Minutes*
Faculty Consultative Committee
Thursday, January 4, 1996
10:00 - 12:00
Room 238 Morrill Hall
Present:
Carl Adams (chair), John Adams, Carole Bland, Victor Bloomfield, Dan Feeney, Virginia
Gray, James Gremmels, Roberta Humphreys, Robert Jones, Laura Coffin Koch, Geoffrey
Maruyama, Fred Morrison, Michael Steffes
Regrets:
Lester Drewes
Absent:
Harvey Peterson
Guests:
President Nils Hasselmo; Associate Vice President Richard Pfutzenreuter, Helen Pladsen,
Alaine Siniff
Others:
Martha Kvanbeck (University Senate)
[In these minutes: The President's agenda; tenure; budget and compensation issues; biweekly payroll;
tenure again; faculty salaries]
1.
Discussion with President Hasselmo
Professor Adams convened the meeting at 10:10 and welcomed the President; he reported that he
had asked the President to talk more about the agenda of items he is likely to focus on during his last 18
months in office. One subject that should also be taken up, suggested one Committee member, is tenure.
The President began by wishing Committee members a happy new year and then informed them
that he has been working on his agenda since the last meeting. He noted that research on New Year's
Resolutions has suggested they are most effective when modest and incremental, and he has taken that to
heart in his own agenda. The issues range from the capital request to broad policy issues, including the
Brandl-Weber/Citizens' League reports on the financing of higher education, the continued development
of U2000, the affiliation of the Hospital with Fairview, and so on. The agenda will include milestones
and assignments so that accomplishments can be identified.
The President concurred with the observation that there are other groups involved, such as the one
chaired by Mr. Denny on human resources, the one chaired by Dean Schuh on financing of higher
education, the one chaired by Regents' Professor Sorauf on the signature profile, and the one chaired by
Professor (John) Adams dealing with tenure issues. These groups operate in addition to the continued
interaction with the governance system. He said he would provide to the Committee further information
on his agenda in the near future.
*
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
January 4, 1996
2
In response to a comment that it would be helpful to know about the timing of reports, the
President said the expected reports have very different time lines. There are certain things he would like
to see finished, in order to lay the foundation for the next administration, while others will by necessity
continue into the new administration. He hopes to lay as sound a foundation for the transition as
possible.
On the issue of tenure, the President said he believed the process is on track to conduct a
constructive review of tenure. He told the Committee that "we must be mindful of the fact that the
review is taking place in a somewhat volatile environment. Tenure is being attacked by persons outside
the University (nationwide) with little understanding of its fundamental importance in protecting
academic freedom. Inside the University, some persons may see any discussion of tenure as a threat.
Tenure must be protected, but in order to be viable it must also be reformed in the ways that have been
outlined in the agenda of the joint faculty/administration committee now at work."
One Committee member, acknowledging it might be a minority view, observed that this discussion
should not be seen as something forced on the University by external groups, but as something internally
motivated to make the institution work the way faculty think it should.
The implication from this, said another Committee member, is that neither Minnesota nor any
other institution can go it alone on this question; any unilateral act will put the University at a
disadvantage. The issue is also related to the elimination of the mandatory retirement age and the need
for periodic reviews. Are there any institutions that have come to grips with this that could serve as a
model?
The President said the subject has been discussed in the CIC [the Big Ten plus the University of
Chicago]. No one seems to have a model, but all seem to be working along the same lines and believe
that there should be a mechanism for regular review and evaluation of faculty, and that whenever
performance is deemed inadequate, there should be a mechanism for dealing with that as well.
One Committee member recalled participating in a review of retirement incentives and that a
number of institutions eliminated mandatory retirement earlier than required by law. The data then
available suggested that there was NO effect on when faculty retire. It appeared that the removal of
mandatory retirement may be significant in only a FEW cases, although that presumably could change. It
would also be affected by retirement provisions, the level of compensation, and what retiring faculty
receive from the system.
