Minutes*
Faculty Consultative Committee
Thursday, May 16, 1996
11:00 - 1:30
Dale Shephard Room, Campus Club
Present:
Carl Adams (chair), Carole Bland, Victor Bloomfield, Lester Drewes, Dan Feeney,
Virginia Gray, James Gremmels, Russell Hobbie, Roberta Humphreys, Laura Coffin Koch,
Fred Morrison, Harvey Peterson, Michael Steffes
Regrets:
John Adams
Guests:
Professor Edwin Fogelman; Senior Vice President E. F. Infante
Others:
Martha Kvanbeck (University Senate); Maureen Smith (University Relations); several
faculty members
[In these minutes: Faculty Senate docket; change in minutes policy; Committee image and functioning;
tenure process issues (with Professor Fogelman); meetings with Regents; budget and salary issues with
E. F. Infante]
1.
Faculty Senate Docket
Professor Adams convened the meeting at 11:40, following completion of the Senate Consultative
Committee meeting, and asked for approval of the Faculty Senate docket for May 30. With little
discussion, it was approved unanimously. Professor Morrison reported that the second half of the tenure
code amendments would be brought to the Faculty Senate for information on May 30, and then for action
on June 6.
2.
Minutes Policy
Professor Adams then raised once again the question of attribution in the minutes of the
Committee. He recalled that he had made the call, following the discussion on October 5, that the
balance of the opinions suggested that anonymity should be retained; if that is still the wish of the
Committee, he said, he would like to have a vote to that effect, since the issue has been raised.
One Committee member argued that given all that has happened this year, the Committee should
do all it can to make decisions more credible and visible; attribution in the minutes would contribute to
that credibility. People should know what Committee members say; Committee members cannot be
impeached or removed, but at least they could be contacted about their views if there is attribution.
Another Committee member expressed the fear that if everyone is on the record, people will slip
*
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
May 16, 1996
2
into reporter talk and only say things that could not be misconstrued by anyone. One worries that
attribution will diminish the quality of the discussion. It was also recalled that the Committee went to
anonymity because Committee members were harassed by administrators and Regents for what it was
reported in the minutes they had said. There is a need, however, for a broader discussion of the role and
image of the Committee.
One Committee member said it was surprising that anyone would be harassed, but if so, they
should report it at the next meeting, and be on the record about it. Another Committee member said
Committee members should not hide behind the invisibility of the minutes; this is a democracy and who
says what should be known.
Another Committee member said attribution was a bad idea but should be supported, because
those who object will not be satisfied until speakers are named. Another observed that Committee
members are quoted by name in BRIEF unless the discussion is off the record; the minutes can do the
same.
The Committee then agreed to several conditions that should obtain if there is to be attribution:
--
There will be formal approval of the minutes at the next meeting.
--
The minutes will be circulated to Committee members by email before being distributed.
--
Typically, official minutes do not record discussion, only action and votes taken. For this
Committee, the discussion will be synthesized, as it typically has been; where there is a natural
evolution in discussion to a consensus, attribution is unnecessary, but where there is disagreement,
there will be attribution.
The Committee then voted, with one dissent, to hereafter attribute statements in the minutes.
3.
Presidential Search
Professor Adams inquired if anyone had any comments on the presidential search. Professor Gray
inquired if there had been any further information about the composition of the search advisory
committee; Professor Adams replied that the only information provided was the statements by Regent
Reagan at the FCC meeting on April 25.
4.
Committee Image
Noting that this item was placed on the agenda by Professor Bland, Professor Adams turned to her
for discussion.
Professor Bland observed that this is a timely issue, given the DAILY article about FCC being a
ladder to administrative posts. She said would like the Committee to take time this summer to see what it
can learn about mechanisms to put in place to increase its effectiveness. Part of her concern, she said, is
that the Committee may not be handling issues in the way it would like because it does not have the
capacity--things are coming at such speed, the Committee needs to consider the mechanisms by which it
Faculty Consultative Committee
May 16, 1996
3
operates. She moved that the Committee have a retreat to consider these issues. Professor Bloomfield
seconded the motion.
