Minutes*
Faculty Consultative Committee
Thursday, January 18, 1996
12:30 - 2:00
Dale Shephard Room, Campus Club
Present:
Not
Present:
Carl Adams (chair), Dan Feeney, Virginia Gray, Laura Coffin Koch, Geoffrey Maruyama,
Fred Morrison,
John Adams, Carole Bland, Victor Bloomfield, Lester Drewes, James Gremmels, Roberta
Humphreys, Robert Jones, Harvey Peterson, Michael Steffes
Guests:
Vice President Mark Brenner
Others:
Martha Kvanbeck (University Senate), Maureen Smith (University Relations)
[In these minutes: Faculty advocate office; provostal governance; summer session pay; the consultative
process; salary data; conflict of interest policy]
1.
Faculty Advocate Office
Professor Adams convened the meeting at 12:45 and noted that the sparse attendance was
doubtless due to the rain and ice storm that had occurred the previous night. He suggested the
Committee members present could discuss the issues on the agenda, but delay any action until a later
meeting. He turned first to the faculty advocate office, an item from the Senate Committee on Faculty
Affairs (SCFA).
Professor Feeney reported that it had been brought to the attention of SCFA some time ago that
there were funds available for a faculty advocate and that a decision needed to be made. They talked
with a number of individuals at the University who have been involved in grievance mechanisms, and the
gist of the conversations was that while the new grievance policy has taken over some of the functions of
the faculty advocate office that existed previously, it did not do so completely. There is a perception that
the Grievance Officer reports to the President (he does not), and SCFA concluded there is a need for
someone to help faculty, not as an advocate in cases but who knows the ropes and could talk to them
about what to do. SCFA was also advised by counsel that it must be unequivocal in saying the individual
would NOT advise grievants/complainants during hearings or proceedings, but would direct them on
what to do when they have a problem.
The office was originally set up as part of the Rajender consent decree, recalled one Committee
member, but now is optional for the University.
There is $26,000 available in non-recurring money, Ms. Kvanbeck reported; the office previously
*
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
January 18, 1996
2
cost about $45,000 per year with a one-half-time staff member and support.
The prevailing practice now is one of trying to work out problems early rather than through
litigation. It may be there is a need for someone to work with faculty on the grievance procedure or
possibly on tenure issues. Students have such an office, and civil service staff are thinking about one.
Faculty and P&A appointees had an office, but no longer. There is a person in Human Resources who
plays some role in providing counsel, but that person "belongs to the administration."
Students use their fee money for the student advocate office. When the President was asked if it
would be desirable to have an advocate for faculty and P&A, he was quite adamant that it would be
inappropriate for the University to spend money to promote grievances against itself. A few years ago
there was discussion of a single advocacy office for everyone, with a central office to handle
administrative work and faculty or staff or student advocates; those discussions fell apart.
There are legitimate faculty requests for help, but the administration does not see an advocate as
their responsibility, although counseling and advising are acceptable. There is thus no readily available
source of recurring funding for an advocate office.
Professor Feeney emphasized that this proposal was NOT for an advocate office; it is to provide
for someone who can advise people on their options, and may be able to tell them whether or not they
have a good case. In the case of tenure, said one Committee member, the individual would need a strong
background in order to analyze whether or not a case was strong.
There are three roles that can be fulfilled, said one Committee member. One is that strictly of an
advisor, who provides the facts. The person needs to learn who the experts are on academic misconduct,
tenure, financial mismanagement, etc. The individual could also maintain lists of advocates. The second
role is one slightly above the ombudsman; if the individual identified something really stupid, he or she
could explain it to the appropriate office and ask them to correct it. The third role is advocate, and it is
clear that the administration will not tolerate funding of advocates with University money. The first two
functions, however, would be helpful, and it would not be easy to recruit someone to perform them. The
current grievance office views the role as one of processing cases and offers no help. This is a good idea
Should the Committee express support for creating such an office and seek ongoing funding,
Professor Adams inquired? One Committee member expressed opposition to the proposal, noting that
the grievance committees all have booming business and that people seem to know they can get advice.
