Minutes*
Faculty Consultative Committee
Thursday, December 5, 1996
11:00 - 1:30
Room 238 Morrill Hall
Present:
Virginia Gray (chair), Carl Adams, Carole Bland, Victor Bloomfield, W. Andrew Collins,
Sara Evans, Russell Hobbie, Laura Coffin Koch, Michael Korth, Harvey Peterson,
Michael Steffes, Craig Swan, Matthew Tirrell
Absent:
Gary Davis, Dan Feeney, Fred Morrison,
Guests:
Senior Vice President Marvin Marshak
Others:
Maureen Smith (University Relations)
[In these minutes: Presidential search, tenure, administrative committee appointment, regent selection,
semester class period length; (with Senior Vice President Marshak:) tenure, comparisons with peer
institutions, Incentives for Managed Growth; questions to presidential candidates]
1.
Several Items of Business
Professor Gray convened the meeting at 11:00 and asked for a motion to close the meeting. The
motion was made, seconded, and unanimously voted.
PRESIDENTIAL SEARCH Professor Gray then reported on discussions she had had about the
Committee's interviews with the presidential candidates. In accord with all past custom of the
Committee, the interviews would be closed. That position was been criticized, and she asked if the
Committee concurred with her position. She has never been in an interview situation that was open to
the press, she said, and she did not wish to start such a procedure now. In addition, it is CRITICAL that
the Committee members be able to press the candidates on their views on tenure and other important
issues; that can best be done in a closed session. There will be open sessions with the candidates, so all
who can raise questions with the candidates.
The Committee agreed without dissent that the interviews would be closed.
DISCUSSIONS WITH UFA/AAUP & TENURE Professor Gray told the Committee about the
discussions that had been taking place with the UFA/AAUP representatives about negotiating with the
Board of Regents on the possibility of lifting the cease and desist order and adopting a revised tenure
code. She also reported on the resolution that would be introduced to the Faculty Senate about reviewing
the "Sullivan II" tenure proposal for the Morris campus and the Academic Health Center, and how
consultation with the Board of Regents on any proposals to change Sullivan II might take place.
*
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
December 5, 1996
2
APPOINTMENT TO AN ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP Professor Gray next asked the
Committee to identify individuals who might serve on a committee to implement the suggestions made
by the Denny committee on human resources concerning discrimination, sexual harassment, and related
matters. Professor Gray noted that this process resembled the one that had led to the appointment of the
tenure working group and the controversy that ensued, and wanted everyone on the Committee to be
clear that this would be a joint venture with the administration; she said she has been assured that such
cooperative endeavors had many precedents. Professor Bloomfield noted that these activities are what
characterize shared governance.
Committee members identified several individuals who might be asked to serve.
The meeting was opened; Professor Gray now reported that she and Professor Bloomfield have an
appointment with Regent O'Keefe.
REGENT SELECTION PROCESS She and Professor Bloomfield also had a meeting with the
citizen's committee of the Alumni Association that is considering reform of the regent selection process,
and had, in the language of diplomacy, "a full and frank exchange of views." They also presented the
Committee's proposal for (ex officio, non-voting) faculty representation on Regents' committees; the
proposal was received with favor.
Committee members discussed the identification of candidates for the regental seats that will be
filled. Professor Bland inquired if the Alumni Association committee intended to propose retaining the
system whereby one regent is appointed from each Congressional district and four are chosen at large.
Professor Gray noted that to change the method of apportioning regental seats would require a
constitutional amendment, something she advised them not to seek. A combination of having the
Governor appoint the at-large regents and the legislature electing the eight Congressional district regents
might make sense, but that would also require a constitutional amendment. Opening up the constitutional
amendment process might lead to undesirable results, so she had recommended against it.
Professor Gray then reviewed the schedule of events associated with the presidential candidates
and noted the Committee's participation.
SEMESTER CLASS PERIOD LENGTH Professor Koch next reported that the Committee on
Educational Policy had, the previous day, unanimously approved a recommendation that the University
Senate change the Semester Conversion Standards so that the standard class hour would be 50 minutes
rather than 55 minutes. At this point, the change is not a problem; the question is how to alert people to
the change, although the Senate will not be able to vote on it in February. Do Committee members
disagree with this recommendation, she inquired?
