Minutes*
Faculty Consultative Committee
Thursday, November 30, 1995
10:00 - 12:00
Room 238 Morrill Hall
Present:
Carl Adams (chair), Carole Bland, Victor Bloomfield, Lester Drewes, Dan Feeney,
Virginia Gray, James Gremmels, Roberta Humphreys, Robert Jones, Laura Coffin Koch,
Geoffrey Maruyama, Fred Morrison, Harvey Peterson, Michael Steffes
Regrets:
John Adams
Absent:
none
Guests:
President Nils Hasselmo
Others:
Steven Bosacker, Kim Isenberg (Regents' Office); Martha Kvanbeck (University Senate);
Maureen Smith (University Relations)
[In these minutes: The President's agenda; budget planning and strategic investments; U2000; tenure and
the Board of Regents' resolution thereon; provostal governance]
Professor Adams convened the meeting at 10:05 and said there would be time for questions with
the President, but that there were two items he wanted to have discussed: (1) the President's action plans,
things he will concentrate on, during the rest of his term in office, in order to obtain Committee reaction,
and (2) what is happening with respect to tenure and the Board of Regents.
1.
Discussion with President Hasselmo
Professor Adams then welcomed the President to the meeting, and asked him to talk about his
plans and tenure. The President agreed.
He began by commenting on the developments in the Academic Health Center (hereinafter AHC)
and its relationship with Fairview, expressed in a letter of intent that he had signed earlier. The "strategic
affiliation" has initiated intense discussions to create a new organization that will be jointly sponsored by
the AHC and the Fairview Health System, with a board that would be responsible for operation of the
new system. This is the kind of alliance the University had been looking for, in this managed care
environment; he said he expected there would be more specific information available in the next few
weeks.
Professor Adams related that he had suggested to the President that if he needed consultation on
this issue, the Finance and Planning Committee would be the group to talk with, and that the need for
*
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
November 30, 1995
2
confidentiality might call for discussion with a subset of the Committee. He said it would be up to
Professor Morrison to work out whatever consultation arrangements might be appropriate, given the
speed and sensitivity of the proceedings. The President said he found this acceptable.
On the issue of labor negotiations, the President reported that in the case of the Teamsters and
Hospital unit of AFSCME, the union leaders have recommended acceptance of the negotiated contract.
The contract is a reasonable agreement.
The administration will discuss with this Committee, and with the Finance and Planning
Committee and the Civil Service Committee, salaries for the next year, as the budget-making process
moves forward. Professor Adams noted that there is a joint administrative-faculty committee specifically
charged to discuss salaries, so they should also be involved. Associate Vice President Carrier chairs it.
The resource allocation guidelines will be discussed with the Regents in December, the President
reported; there have been two slight amendments to those presented in November. One is that the
guidelines must take into account the salary and wage settlements that are reached through collective
bargaining and through the consultative process. The other change, in response to regental urging that
the administration look even harder and more systematically at revenue enhancements, is to look more
closely at how revenues can be increased.
The President then told the Committee he has been discussing with his colleagues a list of the
major issues that need to be addressed over the next year or so. A sampling from the list includes:
--
Review of University 2000 and issues that should drive it, and positions the University should take
in order to lay the groundwork for future development of U2000. They expect to present, before
the end of the year, a revised U2000 statement; it will not change major directions but will be an
enriched and refined statement, which will have benefited greatly from a task force chaired by
Professor Adams and from consultation with the deans.
--
Lay out the financial foundation for the next biennium. The administration will begin preparing
the 1997-99 biennial request in the next few months; the process starts almost a year and a half
before the new biennium begins. Clearly laying out the financial ramifications will be very
important; the work is against the backdrop of House File 1856, the statement by the House
concerning funding for the next biennium. That funding would provide the University a lower
base budget than it has had for the current biennium, when it received a significant amount of nonrecurring money. This problem will be confronted when the discussions of salaries and wages
occur.
For this biennium, the one-time funds have been built into budgets as one-time expenditures; the
University has prepared for the fact that the base budget presumably will be lower under H.F.
1856. They are taking a hard look at what the University needs to do for the next biennium, and to
be especially sure that the changes are strategic, that the University wrench itself out of managing
the cash flow. The decisions must be strategic, and most decisions have been--primarily through
the Strategic Investment Pool, which has been used to invest considerable amounts of money in the
current biennium ($43 million). They are looking again to determine whatever budget adjustments
are necessary to continue to make these investments. The administration will work with the
Faculty Consultative Committee
November 30, 1995
3
Finance and Planning Committee on this matter.
