Minutes*
Faculty Consultative Committee
Thursday, March 14, 1996
12:15 - 3:00
Dale Shephard Room, Campus Club
Present:
Carl Adams (chair), John Adams, Dan Feeney, Virginia Gray, James Gremmels, Roberta
Humphreys, Robert Jones, Harvey Peterson
Regrets:
Carole Bland, Victor Bloomfield, Lester Drewes, Laura Coffin Koch, Fred Morrison,
Michael Steffes
Guests:
President Nils Hasselmo; Senior Vice President E. F. Infante
Others:
Martha Kvanbeck (University Senate); Maureen Smith (University Relations)
[In these minutes: (With the President:) the President's agenda, and tenure and the issues of concern to
faculty in the Academic Health Center; (With Dr. Infante:) tenure and the Academic Health Center,
semesters, other items]
1.
Discussion with President Hasselmo
Professor Adams convened the meeting at 12:30 and apologized for being late; both he and the
other Professor Adams had been at a tenure forum with an audience that had consisted primarily of
faculty from the Academic Health Center, faculty who expressed a great deal of concern about the tenure
deliberations. He asked the President to speak briefly about the status of the various agenda items he has
set out for the remainder of his term of office, and when things will come to fruition.
The President said he had provided his agenda to the Board of Regents, copies of which he had
previously provided to this Committee, and that it covers things from U2000 to grants management and a
lot in between. He intends to incorporate into the University academic plan a status report on these
agenda items; the academic plan is an annual report to the Board of Regents that takes stock of where
things are on U2000 and foreshadows action coming. He said the report will bring certain things to
closure, and that the provosts and chancellors have been asked to draft parts of the report, to present their
perspectives.
In terms of University College and the Graduate School specifically, he asked Senior Vice
President Infante to establish working groups on each of them; Dr. Infante did so, and their reports are
due on March 15. He asked that the role of University College be clarified, especially vis-a-vis outreach
activities by the units, and if it would be a service unit, a profit center, or some of both. The role of the
Graduate School is also expected to be clarified.
*
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 14, 1996
2
If possible, said one Committee member, it would be of value if the plan is a place where loose
ends could be tied down. After short discussion with Committee members, the President agreed that the
academic plan should perhaps be more inclusive and serve as a vehicle to report on various activities
whether or not they are exactly "academic."
The issue of re-engineering has arisen in meetings with the President and with Professors Evans
and Hamilton, recalled one Committee member; the changes are supposed to lead to major costs savings,
which it is hoped will be passed to academic departments. If there is to be restructuring, the academic
units want to know about it, especially in the support services. The President agreed that information
about re-engineering should be included in the academic plan.
This will be helpful so that people have a sense of closure about issues, said one Committee
member. It is true that eventually they are resolved in budget allocations, but most people are
uncomfortable with that as the means of decision-making; the question is whether decisions are made in
planning terms.
One Committee member, noting reluctant involvement in the issue, commented that it has been
made clear that the change to the biweekly payroll is part of re-engineering plan. If that is so, then the
people who are paying the price should see the big plan. The President said that re-engineering is
happening in many ways; the difficulty is capturing it.
One Committee member inquired about positions currently vacant, the Vice President for External
Relations and the Vice President for Outreach. The President said he is leaving vacant the External
Relations position, although he may make an interim appointment; he made outreach functions the
responsibility of the Provost for Professional Studies, rather than hire another vice president--just as he
made the Provost for Arts, Sciences, and Engineering responsible for undergraduate education.
The President then related the events that would take place to develop the biennial request and the
discussions being held with various groups at the University, including the Senate Consultative
Committee. Discussions thus far have been held with the coordinate campuses and with the Twin Cities
campus deans and provosts; subjects at the latter included reorganization of the biological sciences,
restructuring of the Academic Health Center, and reorganization of the Twin Cities campus. All
discussions are also using as a focus a paper prepared by a group chaired by Dean Edward Schuh of the
Humphrey Institute on the future financing of the University.
