Minutes*
Faculty Consultative Committee
Thursday, November 17, 1994
12:30 - 3:00
Dale Shephard Room, Campus Club
Present:
John Adams (chair), Carl Adams, Thomas Burk, Sheila Corcoran-Perry, Dan Feeney,
Virginia Gray, James Gremmels, Roberta Humphreys, Morris Kleiner, Geoffrey
Maruyama, Harvey Peterson, Michael Steffes, Gerhard Weiss
Regrets:
Kenneth Heller
Absent:
Lester Drewes, Robert Jones
Guests:
Associate Vice President Carol Carrier, Professor Robert Holt, General Counsel Mark
Rotenberg, Professor David Ward
Others:
Martha Kvanbeck (University Senate), Maureen Smith (University Relations)
[In these minutes: Several miscellaneous but important items; confidentiality in reviews of
administrators; Judicial Committee issues and problems; role of the Vice President for Research and
Dean of the Graduate School in the reorganization]
1.
Various Items of Business
Professor Adams convened the meeting at 12:30 and told his colleagues that there were a number
of issues that they needed to deal with.
--
It has been noted by Rabun Taylor that the Academic Freedom statement is scheduled for the
Board of Regents for information in February and action in March--which would not permit timely
consideration of the statement at the February and May Senate meetings. Should the Board be
asked to defer consideration, pending Senate review? It may be that the item has already been
postponed; Professor Adams agreed to check.
There are two views on the statement, Professor Adams noted: one, do a simple remodeled
version of the 1938 statement, and do it promptly; two, there are more issues that need to be
addressed, at a greater level of detail; proponents of the first view believe the second would insert
materials inappropriate to a policy statement. Committee members who spoke urged a simple and
straightforward statement, with only minor changes in the 1938 version.
--
There has been a new statement, "Report on Strategic Planning," from the Provostal Subcommittee
(co-chaired by Senior Vice President Infante and Associate Vice President Pfutzenreuter) to the
*
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
November 17, 1994
2
Transition Task Force. It defines the roles, responsibilities, and requirements for each level of
academic administration: President/central administration, provost/chancellor, college, and
department. The Transition Task Force is the group advising on the distribution of work between
the provosts and central administration. The Committee on Finance and Planning will take it up
on December 13, Professor Gray reported.
--
There has been a question raised about the status of University College; it was reported that the
Committee on Educational Policy has this as one of its agenda items.
--
University Relations has asked whether anyone has opinions about FOOTNOTE. Professor
Feeney reported that the Committee on Faculty Affairs is considering the issue of a faculty
newspaper or magazine that would be news-based, not part of faculty governance, that would
provide a variety of information to faculty, and will be back to the Committee in January.
Committee members deliberated a number of ways to improve communication with the faculty.
FOOTNOTE received generally approbative comments. One suggestion was that since FCC
members are occasionally criticized as professional governance types who do not represent faculty
("governance junkies," in the words of another Committee member), perhaps an interview from
time to time with an FCC member, to illuminate what they do, might be helpful.
--
Professor Feeney has suggested a joint meeting with FCC and the Committee on Faculty Affairs.
Professor Feeney explained the background to the proposition--primarily related to faculty
perceptions of the administration and its attitude towards the faculty, and the perception that only
Consultative Committee members have all the information. It was agreed that the issues would be
discussed at the December 1 FCC meeting, and the joint meeting would be held on December 15.
--
There has been a flap, now apparently resolved, about possible cancellation of the fifth year of the
Restructuring and Reallocation plan. Several individuals wrote to the administration, when they
learned of this proposal, and several "deans jumped off chairs" and asked for clarification. The
President has now written to clarify that year five is in place and will not be cancelled, and that as
soon as the budget situation with respect to the legislature is clarified, year one of U2000 will be
put in place in ways that accommodate year five of the earlier plan.
The earlier document, from the Budget and Finance Office, was quite clear that year five was
CANCELLED, pointed out one Committee member, and the chairs in one college were VERY
upset. This type of memo does not increase confidence in the administration.
Professor Gray reported that the Finance and Planning Committee was amazed that such a big
decision was made, not only without consulting the faculty but apparently without much
administrative consultation, either. Faculty reacted strongly because that kind of decision
undervalues participation in the planning process: faculty work and work on plans, and then later
they are casually thrown out. If that is the case, why should they work on U2000? The memos
that have been issued seem to be clear in part and not in other parts, so it seems that this is an issue
that will bear careful scrutiny for the rest of the year.
