at least two or three days before the meeting on June 8.
One drawback to not moving forward on the document, said one Committee member, is that some
individuals or groups may be expecting the faculty to adopt a policy. If they do not, the faculty may be
seen as dragging their feet, which would be very unfortunate.
One Committee member noted his opposition to the policy, and said that he believed there is a
better way to address the issues. But he is only one member of the Senate, and others may support the
policy. Something is needed for a year, but it need not be this proposed policy. Nor is there any
guarantee that the sunset provision would control, because the policy would go from the Faculty Senate
to the administration for adoption by the Board of Regents. Dr. Brenner said he believed it could be
adopted with the clear expectation that it would be revised.
What about ownership of private enterprise, asked one Committee member? It is covered in two
ways, said another Committee member. The conflict of interest policy addresses it, which is in another
document. This policy addresses certain kinds of ownership as a special case. What if an individual
owns a private firm and works there but for time on campus spent teaching for two hours? That would
constitute nearly a day's "extra work" in the Adams version, said one Committee member. The Brenner
document does not call that a conflict, it was said, because the firm would be unrelated to the faculty
member's professional work for the University, unless it is changed to clarify "extra professional
activities" and "business."
One Committee member said he advocated the least restrictive policy because he believes in the
good faith of the faculty. At the same time, the policy should be equitable. If a faculty member runs a
card shop for 60 hours a week, and forgoes sleep to put in the time required as a faculty member, the
Brenner policy would allow it. But that faculty member would be prohibited from doing something in
competition with the University or that related to his or her professional expertise. That is not fair.
It is clear that there is a problem with the "extra professional activities," summarized Professor
Adams. Dr. Brenner inquired if the Committee were comfortable with the Adams version language that
speaks about "extra work," and if it would be satisfied if "extra professional activities" and "business"
were removed and the "extra work" language substituted.
Could a faculty member in Agronomy have a hobby farm under the Adams version, one
Committee member asked? The individual could have the hobby, but could not be employed and do
Faculty Consultative Committee
June 1, 1995
11
work for more than one day per week. Others could be hired to work the farm, but the faculty member
could not do so more than one day a week. He or she could do so as a hobby, Professor Adams observed,
and agreed there is a fine line between the two.
Dr. Brenner concluded from the exchanges that there was greater support for the Adams version
language about "extra work."
One difficulty is that people sit around this table thinking of all kinds of problems, but no one
knows how the policy would work; maybe it does need a year. Another issue is tone; if that could be
changed, it might be more acceptable. Another element of tone, Dr. Brenner observed, is simply the use
of small caps for the defined terms; that may make it more forbidding than is intended. There are some
"musts" in it, he noted, but if it is a policy, there are things that one either does or doesn't do. One of the
issues is that when there are specific problems, the University has to have a firm policy to rely on, or it
ends up with cases that drag on forever because of the lack of clarity in policy.
Professor Adams related that he struggled with these issues for nearly a year, and finally took a
day to write another version as a way to get out of the bind of talking and talking without an alternative
to consider. His version has not generated hosannas, either, he noted; maybe another would, or maybe
there is no alternative that would generate enthusiasm. It isn't clear how to proceed.
Dr. Brenner said he was interested in the question of tone, and intended to redraft the policy in
order to capture some of the major points made at this meeting. He does not wish to undercut the intent
of the policy, but the language is not supposed to create the impression the University wants to create a
repressive environment for faculty. The objective is to have something that is clear and that when
difficult cases arise, the University is not arguing about something that can be interpreted in several
different ways--which would, he said, be a problem with some of the language in the Adams version. It
is for that reason that the Academic Integrity Committee did not quickly adopt it.
He related that he had drafted alternative language for the Academic Integrity Committee and had
been unanimously voted down. He had removed prior approval throughout the policy, and had
substituted the provision that the faculty member must notify their unit of their intentions.
Asked who was on the Academic Integrity Committee, Dr. Brenner said there has been attrition of
the faculty members and it has now become disproportionately administrators. The members are Don
Spring, Paul Sackett, Gary Gardner, Dennis Cabral, Carol Carrier, Cherie Perlmutter, and Tony Potami.
It might be possible to call this an administrative policy for a year, Dr. Brenner said, and hold off
on Regental action until experience with it had been gathered. There appeared to be support among a
number of Committee members for this alternative, and Dr. Brenner said he would consult with the
administration about it.
Professor Adams cautioned that while the FCC might agree to have the policy on the Faculty
Senate agenda for action, there may be members of the FCC who oppose it on the Senate floor, so it will
be clear that the Committee is not unanimous about it. One Committee member dissented from the
policy but said that the need for some policy argues in favor of adopting this one for a year. Another
expressed an unwillingness to vote in favor of adopting a policy they could not support. It must be clear
Faculty Consultative Committee
June 1, 1995
12
that any motion to adopt the report should make it clear that information and data must be developed for
the period it is in force. This is a policy in evolution.
Dr. Brenner observed that he is also working on other policies that have been adopted by the
Faculty Senate but that need to be changed. The University learns from experience that there are gaps in
existing policies and that some parts of policies are too repressive.
The Committee concluded that it would bring the policy to the Faculty Senate for possible action,
informing the Senate of the difficulties that have been identified, including the concern about the
message that would be conveyed if there is no policy and the concerns about this policy, and see what the
Senate debate reveals.
Professor Adams adjourned the meeting at 3:00.
-- Gary Engstrand
University of Minnesota