Minutes
*
Present:
Faculty Consultative Committee
Thursday, January 5, 1995
10:00 - 12:00
Room 238 Morrill Hall
John Adams (chair), Carl Adams, Thomas Burk, Sheila Corcoran-Perry, Lester Drewes,
Sara Evans, Dan Feeney, Virginia Gray, James Gremmels, Kenneth Heller, Robert Jones,
Morris Kleiner, Geoffrey Maruyama, Harvey Peterson, Michael Steffes
Regrets:
Guests:
Roberta Humphreys
President Nils Hasselmo
Others: Martha Kvanbeck (University Senate), Maureen Smith (University Relations)
[In these minutes: (With President Hasselmo:) accreditation issues, budget guidelines, the NCAA convention, and early retirement changes; (with Professor Adams:) transition advisory committee, terms of Senate committee chairs, absences and student lobbying, reorganization and tenure decisions, the undergraduate initiative, regulatory burdens on faculty.]
1. Discussion with President Hasselmo
Professor Adams convened the meeting at 10:00 and briefly reviewed with Committee members five items he thought should be discussed with the President. He reported that the President had told him that he--the President--would rather hear what is on the minds of Committee members than spend his time talking about issues he brings to the meetings.
ACCREDITATION Professor Adams then welcomed the President and enumerated the issues of the day. The President began by talking about accreditation. There are various forms of accreditation of the University that occur; the most important is that by the North Central Association, which has been conducted for decades. Professional groups also establish--or impose--certain standards; the number of these standards has been growing wildly and some are clearly self-serving. There was an organization established to ride herd on accreditation, but it collapsed, so there is no national framework for accreditation.
Meantime, the federal government has taken an aggressive stance on accreditation in higher education, manifested in part in the requirement of the SPREs (State Postsecondary Review Entities), agencies which he personally fought against saddling higher education with. They are state-run organizations assigned to monitor eligibility for federal funds and loan default rates, but they also deal with accreditation.
*
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
January 5, 1995
2
The higher education community is fighting federal regulation, and the major education groups, including the Association of Governing Boards, have banded together to resist it. They have developed a strategy, contained in a document under the sponsorship of AGB; copies will be distributed to FCC members. The proposal is to stay with the principle of self-evaluation in higher education, but to do so in a way that creates credibility and defends higher education from "attack" by the U.S. Department of
Education. A national commission would be created, with a majority of members from outside higher education--distinguished citizen types--but with representation from higher education as well. The commission would set and oversee national guidelines on accreditation and the principles for conduct of regional accreditation. The regional agencies would not be as independent as they are now--and they are opposed to this proposal because they do not want to lose that autonomy. There are, the President observed, a lot of politics involved.
The regional agencies would remain, the President explained in response to a question, but would operate under the supervision of the commission. He said he believes that would be the best way to build credibility with the public and with Congress. The regional organizations would be implementers rather than policy-setting bodies. This would be a way for higher education to retain a degree of autonomy-which has served higher education in the United States very well and one of the reasons why it is probably the best system in the world. Federal regulations, he maintained, are not the key to quality.
Asked if faculty and administrators generally support the proposal, the President said they do; the only reservation is about the degree of specificity in the structure and principles that would be established by the national commission--there is a risk it could impose standards that are not in the best interests of higher education. But it is the best way to go right now, he said, and better than federal regulation, which can be driven by political considerations rather than the interests of higher education.
The reason higher education is under attack, opined one Committee member, is not because outside agencies believe higher education is deficient; they believe it is too expensive and not costeffective. Have any accrediting agencies tried to address cost rather than quality? There is no argument higher education is not doing its job well; the argument is that it could do just as good a job with half as much money.
That is a controversial point, the President responded. To the extent accreditation gets to financial aspects of higher education, the private institutions become very leery. It is an unresolved issue. It is correct to say that accrediting agencies should reach cost-benefit issues; the question is how deeply they should be involved in them.