--
The capital request must be managed; it is before the legislature in the coming session. State
revenues are up substantially, he noted, and said he had some good ideas about how it could be
spent.
--
The University is evaluating, with the Foundation, the possibility of a major campaign in
association with the University's sesquicentennial in 2001. This is in a preparatory stage, and will
be for another year or so.
--
Tenure is very much on the agenda; the President said he was grateful for the constructive faculty
leadership in dealing with it.
--
In grants management, they are taking steps to ensure the University's system is one of the best in
the country.
--
He recently came from a meeting of the Higher Education Advisory Council, a group established
by the legislature that includes the heads of the public systems and the president of the Private
College Council; they are working together on higher education issues.
--
There are a number of issues concerning infrastructure at hand, many of which are delegated from
his office but which are part of the agenda, including strategies for information technology and
merging administrative and academic computing, a major review of human resources policies and
processes, and the four parts of decentralization of responsibility (in formula distribution of state
funding, in management of enrollment and tuition income, in distribution of indirect cost recovery
funding, and in Facilities Management). The transition to the semester system as well as the
completion of master planning are on the agenda; the latter will be very important for the long
term. There are other aspects of system redesign also underway, such as in student systems,
procurement, and the effort in the AHC. The organization of the biological sciences is also being
reviewed, under the auspices of the provosts.
It is the earlier issues in the list, Professor Adams observed, that this Committee is more likely to
be involved in.
One Committee member referred to planning for the biennial budget; the President was asked to
speak about longer-range planning. There is a sense around the University--of all universities--that the
long-range budget of public institutions will go down, so the institutions should be planning five or ten
years ahead. They should plan on having 20-30% fewer state resources, at any rate; what should the
University do to prepare for that? And there are political difficulties in such planning; if one admits the
institution can get by with fewer funds, the legislature will take the University at its word. One can
understand the awkwardness.
There is always the problem of the self-fulfilling prophecies, the President agreed, and said the
University has tried to lay out scenarios that are not overly-optimistic. There has been a working group
meeting over the last year and a half to look at the longer term, to try to wrench the University out of
immediate budget-making and consider options for the future, looking at the trends and possibilities.
Faculty Consultative Committee
November 30, 1995
4
That is an opportunity to look at more radical solutions without putting them in the destructive context of
the immediate budget. The President said he expected to have some talking points coming out of that
discussion within the next two-three months that could be considered.
The political situation is very volatile. There is the "high tuition, high aid" issue as well. Can the
University accept a high tuition, high aid policy? Its implications are being examined, but the President
said he was concerned such a policy would take the University in a direction that would undermine its
public policy objectives--primarily because financial aid may not keep up with tuition increases to make
such a policy feasible. In addition, the competitive situation becomes very complex--in perceptual
perhaps more than economic terms, in "marketing" terms. The issue is lurking, its implications are being
considered, but it is not being accepted as inevitable.
The marketing aspects are crucial, said one Committee member; the video accompanying his "state
of the University" address was about improvements, and Provost Shively's "state of the arts, sciences, and
engineering" was an upbeat assessment of how the University has changed to be more attractive to good
undergraduate students. Are there plans to push that theme, to market the University as a user-friendly as
well as high quality undergraduate institution?
The President said the University is trying to do that; he said he saw a review of coverage of the
University in the newspapers for the last six months, and there were a series of articles about the efforts
to improve undergraduate education. That has been the centerpiece of U2000, in one sense; the first
initiative started in 1989 and it has borne fruit, thanks to the investments and efforts of the faculty and
the staff in units that have changed things that were unnecessary impediments to high quality education.
He said the University has offered quality education, but had surrounded it with a lot of hurdles and
attitudes that needed to be changed. But the effort must be sustained and is part of the financial planning
for the next biennium. "Nothing is more important to the future of this RESEARCH university than that
we provide high quality undergraduate education, and that people SEE that we are doing that."
One Committee member reinforced the President's comments about budget planning; biennial
financial planning is necessary but five- and ten-year financial planning is essential if the University is to
avoid the May-June retrenchments that have happened over the last few years. It is those cuts that are
most damaging. The Finance and Planning Committee has will continue to push for longer-term
financial planning, it was said. There are going to be tough choices to be faced for the next five years.
Another Committee member said there are two parts to this. One is financial strategy decisions-whether there will be high tuition, high aid, for example; the other is to estimate the consequences of the
strategy. In the past the University has not been as clear about strategy decisions that are implicit in the
longer-term forecast; the way it has been operating is to "simply hang loose and see what happens"
because the situations are so politically sensitive.