The provostries were established because the campus needed clusters to set academic priorities.
Now it is time to look at more clusters and to talk about more focus within the provostries and better
decision-making. Papers on these subjects will be prepared.
Discussion then turned to tenure. Professors Carl and John Adams had come to this meeting
directly from a tenure forum held with a group of faculty predominantly from the Academic Health
Center. Professor John Adams observed that the Academic Health Center (AHC) has 25% of the
members of the Senate, and told his colleagues that satisfactory progress on tenure issues will not be
accomplished until more information is made available to the faculty about the nature of the financial
difficulties that have been offered as justification for reorganization. It is clear that many faculty in the
AHC do not trust what is being said, which in part may be due to the lack of collegial experience in
working on problems. The need for abrupt and drastic change in the AHC is not being accepted by
Faculty Consultative Committee
March 14, 1996
3
many; the faculty do not necessarily oppose change, but they oppose it when they do not see the factual
basis for it. There is a need to get information out, and information that is not seen as self-serving.
The forum, Professor John Adams said, reflected in his judgment a combination of anger,
frustration, and enthusiasm to do something all mixed together.
The position of the tenure working group, he continued, is that the tenure discussions would go
forward with or without a financial problem in the Academic Health Center. To the extent tenure
discussions intersect with financial and programmatic change matters, people feel the need for more
information. There is a sense that the leadership of the AHC is ganging up on some.
Before the tenure discussions go any farther, he concluded, there must be more information
provided from a trusted source. In some cases, the faculty want specificity about things that cannot be
provided, according to Dean Cerra and Provost Brody, but the faculty feel that ambiguity is being used to
promote rapid changes almost independent of financial exigency.
More hard, factual information is needed, he emphasized. He does not mind taking the flak in the
discussions, but said he was sympathetic to the problems. It appears the AHC faculty were asked to
participate in the discussion but were then denied the facts they needed to endorse the changes.
The facts are one issue, Professor Carl Adams said. He and John Adams feel, during these tenure
forums, that the faculty are talking to them as if they were the President. The faculty are saying things
about the process for change that they--the Adamses--cannot evaluate. There are a lot of angry and
anxious people; some of it is due to representation, some to arbitrariness, and some to external forces. It
is not clear to these faculty that the process of change is well-reasoned.
The President noted that one factor may be that there is in under-developed faculty governance
tradition in the AHC. Another factor is that this is about the survival of medical education and health
care research as it as has been known. He said he has been involved in some of the discussions, and they
are faculty driven. Both Professors Adams were quick to respond by pointing out that the faculty of the
AHC do not believe that. Then it is necessary to widen participation, the President said.
One Committee member said that the Committee has been hearing this all year, from its AHC
members, Professors Bland and Steffes. What happened at the tenure forum today reflects the comments
that have been made all year at meetings. There is mistrust; the perceptions are not all wrong, and the
AHC administration is not bringing the faculty along in supporting needed changes. The administration,
the President said, is pushing in order to save the AHC, but there has evidently not been satisfactory
communication.
In terms of what this Committee can do, Professor Carl Adams said, the nature of the discussion at
the forum was worrisome. One doesn't know how representative the group at the forum was, with about
60 AHC faculty out of about 1000. It may be difficult to get the necessary votes for changes in the tenure
code since the AHC faculty, understandably, do not separate their lack of trust in the organizational
change process from the reasoned discussions about the tenure code.
The President said that there are three intertwined issues. First is re-engineering, about which
there have been several forums, at which the change agenda was laid out. That may not have been
Faculty Consultative Committee
March 14, 1996
4
sufficient; it may be that an extraordinary effort is needed to get faculty involved. A second issue is that
the financial situation is increasingly precarious. If the Fairview transaction does not go through, there is
big trouble, and there are no other alternatives. The flow of patients has been strangled. This is not a flat
situation, he said; it is deteriorating rapidly. The third issue is the tenure code, which he said he would
very much like to see separated from the financial situation, although that will be very difficult. But the
University needs an effective tenure system; it must also have one that is credible with society, or the
institution will be under continual attack.
