Minutes*
Faculty Consultative Committee
Thursday, November 21, 1996 (Part II)
1:30 - 4:30
Room 238 Morrill Hall
Present:
Virginia Gray (chair), Carole Bland, Victor Bloomfield, W. Andrew Collins, Gary Davis,
Sara Evans, Dan Feeney, Russell Hobbie, Laura Coffin Koch, Michael Korth, Fred
Morrison, Harvey Peterson, Craig Swan
Regrets:
Carl Adams, Matthew Tirrell
Absent:
Michael Steffes
Guests:
Professors V. Rama Murthy, Paula Rabinowitz, and Thomas Walsh (UFA/AAUP);
Professors Leonard Kuhi and John Imholte (the latter by telephone); Vice President Mark
Brenner
Others:
Martha Kvanbeck (University Senate), Maureen Smith (University Relations)
[In these minutes: Graduate Assistant tuition remission; consultation on tenure]
3.
Discussion with Vice President Brenner
Professor Gray next welcomed Vice President Brenner to the meeting, and noted that this was a
regular meeting with him. She apologized for keeping him waiting in the hallway while the Committee
discussed the presidential search with Professors Imholte and Kuhi.
Dr. Brenner said he had intended to send a note to Professor Gray; he noted that he was chair of
FCC when the last presidential search occurred. He had had the responsibility for conveying to the chair
of the Board of Regents the sentiments of FCC. There is clear precedent for ample substantive
expression of opinion by FCC, which was carefully listened to.
Dr. Brenner said he had a number of issues to raise with the Committee and would welcome
questions. He began with changes in the policy on Graduate Assistant (GA) tuition remission. It had
been discussed earlier in the day at the Executive Council; action had been deferred in the absence of the
President, but it is expected that action will be taken on December 11. He has visited with the
Educational Policy and Finance and Planning Committees about the proposal.
His office has drafted a policy on the merger and discontinuance of graduate programs that is
being reviewed by the Policy and Review Councils of the Graduate School; it will go to the Executive
Council in two weeks. The policy is to provide guidance on working with programs that are at risk in
*
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 21, 1996 (Part II)
2
terms of ensuring quality.
A third item he could present is an update on grants management changes and interactions with
NIH.
Professor Bloomfield suggested he start with the GA tuition remission policy. Dr. Brenner said
the tuition remission system is very much broken and cannot be repaired. They have surveyed other
graduate schools in the AAU; they know that the preponderance of the schools that recover tuition that is
provided as a benefit do so through a direct charge. Three schools provide a higher salary rather than a
benefit; Dr. Brenner said he did not believe that is the desirable choice for the University, at least at
present. He is proposing a direct charge system.
He noted that the current system has accumulated a deficit of $8 -10 million, in part as a result of
manipulation of the system; that debt must be dealt with.
He has received a letter from the Health and Human Services auditor; they are going to look at the
University's practices on GA tuition remission. HHS is not looking at Minnesota in particular; they are
concerned with the practice of granting agencies paying tuition costs. There may be something more
ominous on the horizon than how the University will pay the cost. Dr. Brenner said that he would
communicate with his peers before responding to the HHS letter; they will need to be careful in how they
respond, because it may be a case of an agency mandating policy through the back door.
On GA tuition remission, he is proposing that all GAs, until they become candidates, who have
25% appointments or more and who qualify for the tuition benefit, have it provided as at present. A 50%
appointment would provide a 100% tuition benefit; a 25% appointment would provide a 50% tuition
benefit; appointments between 25% and 50% would be pro-rated. GAs would have to register for a
minimum of seven credits; the band will run from seven to fourteen credits. The initial proposal, for a
ceiling of 12 credits on the band, was producing contorted behavior; institutions are consistent in capping
the number of credits that a student can take to receive the benefit, but there is no pattern to the numbers
that have been chosen. Fourteen is a reasonable number, he concluded.
Once the band is a predictable amount, a student should not have to get into an argument with an
advisor about taking another course. If it is within the band, the cost will be predictable and can be built
into budgets.
GAs will be required to register all three quarters, but not during the summer.
Once the student is a candidate, he or she would only have to register for one credit per quarter,
but would have to register for the 36 thesis credits before graduation.
A major issue, in going to a direct charge system, is that some will benefit and who will be short of
money. What should they do? They have begun a detailed analysis, by department and college, by fund;
across the institution, on O&M funds, the system will be short by about $220,000 because of the change.
IT will be a beneficiary of the change; CLA will lose money. He is recommending that the O&M funds
be rearranged--as was done when the high fringe rate was provided in the first place. This would be a
one-time permanent adjustment in O&M funds. It would be taking money away from IT that was
Faculty Consultative Committee
November 21, 1996 (Part II)
3
provided a few years ago, but would not be taking long-term funds from any college.
