Minutes*
Faculty Consultative Committee
Thursday, September 23, 1993
12:30 - 3:00
Dale Shephard Room, Campus Club
Present:
Judith Garrard (chair), John Adams, Mario Bognanno, James Gremmels, Kenneth Heller,
Robert Jones, Karen Seashore Louis, Geoffrey Maruyama, Irwin Rubenstein
Absent:
Lester Drewes, Toni McNaron, Harvey Peterson, Shirley Zimmerman
Guests:
None
Others:
Rich Broderick, Maureen Smith (University Relations)
[In these minutes: the strategic plan]
*** NOTE: THE FACULTY SENATE MEETING ON NOVEMBER 11 HAS ***
BEEN CHANGED TO NOVEMBER 18 IN ORDER THAT
PRESIDENT HASSELMO MAY ATTEND.
ON THE TWIN CITIES CAMPUS, THE MEETING WILL BE IN 25 LAW.
Professor Garrard convened the meeting at 12:45 and began by inquiring of her colleagues how to
get 5000 faculty engaged in a discussion of the strategic planning process--at a time of low morale,
apathy, and cynicism. FacultyWrites has been established, a series of meetings has been set--what other
mechanisms could be used to provide faculty a means to interact with each other and with the governance
system? The U2000 plan is supposed to be less structured--a "working hypothesis"--and thus invite more
participation.
One possibility, she said, might be to have meetings with faculty senators and opinion makers in
each of the clusters--invite them, over the course of the year, to FCC meetings to express their concerns.
First, said another Committee member, the structure of the planning process needs to be known; the
administration needs to reach an understanding how it intends to proceed. Presumably that
understanding will be reached within the next few days. This Committee should, in any event, meet with
the vice presidents or other individuals responsible for cluster planning.
Will there be faculty participation in the cluster planning? No one had an answer. If the clusters
turn out not to be viable, it was said, there is no reason to seek faculty views on the basis of clusters.
One senses there is a problem, said one Committee member, on the basis of conversations with
*
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
September 23, 1993
2
colleagues. Their attitude is that the faculty have been presented with a plan that is a fait accompli, and it
makes them mad. They think the plan is interesting, but reject it because they have been rolled over by
the administration. In a faculty relations sense, the presentation of the plan has not been handled well.
This provoked a reaction from another Committee member. The faculty want it both ways, it was
said--they want someone to provide direction for the University, and then they object when a direction is
proposed. Colleges were asked to think about what they should be in 5 years--and one heard the faculty
toss off the request as another mindless exercise. Now they say they have not been consulted. If not,
they should take steps to have their deans and department heads fired. It is not clear how this problem
can be dealt with--the plan will not be effected without the faculty, but what if the deans and department
heads are not in line? The various roles and responsibilities for planning have been described, but many
are waiting for the faculty to say something--many of whom will not take it seriously or will not know
what is going on.
Planning took place in some colleges, not in others, responded another member of the Committee.
The exercises of last year, it was argued, are independent of this strategic plan. This plan is the result of
faculty prodding, who thought the University had to do something. It is unfair to the faculty to suggest in
the minutes of this meeting that they are at fault for not putting their oar in the water. The faculty DO
want to be part of the process; to the extent they do, this Committee must create a mechanism for them to
be involved.
Much faculty participation, it was further observed, occurs through Senate committees. Another
avenue FCC should pursue is to make those with institutional and cluster responsibilities be sure that
their deliberations permit faculty participation. Working both with institutional officers and cluster
leaders, to make sure they understand the importance of two-way communication with the faculty, is a
good one.
The role of the Senate committees with responsibility for educational policy, finances, research,
and so on is then not clear. Those committees have faculty on them; is this not the time when committees
should be evaluating and providing leadership on these issues? FCC cannot do it all. But to put the
faculty on Senate committees off to the side, rather than integrating them, ignores what we should not.