Is there not a technical question of phasing the budget process, and this was a first and mechanical
Faculty Consultative Committee
November 17, 1994
3
step? Last year, it was said, the reallocation funds were included in this phase; this year they were
not. Is there not also a problem of talking with the budget people but not understanding what they
are saying? What does seem clear is that the initial letter from Associate Vice President
Pfutzenreuter to line officers was procedurally out of order.
When the deans raised questions about the decision with Senior Vice President Infante and asked
if there were a mistake, it was reported, Dr. Infante said there was not. Senior Vice President
Erickson defended the decision at the Finance and Planning meeting. How, all of a sudden, can it
be a mistake?
It was troublesome to learn that the Senior Vice Presidents defended the policy and the President
was left to backfill and smooth feelings. Would this have all gone through if CLA had not raised
questions? This raises the issue of duplicity; other interpretations may be too generous.
It will be important for the Committee to keep an eye on this issue all year, it was said; it can aid
the line officers, who are in more vulnerable positions than are Committee members. Senior Vice
President Infante will be at the next Finance and Planning Committee meeting, on December 6, to
discuss the issue, Professor Gray reported.
--
There have been incidents affecting individual faculty health care coverage that have been serious;
what has happened? Professor Feeney reported that the Director of Employee Benefits, Dianne
Mulvihill, has taken steps to cover most of the problems that have arisen (most of which are
related to faculty on leave or termination notices for faculty on nine-month appointments). One
problem at Morris--which may be spreading to the other campuses--is the appointment of
temporary, non-continuous faculty for 9-month appointments: if a termination notice is issued for
June, they only receive 8 months of coverage (because there is an initial one-month waiting period
before coverage takes effect); if no termination notice, coverage is for the year, since the premiums
are paid for a full year.
This raises the larger issue about putting the faculty on 12-month contracts, said one Committee
member; Professor Adams agreed that it should be revisited in order that the University pay people
for what they do here, and match reality with appointments.
2.
Confidentiality in Reviews of Administrators
Professor Adams next welcomed Associate Vice President Carrier and General Counsel Mark
Rotenberg to discuss the legal issues associated with reviews of administrators. He noted that there has
been a recurring concern about what must be, and what need not be, confidential when feedback is
sought on administrator performance. How can the law be honored, and fair and complete reviews
performed, when people in vulnerable positions may cause trouble for themselves if they are frank?
Dr. Carrier pointed out that Professor Feeney has appointed a small group of Faculty Affairs
members to look at the administrative review process, and that Senior Vice President Infante has also
asked for the development of a process of review that would standardize them, at least for central
officers. The two groups will coordinate their efforts.
Faculty Consultative Committee
November 17, 1994
4
Mr. Rotenberg expressed pleasure at joining the Committee, his first opportunity since being
appointed General Counsel. He invited Committee members to contact him about any interest or concern
they may have related to any legal position of the University.
Before becoming General Counsel, he related, he was a labor and employment litigator, and had
experience counseling clients regarding evaluations of administrators and avoiding claims of retaliation.
His clients, however, were principally large private sector corporations; at the University, everyone is a
public employee, and constrained by the Data Practices Act--which gives employees the right to see their
personnel files. In this context--which is not the same for the private sector--ANY evaluative
documentation maintained by the employer (including committees appointed to conduct evaluations for
the employer, by delegation of authority) must be available for inspection by the employee. That
presents a problem: if all evaluative documents are to be made available to the employee, how does the
University protect against retaliation? There is no magic answer, but there are at least a couple of things
that can be done.
First, oral conversations with the evaluator can remain confidential. One can make an appointment
to meet with the evaluator--which itself remains confidential--and orally describe concerns, which can be
taken into account in the review. The information should be incorporated in some kind of documentary
form (assuming it is negative) so that the employee being reviewed can respond--and if returned to the
position, to help the employee improve. That is simply good human resources practice. But people can
be encouraged to come forward and provide information in this way.
So, Dr. Carrier hypothesized, the Provost can appoint one or two faculty as recorders in the review
of a dean; people can talk to those recorders and be confident their remarks will remain confidential but
that they will go into the record? Yes, as long as the recorders do not reveal the names of those with
whom they spoke, Mr. Rotenberg said. The process may need some tweaking, he pointed out, in order to
have a fair evaluation; administrators should not be confronted by volumes of hearsay evidence and no
means to address it. Recorders, in that example, need to provide enough detail that the administrator can
respond to the concern.