Professor Bloomfield commended the Committee for the change. The more the University
becomes like the rest of the world, the better off it is, he said, and the 50-minute class is one way to do
so.
Committee members then discussed the logistics of presenting the issue to the Senate; it was
agreed that Professor Koch should report on the recommendation for information at the Senate meeting
Faculty Consultative Committee
December 5, 1996
3
later in the day, and should bring it back for action in February. The change is significant enough that
people should have time to consider it. The proposal should also be circulated by the usual distribution
methods to ensure that all departments are aware that the recommended change is coming.
This is related to the question of faculty workload--the 55-minute class period would have
increased it--and also to the issue of connections with other institutions, Professor Koch observed. The
University of Wisconsin will have the same calendar as the University, and also has 50-minute class
periods; as cooperation between the two increases, the need for a uniform class schedule will become
more important. Several campuses and colleges have requested exemptions from the 55-minute hour, for
similar reasons, and there are many valid reasons for making the change. She said she did not want to
presume the Senate would approve the change, but did want people to know about it.
The Committee then viewed a tape of the discussion of tenure changes at Minnesota on the PBS
News Hour discussion, and discussed the various perceptions of the newscast about which they had
learned.
2.
Discussion with Senior Vice President Marshak
Professor Gray now welcomed Senior Vice President Marshak to the meeting, and asked him to
talk about anything that might be on his mind.
He said he would start with tenure. His view of the situation is that the most difficult part of the
discussion is over. He said he would not defend the process by which the process had reached the
present point, because it has been difficult and mistakes have been made. Nonetheless, where things are-without defending the process--is a good position. As he reads the Sullivan II proposal, there is a subtle
shift of authority from individual faculty members to the faculty collectively. That is what should
happen, so he personally believes Sullivan II represents progress over the 1985 code. It is important to
shift power from the individual faculty to the collective faculty.
He also said he believed the Regents would adopt Sullivan II for the Morris campus and the
Academic Health Center (AHC). What will happen after that is unclear; on the Twin Cities campus,
there will be an election after the new year, and Crookston remains under the cease and desist order.
With regard to the AHC, there has been raised the issue of base salary; he asked Vice President
Brenner to inquire about it. Professor Marshak read the last paragraph to the Committee: "In summary,
having the term `base salary' in the new tenure policy will not cause any difficulties in our ability to
continue to recover the allowable costs of total compensation from sponsoring agencies."
As he looks back on the tenure discussion process, the worst point was in September; things have
improved since then. There is a long ways to go, and various events will occur, but in the meantime the
University has reached a good position for the Law School, and will probably do so for Morris and the
AHC as well.
At the Senate meeting later in the day, Professor Bloomfield told Professor Marshak, this
Committee will present the Faculty Senate with a motion to request the three committees to review
Sullivan II and report back by December 12, in time to communicate some evaluation to the Regents. It
Faculty Consultative Committee
December 5, 1996
4
is conceivable that the committees could look seriously at Sullivan II and say they like most of it but
want to touch up a few parts; the Faculty Senate might concur. How would the Regents react to that?
Professor Marshak said the Regents have indicated they are willing to talk with faculty, and other
campus groups, to the extent that they can, given the cease and desist orders. With regard to the AHC
and Morris, there is no order, so they are willing to talk about those units. The question of how one
would deal with concerns would depend on the concerns. It may be that the issue of base salary could be
addressed; others could be through interpretation or a change in code. It is hard to tell what the reaction
would be without knowing the proposed change. He said he believed the Regents would be open to
suggestions.
He has had discussions with a number of people about Sullivan II with respect to Morris and the
AHC; other than the base salary issue, he has not heard about anything that is a major issue. When he
says the Regents will act on Sullivan II on December 13, that could change if a major problem were
discovered. The reason he believes this is that he has heard the reactions to various claims that the Board
has some secret proposal for the AHC--they intend to return to the Morris proposal or some other one,
and are just waiting to bring it out. There was the rumor that what was done for the Law School was not
important, because the Board intended no changes there, but did want to make drastic changes in the
AHC. Professor Marshak said he did not believe any of that, and that the Board is eager to demonstrate
it has no such ideas at all. That is one of the reasons they discharged their consultants.