Professor Adams noted that it is the tradition of the Committee to include both outgoing and
incoming members at meetings, so both would be included.
Professor Gray reported that she had been thinking along the same lines, but urged that the
gathering be held in June, before everyone leaves. The problem the Committee has in the fall is that it
does not get going quickly enough; having a retreat in June would permit the Committee to hit the ground
running in September.
Professor Gremmels supported the idea and said it has been painful to see Committee members
bashed when they do not deserve it. This is the Faculty CONSULTATIVE Committee, not the faculty
investigative committee; it does not have the resources to be investigative and has to rely on a certain
level of trust. Good discussion will improve communication; he recalled that the Committee met at 6:30
a.m. in Morris last fall to discuss its agenda, and he has never had any trouble getting an item on the
agenda. The system works, but perhaps needs to be refined. The Committee consists of the best people
he has ever met, he said; they are honest and open.
This is not a question of good people, Professor Adams said, but one of difficulty in
communication and the role of the Committee.
There are difficulties at several levels, Professor Bland added; there is the DAILY article, for one
thing. Some people have different definitions of faculty governance, believing it should behave like a
union. This is not a union, and is not adversarial; it is a joint effort. There is also need to talk about how
the group works as a committee.
It was agreed without dissent that a half-day retreat should be held, and that Committee members
would be polled and a time set aside, for Committee members only.
5.
KIOSK
Professor Adams again called on Professor Bland, who recalled that the Committee had agreed
that it and Vice President Mel George would seek increased funding for KIOSK to publish it more often;
it appears somewhere the ball got dropped. The status of the request was unclear; Professor Adams
suggested that the Committee on Faculty Affairs take it up. That was agreed to without objection.
6.
Correspondence on Tenure
Professor Adams then welcomed Professor Edwin Fogelman to the meeting to discuss a recent
exchange of correspondence among him, Professor Feeney, and Regent Keffeler.
Professor Fogelman related that a week before (May 9), Regent Keffeler made a statement to the
Regents' Committee on Faculty, Staff, and Student Affairs about certain understandings that had been
reached about tenure, and she also circulated a letter, with copies to Regent Reagan, the President, and
several others, saying much the same. Yesterday in BRIEF she was also quoted about understandings
Faculty Consultative Committee
May 16, 1996
4
that had been reached between her, him, and Professor Feeney, as a result of a meeting the previous week
that dealt with sensitive issues of procedure and timing in the tenure review process.
Professor Fogelman explained that there had been a lunch, at the Radisson; he and Professors
Dempsey and Feeney had been invited by Regent Keffeler to the lunch to improve communication, to
dispel mistrust, and in order that they could get to know each other, in her words, as individuals, people
who laugh and cry (Professor Dempsey had been unable to attend; Regent Spence also attended part of
the lunch). This seemed like a worthwhile thing to do, he told the Committee--and he did get to know
Regent Keffeler.
The next Monday, he and Professors Feeney and Dempsey received a letter from Regent Keffeler,
addressing them in their role as senators, and outlining understandings that had been reached. He and
Professor Feeney sent back a message to her saying it had been a private meeting, that they had not
attended in any official capacity, that they had not been representing the Senate and that she had not been
representing the Board of Regents, and that the letter should not presented or circulated. He also sent her
a separate message taking exception to her letter.
Despite these responses, Regent Keffeler circulated the letter as written at the Regents' committee
meeting and made statements to the committee and also talked to the editor of BRIEF.
This undermines the tenure review process, Professor Fogelman said. The credibility of the
process had only been restored a few weeks earlier, at the April 18 Faculty Senate meeting, and this letter
was out of line. It is a matter of concern to this Committee, to the Faculty Senate, and to the Board of
Regents, he said; she is making statements on behalf of the Board of Regents, unilateral statements about
understandings that were not reached. The lunch discussion covered many topics, and this letter is an
arrogation on her part and jeopardizes the integrity of the committees of the Faculty Senate.
Professor Fogelman then distributed a resolution for FCC to consider adopting.
Professor Feeney reported that both he and Professor Fogelman had said at the beginning of the
lunch that they were not there representing anyone; they were committee chairs, but not there
representing the committees. He said he also told the staff to the Board of Regents who set up the lunch
and Regent Keffeler that they could not discuss items going through the committees, but could discuss
the process and obtain her views.