How broad a section of higher education would the commission cover? One senses it would be four-year colleges and universities. Higher education includes a lot more than those, however; the costbenefit question may not apply to all of them, and there could be a lot of accreditation issues with other parts of higher education. The President affirmed that this proposal is for the four-year and university institutions. There has been an effort to distinguish this sector from others, especially from the proprietary institutions. The federal agenda is driven by the misuse of funds by those proprietary institutions, but all of higher education is being saddled with the regulations. The intent is to keep control over the four-year colleges and universities. It is important to make that distinction, the
Committee member maintained; the factors driving the federal action may have nothing to do with the college and university sector. The President agreed, and noted that the federal government has declined

Faculty Consultative Committee
January 5, 1995
3 to try to identify specific segments that have problems to be dealt with.
BUDGET GUIDELINES The President next reported, in response to a question from Professor
Adams, that the budget guidelines were distributed on December 21 to the chancellors and provosts.
They include targets to be implemented, targets that will be evaluated for their impact and the changes needed to meet them. They also include $10 million in strategic investment funds; the intent is to identify a limited number of strategic investments in which the University will put a significant amount of money. It is important to create a sense that U2000 means strategic investments in important activities.
The plans are due from chancellors and provosts on March 1, after which there will be evaluation and budget meetings to discuss both retrenchments as well as strategic investments.
One Committee member inquired if the administration is giving the chancellors and provosts any hints or suggestions about the strategic investments. The President said they are trying to strike a balance between suggestions and giving the chancellors and provosts the opportunity to outline what they would invest in or would curtail. The budgets will not be prepared in a vacuum; all the colleges have strategic plans. There will be give and take, he said.
Will the administration insist the discussions take place around the U2000 strategic directions? Or is it understood that the chancellors and provosts will have the responsibility to translate the U2000 vision into programmatic proposals? The reason for the question is that faculty are wondering how
U2000 affects them. The intent is to stay with the six strategic directions, the President replied, but there is also the overlay of the categories in the partnership proposal to the state: maintain core disciplines; invest where there is unusual strength or quality or opportunity or needs; put funds where they will be well used. There will be a balance between funding areas that are strong and need to be maintained, and where isolated strength needs to be built on. $10 million over the biennium is too little, the President acknowledged, but it is a first shot in the arm at making the strategic directions concrete and sensible to faculty.
What happens after March 1, and who is involved in the process, asked one Committee member?
There will be hearings with provosts and chancellors, and the deans as needed, and he will participate in some of them, the President said. They will be conducted by the Senior Vice Presidents, who will make recommendations on the final budget. The basic framework is still the partnership proposal, including
$87.7 million in new funds from the state. The administration is not asking for contingency plans, in case the state provides fewer funds. The University will not know the appropriation until May, after the legislature adjourns, and then there will be the "usual mad dash" to prepare the budget.
The process is a good one, commented one Committee member. But where do institutional initiatives show up? Some efforts may be devoted to the infrastructure, but there could be one or two or three programmatically significant initiatives that straddle provostal areas; is there a mechanism to identify issues that the administration has on its mind and to let the provosts know about them? Is there an institutional agenda of programmatic issues? There may not be, but some feel there should be, and that that agenda will not be addressed if not taken up centrally.
The President said there are institutional initiatives that cut across provostal areas; he also emphasized that the intent of the strategic investments is that they be in academic programs, not

Faculty Consultative Committee
January 5, 1995
4 infrastructure. Some of those institutional initiatives, on the other hand, could be within a single college.
What is the plan if only the University's base is restored, plus perhaps a few additional dollars appropriated, asked one Committee member? Will there be a big retrenchment, or will the plan be pushed back? The University has identified $143.7 million in investments that need to be made, the
President replied, and the administration is sticking with that number. The University is telling the state that its share is $87.7 million--and that if it does not provide the funds, the University may have to take drastic action itself. The end result could mean eliminating activities in order to meet retrenchment needs, and in amounts approaching $60 or 70 million. Even eliminating IT would not be sufficient, in that case--and that's NOT a proposal, the President added!