If the Faculty Senate asks its committees to look at Sullivan II, Professor Bloomfield pointed out,
that is an exercise to be taken seriously. And the tenure code requires the Regents to ask the faculty for
consultation on changes; that means, in the eyes of the Committee, that the Regents should be flexible
and listen to what the faculty says.
Professor Marshak cautioned that it would be best to wait to see what happens. The many lawyers
and others who have looked at Sullivan II have found it reasonable. That is not an argument that will
sway the faculty, several Committee members pointed out jocularly.
Professor Bloomfield next inquired about collective bargaining. Some faculty are pro-union, some
are not; what the faculty are united about is dismay that the Regents and/or administration have declared
that department heads are not members of the faculty. He urged that Professor Marshak use whatever
influence he has to persuade the administration or Board to abandon that position.
Professor Marshak said there are technical and substantial reasons why one might take a certain
position, and the position one comes to can result from a combination of technical and substantive
reasons. In different times, one might come to a different balance between those technical and
substantive considerations. That is all he can say on the subject, he concluded.
The point of the question, Professor Bloomfield replied, is to ask that he carry the message.
Professor Marshak said he understood, but repeated his statement.
Professor Swan said that answer was unsatisfactory, and very annoying. This is not a matter of an
issue of what would or would not be involved in union negotiations; it is a definition of what the faculty
is that is independent of what issues might be bargainable. He said he did not understand that the answer
Faculty Consultative Committee
December 5, 1996
5
to the question might vary over time. He told Professor Marshak he was not seeking a response, but
found the answer unsatisfactory.
Professor Hobbie asked why the administration could not publicly state its reasons for coming to
the conclusion it did about chairs and heads, a conclusion that is different from the one the last time the
issue was joined. The problem is that the decision was made in a meeting with counsel, Professor
Marshak said, and he cannot respond. The request is that he ask the counsel why they cannot loosen up,
Professor Hobbie responded.
Professor Gray said the point is that the answer is unsatisfactory, not that Professor Marshak had
to answer it today.
Professor Koch said she had a question that arose from a recent meeting of FCC members with
department chairs. There is a provision in Sullivan II that is a concern: that the University could, in
certain times, "rent" the faculty to other institutions, in a way that might not be satisfactory. In the AHC,
some of the faculty could suddenly become parts of Fairview, or something else.
Professor Marshak said he had not heard that concern. Professor Bland said it will be one of the
issues that will arise when Sullivan II goes to the committees for review. Professor Gray noted that the
provision was in the proposal adopted by the Faculty Senate last spring, and it was passed already.
Professor Marshak next distributed copies of a chart he had distributed to the Board of Regents.
He had asked the provosts and deans to come up with a list of institutions that were comparable or better
than the University of Minnesota with regard to four different missions: as a research university, as a
land-grant university, as a university serving an urban community, and as an AHC university. That the
chart, was given to the Board as a way to help them understand the various attributes of the University
and how it fits in the national picture. Often the focus is on one aspect of an institution, rather than all
the different parts; there has to be an understanding of what it means to be a focused campus, what it
means to be a comprehensive campus, and so on.
Another list that he did not have at hand at the meeting included a list of public research
universities comparable to or better than the University of Minnesota; they were the Universities of
California, Illinois, Michigan, Texas, Washington, and Wisconsin. He said he personally believes that is
the entire group that can be said to be better than the University. In the land-grant category--there is
some overlap--the list includes Wisconsin, Cornell, Michigan State, Penn State. In the list of AHC
institutions, there is also overlap; it includes California, Texas, Washington, Wisconsin, Michigan, and
Illinois.
If one looks at all four attributes--high quality research, land-grant, serving an urban community,
and having an academic health center, it is not clear there is another university that is similar to
Minnesota on all four traits, Professor Marshak pointed out. The only one close would be Ohio State.
There are universities comparable on three of the four--UCLA, Wisconsin, Washington--but it is hard to
come up with an exact match. It
These kinds of issues are being raised with the Regents, he concluded, and invited comments.
Faculty Consultative Committee
December 5, 1996
6
What is the reaction of the Regents, Professor Gray inquired? During the years she was the
legislative liaison, she recalled, the legislators tended not to relate to comparisons outside the Big Ten; is
there resistance on the part of the Regents to talking about a "top six" instead of the Big Ten?
