Minutes*
Faculty Consultative Committee
Wednesday-Thursday, September 20-21, 1995
University of Minnesota, Morris
Present:
Carl Adams (chair), John Adams, Carole Bland, Lester Drewes, Dan Feeney, Virginia
Gray, James Gremmels, Robert Jones, Laura Coffin Koch, Geoffrey Maruyama, Harvey
Peterson, Michael Steffes
Regrets:
Victor Bloomfield, Roberta Humphreys, Fred Morrison
Absent:
None
Guests:
Chancellor David Johnson; Division Chairs C. Frederick Farrell, Michael Korth, Judy
Kuechle, Jooin Lee, and CEE Director Roger McCannon; Morris Consultative Committee
members Nancy Carpenter, Jennifred Nellis (faculty), David Dylla, Carol McCannon,
Nancy Mooney (staff), Eric Newall
Others:
Vickie Courtney, Martha Kvanbeck (University Senate)
[In these minutes: Committee priorities for the year; meetings with the West Central Experiment Station,
Chancellor David Johnson, the Morris Division Chairs, and the Morris Consultative Committee; U2000]
I. Wednesday, September 20
1.
Committee Business
Professor Adams convened the Committee at 8:00 p.m. to conduct several items of business. The
Committee reviewed the Senate budget and then discussed the establishment of Provostal Faculty
Consultative Committees under the aegis of the Twin Cities Campus Assembly (the constitutional and
bylaw amendments creating the provostal faculty consultative committees will likely be placed before the
Assembly at the November meeting). Professor Adams reported on the progress in scheduling meetings
with academic department chairs and heads, and the Committee then reviewed several lists of issues
pending and identified those that it wished to deal with during the 1995-96 academic year. (A copy of
the list is appended to these minutes.)
II.
Thursday, September 21
2.
Meeting at the West Central Experiment Station
FCC convened at 8:30 at the West Central Experiment Station, where it heard from the Station
Head, Dr. Gary Lemme (Soil Science), and from Dr. Dennis Johnson (Dairy Science). After viewing a
*
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 20-21, 1995
2
short video, FCC members discussed with Dr. Johnson the role of the Experiment Station, faculty
concerns about changes in their appointments to academic departments (it generally appears to have
worked quite well), working with graduate students, collaborative research, the support they receive in
order to do their work, the emphasis on sustainable agriculture and on both agriculture and the rural
community, the sources of funding for faculty research, the relationship between the Experiment Station
and the Morris Campus (minimal), and the future role of the Experiment Stations (leaders in application).
Johnson did point out the valuable connection with the UMM Computer Center and the internships they
offer for UMM students.
Professor Adams thanked Drs. Lemme and Johnson for their presentation.
3.
Discussion with Morris Chancellor David Johnson
FCC reconvened on the campus; Chancellor Johnson welcomed the Committee to Morris and
noted that since its founding in 1959, the campus has had an enormous impact on the west central region
of the state.
Dr. Johnson explained that there are three over-arching issues he believed it important the
Committee understand: funding, strengthening graduation rates, and the relationship between Morris and
the rest of the University.
On the issue of funding, Dr. Johnson said the University has never articulated how it will fund
Morris as a small, residential, liberal arts college. He has developed what he characterized as the "Morris
14," a mix of public and private liberal arts colleges (eight private colleges in Minnesota plus six public
colleges elsewhere in the country) with a profile very similar to that of the Morris campus; he told the
Committee that Morris should be at the average of that group of 14 in its funding.
The Morris campus is at 89% of the average of the 14 institutions in dollars spent per student in
direct educational expenditures, which is a fairly clear measure; at the same time, it has the same
commitment to the delivery of quality education to its students. He explained he did not believe it would
be to their advantage to compare salaries with the Twin Cities; it would be more fruitful to use the group
of 14; in the interests of morale and attracting high quality faculty, their salaries should be at the average
of the 14; it is 11% below the average.
