Minutes*
Faculty Consultative Committee
Thursday, February 17, 1994
11:00 - 1:30
Room 300 Morrill Hall
Present:
Judith Garrard (chair), Carl Adams, 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
Regrets:
none
Absent:
none
Guests:
President Nils Hasselmo, Senior Vice President E. F. Infante
Others:
Maureen Smith (University Relations)
[In these minutes: Central administration reorganization (with the President); various financial matters
(with Senior Vice President Infante)]
1.
Report of the Chair
Professor Garrard convened the meeting at 11:10 and reported quickly on a number of items. She
then asked for reports from the three committee chairs and began with Professor Rubenstein.
Professor Rubenstein reported that the Finance and Planning Committee had taken a short vacation
[after meeting almost weekly since the beginning of the academic year], waiting for things to happen. He
affirmed that it had reviewed and endorsed the supplemental legislative request; except for the few small
recurring items in it, the vast majority of the request is non-recurring and in support of U2000. Even
though the request will be in the Governor's budget, he cautioned, it is by no means guaranteed that the
University will receive the money.
He also reported that the Finance and Planning Committee has held off discussing cluster planning
because he is receiving mixed messages about it. Some say it was a bad idea from the beginning; others
have a different view. Plans were due on February 15; the Committee will inquire what is occurring but
does not intend to become involved unless it is certain the cluster planning will proceed.
2.
Discussion with President Hasselmo
At this point President Hasselmo joined the meeting. The reason the President joined the
Committee, Professor Garrard explained, is to discuss the possible reorganization of the central
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
February 17, 1994
2
administration.
The President started by acknowledging that he was adding reorganization to a hopper that is
already full of issues. He told the Committee, however, that as he has discussed with Senior Vice
President Infante coping with the reform agenda and being sure the University has the capacity to move
ahead on U2000, the issues of organization, and what authority and accountability accrues to each office,
continues to arise.
There are other structural questions to address as well, questions familiar to the University. The
effort should be made to flatten the administration, so it is as simple as possible; is it now too elaborated?
Is it time to define system and campus responsibilities? And to separate staff from line or operating
responsibilities? Those have also been issues for a long time.
Other arguments, the President related, have to do with operating more effectively, including
clarifying the consulting relationships with faculty, staff, and students. Students are currently upset at
the consultation on U2000; consultation with faculty has also sometimes been a problem. He is
grappling with how to ensure effective faculty participation.
One possibility for restructuring is separation of the responsibilities of the Provost from those of
the Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs. That separation has been achieved in the health sciences
but it begs the question of whether or not it should be sought for the rest of the Twin Cities campus. That
is the direction he is moving toward, the President said--going to a provostal structure of two (Health
Sciences and the remainder of the Twin Cities campus) or possibly three (Health Sciences, Minneapolis,
St. Paul) provosts for the Twin Cities. The President concluded that he is convinced that line/system and
campus/staff responsibilities should be separated but that he is not sure how to implement a provostal
structure. One can argue persuasively for two or three provosts.
He wants a discussion of the issues by the Committee, the deans, and the Regents. Rather than
complicate the discussion unnecessarily, he would like it focused on the provost questions, he said.
(There are other models that could be considered, he pointed out, such as having a "deputy president"
who serves as chief operating officer or having a fourth chancellor for the Twin Cities campus. The first
is what Dr. Infante has been, in a weak sense, although the position has not been structure in a way that
he could be chief internal operating officer; the second leads to a funny situation between the President
and Twin Cities campus Chancellor when that individual is responsible for 80% of the University.)
Those other models seem not to fit the University as well, which is why he has proposed the provostal
structure for consideration.
Cluster planning is not about reorganization of the University, the President the commented, but
reorganization lurks within it. There could be, under Responsibility Centered Management, several
different clusters. That seems less likely than the provostal arrangements, he said, but they would be
possible.
He asked that the Committee focus on questions about the provostal structure and its implications
for administrative organization. The President would be the system officer. He said that the Mackenzie
firm has conducted interviews with administrators and faculty; those will be used as the basis for further
discussions. He wants the issue clearly on the agenda.
