Minutes*
Faculty Consultative Committee
Thursday, October 5, 1995
10:00 - 12:00
Room 238 Morrill Hall
Present:
Carl Adams (chair), John Adams, Carole Bland, Victor Bloomfield, Lester Drewes, Dan
Feeney, Virginia Gray, James Gremmels, Laura Coffin Koch, Geoffrey Maruyama,
Harvey Peterson, Michael Steffes
Regrets:
Robert Jones
Absent:
Roberta Humphreys, Fred Morrison
Guests:
President Nils Hasselmo
Others:
Steven Bosacker (Regents' Office); Rich Broderick (University Relations); Martha
Kvanbeck (University Senate)
[In these minutes: (With President Hasselmo:) positive notes about the University, tasks while he
remains in office, re-engineering, ROTC, tenure, semesters, U2000; the process for dealing with tenure
and semesters; provostal governance; anonymity in these minutes]
1.
Discussion with President Hasselmo
Professor Adams convened the meeting at 10:00 and welcomed the President.
President Hasselmo welcomed Committee members to Fall Quarter and began by noting that there
is a very positive story developing about incoming freshmen on the Twin Cities campus. The numbers
are overwhelming; the class being admitted is 400-500 students larger than in previous years, and is
probably one of the best freshmen classes ever admitted to the University. This is the result of efforts by
a lot of people, he observed, and because of a lot of changes in recruiting, teaching, and accommodations
for students on the campus. People should feel that there are good things happening that are important
for the future of the University.
Another positive note, the result of faculty activity, is a 9.4% increase in sponsored research
funding--in a situation where one would not expect it to grow. There are still storm clouds on the
horizon, but the worst ones have been avoided, at least temporarily. The University has been aggressive
in Washington, both through the educational organizations as well as through the Minnesota delegation,
in pressing the importance of research as well as student financial aid.
Also positive news was the National Research Council rankings; in the vast majority of cases,
*
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
October 5, 1995
2
University departments improved their rankings. That is a reflection of faculty effort. It is to be hoped
that these developments can be sustained.
In private fund-raising, the University set a goal last year of $60 million; it raised $77 million; this
shows the University is strongly supported by the individual and corporate community, the President
said. The danger in these kinds of numbers is whether or not they can be sustained.
While there are a number of difficult problems facing the University, he concluded, he said he
hopes that those who are pessimistic can look at something like the improvements in undergraduate
education, sponsored research, the rankings, and the fund-raising. Those successes come because of
Herculean efforts by many faculty and staff; the more that information can be made known, with deep
gratitude to those who made it possible, the better off everyone will be.
The President then noted that the Board of Regents will be dealing with an additional $31.9
million in cuts, reductions the University is imposing on itself because the legislature failed to
appropriate sufficient funds to cover the partnership proposal. This represents tremendous self-discipline
by the University in order to do things that will pay off later in teaching and research.
The President then talked about his agenda for the rest of his tenure in office. He said he is
thinking in terms of projects; he wants to accomplish things so the next administration does not have to
start over, so that there is continuity, and so that there is a plateau from which continued development
can take off. Key to this will be the continuation of U2000. He said he has had a great deal of help from
Professor Adams and others to supplement U2000, to identify the means to achieve its ACADEMIC
objectives.
The President said he wanted to mention three items in particular. First, there is a need to sharpen
the communication about where the University is going by use of a signature statement. The documents
make clear there has been a lot of money invested; what has been done needs to be pulled together so it
has some punch, is something people see as a signature of the University. He said he wants to put in
place a process so that he can obtain adequate consultation on this.
Second, financial planning needs to be honed. There have to be viable solutions to the financial
problems of the University, including looking at all the institutional resources and considering seriously
the future funding of higher education.
Third, on re-engineering, he said he has resisted the temptation to throw some kind of TQM or
similar umbrella over the entire University. Rather, over the last six-plus years, they have identified
areas for reform and acted on them (e.g., Facilities Management underwent radical reform; there have
also been substantial changes in the College of Education and Human Development, at the Duluth
campus, and in the Carlson School, and there are dramatic changes now occurring in the Academic
Health Center). Senior Vice President Infante and Chuck Denny, former CEO of ADC
Telecommunications doing a lot of wonderful pro bono work for the University, are leading a reengineering effort focused on information technology, procurement, research grants management, and
human resources information systems.