The managers of the process have all the information, it was said, and FCC is asking to talk to
them; it is asking the vice presidents to be sure to factor in significant faculty involvement. One can
expect an 11th hour stampede, however, of consultation with the
faculty--who will then be accused of blocking the process. FCC must be sure there is governance
involvement and faculty attachment to the plan, which requires that there be serious deliberation on the
issues. FCC should review the Senate committees and decide which should be most involved, although
there may not be neat and clean lines on all the issues.
Giving direction is the concern, commented another. How does FCC get 5000 faculty to
communicate with it? This is similar to health care--the administration can talk to all of us, but it will be
in communication with those who represent constituents. The first group, in the case of strategic
planning, is Senate committees; the second group is the faculty senators--who have to accept their
responsibilities and do their job.
Faculty Consultative Committee
September 23, 1993
3
It would also be possible for the Faculty Senate to come up with its own vision, suggested one
Committee member. That, remarked another, would be like the GOP response to the health care
proposal.
At this point, it was said, it has been recognized that there are serious problems that the University
must address and the administration has designed a set of responses, and inches closer to specificity as
time passes. Where are we now in the process? That is not clear; it appears the Board of Regents is
pushing the administration, which is beginning to feel crowded, and the process may be going at a rate
that cannot accommodate proper faculty consultation--but it is also becoming clear that the plan
presented for action to the Board in December will not be as specific as some may think.
When the strategic planning process unfolded last year, one Committee member recalled, Irwin
Rubenstein, Carl Adams, and Tom Scott were dispatched to serve as faculty representatives. What came
out of that process was the work product of the steering committee--and it had nothing directly to do with
the strategic plan that has now been presented. Professor Rubenstein agreed that there had been no
faculty review of the documents presented to the Board of Regents and that the steering committee was
largely moribund. This pattern, it was said, may very well be replicated right up to the December Board
meeting.
One Committee member dissented. Late last spring Senior Vice President Infante met with the
Committee for an hour and talked--albeit using different terms--about the elements that make up U2000.
He sought the views of Committee members, which should be interpreted as a good faith effort to fly
ideas before the faculty and obtain a response. A number of issues were raised. But those discussions, it
was rejoined, were because legislation concerning educational partnerships was being considered; one
cannot say that the Twin Cities Higher Education Partnership led to this vision statement with a
University College and the research university as two equal components of the University, with who
knows what resource flows.
The President raised the issues several times last year, it was said. True, but faculty are saying
they do not understand the plan and are skittish about it--they are afraid it will blur the focus, rather than
sharpen it. They want to see the research/land-grant university do well and other activities reduced,
which does not appear in the plan. Faculty want to know what this will cost and what the priorities will
be. That, it was responded, has been laid out in the second strategic planning newsletter recently sent
out; anything coming will be a variant of what is laid out there.
Because of time constraints, it is important that the governance system focus carefully on what it
will do. It must learn AS SOON AS POSSIBLE what will be presented to the Board of Regents in
December and must focus its activities on those materials. The advice of the faculty must be on what is
immediately pertinent, which is what is going to the Board in December.
One Committee member said that apropos University College, he basically supports it, although it
needs to be implemented carefully. It is such a big venture that it needs a task force to study the issues
over time--and the time was available. The planning for University College will be headed up by Vice
President Allen; it is not clear if faculty will be directly involved. Dr. Allen will met twice with the
Finance and Planning Committee, Professor Rubenstein reported.
Faculty Consultative Committee
September 23, 1993
4
The faculty should put themselves in the position of the Board of Regents, as a group that needs to
be persuaded. More substantial information is needed. The President asked that the governance system
either give the plan a "yes" or a "no"; Dr. Infante asked whether or not University College should have a
lower division. The Faculty Senate should VOTE on these issues; on December 2, there should be a
resolution for or against the plan. The faculty cannot be in the position of begging for information or
guessing; the administration should know that the faculty will act on the basis of the information it has.
That, one assumes, would impel the administration to come to the faculty with information so that a
discussion can take place.