Faculty Consultative Committee
February 17, 1994
3
Asked if there would still be a Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs (hereinafter SVPAA),
the President said there would be. The provosts would report directly to the President, he said; to flatten
the structure the reporting line would be
dean --> provost --> president.
The SVPAA would be the chief academic officer; promotion and tenure would end in that office and
system-wide services would be administered by it (such as the libraries, human resources, information
services)--and perhaps University College would report to it.
The deans, the President affirmed, would report strictly to the provosts and the provosts to the
President. The SVPAA would also be a staff officer to the President responsible for academic policy.
While keeping a number of responsibilities, the SVPAA would be freed from day-to-day negotiations
with the deans, for example, on budgets--the SVPAA would remain chief academic officer but without
day-to-day operating responsibilities. The specific delegation of authority to the provosts would need to
be spelled out.
Most faculty, if asked, would not understand the problems this rearrangement would solve or the
difference it would make, said one Committee member, because they have no experience with
administration. Faculty also want to be sure there are not too many layers between them and academic
officers; flattening the structure responds to that concern. But the chancellor/provost/vice president
distinctions are not understood.
The President responded that his investigation suggests there is a general perception that authority
and accountability have not been defined clearly. That definition could be accomplished within the
existing structure, he said, but if one starts to do so, that forces questions about staff/line and
system/campus responsibilities. Some of the Vice Presidents, for example, are in the position of having
system-wide responsibilities and also charged with arguing the needs of certain colleges--that kind of
structure has built-in conflicts. The occupants have handled the conflicts well, but one consequence is
that decisions have tended to migrate to his office--which he would prefer to avoid. Separating line and
staff, system and campus responsibilities could solve that problem.
For faculty involved in interdisciplinary activities, said one Committee member, having two or
three provosts could mean more difficulties in pursuing their work. The President demurred and said that
it could be easier for faculty to obtain support if authority and accountability were better defined--rather
than having to "chase a greased pig through central administration."
Agreeing that one can argue both ways about two or three provosts, one Committee member
contended that integration, and therefore only one provost for the Twin Cities outside the health sciences
would be more desirable. It is too easy for the St. Paul campus to be separated and isolated, it was said.
Another Committee member commented, later, that the decision should be based on academic
considerations, not geographic ones.
Asked how the deans feel about the proposal, the President said there hadn't been sufficient time
for them to consider it. There is a deep concern in at least one of the colleges and it is clear the decision
Faculty Consultative Committee
February 17, 1994
4
will require careful analysis. He recalled the evolution of the administration of the University--first a
health sciences vice president was appointed, then an agriculture vice president, and more recently an
arts and science vice president--those dynamics remain, he observed, but the University must arrange its
administration on the basis of the academic enterprise, not in response to pressures from elsewhere. The
varying interests can be cultivated, he observed, without appointing vice presidents.
"Given my druthers," said one Committee member, a single provost for the entire Twin Cities
campus would be best. With different vice presidents, each fights for his or her own turf, and
cooperation doesn't occur no matter how much it is sought. But the option of only one provost is
unavailable, so the question is how many. If two, what would be built into the structure to ensure
cooperation in graduate and undergraduate education--in the academic ENTERPRISE. Right now, if a
department in the health sciences does not want to participate in undergraduate education, there is
nothing the administration can do! That is not the ways things should be at the University--which is,
after all, a collection of colleges that are supposed to work together to provide education.
Questioned about the extent to which this would flatten the administration, the President pointed
out that it eliminates one layer in the reporting line:
department head --> dean --> provost --> president
rather than
department head --> dean --> vice president --> senior vice president --> president.
Asked if there would be fewer people, the President said that some may have to be reassigned to a level
where they are needed.
In industry, observed one Committee member, administrative flattening occurs in order to cut
costs; that hasn't been identified as an objective. President Hasselmo said that he would make every
effort to save money but did not know if that would be possible, given the recent cuts that have already
been imposed on the administration. He said he did not want to hold out savings as a major prospect;
some savings might occur by assigning people to a place where they would do the most good.
