Minutes*
Faculty Consultative Committee
Thursday, September 29, 1994
10:00 - 12:00
Room 238 Morrill Hall
Present:
John Adams (chair), Carl Adams, Thomas Burk, Virginia Gray, James Gremmels, Kenneth
Heller, Robert Jones, Morris Kleiner, Michael Steffes, Gerhard Weiss
Regrets:
none
Absent:
Lester Drewes, Dan Feeney, Roberta Humphreys, Geoffrey Maruyama
Guests:
President Nils Hasselmo, Senior Vice President E. F. Infante
Others:
Martha Kvanbeck (University Senate)
[In these minutes: (with the President:) critical measures, reorganization, biennial request; (with Dr.
Infante:) critical measures, miscellany]
1.
Discussion with President Hasselmo
Professor Adams convened the meeting at 10:00 and welcomed the President. He told the
President he wanted to get three items on the record before getting to other items.
First, questions have been raised by Senate committee chairs about the critical measures and
benchmarks being placed before the Regents for action in October. Several key Senate committees do
not believe they have had sufficient time to consider the measures; if they are adopted by the Board
without adequate faculty consideration, trouble could result. The idea of the critical measures, he said, is
essential to the U2000 planning process; the issue is timing.
The President said his letter to the Board of Regents asks them to approve measures, but not the
specific benchmarks, and there is a difference. The benchmarks will be developed in the planning
process, and will be reported to and discussed with the Regents, and their views obtained, but he said he
is not asking for formal regental approval.
It will be important, said one Committee member, that they go through the faculty governance
system and the Senate, and that faculty have a chance to participate in their development in the planning
process. There is sufficient paranoia among the faculty that they must not see the measures and
benchmarks as imposed from above, without reasonable consultation. The process is very important.
The President agreed that the measures must be credible and ones behind which the faculty can rally.
The second item Professor Adams brought up has to do with the evaluation process used for senior
*
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
September 29, 1994
2
officers. One member of the Senate, invited to participate in an open meeting about Senior Vice
President Infante, suggests such meetings are inappropriate. Are they? Would it be more appropriate to
have some closed sessions?
His own evaluation was open, the President noted, and the vice presidents are similarly reviewed
every three years. These are difficult judgments, he told the Committee--how to do a good job of
evaluating, prevent a melee, sort reality from rumor, misperception, and innuendo. He said that
discretion should be exercised in how views are relayed to the review committee, and there should be
new rules to protect confidentiality of information gathered in the evaluation process. There are general
committee guidelines, but the committees have discretion. Perhaps, he said, it is time to review the
procedures to be sure the guidelines are as clear as they should be.
The third item Professor Adams said he wished noted is that he has been asked by the Board of
Regents' office to look at the three Academic Freedom and Responsibility statements the Regents have
adopted over the past 50-plus years; it was left to him how to proceed. He sought advice from wise
colleagues, took that advice and redrafted the statements into one more condensed document, and
provided that draft to his advisors as well as Senior Vice President Infante. He said he would like to
bring the revised statement to the Senate Consultative Committee--it will be discussed this afternoon by
SCC--and ultimately to the Faculty Senate for action, on the way to the President and thence to the
Board. Does this seem appropriate?
The President thought it was. He said he would also like to discuss the statement with the
Committee. It is an extremely important matter at the heart of the academic enterprise. There are always
pressures--even now, under the rubric of "political correctness."
Following disposition of these issues, the President was asked about the progress of
reorganization: The documents suggest a deadline of January 1 or 15 for implementation. Is that
realistic? Will the new people be hired? The President agreed that the proposed schedule is ambitious
and may not be met. The searches are just beginning for the two provosts; the deadline for
applications/nominations will be November 15, so the appointments will occur sometime after that--as
quickly as possible. But they will be proper searches. If there is to be a preference for local candidates,
one Committee member noted, the searches might go more quickly. The President related that the
appointment letter to the search committees is explicit in calling for preference to be given to candidates
with faculty or administrative experience at the University of Minnesota (past or present). It will be a
national search, but the preference is clearly stated.