The last classroom added to Morris was in 1972, so it is in many cases using facilities built for a
1910-1920 boarding school (the West Central Agriculture School). It does not have many alumni old
enough to have a lot of money to donate to the campus (its oldest alums who were of traditional age
when they enrolled at Morris are about 53), and with the requirement that the University pay 1/3 of the
debt service on construction, the campus has few options in capital construction and improvements.
Dr. Johnson described briefly the nature and interests of the student body (e.g., over half wish to
major in math, science, or pre-professional programs based on these disciplines) and noted that many
intend to transfer to the Twin Cities campus.
How is the campus to obtain the funding it needs? One way is to evaluate the balance between
tuition and enrollment; it could raise tuition in order to sequester funds for the future. The enrollment at
Faculty Consultative Committee
September 20-21, 1995
3
present is about 2000 students, which is probably optimal, Dr. Johnson said, if Morris is to continue to
attract and retain high quality students. Beyond that ceiling of about 2000, it would become another
medium-sized comprehensive public institution--but the only way to increase enrollment of high quality
students is to add professional programs (e.g., in nursing, accounting, business). But to do that would be
to change radically the mission of the Morris campus.
Should Morris raise tuition beyond the levels of the Duluth and Twin Cities undergraduate
programs? It already has, to some extent, and they have not yet seen an impact on their applicant pool. If
they were to raise it any more, he said, they believe the additional income must be used to invest in the
Morris campus.
Asked where the Morris campus stood in enrollment and tuition compared to the group of 14, Dr.
Johnson said the tuition is slightly higher than the public schools in the group, but aid is also somewhat
higher, so the cost to students is about the same. Morris is much cheaper than the private institutions
(although he agreed that the net cost to students may not be a great deal lower, given the ability of the
private institutions to tailor financial aid).
Asked about the problem of students transferring to the Twin Cities and the lack of infrastructure
for science courses in particular, Dr. Johnson said their enrollment and revenue problem could be
handled. With incoming classes of about 550, they only graduate about 325, and that includes a few
students who transfer in. They lose 14% of their students between the freshman and sophomore year-which is quite a high retention rate for public institutions), but another 15% transfer before their junior
year, most to the Twin Cities campus.
On the second issue, strengthening graduation rates, Dr. Johnson said they could make headway on
this if they could strengthen their majors. A liberal arts college cannot be a feeder school for another
institution, he observed, if it is to articulate a four-year liberal arts mission.
In response to a question about whether the Twin Cities campus could provide for Morris students
what Morris cannot offer, Dr. Johnson said that relates to the third major issue, the relationship of Morris
to the rest of the University. The future of the campus lies in a closer articulation with the other parts of
the University, especially the professional schools. Many of their majors in the sciences, for example, go
on to graduate school on the Twin Cities campus in IT. 100-150 Morris students say they want to go into
engineering, but splitting their undergraduate education between the two campuses gives them the worst
of both worlds. A model could be established whereby there are exchanges between the two campuses
(such as a junior term in the Twin Cities), so Morris students could take courses they need for
professional programs that Morris cannot offer. By the same token, Twin Cities students could gain
exposure to the outstanding teaching that Morris offers.
One hopes that the articulation between Morris and CLA could also be clear, said one Committee
member. Dr. Johnson agreed; Morris IS indebted to CLA, he said, and there are several programs they
do not have the resources to offer that COULD be done in conjunction with CLA. The model would be
nationally distinctive were it developed.
Asked about the number of students on financial aid, Dr. Johnson said it is among the highest in
public institutions, over 85%. Over half the students are from Greater Minnesota, with its lower wage
Faculty Consultative Committee
September 20-21, 1995
4
and salary levels.
The graduation rate of Morris students is low compared to the 8 private institutions and
respectable compared to the 6 publics. There is, Dr. Johnson pointed out, about a 20% difference in the
graduation rates of the two groups, primarily because of SES differences and the marketing that the
private institutions do to obtain the students they want.
Asked what response the campus has had to the vision they have articulated in the strategic
planning process, Dr. Johnson said the administration believes the reference group is sound and that
Morris needs to increase its revenues. They have also been told they should increase the size of the
student body or the tuition. He believes the former would be perilous for Morris. The major question is
whether they could keep any additional revenue they might generate. They have been asked, he said,
how they would use the revenues.
