Minutes*
Faculty Consultative Committee
Wednesday, September 29, 1993
2:00 - 4:00
Room 238 Morrill Hall
Present:
Judith Garrard (chair), John Adams, Mario Bognanno, Lester Drewes, Kenneth Heller,
Karen Seashore Louis, Geoffrey Maruyama, Harvey Peterson, Irwin Rubenstein
Absent:
James Gremmels, Robert Jones, Toni McNaron, Shirley Zimmerman
Guests:
Professor Carl Adams, President Nils Hasselmo
Others:
Martha Kvanbeck
[In these minutes: freedom of speech; health sciences reorganization; the strategic plan]
1.
Freedom of Speech
Professor Garrard convened the meeting at 2:00 and welcomed President Hasselmo. She asked
that he first address the freedom of speech issue recently raised with the College Republicans.
The President recalled that this is not the first time he has been faced with a freedom of speech
question; Kwame Ture's speech in 1990 raised the issue, at which time he--the President--made a
personal statement on First Amendment freedom of speech rights that said they must be inviolate,
especially in an academic community.
A problem arises when inflammatory statements that are insulting to a group of people are made;
President Hasselmo recalled that he has said before that the only remedy is more free speech: the
University and campus community must respond so that such comments do not go unanswered.
The administrative problem in Student Affairs arose because there are Regents' policies on nondiscrimination and the value of diversity, policies that are communicated at new student orientation. The
conflict arose when an effort was made to control student organization materials in the orientation
program--when the purpose of the orientation was to express University values. Vice President Hughes
has changed the practice when it was clear that the mechanism calling for University review of materials
was not working. But there is a dilemma, given the Regents' policy values and freedom of speech.
"I am rabid on free speech," the President told the Committee; if the University starts being an
arbiter, where does it end?
This issue was brought to FCC a few years ago, the President recalled; the question was whether
*
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 29, 1993
2
or not there should be guidelines on appropriate expression. FCC, he said, expressed a "resounding
'No.'"
This is a "head versus heart" issue, said one Committee member. The President's position reflects
the cognitive response, but there is also the affective response--if one sees hate materials circulated under
the rubric of a student organization, something is wrong. It is not clear how to resolve the problem. One
must speak up, the President responded, when such statements are made.
Asked if Vice President Hughes's first letter was reviewed by the General Counsel, the President
said several individuals were involved in drafting it. The letter was not retracted, per se, he said; Vice
President Hughes concluded that the process was inadequate and that the University should not be
reviewing materials. The principle involved is consistent with a philosophy of diversity, observed one
Committee member; the President said there are guidelines which student organizations must follow. In
this case an administrative procedure was established to try to resolve the dilemma, with good intentions,
but it proved to be unworkable.
There is a middle ground, said one Committee member: the University can identify which
materials it has reviewed and represent the University's perspective. It would be "crazy" not to provide
an institutional perspective in orientation programs; otherwise "we could have the vice lords conduct
orientation." The presentation of University values can be accomplished without infringing on free
speech.
But there are two always inconsistent principles, insisted one Committee member; one will either
offend civil libertarians or egalitarians. The President disagreed, saying that freedom of speech is the
fundamental principle on which all else rests. Given freedom of speech, we express institutional values-and others with different views can express theirs.
The President encouraged the Committee to review its own minutes from a few years back when
this issue was raised.
2.
Reorganization of the Health Sciences
The President next turned to the health sciences reorganization, which, he said, is part of the
institutional agenda to adopt better management practices and to liberate teaching and research from poor
management. In the Medical School, reorganization was also triggered by serious mistakes that were
made. He distributed an organization chart showing the proposed reorganization.
In the health sciences in general, and in the Hospital, there is a process of strategic repositioning
taking place in a very volatile environment; the reorganization is needed to operate more effectively.
The reorganization is intended to provide more clear-cut authority in the Health Sciences Center,
to be headed by a provost. That change is minor, however, compared to the changes within the health
sciences. There will be a president of the University of Minnesota Health System, which is different
from what the University has had. Within the Health Center, changes are being made similar to those in
other health care organizations in order to ensure a competitive position and to provide clinical activities
to support the teaching and research (which is the ONLY reason the University has clinical programs).
