Present:
Minutes
*
Faculty Consultative Committee
Thursday, April 4, 1996
11:00 - 12:00
Dale Shephard Room, Campus Club
Carl Adams (chair), John Adams, Victor Bloomfield, Virginia Gray, James Gremmels,
Russell Hobbie, Roberta Humphreys, Laura Coffin Koch, Fred Morrison, Harvey
Peterson, Michael Steffes
Regrets:
Guests:
Carole Bland, Lester Drewes, Dan Feeney
None
Others: Professor D. Fennel Evans; Martha Kvanbeck (University Senate); Maureen Smith
(University Relations)
[In these minutes: tenure]
Tenure Review Process
Professor Adams convened the Faculty Consultative Committee following adjournment of the
Senate Consultative Committee and opened discussion of the process for review of proposed tenure code revisions. He reported that Medical School Dean Frank Cerra has begun meetings with all Academic
Health Center (AHC) senators to discuss the financial situation of the Medical School and how it intersects with the tenure discussion. Dean Cerra appears to be willing to have these meetings weekly with AHC senators.
The position of the faculty leadership, Professor Adams repeated, is that if the more controversial parts of the proposed tenure code revisions are not seen as beneficial to AHC senators, FCC will not bring them to the Faculty Senate, so it is important for the administration to adequately present its proposals to and for changes in the code.
It has also been suggested that it would be useful to meet with other groups of senators, and meetings have been scheduled on April 8-9-10-11. The purpose is to have reasonably-sized groups of senators who can discuss and understand the current status of proposals. All members of FCC are invited to attend the meetings, which will be held over the lunch hour. Coordinate campus senators have been invited to attend any meeting that would be convenient for them. It is expected that these meetings will be repeated in May in order to give senators the opportunity to express views, ask questions, and gain an understanding of what will be coming back to the Senate. A moderator from each of the college groups will be identified to lead the discussion.
*
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
April 4, 1996
2
One Committee member said there are a series of questions that need to be addressed, and said that
Professors (John) Adams and Morrison should hear them; they were spurred by a recent message sent by one Committee member to FCC colleagues. That message talked about hostility and lack of confidence felt by faculty towards the process of reviewing the tenure code; that language is disturbing. The message also spoke of feelings expressed during and after meetings last Thursday, meetings which others saw as positive. Professor Ibele, moreover, challenged the misperception that the tenure review process was a faculty-initiated effort; most faculty do not accept the statement that it was faculty initiated.
What are the origins of the proposed revisions to the tenure code, asked the same Committee member? At the February Faculty Senate meeting, Professor Adams presented ideas about proposed revisions to the tenure code; they were mildly stated and there was no reaction, even to the salary and tenure issue. A month later, at the March 14 Mayo meeting, a more specific set of revisions was proposed that aroused strong faculty reaction. The question is, where did those revisions come from that were presented at the March 14 meeting? They appear to be the basis of what is now being presented.
Professor (John) Adams responded. Starting last fall, he said, in October, several individuals were asked by Senior Vice President Infante to start thinking about faculty tenure because it was being discussed around the country and because it had apparently come up at a Regents' retreat; there had been agreement early in the fall between the Regents and the administration that tenure would be a Regents' policy for review during 1995-96. That coincided with understandings by Provost Brody and the reengineering effort in the AHC that as it moved forward, there would be a need to deal with personnel issues. It appears that the AHC leadership believed at that time, and may continue to believe, because of the way it understands the tenure code, that tenure presents problems to the AHC re-engineering process.
Added to this were issues the administration and Board of Regents were thinking about as well as matters raised by the Human Resources task force. This may sound like a bunch of gobbledygook, he concluded, but there were about half a dozen things in the air, and the President was asked by the Board of Regents address them.
Professor (J) Adams said he did not know what went on between the President and Board of
Regents, but the President was asked to write a letter to the Board to explain what he would like to see done with the review of the tenure code this year. This is the November 20 letter that the faculty have seen. After that letter, he was asked by Professor (C) Adams and Dr. Infante to lead the working group to coordinate discussions and to write an "issues document" that contained everything that had been talked about. Where did all those items come from? From his notes, from all over, he explained. He thought, perhaps naively, it would be a discussion document; some apparently thought it was a set of proposals.