Asked where their students get the money for college, Dr. Johnson said much comes from state
financial aid, although that is declining. The remainder comes from families; the decline in financial aid
means that Morris may in the future have more students from an affluent and suburban constituency.
That is not what they want, he told the Committee; their aim is to have two-thirds of their students from
outside the metropolitan Twin Cities. Asked why, he said they enroll student leaders who have
performed well in high school, that it gives Morris a certain aura it wishes to retain, and it also generates
support in the legislature. They have not, however, been more selective with respect to metropolitan
applicants, he said. He said the goal has been a good one; this is a populist state, and with more and more
of the money located in the Twin Cities, Morris is an important institution to the rural communities. He
is not doctrinaire on the point, however.
One Committee member noted that on the issue of capital needs, one hears that the improvements
required are so enormous that they are overwhelming and that the viability of the campus is at stake. On
the other hand, being on the campus does not give one that sense. Are the needs about what would be
expected, or are they truly overwhelming? Dr. Johnson said there needs to be an understanding that an
enormous capital investment is required if the students are to be provided the education they are entitled
to. The plan, however, should be seen as a 20-year plan.
Professor Adams thanked Dr. Johnson for joining the Committee; after this members of the
Committee were given a brief tour of the campus, including some of the major "trouble spots."
4.
Discussion with the Division Chairs
Professor Adams welcomed the Morris Division chairs to the meeting: C. Frederick Farrell
(Humanities), Judy Kuechle (acting chair, education), Jooinn Lee (social sciences), Michael Korth
(science and mathematics), and Roger McCannon (Director of Continuing Education). He invited their
comments on whatever they believed the FCC should hear. A number of points were made in the
discussion.
--
Picking up on the point about the expense of the Morris campus, in the exchanges with Chancellor
Johnson, it was said that Morris is NOT that much more expensive than the Twin Cities in delivery
of lower division education (about $200 per student more), and Morris may be cheaper at the
Faculty Consultative Committee
September 20-21, 1995
5
upper division level. It is a cause for concern that there appears to be a widespread belief that
Morris is extremely expensive to operate. One problem is the projected capital needs, which if
linked to instructional costs, do make it seem more expensive.
--
On the issue of faculty development, Morris faculty enjoy the same opportunities as other faculty;
this is not seen as a problem. Faculty development has received more visibility, they have a
teaching center, and they have no problems in pursuing their research interests. Some would say
faculty at Morris have the best of two worlds, in their ability to do research while being part of a
group of 125 rather than 3000.
--
The main issue with respect to faculty morale is salary differentials with their comparison group.
--
Many of the students have a professional degree objective, so transfer to the Twin Cities after one
or two years. Committee members and the chairs discussed possible working relationships with
Twin Cities colleges in order to facilitate student retention at Morris while assisting Morris
students to enter Twin Cities graduate and professional programs. Collaborative programs between
the two campuses may be more practical than preferential treatment in the graduate admissions
process, but any steps that could be taken would encourage students to remain at Morris for their
degree.
The reasons why students leave has to be identified; Morris has changed from enrolling primarily
first-generation college students and many of them have plans well worked out. Often the reasons
for leaving are very personal, things about which the institution can do very little.
Students who stay at Morris report that they do so because they are connected to the community
outside their academic work, such as through student activities or the local area. Teaching is
important, but students must have other experiences as well.
--
Many comments made about "the University" actually refer to the Twin Cities; while Morris
welcomed decentralization, if it means they are cut off from the umbrella of the University, the
reaction would be different.
On the issue of decentralization, it seems strange to be planning for decentralization when the
administration has been reorganized to create system officers. It sometimes sounds like the
institution is moving to an "every tub on its own bottom" philosophy, and that may not be
desirable. One could draw that conclusion from much that has been written, said one FCC
member, and it could be carried too far, but the point is to bring closer together decisions,
consequences, and authority--something that is easier to say than do.
