Minutes*
Faculty Consultative Committee
Thursday, January 19, 1995
12:30 - 3:00
Room 626 Campus Club
Present:
John Adams (chair), Carl Adams, Thomas Burk, Sheila Corcoran-Perry, Lester Drewes,
Sara Evans, Dan Feeney, Virginia Gray, James Gremmels, Kenneth Heller, Roberta
Humphreys, Robert Jones, Morris Kleiner, Geoffrey Maruyama, Michael Steffes
Regrets:
Harvey Peterson
Absent:
none
Guests:
Acting Vice President Mark Brenner, Dennis Cabral (Academic Affairs), Senior Vice
President E. F. Infante, Acting Dean Fred Morrison
Others:
Rich Broderick (University Relations)
[In these minutes: (With Dr. Infante:) review of compliance with research regulations, Responsibility
Centered Management, reorganization of Academic Affairs, training programs, the budget, the interim
between Vice President Hopkins' departure and appointment of a new provost; Regents' policy on
academic freedom; (with Dr. Brenner:) role of the Dean of the Graduate School in reviewing promotion
and tenure files after reorganization, compliance with research regulations, draft Conflict of Commitment
policy]
1.
Discussion with Senior Vice President Infante
Professor Adams convened the meeting at 12:40 and welcomed Senior Vice President Infante. He
had, he noted, provided to Dr. Infante in advance of the meeting a list of questions about issues of
concern; he invited Dr. Infante to take them up in any order he wished.
Dr. Infante turned immediately to this one: "I [Professor Adams] sent you the letter from [a
faculty member] expressing unhappiness over policies and procedures affecting ORTTA's performance.
Mark Brenner will speak to us about this matter, but you may have further comments, as ORTTA's
effective performance is vital to the U of M's scholarly and financial well-being." Dr. Infante distributed
a memorandum from the Council on Government Relations of the American Council on Education and
drew the attention of Committee members to it. One U.S. Assistant Attorney General believes that there
may be instances "where high ranking university officials were allegedly conspiring to defraud the
government" and that "an indictment of high level university officials is needed to send a message that
universities have to be more scrupulous in their dealings with the federal government." The letter to
which Professor Adams referred was engendered by new effort reporting, which, Dr. Infante agreed,
*
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 19, 1995
2
imposes a more burdensome system. He asked one Committee member about it, who said that while it
was better only to have to report once per quarter, it was much more extensive than the previous one.
In his opinion, he said, a big change from the 1960s and 70s is that back then, one felt that the
federal government was in partnership with universities. Now, it is much more a fee for service
relationship, with increased regulation.
Because of concerns about research grant regulations and reporting, the University retained Arthur
Andersen to do a diagnostic study. The results were "grim"; there appear to be significant internal
weaknesses in the University's reporting mechanisms and there are possible compliance weaknesses
similar to those found at other universities. Acting Vice President Brenner is taking the report to the
Senate Research Committee; it will come to this Committee after they have reviewed it.
There are a number of things to do, Dr. Infante said, and ORTTA's operations need to be reengineered to address the problems. One could hope for more simplicity in federal rules and regulations,
but he said he had no illusions that the volume of regulations would decrease, even with the Republicans'
"Contract with America."
Twenty years ago, he recalled, he did things in managing his own research grants that were praised
by program directors--things that are now illegal (such as support of graduate students on different
grants). This is a reflection of the change from a partnership to a fee-for-service relationship. Because of
the way that a few have behaved, he commented, universities to certain extent have brought this on
themselves. In federal eyes, the universities were too facile in the management of grants.
The problem is not with ORTTA, said one Committee member; it is with the General Counsel's
office follow-through. Things seem often to be taken beyond what is necessary. That may be an effort to
cover all the bases, but it has added to the burdens. A simple contract with a business has now become a
multi-tiered negotiating process. But the new effort reporting system is a good one. Dr. Infante replied
that he wanted the simplest system possible. We should be willing to have a simple system even if
entails a few risks. It is not possible, or cost-effective, to have a risk-free system. What has happened, it
was said in response, is that situation with ORTTA follows the advice of the lawyers and is strict about
rules.
Another problem is that the regulations paint with a broad brush; the same requirements are
imposed on a $5 million grant and a $1,000 purchase-of-services contract.
The second step in the Arthur Andersen endeavor, Dr. Infante said, is to ask what should be done;
the third step will be to do it. What he worries about, he told the Committee, is that the University hires
a consultant--which it must do, to obtain the necessary expertise--but when the consultants leave, so does
the knowledge. He said the University must involve other staff associated with research to implement,
with the help of consultants, the needed changes.
