Minutes*
Faculty Consultative Committee
Thursday, May 23, 1996 (Part II)
12:00 - 3:00
Dale Shephard Room, Campus Club
Present:
Carl Adams (chair), John Adams, Carole Bland, Victor Bloomfield, Sara Evans, Virginia
Gray, James Gremmels, Roberta Humphreys, Laura Coffin Koch, Fred Morrison, Harvey
Peterson
Regrets:
Lester Drewes, Dan Feeney, Russell Hobbie, Michael Steffes
Guests:
Provost C. Eugene Allen
Others:
Martha Kvanbeck (University Senate); Maureen Smith (University Relations); Bruce
Bromberek (SSCC); a few other faculty
[In these minutes: Discussion with Provost Allen]
2.
Discussion with Provost Allen
Following the departure of Provost Cerra, Professor Adams welcomed Provost Allen to the
meeting, and noted that this was a regular meeting of the Provost and the Committee. He invited
questions.
Professor Koch raised a question about the merger of the College of Human Ecology and
Education and Human Development; should it be undertaken when there has just been a report issued
that is not especially favorable?
Provost Allen said that the report does not say anything about the level of enthusiasm for the
merger that he had anticipated. He does not view it as negative; it is what he expected. There are also
positive elements of the report. The recommendations of the report are what he is thinking about moving
ahead on, he said.
One thing in the report that is a very good idea is to form what the authors identify as affinity
groups, for discussion within different areas, and not only within the two colleges. They would be
identified for people to come together to discuss program and curriculum, out of which might come
changes in how the units are organized. Within the two colleges, there are areas that could be identified
for this. One has as its core the issues dealt with by the Consortium on Children, Youth, and Family; it
could be expanded to include issues related to education. Another area could come together around
design, and would be beyond the two colleges (e.g., Art History, Art, programs in Architecture and
Landscape Architecture). They would be open, self-forming affinity, and the report concluded "affinity"
*
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 23, 1996 (Part II)
2
had a more positive connotation than either "cluster" or "focus." He said he does not disagree.
As a result of the process that have occurred over the last month, some of these discussions have
already started informally. It would be wrong to leave the impression that this is only a negative report.
It summarizes much of the discussion and email that were received, including from outside the
University.
What is also clear that they must think carefully about doing these kinds of things in terms of
mission and what can be identified, so that a unit does not become so big and generic that there is no core
mission. This is a major issue for professional schools, and is serious enough it warrants concern for
reasons related both to accreditation and to program.
Another possible affinity area is related to kinesiology, nutrition, occupational therapy, physical
therapy, and some of the dimensions of public health.
Another step is to put together additional data, this summer, and begin to use the Integrated
Framework for a more standardized framework for making these decisions. The case study on this will
be the proposal by the Masters of Health Administration to move to the Carlson School and become part
of the MBA program, rather than remain in the School of Public Health. This has been discussed by the
faculty of both units and by the MHA alumni. He said he mentioned this because they will be using the
Integrated Framework concept for this decision as well as for the merger of the two colleges.
One senses, in reading the report, that there is a lack of understanding for the rationale for the
merger, Professor Koch commented. What is happening to get across the value of the merger?
Dr. Allen said he was sorry to say that many believe the merger is for financial reasons, but for as
many times as he has said it is not, that message seems not to be understood. He said he has nothing
more to say about it, and the process will move ahead; the discussion groups will begin work, and during
that process he will ask very specific questions with regard to the Integrated Framework.
Professor Bloomfield noted that there is a resolution working its way through the Senate process
on referring collegiate reorganizations to the Senate committees, such as Educational Policy and Finance
and Planning. He asked Provost Allen to reflect generally on that issue, and include in his thoughts the
biological sciences reorganization. Biology is a good example, where committees of the faculty and
administrators have been set up to think through the reorganization; difficult issues take a long time.
When one adds to that the general governance apparatus, and the general administrative apparatus, it is
hard to see how things get done, even though there are wider implications. The difficulties in managing a
university become apparent in these situations. What are his thoughts?
Dr. Allen said the question was a good one. They should always to open suggestions, but it needs
to be clear where decision-making responsibility rests. For example, committees can be very helpful in
raising questions that may not come out of the units themselves or from the administrators; that should be
welcomed and cherished. But how the University does its business must be thought about carefully, as
must who is responsible for making decisions and on what schedule. His fear, he said, is that things are
grinding to a halt in too many areas, at a time the University cannot afford to have that happen.