The document served as the basis for the first public discussion, and dealt with the question of the location of tenure, among other topics.
After the discussions in January, there was agreement that a number of issues would be dropped and effort would be concentrated on a few. Why that few? Because the working group agreed with the administration and the faculty on what was needed; the list contained 14 items.
Who decided on those 14, asked one Committee member? They were developed in conversation with faculty leaders, the administration, and in response to the first faculty forums, Professor (J) Adams said. Professor Adams took pains to explain that they came out of the back and forth between Regents, faculty, administrators, and the members of the working group; it was a judgment call, he said, on what

Faculty Consultative Committee
April 4, 1996
3 to include and what to drop. The proposals came from several sources--the Dean of the Medical School, the Judicial Committee, faculty members--there was no single place where the 14 originated. They dropped the location of tenure; there would be no progress on reorganization if it were retained. After the 14 were identified, the four attorneys started drafting specific language to amend the tenure code.
The origin of the proposals is cause for a great deal of concern, it was said. One member of the tenure working group said that the group only met two or three times during Fall Quarter, and said he did not know the origin of the 14 points. That is why the question about where they came from.
Professor (C) Adams said it is important to understand that the tenure working group was never
INTENDED to originate tenure code proposals. Its specific charge was to coordinate administrative and
Senate mechanisms that would bring issues forward. People who imagined the working group as the font of ideas misunderstood what it was to do.
So, it was said, the tenure working group is not taking ownership of the 14 points? No, it is not,
Professor (J) Adams replied; it was not CHARGED to do so. It was to coordinate discussions--of which there have been many.
Another concern is with the drafting committee of four attorneys. It has never been clear how they were appointed. One understands how Professor Morrison and Professor Farber were involved, and the representative from the General Counsel's office, but the sticking point is the fourth member, the attorney recommended by Provost Brody. Who appointed this group?
Professor (J) Adams explained that Professor Farber was appointed by Senior Vice President
Infante to take the responsibility on the part of Academic Affairs to coordinate the drafting effort. He said he did not know how the group was created. It became clear, however, that the way to make progress in the discussion of the 14 points was to deal with specific proposals.
Professor Morrison related that he had been asked by Professor Dempsey, chair of the Tenure
Subcommittee, to help draft language. He talked to Professor Farber and said he would help represent the faculty perspective. The representative from the General Counsel's office appeared. The lawyer from
Washington came with proposals from the health sciences.
The question is why the other provosts were not asked to send their attorneys as well. Professor
Morrison said he did not know; they were just drafting language. They treated the matter as four who were skilled at drafting, pulling ideas from the tenure working group and the January discussion document. Professor Morrison identified the attorney and the firm for which he works.
There is a lot of concern about the origin of proposal #4, to separate tenure and compensation. A lot of faculty are asking about that, and who is responsible for which of the proposals. Is anyone responsible for particular items?
Professor (J) Adams said he did not know, but noted that this issue was discussed by FCC in 1994 and 1995. On the proposal to separate tenure from base salary, people heard about that last summer because it is a practice at some other institutions. It is not surprising it was raised as a way to deal with the compensation question in the Medical School.

Faculty Consultative Committee
April 4, 1996
4
Was any specific attorney responsible for specific parts of the proposals? Professor Morrison said the specific language was drafted in response to the concerns of the working group, the administration, and so on. He said he had written a considerable part of the proposals, and wrote things whether or not he agreed with them, simply to get language that could be debated. He said he did not draft items 3 or 4.
Another Committee member at this point invoked a point of exasperated personal privilege and said the discussion had gotten out of hand. What is the point?
The point, replied the Committee member interrogating Professors Adams and Morrison, is that there is a lot of concern that specific proposals are driven by the unique situation in the Academic Health
Center, and faculty want to know the connection between them.