Dr. Infante then turned to another of Professor Adams's questions: "We've received some calls
about `Responsibility Centered Management.' [Hereinafter RCM.] What is happening along these lines?
Is it proceeding? What are the plans? Any problems?" No decision has been made about RCM, he
assured the Committee. He has told the President that a point will come when a decision must be made--
Faculty Consultative Committee
January 19, 1995
3
but RCM must be investigated thoroughly before that--but then a decision to do it or not will be needed.
Nothing has been decided so far, he emphasized.
The University's budgeting has perhaps been a little too casual in the past, he said; now, when the
institution is being squeezed, sources of revenue and expenditures must be examined carefully. One
example is the amount of square footage of space controlled by each college; he said he believes the
people in charge in the colleges should know of the costs that are being incurred.
The budget instructions have given rise to concern, he said, because they call for estimates of
tuition revenue. This will be the third year in a row that tuition income has been over-estimated, he said,
and asked why. It is because this is a highly decentralized institution; the recruitment of new freshmen,
for example, has only been centralized for two years, and the process is now working.
This Committee last year suggested that if RCM is being seriously considered, that each college
see its budget under an RCM scenario before any decision is made. Would that be done? If the decision
is made, Dr. Infante replied, then RCM assigns income and expenditures to each college, and EVERY
college in the University is subsidized with state funds. Under RCM, 100% of tuition, fees, and other
income is assigned to the unit, as are direct and indirect costs.
There is also a state subsidy for each unit. The subsidy is NOT tied to the number of students in
the college, Dr. Infante said in response to a question, nor is tuition based on the cost of the program.
There are undergraduate programs that cost $3000 per student per year, and there are programs that cost
$15,000--but the same tuition is charged for all. How will tuition be set if it is not based on expenditures,
he was then asked? There has been discussion about how to assign funds to college and programs, he
said, but how to do so is not clear. Under RCM, income and expenditures are made clear to deans and
faculty, as is the level of state subsidy; RCM also provides incentives and disincentives for doing certain
things (such as bringing in tuition revenue).
That is true only if the subsidy remains the same as it was the previous year, which is the question
of the allocation of funds. That depends on how costly a program is, Dr. Infante said; one must do an
analysis. RCM does not lock in amounts; all the problems in the budgeting process remain. RCM makes
people more knowledgeable about revenues and expenditures, and perhaps leads to more rational
decisions (such as to retain funding and give up space). At one institution that has adopted RCM, before
it was put in place one of the colleges would not admit to its courses any students not enrolled in the
college; after RCM was adopted, there was a drastic change. Even at Minnesota, one college had
indicated it did not wish to let students in other colleges take its courses--to which his response, Dr.
Infante said, was that the budget of the college should then be substantially reduced.
RCM can have good and bad outcomes, he observed; one possible negative, for example, is that
every department might be tempted to teach statistics! The questions arise because there is need for a
better system to predict tuition income. People have not had the incentive to think hard about it, nor have
they had to bear the consequences for failing to do so. This year there will be a tuition shortfall between
$1.5 and 2.8 million; how is the shortfall to be allocated? There have been internal discussions on this
point, and he has asked the deans to predict revenues; one could assign the shortfall to the units that
missed on their predictions. The problem is that the deans have not been able to estimate tuition
revenues, and the numbers in the past have not been good predictors. This is serious, he emphasized, as
Faculty Consultative Committee
January 19, 1995
4
tuition becomes a larger and larger part of budgets. He has also warned the deans that if they think there
will be 200 new students, but they only estimate 100, then their budgets should be examined for cost
effectiveness now--there must be ownership in the enrollment projections.
One difficulty with the space issue in particular, maintained one Committee member, is that
emeritus faculty could lose their offices, because a department might see that use as non-essential. That
depends on how a department allocates space, rejoined another Committee member. There are two ways
to deal with that kind of problem, Dr. Infante said. One is to put the issue (such as space costs) under the
table and not deal with it; the other is to face it consciously. If the only way the University can provide
space to emeritus faculty is by doing it without facing the issue, then the institution is not being
accountable or responsible.