Another Committee member maintained that faculty cannot address tenure until they address the
evaluation of their colleagues; periodic evaluation must be put in place as tenure is addressed. If faculty
do not do that, they will be seen as falling back on tenure as justifying mediocrity, and will simply invite
attacks on themselves.
It was pointed out that that there have been studies of post-tenure review procedures, although
perhaps not at comparable institutions. At one institution there were changes in performance when
reviews were instituted, with very positive outcomes; at another, no positive changes were found, but
they were different types of reviews. To have an impact, the reviews must contain certain elements, but
Faculty Consultative Committee
January 4, 1996
3
they are a powerful mechanism that the University needs to use.
Discussion turned next to budget matters. One Committee member said to the President that a
decision has apparently been made about distributing the costs of salary increases to the colleges, but that
funds will not be provided. This will in effect be a 2-3% retrenchment in most units.
The President said that guidelines for compensation have been provided in the budget instructions
that it will be left to provosts and chancellors how they approach them and how they identify funds for
compensation and other purposes. The instructions are fairly general.
A related question, said one Committee member, is that unit can anticipate a base amount for
compensation but that colleges will be expected to look beyond that amount to deal with compensation
problems. The Committee will see data from Human Resources about how that process worked last year;
those data may raise the question of whether the University is actually working on the compensation
problem. If the budget parameter for salary increases is 2-3%, said another Committee member, it is not
addressing the compensation problem; it says the cost must be absorbed from existing budgets and that
there is no money to fund increases. That means a retrenchment within provostal areas or colleges or
departments. That may be necessary, but it implies the proposition that there must be fewer faculty--a
proposition that is to be addressed at an awkward point in the hiring cycle.
There are other questions, observed one Committee member. One has to do with hard and soft
money. One reason to require units to fund increases is because presumably they have both hard and soft
money; the question is how to deliver compensation increases in light of the presence of both hard and
soft money?
In the case of one unit, it was noted, the need to fund salary increases meant a loss of four
positions.
The President said the administration is not saying categorically there must be 3% or 5% or 6%
salary increases. The provosts/chancellors are to develop a financial plan, within the specified
parameters and limits of funding available for the second year of the biennium, and to make the
necessary strategic choices and investments. The University has already made $43 million in strategic
choices, and the provosts, chancellors, and deans are expected to be the best judges about how to use the
available resources. The administration is NOT mandating institution-wide retrenchment in order to fund
a pre-determined compensation increase. There are contracts in place, such as with the unions, that must
be funded, and the administration is looking to discussions with faculty and other employee groups about
the 1996-97 compensation plans. But the administration expects the chancellors and provosts to work
with the deans to make recommendations on how the plans are to be accomplished.
These decisions must be made with budgets that will see zero or only modest increases, it was
said. The President agreed that no permanent funds are being set aside for compensation. There is a pool
of temporary funds that can be used for bridging, they are trying not to mortgage the future of the
University by permitting unfunded permanent salary increases.
One Committee member expressed concern that the way soft and hard funds have been thought
about in the past is not valid today, and if the University doesn't escape it, it will do things that make it
Faculty Consultative Committee
January 4, 1996
4
uncompetitive.
One decision that has been made is that the retrenchments will be across the board to provosts and
chancellors, one Committee member observed; there will be no University decision on strengths and
weaknesses by provostal area or campus. The situation is one where colleges have contractual
obligations to unions to pay salary increases but have no money to do so; if the compensation problem is
to be addressed, the same situation will obtain. Colleges face increased costs but have no additional
money; the only reasonable solution is curtailment of faculty appointments. But that comes in an
unplanned way and late in the year, when hiring decisions are being made. It is disturbing that the
University is forced back to annual budgeting again. Another point is that making these decisions within
the provostal structure conceals them from central administration and the colleges.