Faculty Consultative Committee
May 23, 1996 (Part II)
3
The schedule is clearly an issue, Professor Bloomfield responded. One problem for SCEP is that it
has had so much to do and meets only a few hours a month, making it hard to move through the agenda.
While one can be sympathetic with the need to administer and move ahead, and with the fact that there
are presidents and provosts charged with doing so, universities are really different creatures. The
creativity comes from individuals or small collectives of faculty. These things cannot be operated in a
top-down fashion as they can in a corporation, but the University seems to be moving more in that
direction.
Provost Allen said he could not agree. There is nothing he can name that is top-down in his area,
he said. Anyone who wants to provide input has ample opportunity to do so. He said he can understand
why things may appear to be top-down, but that is not the nature of what is happening. There is great
confusion between input and when a decision is made. He said that the people who are working with this
on both sides are becoming increasingly frustrated that the University cannot change anything. If it
cannot change anything, it will be in deep trouble.
One of the concerns of SCEP is that it has talked to him and to others involved in other
reorganizations and receives the reports, but it does not have time it needs to do the job it should because
of the time pressure--even if it does not have to give its approval. They need to receive the written
documents and have time to review them; in some cases, they still do not have the documents, and just
received the one about the merger of the two colleges last week. If SCEP is to bring something to the
Senate for information, it cannot do so until next November.
What should he do, Provost Allen inquired? That is the concern; is this moving too quickly? How
does SCEP work within the system, if it wants to permit decisions made but engage in consultation?
There has to be some mechanism so that consultation could take place.
Provost Allen said it would be a different decision if he were to be recommending closure of the
two colleges next week. He said he sees no reason not to move ahead in implementing the majority of
the recommendations in the report, and that does not require any Senate discussion. It would desirable
that SCEP could consult, but otherwise it will have taken a year to work through the process.
SCEP would only bring the proposal to the Senate for information, but SCEP itself needs time to
discuss it. It has just received the report, and the year is almost over. The problem is clear, Provost
Allen responded, but he said he did not know what to do about it.
This is a serious issue, Professor Bloomfield maintained, and it is getting worse. Because there are
so many things coming down the pike, the pace of change is much more rapid, and the existing structures
are not capable of dealing with them. FCC should talk about this at its retreat it may have. There has to
be some modus operandi whereby the administration works slower and the faculty work faster so the
timetables can be meshed.
On some of these things they do not have that option, Provost Allen said. Then one throws away
the entire concept of shared governance, Professor Bloomfield replied.
This problem will not be solved by not working together on it, Provost Allen said; he pointed out
that the administration also has mandates it is working under, and that they would not change.
Faculty Consultative Committee
May 23, 1996 (Part II)
4
Professor (J) Adams said he was trying to discern the principles that should govern how these
items are discussed. CLA has the same issues writ small; departmental committees responsible for policy
often do not end up working on policy questions but on operations. Or at the level of the college
assembly, items of business come forward, and it is never clear whether one is talking about policy or
about that particular item of business; things get confused. He said he had always understood that SCEP
was the committee on educational policy. His understanding of that may be different from that of other
people, who may think that every proposal that comes forward must be discussed in its details rather than
in attempt to understand the policy involved. If the proposal triggers a policy question, the policy
question should be resolved rather than constantly descending to the details of how something works out.
In actual practice, it is hard to separate some of these things, but as the amount of business
increases in volume and complexity, the committees will be buried in details of analyzing specific
proposals for action, unless they stand back and try to clarify the function of the consultative process, he
said. In this last year, the Committee has gotten buried in details and, as a result, has become less
helpful, to all who are charged with running the place, in clarifying what are and ought to be the
principles according to which the University gets things done. Some of the exchange between Professor
Humphreys and Provost Cerra were helpful in highlighting the fact that the principles of how something
ought to go forward should govern what actually gets done. If one is clear about what the rules of the
game are, or clear about where one is heading, and tries to help the administrators clarify what the target
ought to be, then they can work with that clearly-defined set of target and figure out how to get there.