Some fear balkanization of the University, and FCC worries about that as much as the faculty at
Morris.
--
Professor Gremmels has been an effective representative for the Morris campus in the governance
system.
--
Morris is sometimes between a rock and a hard place, in that it is pushed to raise tuition more than
Faculty Consultative Committee
September 20-21, 1995
6
the Twin Cities while at the same time there is a limit to how much students can pay; they want a
high-quality public institution with low tuition. One reason is that private institutions can raise
tuition and raise aid (in part with the increased tuition income) and better control their admissions;
financial aid is now going in larger amounts to private college students. This would be more
difficult for Morris, if the point of raising tuition was to generate money for the campus. The
airlines, it was noted, have learned that the way to maximize revenue is to have a lot of people on
the airplanes at different prices.
Professor Adams thanked the division chairs for meeting with FCC and invited them to inform
FCC of any issues they believe the Committee should know of; FCC would try to play an appropriate role
in dealing with them.
5.
Discussion with the Morris Consultative Committee
Professor Adams next welcomed members of the Morris Consultative Committee to discuss issues
with FCC.
It was related that the Morris Consultative Committee had met the day before this meeting to
identify important to Morris that perhaps FCC could help with and about which the communication
should remain open. The issues they identified were these:
--
Resources, including the problem of poorly-maintained buildings, equipment maintenance for all
divisions, and classroom needs.
--
Salaries, although not necessarily comparisons with the Twin Cities faculty.
--
Tuition: with more money coming out of the student's pocket, how can Morris stay competitive?
Discussion then touched upon a number of related points.
--
One clear good story from Morris is the teaching; they do it extremely well, and students who
graduate go on to graduate and professional schools and do well. They have excellent rapport with
students, including doing research with them.
--
The reason so many students transfer is primarily due to programs; they cannot offer as many as
students want and cannot offer pre-engineering programs. Some come knowing Morris is
competitive; some may realize they will not be 4.0 students so go elsewhere to get a better GPA.
The extent to which the latter is true may vary by field.
--
If one compares between Morris and Carleton and must choose, the education delivered is
comparable so people decide on price. What the benefits at other institutions are was not known,
but students, teaching, and research opportunities are similar. In principle, low-income students
could go to other institutions as well as Morris, because of the availability of financial aid. Morris
has lost students to the private colleges because of the financial aid available and their ability to
put together better packages. Morris is under pressure to raise tuition because of the education it
delivers; as financial aid shrinks and tuition increases, what advantage does Morris offer over
Faculty Consultative Committee
September 20-21, 1995
7
other campuses of the University? It was suggested that Morris look more closely at how private
institutions management enrollment through financial aid and tuition. It was also suggested that
Morris could become more active in identifying how it would use increased revenues generated
from higher tuition.
--
A major concern for the Morris staff is overload; they have a skeletal crew trying to do too much.
It is a good place to work, and many staff have been on the campus a long time, but cuts have led
to people doing more and more jobs. There are slightly over 200 staff on the campus. AFSCME is
working on getting the last of the professional staff organized.
Overload is also a key issue with faculty; were enrollment increased, larger introductory classes
would be a problem. An increase in retention rate might or might not reduce per-student costs; in
some areas courses could perhaps be a little larger while in others they could not. The fact that
students may take 5 - 7 courses from the same faculty member is not seen as a problem; many
students who have done so have gone on to some of the finest graduate schools in the country, and
had several choices of schools to attend.
--
The Committees discussed teaching loads, the variety of faculty tasks, student-faculty ratios
(smaller at the comparable private institutions), and the size of courses.
--
On the issue of salaries and faculty recruitment, turnover seems to occur in groups. This year
Morris has 19 faculty lines to fill, a huge number for a faculty of 125. Some were due to
retirement; it is not clear if some were lost to salaries. In one case recently, they certainly lost the
best candidate because of salary.