The President responded that the major decisions for 1995-97 were made in the biennial plan,
which is being implemented. The budget instructions say that differential judgments will be made
through the Strategic Investment Pool; $43 million in such decisions have been made, which is a major
effort. He agreed that further differential retrenchment among the chancellors, provosts, and vice
presidents may well come out of the budget decisions, but the Strategic Investment Pool has been the
major instrument for differential decisions at that level.
Would it be allowable for a college that wanted to address the compensation problem in a serious
way to not fill 10% of its lines and raise compensation by 10% when the University guideline is 2.8%?
There is no institutional guide on salaries, the President responded, and said such a decision would be
appropriate--that is the kind of decision that is expected within provostal areas and colleges, he
emphasized. They are trying to get decisions made at the level where the most appropriate perspective
can be brought to bear.
The President related that he hears that the University should do another Waseca, but in terms of
the University's mission, there is no college or campus that can be closed. What must be decided is if a
unit with 15 faculty should have 12 or 10--or be eliminated. The decisions should be made through the
colleges and provosts and chancellors and then central administration. He said he has hammered on that
theme for a long time. If a unit should have a 10% salary increase, that is a strategic issue for that unit.
He also commented that this was a central part of the union negotiations: compensation increases would
come through reductions in staffing.
This is what people have wanted to hear, said one Committee member; there must also be talk
about phasing, because for many units, accomplishing this by July 1 is not possible. The President
agreed, saying he has been fighting against post-poning decisions into the next biennium, but that he
keeps urging units to look at phasing. The University needs to make strategic choices now, even if it
will take several years fully to implement them. This is the approach the provosts and chancellors
wanted, he said; the decisions are not from scratch, but are implementing what has been planned. The
choices need to be on the table and phased in.
Originally the budget anticipated 2.8% in salary increases that would be funded from temporary
money; now it is thought the increases should come from hard dollars. Do the provosts and chancellors
have the discretion to use soft money for phasing, or has it been removed from the equation altogether?
The worst case would be forcing the use of hard money and not allowing the soft money to be used.
Faculty Consultative Committee
January 4, 1996
5
The provosts and chancellors have taken on the difficult task of making hard choices, the President
said; they did not want to postpone decisions about compensation. He said he expects that their plans
will accommodate this decision, even if it takes two or three years to effect. That is where the phasing
comes in.
One Committee member inquired about the budget and resources and responsibilities. If people
are not hearing the message, it is not being communicated, the President responded. The Regents'
Resource Allocation Guidelines include a discussion of revenues--for example, tuition revenues are to
increase by 7.5% (which does not necessarily mean a RATE increase of 7.5%) and more cost-effective
ways of providing instruction need to be found (which is why it is important that faculty deliver
instruction to more students). The statistics on student credit hours are surprising; something like 9% of
the courses generate 50% of the student credit hours, while the University offers thousands of courses.
There is a huge discrepancy, and revenue enhancement means using the University's most valuable
resource--faculty--to deliver instruction more efficiently.
At the same time, one Committee member pointed out, decisions are made that work against that
goal. For instance, the University has decided not to move to a "high tuition, high aid" policy, in order to
accommodate students, while at the same time some believe the University's tuition levels are too low,
which leads to the educational and structural difficulties that must be confronted. The Board of Regents
seems to feel that it should keep things as they are, and tuition only allowed to inch up. This must be
addressed.
The issue is before the University, the President said, and will be discussed with the Finance and
Planning committee and the deans. Tuition has been inching up, he agreed, and the University should
evaluate its stance. Responsibility Center Management will address this issue to some extent, observed
one Committee member.
Discussion turned to the biweekly payroll: Professor Adams said he would like to have a limited
discussion by the Committee, but noted that there has been resistance to the proposed change by both the
Committee on Faculty Affairs and the Committee on Finance and Planning. There has also been support
expressed for moving ahead.