There is a re-engineering group looking at the policies, practices, and procedures in Human
Faculty Consultative Committee
October 5, 1995
3
Resources, also led by Chuck Denny, which follows on a 1994 task force that looked at compensation
issues. This group is taking a comprehensive look at four areas in Human Resources management:
recruitment (including the possible simplification of searches so they do not cost so much in dollars and
faculty and staff time), training and development, compensation (including development of a firm
institutional position on the report of the Compensation Working Group), and conflict resolution.
The President also noted that the steam plant issue will have to be dealt with.
He is also going to meet with international alumni in the far east; the University has unusual
bastions of support in Korea, China, and Taiwan that it should capitalize on.
On the Senate resolution concerning ROTC, the President said he does not believe that the
statement represents the best strategy and he will report to the Senate in November on how he sees the
issue evolving. He said he does not believe setting deadlines is the best approach, but he is also mindful
of the anomaly between federal and University policy. The University is monitoring what is going on in
the courts and federal government; the direction seems to be the right one. He said he is trying to
exercise his best judgment.
On the change to semesters, he said he wants to be sure there is communication between the
administration and the governance system. This change is clearly educational and within the purview of
the faculty; he said he wants to be sure there is a proper sharing of authority.
On tenure, the President observed that it is on the agenda because society has put it there. He
wants the consideration of tenure to be a joint administrative-faculty governance effort. He recalled that
he has repeatedly said that tenure is essential to the protection of academic freedom, although there may
be elements of granting or removing tenure that might be evaluated. The University must be sure that
tenure is not protection for non-performance or malfeasance as the best strategic response to society's
concerns. If there is one concept underlying universities, it is the provision of academic freedom; that is
the essence of a university, and it must be protected for the benefit of society. The University must put
its house in order so tenure protects academic freedom, not non-performance.
Tenure is an important issue, observed one Committee member, and is coupled with age and
faculty performance issues; what is going on with respect to these issues? Will there be
recommendations to be acted on? The President reported that several things are occurring. There will be
a forum with the Board of Regents, with a national tenure expert (which will be videotaped). Dr. Infante
has hired Professor Dan Farber from the Law School to deal with tenure issues and the agenda. The
President recalled he had talked with SCFA last spring, at which point it asked for a white paper on how
the administration views the issues. He expects to have a working group of faculty and administrators
take up the tricky issues. His view of the questions is whether the process by which tenure is granted
functions as it should, whether there are areas where tenure should not be granted (e.g., clinical faculty),
and whether the process to remove tenure for non-performance or malfeasance is effective. The agenda
is still being formulated. One Committee member noted that there is also a human resources task force
on appointments and the CIC task force on tenure, both of which will be working this year.
Professor Adams reported that for both tenure and semesters, there is an agreement with the
administration that the legislative responsibilities of the Senate will be respected. One way to proceed is
Faculty Consultative Committee
October 5, 1995
4
to set up a small joint advisory group that cuts across administration and faculty in order to ensure there
is coordination. But the normal legislative process will eventually come forward with any changes.
In the health sciences, it was noted, the issue is not unproductive faculty but rather faculty who are
in areas the University can no longer afford, in areas society is no longer willing to finance. What is the
institutional role in ensuring that people are NOT unproductive, that they do not get out of synch with
what society wants (e.g., fewer radiologists, more family practice physicians)? What is the University's
responsibility, so the full brunt of the changes do not fall on the individual?
The funding issue is fundamental, President Hasselmo agreed. If tenure is meaningful, the
institution takes on a multi-million-dollar, multi-year commitment. But with changing societal priorities,
the institution must have flexibility; how can that be made compatible with tenure? It would have been
nice if institutions could have anticipated managed care, for example; sometimes it takes a force majeure
to provoke change. No institution is as far along as Minnesota in dealing with managed care, and it is
being inundated with questions.
The language about "shedding positions" is not attractive, it was said. Another Committee
member said there has to be a human element and collegiality to the changes; the University is dealing
with difficult issues and there must be tolerance in how they are dealt with.