The emphasis has been more on the positive sides to RCM, pointed out one Committee member;
what are the negatives that other institutions have experienced? One phenomenon that occurs
consistently, Dr. Infante said, is that in institutions with RCM, but without any significant central pool of
funds, the parts become more independent and there is no "whole." In one case, a dean has argued that
his college should not support the central libraries, because the college does not use it sufficiently, and
that fees should be charged instead. More balance is achieved when the central administration has
resources to allocate; that tends to hold the institution together. Minnesota is in a good situation in that
respect, because of the state subsidy to the units. One could interpret the state funds as providing the
infrastructure--libraries, facilities management, utilities--while seeing tuition as paying a portion of direct
costs.
Another potential problem is all units teaching the same thing (e.g., the statistics example), or units
teaching courses the institution does not need (such as basket weaving) in order to increase enrollments.
If one believes the institution must be decentralized--as Minnesota must be--then RCM is appropriate.
Dr. Infante then turned to another question: "Please comment on the present plan for reorganizing
Academic Affairs within central administration, in light of analysis and recommendations from the
Transition Task Force." He distributed a proposed organization chart for Academic Affairs, but
cautioned that it could change. He said that they are trying to combine and leverage efforts, and noted a
few areas where that is occurring. In part the reorganization is driven by the fact that a significant
amount of the $14 million budget reallocation is to come from these offices.
Asked about progress in better organizing the coordination of information technology between
Academic Affairs and Finance and Operations, Dr. Infante said there has not been as much as he would
like. The two organizations look at the world differently, but he intends to continue to push for greater
coordination. At present, he said, he did not believe anything was badly broken.
Dr. Infante also touched on the need for review of training programs. There are numerous training
programs, everywhere--and that is probably right, he said, but there is duplication and there are gaps. He
would like Human Resources to be responsible for cataloguing them, to serve as a conscience, and to
orchestrate their offerings. Right now no one is responsible for identifying the training programs the
University should have.
Another of Professor Adams's questions was how the University would protect its strategic
Faculty Consultative Committee
January 19, 1995
5
initiatives in the face of continued budget uncertainty and stress. There will be uncertainty until the
legislature adjourns in May, Dr. Infante pointed out, although the level of uncertainty will be reduced
somewhat next week, when the Governor's recommendations are issued. They will set the ceiling, he
surmised, not the floor, on what the University will receive, and it will be a difficult year. If anything
must be protected, however, it will be the Strategic Investment Pool.
The next question was "What will he do during the interregnum between the departure of Anne
Hopkins and the arrival of a provost for AS&E?" Dr. Infante said he has recommended to the President
that he decide this very soon. Much will depend on when the search for the new AS&E provost will be
complete. He said he is pessimistic that a provost will be in the position before July 1; if the President
agrees, he has recommended that there be an interim appointee--and that the appointee be a PROVOST,
not a vice president, to get the position going. The alternative, especially if there is only a one-month
interregnum, is for him to perform the tasks of the provost, together with the deans of the colleges that
report to the provost. That will be difficult, and there might be an appearance conflict-of-interest
problems. Even if a candidate were to be identified who could be on the job by April 1, would the
individual step in and immediately begin making important decisions? HE certainly would not want to,
he said, before becoming appropriately acquainted with the many units. And there are also tenure
decisions to be made, he added.
Professor Adams suggested the Committee should make its views known on this matter. One
Committee member argued that given the budget difficulties, it is important that these colleges have
someone to lead them. Other Committee members offered no dissent from this view; Professor Adams
concluded that there is a consensus that this is a reasonable idea.
Professor Adams thanked Dr. Infante for his comments.
2.
Regents' Policy on Academic Freedom and Responsibility
Professor Adams now welcomed Acting Vice President Brenner, Dr. Dennis Cabral, and Acting
Dean Fred Morrison to the meeting to discuss the redrafted Regents' Policy on Academic Freedom and
Responsibility. Dr. Morrison led off the discussion by reviewing the process by which the policy had
come back to the Committee at this meeting. He noted that the draft essentially includes the points made
in the 1938 Regents' policy plus very brief language from the Cornell policy.
He told the Committee that he had argued for a short statement, because he is a constitutional
lawyer who teaches American constitutional law. The notion is that the United States has one of the
oldest constitutions in the world, but also one of the shortest: it is a basic, pithy statement that leaves the
details of administration to its application. The 1938 Regents' policy had six points, all of which are
included in this draft, but there is not much detail. One concern expressed by the deans, during the
review, was that details create entitlements and provoke litigation over small points not central to
academic freedom. As a result, this is a compressed constitutional declaration of academic freedom; the
Senate Committee on Faculty Affairs and the Senate Judicial Committee can interpret and apply it.
Professor Adams reminded his colleagues that there were three academic freedom policies now on
the books, totalling several pages, with the 1938 policy representing only a small portion "of the bulk."