The President explained he was overdue at his meeting with the Student Senate Consultative
Committee but recalled that this item has been on the agenda for 15 years. There would be substantial
improvements were the proposal to be adopted, including savings in decreased workload, and the
negative effects are not as serious as some have assumed and they can be ameliorated by actions the
administration is prepared to take. He asked the Committee to listen to the experts on the subject, and
said he would like to have action on the issue in the next week or so, following final consultation.
Professor Adams thanked the President for joining the meeting.
2.
Biweekly Payroll
Professor Adams invited Associate Vice President Pfutzenreuter, along with two members of the
payroll task force, Helen Pladsen and Alaine Siniff, to join the meeting. He noted that the item is on the
Faculty Consultative Committee
January 4, 1996
6
agenda not because it is as important as others the Committee is dealing with, but because it is something
everyone could spend a lot of time on. It is his intention, he said, to try to bring it to closure, and asked
the Committee to take up the concerns that have been expressed and identify a reasonable way to
proceed. This issue has a stormy history, and some have been hurt by it, so it is sensitive.
Professor Feeney reported that there has been vigorous discussion by the Committee on Faculty
Affairs, mostly centered on the proposition that the change would save the University about $250,000 per
year and decrease workloads. The price is a biweekly payroll, with delayed pay and various deductions
from individuals' accounts for payments changed to a biweekly cycle (or people will be required to carry
higher balances). The perspective of SCFA is that not much money will be saved but there will be
turmoil in people's lives who are used to a predictable payroll.
Asked about the delay, it was explained that now each individual is paid on Friday for the pay
period ending that day, and the money is deposited or a check issued. With a delay, the pay would come
about nine days after the end of the pay period. This would be a one-time delay, it was pointed out; why
is this a problem? For some, it would be, it was said.
Mr. Pfutzenreuter explained that implementation would take place on Friday the 13th of
September: that is when everyone would receive their last bimonthly paycheck. The next check would
not come until October 9, rather than the 30th of September. The administration has proposed that those
who face hardship because of the delay would be offered an interest-free loan, to be repaid over
paychecks issued through the end of the calendar year.
Ms. Siniff pointed out that the savings from running a single payroll are only part of the gain; the
University has also had to spend time recovering overpayments, and this system would help prevent that
as well as comply with applicable IRS regulations and NIH guidelines. A major reason to make the
change is to reduce staff workload, at a time when staffs have been cut but workload and accountability
demands have increased.
The problem is not with 12-month appointees, said one Committee member; it is with those who
have nine-month appointments who have received no pay for three months--and now would have to wait
another 10 days. This is a problem for new faculty and graduate students. Did the task force consider
putting EVERYONE on a 12-month payroll (i.e., spreading the salaries of nine-month appointees over 12
months)? Most of the problems would disappear if this change could be made. Another Committee
member agreed, noting the conversion would be straightforward, would cost the University no money,
and would eliminate problems.
This is a policy issue, Ms. Siniff replied, not a system capability issue. Salaries could be paid over
12 months. The problem, others pointed out, is simply one of turf; it is not a payroll issue.
One Committee member noted other problems: with CUFS; with the interface between human
resources and payroll (one hears the University will spend $500,000 for the new biweekly payroll system,
and then replace it all when an integrated human resources/payroll system is purchased); the loss of
faculty income during the transition year; and the odd-year problem when there will be 27 payrolls
(which means the University will face a 2% higher payroll those years). Moreover, not everyone
believes that the change will mean less work in departments.
Faculty Consultative Committee
January 4, 1996
7
Ms. Siniff speculated that with all the other demands that will have to be met to deal with the year
2000, it is unlikely a new human resources/payroll system will be at the top of the list.
Professor Adams asked that the issue be brought to closure. One problem with the change is that
people will not have the same cash flow pattern at no cost, at least the first year; if the administration can
guarantee mechanisms that are at least as advantageous for people as the present system--that they will be
no worse off in terms of cash flow--this concern should be put to rest. Another is the inconvenience of
moving from one cycle of payments to another. This IS inconvenient, but are people willing to suffer
through it in order to get the benefits?