The issue of base salary was of concern to the AHC faculty. If the financial problem is in the
Medical School, why not limit any discussion of base salary changes to that faculty? The governance
system decided to take a comprehensive approach, although some may not approve of that decision.
The decision was made to deal with the tenure issue generically, the President agreed, but there is
the possibility that the decline of patients and funding will be dealt with separately. The situation is more
precarious because the funds used to support many AHC tenured faculty come from volatile revenue
streams. In many CLA departments, by contrast, all the faculty are on state funds.
Ultimately, said one Committee member, none of the revenue streams is steady; tuition, for
example, goes down and up. The AHC has opportunities to raise the revenue they need. The English
department, by comparison, does not, the President pointed out.
The issue of the need for information must be addressed, emphasized one Committee member.
The President agreed, and said he would review with Provost Brody the question of consultation, the reengineering process, and the sharing of financial information more succinctly.
On tenure, Professor John Adams commented, the critical issue is information about the financial
issue. He must rely on trust with respect to the information, but is talking with those who lack trust,
which is an uncomfortable situation. If information about the Medical School can be made available, and
there are opportunities for a forthright discussion about what should be done, then the issues can be
brought to resolution more quickly.
On the issue of program restructuring, data about the last people trained suggested a 90%
satisfaction rate, said one Committee member. Averages have been used, the President said. Dean Cerra
met with Medical School about the financial situation, he added, which prompted the article in the
STAR-TRIBUNE. The faculty do not trust that information, said another Committee member, and at two
recent meetings a day apart, some believe that different things were said.
The sooner everyone is working from the same sheet, urged one Committee member, with numbers
that everyone can agree on, the better off the University will be. Provost Brody and Dean Cerra have to
be exhorted to get this information out, and if this Committee can help, it will; this is critical to achieving
a satisfactory resolution of the tenure revisions. The President agreed.
The question of the numbers came up at the recent meeting of the Committee on Faculty Affairs
(SCFA), Professor Feeney reported, and there were no representatives from the AHC at the meeting.
Some have suggested that the AHC should be separated from the rest of the University in terms of tenure
or University funds will have to be directed to the AHC to help it. As it is, everyone in the University
should be concerned about tenure and re-engineering in the AHC.
Faculty Consultative Committee
March 14, 1996
5
That has been widely said, one Committee member observed, and many believe there would be no
tenure discussions if not for the financial problems of the AHC. One does not have to believe that, but
some are not thinking long term, about the job that has to done down the road, and think only about the
short term.
The rest of the University, the President emphasized, is in no position to resolve the financial
problems of the AHC; those problems must be solved in the AHC, in a managed care environment. The
problems must be solved or there will not be an AHC.
One Committee member related that one hears a lot from faculty who have been here a long time
that the problems go back to decisions made in the 1970s and procedures followed in the 1980s. That
needs explanation. The President said that federal capitation funds were cut, which led to an infusion of
money from the rest of the University to fund tenured faculty. Following that, the Rajender consent
decree obliged the University to put clinical faculty on tenure track appointments. Those two events
significantly influenced the present situation in the AHC. The problems of the 1990s are what must be
solved, he said, in a managed care environment; the history is complex, but it does shed some light on
what has happened.
Different parts of the University each think it has supported the rest of the institution, observed
one Committee member. There are a lot of cross-subsidies, the President agreed; he said he did not want
to get entangled in that discussion, but would do what he can to provide information.
Professor Adams thanked the President for joining the meeting, and turned to Senior Vice
President Infante, who had joined the meeting during the discussion of tenure.
2.
Discussion with Senior Vice President E. F. Infante
The Committee discussed at some length with Dr. Infante the views expressed and held by the
Board of Regents and the issues of concern to Board members. Discussion also touched extensively on
the situation in the Academic Health Center.