One Committee member asked if there is any cumulative record of reallocation at the University; one senses there is a perception that business goes on as usual. It would be helpful if the University could show the magnitude of the changes that have been made. The President said the information is available and has been presented many times; the message seems not to sink in. There has been $80 million in changes over five years, representing a sea change in the University--and that does not include the loss of $50 million in state funds, so the total change has really been on the order of $130 million.
That's also an underestimate, he added, because it does not include intra-college reallocations.
As for contingency plans, observed one Committee member, the University should "hang tough" on the numbers. There are not detailed contingency plans; the University should march down the road and see what happens.
NCAA CONVENTION ISSUES Professor Adams next inquired of the President about the academic issues at the NCAA conventions. The President noted that there are 150 proposals on the agenda, on which over 1000 people cast votes by raising paddles; only a limited set of the items are important. The central issue is educational quality and opportunity and provision of a meaningful education for athletes. There has been a concerted effort in recent years to provide a meaningful education, and to require admission of athletes who can benefit from it.
The President's Commission of the NCAA, as has the Knight Commission (co-chaired by former university presidents William Friday [North Carolina] and Theodore Hesburgh [Notre Dame]). Both have been instrumental in bringing proposals, including more stringent preparation requirements for athletes to be eligible for competition. First there was Proposition 48, which improved the graduation rates of both white and black athletes' graduation rates by 10%. Proposition 16 was adopted in 1992, which raised the required high school GPA from a "C" to a "C+" and indexed standardized test scores.
There is now a question if Proposition 16 should be repealed, delayed one year, or implemented now.
Both the President's Commission and the Knight Commission have recommended voting to delay implementation for one year, in order to allow for changes in SAT scales. The President said he supports this recommendation--rather than voting to weaken or eliminate Proposition 16--because unless universities set performance aspirations in high school, things will not change. Proposition 48 demonstrated that changes can be accomplished. People are kidding themselves, he told the Committee, if they think universities can admit unprepared or under-prepared students, allow them to compete as freshmen, and still expect them to perform acceptably in their academic pursuits. Most of those students will be dropped by the wayside--except only for those very few who make it into professional sports.

Faculty Consultative Committee
January 5, 1995
5
Proposition 16 will NOT prevent the admission of any student, he pointed out, nor will it prohibit the provision of financial aid; it only denies opportunity to compete until the student has demonstrated the ability to perform college academic work under the pressures that exist on athletes.
If a student is admitted but not eligible to compete, would he or she have three or four years of eligibility after the freshman year, asked one Committee member. There are two proposals, the President reported: one would grant only three years of eligibility; the other would allow four. He said he will vote for four years; if a student can qualify academically, he said, there is no reason to deny the fourth year of eligibility during the fifth year of enrollment. On this issue, he said, he parts company with the
President's Commission and the Knight Commission.
Another Committee member inquired about broader efforts being made--if any--to integrate athletes into the academic community. There are a number of them, the President said. In some cases, it was said, efforts at integration are prohibited by NCAA rules; there need to be some creative efforts made to help integrate students of color especially. Dr. Boston has been very creative, the President replied, in forging linkages with the academic community in an attempt to overcome the "two cultures" problem. A meeting of the Committee with Dr. Boston might be useful, he suggested.
There have been other views expressed, but the President said he did not want to erode the gains that have been made in NCAA rules. He said he does not believe to do so would be in the interest of student-athletes generally, nor in the interest of minority student-athletes. The conditions in high schools that push athletes through must be changed; a message has to be sent to school districts that academic needs must be met. The President cited the changes in student performance when the new preparation standards were adopted; over the course of a few years, the number of students meeting them went from
17% to 86%; there is no question, he said, they can meet the standards, and there must be pressure on school boards and communities to meet their obligations.