His own view is that the world will not believe the University is a good steward of its resources if
it maintains multiple payrolls, Professor Adams told his colleagues. Most of the world operates on a
delayed payroll system, he pointed out. The problem of being paid over 12 months while on a 9-month
appointment is not a system problem. There will be other issues to face, he noted, such as with TAs. If
the faculty would trust the administration to be responsive to the problems, there would be little difficulty
in making the change. In reality, there is not a strong trusting relationship, although one wishes it could
be built. He suggested that given the concerns of the committees on Faculty Affairs and Finance and
Planning, taking into account the caveats noted at this meeting, the Committee put its trust in the
administration and support the change. If the trust is misplaced, all will pay, but this is a way to begin
building a better relationship. He said he does not want to see this item on the agenda ad infinitum, and
any statement of support would not mean Faculty Affairs and Finance and Planning should not consider
the details of implementation.
Other Committee members spoke up in support of Professor Adams' proposal, saying the proposal
makes sense and although one might be skeptical of the savings to be achieved, it nonetheless makes
sense for the long term.
Those who will suffer the most are newly-hired faculty and TAs; will they be eligible for loans?
And this will be a recurring problem. Will the administration continue to address this problem over
time? Mr. Pfutzenreuter said he could not say yes or no to the question; he said he would want to know
what kind of bureaucracy it would require and whether or not the money would be recovered in the fiscal
year. He also noted that tuition deadlines would be wrong for the new payroll system, but that those will
be adjusted. He said he would talk more with the Finance and Planning Committee about the possibility
of loans for new faculty and TAs.
One Committee member suggested that the change would be more saleable if FCC committed
itself to seeking a change in the payroll so that nine-month appointees could be paid over 12 months;
Professor Adams agreed that it would do so--and said the Committee on Faculty Affairs should consider
itself charged to do so.
On Professor Adams' call for a vote in support of the change, eight Committee members voted in
favor, one in opposition, and two abstained.
3.
Other Business
Faculty Consultative Committee
January 4, 1996
8
Professor Adams noted that tenure is receiving more attention, and asked Professor (John) Adams
to provide an update. First, however, he reported that he has had discussions with several individuals at
the administrative and regental levels and has been consistent that Professor John Adams' task force is
the body responsible for interacting with the Regents on tenure, and that the task force does not in any
way diminish the responsibility of SCFA, the tenure subcommittee, and the Senate to approve changes
that are proposed. There is a mechanism in place to deal with the issues.
Professor (John) Adams reported that there are three related arenas in which work has been
occurring, and all are connected; the tenure discussion is not isolated. First, there are human resource
issues; the task force being chaired by Mr. Denny has been working extensively on a lot of issues.
Second, there is a set of issues related to reviews of administrators. Third, there are academic personnel
policies being reviewed, some of which are related to training, recruitment, and compensation, and the
tenure code. When issues arise, the University has a lot of experience making adjustments to the tenure;
leaves for care-giving and parenting are one example.
Now the question is whether other modifications are needed to accommodate the needs of running
the University. There is sensitivity that tenure is at the heart of the institution, but it cannot be isolated
from other tasks the University confronts. Committees are moving on several fronts to make it a better
place and better able to get its work done.
Professor (John) Adams noted that the working group, with faculty and administrative
representatives, has drafted a discussion paper that is being revised and has scheduled three occasions for
public discussion--two forums and a Senate meeting. It will also report regularly to the Board of
Regents.
Between the forums, work with the Committee on Faculty Affairs and its tenure subcommittee,
and reports to the Board of Regents, the working group will devise what it can agree are appropriate
adjustments to the tenure code. That is where things stand, Professor (John) Adams concluded.
Professor (Carl) Adams emphasized again that he has described this to everyone as a collegial
effort among the faculty, administration, and Regents. There is a danger that some will see the faculty as
rolling over; he said that is not what he sees happening. It is important to communicate what is being
done and to educate senators. One question is whether to have a discussion paper, laying out the issues,
or if there should be positions taken. There are dangers both ways: the discussion can wander without
direction but some may see a position taken as a done deal.