In terms of sorting out responsibilities, there is a timetable for doing so, the President said. The
transition readjustments will take place between October and June, 1995. The provost position
descriptions are now ready. There are 14 areas of interaction between the provost and central
administration that are being addressed. The goal is that the reorganization will be fully implemented by
next summer. It was suggested, and the President agreed, that a summary of the 14 areas be provided to
the Committee; most faculty, including most Committee members, are not aware of them. Professor
(John) Adams, who also chairs the transition advisory committee (which includes Professor [Carl]
Adams), reviewed the issues that the advisory committee would be discussing at its upcoming meeting,
and reported that it has asked for a status report on these various activities to which the President alluded.
Faculty Consultative Committee
September 29, 1994
3
The President told the Committee that one change has been made in the position descriptions. The
Provost for Arts, Sciences, and Engineering has been given responsibility for undergraduate education on
the Twin Cities campus (rather than the Vice President for Student Affairs). Since that position has
responsibility for colleges with 95% of the undergraduates, it seemed more logical to vest responsibility
for undergraduate education and the general education curriculum in that position.
Does this run contrary to the objective of separating line from staff and campus from system
responsibilities? Does this mix staff and line functions? The President suggested the Committee review
the job descriptions. Another Committee member inquired about the coordinate campuses and systemwide responsibilities; that will rest with the Academic Affairs vice president, the President said. One
Committee member commended this change, noting that it may be messier but it is better than trying to
find someone with student affairs experience also prepared to superintend undergraduate education.
The President explained that the positions of the Outreach, Research, and Student Affairs vice
presidents are being reviewed, with an eye to what remains with the positions and what becomes the
responsibility of the provosts. This is a major task. Staff and line responsibilities will not be mixed, he
said. He also reported that until next summer, there would be interim appointments to all three positions-so that the positions can be better defined before permanent incumbents are sought. The searches, he
said in response to a comment, he expected would begin in the spring.
The President was next asked about his legislative strategy with respect to faculty salaries. They
are an issue, it was said, and important to recruitment and retention of faculty; what will happen to them?
In the $137 million partnership proposal to the state, the President recalled, there would be $77 million in
increased state support, additional tuition revenues, and so on; a major part of the increase is identified
for faculty and staff salaries. Salaries have not been set; the University is positioning itself so it can
deliver a substantial increase. It is a high priority, the President assured the Committee. The external
environment does not look upon salaries as a priority, he related, but he does. He noted that the biennial
request seeks a 2.5% increase in salary funds and 5.0% increase in fringe benefits; he emphasized that is
NOT a salary policy, but it is the amount the administration felt could be put on the table at the
legislature.
This is a difficult issue, noted one Committee member. The external environment--and some
within the University--are NOT sympathetic to the salary issue. The President is, although he cannot
develop a biennial request that properly reflects his concern; if the request is NOT made, however, it is
very likely that a substantial problem will occur. This is a dilemma. "Were I president," it was said,
"one could persuade me that in order to remain competitive, the University must provide salary increases
of inflation plus 2% for the next 5 - 7 years. There is no way that can be put in the biennial request."
The dilemma is how to do something vital yet not say a great deal publicly about it--IF the President
believes a significant increase in faculty salaries is necessary for the University's survival.
There are additional funds in the request that could be used for salaries, such as the money for
recruitment and retention, the President pointed out. The problem is that when the money is used in that
fashion, it exacerbates internal discontent while trying to recruit and retain the best and the brightest. It
becomes a salary dislocation problem, that is, extreme salary variations can develop in a department due
to successful retention cases, while people of perhaps equal worth, who do not seek and obtain external
offers, continue at lower salaries.
Faculty Consultative Committee
September 29, 1994
4
Another Committee member questioned the assumption that the University should only ask for a
modest increase; one should think more highly of the legislature than that. Other institutions are asking
for and receiving larger increases. The University has the information and can make a good case. None
of the legislators aspire for the University to be 30th. It would be better to ask for the money and not get
it; it almost seems as though the University is ASHAMED to ask for it. Asked if the increases should
come from a larger request to the state or reallocation from other parts of the $137 million, it was said
that the preferred route would be to ask for more than the 5.5% increase in state appropriations. The
University should be more bold.
The President noted that it was a judgment call to ask for 5.5% from the state and a 5.5% increase
in tuition revenues and to use internal reallocation to meet critical priorities. What should be changed?