Faculty Consultative Committee
September 29, 1993
3
There are four major personnel changes. First, the Vice President for the Health Sciences becomes
the Health Sciences Center Provost, who will report directly to the President. The provost will have
greater authority and accountability. One shortcoming of the previous arrangement was that there was no
clear assignment of responsibility so that an individual could be held accountable. Second, there will be
President of the Health System. Third, the responsibilities of the Dean of the Medical School will be
more clearly defined, especially with respect to clinical departments--the dean will have unambiguous
authority. The Dean, along with the Provost, the President of the Health System, and other individuals,
will constitute a liaison committee with the Health System to ensure the proper interface between the
Hospital and teaching.
Fourth, there will be a chief financial officer (CFO) for the Heath Sciences Center. Many of the
problems that have arisen have been due to an insufficient financial management system, insufficient
data to identify problems, and insufficient oversight. The appointment of the CFO signals that the
financial management system must be strengthened. The CFO will work with financial officers in the
units to create a network of financial information and accountability.
The Deloitt-Touche report said there could be merger of some departments; that recommendation
will not be accepted. The departments are organized by discipline and follow a national pattern. The
departments can be maintained but with the financial management structure providing an underpinning
for the department management.
There are still unresolved questions, the President said, and he has appointed a working group to
look at them. He is asking the Board of Regents to approve recruiting individuals to fill the four
positions; the details of the reorganization will be filled in later, once a Provost has been hired.
These changes have been driven by necessity--because of the enormous rate of change in the
health care environment, by the changes that the federal government may impose, by the internal
problems of the Medical School. It is for these reasons also that the University acted quickly and not
with the usual consultation. There has been a lot of consultation within the health sciences, he said; Win
Wallin has been the chief architect of the changes and has built a lot of constituency support for them.
One Committee member suggested that while there may have been a great deal of consultation
within the Medical School, the deans of the six other health sciences units had also been consulted a
great deal. Another Committee member noted, however, that there has been limited FACULTY
involvement outside the Medical School and that the changes focus on the Hospital and financial aspects
of the health sciences; there is a feeling that the faculty or other units could be rolled over by a powerful
Medical School dean. The President concurred that the reorganization has been driven primarily by
clinical activities and the Hospital, so the other units may not be affected as much.
The issue, said one Committee member, is whether or not support will be provided for nonMedical School units, since the reorganization has been driven by the Medical School and calls for
increasing health science responsibilities in areas such as research administration and state/federal
relations. One has the sense that the other units are not listened to now; will that problem grow? Some
of the other units have very strong national reputations and deserve a more supportive environment. The
President agreed, and noted that Dean Elzay had participated extensively in the reorganization process.
Faculty Consultative Committee
September 29, 1993
4
The President was asked if there were any implications for the distribution of ICR funds--which, it
was said, are now taken from the Medical School and Public Health and given to IT. President Hasselmo
said that issue would be dealt with separately. It has been his view that ICR funds should be distributed
strictly by formula and that all units should be charged for facilities. If one looks at that balance, the
distribution of ICR funds may not be as skewed as it appears. There are complex issues involved, the
President said, and his administration has been working on ICR funds for over four years.
If the Board of Regents approves the reorganization at their October meeting, the President said in
response to a question, the searches for the four positions will begin immediately. The Provost will need
to be appointed first, perhaps along with the President of the Health System.
Does this plan represent an increase in overhead cost? inquired one Committee member. While the
Provost and Dean will not represent new positions, there appear to be a number of additional officers.
Will the reorganization generate savings to fund the new positions? The Deloitt-Touche report estimated
there would be a net increase of $5 million in administrative costs in the health sciences. The report did
not evaluate whether costs of present operations could be transferred to the new structure. His
expectation, the President told the Committee, is that there will be a significant increase in cost--but that
it is needed in order to build a competitive organization. The increased costs, he added, will be covered
by reallocation in the health sciences.
Asked about the "dean's tax" on the private practice income, the President said the tax would be
regularized and provide increased flexible funding.