The University has taken the approach that "we'll take care of it at budget time," it was said, and
that cannot continue. To take care of it at budget time makes a mess of things; it must be planned in
advance. If one projects what the University has now, with adjustments around the edges, there will be
big red numbers in two or three biennia. The pattern must be changed.
There has been $150 million in changes in the last five years, the President reminded the
Faculty Consultative Committee
November 30, 1995
5
Committee, which is not just nibbling around the edges. No one wishes more fervently than he for a firm
financial basis for the University on which it could plan, he told the Committee; the University is trying
to make strategic investments by reallocation, but at the same time it must cope with budget cuts. They
must try to stay with the strategic investments, and not lower them in the face of budget cuts--some of the
spring cuts could have been avoided if there had been fewer strategic investments, the President recalled.
But the institution opted to continue the investments, even at the expense of cutting more.
A real-time grants management system that would allow investigators to know what money is there
and what is being spent would be "just terrific," said one Committee member, who expressed support for
it being on the President's agenda. One can question how effective it will be, however, if the basic
financial system in the institution is not improved. It will be difficult to keep on system on a terrific level
if the rest are not functioning well. If they are not, there will continue to be shadow systems throughout
the institution. It is to be hoped that the optimal grants management system makes things go the other
way. The President agreed that the basic financial management system must support the specialized
needs; that is a central issue on the re-engineering agenda. There is a question whether CUFS can be
adjusted to do so or if more radical changes are necessary. They are operating on the assumption that
CUFS can be adapted. There are no panaceas anywhere in the country, he warned, and the University
has a VERY complex financial management organization as well as different reporting requirements. It
seems that one could solve the problems, but it continues to be a struggle to provide the appropriate time
structure and options to cover everything.
One Committee member inquired about how the University will decide in the future on strategic
investments. One can see it at the college level, but is it coordinated higher? People could live with the
answer if they understood the process. The planning process is the fundamental mechanism, the
President said; it includes planning cycles, which have become more structured, in which colleges,
campuses, provostal areas, and support services have the opportunity to put forward options. The
proposals are evaluated and lead to investments. In the case of the Undergraduate Initiative, he said, he
simply put that on the table in 1989 because something needed to be done in that area; specific actions
were taken within it through the planning process.
Will future investments come from the plans that are developed by department or colleges? From
department to college to provost or chancellor, the President replied, and then in consultation--which
should be appropriately structured at each level--decisions are made.
There is a presumption that U2000 and the right explanation of it provide for the units the
guidance they need in terms of values, priorities, constraints, and so on; it is not like handing them a
blank sheet of paper. The presumption is that in the planning process that comes from the administration,
there is a perspective on what is to be emphasized and valued as an institution. Given the goals and
objectives, how do the individual units respond; it is combination of top-down and bottom-up.
Much of what has come from the top has been very broad. Should the units be looking for a more
directive top-down document? The President recalled that seven issues have been identified by the task
force that Professor Adams chaired, including the "profile" of the institution. There were various
statements in U2000 that defined priorities in general terms; a statement is being developed, by faculty
member, to specify what the profile should be. There are some simplistic notions, such as identifying the
twelve departments that are going to be the future of the University, the President observed. There are
Faculty Consultative Committee
November 30, 1995
6
260-some departments; to pick twelve and say they constitute the profile would be a scattershot
approach. Certainly the institution must build on its strong departments, but there must be a coherence
that includes research, graduate and professional education, and outreach, in some appropriate profile.
They are attempting to refine the profile, hoping that it will provide further guidance, but otherwise it is
an iterative process, where certain general directions and aspirations are laid out and colleges develop
proposals that are gradually honed. The President recited a number of areas of strength and new areas of
emphasis that have evolved over a decade and matured into a priority. But the process is iterative and
moves from general guidelines to specific proposals.
One Committee member added that as the University goes through subsequent cycles of planning,
it might be that the central unit will be in a better position to give more specific guidance from the top.
That is not to say they will micro-manage, but when the first cycles are started it is harder to give that
guidance. The presumption is that subsequent cycles, BECAUSE of the exchanges that have taken place,
will provide more of a base for central guidance. Is that what is being sought?