The 1938 statement, however, served as the starting point for what is now being presented. What does
Faculty Consultative Committee
January 19, 1995
6
the Committee wish to do?
Dr. Infante, who had stayed for this portion of the discussion, said he had had three concerns.
First, the academic freedom statement is probably the most important policy at any university, he
observed, and he wanted to be sure that people are comfortable with it. Second, often, when academic
freedom is being discussed, people talk of faculty; it cannot be forgotten that academic freedom includes
students. A lot of policies assume it is only a faculty prerogative; there are elements of the student body
who appear not to be sympathetic to academic freedom, so he wanted to be certain that it is clear the
policy applies to them as well. Third, he wished for brevity but also poetry, a short policy unencumbered
by procedures.
Dr. Brenner said that he had one concern. While he firmly believes in interdisciplinary research,
and that faculty research should be at the boundaries of their fields, he wondered if academic freedom
permits faculty members to move anywhere and not stay within their discipline. Can an economist
decide to go into molecular biology--and assuming credible work--still be paid by the economics
department? The statement now permits that to occur. One can question if research in molecular biology
will help an economist's teaching--scholarly activity should reinforce teaching, he observed. There
should be some connection, in a faculty member's work, with the discipline. Committee members, as
well as Dr. Morrison, argued that the language of the proposed policy does cover that contingency when
it speaks to "the responsibilities of position." Dr. Brenner agreed that it did, IF that language were
interpreted that way.
Dr. Morrison said that a chemist who is a communist and who dabbles in Ming vases is protected
by this policy. The individual is free to express political views, or study Ming vases, without censure
from the University. But the person is also obligated to teach chemistry--and may not, added another
Committee member, talk about politics and Ming vases in the chemistry classes.
Committee members and the guests then spent time on slight editorial revisions and agreed on
changes that should be incorporated in the draft. One point clarified was that it is the intention of the
policy to have a single mechanism to deal with issues associated with, or challenges to, both academic
freedom and academic responsibility.
Asked what problems the draft might create, Dr. Morrison responded that there is always a delicate
balance between over-regulation and generalization. He said he has faith that colleagues of the time will
apply the statement fairly. His concern, earlier, was that the policy would require equal time in the
classroom for something like creationism; this draft gets away from that expectation. It speaks to the
responsibility to teach and to cover the subject matter.
One Committee member raised a question about indemnification of faculty, and was assured that
that subject is covered in a different Regents' policy.
Dr. Morrison noted that the Regulations Concerning Faculty Tenure will need to be amended,
because they incorporate by reference at least the existing 1938 statement. That will require action by
the Faculty Senate separate from the University Senate. In the meantime, it should also be reviewed by
the Committee on Faculty Affairs.
Faculty Consultative Committee
January 19, 1995
7
It was agreed, however, that the document should go to the University Senate for review and
action, and then to the President for his presentation to the Board of Regents. Students have expressed
views about the policy, it was noted, and they are also covered by it, so they should have a role in review
and action on it.
Professor Adams promised to draw up a schedule of events with respect to the policy, and thanked
the Committee's guests for their work on the policy.
3.
Discussion with Acting Vice President Brenner
Professor Adams provided Acting Vice President Brenner with three questions that were on the
minds of the Committee. The first had to do with the oversight role of the Vice President for Research
and Dean of the Graduate School in the promotion and tenure process; the second had to do with ORTTA
management issues, and the third about the Conflict of Commitment draft policy.
On the first one, Dr. Brenner reported had served on the Transition Task Force and was able to
have accepted the notion, in the allocation of responsibilities among central administration, chancellors
and provosts, and the deans, that the DEAN OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL should play a role in
reviewing promotion and tenure decisions. The dean's office has been playing that role for a long time,
quietly. Up to last year, the office read files and offered advice to the Senior Vice President for
Academic Affairs, in concert with Associate Vice President Carrier's office. The dean and associate
deans divided the files, by collegiate unit, so that over time there was specialization and understanding of
the units. This was the practice for both the Twin Cities and coordinate campuses (although it has been
only a nominal role with respect to the organized Duluth faculty.)
He was asked, in the Transition Task Force deliberations, if the Graduate School affected
decisions. It was the unusual instance when it does, he said, but there have been files they have
determined to be inadequate (e.g., no documentation about teaching).