The President emphasized that he wanted the Committee's views, including whether or not the
provostal structure was desirable. He concurred that the University is locked into the health sciences
provost--he pointed out that he had worked with the old system for five years and concluded that it did
not work; he accepted the new structure as a necessity. The change was not a response to pressure, he
assured the Committee; he concluded that it was best for the University, given the pressures that exist. It
will also be the best way to get action in demanding interdisciplinary activities, he added.
When one looks at universities, one Committee member recounted, one sees that their first reaction
to difficulties is restructuring, even though the problems may not be structural. Restructuring takes a lot
of energy and it can be three or four years before an organization functions smoothly again after
reorganization. Has he considered alternatives to reorganization to make the system work, the President
was asked? Conservation of administrator time is an enormous priority; it is more important to worry
about the issues than structure.
Faculty Consultative Committee
February 17, 1994
5
The President agreed. The driving force behind the proposal, he said, is the need to clarify
accountability and authority. One could start with the existing structure; the position of SVPAA is
reasonably clearly defined--but it is unmanageable because there is too much to do. The vice presidents
for Agriculture and AS&E have an ambiguous role; the professional schools are free-floating because the
SVPAA hasn't the time to attend carefully to them. One could solve the problem by having the deans
report to the SVPAA--but then one has a provostal structure.
One could temporize, it was said, by splitting up the responsibilities of Dr. Infante's position. First
get the vision in place, and make progress on key components of strategic planning, and then look at the
position. The SVPAA position IS unmanageable, it was agreed. But would not splitting the position
effectively result in an ill-defined provost system, the President inquired? Over the long-term, yes, it was
said, but meanwhile he could lose the individuals currently in vice presidential positions--people who
know how the system operates. That would also cause harm. One must be concerned about talented
administrators spending their energy on making a new system operate well. One needn't OPPOSE
restructuring, but these issues need to be discussed by the deans and vice presidents.
The President concurred that harm could be done. But, he said, issues of management keep
driving him to the structural questions and the provostal option. The University has excellent people in
place now, he emphasized, and he wants to retain all of them, so any transition must indeed be careful to
keep them. He said he wanted to be CRYSTAL clear that is NOT a plan designed to get rid of anyone.
In fact, he observed, it is the vice presidents themselves who are telling him their jobs are ill-defined. He
said he hoped that the best structure could be identified and also the transition necessary to get to it.
Asked if he believed the chancellor system worked for the coordinate campuses, the President said
he did. Further definition of the independent authority and accountability of the chancellors may be
needed, and things sometimes come to the President's office that should have stayed with the Chancellor.
Generally, however, that structure seems to work well and he does not intend to change it.
Does this add another layer of administration, inquired one Committee member? Vice presidents
were added a few years ago, with the attendant new bureaucracy; would they now be shifted to new
positions while the provosts are added? The University does not need another layer, it was asserted.
"Heavens no," the President muttered.
One management problem, it was said, is that widely disparate units are defined at the same level
(for example, the CLA and IT deans are equated with deans of units that are in some cases the size of
CLA or IT departments). Deans are not comparable; in some senses, the CLA and IT deans are vice
presidents who manage institutions the size of universities. Reorganization needs to look one more layer
down to consider people with comparable responsibilities. The President concurred.
One can also ask what the logical management components of a university are, it was suggested.
One starts with departments and colleges, organized on academic subject lines, which makes sense. Then
there are cross-cutting issues, such as graduate and undergraduate education and research--which are
independent of each other and cut across all disciplines. Should management be unified at that level?
Looking at the University's management seems like a good idea, because it does appear confused, but one
can be worried that one is only putting on patches.
Faculty Consultative Committee
February 17, 1994
6
The President observed that the University operates in many dimensions, they are not all sorted
out, and many are linked. The structure has to be arranged around primary considerations, such as which
disciplines the University should have in research and teaching and what it should invest in--that is why
the traditional organization has existed. With the cross-cutting matters, there are other structures. These
various structures have to be reconciled. He said he is trying to obtain one that considers budget,
personnel, and facilities issues at the provostal level. There will also be cross-cutting units--he is
persuaded, he said, that the need for the system-wide Graduate School will remain. But it does get
complicated, he agreed.