One Committee member said the bother about tenure should be expected; part of what a research
university does is to pursue the unpopular and what appears to be meaningless--though it may not turn
out to be later. Academic freedom means freedom to explore the unpopular.
Another Committee member alluded to a recent story in the CHRONICLE OF HIGHER
EDUCATION about the top salaries in higher education; the numbers were stunning. The top five at
some private institutions were paid over $1 million per year plus benefits; all were in medical fields. If
one asked the president why they are paid so much, they will said it is what the market demands. The
punchline to this, however, is that the market works in two directions; if a medical field is in decline, and
the faculty are no longer needed, they are out--and that is not a matter of protecting academic freedom.
This needs clarification; if the market value of people can increase because of what they do, then it can
also decrease for the same reason. Faculty cannot have it both ways, paying someone $1 million when
they are needed--and continuing to pay them $1 million when they are not. There is a contradiction here;
the system is out of whack.
Part of the market, said another Committee member, is the pay for the position; another part is the
security. One might keep a position for $50,000 and turn down one for $75,000 because of the security
in a faculty appointment. The discussion is complicated; the point is that the University is coming under
external pressure to be clearer about what tenure is. The University is vulnerable, in valuing tenure, in
not dealing with the abuses--just as a number of professional groups do not take seriously their policing
responsibility.
There must be a balance between tenure and the market, said one Committee member. Tenure in
the health sciences is gone; those who stay will get less money than if they were out in the market. Most
people are here because of the environment, not because of the salary; the President is the best example.
Faculty Consultative Committee
October 5, 1995
5
It is fundamental that the University is a university because it drives a research, scholarship, and
artistic agenda, the President said; that agenda is the UNIVERSITY'S responsibility regardless of societal
vagaries, and sometimes it must act counter to social trends. But the University is also buffeted by
society, which may wish to fund different activities; the question is how to balance and manage the
differences.
One Committee member observed that the University believes it is serving society in the long run;
in the short run, the society may say it does not want to pay for what the University is doing. The
University says society should agree with it; it may not. The President added that it is almost the nature
of the beast that society will NOT agree with the University.
What does it mean to say there will be a signature, asked one Committee member? One
Committee member noted that 3M has identified itself with innovation, for example. The term
"signature" is puzzling, said another Committee member; is it jargon used in one part of the world?
The President said he also uses the term "profile"; what is the University of Minnesota? Some say
a profile makes sense; it is a place where fundamental social issues are addressed through teaching,
service, and outreach. What is needed is a simple way to formulate what the University is about that has
an impact on the daily lives of faculty and staff--they are doing their jobs because this is what the
University is about. It is difficult to do.
Asked if any institutions have succeeded, the President said he did not know. Corporations have
brief slogans to describe themselves; there are European institutions that have a narrower focus and are
identified by certain themes. The University has major activities in biomedical engineering, children,
youth and family, natural resources; is that the way to define the profile? If one is too general, people
will not understand, pointed out one Committee member, and if one is too specific, the profile becomes
exclusionary.
To the extent that the recent rankings cover the University, they say the signature profile is
engineering and the social sciences, said one Committee member. What changes if the University
announces this? The President said he was making the effort because there are enough individuals and
constituent groups who want it. U2000 formulates much; the last six years of strategic investments tells
the story. There must be something between the abstract profile and the investments that makes people
comfortable and understand what it means.
But U2000 lists efforts, not goals, it was said; the goals are implied.
One example of an institution was Carnegie Mellon, which described itself as a leader in
information technology, said one Committee member. Corporations and government agencies beat a path
to their door. It cannot be all public relations; there must be substance to the profile. They identified an
area to which they could relate a lot of what they did, and it had a major impact on their support. The
power of a signature can be significant. Another example is the University, which in the 1970s was
strong in the arts and sciences; it made a concerted effort to improve the health sciences. The
consequences were significant; the University made it clear it was building a strong position, even though
it did not call it a signature. Some signatures can reinforce existing strengths; others can be aspirational.