It would perhaps be helpful, Professor Adams said, if the Committee were to make a statement on this issue. It was moved, seconded, and unanimously voted to endorse the President's position on these issues. One Committee member emphasized that the primary motivation for the support is that the position taken will benefit student-athletes; it is their welfare that is the chief concern. The President thanked the Committee for its vote. He noted that he differs with the Assembly Committee on
Intercollegiate Athletics on this issue, but the disagreement is not on goals, but on how to achieve them.
Both the faculty representatives and the athletic directors have taken a constructive approach to the discussions, he said.
EARLY RETIREMENT CHANGES On the proposed changes in the early retirement options, the President said they are needed in order to provide additional flexibility as the University confronts
$28 million in reallocation. There will be a window when the enhanced options will be available, after which they will not be offered. The enhancements will be targeted by program; chancellors, provosts, and deans will be asked to identify units where they want it made available; after approval by central administration, the options will be available to everyone in that unit or program.
This is a long-term problem, pointed out one Committee member; there needs to be a policy to encourage people to retire in a timely way, since there is no mandatory retirement. Will there be a

Faculty Consultative Committee
January 5, 1995
6 policy? The existing policy on phased retirements and terminal leaves will remain in place, the President said. There are things that could be done, it was said, that do not cost a lot of money but that would permit faculty to retire while retaining their association with the University (e.g., office, desk, lab space, e-mail privileges, a mailbox, some secretarial support, library and parking privileges, and so forth).
Professor Feeney reviewed what is now being done.
The concerns of the Finance and Planning Committee, Professor Gray reported, were (1) how the buyouts would appear to the legislature, if faculty are given two years' salary, and (2) if people take advantage of the enhancements, but they would have retired anyway, there is no benefit to the University.
There seems not to have been enough study done; the program could be wasting money. The President's presentation, however, was more focussed than that made to her Committee, she said, and as described today, it is better.
The political side does deserve attention, said one Committee member. The University is between
Scylla and Charybdis, the President commented; the plan, with the targeting, seems the best compromise.
If the legislature inquires about it, he said, he will ask how the University can be expected to make significant changes without retirement incentives to create flexibility.
The President then reported on the status of the searches for the provosts and the UMD
Chancellor.
Professor Adams thanked the President for joining the meeting.
2. Other Items of Business
Professor Adams announced that he had a number of items he wished to bring to the attention of the Committee.
Before getting to them, however, he inquired if there were sufficient interest to pursue a meeting with Dr. Boston and other individuals in intercollegiate athletics. There appeared to be general agreement that discussion of athletics should be limited to the February 2 SCC meeting, at which time
Professors Fellows and Flanigan of the Assembly Committee on Intercollegiate Athletics will join it to discuss academic audits and student academic progress.
-- He distributed and reviewed briefly the Transition Advisory Committee (TAC) report. The TAC had been charged with reviewing the changes that should be made in the governance system, if any, to align it better with the new provostal structure of the administration. In general, the TAC recommended leaving the existing structure intact through the current year and appointing a governance task force to consider restructuring, its work to be completed by the end of the academic year. The TAC did recommend that members of the Twin Cities Campus Assembly--the
Twin Cities members of the Senate--should meet as subgroups within provostal areas to serve as a consulting group to the provosts. The task force would be appointed jointly by the President and the governance system.
This raises a question about who has the authority to suggest things, said one Committee member.
One assumes that the way the Senate chooses to organize and carry out its responsibilities is

Faculty Consultative Committee
January 5, 1995
7 primarily Senate business, with some involvement by the President. Even the provostal assemblies are SENATE business, in that they are created to carry out Senate business within certain areas of the University--as are the campus assemblies. These are SENATE choices, and the Committee should not be reluctant to initiate changes.
Professor Adams agreed, and said that something should be said at the February Senate meeting about the next steps.
Moreover, it was said, the structure should not be subject to approval of the provosts. The Senate has the responsibility to decide how it will do business. There is no need for a confrontation, but this is Senate business. Professor Adams again concurred, noting that two of the provosts have not been appointed. If the Senate can agree on what should be established, however, the consultative structure can be part of recruiting candidates and set expectations for them. This should be the first item of business the next time the Committee meets with the President.