--
The role of the Morris Consultative Committee was reviewed; composed of faculty, staff, and
students, it troubleshoots and deals with problems. It does not serve as the steering committee of
the campus assembly, as is the case on the Twin Cities campus; there is a separate executive
committee. The Consultative Committee probably has more power than the executive committee,
and is chartered in the campus constitution. They meet 5-6 times per year with the Chancellor. It
was noted that on a campus of 125 people, there is a difference in manageability and a different
dynamic to representation; what can be done at arm's length on the Twin Cities campus becomes
personal at Morris.
Professor Adams thanked the members of the Consultative Committee for joining FCC and invited
them to notify FCC of issues they believe it should consider.
6.
U2000
Professor Adams distributed to Committee members a handout on "U2000 Institutional Major
Issues/Position Supplement, Topic Outline" and said he needed an expression of views on the document.
Committee views had been made clear at the earlier discussion of the subject; the resulting document,
however, may not be pleasing to Committee members.
FCC made the point that not very much in this list of seven major issues is academic. The
administration continues to believe that an institutional position on the seven issues needs to be taken,
Faculty Consultative Committee
September 20-21, 1995
8
action statements that will permit units to move forward on U2000.
Part of the problem may be language, observed one Committee member; faculty have a hard time
getting excited about "deliverables." One has that same reaction to much of the document.
The original timeline called for action on them by September 15; that has been changed, Professor
Adams reported, but it will be as soon as possible. The enormous diversity of opinion on these issues has
made it nearly impossible for the President to find a consensus, he added, when some will not yield in
their positions. One Committee member inquired if it is possible for identification of a signature profile
at this stage to have an impact on the planning process. The President is not sure this should be done,
Professor Adams said, and wants to consult about it.
The process to make decisions will be through the Executive Council--the three provosts and a few
of the vice presidents. This document is an attempt to pin things down and provoke decisions. There
are, for instance, very different views about what CEE/University College and the Graduate School
should be.
Another Committee member echoed an earlier comment: the rhetoric in the document is familiar
only to those who wrote it. It has twice as many words as it needs and a great deal of jargon. It is
intentionally ambiguous at points where focus is needed. There are a lot of questions about
CEE/University College because the University has been hedging about what it is and there are views
about it all over the place. The document has the right stuff in it, but it is not punchy nor is it focused so
people can understand what to do.
The document is an attempt to reach a decision, it was said; the draft, if finalized, would suggest
that the answer about CEE/UC and the Graduate School has been signalled: they are to be support units
to mainline operations, not mainline operations themselves. This is an effort to improve the decisionmaking process and give more guidance than has been available in the past.
It was agreed that the Committee would take up the document as soon as it was able. Professor
Adams then adjourned the meeting at 1:45.
-- Gary Engstrand
____________________________
TOPICS TO BE DEALT WITH 1995-95
FACULTY CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE
1.
Speed up the process for dealing with academic misconduct
2.
Tenure Issues
--Reconsider the locus of tenure; consider the issues raised in the Shively paper on tenure
--Consider allowing a longer probationary period
Faculty Consultative Committee
September 20-21, 1995
9
--Consider post-tenure reviews
--Changes in the tenure code to accommodate the provostal structure
--Ensure practical enforcement procedures for non-performance
3.
Early-career and mid-career faculty vitality
4.
Implementation of the Compensation Working Group report
5.
Subsidy of University services (used by those outside the institution)
6.
The Process of Making Cuts
7.
Ways the University might obtain financial benefits from its research
8.
Campus Master Plans
9.
Issues Related to Semesters
10.
A three-part consideration of:
----
what is the "academic core" of the University
what are "favored departments"
the implications of a "signature profile"
11.
Critical Measures
12.
Governance response to the Shively-Adams-Adams-Morrow "White Paper" on departments and
strengthening the middle management of the University to ensure (1) that the flow of information
is both up and down and (2) that deans and department heads have a clearer understanding of their
authority with respect to personnel matters
13.
Responsibility Center Management
14.
Re-engineering
15.
Status of the position of Dean of the Graduate School and Vice President for Research; status of
the Graduate School
16.
Policy on Sexual Harassment
17.
Partnering with other institutions
18.
Reviews of Administrators
University of Minnesota