Faculty Consultative Committee
October 5, 1995
6
One Committee member commended the President for evaluating search processes. The Provost
for Arts, Sciences, and Engineering search was a lighting rod; would the University not be well advised
to conduct more searches that favor insiders? The University has done well by those searches. What is
not clear is how to do that while also emphasizing the diversity that is needed. The IT dean search has
produced two insiders, both of whom are white males. And while search firms are very expensive, they
are sometimes needed to keep track of things; without them, either more staff are needed or the faculty
have to do more. But the University could look more for leaders within.
On the subject of the signature, said one Committee member, if one thinks about important areas
of concentration, biomedical engineering has been mentioned many times. It is not unimportant, but it is
seen by many as peripheral to the main focus of the University, as occupying a small corner of IT and the
Medical School but having no impact on the primary mission. If one were to pick a profile area, it might
be something like the human/technology interface, which includes the biological sciences, information
science, and the neurosciences. Such an area could bring a lot of programs together to build on the
theme. One implication, however, is that faculty in biomedical engineering must be willing to teach
freshman courses.
The call to look at established disciplinary rankings is a look backwards, said one Committee
member, while the proposal for the human/technology interface looks forward. By the year 2050,
departments and colleges will not organized as they are today. The University must use the past to figure
how to get where it wants to go; it must build on what it has. There are implications for undergraduate
education, for example; the University must offer more than just remedial education. The fact that the
University has the best incoming freshman class in years is a step away from the "all come" approach;
the University must draw a line in the sand and say there are things it cannot do. It must shape the
undergraduate mission at the same time it is creating its vision and building on disciplinary strengths.
There has to be an imaginative leap, and there also has to be consistency between the administration,
faculty, and regents; to do the impossible one must see the invisible, and this is not very visible.
The President said he wants to engage in the discussion and find a way to grab people's attention
about what the University does. The human/technology theme is a very appealing one.
One Committee member inquired about the change to semesters. In early materials, it seemed to
be the attitude that if there are problems, they should be fixed, and if there is a schedule change, the
schedule should be changed, and the University should not overreach in trying to use the conversion to
semesters as an opportunity to fix other things as well. What is the balance? Is this not a great
opportunity?
The President said the two views have been the subject of a lot of discussion with faculty leaders.
The trend of the discussions have been that the University should use the opportunity to make major
reforms rather than simply make a technical change of schedule. This is an opportunity to take a hard
look at the curriculum; is the University engaging faculty in teaching and learning activities that best
serve students? The governance system must weigh in on this question of opportunity for change as well,
it was said.
The President closed by noting that the emphasis placed on the health sciences 30 years ago made
a significant difference to the University. Six and a half years ago he launched the Undergraduate
Faculty Consultative Committee
October 5, 1995
7
Initiative because he though undergraduate education was the University's Achilles' heel; it was better in
graduate education, research, and outreach. He said he is gratified to see changes that have created a
profile to which students seem to be responding, including a tremendous increase in minority student
enrollment. It is important to show that things can be done and said he hopes the results will stand the
University in good stead.
Professor Adams thanked the President for joining the meeting.
2.
Lunches with Deans and Senators
Professor Gray announced she was passing around a sign-up sheet for FCC members to indicate
which of the FCC-sponsored lunches with faculty senators and deans they wished to attend. Professor
Adams asked that individuals sign up for lunches with deans and senators other than their own college.
FCC members are also invited to join the lunches with department heads and chairs that Professor
Adams has arranged; a schedule will be sent.
Asked about meetings with provosts, Professor Adams noted that the provosts are all scheduled to
meet periodically with FCC.
3.
Dealing with Tenure and Semesters
Professor Adams reported that he has agreed with Senior Vice President Infante, subject to FCC
approval, that the legitimacy of the substantial role of the Senate will be acknowledged. The progress in
dealing with the issues will be superintended by a small, integrating, jointly-appointed advisory group to
ensure that both administrative and legislative sides communicate.
The semester committee would be about eight people, jointly appointed by SCC and the
administration and would include perhaps three people from the governance structure, including 1-2
faculty and 1-2 administrators. If FCC finds this acceptable, Professor Adams suggested that it accept
Provost Shively as the chair. Professor Koch, chair of SCEP, has assented to this proposal. He agreed
that appointment of a faculty co-chair might be appropriate; he said he has been insistent about honoring
the responsibility of the faculty and Senate.