-- Questions have been raised about the terms of office of Senate committee chairs, Professor Adams reported, and he pointed out that there are two tensions at work. One, chairing the major committees is becoming a bigger and bigger job, so people agree to accept the positions "only with gritted teeth," the assurance of good staff, and the knowledge they'll be done soon. But effective governance requires familiarity with what is going on; should anything be done? The terms of chairs, in the past, were longer than one year.
Committee members discussed the difficulty in recruiting committee chairs, the virtue of having
MORE faculty involved as chairs (and the increased personal contacts between administrators and faculty that can result), the need to get junior faculty involved in governance, and the need to get more faculty involved in a committee in order to increase the cadre willing to serve as chair.
One should separate the multi-year term for FCC/SCC chair from multi-year terms for other committee chairs, maintained one Committee member. The FCC/SCC chair has a different job.
The possibility exists for a strong working relationship between the top administration and the
Committee leadership; to the extent its leadership turns over constantly, the Committee's effectiveness can be undermined by its failure to take advantage of that working relationship.
There is much that Professor Adams gets involved in, it was said, that is not formal Committee business; he is not only the formal head of the governance system, but is also the person to whom the administration turns for a lot of significant advice on a basis different than that offered in the formal system. The system gives up much of that when it does not think about two-year terms for the FCC chair; the same bond doesn't exist for short-term service as chair.
It will also be important, in reconfiguring the governance system, to be sure that the right committees exist; in one case now, a committee has been put out of existence because no one could be found to serve as chair. The right number and function of committees will have to be carefully considered.
Professor Adams asked Committee members to think about who could serve on a governance task force, people who know what's going on at the University. It should be appointed by February. As for the number of committees, he observed, the institution becomes more and more complex; does

Faculty Consultative Committee
January 5, 1995
8 that require multiplying the number of committees doing things or condensing the number in order to increase their effectiveness?
-- The question of excused absences and student lobbying has arisen, Professor Adams next reported.
February 15 is to be a day when students lobby in St. Paul; the question is whether or not they should be excused. After short debate, it was agreed that lobbying could not be an official
University function and that the administration should do whatever it thinks best. Given that the decision about what to do will have to be made quickly, it was suggested that Professors Adams and Heller represent the Committee in any discussions with the administration.
-- Professor Adams then inquired of the chairs of Educational Policy (Professor Heller) and Finance and Planning (Professor Gray) if the two committees had anything to bring to FCC or SCC for discussion. It was agreed that the next meeting would include hearing from SCEP; Professor Gray said that Finance and Planning had nothing at this time, that right now it is reacting to the flood of financial information it is being given.
One possible issue that some committee might consider, it was said, was organizational structure; it may be premature to do so, because one senses the process is not moving fast. The Transition
Task Force, Professor Adams recalled, was charged by the President to allocate activities and responsibilities between the central administration and the chancellors/provosts. There were 18 realms of concern; the Task Force has dealt with some of them but has much more work to do.
The Finance and Planning Committee, Professor Gray said in response to a query, is dealing with the pieces as they are completed, but is not looking at the non-financial issues.
This is not a primary item of concern to the governance system, it was said, but neither is it a matter of indifference, and some group should be involved in considering the proposals. The roles of the Vice President for Research and Dean of the Graduate School and the vice presidents for outreach and for student affairs will have an effect on faculty. Professor Adams agreed that who does what, and how, does affect everything from faculty affairs to educational policy to finance and planning, and that the governance system should ride herd on the decisions; there is, he added, a difference of view in central administration on who should do what, and the process of making decisions about those issues has been slowed.
The coordinate campuses share this concern, it was said. Their faculty are not aware of what the changes will mean. Although the Duluth faculty opted for a bargaining agent, the other campuses may be comfortable without one, but there is uneasiness. It isn't clear how best to grab hold of these issues, Professor Adams said; the primary effects of the reorganization, he surmised, will be on the Twin Cities campus.