Professor (C) Adams said he wanted to be ABSOLUTELY CLEAR on one point, and one that he has made with Professor Dempsey: No specific language on revising the tenure code goes to anyone until it clears the Tenure Subcommittee. ANYTHING distributed or discussed before that point is simply
"input" to the Subcommittee. That has been made clear to all participants.
The focus must be on the future, Professor Morrison agreed. The function of the committees is to represent the faculty without regard to the source of the language. The committees must determine if it is desirable language, and must accept or reject it depending on whether it represents sound educational interests and appropriate protection of academic freedom. The committees should NOT be influenced by what the administration or Board of Regents is interested in, or what others might do after they act; they must present a clear academic voice. The other issues will have to be dealt with later.
The mixture of roles and functions in this process has hampered it. The mixture of faculty and administration has not been helpful. A clarity of position would be.
Committee members then discussed what should be placed on the Senate docket. Some expressed doubt it would be wise to bring all 14 proposals at this point. They would be presented ONLY for discussion, and if the Tenure Subcommittee has considered them, they might come with recommendations that are either positive or negative.
It is to hoped that the discussion is such that senators can have a clear understanding of what is behind the proposals. Up to now, they have not thought about this; the faculty must be challenged to think about the issues. As they talk more about them, and become engaged in them, they can come to understand the language. There are four points that he believed came out of the meetings the day before this one:
-- there is an undeniable need to create program change, and not on "faculty time" but at a more brisk pace;
-- how are the financial books to be balanced while also protecting tenure and academic freedom;
-- faculty have annual merit reviews, but performance reviews should be adopted for the post-tenure review process, both for internal use and for external purposes; and

Faculty Consultative Committee
April 4, 1996
5
-- some see the internal judicial process as cumbersome, costly, and leading to inappropriate results.
It would be best to generate discussion around these four points. If the focus can be on the tough issues, the others will be easier to handle. There must be progress in April and May so there is something on the table in June for the Board of Regents. If not, he warned, the process may be yanked out of the hands of the faculty, with disastrous results.
One Committee member asked about the consultant on tenure being hired by the Board of Regents.
Professor (C) Adams said he did not know a great deal. The Board had raised the possibility of hiring a consultant to do an analysis and to confirm information; the faculty had made the point that cost is an issue. The question was turned over to Regent Spence. He spoke with her and said if any information or advice from the faculty was sought, they would be happy to assist. He said he did not know the status of the consultant.
Committee members went variously on and off the record at this point to discuss the relationships between the Board, administration, and faculty on questions of tenure. They made a number of points.
-- In many of the discussions, central administrators were not present, and faculty members were left to try to envision and make the points of the administrators. That was unfortunate; it has put the faculty in an awkward position.
-- If the faculty do not collectively assert responsibility for ownership and for the future health of the
University, others will. This has been a narrow discussion of faculty interests up to now; they, however, intersect with the future health of the University, and faculty should be concerned if they will leave this a better place for 20 years from now. This sounds like mouthing the administration, but those people are all PROFESSORS as well; they do not stop being academics just because they become administrators. If one talks to the Board of Regents, he or she looks like an apologist for the faculty; if one talks to the faculty, they look like they are carrying water for the administration.
-- It is not possible, in this age, for faculty to refuse to engage in discussion with the administration and Regents as they review and amend the tenure code. Faculty must be aware of the conversations, but as soon as one tries to make them aware, they are characterized as representing the other groups.
-- People are upset because they do not believe these items would have come up except for the
Medical School and the AHC lawyer. Faculty do not sense any real problems facing all of the faculty; these seem like points that have come out of left field. That is why there are so many questions about the integrity of the process. What can be salvaged from the process needs to be identified.
-- The Regents are not the enemy, and it does no one any good to draw a line in the sand. The faculty are teachers; if the Regents do not understand the issues, the faculty must help educate; if the faculty cannot do it, no one can. If the Regents seem not to understand the relationship between tenure, academic freedom, and the future health of a major research university, the faculty must not give up but must keep working on the issues. What must not happen is that the

Faculty Consultative Committee
April 4, 1996
University is ruined by misguided action.
Professor Adams adjourned the meeting at 12:50.
University of Minnesota
-- Gary Engstrand
6