For the tenure advisory committee, however, there will be a faculty chair. The group would be
about five people, initially, and would concentrate on the substance of tenure, not on procedural issues.
In future months, the group would be augmented to deal with procedures. It will be critical to manage
the internal debate on tenure, he said, so that the governance system plays an active role in any changes
to the tenure code; it will be equally important to manage the external debate by having high quality
presentations. Professor Adams agreed that there should be someone from the health sciences who is
highly respected on the tenure advisory committee.
Professor Adams said he has told Senior Vice President Infante that while these advisory groups
can have staff and do their work, but the substantive work must go through the normal legislative bodies,
which will in turn bring matters to the Senate. This is NOT to be seen as a special process; the advisory
groups are to coordinate and ensure that everyone is working together. He agreed that the advisory
Faculty Consultative Committee
October 5, 1995
8
groups should draw from the committees that will be dealing with the issues.
His position, Professor Adams told his colleagues, is that in this system the Senate has strong
legislative responsibilities for tenure and semesters; either the system must be changed or those
responsibilities must be recognized and accepted. Unless someone intends to be confrontational, the
matters will be dealt with in a collegial fashion.
The Committee concurred without dissent to proceeding on these two issues in the manner
described by Professor Adams.
4.
Provostal Councils and Consultative Committees
[Note: Technically, these issues were taken up by the Faculty Assembly Steering Committee, the Twin
Cities faculty members of FCC, who constitute the steering and executive body for the Twin Cities
Faculty Assembly, the faculty/P&A subset of the Twin Cities Campus Assembly. These minutes,
however, will continue to refer to the FCC, because both Twin Cities and coordinate campus FCC
members were present and participated in the discussion.]
Professor Adams then turned to Professor Gray, who drew the attention of Committee members to
the handout containing a revision to the Constitution of the Twin Cities Campus Assembly that would
charter new provostal faculty councils and consultative committees, a summary of the proposal, and a
budget for the staff support that would be provided to both by the University Senate office. Professor
Gray reported that she, Professor John Adams, and Professor Bland, along with Ms. Kvanbeck,
developed the proposal for consideration by FCC. She noted that she had taken the position that she was
responsible for the "emerging democracy" for faculty members; students may wish to develop a similar
organization of their own.
Highlights of the proposal are as follows:
--
The faculty senators in each provostal area would make up the provostal council.
--
The provostal faculty council would elect the provostal faculty consultative committee (PFCC!),
which could be from 8-10 members; the size was left up to the determination of each council
because provostal areas differ in size and organization.
--
The PFCC chair and the provost would serve as co-chairs of the provostal assemblies; this is
somewhat parallel to the President serving as chair of the Faculty Senate.
--
The PFCCs would be required to meet at least once per month; the councils would meet at the call
of the provost or the PFCC.
--
PFCC members may not be FCC members but there must be a reporting relationship between the
PFCCs and the FCC.
One dilemma is whether or not the provostal councils will ever actually meet or act; they spent
most of their time on development of the PFCCs, Professor Gray concluded. One question is whether or
Faculty Consultative Committee
October 5, 1995
9
not the PFCCs should include P&A appointees; the FCC does not.
Professor Adams noted that the Senate and Assembly constitutions are approved by the Board of
Regents; the bylaws of each are not. In this proposal, the provostal councils would not have the same
privilege, because the authority for bylaw approval would rest with the Faculty Assembly (the faculty
and P&A members of the Twin Cities Campus Assembly). FCC could act as the sponsoring agent and
approve a constitution for the councils, and then let them adopt their own bylaws; the choice, however, is
to have the councils chartered in the Assembly Constitution and approved by the Regents, which means
that they will not have authority over their own bylaws. One reason for doing things this way is to ensure
that there is consistency in the bylaws governing the three provostal councils.
If FCC approves this general outline, Professor Gray said in response to a question, she will then
quickly take it up with the three provosts.
