Minutes*
Faculty Consultative Committee
Thursday, February 16, 1995
11:00 - 1:30
Dale Shephard Room, Campus Club
Present:
John Adams (chair), Carl Adams, Thomas Burk, Sheila Corcoran-Perry, Sara Evans, Dan
Feeney, Virginia Gray, James Gremmels, Kenneth Heller, Roberta Humphreys, Geoffrey
Maruyama, Harvey Peterson, Michael Steffes
Regrets:
Lester Drewes, Morris Kleiner
Absent:
Robert Jones
Guests:
Vice President Mel George, Senior Vice President E. F. Infante
Others:
Maureen Smith (University Relations)
[In these minutes: Legislative efforts; U2000; Twin Cities calendar; Morse-Alumni award; searches for
central administrators; administrative reviews]
1.
Discussion with Vice President George
Professor Adams convened the meeting at 11:00 and welcomed Vice President George to talk
about U2000 and about the legislative request.
Dr. George began by telling the Committee that one thing he is doing is sharing with as many
external audiences as possible the GOOD news about the University. One interesting piece is the results
from the Minnesota State Survey, in which 81% of the respondents expressed favorable or very favorable
views of the University as an educational institution. It is NOT true that the public views the University
as a bad place. Over the 20 years the poll has been conducted, positive views of the University are at an
all-time high.
Other items he is noting:
--
The five-year graduation rate has increased over the past four years.
--
The average lower division class size on the Twin Cities campus is 27 students.
--
(Even President Hasselmo did not realize that) of this year's incoming freshman class, 70% live in
residence halls, up from a stable 45% for a number of earlier years. Much of significance flows
from the fact that so many students live on campus.
*
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
February 16, 1995
--
2
Faculty do not COST money, they bring in money; few understand that only 28 cents of every
University dollar spent comes from the state. People also seem not to understand what research is,
and the significance of the research mission, but they are VERY impressed that the University
brings in $270 million per year in research funding, over $100,000 per faculty member.
Dr. George then reported on efforts to increase support for the University's budget request and the
partnership proposal. He reviewed the activities to involve alumni and members of University advisory
groups in contacting legislators, and materials being provided to those volunteers. He is also meeting
with internal groups, including Senate committees and student groups, to help them understand what the
University is trying to do. He singled out the students for strong commendation, noting that they have
come out solidly behind the partnership proposal and are not simply fighting a tuition increase as their
first priority. They have exercised strong leadership in their lobbying efforts.
Dr. George then commented that he has struggled to get his arms around U2000 and what it means,
as have others internally, and he had an epiphany about it last weekend. Upon explaining it, the
President agreed with his view. The University has talked of the challenges in the six key strategic areas,
and it has talked about the critical measures; what it has not talked about is how to get from the strategic
areas to the critical measures. Part of the achievement will come through the planning process, but the
best thinking of the faculty leadership is needed on this issue.
If there is to be a report to the Board of Regents in 15 years, announcing success in meeting the
performance goals of the critical measures, what must be done today? What needs to change?
One Committee member commended Dr. George on the efforts his office is making and agreed
that the epiphany about the failure to identify the "how" is fundamental and should not be lost.
Discussion turned to legislative issues. Asked if the University would contribute to the settlement
the state must make with financial institutions that it overtaxed, Dr. George said the amount of the
University's contribution had been deducted before the Governor made his budget recommendations.
The total settlement is about $200 million; the Governor decided to pay it back over four years, and
spread the cost almost evenly over state agencies.
Asked if there is a chance it will be removed, Dr. George said it may depend on the March revenue
forecast. His impression is that revenues will be up. Two things that might be done with any increased
revenue have been mentioned: apply it towards the bank settlement (which would mean an increase in
funds for most agencies), or the Governor might give more money to K-12 education, make the
University's appropriation recurring, and provide more money to the merged system. There appears to be
some understanding that the money for the University cannot be non-recurring, and that it may be made
recurring, but the Governor is unable to make long-term predictions about state funding.
One hears that the state will be in deep financial trouble in two years, said one Committee
member. Is that true? He is not the best one to talk to about this, Dr. George said. He understands there
is a report out of the Governor's office pointing out that if one makes straight-line projections, the state
budget will be in trouble--but said he does not know if the report is credible, and expressed doubt that
straight-line projections are of much use.
Faculty Consultative Committee
February 16, 1995
3
Asked about the merged state higher education system and its stance vis-a-vis the University, Dr.