But if the discussion is constantly on the details of a proposal, that is absolutely no help from a policy
standpoint. The consequence is that the whole policy discussion is turned over to the people who design
the proposals, rather than to share the definition of where the outcomes ought to be.
That distinction may be more clear to him, in the midst of the debate, than perhaps it ought to be,
Professor Adams said, but it is part of what gets the Committee in trouble when it tries to participate in
these issues. THAT is something that should be made clear at a retreat: what exactly is the job of the
consultative process when major initiatives for reorganization or program development are made? Is the
governance system to be the auditors of these proposals? That is not necessarily helpful, especially if, in
the process of trying to audit every proposal that comes along, one loses sight of what the governance
system ought to be sharing with the administration--such as what the shape of the University in 2020
ought to be, how it will be known, and how does that vision compare with alternatives? That is the part
of the consultation he would like to be involved in he said, and is a separate question from how to get
there. But the governance committees are always dragged into the second question, rather than the
central one.
Professor Bloomfield said he wished it were so easy to separate principle and detail; Professor (J)
Adams agreed it was not easy. An example that affects many but not any particular person at the
meeting, Professor Bloomfield said, is the serious flap that is about to arise because of graduate assistant
fringe benefit rates. How does one separate the principle of how to finance graduate education from the
details, which will kill everyone?
Professor Humphreys, noting the point of Professor (J) Adams about the difference between policy
and details, asked Provost Allen what the policy is that is driving the decision to merge those two
Faculty Consultative Committee
May 23, 1996 (Part II)
5
colleges? He said earlier it was not money; what is it?
Money is the second reason, potentially, Provost Allen said. The first reason is whether there is a
better grouping than what exists that would enhance programs? When he refers to programs, he refers to
all three parts of the mission. That must be the first question, he said, is because a merger could make it
worse than it currently is. But it could also be positive or neutral. When something like this is proposed,
they really have to assess what it will do to the programs. Will it provide new synergies and
opportunities? Is it neutral? Or is it negative? That is the first reason.
There are other colleges one could merge, Professor Humphreys pointed out; he obviously picked
those two for some reason. The College of Natural Resources could become part of the College of
Agriculture; why this pair and not some other pair? There must be some fundamental policy driving the
decision. An answer need not be provided at this meeting, but the question is relevant to the point
Professor (J) Adams made. Where is the explanation for the philosophy, the policy, behind one decision?
Professor Humphreys then said that the reason the committees are so overwhelmed is simply
because there are too many things that have been happening. Central administration has brought forward
too much; there is semesters, tenure, the mess in the AHC, plans for reorganization, RCM; why is it
necessary to do all this at once? Why not do one thing, see how it works, and then do the next thing?
Most administrators also wish there were not so many things to deal with, Provost Allen
responded, and he said that many of them were not things they put on the plate. They came from the
legislature, from the world. Professor Bloomfield said that the proposal to combine the two colleges did
not have to be made, nor did the proposal to close General College; those could have waited.
That comes down to a value judgment, Provost Allen said, and he would not disagree. But the
University is moving through a very opportune time, and that is the change to semesters and the redoing
of courses and curriculum. He said he saw that as an opportunity to think about the biological sciences
and the other questions he has raised. He is the first to admit, he said, that the University will not have
everything done the way it wants them when the change to semesters is made, and not even in the first
year. But by the second or third year, there will probably be additional changes. He said he also knows,
from previous experience in curriculum revision, that the big things will happen between now and the
change to semesters. He said he is confident, because of what he has already done, that there are
discussions occurring in the units going a different way than they would have otherwise. This already a
win-win situation.
Provost Allen returned to Professor Humphreys' question that she said did not need an answer.
There are two units in Human Ecology that already have a lot of interaction with Education and Human
Development, he said, and they fit with child development and performance in K-12 education: Family
Social Science and the School of Social Work. Neither of these units are disconnected from those issues,
but there would be much more synergy if they were brought closer together; the question is if that be
accomplished by one mechanism or another. It may happen as a result of working together on program
and curriculum.
In other cases, there are units that are large enough, or too large. The College of Agriculture is not
in a position to take on any more units; it is complex enough, especially when one considers that there
Faculty Consultative Committee
May 23, 1996 (Part II)
6
are five branch stations and nine departments and many external groups to work with. No dean could
take on another college.