One Committee member recalled a specific file from his own college. The letters evaluating the
scholarship were complete and in the file; the question was whether or not the letters represented peer
review. Questions were raised about the origins of the letters and the people submitting the review--they
were weak and not considered "peers" of faculty at this university. Does the Graduate School attend to
an issue such as this as well as procedural matters?
Dr. Brenner affirmed that it does; they actually do read all the files and raise questions both of
substance and procedure. Some files may be read more closely than others, such as when there are
discordant recommendations (the department, the college committee, and the dean do not agree), but all
are read. In part this is valuable because they tell a great deal about what is going on in the departments.
When he was evaluated for promotion to full professor, Dr. Brenner recalled, his department head
suggested he wait a year, because he had a great deal of research going on; the "snapshot" provided the
following year would be much better. It is true, he said, that these files are a snapshot, and they also
permit the Graduate School to draw on the expertise it knows exists. The process is also essential for it
to fulfill its role as champions of quality.
Other than file inconsistencies, which are unusual, they see significant unevenness in the
Faculty Consultative Committee
January 19, 1995
8
procedures being used, and he wrote to Drs. Infante and Carrier about them. Because the procedures will
change shortly, it was thought not necessary to address the concerns now. His view is that they are
substantial issues, so has brought them to the Committee on Faculty Affairs. Asked about the variations,
Dr. Brenner said that some departments, for example, are careful about the reviewers they use and obtain
all the appropriate documentation. In some cases, however, all of the reviewers have some personal
connection to the candidate; one can ask if there has been a true evaluation or if this is just a buddy
system at work. There are also authorship questions, in case of multiple authors; some units provide an
annotation of the work done by each. Outside letters, for another example, should ask about the impact
of the candidate's work on the field, not just be testimonials to the person. Professor Feeney reported that
he is setting up a meeting with the President, Dr. Carrier, and Dr. Brenner so that these issues can be
more thoroughly considered.
Are there reservations in central administration about the role of the Dean of the Graduate School
in the promotion and tenure process? One hears the same answer each time the issue is raised with the
President or Dr. Infante; is there reservation about the Graduate School continuing to play the role it
always has, and to raise standards across the University? There could be a conflict between the roles of
the Graduate School and that of the chancellors and provosts.
Dr. Brenner said he has heard no challenge to Graduate School participation in the review of files,
but the chancellors and provosts will have more autonomy than at present. The Graduate School will still
be able to raise questions; follow-up could be a problem. The Graduate School does receive the
complete file, he affirmed in response to a query, and assented to the notion that faculty applications for
summer grants should be part of the package.
The lines of authority are not clear; once the file leaves the provost, it goes to the President and
then the Regents. The consultation between provost and Graduate School is to take place BEFORE the
file is forwarded to the President, said one Committee member. In addition, said another, the Graduate
School can advise the President "that a provost is out to lunch" on promotion and tenure
recommendations. The concern of the Committee, it was noted, remains the ability of the Graduate
School to ensure uniformity and the provision of a systemwide perspective.
One Committee member asked how much would really change, with the reorganization. Will the
Graduate School lack a veto power it had before, even if rarely exercised? If the objective is that the
person signing off on the recommendation knows the candidate, the change will push the responsibility
down farther, Dr. Brenner replied. That may increase the probability that the provost or chancellor has
read the file. Right now he--or one of the other graduate deans-- talk with Dr. Carrier about EVERY
candidate and provide a one-paragraph statement of attributes and concerns, and advise Dr. Infante on
which files he should read. Yes, Dr. Brenner affirmed, even such files as candidates for associate
professor of orthopedic surgery. And if the provost is making unwise recommendations, repeated one
Committee member, the Dean or the Senior Vice President can go to the President. And if the provost
does not want the advice of the Graduate School, Dr. Brenner observed, the system has broken down.
One concern expressed was that the health sciences could begin to drift to use of clinical service as
a principal criterion for promotion. If that were to be the case, Dr. Brenner responded, there should be
discussion about it, at least by the Tenure Subcommittee and by the Committee on Faculty Affairs.
Faculty Consultative Committee
January 19, 1995
9
Each unit will have its own criteria, said one Committee member, so it will be difficult for the
Graduate School to compare across them. Dr. Brenner agreed, but said that the discussion with the
Committee on Faculty Affairs will be about whether or not there should be minima or norms that
transcend the units.
Discussion then turned to ORTTA; Dr. Brenner distributed copies of the executive summary of the
report from Arthur Andersen that Dr. Infante had mentioned earlier in the meeting. These are not
exclusively ORTTA issues and should not be described that way, Dr. Brenner told the Committee. The
issues are about grant management and University exposure to risk. There are two major activities
beyond the control of ORTTA. There are system issues that are both financial and non-financial.