This office is not necessary.
It was agreed that this item would be brought back for discussion on January 25.
2.
Provostal Governance
Professor Gray drew the attention of Committee members to a proposed amendment to the Twin
Cities Campus Assembly bylaws that would create provostal faculty consultative committees (PFCCs).
This will need to be acted on by the Assembly Steering Committee, and then the Assembly (not just the
Faculty Steering Committee and Faculty Assembly) because it changes the Assembly bylaws.
Faculty Consultative Committee
January 18, 1996
3
It was agreed that elections to the PFCCs would be within colleges, not across entire provostal
areas, so that Medical School faculty would elect the Medical School representatives, Law would elect
Law representatives, and so on.
The budget request for the PFCCs has been presented to the President's office.
One Committee member inquired about the connection between the PFCCs and this Committee.
They are supposed to meet with FCC, submit an annual report, and meet with Senators from their
provostal area, Professor Gray explained. One could be paranoid about this, it was said, but one senses
that within the University there is more pressure to balkanize it and less and less countervailing force.
One can imagine that the PFCCs could reinforce this pressure to some degree. Even if it were
determined, after a time, that the PFCCs are not working as they should, it would be difficult to get rid of
them. What if one of the PFCCs decides to go its own way and ignore FCC? On the administrative side,
if the President sees balkanization occurring, he can change things. FCC cannot so easily do that.
The purpose of the PFCCs is to insert faculty representation in the process of making decisions in
provostal areas, Professor Gray pointed out. The purpose of FCC is to serve as a countervailing force
and to work for the good of the whole. There are linkages between the PFCCs, the Senators, and this
Committee.
One possibility is to have the relationship between the PFCCs and the FCC be the same as that of
Senate Committees to the Senate Consultative Committee (SCC): they all report to SCC. The
difference, it was said, is that Senate committees are appointed while the PFCCs are elected, and whether
or not they are a centrifugal force depends in part on who is elected, lone-rangers versus those who think
about the interests of the University. One cannot dictate democracy.
The consensus of those present was that the bylaw amendment should be changed to say that the
PFCCs report to the FCC.
3.
Summer Session Pay
Professor Feeney inquired if any committee had considered the recent policy change on summer
session pay; the Committee on Faculty Affairs had not heard about it until recently. The change was
made by the Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs. Up to now, a faculty member could sign up to
teach a summer session course and would be paid even if there is insufficient enrollment. Now, if the
enrollment is inadequate, the individual will not be paid and the course not offered. If there is no
financial commitment to the faculty member, and no one signs up for a course, what faculty will bother
to offer to teach summer session? They will go elsewhere, where income will be sure.
The governance system was not consulted on it, said another Committee member, but the
administration sees this as an extension of the Day School rule, in which courses enrolling below a
certain number of students will not be offered. This is not surprising.
One consequence of this policy is that no one will teach anything but courses that enroll a lot of
students, said one Committee member. That is what is wanted, said another.
Faculty Consultative Committee
January 18, 1996
4
This can also mean very late notice to the faculty member that the income will not be there.
The Committee on Faculty Affairs should take this up, it was said, and perhaps there should be a
sliding scale: The closer a course cancellation falls to the summer session, the more the faculty member
should be paid. What the right dates are need to be determined, but the University should be able to
cancel courses in a reasonable time and the faculty should not be held hostage. One can also identify a
date beyond which the faculty member must be paid whether or not the class is cancelled. The sliding
scale would help faculty who are unable to find something else to do at a late date. But there is reason
for the University to be concerned.
One Committee member observed that a second issue is that whoever in academic administration
made the decision changing faculty compensation policy also apparently thought that consultation would
not be useful. They should be reminded to the contrary. Someone should ask the Senior Vice President
why the faculty were not consulted. This was not seen as compensation policy but as class cancellation
policy, said another Committee member.
4.