Dr. Brenner said he did not have comparable numbers for sponsored funds. Most GAs are those
with higher salaries, however, so the problem is not as great. There are some places where there are
shortfalls, and it will probably not be possible to make a permanent change in base funding. If the
resources can be found, however, Dr. Brenner said he hoped the University could provide some bridge
money for sponsored grants, so units could make the transition over a two year period. The
rearrangement of O&M money is a prerequisite, however, or some colleges will be decimated, and that
would not be acceptable.
Dr. Brenner recalled that he was queried at the Finance and Planning Committee about whether it
was necessary to continue what has essentially become an entitlement program of tuition remission for
GAs. The answer is that the University must, because of a new change in federal policy on cost
accounting, requiring consistent practice; tuition remission must remain linked to GA appointments. The
University cannot provide the benefit to some but not to others, because it would appear the federal
government is being charged for something others are not being charged for. Because the University has
both TAs and RAs on federal funds, the connection must remain for both groups of students. This was
not known at the time of the SCFP discussion, Dr. Brenner told Professor Morrison.
Since that time, he has visited Illinois, Professor Morrison responded; they have two separate
classes of RAs, one of which receives tuition and the other of which does not. Dr. Brenner said he could
explore that possibility. He recalled that Professor Speaks had been quite articulate on the point: there
are some students they will do everything they can to recruit to the University, and there are others who
are in the middle of the pack, who are deserving but for whom the department does not have the
resources to offer both an assistantship and tuition remission. Departments might rather support two
students, with the available dollars, rather than only one (who receives tuition plus the assistantship). He
said he would inquire about the Illinois practice.
Another issue that must be addressed has two elements. The direct charge has a predictable cost
for departments: the Graduate School tuition band cost, currently $1560 per quarter. What would be the
benefit for a college other than the Graduate School? It is possible to connect the tuition benefit to the
employee class, they have learned; there could be a Law assistant--either working in the Law School or
in any other unit--who would receive both the salary plus Law School tuition. At present, if someone
from the Law School were employed in another college as a TA, they would receive the salary plus
Graduate School tuition. This problem can be worked out, however, and he is clarifying for the deans
what it means. If it is not structured this way, a Law student (or almost any non-Graduate School postbaccalaureate student) would be unmarketable because of the high tuition cost (primarily in professional
schools) to the employing college.
A quandary they have not yet resolved has to do with students taking courses in both the Graduate
School and University College, Dr. Brenner said. If they take 8 credits in the Graduate School, they have
used up the tuition band; if they then take 4 credits in UC, they would be personally responsible for the
tuition. This is a real problem, because there are a number of such students and there is no easy way
around it.
They have learned that students currently employed in UC as TAs are not charged tuition fringe
Faculty Consultative Committee
November 21, 1996 (Part II)
4
benefit costs; this is surprising, and the dollar amount is significant. The students employed get the
tuition benefit, but the fringe benefit pool is not paid. On the other hand, in the case of the student who
takes 4 credits in UC and 8 in the Graduate School, and pays tuition for the 4 UC credits, the payment
does not go to UC, it goes to the University. This is a two-way street, Dr. Brenner said, and he didn't
know how the figures worked out.
In dealing with these problems, they are very much constrained by the student database systems;
they impose severe limitations. There is a moratorium on making any adjustments to those systems for
two years, so even if he is told of creative ideas, some cannot be addressed for another two years.
Professor Koch inquired what percentage of TAs are taking fewer than 7 credits. Dr. Brenner said
he did not know, or how many of those people are GAs but who are not candidates. It is his objective to
create an environment where students will get to be candidates much sooner than they have up to now;
that is clearly educationally sound. The idea of a candidacy is to determine if the student is suitable for
the program; it is unforgivable to wait until the fourth or fifth year, and the program is then in an
awkward position to make a hard decision. To put other incentives in place will drive behavior, and Dr.
Brenner said he does not feel bad about that; no one has taken him on on this issue, he said.
Professor Swan noted the point about the high fringe benefit rate leading to gaming, and to the
disadvantage of graduate education. He said he did not see how a direct charge system addressed the
problem; tuition remission is still a big cost, whether it shows up as a fringe benefit or a direct cost. It
may be that the institution needs to face THAT issue, rather than engaging in budgetary manipulations.
What this will do, in the case of some departments that are paying disproportionately more than
their fair share per student, is eliminate that discrepancy. The issue of what the bottom line is to support
a student here, compared to peer institutions, has been the subject of a survey they have been conducting.
It appears the University is about at the mean of the cost of public institutions, and well below the cost
of private institutions. The University is not out of line, and the data will be provided to the Committee.
The concern is whether the University has a system that is pricing it out of market; if so, there is a strong
argument for using institutional resources--as may be the case at some institutions. Some private
universities are using endowment funds, and some publics are using state money, but those practices are
NOT common, Dr. Brenner told the Committee.