What does this reorganization have to do with Senate policies--will it be considered a separate
campus like Duluth? Would health sciences faculty continue to serve on Senate committees? The
President said there has been no discussion of separating the health sciences from the University-wide
governance system. It is likely, he said, that there will be an internal faculty governance system
established in the Medical School. This is NOT an attempt to change Twin Cities faculty governance; it
is an effort to more clearly define administrative responsibilities.
A provost heads a separate campus; this adds a 5th provost? The terminology is confusing, the
President said. He clarified the titles: He is, he pointed out, technically the chancellor of the Twin Cities
campus, equal to the coordinate campus chancellors in that respect; he is also President of the Board of
Regents. There will then also be two provosts reporting to him as chancellor of the Twin Cities campus
(Provost E. F. Infante and the to-be-appointed provost of the health sciences).
Promotion and tenure processes will be unaffected, the President said in response to an inquiry; all
of them will be reviewed centrally through the office of the Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs.
The nature of the Health System Board needs to be worked out; it would replace the existing
Hospital Board of Governors. The President of the Health System would not also be the Director of the
Hospital; the Director would report to the President. The job of the President would be to manage and
coordinate the Hospital clinics and Medical School clinical activities as well, perhaps, as assume some of
the strategic functions now performed by the Hospital Director.
Faculty Consultative Committee
September 29, 1993
5
All of the health science deans would report to the provost, not the president of the health system.
Although the chart was not explicit about the other health sciences collegiate units, the President said
they would be equal and would have a role in the liaison committee because of their work with the
Hospital. The private practice plans would also come under the purview of the provost.
There are a number of non-health science units that also have clinical arrangements with the
Hospital, it was pointed out, and these changes could affect them even more than health science colleges.
The President said he hoped that interdisciplinary relations could be strengthened, and that by defining
authority and responsibility more clearly, one will be able to insist on permeable walls between units.
The biological sciences are being looked at, the President said, because there is need for a mechanism to
ensure horizontal interaction.
A number of organization issues are addressed by the chart, observed one Committee member. If
one accepts the changes as appropriate, such as the need for a CFO, why not have the top as it exists,
with a Vice President for the Health Sciences Center? Why the imagery of the provost and separateness?
While to a certain extent it is imagery, the President replied, the title of provost is intended to signal
clear-cut operating authority over the health sciences and direct reporting to the President without going
through the intermediate office of the Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs--there has been a sense
that that has not been so with the Vice President for the Health Sciences.
This seems, it was then said, to be a large price (in creating a mental set of separation) for a small
gain. The need for a management structure to enable the health sciences to succeed is clearly necessary
and one can accept everything but the last step of identifying the chief executive as a provost. Another
reason, the President said, is that the title "vice president" implies system-wide responsibilities; "provost"
identifies an operating entity. The typical vice presidential arrangement is Senior Vice President and
Provost, Vice President (for Undergraduate Affairs) and Vice Provost (Arts, Sciences, and Engineering).
It is also a matter of sheer pragmatism, the President told the Committee--what existed before did not
work .
What kind of person would he expect to recruit as provost, the President was asked, given the
change from Vice President for the Health Sciences? President Hasselmo noted with amusement that
there are often mythical implications--overrated--in the ability to report directly to the president, but it
was an issue in one search. This does seem to be the trend nationally. In terms of scholarly and
administrative experience, the President he didn't expect there would be a great deal of difference
between the two titles in the person recruited.
One Committee member offered the general remark that this seems to be a big administrative
structure to put on the health sciences; while one can understand the problems, this is what one would
expect from a consulting firm. The President cautioned that this is NOT the Deloitt-Touche
recommendation. Nonetheless, it was said, this represents a structural response to problems. This
University has not done well in that it has an enormous amount of resources in administration--even in
small colleges. One would have to work to convince people that that added layers of administration will
lead to improvement in performance or quality.
What he might do, the President was told, is ask the Board of Regents to adopt this structure and
promise to try to implement it within the existing resources for administration in all of the health science
Faculty Consultative Committee
September 29, 1993
6
units--and that he will resist an $x million increase in costs. Following a number of other remarks, the
President said he understood the gist of the comments.