Athletic Policy; Committee Actions
One Committee member expressed surprise that the Board of Regents adopted a philosophy
statement on athletics; one never even knew it was on the table. Did the Assembly Committee on
Intercollegiate Athletics know about it, asked another? If it did, something should have come to the
Assembly Steering Committee, it was said.
This relates to the question of resolutions acted on by committees and the need for a protocol on
consultation. There is a lot of consultation that takes place that this Committee does not see--and does
not WANT to see. The question is, when issues come up, which ones should have formal consultation
and which ones should the administration take directly to the Board of Regents?
In the case of Coca-Cola, said one Committee member, the Finance and Planning Committee was
consulted only because it had heard about the contract. Most of the money is going into the Student
Development office. Even at a time the University needs money, this income belongs to that office no
matter what; that is not fiscally responsible.
How should this be dealt with, inquired Professor Adams? How important is this? Another
example is the planning document, in which there are some deficiencies. There are a lot of issues, but if
the faculty are not integrated in the decision-making, or in a way that is not comprehensive, people lose
faith--and that faith is hard to regain. The President has 18 months left and a list of things he's working
on--and probably does not want to be side-tracked on other things. That is understandable. But one can
still have a planning process in this environment. The institution may be becoming more confrontational,
although one would prefer a more consultative process.
It is also clear that some deans and department heads have trouble with the way CEE is operating
the "new" University College. The President asked for a review before February 28, but it may end up
being conducted by someone in CEE. This would not breed confidence in the system.
This is a recurrent issue, noted another Committee member. There have been concerns about the
Faculty Consultative Committee
January 18, 1996
5
consultative process in the past, whether there is consultation before the fact or if committees are the first
to know after the decision.
One does not want to be a whiner about little things, said one member of the Committee; there are
little things to grin and bear. But if this becomes a repeated problem, then the Committee must say it
wants a meeting with the President, to tell him things are not working. This whole question is raised, or
perhaps aggravated, by the recitation of issues at hand: the planning instructions, the Coca-Cola contract,
University College, and so on. Professor Adams will broach this issue with the President.
5.
Salary Data
Professor Adams reported he has received data on last year's salary distributions from Associate
Vice President Carrier; he distributed copies. He asked for the data to learn if the strategy used for 199596 would succeed in making the University more competitive. The University said it would guarantee
2.89%, told the units to find the money, and asked them to make headway on the salary problem. His
conclusion from the data, he said, is that the University did not make much progress.
It appears that the system administration made more progress than the faculty, commented one
member of the Committee after looking at the data. One notes the system salaries increased more. Why
was it reported to the Board of Regents that average salaries went up by 6%? They were nowhere near
that. That docket item for the Board was at great variance with these data, if these are right, the
perceptions of the Board members must be corrected. Professor Adams agreed that Associate Vice
President Carrier should be asked about the discrepancy; there could be differences in definitions. It was
also agreed the Committee wished to see the information provided to the Board of Regents.
6.
Conflict of Interest Policy
Professor Adams then welcomed Vice President Brenner to the meeting to discuss changing the
Conflict of Interest policy.
Dr. Brenner distributed a draft policy. The intent, he began, is to have a simple umbrella policy on
Conflict of Interest from the Board of Regents, with a clear delegation of authority to the administration
to develop policies and procedures for implementation. The existing Senate policy would become the
operational policy. This is the general direction of University policy: a generalized Regents' policy and
a more detail policy and procedure developed by the administration.
The draft does not say what he did, one Committee member pointed out. One concern is the
delegation of authority. The administrative officer named could revoke existing policy and substitute
whatever he or she wish without consultation, according to the language of this draft. This has occurred.
Dr. Brenner said language could be added calling for consultation with the Senate.
One understands that the Board prefers broader, higher-level language, said one Committee
member, rather than long, detailed policies; the Committee accepts that. The point, however, is that the
way the Senate constitution is structured, the Senate has a lot of authority and responsibility for the
development of policy, and authority to bring that policy to the President for the Board of Regents. The
President can disagree with the policy from the Senate, but he cannot ignore it. If, as suggested, there are
Faculty Consultative Committee
January 18, 1996
6
broad policy statements by the Board of Regents, the substance is played out in administrative policies;
what recourse does the Senate have? This changes dramatically the rules of the game; it is a shift in the
way business gets done.