He does not, Professor Marshak said, and commented that the Board office said the comparisons
had never been pointed out to them. This started with the tenure discussion; at one point, the Board
consultant, Richard Chait, had staff looking up tenure codes for a lot of universities. They also wanted
analyses of these codes from his office; Professor Marshak recalled that he had asked why the effort was
being undertaken. The Regents have said they want to improve the University of Minnesota; why is
anyone looking at traits of universities that are worse than Minnesota? The examination should be of
universities that are BETTER than Minnesota. One need not argue about how exactly to measure
comparable; with rough approximation, figure out the benchmark group and limit the evaluation to that
group, Professor Marshak said. Even the research report prepared by Dr. Chait's associate identified
practices at a lot of institutions, but much of it was irrelevant to Minnesota; focus should be on what is
important to improving the quality of the University of Minnesota.
How is this chart of the top 30 CHANGE magazine research university being used, Professor
Bland asked? The Regents have instructed the administration to improve the quality of the University,
Professor Marshak reiterated, so they should be looking at what comparable or better universities do to
find if there are lessons to be learned for Minnesota. That group of 30 has been anointed as the
benchmark group for salary comparisons, so he used them for comparative purposes.
It is also being used to address the issue of ratings. Some say the ratings are going down; what
they are has to be understood, and why they are going down has to be understood. In order to do that,
one must understand who is going up, as well as the reasons why (1) the group going down is going down
and (2) the group going up is going up. It is important, in his view, to look at the category of universities
like Minnesota--Midwest, land-grant, urban, public, comprehensive--and see how that KIND of
university is faring.
Which groups are going up? It is the public universities in California and other sunbelt states and
the private universities that are focused, such as Duke, Emory, and Rice, small institutions with large
endowments per student.
Once one understands who is going down and who is going up, one must ask if the University of
Minnesota should model itself after Duke, or the University of California system? Or should it decide, as
a public policy question, that the attributes of a Midwest, land-grant, research university are what should
be maintained, even if doing so hurts the institution in the ratings? That is the kind of discussion he is
trying to provoke, Professor Marshak explained.
Does he envision developing a benchmark of 10 that will be used in the near future, Professor
Bland then inquired? Professor Marshak said that if one wants to benchmark the University, one must
decide what it should be; then one can pick comparable universities against which to measure
benchmarks. One can imagine a University of the Great Lakes--the states of Minnesota, Wisconsin,
Illinois, Indiana, and Michigan have a population essentially the same as that in California. One could
have a university system like that in California, and look at the differences between the University of the
Great Lakes and the University of California; there are some. One can imagine--although it would
Faculty Consultative Committee
December 5, 1996
7
require a politically-difficult multi-state compact--the University of the Great Lakes adopting a strategy
similar to that of California. Presumably that is a strategy that has been demonstrated to work.
What is that strategy? One element is the idea that campuses will be focused on a smaller range of
topics. Land-grant will be confined to Davis and part of Berkeley. The AHC will be confined to San
Francisco and Los Angeles and San Diego. San Diego will emphasize natural sciences and biology, and
not have a range of other things.
Another interesting comparison is that in 1960, the comparison of the Great Lakes area was about
2.5 times that of California; today they are about the same. To self-flagellate because of such massive
population shifts is not wise, Professor Marshak said. The University of Minnesota is not responsible for
the population boom in the sunbelt, and there is no way, if California pursues a rational policy in higher
education, that Minnesota can prevent California from having universities that are better than Minnesota.
They have 32 million people; Minnesota has 4.5 million. That is simply reality, and the University
should not beat itself up over that.
These are aggregate ratings, averaging departmental status, Professor Bloomfield reflected; what
does that imply about physics departments or biochemistry departments? Should Minnesota surrender
the idea of having as good a physics department as some of these more focused places?
There are various strategies that can be pursued, Professor Marshak observed. Traditionally, the
University of Minnesota has been very strong in social sciences and engineering--those have been the
two broad areas of strength. If one wanted simply up increase the NRC rankings, they should pour
money into the foreign languages; they are less expensive, and ratings can be increased for a relatively
smaller amount of money. Is that a rational policy? He is not advocating trying to raise rankings this
way.