One could also survey the faculty, it was suggested. State the positions of the plan as clearly as
possible, so faculty understand what they are being surveyed about, and find out what the faculty think.
One should hesitate to ask faculty views, it was said, before there is a definition of University College;
there are a lot of ideas about it, but no one knows for sure. But the idea of action by the Faculty Senate is
attractive; the Committee should let it be known that a vote will be taken. A survey, it was rejoined,
would permit understanding of those issues the faculty clearly agree on and it would also help prevent the
Senate from being swayed by a small number of outspoken colleagues.
Can the faculty vote when they do not know enough? It is for that reason that it would behoove
the administration to provide as much information as it can. If a vote is to be taken at the mid-November
Faculty Senate meeting, it was noted, the administration will have to act soon. . . .
It is ridiculous that the faculty should have to figure out the questions, asserted one Committee
member. This is a black box with nothing in it! There seems to be an assumption, it was said in
response, that the black box is full but that the faculty are not being given the data. That is not the case;
this is a MAJOR strategic shift for the University and we have a black box with a LITTLE information in
it. If responses are positive, more information will be added over time. But there will NOT be a lot of
specifics even when the changes have begun and it is not right to expect them. The Board of Regents
will be asked to vote on a path to follow--not a full black box--and asked if this is an acceptable ROUTE.
But there are, it was agreed, minimum conditions of knowledge the faculty will require before they can
vote at a Senate meeting.
The tone of this meeting causes concern, remarked one Committee member. One can understand
the paranoia on the part of faculty members, but there should be "faculty leadership, not faculty
followership." The faculty leaders should help figure out what the University needs and how to get there.
Faculty, however, mostly wait on proposals and react rather than advance statements about what is
needed. It is correct to say that this plan points in a DIRECTION to be followed if the University wishes
to remain a robust institution in 25 years--it will be dead in the water if it does not follow political and
social realities. It is hard to understand why faculty react so timidly to administrative initiatives--the
FACULTY should tell the ADMINISTRATION what should be in the black box, or that there should be
no box at all, rather than wonder what's in it. And most faculty members, if asked what should be in the
box, will say "leave me alone to do what I've been doing the last 25 years and raise my salary by 20%."
It is unlikely there is much in the box. One knows CEE is a major operation that touches the lives
of thousands. The General College is also a large operation. The University is a big actor in education
and must figure out how to do a better job, must reshape itself. But one will not get good answers by
asking the average member of the research faculty; they'll say it's not their job.
Faculty Consultative Committee
September 23, 1993
5
One Committee member raised an issue orthogonal to those discussed up to this point. One major
problem is that of perception of faculty governance. Strategic planning is a challenge to faculty
governance. In the eyes of most faculty, the way the strategic plan has been presented thus far brushes
aside faculty governance. But the plan has a genesis running back at least to Commitment to Focus, in
which there was much faculty participation. The people in this room understand, but there must be
communication with the larger faculty that the situation is OK, that faculty will participate in planning,
that there is FCC and Senate committees. Faculty are feeling that the committees are not there; there is a
sense that the administration makes a proposal and the Board of Regents votes on it--and that there's
some dead time in between. This committee should put out information and claim faculty ownership.
The mechanisms for faculty participation are not defined yet, but they will be through the consultative
process. There is a sense that faculty are being stepped on by Morrill Hall--but that's not true.
Another Committee member agreed that a "proactive" faculty governance system is needed. If one
looks at the planning data, with the negative characterization of faculty, however, this is not the best
climate in which to encourage positive faculty response. Even among those who support the governance
system, reactions have been sharp.
Meantime, faculty--especially in colleges that have already been retrenched--are worrying about
University College, clusters, and planning--and wasting energy. Perhaps FCC can help faculty to
understand the process; a survey might help provide the information while also providing information to
the governance committees. Faculty cannot respond to what they do not know about, it is true, but the
survey could include information such as what University College will and will not include (e.g., Dr.