Professor Swan recalled Dr. Brenner's comment about being constrained by the student database
systems; is that not getting carts and horses mixed up? What is educationally appropriate should drive
the systems, not the reverse, he said. He would even suggest, in this day of powerful and sophisticated
desktop machines, that the case for being bound by the central system is weak. Professor Swan recalled a
story told by Professor Hobbie when both were in dean's offices; relying on the systems people is not
always wise, because when told of things that could not be done, Associate Dean Hobbie hired an
undergraduate in computer science--who did for him in a weekend what was too difficult for the systems
people to handle. Professor Swan also said that with respect to the large issue, the wrong question is
being asked. These people are not programmers; they are good at running established systems, and when
asked to develop new systems, it is the wrong question. That is not a criticism, but with a few smart
people and sophisticated machines, there ought to be a way to interface with existing systems.
Professor Swan then inquired about the deficit; it appears to grow every time Dr. Brenner talks
Faculty Consultative Committee
November 21, 1996 (Part II)
5
about it. Presumably the charge would be set by expectations of course loads students would take and
other data; does the excess come from students taking more courses than expected, thus increasing the
fringe benefit charge? If that is so, students taking the courses are generating unexpected revenue--and
that IS the solution for solving the deficit. Does not someone have an unexpected tuition benefit that
would be the source for funding the deficit?
There is an element of truth to this observation, Dr. Brenner said, but it is not ongoing. There was
a jump in course load when a requirement that students take six credits to be FICA exempt was imposed;
that income should be tracked. The deficit continues to grow, however, because of the capping of
credits; there is no longer an inflation of course credits per student. But there may be real money that
could be used to help pay the deficit. There have also been very creative responses to the fringe benefit
cost; one college has figured out a way to dodge it that is costing the University $200,000 per quarter.
In terms of the carts and horses, Dr. Brenner said, in a University-wide system with a common
fringe benefit pool, responsibility for the costs cannot be transferred quickly to local units. Under
Incentives for Managed Growth, this should all be local; he expressed doubt about the wisdom of
transferring the task to the units at the this point. He had in mind the Graduate School doing this, not the
departments, Professor Swan replied.
They have tracked how all of this handled, Dr. Brenner said. The Graduate School is a silent
partner; the activity is between the GA Office--which is in Human Resources--and Payroll. The Graduate
School role is as an advocate for fairness to the students, and is also trying to develop a situation that is
fair for everyone. As Vice President for Research, he is trying to be sure the University remains
competitive so that its researchers can be as successful as those at other institutions. That is why his
office has inserted itself in the issue, and he does not plan to walk away from it, but they are not
responsible for the implementation of the proposal.
Professor Morrison said he wanted to echo the point about systems; this is the second time at this
meeting that he has heard a central administrator say that "we can't do it because, gee, the people in
Morrill Hall just can't seem to move paper around fast enough." The other issue was processing the Form
16s and 17s. What was said that the delays are because they are short-staffed. That is their problem, not
the faculty's. The systems are the problem of the people who have failed to keep the systems up.
Professor Swan said he was disappointed to hear Dr. Brenner say he was not responsible for
implementation. "Don't give up so soon," he advised Dr. Brenner; his role should be one of insisting that
a system be implemented that is in the best interest of graduate education--and that if it cannot delivered,
he should not agree to one that will be inadequate.
Dr. Brenner agreed. What has driven this is that his office said they would no longer continue to
research alternatives, but determined that a direct charge system would be adopted; the question was how
best to get there. The idea of his office proposing a system is a challenge; it may not be appropriate for
his office to take over the transactions of another office that has responsibility for the work. It is not
appropriate for his office to get into the payroll business. Professor Swan agreed, but said that Dr.
Brenner could tell payroll how to do it right. Dr. Brenner assented. Central administrators are cognizant
of the frailty of the central systems; that is why they are a major item in the biennial budget. The
University cannot be managed with the systems that are in place.
Faculty Consultative Committee
November 21, 1996 (Part II)
6
Given the amounts required for these systems, Professor Bloomfield observed, the University
should think more seriously about Professor Swan's advice to go to powerful desktops, and rescue the
University from systems people who cannot get things done. That is where the University is going, Dr.
Brenner said; it is converting from a legacy system to a workstation approach, a decentralized system-but one cannot turn the one off without have the other in place.
His sense is that progress is not being made, Professor Morrison said; that is because the people
running the inefficient systems have a vested interest in running inefficient systems.
Professor Gray noted that this discussion had taken place before, and that Dr. Brenner simply
happened to be today's victim, and thanked him for attending the meeting and listening to the complaints
about systems.
Professor Morrison urged that Dr. Brenner talk with Professor Fennell Evans about systems issues.
Dr. Brenner assured the Committee he does so frequently.
4.
Discussion about Consultation on Tenure
Professor Gray drew the conversation back to the discussion about how to work with the
UFA/AAUP on possible negotiations to lift the "maintenance of the status quo" order in order to allow
discussion with the Regents of the tenure code. Following a 45-minute discussion, and email exchanges
the following day, the Committee agreed to continue working with the UFA/AAUP as well as asking the
Faculty Senate if it wished to take up the "Sullivan II" tenure proposal on December 5 and December 12.
Professor Gray then adjourned the meeting at 4:30.
--Gary Engstrand
University of Minnesota