Professor Bland said a policy seems to emerge; he seems to have in mind a policy about the
reasonable size of a college. It would help to have those policies. Provost Allen said he did not think
one could set a policy on the size of a college; Professor (J) Adams commented that it depends on how
complicated they are. Small are not necessarily simple and big ones are not necessarily complicated.
If there were policies on such things, Professor Bland said, the Committee could make suggestions
without getting into details. But if the University were to set a policy that no department could be
smaller than fifteen faculty, that would be a terrible policy, Dr. Allen responded. What she is arguing for
is policies, Professor Bland said. What he is arguing, Dr. Allen said, is that this is not a policy question.
What are the guiding principles for merging the colleges, Professor Bland then asked? There can
be guiding principles, Dr. Allen said, but those are not policies. He said he provided a guiding principle.
IT is a very large college, Professor Humphreys pointed out, but it has only ten departments. In many
ways IT is significantly more complicated than CLA, Professor (J) Adams said, and CLA has 30
departments. To ask what the right number is to focus on the wrong thing, he said; that is not interesting
or important.
What will be the guiding the principles for these mergers that the Committee can use for its
discussions without getting in to the details, Professor Bland inquired? This is why he is excited about
moving ahead with the concept of the Integrated Framework, and getting the questions laid out, Dr. Allen
said. Those questions were laid out several years with respect to programmatic decisions, and included
centrality, demand, relative advantage, and so on. The same kinds of guiding principles need to be
developed for mergers, closures, and so on.
Professor Bloomfield recalled that Provost Cerra has said earlier, in response to a question about
the one-time proposed dissolution of departments and colleges in the AHC, that he--Provost Cerra--had
come to the conclusion that that is not a good idea, and that people need homes, and these are structures
that evolved for good reasons over time and should not be tampered with arbitrarily. On the other hand,
new kinds of alliances could arise; the affinity group concept is an attractive one. Why not, instead of
combining colleges and departments, foster cross-organization activities?
That may be the outcome, Provost Allen said; if the affinity group idea can be launched, it might
be a possibility. One of the problems at Minnesota is that it is a large faculty, geographically separated,
and it comes and goes in a metropolitan area--the University needs to do something that allows faculty
members to take advantage of the expertise that exists in many other places that they do not know about.
That is why the affinity group is very appealing. Professor Bloomfield is right, he said; they must be
very careful about identities. This is not out of a sense of nostalgia; it is important with regard to a sense
of home and a sense of community. If asked for one wish for what the University could improve upon,
he would say it must do something about community. And one cannot do something about community
without identity. That is why many people say what they do about the St. Paul campus; it is in the same
metropolitan area, but there is a greater sense of community in the eyes of many people there, and one
must be very careful about breaking that up. Alumni talk about this in their letters and in home-coming
visits; the University better have very good reasons to moving beyond present units. The affinity group
Faculty Consultative Committee
May 23, 1996 (Part II)
7
is appealing because it will potentially open up opportunities; the report refers to them as a no-loss
situation.
Professor (J) Adams commented that he and Professor Feeney sit on the Denny Human Resources
Working Group that has been working since last summer. One thing that keeps coming up over and over
is that at the unit level, there might be people with decent administrative skills or scholarly/scientific
colleagues who are elevated to headship or chairship or deanship who do not have a clue how to engineer
the kind of group identity that are needed. There are departments in some of the large colleges where
they brag about the fact they never have faculty meetings and everyone goes their own way and they
prize themselves on their autonomy--and then they are puzzled why there is often a high degree of
disaffection by people in the group. It seems obvious that just because someone is a member of the
National Academy of Science does not mean they are qualified to be the effective head of a department.
Just because someone is good at processing the paper and keeping the budget balanced, it does not follow
that the place will be one where people want to come to work. Somewhere in the University, over the
last 35 years, that principle seems to be unknown except to those who teach it to their students and then
go run organizations very successfully.
Somewhere in this discussion about reorganization, attention must be paid to developing unit
leadership and management--and it has to be there for awhile. One does not get this outcome by
revolving door chairships, and no one wants to come back to a homecoming in a department when they
do not know anything about its history or purpose or traditions. It may not matter a lot what
organizational scheme one ends up with, if the organization is only as strong as its weakest link--and the
weakest link is the inability of the people in charge of the units to do the job. He must think about this,
Professor (J) Adams said to Provost Allen, as he deals with the deans and department heads of the units
that report to him.