The second possibility is to send out a survey and not solicit personal identification from the
respondents, Mr. Rotenberg said. The surveys should contained focused questions related to the
individual's job description. The review committee and appointing authority can take the surveys into
account, and they will be anonymous.
These two options sound reasonable, said one Committee member; why have they not been
practiced around the University? In the case of the review of Senior Vice President Infante, for example,
the two choices for participation were to attend an open meeting or submit a signed letter. The faculty
are evaluated anonymously in their classes; why not administrators? There has been no uniformity in
evaluation, Dr. Carrier said; every different approach has been used.
Another Committee member recalls having been told that any unsigned documents are to be
discarded out of hand. Is that true? Mr. Rotenberg replied that within the confines of the law, there are
prudent and imprudent things one can do. One might NOT accept unsigned documents; that may not be
prudent, however. The Data Practices Act does NOT require everyone to sign a document--nor does it
violate the law for an evaluator to REJECT all unsigned documents. All the law provides is that any
Faculty Consultative Committee
November 17, 1994
5
document related to the employment status of the employee that is maintained by the employer must be
made available to the employee.
What determines what goes into the file, asked one Committee member? A team investigates and
takes notes of its conversations, then submits a summary of the notes to the review committee; what is
the status of the notes? Are they part of the file? Inclusion of summaries without attribution is not a
problem, but the status of written notes can be. Does this relate to the distinction between imprudent and
illegal?
The law has swallowed up much discretion, Mr. Rotenberg responded, but not in this case--there is
a lot that administrators can do that is wise or stupid in terms of determining what will be in the file. If
the Regents or Dr. Infante or University policy say that raw notes should be summarized and placed in
the file, the law will hold the University accountable if that summary is not placed there--but not for the
raw notes, if University policy is not to maintain them in any official way. Those notes can be disposed
of. So, concluded one Committee member, if the University were to begin using a uniform evaluation
protocol, doing so could open up opportunities not now available as well as define the boundaries of the
process.
Another Committee member raised two questions. First, it has been said that if some kind of
recorders are used, the names of those who spoke to the recorders must be disclosed; is that true?
Second, in terms of anonymous letters, the responses have been varied: a lot of people will not submit
such letters; others say they must be signed or cannot be accepted. Is the policy that one can write
anonymous letters? There is widespread concern that if one cannot, the entire review process is
compromised.
Yet another Committee member recalled an incident in which three essential individuals had not
participated in an administrative review; the comments of the three were obtained by one member of the
review committee and summarized for the review. After the review, the office was reorganized and those
three individuals lost their jobs; it APPEARED to be retaliation. If the information obtained is too
specific, and the individual being reviewed knows who they are, the University cannot shield them, If
that is what happens, faculty are going to simply ignore the entire evaluation process. Can one ask, on a
survey, if the administrator should be removed?
Yes, Mr. Rotenberg said. One can lawfully ask anything that does not seek discriminatory or
irrelevant information.
It was suggested that the practices in Vice President Allen's units might be examined as worth
emulating. There is a policy that every administrator should be reviewed every year as well as
periodically, Dr. Carrier commented, but the administration hears occasionally from someone who hasn't
been reviewed in years. The annual reviews, said one Committee member, are not effective and
perfunctory.
Another Committee member said there is no good reason not to have anonymous reviews--faculty
NSF proposals are reviewed that way, as are papers, and as are faculty by students. A method could be
devised. When a student applies to a program, there is often a box that can be checked indicating the
student forgoes the right to see what is in the file; could that same option be used in reviews? Mr.
Faculty Consultative Committee
November 17, 1994
6
Rotenberg said he did not know if such a provision would hold up in court, and later agreed to provide
the Committee with a legal opinion on the issue, and whether there is a distinction between what student
applicants can do on a form and what administrators who are being reviewed might be able to do.
This has been confusing, said one Committee member. In the case of a review of one dean, the
faculty were told to submit signed letters; many refused to do so. When the central office was asked,
they were told a signature was required or the letter would be discarded, although confidentiality for
signed letters was assured if they were sent. From what has been said today, such confidentiality could
not be guaranteed, but that signatures were not required. One way to obtain information might be to have
a name and signature on the outside envelope, to ensure that it is a legitimate source of information, but
then to discard the envelope and retain the unsigned letter.
This suggests that the Committee should push hard to establish a uniform, coherent procedure that
meets with the requirements of the law.