Professor Fogelman read the excerpt from BRIEF, which stated that "Regents Keffeler and Spence
met with faculty committee chairs Dan Feeney and Ed Fogelman TO DISCUSS TENURE ISSUES"
(Professor Fogelman's emphasis). He affirmed that he had explicitly said they would NOT discuss tenure
issues. It made sense to get to know her, he said, and he accepted the invitation in good faith and on
those terms. It appears to have turned official afterwards, with a memorandum of understanding that
jeopardizes the process.
Committee members discussed the resolution introduced by Professor Fogelman, Regent Keffeler's
letter, and the associated issues at some length. Professor Fogelman reported that after BRIEF had
appeared, he had been dismayed to receive email messages from all over the campus inquiring what he
had done, and read one example to the Committee. The author claimed that Regent Keffeler appeared to
Faculty Consultative Committee
May 16, 1996
5
be recreating the tenure working group, with Keffeler, the tenure consultant, Feeney, Fogelman, and
Dempsey as members. Professor Fogelman said he has told Regent Keffeler he will not hereafter meet to
discuss University business with her except in public.
Following a number of exchanges about a possible resolution, including alternative language
proposed by Professor Hobbie, the Committee agreed that Professors Feeney and Fogelman had acted
entirely appropriately and that informal contacts with the Board of Regents were to be encouraged, but
that no agreements could be reached without a formal vote of the appropriate body. The Committee also
agreed it should object to any further attempts to intervene in the process before the Faculty Senate
completes its work; the faculty re-asserted control of the process in April and must keep control, and will
inform the Board when it is finished. It is important, Professor Humphreys said, that the Committee send
a message that members of the Board of Regents respect the governance process.
Professor Peterson also pointed out that to be fair, the Committee needs to appreciate that the
Board wants to move in a productive direction, as does the Committee, and that Committee members
have to give credit to the Board for the strains they face. This is not to support intervention in the
process; the Board must respect the governance process, but at the same time the Committee needn't
alienate the Board. Any resolution must politely tell the Board that the governance process will do what
it must do, and what the outcome will be is not yet known.
Professor Drewes said the Committee should commend Professors Feeney and Fogelman for the
manner in which they have been conducting meetings and moving things forward. He suggested
Professor Adams communicate the concerns of the faculty to the Board and inform them of the firestorm
this has created. Professor Adams said he would be glad to do so, or another member of the Committee
could also do so, and agreed with Professor Peterson that a resolution should be temperate.
Professor Steffes commented that two Senate committee chairs have expressed concern, and that
means a great deal; the Committee should make a strong statement. His view was that no one should
meet with the Regents, even informally, to discuss tenure. One can debate what Regent Keffeler's letter
meant, but that two committee chairs express concern says something. This is not a good situation, he
concluded.
Professor Adams next recognized Professor Cheryl Perry, from the School of Public Health, who
told the Committee she was speaking as a behavioral scientist. The best predictor of behavior is past
behavior, and if one wants to change behavior, one must do something early, not later. Behavior is
functional, not arbitrary, and Regent Keffeler's behavior is functional for her; it lets her appear to control
the process. The letter, on Regents' stationary, is symbolic, because it represents control of the process.
A neutral statement from the Committee will be ineffective.
The Committee should also engage in functional behavior, Professor Bloomfield responded, and it
would not be functional for the Committee to send a resolution that was not well-thought-out. It would
only invite attack. One also does not pick fights, Professor Gray added; there is no need to be
unnecessarily provocative. Several Committee members expressed support for the language drafted by
Professor Hobbie.
Professor Humphreys objected that the language was too rosy; no one will know what the
Faculty Consultative Committee
May 16, 1996
6
Committee is complaining about. Professor Fogelman responded that the issue is an unwarranted
intervention in the process; he said he wanted a statement that would call for a stop to unilateral and
unauthorized interventions as well as acknowledgement that he and Professor Feeney had not acted
improperly. The BRIEF comment suggests they are conducting tenure negotiations, which they are NOT,
he emphasized.