Yes, but the examples the President cited "took off" when central administration decided they were
a priority. There are so many proposals, the President pointed out, that ultimately he has to choose; he
tries to do so not by whim but by what has come forward through the process. There is systematic
written feedback from the colleges and planning units in this cycle; the instructions have or are just about
to go out, and they are very important. The general guidelines were provided and responses returned, but
there have not been specific responses to those proposals except through the Strategic Investment Pool.
There are a lot of items sitting there that have not been sorted out, because only a small portion are
funded through the SIP; they want to provide feedback even for items that do not make to the priority of
being funded by the SIP in order to help the iterative nature of the planning process.
Does this respond to the concerns of the Finance and Planning Committee, asked one Committee
member? The concern has been the other way around, it was said; the planning process seems to be
operated without thought about the resources that are available. To some extent, if the planning process
is going to be "real," it must be informed by the long-range financial plans. The University needs to start
thinking in those terms.
The planning documents going out in the next cycle will help clarify these questions, the President
said. The perennial problem is that the complexity and size of the institution is such that it takes a long
time to go through the documents to get a sense of how it flows. This often eludes people, although they
try to grasp it.
Professor Adams turned the conversation to the issue of tenure. He noted that mechanisms are in
place to consider it; the Regents are interested in it and there is a steering committee, chaired by John
Adams, to take up the questions being raised. The administration is also bringing a resolution regarding
tenure to the Regents in December; that is an important element that should be discussed.
The situation is one where the questions and aspirations of the Board about tenure are the same of
the faculty leadership, as best he can determine them, the President told the Committee. And the same as
those of the administration; thus far there has been a convergence of interests. The Board has had some
discussions, and have raised some questions to which they want answers; the resolution will lay out in a
general way both a continuing commitment to tenure and academic freedom and also the need to review
Faculty Consultative Committee
November 30, 1995
7
the tenure system to be sure it serves the institution well. He said there will be some proposals for
revisions of the Tenure Code before the University before the end of the academic year. He said they
expect to continue to work with the faculty leadership, and with their help, shape the agenda.
Asked if the Committee could see the resolution, the President said it was embargoed until the
Board members had seen it. Has the tenor of it been discussed with the Committee on Faculty Affairs?
The President said it had not, to his knowledge; it is intended to be an embodiment of the discussion as it
has occurred thus far. It is the Board's resolution, not the administration's; it is to embody issues and
questions the Board wishes to put on the agenda as a result of its discussions.
Professor Adams recalled having reported to the Committee in the past that there has been a
convergence of interests between the administration, the faculty leadership, and the Board of Regents.
He said they have continued to emphasize the collegial relationship notion. His concerns with the
resolution are, first, at the larger level, the need for such a resolution and the way it might interpreted
suggest there is not as much trust and respect between the Board and the faculty or the administration as
might have been thought; this is an issue of perception. The second has to do with the responsibilities of
the Senate and the administration. The Committee needs to think about this, to make sure it does all it
can to be certain everything comes out the way it wants.
It is strange to say that resolutions are embargoed until the Regents have seen them. Consultation
is not on the final text but on proposals for resolutions. This one sounds like one that he wants to spring
on the Committee.
The President said he would be glad to talk about the issues. It is absolutely NOT a matter of
distrust, he affirmed; the Board has expressed repeatedly its appreciation that the faculty leadership has
engaged in this discussion and wants to see it driven by the faculty leadership. The Board has had some
discussion, and the resolution says, among other things, that the Board wishes to continue to develop
working knowledge of tenure conditions and the options used at other universities, so it is informed about
the tenure system. There will also be a reaffirmation of the importance of tenure and an insistence that
tenure is applied to appropriate categories of faculty. There will also be a call for ensuring that the
process of granting and removing tenure are fair and not unnecessarily cumbersome. The issue of
whether tenure is in the institution or associated with the program is another one to be placed on the
table. The resolution does nothing more than confirm that this is the agenda--which is already the agenda.
It is a positive development in that it clarifies where the Board is on the issues, against the backdrop of a
society that often raises questions about tenure in ill-informed ways. The Board has taken the
constructive view that tenure must be looked at, but with an understanding of the importance of tenure
and the importance of having a system that protects tenure by being an effective system. What the
University is suffering from is perceived and real misfirings of the system; the best thing the University
can do is to ensure it has a system that is as effective as possible, the President said.
Professor Adams said he has been very encouraged by the commonality and convergence of
interests and the attitudes of all of the parties. His concern is whether that has been misread--apparently
not--and what will people perceive as the need for this resolution, given that convergence; will they
misread something about the situation?
One Committee member suggested that efforts again be made to meet with the Chair of the Board
Faculty Consultative Committee
November 30, 1995
8
of Regents; others agreed.