One Committee member expressed support for the question whether structural issues are also
fundamental, since the President has identified authority and accountability issues that are directly
related to them. There remains a need to think about where there are weaknesses outside the President's
office and central administration. For example, one finds that department heads and colleges often do
not share a common vision with the leadership of what the University is trying to do, which is a problem
that must dealt with. Often, what faculty want is not what the University wants; how does the University
respond? Not well, it was said.
Moreover, it must be asked how units think about their work in relation to structural questions.
Answers are not clear, but the deans of IT and CLA appear to be caught in a bind--they must adjust to
what needs to be done without much control over what must be done. It is not clear how a provost can
influence unit decisions and faculty work to align them better with Regents' decisions about where the
University is going for the next 20 years. The focus needs to remain on the deans, who must carry the
University forward, while also watching the interests of their faculty. It must also be on making sure that
faculty know what their job is; one has a sense that many do not understand that their responsibilities go
beyond teaching and research--especially at this university.
The President agreed that scrutiny should start at the department and how activities are organized;
thereafter the needed superstructure can be considered. How to do that with over 200 departments,
however, is not clear. So he is looking at the management structure at the provost level in order to help
the deans. If the administration is to be flatten, the President was told, the discussion must engage the
deans and faculty so they understand their jobs. The President agreed that they must be part of the
discussion about authority and accountability, especially when critical decisions about resource
allocation will be made at the department level. Establishing a provostal system will not solve the
problems--it is only one step, he added.
How would the current vice presidents fit in the structure, the President was asked--if at all? He
said he did not know and is grappling with the question. All represent important functions and it is not
clear what should be provostal responsibilities and what should be retained centrally. Even with two or
three provosts, there would continue to be a need for a system-wide Graduate School; there are also
cross-cutting student affairs issues. He repeated that no final solution has been identified and said that
possible savings must also be sought.
Some of the confusion arises from the two vice presidencies already mentioned (Agriculture and
AS&E); if a provost system would simplify the administration, would those positions be folded into the
provosts? The President again said he did not know yet. There are line responsibilities in those
Faculty Consultative Committee
February 17, 1994
7
positions, he noted, and those should be in the hands of a provost. But there are also cross-cutting
responsibilities that should be retained centrally. The President assured the Committee that he had no
intention of allowing a proliferation of administrative positions nor of increased expenses centrally.
One Committee member contended that form must follow function and that the organization must,
in any event, support the University's goals. It is important, it was said, that one person have authority
and responsibility for undergraduate education--if it is to be emphasized, one person must have
responsibility who can manage across the system. That will not be easy.
Another Committee member offered comments about both of the senior vice president positions.
They both have a problem with span of authority, it was said. Their responsibilities are overwhelming,
combining a wide range of staff and line duties. All members of the Committee have been involved with
the U2000 planning and have seen the two struggle with those responsibilities. It isn't clear whether the
University has an organization that adequately permits strategic planning, policy formulation,
monitoring, and priority setting without having to sacrifice other duties, such as budgeting and
supervising the activities of line organizations (e.g., colleges).
To the extent responsibilities are redefined so that one individual is responsible for all that he or
she needs to be, the current responsibilities, both central as well as line, of the two senior vice presidents
are too large and cannot be tied together. Moreover, there is an element of conflict of interest in the
senior vice presidents' jobs as currently described; it is difficult for them to objectively plan and set
policy while at the same time being required to negotiate budgets and supervise the performance of line
organizations. This also has to be sorted out.
Professor Garrard thanked the President for joining the meeting.
3.
Report of the Chair, cont.
There are four major items on the agenda now, Professor Garrard summarized: U2000,
Responsibility Centered Management (hereinafter RCM), reorganization, and the budget. She agreed
that the President should be asked if he concurs with that list.
The Committee decided it wished to discuss the question of reorganization as a committee of the
whole and that it wished to obtain something on paper. Professor Garrard agreed to find out from the
President his proposed schedule for considering reorganization.