Committee members deliberated whether or not FCC members should be members of the PFCCs
for their provostal area. The arguments against membership is workload (number of meetings),
subordination of the PFCCs to the FCC, and possible confusion between an advocacy role on a PFCC for
issues in that provostal area versus the institution-wide perspective FCC members are expected to bring
to their deliberations. The arguments in favor of overlapping membership are avoiding working at crosspurposes, ensure effective communication, and avoid fragmentation of the governance system. After
some discussion, it was agreed that FCC members should be ex officio, non-voting members of their
provostal consultative committee, and their primary responsibility would be linkage, not active
participation; the size of the PFCCs could probably reduced to 6-8 members if FCC members are also to
serve.
It was pointed out, in response to the suggestion that the provosts would be meeting with FCC and
their PFCC and dealing with the same issues twice, that the two groups will likely deal with quite
different issues. FCC will not generally take up areas of concern within one provostal area. Presumably
issues of institution-wide importance will percolate up to FCC.
It was agreed that once the Assembly has approved the constitutional amendments, Professor Gray
could begin to work informally to develop the provostal governance structure, pending final approval by
the Board of Regents. The President will be involved in the discussions about the need for staff support
for the councils and PFCCs.
5.
Bylaw Amendment
The Committee quickly approved a proposed bylaw amendment which would provide to FCC
authority to act on behalf of the Faculty Senate between meetings; the language is parallel to the
language currently granting such authority to the Senate Consultative Committee for the University
Senate.
6.
Minutes Policy
Professor Adams then noted that a former chair of FCC has asked that the Committee
reconsider its practice of anonymity in its minutes. Others have also raised this question from time
Faculty Consultative Committee
October 5, 1995
10
to time. One argument is made that speakers should be willing to have their names associated with
the views they express. The reason for the anonymity, however, is that in the past--when FCC
members were identified--they sometimes received inappropriate calls from non-faculty members
criticizing them for their views.
Committee members discussed the issue at some length; several points of view were expressed.
--
There have been times when overtly false or incorrect statements have been made at a meeting,
which statements then appear in the minutes without contradiction or correction; there are times
when the speaker should be identified. Free expression should not be thwarted, but people should
be thoughtful about what they say; the problem is not an expression of opinion but an assertion of
fact that is wrong.
Contrarily, however, even false statements represent perceptions that people hold, so
administrators or others know there is a perception problem that needs to be addressed.
--
Some in the administration are bothered by the lack of attribution to committee members but
attribution to administrators; when those who take consultation seriously raise the issue, the
Committee should listen.
--
At present the minutes are a work of art that capture the gist of the meetings. If there is to be
attribution, then there should be quotations. If there are quotations, then Committee members
should have the prerogative of reviewing the minutes before they are distributed. Requiring
quotations will make the minutes [even] longer and will also delay considerably their distribution;
review and distribution would become a very formal and time-consuming process.
--
The net benefits are on the side of the present format, rather than an ineffective transcript.
--
These are not, technically, minutes; they are a summary.
--
If Committee members knew they were going to be quoted all the time--as some have been in
BRIEF--they will speak quite differently at the meetings.
--
Attribution to individuals is not important and a summary is better than quotations. Sometimes it
is important to know where an opinion is coming from, where the pressure points are, but that is
usually disguised in the minutes. Sometimes, for example, "the health sciences seem to be playing
in a different league than the rest of the University," and when the source of the question or issue
or concern is not identified with the health sciences, an important point can be obscured. How to
balance these considerations is not clear.
--
It would be informative for readers to know WHO said what, so they could better interpret and
respond to the comments. The counter-argument is that attribution will have deleterious effects on
the Committee discourse.
Committee members should know, recalled one Committee member, that when minutes are
drafted, they are reviewed both by the FCC chair and by the major speakers at the meeting, so problems
Faculty Consultative Committee
October 5, 1995
11
and misconceptions can be addressed before the minutes are circulated.
Professor Adams said it was his judgment that the Committee, on balance, slightly favored
continuing with the present method of reporting; Committee members did not take issue with his
conclusion.
7.
U2000
Professor Adams distributed a revised draft U2000 document and asked Committee members to
read through it and evaluate whether it is useful and fits with what the University is trying to do with the
major issues.
Committee members discussed briefly the consultation that is to take place on the further
development and implementation of U2000.
Professor Adams then adjourned the meeting at 12:10.
-- Gary Engstrand
University of Minnesota