Strengthening biology is crucial to this University, Professor Marshak maintained. There are a
number of parallels with Cornell, he said; they have a gulf between the private and public funding (akin
to the gulf between Minneapolis and St. Paul); they also have multiple departments such as Applied
Economics and Economics. Can an institution reshape itself so it can get more out of the resources it
has? There are important questions one can get insights into by looking at what others do; Minnesota
need not copy others, but when one compares and contrasts, things occur to people. The examination of
biology is very healthy; is the division of the field the best one, or should there be a different
arrangement?
He is trying to get the Regents to deal with public policy issues, and to take the issues to the state.
He is trying to make the point in St. Paul that some of these issues cannot be decided by the University.
The position that "the University should decide" something, and recommend it to the state is not
appropriate in all cases. What if the University proposed the California admissions standard--one has to
be in the top 12% of the high school graduating class to come to the University? That is not the kind of
issue the University can decide by itself; that is a public policy issue related to how the state functions. It
is related to how the population is viewed, and how far the state is willing to push high quality education
into the population, and what one's views of equity is--this gets to the basis of Midwest populism, not
something the University can decide. He and Donna Peterson have been pushing policy makers to be
honest about these questions, Professor Marshak concluded.
Faculty Consultative Committee
December 5, 1996
8
Professor Marshak then turned to Incentives for Managed Growth (IMG). He began by saying it
needed to be put in context: the University has cost accounting studies; there has been the annual
Instructional Cost Study. These studies attempt to allocate all the direct and indirect costs to each
college. It is important to understand that IMG is not intended to be a cost accounting allocation; it is
intended to be a budgetary tool that gets at the most salient features of costs for the purpose of
influencing decision-making.
On the expense side, the University has always allocated salaries to units, and for the last ten years
fringe benefits have also been allocated. Direct costs--telephones, paper, etc.--have been allocated. The
biggest cost that is not allocated is space. What IMG proposes to do is not to allocate the cost of space,
but to establish a $5 per-square-foot charge for space. The reason that is not a cost allocation is that the
average University expense for space is about $9.50 per square foot. The cost of renting space on
University Avenue is $15-17 per square foot; the cost of building a new Class B building is about $21-23
per square foot. The University could not respond to a demand from departments for new space at $5 per
square foot; that is why the $5 figure is not a cost allocation. The virtue of $5 is that is more than 50¢,
which is too small an amount to get anyone's attention. If the figure is zero it has no effect, and if it is
50¢ it has no effect--but the working group decided that $9.50 would be too much. Whether the figure
should be $3 or $4.75 or some other amount can be argued indefinitely; it has to be a number that people
will use for some purpose, but using the total cost would create too much of a perturbation.
What are the issues on the income side? ICR has historically, in recent years, been allocated in
part by formula. Tuition would be allocated on a 75-25 basis. These are estimates, not cost allocations,
and are intended to put incentives into the system. Then there is the state subsidy--that is not new, and
has always been allocated. What IMG will do for a typical unit is that instead of having 100% of the
units allocated by the traditional budget process, 75-80% of the funds will be allocated by the traditional
process, and 20-25% will be allocated by looking at tuition and space and ICR.
The idea here is not to put every tub on its own bottom, cut links throughout the University, and
run completely segregated books with everyone charging everyone. The idea is to start building, on the
margin, some incentives to attempt to manage growth. They KNOW there will be problems, Professor
Marshak announced; in some cases, the 20-25% will not make sense. That just means the 75-80%
managed through the budget process will have to take into account those kinds of considerations--just as
the budget allocation process has always taken into account various considerations. Will there be
difficulties? Sure. Will people learn a lot? Yes.
This is a reasonable plan, Professor Marshak said, that addresses the most salient issues. The
Executive Council has approve proceeding, and the administration plans to proceed beginning July 1.
The first year will be revenue neutral, in order to better understand the impact.
Professor Swan noted that Professor Koch has written of the implications of IMG for the
educational programs of the University. He said he agrees entirely with the concerns. He is sympathetic
to the need to set incentives at the margins, but there is a more fundamental problem that is not being
addressed at the same time, so not everything will start off on an equal footing. He said he is concerned
that central officers will say "we have solved all the problems, it isn't our problem any more, it's the
college's problem." This mechanism does set in place a set of incentives where the starting point and the
Faculty Consultative Committee
December 5, 1996
9
implications of decisions at the margins are not the same across units, and this difference is not
something the administration can back away from.