The Committee then unanimously adopted the following resolution:
The Faculty Consultative Committee commends efforts to improve informal
communication between the faculty and the Board of Regents. The Faculty Consultative
Committee very much regrets that Regent Keffeler gave a public report to the Faculty, Staff,
and Student Affairs Committee of the Board of Regents, and distributed a letter, BOTH
summarizing part of the discussion that had been held at an informal luncheon she had
initiated to "improve communication and dispel mistrust." These give the appearance of an
attempt at unwarranted interference in the prescribed process for tenure review. The
Faculty Consultative Committee feels that the chairs of its committees acted appropriately,
and it joins with the committees of the Senate in reaffirming that the faculty governance
system will continue its deliberations and makes no commitments on the outcome until the
process is completed by the Faculty Senate.
Professor Adams said he would report the resolution to the Faculty Senate that afternoon.
7.
Meetings with Regents
Professor Adams turned now to Professor Gray, who had distributed copies of a proposed letter to
the Board of Regents about informal meetings to discuss larger issues of academic freedom and tenure in
a research university. She recalled that she had been charged, at the last meeting of the Committee, to
organize such discussions, but that in light of the events of the past week she thought it best to raise the
question of whether the meetings should be scheduled. They would be held at her home, and consist of
three Regents and four or five faculty, plus one administrator; they would be entirely informal.
Professor Bloomfield said the meetings would be a good thing. It is easy to let difficult political
negotiations derailed, and it is important NOT to let them get derailed. There is a lot of mistrust that can
be addressed by talking with people.
Professor Steffes said they would be a good thing, but only if after the Faculty Senate had
concluded its work; if before that, he did not wish to be included.
Two of the proposed dates would be slightly before the last Faculty Senate meeting, Professor
Gray said, and two would be after. The idea is to get them done before the academic year ends, and
Regent Reagan has expressed a desire to hold them before the Board votes on the tenure changes. These
meetings would provide background to the tenure changes proposed, she said, and would NOT include
discussion of the proposed changes. In general, the faculty asked to join the discussions would not be
those who have already spoken with the Board.
Following brief additional discussion in which several Committee members urged that the
Faculty Consultative Committee
May 16, 1996
7
discussions go forward as planned, Professor Adams asked if there were any objections to doing so.
There were none.
Professor Humphreys then noted that Regent Keffeler's letter says there will be other meetings as
well, including one with Professor Morrison. Professor Morrison said he has prepared a letter to Regent
Keffeler which will say that consultation should take place through the normal processes of the
committees of the Senate and that consultation with the Regents will take place through the
administration. Professor Morrison said he would decline to join in a joint presentation (with Regent
Keffeler) of budget issues to the faculty, but that he believed that information conversations with regents
and administrators of these issues were necessary.
8.
Discussion with Senior Vice President Infante
Professor Adams then welcomed Dr. Infante to the meeting, who had been waiting 45 minutes
while the Committee dealt with the foregoing tenure issues.
Dr. Infante said he had three items to report to the Committee. First, the 1996-97 budget has been
settled by the Board; does the Committee wish to discuss it?
Second, questions have been raised about the critical measures; he had tentatively pulled them
from the Regents' agenda, and has learned that the Senate Consultative Committee does not wish them to
go forward now. That is fine, he said. He commented that he knows there is too much on the plate.
Third, in the last three days the team for the 10-year accreditation has been on the campus. He
reported that he had spent a lot of time with the site visit team, and his impression is that they were very
impressed with the University. One team member told him that at his university, when they grow up they
want to be like Minnesota. One constant theme the team heard was that there are too many items on the
University's plate; they heard that from all corners of the institution. The team was not concerned about
particular matters, but they recognize there are stresses and strains between the internal University
community and external communities. He said he did not know what the report will say, but expects
there to be straightforward accreditation.
Professor Adams asked when there would be a report; Dr. Infante reviewed the process of writing
the report and said there would be a draft in perhaps one-two months, which the University could review
for factual accuracy; the final report would probably be completed in about four months.
Professor Bloomfield said he could not imagine the University would not be accredited; are there
any institutions of this nature that are not? Dr. Infante said that has never been a question.