Provost Allen said he has. One thing the Institute of Agriculture, Forestry, and Home Economics
did well was to invest in people, he said. There was never a year that went by, since he became an
administrator in 1984, that he was not involved in some kind of professional development program that
had nothing to do with the discipline. In many disciplines and fields on the campus, Professor (J) Adams
responded, the idea of doing that is unheard of. They had two to four retreats per year with outside
expertise, Provost Allen said.
Professor Bland said she was amazed at how agriculture has done this, both locally and in the
professional organizations. They seem to value leaders and faculty being developed as leaders.
In terms of the merger, Professor Morrison commented, he did not want to speak for or against any
particular proposal, but recalled that after the year and a half he served as grievance officer he reviewed
the files and wrote the President a letter. One point he made in the letter was that in excess of 30% or
40% of grievances came from the 3-4% of the University that had been reorganized. What happens in a
reorganization is that everyone's expectations are jarred; when those expectations are jarred, unless are
there is VERY competent management to manage that shift in expectations, what comes is confrontation.
The confrontations go on for five to ten years, and over every issue. One thing that people need to worry
about, when these mergers occur, is getting the appropriate management in place so it can anticipate
problems that will occur and head them off. Frequently, it was a difference in the way people
communicated about things.
Faculty Consultative Committee
May 23, 1996 (Part II)
8
In his twelve years as an administrator, Provost Allen said, he went before a Senate grievance
committee for the first time this year, and it did not involve a faculty member in a unit that reports to
him. There was only one grievance that came from the St. Paul campus, Professor Morrison recalled.
Professor Bloomfield recalled the one good thing he found in the book on re-engineering, when he
opened the book at random; what was said in there was the one thing that did not get done: if one is
going to try to make major change in organization, there must be prolonged, intense education,
communication, and dialogue with everybody organization. It cannot be accomplished just like that
because of some deadline. This hour and last hour have been interesting discussions, because the major
themes that have emerged are community, its value and the difficulty of maintaining it in times of stress
and change. What is very important is the kinds of assertions--that must be convincing--of community
values, especially in an organization such as this, which tends to be too focused on individualism. When
Frank Cerra became dean, he told people he would not sign off on any BA 23s until they took an ethics
course. That struck many as mickey-mouse, but it was a very effective thing to do. People still grumble
about it, but it is an enunciation of shared values. That will seem mickey-mouse to many around the
table, and it has to be done right, but it is important to enunciate the institution's shared values.
Provost Allen agreed and mentioned a way he uses to help understand these things. Each time the
University goes through change, it does not matter what it is. If one thinks of the process of grieving,
that is helpful. The first stage of grieving is anger; the second stage is denial; the third stage is where
there is acknowledgement of what the individual contributed (or program or course). They saw this in
Project Sunrise, the curriculum revision in the College of Agriculture. This is a useful metaphor in
understanding change; not everyone moves through the process at the same time, but if it is followed,
each individual or a whole department will reflect some stage of the grieving process. He recalled that he
recently talked with one of his mentors, a very successful administrator, who reminded him that one must
get through the anger and denial process before getting to useful discussion. That is why these things
cannot be done overnight, without time. And yet, the process cannot take so long that the proposals die
of old age.
That is the problem, Professor Bloomfield agreed, and the one that needs to be wrestled with.
Discussion turned to compensation. Provost Allen said he could not provide exact percentages,
but could say where the units are. As far as he knew, he said, all of the deans that report to him had
discussions with a variety of faculty, sometimes individually and sometimes in groups. The Professional
Studies units are giving 2% non-recurring plus more in a selected number of special retention cases, plus
promotions. They will be somewhere between 2% and 3%.
There are two exceptions: the Law School is going to provide 2% in recurring increases;
Architecture and Landscape Architecture (CALA) is going to give 0%. CALA intends to put money into
a fund to be used by faculty, and held by the college rather than given to the individual; they decided on
this collectively, and said it was a higher priority than a 2% non-recurring salary increase.