One thing Dr. Infante said he wished to be a conscious decision is that there is a set of tenure rules
flexible enough to apply to the entire University, rules that can be adjusted in different units. One hears
that perhaps there should be two or five or more tenure codes; he thought the decision was made and was
put on the table for discussion, in order to be certain. He said he could not speak for the administration
on this point, but said he would be very disappointed if there were more than one tenure code. It would
be a very slippery slope once more than one is approved, he said.
Dr. Infante said he also wished to revisit the question of the schedule of the discussions of the
tenure code. It is incumbent on everyone to understand that changes will go from the faculty leadership
to the Senate to the Board of Regents via the President. If the Board wants more change, it asks for
consultation on the changes. The proposals from the faculty will be brought to the Regents in June; the
conversation must continue so people have a chance to communicate their concerns, and that
conversation may need to go over the summer. He said he hoped that any discussion would be healthy,
and that no one will be able to say something was taken off the table. It is better to leave everything on
the table and have it addressed directly.
Faculty Consultative Committee
March 14, 1996
6
He has learned, he related, that when one does not fill in the blanks in a discussion, people will fill
in those blanks with their worst fears. The most difficult issue is that the tenure working group will make
silent assumptions about issues that should not be taken up; he said he would prefer that everything be
stated, with the conclusions. Everyone will be better off if that is done. Questions raised by the Board,
he said, WERE addressed, and were not swept under the rug.
The Committee had a discussion with Dr. Infante about the example of Waseca, and what
happened to the tenured faculty at Waseca when the campus was closed. They also discussed
perceptions of the changes being considered in the tenure code, and the arguments that underlie the
proposals.
One Committee member observed that if there was no issue about having to "reset" the Medical
School, the package of the rest of the proposals would likely be acceptable to the faculty at large; the
changes are ones that many faculty want, although doubtless some would not like them. But the one-time
change in the base salary for the Medical School may be a problem for all; the Medical School faculty
may not like it, because it affects them directly, and the rest of the faculty see that it could be precedent
for them. The faculty have taken programmatic change off the agenda while strengthening the
reassignment and retraining provision, it was said, but others may say that the University needs more
flexibility.
Dr. Infante suggested that the faculty leadership take to the faculty whatever it believes will be
adopted--with the understanding that the Regents may come back with other proposals. The faculty may
not like them, and the Board could impose them, but he said he would prefer to minimize that possibility
by open discussion.
There was discussion about whether there had been an administrative mistake when faculty in the
Medical School had built into their base salaries money from clinical income. One Committee member
counseled forgetting whether or not a "mistake" had been made; the decisions were made primarily
because of conditions outside the control of the University. The point is that one unit of the University
must restructure its faculty by a significant amount within two years. The question is what the
institution's options are. Should those faculty be fired? Bought out? Their salaries cut? It is not fruitful
at this point to argue about how the situation arose; the problem is that one unit needs to make major
changes. That, it was said, is the way the Regents are looking at this problem. At the time the decisions
were made, Dr. Infante added, the clinical income was probably the MOST stable revenue source they
had. He also recalled that some people, in the 1980s, had argued against building external funding into
base salaries, but those views were the minority.
One Committee member pointed out that one managerial option provided by the tenure code is the
declaration of financial exigency; the debate over tenure should be separated from managerial options.
There must be changes in tenure, but they should not confused with these other options.
Others have raised that point, it was said; if financial exigency is declared, the President assigns
the reductions.
The President has said that is not an option; why? Dr. Infante said he has heard many say it may
come to financial exigency. The University of Washington declared financial exigency; it was a disaster.
Faculty Consultative Committee
March 14, 1996
7
It was done to shrink the size of the faculty, but they didn't fire any faculty; they reassigned them and got
nothing accomplished.
There is a question about the extent to which the faculty agree there is financial exigency, said one
Committee member. The faculty could conclude they will not get security from the tenure code, so will
choose some other form of action. And with respect to the implications of the Fairview merger not
occurring, it was said, some people may be overstating the case. There are as well three other units in the
AHC that have problems similar to the Medical School, Dr. Infante added.