Whether or not the University will be accredited is not the issue, Professor Adams observed; the
question is whether what is in the report will be used by various people as leverage to achieve what they
want on some issue.
Will it be a public document? Dr. Infante said the Regents have requested that it be brought to the
Educational Policy and Planning Committee.
Faculty Consultative Committee
May 16, 1996
8
Professor Morrison then pointed out that the budget document has a statement that there will be
3% faculty salary increases, subject to deviations by provosts on the basis of need. It is his impression,
he said, that there will be NO instance of 3% increases for faculty.
Dr. Infante said there would be except in two provostries. He is working with a pool of 3% in his
office, of which 1% is non-recurring.
That is not the question, Professor Morrison pointed out. The budget document says that provosts
and chancellors are supposed to distribute 3%, unless that is not feasible, since they will only receive 1%
in non-recurring funds. NO provost has distributed 3%. Dr. Infante thought differently.
Professor Gray told Dr. Infante that none of the faculty with whom she had spoken were receiving
3% increases; the budget statement does not square with reality. She flatly contradicted his contention
that faculty in Arts, Sciences, and Engineering were receiving 3%. On this same issue, she recalled a
recent news article saying that the faculty were going to receive 3%; that mis-impression needs to be
corrected, she said.
Asked about the funding, Dr. Infante explained that units will receive 1% in non-recurring funds,
but all (except Duluth, because of the union) have been asked by the President to have a gross pool of 3%
for salary increases. Part of the letter of instruction said that units could appeal if they were incapable of
generating that much money. He said Academic Affairs will deliver 3%, Finance and Operations will
deliver 3%, the chancellors will do so, and only one provost is not. He promised to get an analysis of the
information to the Committee.
Professor Drewes asked if a provost is authorized to impose a hiring freeze for the foreseeable
future; Dr. Infante said it would need the concurrence of the President.
Professor Adams at this point called on Professor Carolyn Williams of the School of Public
Health, who said she wished to make a point about the FCC minutes of May 2 and their reference to CSC
Index, the AHC consulting firm. What she said to the Committee was this:
"In the FCC minutes of 5/2 was a report that Provost Brody and his QRTC had looked into the
allegations about Index's manipulating book sales to get on the NY Times best seller lists and that:
"1) Index apologized for its role
2) Individuals involved were no longer part of the company
3) There was a factual inaccuracy and that Index still works for the NY Times.
4) Index team here had no involvement with the incident.
"I would like to give the FCC members a series of articles from Business Week, the Boston Globe,
and other sources, including direct quotes from NY Times officials. These articles clearly refute those
four points:
"1) James Champy eventually admitted that 'there was truth' to the Business Week allegations of
manipulated book sales, after a series of Index denials, but only after the New York Times editor
conceded that their best-seller list had been breached.
Faculty Consultative Committee
May 16, 1996
9
"2) No apology was reported in the article with Champy's admission, in fact he is quoted as
saying, 'Whether there was something inappropriate here is a matter of judgment'
"3) Included in the articles I'm giving the FCC is a media report that questionable sales of one of
Champy's own books were similarly made by Index employees.
"4) Finally, after the Business Week expose of Index manipulation, the New York Times did not
continue the next stage of Index's work for them, according to an article in the packet.
"Also included in the series are other articles indicating 'below average ratings of overall
competency and project management performance' for Index in comparison with other firms; other
serious criticisms of re-engineering; and a direct quote from a former Index consultant lamenting that reengineering is `no longer as much of a gravy train for consultants as it used to be.'
I hope the FCC will review these articles to help them understand the widespread concern about
the highly questionable ethical standards and competence of the Index consultants who remain on
campus, and the discontent that the University of Minnesota has become a replacement `gravy train' for
Index now that there is less interest in them in the corporate sector."
Professor Adams said that Provost Cerra should be given the opportunity to respond to these
statements. If they are to be included as a correction, Provost Cerra should know.
Professor Adams then thanked Senior Vice President Infante for joining the Committee and
adjourned the meeting at 1:30.
-- Gary Engstrand
University of Minnesota