Professor Marshak said he had no intention of backing away from them. The purpose of having
academic administrators is to administer; if they are not doing so, they ought to be fired.
Professor Bland about departments that have rented a lot of space; can they request space at $5 per
foot? Professor Marshak said the University will try to get out of rented space. The whole issue of space
is terrible; there is a need to get out of rented space whenever possible. But if everyone paying $15 per
foot on University Avenue believes they are now entitled to $5 space, the University will have to set up
tents on the Mall. This cannot happen overnight, but the University will always try to bring units back to
campus. What happens to the AHC space is up in the air, depending on how the Fairview affiliation
works out. Provost Cerra really wants to demolish Jackson-Owre-Millard-Lyon, so that will also affect
space in the AHC. There is no doubt that space is a difficult issue.
Professor Gray thanked Professor Marshak for coming. He said that if Committee members had
comments about the materials, and how better they might be presented, he would welcome suggestions.
He also suggested faculty think about the University of the Great Lakes in their own department, and the
implications it would have.
Professor Marshak confirmed, in response to a question, that President Muse of Auburn had
withdrawn from the presidential search.
3.
Questions for Presidential Candidates
Professor Gray noted the questions that would be addressed to presidential candidates in the open
forums, and then directed the attention of Committee members to the questions that each of them had
formulated as possibilities for the FCC interview with the candidates.
Following a period of discussion, the Committee agreed on the following questions:
I want to explore your views on academic freedom and how it is assured in a university. Is
tenure necessary to protect academic freedom? What specific components of a tenure code
have to be in place for the code to guarantee academic freedom? (Follow-up: Please give
your views on post-tenure review and how it can best be accomplished. Can you direct us to
any written examples of your views on tenure?)
How would you articulate the value of the University to the state when you speak with
legislators and the public at large? What do you think about increased faculty involvement
in this effort, particularly if such involvement requires increased support from central
administration resources?
In our experience there are tremendous pressures on administrators not to consult with the
faculty. (These come from diverse sources: the sheer size of a public research university,
administrators who are and have long been quite removed from the direct delivery of either
education or research [i.e., we have our own "inside the beltway" problem called Morrill
Faculty Consultative Committee
December 5, 1996
Hall], external political pressures, the use of corporate managerial models which foster a
perception that the faculty are an "obstacle to change," and so on.) How do you propose to
handle these pressures? What, in your view, is the proper role of faculty governance in this
time of change?
Faculty salary raises at the University of Minnesota have been very poor for the past five
years, and our salaries rank at the bottom of the top 30 research universities. In recognition
of this, the administration has put salary raises at the top of the biennial request priority list.
However, promises of top priority for faculty salaries have a long history of being shoved
aside as other demands emerge. At a retreat to discuss the biennial request, faculty leaders
asked the administration to pledge that the first dollars of any increase in the University's
appropriation would be devoted to faculty salaries. The President and his Executive
Council made that pledge. Would you reaffirm it if you become president?
What strategies have you used to build a positive organizational climate, i.e., one where
there is high morale, a spirit of innovation, dedication to work, receptivity to new ideas,
frequent interactions, high cooperation, low faculty and administrative turnover, good
leader/member relationships, and open discussion of disagreements? How successful have
those strategies been?
There is a lot of talk about the need for universities to change in response to external forces,
although one might argue that there are always external pressures on universities. What are
the significant factors to which you think a university like the University of Minnesota
should respond? What do those factors imply for the things the faculty should be doing and
the way faculty think of themselves?
The faculty have been sensitized, during the past year, to the importance of a president's
working relationship with the Board of Regents and with external constituencies such as the
governor, legislature, and business leaders. What strategies have you used in working with
boards and with external constituencies? What examples do you have of the success of these
strategies?
As the University strives toward excellence, particularly in its undergraduate program, what
is the role of access?
What value should be placed on the teaching of undergraduate liberal arts and professional
school students in a major research university?
What the most significant problems and opportunities that you believe are present in the
current University of Minnesota environment? What abilities do you possess that would
suggest you can effectively respond to these problems and opportunities?
What do you want to ask us?
Committee members agreed who would ask which question; Professor Gray then adjourned the
meeting at 1:30.
10
Faculty Consultative Committee
December 5, 1996
11
-- Gary Engstrand
University of Minnesota