George reported that there is not great enthusiasm in the legislature for the request made by the merged
system. It appears that millions of dollars would be spent without making anything better for students.
The Governor is holding firm on the increases of $60 million for the University and $10 million for the
merged system, although at the end of the session there will probably not be a $50 million gap between
the appropriations for the two systems.
A bill has been introduced in the legislature to establish a campus closing commission, a la the
base closing commission used by the Department of Defense. The commission, if established, would
recommend consolidations and closings, and the legislature would have to vote the entire list up or down.
The MINNEAPOLIS STAR-TRIBUNE supports the proposal and noted that only the University has
taken the step of closing a campus.
One Committee member observed that local Twin Cities legislators seem not have a sense of
ownership of the University that outstate legislators feel about the coordinate campuses. Faculty on the
Twin Cities campus bring in a lot of money, and jobs, but local legislators generally do not react to that
accomplishment. Dr. George said the University wants local legislators to be active supporters, but at the
same time the University does not want to be seen as a local institution. One problem it has had is that it
has not been well connected to the two central cities, so the University is working to build support in
them.
The President is also Chancellor of the Twin Cities campus, noted one Committee member, and
has a great deal to do in that capacity--but every hour spent on that is not time spent downtown or on
political matters. The reorganization is intended to release some of the time required for campus
activities.
The Governor went to great lengths to keep Northwest Airlines in Minnesota, it was noted, but the
University is probably more important to the economy. The University cannot move, Dr. George
responded, and explained one idea that they may follow up on: develop a map of the Twin Cities
showing the amount of dollars in research grants brought in by faculty members in each district. The
number of employees on those grants, and their distribution, should also be included, it was suggested.
Professor Adams thanked Dr. George for joining the meeting and said the Committee would like to
hear from him again later in the year.
2.
Various Issues
Professor Adams distributed to his colleagues a list of 26 issues and items of business that the
Committee should be aware of.
3.
Issues from the Committee on Educational Policy
TWIN CITIES CALENDAR He then turned to Professor Heller for presentation of additional
items. Dr. Heller began by explaining that the Senate Committee on Educational Policy is considering
recommending an alternative calendar for the Twin Cities campus: Fall Quarter would start right after
Faculty Consultative Committee
February 16, 1995
4
Labor Day and end before Thanksgiving; Winter and Spring Quarters would be at their normal time.
This would not solve the problem of the late ending, and all would come back earlier, so it would shorten
the summer break. It would, however, create a long break between Thanksgiving and the new year.
For faculty on nine-month appointments, this calendar would probably mean they would not be
paid for two of the weeks during the break.
Where is the pressure coming to make a change, asked one Committee member? No schedule is
perfect, and the small chunks of curriculum offered by the quarter system meet the needs of an urban
campus. One objection, Dr. Heller reported, is to the break in the quarter caused by Thanksgiving.
Several Committee members said they had never noticed it as a problem. For lab-based courses, he said,
there is an uneven distribution of dates that is not solved by the Thursday start.
The proposal would be more attractive if Winter Quarter were to begin after Thanksgiving, said
one Committee member; Dr. Heller said that a number of people have said that a split quarter would be
much worse. Faculty who have experienced it say it is not productive and that they must start all over
again after the holiday break. One Committee member took issue with these assertions, pointing out that
he has had 17 years experience with the split quarter and that it works very well--one has a three-week
quarter and a seven-week quarter and one arranges the curriculum accordingly.
MORSE ALUMNI AWARD He has been informed that the administration is troubled by the
recommendation calling for a continuous addition to the salary of the winners, as long as they remain on
the faculty. Dr. Heller said he did not want to blindside the administration, but the issue has been
discussed by SCEP since last year, and Vice President Anne Hopkins was not only aware of it, she
supported the proposal. Academic Affairs believes that in times of financial trouble, this would be too
much of a burden to place on departments.
Dr. Heller noted that the proposal calls for reallocated funds to be used, to reward people
concerned with undergraduate education. Departments would not have to provide the salary supplement;
the money would come from the overall salary pool.
Asked how this development affected the Senate agenda, Dr. Heller said he did not believe he
could withdraw the proposal, even if he wanted to, and that SCEP strong supports it. The Senate should
be asked to pass the POLICY, not the operational details; those can be worked out with the
administration later. The proposal, he pointed out, will cost NO additional money for the next five years.
Committee members generally expressed support for the policy, which they reaffirmed later in the
meeting in discussion with Senior Vice President Infante.
4.
Searches
One Committee member then raised a question about the processes used to make high-level
appointments. The Committee, it was said, should say something positive about the appointment of Dr.