Infante has suggested that it should NOT include any post-baccalaureate degree programs--that those
should remain under the purview of the Graduate School or professional schools). There can be no
dramatic vision shift without knowing about details, it was insisted; faculty will ask how the
research/land-grant university will be better off because of this plan. Fred Morrison tried at great length
to get answers at the retreat, it was pointed out, and heard nothing that helped.
It must be recognized, said another Committee member, that NOTHING will get done unless the
faculty buy into the plan. The administration has the responsibility, as leaders, to structure things so the
faculty have the opportunity to buy into the plan. What is needed? In a short period of time focus must
be on the items to be considered by the Board of Regents and on the steps to be taken between now and
December.
The idea of meetings between FCC and groups of senators is a good one. As for developing an
alternative strategic plan, we all know the faculty won't, can't (because there are 5000 of them), there isn't
time, and the faculty would probably PREFER that the President develop it. The job of the governance
system is to help the administration fill in the black box in a gradual way and to open up communication
with the faculty. It isn't possible to know what the University will be like in 10 years, but there are
legitimate faculty questions about the next two to three years. And the faculty have a perspective on
University operations that administrators do not; faculty questions can result in changes in the plan-faculty have already had a big impact on the plan through the discussions that began last spring. Rather
than play on faculty anxieties, the governance system should be used to permit the planning process to go
forward and to help the administration ask the right questions. Doing anything else is a waste of time.
Faculty Consultative Committee
September 23, 1993
6
One Committee member recalled a recent comment of a colleague that it would help if President
Hasselmo were to articulate the problems this plan is addressing and the solutions it offers. Another
Committee member expostulated that the President has done so often--but that if the problems and
solutions are not understood, they need to be repeated once again. The second strategic planning letter
lays them out; one principal issue that undergraduate education has not worked for the last 15 years and
that for political reasons and for the health of the University, it must improve. The plan recognizes the
University is trying to do too much and tries to separate the jobs using separate structures. The vision
contains a lot of items--but it does say what each should consist of. That is left to the faculty. Any
survey of the faculty should draw on the ideas in this newsletter; they are fairly straightforward. It is not
clear where the complexity is, substantively. The process will be complicated, to be sure--but we live in
a complicated world. The faculty have to take the circumstances that exist today--this plan, this
administration--and hold the administrators' feet to the fire to put meat on the plan in a way that faculty
can participate.
Another Committee member said that more specificity right now was NOT what was wanted.
What needs to be known is if the OUTLINE is acceptable. When the Board approves that outline, it will
be important that, and how, faculty are involved in the details. They must be involved in designing the
next stage, after December. But the outline is attractive.
One can question why this plan has been proposed. There has been insufficient faculty attention to
factors outside the University and to some unstated premises. Another factor on the minds of faculty, it
was said, is graduation rate--is this plan simply a way to make the University look better? Graduation
rate is a concern, said another Committee member, but so is the issue of user-friendliness. It must be
made clear, incidentally, that "user friendly" applies equally to students, staff, and faculty--there is much
that is unfriendly for faculty and staff. The ENTIRE atmosphere of the place must be considered.
The point about dividing the process of thinking about the plan is wise, it was said. Many of the
questions about University College are at the next level down in planning--degrees, courses, etc.-practical matters. There are many of these questions of practicality, and people are saying they cannot
decide on the plan without answers. The argument made here is that these details will be worked out,
that the Committee must be sure there is MUCH faculty participation in working them out, and that we
should all make the assumption that they CAN be worked out.
There will be many opportunities for the faculty to say "no" as the plan evolves. There are SOME
questions the faculty needs answers to before they can support the plan (such as transfers between the
two institutions, part-time student attendance at the research university, and so on).
Professor Garrard then reviewed the calendar of the various meetings that will take place to
discuss the strategic plan. The point of the FCC and Faculty Senate meetings, she reminded the
Committee, is so that the faculty may speak with a clear and distinct voice.