How do the schools come up with the funds, asked Professor Bland? There are about eight
answers to the question, Provost Allen said. Some funds come from things the unit has stopped doing;
some come from inloading CEE and from new opportunities in outreach that are bringing in revenues;
Faculty Consultative Committee
May 23, 1996 (Part II)
9
some came from layoffs; some came from delaying filling positions; some from a transition between
buyouts.
Many of those sound like recurring dollars, Professor Bland followed up; if so, what happens next
year--do they go to the dean or to the provost? None of the money goes back to the provost, Dr. Allen
said; each college is taking care of its own situation.
When the deans spoke with the faculty, Dr. Allen said, the majority view was that they wanted to
know what would happen to programs versus what would happen with salaries. Faculty said they were
not interested in seeing less program support or damage to the programs.
They believe this is the only fiscally responsive decision they can make, Dr. Allen said. They are
very concerned about the legislative session next year, and do not believe anyone in the University ought
to be creating "tails." They have also received word about federal funds that affect a number of units;
House action would produce a 30% cut. He said he hoped that if things turn out better, the raises might
be solidified in recurring funds, depending on what happens in the legislature.
Professor Bland said that will be a major question. In the tenure proposals that went forward,
there was the possibility that there would never be raises on base salaries, so how these salaries are
handled is a concern.
Professor (J) Adams asked where current thinking is about tuition revenues and augmentations in
the professional schools, and the extent to which the schools can raise tuition to increase revenues as a
response to these problems, and what the possible linkage with Regents' policy on tuition.
There are additional monies being generated in some units through tuition increases over the 7.5%
approved by the Regents for undergraduates. There are two units that are at the upper limits of what the
market will bear and what will not affect the quality of students (Law and Management). CALA is
increasing tuition by 10%; it is in the middle. The professional degree programs in Education are
bumping up against the limit. Humphrey has a little room. In each of the units, moreover, there will be a
technology fee each quarter. In CALA it will be $100 per quarter, which the students endorsed, to invest
in computer technology.
Following a brief off-the-record exchange about tuition and politics, Professor Bland observed that
Provost Allen had several times referred to the Integrated Framework; was there a document to which he
was referring? Provost Allen said the individual leading the effort was Senior Vice President Jackson,
and suggested it would be helpful for FCC to hear about it. The Integrated Framework relates to issues
of space, program, finance--so one thinks about the whole of every decision. Professor Morrison
reported that the Finance and Planning Committee would soon be taking up the Integrated Framework. It
might be worthwhile, he said, for them to go through it and then bring it to this Committee. It is related
to an audit concept--which has become the management design for the University-he said in response to a
question from Professor Adams, but is only a criteria piece.
Professor Bland recalled that there had been the criteria of centrality, uniqueness, and so on; those
are part of program criteria. Now finances and space are being added? The concept remains to be
fleshed out, Provost Allen said, and it depends on what question one is asking. A legal issue came up in
Faculty Consultative Committee
May 23, 1996 (Part II)
10
another discussion; the Integrated Framework with respect to legal issues will not be the same as
programmatic criteria.
Professor Gremmels asked Provost Allen to comment briefly on the provostal system, which some
see as the new federalism and others see as a configuration where there is not much communication.
How is it working? Provost Allen said it was a little difficult to answer, since he is a provost, but he
believes that during the first year, the provost system would be given very high grades by an outside
evaluator. They have been able to meet with deans and get finance and human resource people across
units to work together. They did a better job this year with the five units that previously reported to him
as vice president; part of the change is related to clarification of authority and responsibility. They also
benefited greatly from the cross-fertilization of ideas among the nine units; there are a number of things
they have not had time to deal with yet.
On the other side, he said he did not know how long the system would last; it may end up being
transitional. With the change agenda, both inside the University and in the relationship between higher
education and society, things are coming at a rapid pace; the provostal model, for this University, has
been helpful.
He also said he hoped there is not a perception that the three provosts are not in active and regular
communication, because they are. That was a concern of his, but it has not been an issue. They meet
regularly and talk frequently.
Finally, he said, the reality is that it is not possible for any individual to serve as provost for the
Twin Cities campus, and have oversight responsibility for all the units.
Hearing no more questions, Professor Adams thanked Provost Allen for his time.
End of Part II.
-- Gary Engstrand
University of Minnesota