Professor Heller then reported on the recent discussion by SCEP of University College. The
question has been changed, he said, from that of "who"--which students should be in which unit--to
"what time of day"--which presumes one student body. Rather than focus on kinds of students, attention
has been directed to making the campus more accessible. This is a significant redefinition of University
College that addresses some problems while finessing the question of heterogeneity of students in
classrooms.
4.
Discussion with Senior Vice President Infante
Faculty Consultative Committee
February 17, 1994
8
Professor Garrard then welcomed Dr. Infante to the meeting, who joined the discussion of
University College. He said that UC is in an evolutionary stage; it is to be hoped, he said, that the best
characteristics of CEE will be retained. His own view is to ask after the best way to respond to student
needs in a sensible way. A primary objective should be to keep things simple; the University is too
complex. He said he is raising questions about the existing structure of Summer Session and CEE, with
respect to University College, and affirmed that responsibility for academic issues must lie in the
departments. He added that the responsibility has sometimes not been exercised at that level, which is
one of the reasons he is seeking exploration of Responsibility Centered Management.
Dr. Infante commented that he was disappointed that cluster planning has not proceeded faster.
Curriculum will be a key issue, he said, because there are a number of institutional problems and costs
related to it. Departments and colleges cannot readily address curricular issues while the clusters can.
He said he would continue to push for cluster planning until he is proven wrong.
Dr. Infante agreed that the implications of Responsibility Centered Management should be thought
out before it is implemented. The homework should be done over the next six months or so and a
decision point reached within a year. The illumination of costs is inevitable, he said, because he will do
that whether or not RCM is adopted. It is the unknowns, it was said, that are causing many of the
concerns.
Much is now uncertain, Dr. Infante agreed. He related that he had been puzzled about non-0100
instructional income in one unit and how it affected cost studies; there is a lot of income, he said, that is
not 0100. But the more time he spends on the details, he said, the more he believes in RCM. The
Committee, he said, would see all the information.
Discussion turned to salaries. Dr. Infante distributed copies of a memo he has sent to all unit
administrators; it calls for full distribution of the 6% salary increase and directs that funds may NOT be
"withheld for other purposes such as the funding of retention offers." He agreed that if a unit also makes
retention offers, the average raise could be more than 6%. Professor Garrard commented that she had
advised the senior vice presidents that it was important that continuing faculty receive, on July 1, an
average of 6%; they have so recommended. The 6%, Dr. Infante clarified in conversation, will be on the
full salary base of the unit, and that it is the intent of the administration that of all those whose
appointment continues will receive an average 6% salary increase. Implementation will be a different
matter, because none of the units are actually receiving the full 6% due to the $10.2 million that must be
retrenched.
Dr. Infante also clarified that there is no designated retention pool.
Committee members were still somewhat confused. If a unit may not give more than 6%, but must
deliver 6%, and if there are no funds for retention but retention offers may be made, then the average
increase could be more than 6%. Some retention funds may come from non-salary funds, Dr. Infante
said, and added that retention is a part of merit. The funds for promotional increases, he said, are also
part of the 6%.
Dr. Infante confirmed that increases in fringe benefit costs are NOT to included in the 6%; the
Faculty Consultative Committee
February 17, 1994
9
colleges have had, since last year, the funds to cover those increases.
One Committee member suggested to Dr. Infante that it is tradition that the salary memorandum he
distributed is reviewed by the Senate Committee on Faculty Affairs before it is sent. There have been
arguments about merit versus cost-of-living distributions in the past, it was pointed out, and it is the
proper function of faculty governance to comment on these issues before the decision is made. It may
now be too late to do so, but the administration is ill-advised to act without consultation on these matters.
Dr. Infante said he would inform Associate Vice President Carrier of the advice. He noted also that the
administration is following the salary policy that was adopted a year ago but promised that the
consultation would take place in the future.