Either approach would be acceptable, it was said, but the problem is the continuing undervaluing of the
University's most precious asset, its human capital.
It was said that the request is a strategic document, seeking to acquire for the University the
resources it believes it needs to do its job, and that the salary funds request does not determine what the
increases will be. The problem is, it was rejoined, that the funds have all been allocated, in the plans, and
there is no room to transform the 2.5% to, say, a 6% delivered salary increase.
One can read the documents in another way. There are different ways to accomplish the
objective--have a better supported faculty, increase salaries, cut the number of faculty--these are all open
questions.
Asked if anything will be said to the University about job creation, the President said he will bring
up the point over and over again. It was noted that the size of the faculty could be cut, but in some fields
they bring in external funds that are used to hire people in the state. The President said he will point out
that two-thirds of the jobs at the University are not funded by the state, a number about equal to the
number of jobs at Northwest Airlines. The partnership proposal to the state is an attempt to engage
support and maximize the appropriation, after which the budget will be set. The state environment,
however, is one where the chief issue in the gubernatorial race is keeping taxes down.
In response to another comment, the President said one of the fundamental principles of the
partnership is a smaller but better-supported faculty. The University cannot maintain the present size of
the faculty unless it continues to waste faculty time, making them not as productive as they might be.
"Rightsizing" is more than a slogan in this case.
Even supporting the partnership proposal, said one Committee member, the concerns of internal
constituents cannot be denied. They see the constraint, but also see the need for 2% above inflation for
salaries. If the legislature is asked for 2.5% increases, it must also be TOLD that the University must
deliver inflation plus 2%. If that is not said, the issue will not be raised--and the legislature will be angry
because the University delivered more than it said it would.
One part of the instructions from the state, the President reported, say that salary increases for state
employees will be dealt with separately by the legislature. What does that mean? He assured the
Committee he will argue the case as best he is able. He said he is convinced that competitiveness is the
Faculty Consultative Committee
September 29, 1994
5
key to the University's future. If the University cannot maintain its faculty resource, it can have the most
beautiful infrastructure in the world and not produce much. He emphasized again the need to unite
behind the proposal, imperfect but ambitious; the University has been hurt by multiple voices.
One of the issues that keeps coming up, in various discussions, is internal communication, one
Committee member told the President. There are 263 internal newsletters of various sorts, but many
faculty do not feel there is a regular means by which they can keep track of issues. Committee members
are informed but others feel they are not. Vice President Mel George has responsibility for University
Relations, but one hears that not enough is happening in intra-university communication. There is not
enough beyond FOOTNOTE for faculty to talk to themselves about the work of the University; has there
been any talk of improving internal communication, creating more effective governance, and thereby
improved University operations?
The President said the issue has been talked about a great deal. Vice President George is leading a
campaign not just about the biennial request but also to communicate with internal and external
constituencies--and the internal are often the more difficult. He pondered on the enormous deluge of
information that goes out and expressed puzzlement that all are not as informed as they wish to be;
perhaps the information hits people at the wrong time. This forces the administration to use marketing
techniques, an enormous task that is necessary in order to penetrate the deluge. He said the
administration also relies heavily on the faculty governance structure, but that perhaps raises a general
question about representative government--it almost seems that if something hasn't been discussed on a
talk show, it hasn't been discussed! There is a question of how governance is related to decision-making;
Medical School faculty, for instance, want to know about decision-making in the Health Sciences, not
what he talks with the Faculty Consultative Committee about. Faculty need to receive information that is
important to THEM. The same problem exists for students. It is for this reason that the governance
structures at each level are so important.
Professor Adams said the Committee will invite Vice President George to meet with it; he thanked
the President for joining the meeting.
2.
Discussion with Senior Vice President E. F. Infante
Senior Vice President Infante joined the meeting next, and said that he had written the resolution
for the Board of Regents concerning the critical measures and benchmarks. Discussion returned to that
subject in an attempt to clarify further the intent of the administration and the resolution. Dr. Infante
confirmed the conclusion of the earlier discussion: the intent is to ask the Board to approve the areas to
be measured, with the specific indices to be developed. The Board is NOT being asked to approve
specific numeric measures, but it is being made aware that state performance goals exist, that the
administration will be held accountable for them, and that they are not cast in stone.
