Minutes*
Faculty Consultative Committee
Tuesday, October 19, 1993
1:00 - 2:00
Room 238 Morrill Hall
Present:
Judith Garrard (chair), John Adams, Mario Bognanno, Lester Drewes, James Gremmels,
Kenneth Heller, Robert Jones, Karen Seashore Louis, Geoffrey Maruyama, Toni
McNaron, Harvey Peterson, Irwin Rubenstein, Shirley Zimmerman
Absent:
Karen Seashore Louis, Irwin Rubenstein
Guests:
Carl Adams, President Nils Hasselmo
Others:
None
[In these minutes: Personnel matters (closed discussions); health sciences reorganization; strategic
planning]
1.
A Personnel Matter
Professor Garrard convened the meeting at 1:00 and welcomed President Hasselmo, who had
asked that the meeting be held. The Committee went into executive session to discuss a personnel
matter.
2.
Issues Associated with the Health Sciences
Professor Garrard then referred to the reorganization of the Health Sciences--the structural
changes, the searches, and the external committee. One concern is that Mr. Wallin was brought in to
consider problems in the Medical School but the changes being proposed will have an impact on all
Health Science units. There is much sensitivity on these issues, said another Committee member; the
changes in the practice plans, for example, may not reflect the needs of the other units.
To the extent other units have or develop practice plans, the President said, they will presumably
be negotiated just as are the plans in the Medical School, and the President of the University of
Minnesota Health Systems would play the same role with respect to them that he or she would with
respect to the Medical School plans.
It is not just the money that is involved, pointed out one Committee member; instruction and
service activities are also at issue--even without any practice plan, there are significant relationships
between the other Health Science units and the Hospital.
*
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
October 19, 1993
2
There is also a concern, said another Committee member, about the Board of Regents' discussion
of the Health Sciences reorganization: what about the role of academic programs? Will the Board
review that relationship? The President said he did not believe so, except for research administration. In
the latter case, the University needs to determine to what extent it can be decentralized (recognizing that
federal rules require there be one central oversight unit but also recognizing the complexity of the health
sciences enterprise). He said he expects no change in the relationship with graduate programs.
The President agreed that concerns about another layer of bureaucracy in research administration
must be sorted out. There must be a supportive organization that helps faculty in sponsored research
activities; there is also the question of how to decentralize it.
President Hasselmo then reported that he has received recommendations for membership on the
search committees that will be appointed for the Health Science positions; he and Senior Vice President
Infante will try to appoint them within the next few days. They will include representation from faculty,
staff, and students, Duluth, the other health science units, and from the outside. The Chief Financial
Officer search will be conducted by Senior Vice President Erickson's office; the search for the Dean of
the Medical School has not been started and will be staggered such that the Provost will play a role in the
selection.
In terms of the organizational structure, one Committee member commented, one should have a
concept in mind even while it is being negotiated. The nature of the structure created LOOKS like that
of a coordinate campus. The presumption going in appears to be that it will operate like a coordinate
campus. If not, that should be clarified. The President confirmed that that is the right starting point. The
Graduate School, he pointed out, is system-wide and its authority will not be changed under the
reorganization. The question is where the University is best served by an autonomous system with
delegated authority and where by an integrated system (e.g., in financial matters). This represents an
attempt to integrate systems of information flow while decentralizing academic decision-making. The
President was asked: Will this be a separate campus, not a separate campus, or something altogether
different? The answer could be "yes," he said. It will be more separate, in order to give the Provost the
necessary autonomy, while including quite specific accountability and working on an integrated financial
system. With the plans in place, the ALG situation would never have occurred, he said.
The external committee, the President said, will very likely have a faculty member.
3.
ALG
The Committee again went into executive session to discuss the situation with respect to Dr.
Najarian and the ALG program.
4.
Strategic Planning
Discussion then turned to strategic planning. Professor Bognanno reported on the discussions he
and Professor Garrard had had with IT faculty senators and faculty members. It was an extremely good
discussion, he said, with good ideas about how to do things for undergraduate students who are not
prepared for higher education.
Faculty Consultative Committee
October 19, 1993
3
One idea that was a group consensus was a deep concern about what the Board of Regents will be
asked to act on at their December meeting and that the move to finality will come much too fast for the
faculty to assimilate. Those faculty members pleaded that any final decisions be delayed until January or
Winter Quarter. One wise IT faculty member, Professor Bognanno commented, said if the plan goes to
the Board of Regents for information in November, it is almost compelled to act on it in December. They
are not seeking delay to be mischievous, he said--they very much want strategic planning to go forward-but are concerned that the faculty will be forced to vote against the strategic vision at the November 18
Faculty Senate meeting because they would rather be conservative about the status quo than move blindly
into the future. Their comments, he added, were NOT bogged down with concerns about structure or
delivery but were about direction.
President Hasselmo said he did not expect to have recommendations to the Regents in November-and if the University is not ready to act in December, then a decision will be delayed until January. This
will not be done unless it is done right. The third strategic planning newsletter will be available at the
October 21 Faculty Forum, he told the Committee; there will also be a fourth newsletter, in November,
that will contain the first draft of what will be presented to the Regents in December. He emphasized
that it will still be a draft, open to consultation, and that it will contain concepts, not organizational
changes.
The President affirmed that as the process has evolved he has differentiated between vision and
structure/means. This Committee, it was said, has concluded that the vision should be the subject of
discussion, not the details--but its conversations always end up getting bogged down in the details. It
would help if he would stick with the vision as well, the President was told.
The President concurred. It sounds abstract, he agreed, but there must be agreement on such
questions as "should the University be more selective in undergraduate admissions?" and "should the
University accommodate older and part-time students and find a delivery system friendly to their needs-or should it be only an on-campus operation?"
The idea of the UMTC--the research university, admitting 80% of its students from the top 25% of
their class--was warmly endorsed at the meeting with IT faculty, Professor Bognanno said, as using
resources in an optimal way. But for those who cannot meet those standards, the discussion yesterday
focused on the suggestion that the University should be working with the AVTIs and the community
colleges to cause them to identify students who are BA/BS-bound and make sure they have adequate
preparation to do University coursework. University faculty should work closely with their faculty so
that students can do the remedial work at those institutions that the University cannot provide. No
different structure would be required but the students would be placed in a rigorous program and would
then transfer immediately to the University for their upper division work.
That would require a special involvement by the University with the technical colleges, the
President observed; would the partnership degree programs offered be incorporated into IT?
All of the higher education systems must rationalize their use of resources, it was said. Even with
the proposed UC arrangements there would not be two faculty and two diplomas, so University faculty
would have to be deeply involved in any event. The faculty would buy a vision that included careeroriented degrees, it was argued; what they are concerned about is working with ill-prepared students.
Faculty Consultative Committee
October 19, 1993
4
It may be that the faculty have the wrong image of the AVTIs, said one Committee member. The
President responded that they have been seeking transfer recognition for a long time but that he has been
unable to identify anything in their curricula that would transfer to the University--but the University
should be able to build on what they teach.
Copies of the ALG report were distributed to Committee members. Professor Garrard thanked the
President and adjourned the meeting at 2:40.
-- Gary Engstrand
University of Minnesota