The Committee continued to discuss with the President the relationship between the Board, the
President, and the faculty, and the perceptions that might be created by the adoption of the resolution.
Reference was made to comments about tenure that have come out of the health sciences; it will be
important to have a unified faculty/administration vision about the worth of tenure, why it is granted, and
what the plans for the future are. Some administrators are positive about tenure and its benefits; others
are not. This resolution can potentially say that the Board of Regents supports tenure and its
continuation and there are issues that must be discussed--and the faculty governance system will discuss
them. Is that accurate?
The President said it is confirmation of what has gone on; it is not a new direction. It is a
constructive step in which the Board confirms basic principles, which are already on the table. It would
be helpful, said one Committee member, if there could be a prologue to that effect.
His sense, Professor Adams said, is that up to now the situation has been the best of all possible
ones: the administration, Regents, and faculty all trying to wrestle with a tough problem. This particular
document might make the task more difficult if not perceived properly by the faculty. Anything that
could be done that would be sensitive to that concern would be helpful. The President reaffirmed his
view that it is a positive development; what it does not do, said one Committee member, is lay out the
collegial way the issues will be treated.
The faculty leadership, the administration, and Regents seem to be on the same track, which is a
wonderful thing, the President said, and he has every sense that that will continue. The Board will not sit
and wait for whatever happens to happen, because it has certain aspirations and obligations to review the
system, and this is quite acceptable.
Professor Adams commented that the Regents are concerned with how what they do positions
them with respect to their constituents and the administration is concerned with how what it does
positions it with respect to the Regents. His concern is with how what the Committee does positions it
with respect to the Senate, because in the spring it is going to ask for some pretty hard votes. That will
be the bottom line; if the Committee cannot get the votes in the spring for the changes it wants, then the
system breaks down.
This is an extraordinarily important issue, the President said as he departed, to the institution and
its faculty; the working relationship now is a wonderful asset that must be preserved. He also said he
would see if the resolution could be provided to the Committee.
Professor Adams thanked him for joining the meeting.
2.
Committee Business
REGENTS' TENURE RESOLUTION The President promised to try to get copies of the
resolution to the Committee, Professor Adams reported. He then commented that it may be he is
unnecessarily worried about the resolution, but the issue is a sensitive one, and there must be trust and
collegiality in the process of deliberating the necessary changes or it is unlikely the Faculty Senate will
Faculty Consultative Committee
November 30, 1995
9
vote to approve them. Committee members then discussed possible procedural and political issues
associated with the resolution.
SOCIAL EVENT Professor Adams told his colleagues that they and their spouses/guests would
be receiving invitations to the Adams's for a social gathering in December.
KIOSK It appears that KIOSK is working well, Professor Adams said; he asked that some of his
colleagues continue to write columns for it. Several agreed to write for specific issues.
It was reported that additional funding for KIOSK is being sought, because publication only once
per month makes it too infrequent. Committee members were asked to help identify possible sources of
funds that could be used. Many of the earlier problems were due to inadequate distribution, which has
been resolved.
INTERVIEWS Professor Adams asked his colleagues to plan on participating in interviews of the
two candidates to succeed Dr. Josie Johnson, Associate Vice President for Academic Affairs.
3.
Provostal Governance
Professor Gray then distributed a revised proposal and budget for establishment of provost
governance systems. She reported that she and Ms. Kvanbeck met with the three provosts to discuss the
initial proposal; the reaction to it was not positive. The provosts made valid points about the size of the
budget in an era of downsizing, and about adding another complicated layer of governance, so the group
(Professors J. Adams, Bland, and Gray) reconsidered the proposal.
The revised proposal calls for the creation of provostal faculty consultative committees (PFCCs) of
varying size (because of the different size and number of colleges in each provostal area), but no larger
assembly or council. This will achieve the intended purposes, Professor Gray said, but in a more
economical manner. It was never clear what the business of a larger assembly or council would have
been, in any event; the faculty senators and PFCCs can still meet informally if they wish. A reasonable
compromise might be to institutionalize the caucus of the Senators and PFCC members: as needed, the
PFCC may convene a meeting of the Senators.
PFCC members do not have to be members of the Senate, and are to be nominated and elected in
the same way as are members of FCC, but within provostal areas rather than institution-wide. It is
expected that the same nominating committee that identifies candidates for FCC would also identify
candidates for the PFCCs. With these changes, the proposed budget is substantially smaller.