On other topics, Dr. Infante noted that the decennial accreditation visit of the North Central
Association will take place in April; he said he would appreciate if the faculty governance system would
make people aware of the visit. The accreditors will note faculty views; it would be unfortunate if the
accreditation visit were used as an opportunity to lambaste the University. It is important, agreed one
Committee member, that when talking to accreditors, the problems and issues be addressed, but that the
case not be overstated.
On the issue of semesters, Dr. Infante said he is pleased by the reasonable direction in which
things are moving. It must be recognized, as has happened at other institutions that made the change, that
during the transition research grants will probably decline as people readjust their loads. It must also be
recognized that there is no "pot of gold" to deal with the change to semesters.
The faculty leadership must make it clear that there will be workload adjustments, said one
Committee member, and that more effort will go into semester adjustments than other activities, such as
research. Should the Committee take the lead on this issue, Professor Adams asked?
There must be flexibility for campuses and units, said one Committee member. It may not make
sense to start after Labor Day on some campuses; must the coordinate campuses follow the Twin Cities?
A difference of two or three days would be acceptable, Dr. Infante said; if the University is to take
advantage of telecommunications technology, its calendar should be as close as possible to that of the
University of Wisconsin--which starts after Labor Day, and it doesn't have a state fair to contend with.
The legislature wanted one calendar for all schools. The House bill on the subject spoke to
CALENDARS, not semesters. What is now being proposed by SCEP is identical to Wisconsin, but some
local variations might be acceptable.
One Committee member related having been involved with ITV for years, and said that people can
work things out if they want to. What is up in the air is where the Minnesota State College and
University system will fit. At least one of the campuses works extensively with institutions in that
system, and should be on THEIR calendar, if any. Dr. Infante said he hoped MNSCU would be on the
same calendar as the University, but said his own judgment is that what the University should want most
is to be on the calendar with Wisconsin.
Grants management reform is going as well as can be expected, Dr. Infante told the Committee.
They have been working hard, and have found no other horror stories, although there are problems that
must be dealt with. Some departments do not have the management capability that is needed, which
implies that money must be spent to train people. Responsibilities must be made clear; part of the
problem is that investigators have not had the tools they need.
Faculty Consultative Committee
March 14, 1996
8
Even though some of the news is gloomy, Dr. Infante concluded, the sky is not falling. Faculty
have done an outstanding job in grants and contracts, garnering more funding than ever, and the quality
and amount of freshman applications is up substantially. One Committee member said that the details are
good in classes, laboratories, and recruitment, but the bigger picture seems to be falling apart. In a global
sense, however, said another Committee member, things are not as bad as they seem.
One Committee member commented that what is going on at the University is not unique; the same
thing is happening in companies, in neighborhoods, in national politics. There is a souring of mood
across the land. One would have hoped things would be different in an academic community, but even
here "we are throwing rocks at each other."
Committee members then turned their attention to other items of business, and what will be dealt
with in the near future. There seemed to be a consensus that this was not the time to take up things such
as a code of conduct. One Committee member observed that if "the faculty become unglued over tenure,
the rest of these things don't matter." What happened to the conflict of commitment proposal in the
Senate last year could happen again, and one does not want a "bloody debate" in which everything goes
down.
Compensation remains a major issue, Professor Carl Adams reminded the Committee. To have
some portion of salaries be non-recurring could be good for everyone, it was said; it would allow the
administration to pay out more. If the faculty could develop a five-year plan to reduce the size of the
faculty by 10%, speculated one Committee member, the administration would gladly provide 10% raises
for the faculty. That was in the report of the compensation task force, it was noted. Who is thinking
about this, asked one Committee member? When there are 30 - 40 graduate programs with fewer than
five students in them, how can one defend the University's need for money? It is not possible to get 10%
increases for all of the faculty who are here now; if the faculty planned ahead, the University could easily
remain very competitive.
With no more comments, Professor Adams thanked Dr. Infante and adjourned the meeting at 2:45.
-- Gary Engstrand
University of Minnesota