The University has a number of problems, it was observed by an individual also sitting on another
body looking at operations; this "is a solution to a problem that would drive Bob Erickson crazy if you
did it for my college." One can understand the origins of the proposal, but the administration should not
lose sight of the standards of economy that he and Senior Vice Presidents Erickson and Infante have been
hammering on for a long time. Moreover, added another Committee member, if this administrative
machinery is expected to take on some institutional responsibilities (e.g., grant administration,
state/federal relations), the organizations relieved of that work should also move resources into health
science administration. The President agreed. He pointed out that these changes are proposed in a
context of freeing up millions of dollars in administrative costs that can be directed to academic
priorities; the health sciences administration will need to be scrutinized in the same hard way. This plan
is not a blank check, he assured the Committee; he also said he would take these comments seriously and
see if there is a way to streamline the structure.
One Committee member pointed out that the possible increase in health sciences administrative
expenses could exceed the entire operating budget of the Crookston campus--for the purposes of imagebuilding and damage control. For the sake of those who teach, it is important that the President seek to
achieve savings. The President reassured the Committee that this reorganization would NOT mean a
reallocation from the rest of the University to the health sciences administration.
This is a wonderful opportunity to appoint four new individuals, one Committee member
observed; it will be critical that they come with the right expectations. One could imagine, for example,
that the provost would expect that in 4 - 5 years, the net cost of the changes would be zero. The provost
and dean must also be hired to EXPECT cooperation among the basic sciences and the teaching of
undergraduates by Medical School faculty. It would be advisable to hire people with the expectations
established ahead of time, rather than hire them and THEN develop expectations. This does not mean we
tell them HOW to do their job, but candidates should be asked if they would be prepared to do the job
given certain expectations established by the University.
The President made three points. First, this is what he did when he hired the former vice president
for the health sciences. Second, the strategic planning effort in the health sciences will set the agenda (he
will NOT do so), which will include teaching, research, financial viability, and--it is to be hoped-interdisciplinary relationships (that is one advantage to having the health sciences within a major
research university). Third, the budget and planning cycle will include an annual evaluation of unit
performance and whether or not they have achieved their goals and objectives--which could include the
achievement of interdisciplinary activities.
Another Committee member said that if one knows the complexity of the Medical School, one
understands this management structure is needed. It would be wise, however, to initiate at the same time
a cost-savings effort akin to the one that was recently conducted in the College of Education--invest in
the administration but simultaneously demand that there be a hard look at current practices. Doing so
could help address the possible public relations problem that could arise from spending more on the
administration.
Faculty Consultative Committee
September 29, 1993
7
This proposal, it was also said, implies an enormous change in the President's responsibilities; this
is not the same as his relationship with other campuses.
In the end, it was observed, any savings to be achieved will mean fewer people--there is a cost
when institutional savings are sought. The review of administrative practices could mean significant
disruptions, including staff people losing their jobs.
3.
Strategic Planning
Professor Garrard then inquired if the President had any observations about strategic planning to
offer. President Hasselmo made several points.
First, the proposal IS a working hypothesis, not a plan; it is concepts to drive the planning process.
He noted that in discussions he is often pushed to provide a level of specificity that is not appropriate
now--that will come in the planning process. He said he has tried to address a core problem, through
planning; he does not have a clear idea what University College should be. It is a delivery system, and
the question is whether or not it is viable.
Second, he is concerned and solicited help from the Committee on the point: There are those who
want a plan produced with a great deal of detail and there are those who want to see concepts presented,
with the details to be to worked out by others over the coming months. He has tried to go between those
extremes. He said he hoped that the direction-setting nature of the activity is clear so that it can be
discussed and determined, by December, whether or not it is viable and should be put into the planning
process for the development of the details.
Third, the University College proposal is receiving all the attention, obscuring attention to other
issues--but it is only one component out of four or five significant elements in the working hypothesis.
Others include defining research priorities for the future, improvement of the undergraduate experience
on the Twin Cities campus; what students should be recruited; how the University should function in the
community, and outreach.