As the discussions progress through the Committees, said one Committee member, there should be
a sense developing of what will be proposed. It is too early for that now; the discussions are only
beginning. As the proposals evolve, however, what goes to the faculty will reflect more participation by
the governance system.
Some position should be taken, urged one Committee member. Others agreed, but with the
understanding that they would be to provoke discussion, not make decisions. One preferred position
should be identified after the issues are outlined.
A key issue in the re-examination of tenure is where it is held, said one Committee member. All
Faculty Consultative Committee
January 4, 1996
9
appreciate the need for more flexibility, so tenure may need to be in smaller units. For some units, where
an activity is spread throughout the institution in several departments, careful thought must be given to
implementation. If there are two departments of X, and one is to be eliminated, that should not mean that
all professors of X in one department go and all the others are retained.
The question of where tenure resides is a false issue, responded another Committee member. The
question is whether people can be laid off because of programmatic change. At present the tenure code
does not permit this to happen; tenure regulations require reassignment. This would not change if tenure
were located in the college or department; the real question is laying off. That issue must be confronted
explicitly. When it is, it would argue for tenure in the BROADEST unit possible, because it will be
desirable to move people from one unit to a comparable unit (as suggested in the preceding paragraph).
This is especially important in a University with rigid employment rules, budget constraints, with
preferences, and so on.
Professor (Carl) Adams expressed profound thanks to Professor (John) Adams and his colleagues
for taking on these issues, and then turned to Professor Gray for an update on provostal governance.
At this point the issue waits on the February Senate meeting, Professor Gray reported; the actual
bylaw provision changes will be provided at the next meeting. She and Ms. Kvanbeck are also
proceeding on requesting support for the proposed (now more limited) budget to support a provostal
governance system. Professor Adams added that he will bring up the issue of provostal governance with
the Senate Consultative Committee later in the day, inasmuch as the students are also interested in
developing a consultative structure with the provosts.
The Committee also briefly discussed the lunches with senators and deans, as well as those with
department chairs and heads; in both instances, it was agreed that they were helpful and that Committee
members should, when they are able, attend the lunches.
Professor Adams then reported on faculty compensation: the main message is that Associate Vice
President Carrier will provide in the near future to the Committee data on faculty salary decisions last
year. This will provide information on whether the system worked (that is, telling the deans to do what
they could). One senses it may not have worked. The Committee on Faculty Affairs has set up a
committee to deal with compensation policy; it must be sure to take a position on whether or not the
University has in place a system that works in addressing compensation concerns.
One Committee member noted that when expressing a concern to the President about the source of
funding for faculty salaries, the message should not be interpreted as a statement the Committee does not
want to see salary increases. It is important that salary increases are delivered. Another Committee
member said the opposite is the problem: the system is paying less attention to the compensation
problem than it deserves. The procedure of sending the problem to the deans may not work, and the
Committee owes it to the faculty to stay on top of the issue.
The present system also has the potential to create new inequities across the University: a zealous
dean who delivers increases versus a dean who does nothing. How would things look in three to five
years? In the case of one unit where tuition revenues increased, the tenured faculty said the money
should go to faculty salaries. By the time the issue went through committees, only a small percent went
Faculty Consultative Committee
January 4, 1996
10
to salaries, and some idealistic faculty wanted extra positions created.
This is a discussion that needs to be held about conflicting values, said one Committee member;
faculty salaries are only one. There needs to be an institutional ranking of priorities, where faculty
salaries are high on the list.
Professor Adams then reported he continues to work on obtaining the services of a faculty member
to serve as legislative liaison.
Professor Bland reported that additional funds are being sought so that KIOSK can be biweekly;
departing Vice President Mel George indicated he would help achieve that goal.
Professor Adams then adjourned the meeting at 12:10.
-- Gary Engstrand
University of Minnesota