Dr. Brenner said he has asked for appropriate language, and noted that it needs to include more
than just the Senate but must cover employee groups as well. There is a significant difference between
the Senate and other groups, cautioned one Committee member; if the University deals with civil service
or trades employees, in the employee/employer relationship, it can appoint constituent bodies and value
the participation. The Senate structure is different; it is not just a matter of seeking advice. For some
issues, the Senate has the principal responsibility to develop substantive positions, policies, and
regulations.
In a sense, the proposed delegation of authority to the administration is a repudiation of the Senate
constitution, said one Committee member. Does the administration mean that? Dr. Brenner emphasized
that was not his view and that is not the news he was bearing. He said he does not believe the role of the
faculty should be diminished in making policy.
One does not disagree with the idea of separating general policy from operational procedures. But
in doing so, changes should not be made in the substantive authority and roles of the participants. The
proposed delegation of authority, however, clearly changes the way business is done. If that is what is
meant, the Committee and administration should talk about it.
Dr. Brenner said it was not, but that he had no alternative language to propose that meets the needs
of both the administration and the Senate. It is in the interest of everyone that there be an orderly process
to establish policies that satisfy both the administration and the faculty and others.
One possible question could be controversial, speculated one Committee member. The Board
wants to delegate certain responsibilities so they are not involved in minor activities; they also do not
want to see their policies change too much, so they pass along authority for implementation. One can
ask, to whom does the delegation go? Not necessarily to the administration; the Senate constitution is
different in this respect.
Dr. Brenner affirmed that the intent is that there be a clear delegation of authority so the Board
looks at broad issues but is not responsible for operational details. In general, he said, the delegation is
to the administration: how it develops policy and procedure is up to it. He said he does not take lightly
the understanding that there is joint development of policy.
Dr. Brenner emphasized that the President's Executive Council has not seen the language, and he
wants to develop language that will meet everyone's needs, not confront people. The Board wants to
delegate authority, and the appropriate delegation is to the administration, but it is important the
administration have an understanding with the Senate. It might, suggested one Committee member,
delegate it to the administration in consultation with the Senate.
"Consultation" is not a reasonable tradeoff for the current responsibility and authority of the
Senate to develop policy, said one Committee member. What is confusing is that things go from the
Senate to the Board of Regents through the President; that makes it appear that the Senate is a creature of
Faculty Consultative Committee
January 18, 1996
7
the administration. It is not a subsidiary of it, and one must be careful. If there is to be a change, the
nature of it must be clear.
It is a given that the Board of Regents desires to delegate more authority, but it is not clear if that
delegation is to be to the administration or the Senate or both, jointly.
This mixes things up, Dr. Brenner opined. He said he had the impression the Senate did NOT
have a direct reporting relationship to the Board of Regents, but reported through the President. What is
the role of the Senate on policy that affects faculty: to approve it or consult on it? That is the question.
The language of the Senate constitution is precise, said one Committee member. The Senate
reports through the President, but he does not have full discretion in the role. The President cannot do
whatever he wants. If he disagrees with the Senate, he has two options. He can ask the Senate to
reconsider its policy, or he can carry it to the Board and express his disagreement with it. He cannot
refuse to deal with the Senate. This applies to broad areas of Senate authority--educational policy and
rules and regulations that affect the relationship of the faculty to the University, for example.
Dr. Brenner said he understood there is a need for a discussion of the delegation of authority, and
that it will be helpful for other policies as well. He said, in response to a comment that the Committee
did not intend to "beat up" on him, that he did not wish to be a party to undermining a strong relationship
and that his intent was to consult in accord with existing policy. Presumably, Professor Adams
concluded, if there is no intent to change existing practice, except in the Board's high-level action on
general policy, appropriate language can be found.
Professor Adams adjourned the meeting at 2:00 and convened the Senate Consultative Committee.
-- Gary Engstrand
University of Minnesota