One concern in particular, for the coordinate campuses, is central oversight of promotion and tenure decisions; some one or some office wiser and more experienced is needed to review the coordinate campus decisions. Professor Adams reported that he raised this issue recently with the
President; the answer has been consistent; the administration "fully expects" the chancellors and provosts will interact with the central administration, and Dean of the Graduate School, on standards to be used in making appointments and promotions. There is more vagueness in the situation when it comes to the question of case-by-case review of files. Does the Committee wish

Faculty Consultative Committee
January 5, 1995
9 to make a statement or adopt a resolution setting forth its own views on that issue, he asked?
Arguments in favor of an FCC position were that there would be the potential for different standards to evolve, that duplication of expertise in faculty appointments might be made, and that interpretation of standards might be different (e.g., different lengths of time for probationary appointments). At the same time these questions are being asked, said another Committee member, one might ask who is making promotion and tenure decisions in the two provostal areas that are now without provosts. When asked about this, it was said, the administration has said that the process for this year will be the same as it has been, with full central oversight.
Professor Adams asked Professor Feeney for a report on this issue at the next FCC meeting.
-- One operational issue of concern is the undergraduate initiative, said one Committee member.
Vice President Hopkins has spearheaded the efforts to implement the initiative; with her departure, no one will be in charge. One senses that much has been done, but that much also remains to be done. It is unlikely the provosts will deal with the subject, at least for a year or two, while they are getting settled. There is a concern that it may languish, agreed another Committee member; yet another said the concern reflects the fact that the reorganization has not been settled in a timely fashion, so no one has been identified as responsible for undergraduate education.
Professor Adams commented that what has been accomplished is a great tribute to Vice President
Hopkins; one would never have believed that so much could be done. He agreed that the
Committee should continue to "lean on" the administration to ensure that the effort continues. The reorganization of central administration and the assignment of duties to central officers will be discussed by Senior Vice President Infante at the January 19 meeting of the Committee.
-- Professor Adams reported to his colleagues that he had received a copy of a letter from a faculty member to Acting Vice President Brenner about the increase in administrative "interference" in the conduct of research. This came from a responsible investigator who is burdened by rules, he said, and is an issue that must be addressed. To some extent, these rules are imposed by external sources, but some are not.
One Committee member expressed even stronger feelings. Faculty will not seek contracts with business, or will not do so actively, when confronted with ORTTA and the lawyers. Is this, asked another Committee member, excessive caution that hamstrings research, or is it a reasonable response to protect the University against lawsuits?
This issue of rule compliance and potential legal liability keeps popping up, Professor Adams agreed; it is the tip of the iceberg? When one keeps hearing complaints from those doing sponsored research, the Committee needs to attend to it.
The problem is that the rules are formulated for those who do wrong, but they hinder those who are doing right, and the rules are also not able to handle the varieties of research that take place.
The result, however, is sometimes to discourage outreach and research because of the burdens the rules impose.

Faculty Consultative Committee
January 5, 1995
10
Another Committee member related that this is a significant issue for the disciplines in which he works as well. There may be a way to improve the environment at the top, but there will continue to be regulations and policies forced on individual investigators. It is impossible for an investigator to know them all--but they are nonetheless legally responsible for them. They cannot be in that situation without a supportive infrastructure--there must be people available who KNOW the requirements; faculty members cannot be experts on all these rules. But the rules are getting in the way; some faculty, it was said, will not write research grants because it is simply too difficult.
It was agreed that Professor Adams would ask Professor Allen Goldman, chair of the Senate
Research Committee, to consider these issues and report back to FCC within six weeks. It was also suggested that the Committee talk with Acting Vice President Brenner.
-- Finally, Professor Adams reported, Regent Keffeler read the minutes of the meeting at which FCC members talked about regental selection and representation of faculty views to the Board of
Regents, and wishes to speak with the Committee. If a suitable time can be identified, a meeting will be scheduled.
Professor Adams then adjourned the meeting at 12:20.
University of Minnesota
-- Gary Engstrand