Until a policy is established, must the University require signed evaluations, asked another
Committee member? The law does not require them, Mr. Rotenberg reaffirmed. If the evaluator judges
that good information will not be received unless the evaluations are signed, that is a matter of prudent
judgment. Some evaluators may conclude that anonymous information is not reliable; others may
conclude that a fuller range of views will be obtain if signatures are not required. The LAW does not
require signatures.
May a review committee look at the report of a previous review committee? There is nothing
unlawful about letting an evaluator look at a previous review, Mr. Rotenberg said; such a practice may or
may not be good human resources practice, but the law does not speak to it.
What about disposition of the review committee report? Usually no one knows anything, except
that the individual has been reappointed. The report, said another Committee member, goes to the person
who makes the appointment; once the review is complete, the job is done and the review committee has
no continuing existence. There is no obligation to report how things turned out, Dr. Carrier said.
Professor Adams said the Committee will wish to hear later in the year about progress in the
development of a uniform procedure. He thanked Dr. Carrier and Mr. Rotenberg for joining the meeting.
3.
Judicial Committee Issues
Professor Adams welcomed Professor David Ward, chair of the Senate Judicial Committee, to
report to FCC on the functioning of the Judicial Committee and the questions that need the attention of
FCC.
For the first part of his discussion, Professor Ward asked that the meeting be closed in order to
discuss the issues associated with cases currently in front of the Judicial Committee.
Following the review of cases, Professor Ward noted that the Minnesota Court of Appeals had
offered some harsh criticisms of the way the Judicial Committee operated, so some of its rules must be
changed. The changes to be proposed will be brought back to FCC later in the year.
Faculty Consultative Committee
November 17, 1994
7
Professor Ward then described some of the difficulties the Judicial Committee faces. Each year,
one-third of its members--the most experienced ones--rotate off, and in any given year faculty are on
leave, must work on grants, and so on, and this year four of the new members are unable to attend any of
the meetings. As a result, the pool of experienced individuals who can serve on panels is too small. Next
year, many of the members will have very little experience in the committee's work. And many
committee members refuse to serve as hearing officers--they do not want to deal with banks of attorneys
and complicated legal motions.
He has appointed a subcommittee to work on changing the procedures, in accord with the Court of
Appeals comments, so that professors do not have to interpret complicated legal documents. The result
will be that the proceedings will be more like a military court-martial: the panel will hear questions and
answers but will not conduct the hearings. The cost of faculty participation, however, is high, and they
know that everything they do can go to the Court of Appeals for review, so they must try to ensure there
are no procedural faults.
With more complicated cases, such as termination and tenure denial, there is a need for a different
way to appoint committee members--but it should remain all-faculty. Professor Ward said he speaks with
EVERY complainant, and all believe their best hope is for their case to be heard by a panel of peers, not
a panel of lawyers. There are other models for appointment. Each side in a case has the right to one
peremptory challenge, he told the Committee, and if a faculty member has been either a complainant or
an administrator, they are almost invariably challenged by one side or the other--one individual was
challenged in every case, and finally resigned from the committee because she could not serve on panels.
Serving on a panel is a very time-consuming effort for faculty; there is a lot to read and the
hearings can take three full days and evenings--and they are usually scheduled for weekends, which is the
most convenient for panel members. The Committee also operates year-round, and it has been lucky to
have nine-month faculty who have been willing to participate during the summer. They now receive a
small stipend for doing so.
The Committee on Committees, reported two members of FCC, has a hard time with Judicial
Committee appointments. Many faculty say they are willing to serve, but do not realize what is involved;
there has to be something done about faculty expectations. It may be that they need to be relieved of
coursework or other academic responsibilities, because they cannot serve effectively if they are not.
Another problem, said one Committee member, is that the General Counsel represents the
University, not the faculty; there needs to be a focus that reflects faculty interests. The Judicial
Committee now has its own legal counsel, Professor Ward commented; he recalled that he had told the
President that he and all the members of the committee would resign if they did not obtain their own
counsel. But it is very easy, he said, to let the attorney run everything; one panel member has
complained that the lawyer "should be on tap, not on top." The process works well, he concluded, but it
is appealing to let the lawyer run things.
FCC will receive proposed changes later in the year, Professor Ward affirmed, but in the meantime
something must be done about appointment and tenure of members. They either must serve longer terms,
Faculty Consultative Committee
November 17, 1994
8
so all the experienced members don't rotate off, or the lawyers will indeed run things.
Professor Adams thanked Professor Ward for meeting with the Committee and promised to
consider the issues he had raised.