Another Committee member asked about the impression that might be created because staff
salaries are apparently greater than faculty salaries. In the past, the administration has promised to treat
all employee groups equitably. The possible perception that there is a difference will be need to be
addressed. Dr. Infante said it is his understanding that the cost to the University of the two salary plans,
now and in the future, will be essentially the same. Committee members discussed the two plans at some
length with Dr. Infante, as well as associated fringe benefit costs. The bottom line is the 6% for
academic staff and 7.25% for civil service staff, said one Committee member; another said the issue is
perception. It would perhaps be useful for SCFA to discuss this with Dr. Carrier, it was suggested. One
member of the Committee commented that even if staff salaries were 1.25% higher they should not be
begrudged the increase because they deserved it. Another expressed doubt that the benefit over the long
term would be the same for both groups.
Dr. Infante also noted that there are a number of civil service staff members who are upset with the
cap on the increases for people already at the top of their range. What is not realized, he said, is that the
salary caps at the University for those positions are about 50% higher than similar positions in the state
or the private sector.
Dr. Infante then reviewed the capital request with the Committee. He noted the seven items that
had been approved by the Board of Regents (health and safety, Animal Science, Recreational Sports,
Mechanical Engineering, Architecture, Ag Experiment Stations, and assessments) and the two items that
had later been added (Archives and the Carlson School). Following a decision that it would be unwise to
incur obligations for the one-third of the debt service required for facilities, and thereby increase the
University's bonded indebtedness, the University only submitted items that would not require the
University to assume part of the debt (health and safety, building renewal, Archives, Carlson School, and
assessments).
The Governor's recommendation varied somewhat from that request. He reduced the health and
safety item, recommended postponing construction of the Archives facility, and added back Architecture
and Mechanical Engineering. The Architecture recommendation is full cost; the Mechanical Engineering
facility he expects the University to pay the one-third of the debt service from private funds. He also
added money for "Information Services Planning," because the state continually sees requests for
libraries and information systems from all institutions and believes there should be greater cooperation in
deciding what should be built.
The Board of Regents has decided not to change its request to match the Governor's
Faculty Consultative Committee
February 17, 1994
10
recommendations, but it did adopt a motion granting the administration flexibility to maximize what
could be accomplished. The President, Dr. Infante told the Committee, has been consistent in his view
that the University must be very careful about its indebtedness. The Governor's request is generous, he
said, even though it does skip over two of the Regents' seven priorities (Animal Science and Recreational
Sports).
Dr. Infante then turned to the supplemental legislative request. The request was prepared after
discussion between the President and the Governor about possible state support for U2000. There was a
very short period of time when the request could be prepared and sent to the state; the Finance and
Planning Committee, he noted, had reviewed and endorsed the request.
The request was constructed on the basis of conversations that have been held over a long period
of time with deans and governance committees. 88% of the request is for non-recurring funds (thereby
avoiding arguments about "tails" in future state budgets); the other 12% is for activities that need
recurring funding. He briefly reviewed the recurring funding items. The non-recurring items fall in three
categories, he told the Committee: (1) infrastructure (computers, classrooms, technology); (2) libraries;
and (3) student services and campus environment.
Library inflation has been running at 9 - 10% per year and greater access is desired; those can be
accommodated only by cutting purchases or taking money from other units. Asked if the University had
considered access charges for the libraries for people outside the University, Dr. Infante said he would
hate to see the University move in that direction, as a land-grant institution. If the University were to
start charging, the consequences could be undesirable; would there also be internal charges?
One Committee member then inquired if thought has been given to the ramifications of the
elimination of mandatory retirement for U2000 planning. Departments will no longer be able to rely on
money from turnover in personnel, so the degrees of freedom in planning will be reduced. Dr. Infante
said he believed the issue would have a high priority. One thing that requires clarification is the
relationship between the University and retired faculty to be sure that there is integration and capacity to
accommodate them. There also remains to be established a system of post-tenure reviews. One was
proposed under the tenure of his predecessor but it was not adopted. (Because, said one Committee
member, it was too complicated and unappealing.) Professor Garrard said it would be more desirable to
have the faculty develop such a policy and submit it to the administration, rather than the other way
around.
The Committee and Dr. Infante also agreed that the question raised by the DAILY article about
American Indian students is an important one that needs to be addressed.
Professor Garrard then adjourned the meeting at 1:40 so Dr. Infante and Committee members
could attend the Senate meeting.
-- Gary Engstrand
University of Minnesota