The financial issues fall into two categories. First are those that have to do with operating
systems, such as providing information about operating balances in accounts. It is painfully evident to
anyone who has a grant that needed information is not available; since CUFS does not allow funds to be
encumbered, grant recipients must develop their own systems. The Arthur Andersen report says this
must be addressed to avoid substantial risk. ORTTA, Dr. Brenner pointed out, tried to ensure this was
considered when CUFS was first being implemented.
Asked about shadow systems, he said the University may be better off anointing one of the
existing shadow systems, and making it available to everyone, than trying to incorporate the CUFS grant
management package. The expense of these systems must be considerable, it was said; another
Committee member observed that information needed centrally cannot be captured when there are
varieties of shadow systems being used.
The next step is to conduct interviews and get an assessment of what is available, Dr. Brenner told
the Committee, and develop recommendations on what to do.
The second category of financial issues is within ORTTA, and that is the problem of processing
grants in a timely manner. Some processes are inefficient and some may be unnecessary; ORTTA has
been charged with redesigning them. A recent memo promising 24-hour turnaround was discussed; that
kind of service is appropriate, Dr. Brenner said, but the issue is then whether or not ORTTA is actually
reviewing the applications.
Discussion about ORTTA procedures continued briefly; it was noted that it would be helpful if
ORTTA treated contract management differently from grant management. Dr. Brenner said that Mr.
Potami wants specialists to handle contracts--and wondered if this discussion might not better be
conducted by the Senate Research Committee.
Professor Adams concurred, noting that this Committee should know of the problems but that it is
not its job to fix them.
One Committee member inquired about resources for faculty members who have grants. In some
cases, department administrators can learn what is needed and handle things for the faculty, but this
language about indictments makes faculty shudder when they don't have the information they need.
Dr. Brenner said that the University must address non-financial issues of compliance as well, such
Faculty Consultative Committee
January 19, 1995
10
as in animal care and use of human subjects. Where the University is soft is in the clarity of its policies
and in training people who can be available for faculty. Finally, there is a huge need for training activity
on responsibilities when conducting sponsored research. He agreed that it is not fair to expect faculty to
do their jobs if help is not provided. The world has changed a lot, he said, and the University has done
little to help faculty keep up with those changes about understanding the federally-mandated
responsibilities related to research activities.
Discussion then turned to the draft Conflict of Commitment policy that has been presented to the
Committee on Faculty Affairs and the Senate Research Committee. Reactions to it have been mixed, Dr.
Brenner reported, ranging from those who see it as an overreaction to what a few people have done, to
something quite reasonable. The University has had prescriptions on consulting, but not on research
when it was being done elsewhere, or on teaching. The policy will be taken up with the Committee on
Educational Policy next week, he said, to talk about instruction; it affects instruction WITHIN the
institution. Once those three committees have dealt with the policy, he said, it would be brought back to
this Committee.
The Conflict of Interest policy must be revised and go through the system this Spring, Dr. Brenner
then told the Committee, because there is an NSF rule calling for institutions to have a conflict of interest
policy by 6/28/95 in order to remain eligible for federal funds. Their rule requires a few changes in the
University's policy.
There are two ways to revise the University's policy: make the small necessary changes required
by NSF, or incorporate other changes recommended by the public-private partnership committee and
separate procedures from the policy. These latter changes would be appropriate and would clean up the
policy.
It was noted that the Regents are very interested in the Conflict of Commitment policy; Dr.
Brenner was asked if the process was moving along and about the source of the initiative. There is no
federal mandate, nor is there a Board of Regents mandate per se--although several individuals on the
Board have indicated they believe the University should have such a policy. A number of institutions
have built conflict of commitment into their conflict of interest policies.
Committee members discussed the nature of conflict of commitment, and the tenor of the policy.
Dr. Brenner responded to several comments by saying the intent is NOT to create a repressive
environment; the University WANTS people to be entrepreneurial and creative. If the concepts in the
policy are right, it may be that the terms are wrong. Good can come of this effort, he said, and he invited
the help of the faculty; he does not want the reputation of having done something negative to the faculty.
Professor Adams thanked Dr. Brenner for joining the meeting. He then quickly noted one
additional item of business (review of the peer-evaluation component of the evaluation of teaching
policy) and asked that Educational Policy and Faculty Affairs revisit the policy. He adjourned the
meeting at 3:00.
-- Gary Engstrand
University of Minnesota