Allen as Provost for Professional Studies, in recognition of the regular search procedure leading to a
regular outcome. The Committee should say it was pleased by the process and note explicitly that FCC
was consulted during the search and interviewed the finalists.
Faculty Consultative Committee
February 16, 1995
5
Committee members deliberated for some while whether or not to say anything; several points
were raised:
--
The President reminded the Board of Regents of his authority to make emergency appointments,
and Professor Adams noted that the President recalled that the four appointments preceding that of
Dr. Boston were carried out using the regular procedures.
--
The next search should proceed to a conclusion "by the numbers." Some report nervousness about
the process, and feel put off by it, and there is a sense the administration may be ignoring the
faculty. It should be on the record that the next one will not ignore the faculty.
--
The President DID consult with some faculty about the appointment of Dr. Boston; no resolution
from the Committee on this issue should say there was no faculty consultation.
--
It is important to let people know that FCC interviews candidates during the regular search
process; many faculty do not know that.
--
The Committee should indicate support for the regular process.
--
Not all on campus agree with that; some believe the President should have the authority to make
appointments to his cabinet.
--
There would be considerable faculty concern if the next search were to be like the one in Student
Development and Athletics, or if it were to be cancelled and begun again.
--
Occasionally in the past, search committees have been appointed, presented a slate, and the search
committee has been dismissed and the process begun over again. This happens. To recommend
that normal procedures be used is fine; if there is a motion, there should be no sense that it would
tie the hands of the administration on the next or any other search.
--
It is fine to commend the search process for Dr. Allen, but any resolution should NOT imply that
the Committee is waiting to see if everything else is done right.
--
To congratulate the administration on conducting a search correctly is insulting.
--
There must be sensitivity to faculty concerns; they believe, for good or for ill, that these are
capricious appointments by the administration; the Committee needs to raise the flag that faculty
are and have been involved.
--
There is nothing wrong with the Committee complimenting the administration on successfully
completing a major search.
5.
Other Issues
Professor Adams reported that Dr. Infante will discuss the reorganization of Academic Affairs
Faculty Consultative Committee
February 16, 1995
6
when he joins the meeting. The issues have been discussed in various committees; one recurring concern
is the relationship of the Graduate School to the provosts, and it has not been settled. Some argue the
Graduate School should be eliminated; others say the University DARE not do so because it is too
important, but its responsibilities should be revised.
The problem with the list of issues he presented to the Committee, Professor Adams then
commented, is that if the Committee has not time to deal with them, he and Professor (Carl) Adams will
just DO them.
Professor Feeney reported that the President will be meeting with the Committee on Faculty
Affairs on March 7 to discuss a number of issues, including tenure, the role of the Graduate School, and
so on. Work will begin on changing the tenure code to fit the provostal arrangement. SCFA also has a
subcommittee considering the requirements of the Minnesota Data Practices Act with respect to reviews
of administrators, in order to develop a guide and to foster uniform procedures. This is intended to
address practical problems, he assured the Committee.
If a dean is reviewed by a vice president, said one Committee member, a lot happens and then
there is a report to the vice president. Do people believe they are entitled to share in the review? Or is
that the responsibility of the vice president? What should happen? The administration acknowledges
that the process is ad hoc, from one review to the next, and the conduct of reviews is not on a regular
schedule. And faculty feel they do not get anything out of it. Should they, Dr. Feeney was asked? Yes.
6.
Discussion with Senior Vice President Infante
Professor Adams next welcomed Dr. Infante to the meeting. The Committee spent an hour with
him and discussed the following issues:
--------
-----
The position of chair of the Council on Liberal Education
The situation in Arts, Sciences, and Engineering with the departure of Dr. Hopkins, and the status
of the search for her successor.
Faculty concerns about the appointment of McKinley Boston.
Consultation on the reorganization.
The management of externally-funded research.
The reorganization of Academic Affairs; consultation thereon; reporting lines of various activities.
Reorganization and governance and priorities for review (tenure, grievance procedures, and
academic misconduct policies, and the centrality of tenure); a way to begin review of the tenure
code.
The Morse-Alumni award recommendations.
Supplemental budget instructions and the problem of fringe benefit costs.
The role of deans and the importance of tuition.
The relationship between CEE, Summer Session, and inloading, and the role of University
College.
Professor Adams adjourned the meeting at 1:30.
-- Gary Engstrand
Faculty Consultative Committee
February 16, 1995
University of Minnesota
7