Fourth, the way to structure the rewards for teaching must be a major issue. Teaching and research
are twin functions that drive the academic mission; by drawing on innovation and technology, teaching
can be enriched.
One Committee member said one can understand that the President has a dilemma in pointing out a
general direction versus presenting a plan with the details filled in. The faculty, however, need SOME
more detail than is available. The focus on University College can be explained, it was argued, because
of its novelty. The faculty are saying that if there are not additional details, then can there be a sense of
priorities? Is having a top quality research university priority #1 and having a successful University
College #2? Faculty raise these questions, it was said, because as one reads the documents, there are a
lot more linear print inches on University College and undergraduate education--by a factor of three or
four--than there is on high quality graduate and professional programs. Is this an implied prioritization?
If there is no set of priorities, then the faculty need more details. He and the faculty know, the
President was told, that strong/growing graduate programs will be identified and that some will be
Faculty Consultative Committee
September 29, 1993
8
eliminated and some held. This is a good idea; will the resources thus freed up be used to finance
undergraduate education or research and graduate education?
At the retreat, there were repeated questions about costs. The University College is a wonderful
idea, but what will it cost? The faculty need some gross numbers upon which they can make decisions;
without them, it will not be informed decision making. There has been little new information provided in
the last month; is this all there will be upon which to base a decision?
The President pointed out that he is asking for a plan in the Fall of 1994. The inches of print in the
documents reflects the amount of change proposed, which is why undergraduate education has received
more than graduate education and research. It is not priority, it is degree of change. The same is true for
University College. In terms of priorities, he said, the only way one can conceive of the University is as
a configuration of activities seeking the ideal in each of the areas--outreach, research, and so on. One
cannot say the research university is #1 and undergraduate education is #2. Ultimately decisions will
have to be made about how much money to put into each, but for the present, attention should be on the
configuration and the areas of change.
There are concerns about financing strategies, the President agreed, and said there will have to be
tough tradeoffs. The University may not be able to do some things if it does not obtain state or other
funding; those decisions will come through the planning process.
The President was urged to bring to FCC and the faculty the fundamental data, arguments, and
theory that led to the strategic plan. The faculty need more explanation and argument to deduce that the
University is better situated than the state universities or community colleges to deliver lower division
undergraduate education. One could argue that the focus should be on a high quality research university;
if cuts are made, everyone would know where the money came from. With a dual structure, that won't be
true.
The President said there would be more detail in the State of the University address, after which he
hopes the discussions can lead to refinements and clarification. This started with a core notion; it is
inappropriate for him to develop University College. University College would be a delivery system for
undergraduate education for students with non-traditional needs. New programs would only amount to
about 1% of the total University educational program. But it is important, with the University's unique
resources, to show that they can be put to good use.
The "devil is in the details," agreed one Committee member and one must keep distinct the concept
and the operating details. The logic one might use is going from problems to goals to resource questions
that make them attainable. The four concepts the President has outlined can have a resource strategy to
go with them--and it need not have operating details yet because that jumps ahead of the game. The issue
is at what point are FCC and the Board of Regents being asked to make what kind of decisions. The
question is not whether or not University College is a good idea; the questions are "what are the
problems?" and "what are the goals?"
It will be useful to have a draft of what will be presented to the Board of Regents at their
November meeting, something along the line of goal statements and concepts about how they will be
achieved. That is the appropriate level now. That is his intention, the President said, and a draft will be
Faculty Consultative Committee
September 29, 1993
9
available in the next two weeks or so for review. A final draft is not expected until the December
meeting, and if necessary, the Regents' action could be delayed until January.
The President also reaffirmed, in response to a comment, that University College would NOT offer
second-rate University degrees--the only difference would be that they would degrees offered in
partnership with other institutions.
Professor Garrard thanked the President for joining the Committee.
4.
Other Business
Professor Garrard then discussed with Committee members how to organize the Faculty Forum on
October 21. The Committee agreed on the issues.
The meeting was then adjourned at 4:10.
-- Gary Engstrand
University of Minnesota