As for the source of funds, one Committee member suggested using faculty development money
that had been appropriated by the legislature and that has been used for various purposes. They have
suggested that the annual $19,000 budget plus start-up costs be taken from those funds. One rationale for
this proposal is that many academic administrators at the University have come through the ranks of
faculty governance, so this is in some ways a leadership development activity for faculty. (It was
understood that this will come from the Twin Cities portion of faculty development funds.)
Committee members then discussed the changes that might be needed in the nominating process in
Faculty Consultative Committee
November 30, 1995
10
order to gain better knowledge of the possible candidates from smaller colleges for the PFCCs--a central
nominating committee might not know who good candidates are from a unit of 35 or 40 faculty. It was
agreed that allowances should be made for nominations to come from the colleges if appropriate, and that
the nominating committee should be able to use whatever mechanisms it believes wise to identify
candidates from each of the colleges. The responsibility for nominating candidates cannot be left to the
colleges, because some of them do not have mechanisms in place to do so. The members should be
elected to three-year terms. It will be desirable to have savvy people on the PFCCs, it was pointed out,
because the administration may use them for their own purposes, rather than faculty purposes, if people
are not careful. It is also understood that only faculty may be nominated and may vote for the candidates.
Asked how supportive the provosts are of the proposal, Professor Gray commented that they wish
to have some sort of consulting mechanism but do not want to see elaborate machinery built up. One
Committee member observed that the executive is not always supportive of the legislative. The desirable
state is a well-oiled machine that works well, but fundamentally the Committee is not seeking the
APPROVAL of the provosts to set up the consultative committees; it has a RESPONSIBILITY to do this.
The Committee, however, wants to do so in a way that everyone can get the best from it, and discussed
how best to ensure that the PFCCs work well with the provosts; if there are difficulties, the PFCC would
turn to this Committee for assistance.
The concern is that the system will be spending money on a committee structure for which the
provost will not make time, said one Committee member. That same issue exists for this Committee, it
was pointed out by another. In addition, the PFCCs can meet by themselves, although one hopes they
would meet at least monthly with the provost. It was also agreed that the staff to the PFCCs would be
responsible for coordinating periodic meetings of the PFCC and the Senators from each provostal area.
It was also agreed that there should be a tie between the PFCCs and this Committee, and it should
perhaps be set forth in the actual bylaw amendment (such as quarterly meetings of the PFCC chairs with
FCC).
In terms of timing of the establishment of the PFCCs, the appropriate bylaw amendment should
perhaps be brought to the February Campus Assembly meeting and then the nominating committee asked
to prepare a slate of candidates for election in spring quarter.
4.
Other Business
The Committee then returned to consideration of the resolution to be adopted by the Board of
Regents concerning tenure; concern was expressed about the faculty and media reaction to it. There
should be public relations work done so that it does not appear the Regents voted to attack tenure. The
President probably needs to take the lead on this.
Professor Adams noted that the FCC is responsible for nominating someone to serve as the faculty
liaison to the legislature, a position funded by the President's Office. He solicited nominations for the
position and said he would work in the next few weeks on identifying an individual to serve.
One Committee member inquired about the status of re-engineering; it was agreed that Fennel
Evans and David Hamilton would be invited to talk to the Committee. The original group working on it
Faculty Consultative Committee
November 30, 1995
11
has been dissolved and the work spread around to a number of task forces working in grants
management, payroll, human resources, purchasing, and so on. Apropos payroll, asked one Committee
member, has there been any discussion of putting nine-month appointees on twelve-month pay? That
would be the biggest improvement that could be made.
(Professor Feeney reported that the Committee on Faculty Affairs would be meeting later in the
day to discuss the proposed change to a biweekly payroll, including the issue of spreading over 12
months the salaries of those on 9-month appointments. If this Committee is concerned about the issue,
perhaps it should invite representatives to talk about it before any decision is made. One Committee
member recalled that at every other university at which was familiar it was possible to be paid over 12
months; why is it so hard to do here? Because the University's computers are not capable of handing it, it
was said.)
One major concern about re-engineering, heard from someone close to the process, is that a major
reorganization of support services has the potential to save something close to $30 million per year for
the University. If that is true, the money might be available for the academic enterprise, and the faculty
should be concerned that momentum not be lost and that recommendations be developed and acted on,
instead of languishing somewhere. Those who have been involved should be invited to the Committee.
Implementation will be key, said another Committee member, and this group has to push it.
Professor Adams then adjourned the meeting at 12:10.
-- Gary Engstrand
University of Minnesota