October 4
October 21
November 8
University Senate
4:00
State of the University Speech
Faculty Forum
2:30
Regents Forum (FCC at 4:30)
HHH Atrium
25 Law
Faculty Consultative Committee
September 23, 1993
7
November 9
FCC dinner with the Regents
Nov 8-9
Strategic Plan to Board of Regents for Information
November 18
December 2
Faculty Senate
University Senate
Dec 7-8
Strategic Plan to Board of Regents for Action
2:00
2:00
25 Law
25 Law
In addition, it was pointed out, the President is holding 10 fora around the University for faculty, so the
administration is trying to reach out. Given all of this, Professor Garrard again inquired of her
colleagues, is there anything else the faculty leadership should do?
In response to the proposition that there is much misinformation abroad in the institution, it was
suggested that a fact sheet be distributed. But that is the point of second strategic planning letter, it was
pointed out. That newsletter, however, creates problems. The language about University College, mostly
referring to existing University activities and the possibility of achieving efficiencies and improving
effectiveness, is fine. The language about the research university, referring to higher standards and so
on, which will be fine, deal almost exclusively with undergraduate studies--there is nothing about
outstanding research and graduate education. Faculty seeing this emphasis inquire what it will mean
when it comes to reallocation. This plan will dictate resource flows over a number of years. Then there
is another set of documents with the several criteria to be used in evaluating units. One question being
heard is "how big a graduate program will we have?" One can expect to see a lot of paring down in
graduate and professional programs, to be proposed by the clusters, so that funds can be freed up. That
isn't evident anywhere in the newsletter but it is what will concern faculty; they will say that if there are
cuts, the money saved should go into making this a top research enterprise--while the money may go to
the activities outlined in the newsletter.
That is very likely, responded another Committee member. To the question of how the University
will be a top flight research institution, it was responded that the University must do less. Both the
President and Senior Vice President have said exactly that.
Moreover, a good undergraduate program means a lot to a good research university. Faculty want
good undergraduates who are fun to teach, who ask provocative questions, and who stimulate them as
faculty. And who can learn, chimed in another Committee member. But this must be a place, it was
continued, that is attractive to those students. Right now the University is NOT competitive for good
students and it must focus on doing things that a research university must do to attract them; quality has
to run from top to bottom. The top 20% of the students have to WANT to come here.
One wants, nonetheless, to SEE those trade-offs identified, it was responded. One cannot simply
claim that shifting these dollars will make the University better--faculty cannot see and appreciate that.
Another faculty member said this plan will not be supported unless one sees significant effort in CLA
and IT to use previously reallocated funds to benefit undergraduates. The College of Education, for
example, has paid and paid--but nothing has gotten better elsewhere.
It was agreed, following additional discussion:
Faculty Consultative Committee
September 23, 1993
8
--
that members of FCC, in twosomes, will meet with groups of faculty senators to discuss
the strategic plan, the meetings to take place before the Faculty Senate meeting on
November 18;
--
that Professor Garrard should write to the President informing him that the Faculty Senate
will vote, up or down, on the plan on November 18;
--
that Professors Adams and Garrard will develop charges to the several Senate committees
with respect to dealing with strategic planning issues; and
--
that FCC will control the flow of questions from the committees to the President at the
Faculty Forum sponsored by the Faculty Senate on October 21 (in order to ensure that
critical issues are addressed; questions from individual faculty members, during the second
hour, will be open).
The deadlines of the planning process are understandable, even if undesirable, observed one
Committee member. Apropos other business that is to be conducted this year, however, the
administration should understand that it cannot press issues on Senate committees and impose unrealistic
deadlines if it wants faculty views. The governance system requires time.
The Committee also endorsed, in principle, a bylaw amendment providing that if a chair of the
Educational Policy, Faculty Affairs, or Finance and Planning committees were ever a student, the faculty
members of that committee would elect from among them a representative to FCC.
The meeting was adjourned at 2:45.
-- Gary Engstrand
University of Minnesota