4.
Role of the Vice President for Research and Dean of the Graduate School
Professor Adams turned to Professor Robert Holt, former Dean of the Graduate School, to talk
about the role of the Vice President for Research and Dean of the Graduate School (hereinafter
VPRDGS)--a position he was instrumental in having established.
Professor Holt commented that several questions have come up about the position of the
VPRDGS; one question he said he does NOT know why arises is whether to have the position. One can
ask why have a provost or a vice president just as well. One suspects it comes up, he said, because one
role exercised by the Graduate School is quality control; asking if the Graduate School should exist is
like asking the foxes if the farmers should guard the chicken coop. And there are foxes out there, he
added.
One question, given the position, is whether it should be one person or two. A central feature of
the research and graduate education enterprise in the United States, at least since World War II, is that
the two are tied closely together; there are relatively few governmental institutes to do research, unlike in
other countries. The United States made the decision that much basic research would occur in
universities and be tied to graduate education, with the students as apprentices and as young blood.
This form of graduate education is the envy of the world, Professor Holt said. A recent survey of
top executives of foreign companies with U.S. operations asked them what they most liked about the
United States and wanted to emulate in their own countries; at the top of the list, by far, the American
research university, where graduate education and research are combined. Graduate education policies
are research policies, and vice-versa, he said, and universities work best when they are together.
There are a number of organizational patterns for graduate education and research. One is to have
one central officer responsible for graduate education and research; this is the model, for example, at
Wisconsin, Berkeley, and Texas (with varying titles and jurisdictions). Another is to have a Vice
President for Research, and a Dean of the Graduate School, where both are central officers who
essentially hold vice presidential rank and sit on cabinets and so on; this is the model at Michigan and
UCLA. These two organizational structures work very well.
Some patterns do NOT work, he said. One is to have a Vice President for Research, and a Dean of
the Graduate School who reports to the Vice President for Research; problems emerge. This has been the
structure at Michigan State, Penn State, and until recently, Iowa. Another model that is not appropriate
for Minnesota is to not have a Dean of the Graduate School, which is the case at Chicago, Johns Hopkins
(in effect), and until recently at Harvard. It works at those institutions because they are mirror-images of
the University of Minnesota--they have large graduate student enrollments and smaller undergraduate
numbers.
The Vice President for Research fulfills a service function, said one Committee member, while the
Faculty Consultative Committee
November 17, 1994
9
Dean of the Graduate School is an academic officer. The problem here has been that the research
enterprise has not been seen as a service entity.
Professor Holt said he would get to that issue. But the structure does affect incentives, he
observed. His preference is for the VPRDGS to be one person and not to think of the "research side" and
the "graduate education side." To think of them that way misses the point.
In the new organization of the administration, especially, to have the individual as part of the
central staff and decision-making bodies will be terribly important, Professor Holt said. In any big
organization, there are two kinds of information needed to make important decisions: aggregated data
(average cost per student credit hour, and so on), and good disaggregated data (what is happening in one
program compared to what is happening in another). If one is reallocating funds, and if one wants to
support the best departments, one doesn't ask each dean to identify the ten best departments in the
college--the best department in one college may be worse than the ten best in another. The Dean of the
Graduate School has this information. The information the provosts and vice presidents have all comes
up the chain of command and is aggregated; for sound decision-making, the University needs someone
like the Dean of the Graduate School involved who bring disaggregated information to the central
decision-making process.
The administration also needs someone in close contact with the faculty. He recalled that between
Cabinet meetings, he sat with over 100 faculty, or over 250 per quarter; it was rare if anyone else had sat
down formally with more than 10. That contact with faculty provides a different perspective at the
central level; in one instance he could recall, the proposed wording of one report to the Board of Regents
was insulting to faculty. This could only be recognized by someone who had frequent interactions with
the faculty. The VPRDGS must be an equal member of major decision-making bodies.
One could interpret his remarks as a criticism of the administration, said one Committee member.
Professor Holt pointed out that one does not EXPECT central officers to spend all their time meeting
with faculty. One could change the administration, he agreed in response to a question, but the models at
other institutions work, and he said he knew of no place where every central officer is expected to meet
regularly with large numbers of faculty.
What is the unique role of the VPRDGS, asked one Committee member? One unique role is to be
responsible for policies on graduate education and research. A second derives from the fact that the
faculty is collectively responsible for the integrity of the Ph.D. degree; the Dean of the Graduate School
is their agent.