The last point meets the concern of a number of faculty, it was said. Some Board members, Dr.
Infante told the Committee, are interested in establishing the numeric goals.
Discussion turned briefly to one of the benchmarks, graduation rates, and the different and
possibly contradictory targets that might be used to measure it.
Faculty Consultative Committee
September 29, 1994
6
The point was made, at the Finance and Planning Committee, that the goals will be achievable
only if there are sufficient resources. Dr. Infante related that his letter to the Regents makes that point.
A point repeated from the discussion with the President was about the necessity for the larger
faculty to be involved in the discussion of the critical measures, and of the need to bring them to the
Senate. Dr. Infante suggested bringing to the Senate the same resolution that is being brought to the
Board of Regents, and emphasis with the Senate on the need to be flexible in use of the targets.
Dr. Infante then reported quickly on several issues:
--
A search for the dean of the Law School has begun; a senior faculty member from outside the Law
School has been asked to serve on the search committee (Vernon Ruttan).
--
The President has signed a semi-final document for the sale of the Minnesota Supercomputer
Center, Inc. (MSCI) to Cray Research; the closing date is expected to be October 19. Asked to
explain the factors that led to the sale, he did so.
Dr. Infante related that in recent years computer companies have begun to provide services as well
as simply produce hardware and software--and service was also the business of MSCI. MSCI met
the needs of the University, but in order to justify the expense of the equipment, outside customers
had also to be obtained. Cray approached the University recently; it, like other companies, had
decided to go into the service business and was looking for a way to get a quick start. It was clear
that the University could not compete with Cray, given the resources Cray was prepared to put into
its effort, and after a time MSCI would lose its customers to Cray. The question then was whether
to bring MSCI completely into the University or to outsource high performance computing even
more.
Asked about the risks of the sale, Dr. Infante said the University would continue to purchase
supercomputing time if the $8 million from the state continues. Cray will not agree to provide all
"free" time to University faculty--they may not have free time available, but they have agreed to
provide a significant block of time on top of that which is purchased. It would be possible for
Cray to move; they did not purchase the building, even though the University wanted to make that
part of the sale. They do have a long-term lease on the building, however.
It appears, reported one Committee member, that the reaction of the users has been positive.
--
There was brief discussion of enrollment. Beyond the numbers, it appears this freshman class is
the best the University has seen in 20 years.
--
He would like to have a discussion of tuition policy. It was agreed that he would take this up with
the Committee on Educational Policy.
--
He is dealing with situations where participation in governance and regulatory issues places
demands on faculty members that exceed reasonable limits, so is considering forms of recompense
for departments and/or those faculty who are asked to participate in such activities. The
Committee discussed with him the virtues and pitfalls of possible arrangements he might consider.
Faculty Consultative Committee
September 29, 1994
7
One of the problems, Committee members noted, was that many faculty are on 9-month
appointments.
Dr. Infante then touched briefly again on the subject of critical measures. He noted that the
legislature has required all higher education systems to establish such measures, and the University has
been given very high marks for those it has proposed. A related issue is the establishment, by federal
mandate included in the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, of "State Postsecondary Review
Entities," or SPREs (created at a time when Congress was upset with default rates on student loans).
SPREs are to collect a variety of data from institutions; each state is to establish one. Minnesota has
proposed that its SPRE be the Higher Education Coordinating Board; HECB has proposed a series of
minimalist regulations designed to comply with the federal requirement. One of the provisions is that an
investigation is triggered any time there are 10 complaints filed; the University protested that this was
unacceptable when it has 40,000 or more students. Moreover, the University does not have an effective
complaint system in order that appropriate officers are notified. Acting Vice President for Student
Affairs John Imholte is working with a committee on how to set up a system. The critical measures will
help the University monitor compliance with the SPRE regulation, and thus presumably will "kill three
birds with one stone."
Dr. Infante also noted that proposals are being sought for uses of the ALG building, and a
committee has been established to evaluate the proposals. He reviewed briefly the concerns associated
with possible uses of the building.
Dr. Infante then welcomed the Committee to the new academic year and said he looked forward to
working with it.
Professor Adams thanked Dr. Infante for speaking with the Committee and then adjourned the
meeting at noon.
-- Gary Engstrand
University of Minnesota