There are enormous pressures to undermine the integrity of the Ph.D. The accountants, for
example, may say a program is too expensive, and it could have two or three times as many students.
Most programs subject to that kind of pressure would increase the number of students--and then use the
numbers as evidence that they need additional funds--were there no quality control exercised. Many
programs cannot increase the number of undergraduates, but they can increase their graduate
enrollments. In one program he recalled, Dr. Holt, EVERY applicant was in the bottom half of their
undergraduate class; he pointed that out. The system provides incentives to operate that way; there must
be a place in the University that can say "no."
Faculty Consultative Committee
November 17, 1994
10
Professor Holt was asked about the promotion and tenure process and the role of the provosts and
VPRDGS. Under the reorganization, it was noted, promotion and tenure decisions would be made by the
provost, with only "technical" review by central administration. In the past, the office of Academic
Affairs has had responsibility for academic quality.
In his first three years as dean, Professor Holt recalled, he read EVERY promotion and tenure file-that was a source of disaggregated information. Those who have written of their experience as academic
administrators have related that they spent an enormous amount of time on hiring and promotion
decisions. If there is ONE thing a central officer should do, it is that, he said. It is partly a matter of the
quality of the FILES themselves, so one is able to assess candidates; some files are abysmal and prevent
evaluation of the individual. Others are excellent. It is important to have a place to look at files and tell
others how to prepare them. If he has one objection to the reorganization, he said, it is the end of the
central role in this function.
Another important role of the VPRDGS is that of inspector general, accomplished through such
activities as program reviews. Those kinds of evaluations bypass the chain of command, and are normal
in research universities. They are also very important; they provide information that would never come
up the chain of command (in one instance he recalled, the external review said a department would be
better off if it had fewer faculty--and the number fewer was two digits--what dean is going to pass that
information along, he asked?).
Should the authority of the position be retained by making it a system officer? Professor Holt
thought so. He said he has seen little rationale for the reorganization; what it appears to be is setting up
provosts as top administrators and the vice presidents as the general staff to do planning. But certain
chains of command will remain, such as in finance; the University cannot permit each provost to adopt a
different accounting system. The Graduate School works in the same fashion--it penetrates down and
deals in areas where the provosts cannot be autonomous because the impacts would go beyond their areas
of jurisdiction. In graduate education and research, for example, there must be control over highpowered instrumentation and over replication of faculty expertise in different departments--there is much
on the margins of graduate education and research that does not fall neatly within provostal jurisdiction.
What prevents the provosts from doing things differently? The President must prevent them,
Professor Holt said. Their jurisdiction must be clear. In his last years as dean, he recalled, he spent a
great deal of time on turf battles. If the reorganization is to work, the jurisdictional questions must be
dealt with at the outset.
Professor Holt agreed with the observation that the research function must be seen as service
activities (such as ORTTA), not an agglomeration of controls. If that does not happen, there will end up
being three ORTTAs and three different ICR rates, for example.
It is through the Dean's office, he said, that a broad base of faculty participate regularly and
systematically in decision-making. What is more important to the faculty than if ORTTA is not run right,
he asked?
There must be someone with a University-wide orientation. No one else, he pointed out, would
have worked to create the McKnight Land Grant professors--but he did, during the Minnesota Campaign,
Faculty Consultative Committee
November 17, 1994
11
to provide support for junior faculty. Over 100 have been appointed, he said, and very few have left the
University.
It is bothersome that the provosts have their own authority while that of the VPRDGS derives from
the President, said one Committee member. The Dean of the Graduate School should be responsible for
graduate education, not the provosts, Professor Holt responded, and that must be clear at the beginning.
He said he believed the Provost for the Arts and Sciences position description is deficient; the person will
have a lot to do but will be responsible for little. Decentralization should not occur unless the decision
space is partitioned, in disjunctive sets, so that autonomous decisions do not spill over into other areas.
After that, there are some things that are not covered, which is where the central staff comes in--finance,
University Relations, and graduate education, for example. If one wants the advantages of
decentralization, he maintained, the jurisdiction of the provosts must be specified.
His final point, he said, is that there are funds that the University should not want decentralized,
not under one provost. If the money is in their budgets, it will be spent. But there are times when the
University must be able to act quickly, in an evaluative way, and the VPRDGS can do so. It would take
three times as long to respond if all the funds are decentralized.
Professor Adams thanked Professor Holt for providing his views to the Committee, and then
adjourned the meeting at 3:00.
-- Gary Engstrand
University of Minnesota