Minutes*
Faculty Consultative Committee
Thursday, February 27, 1996 (Part I)
1:30 - 4:30
Room 300 Morrill Hall
Present:
Virginia Gray (chair), Carl Adams, Carole Bland, Victor Bloomfield, W. Andrew Collins,
Gary Davis, Sara Evans, Russell Hobbie, Michael Korth, Fred Morrison, Harvey Peterson,
Michael Steffes, Craig Swan
Absent:
Dan Feeney, Laura Coffin Koch, Matthew Tirrell
Guests:
Senior Vice President Marvin Marshak
Others:
Martha Kvanbeck (University Senate); Maureen Smith (University Relations)
[In these minutes: Various items; food service and support services standards; draft statement on
budgetary matters (salaries, tuition, computing systems, parking, telephones) from the Finance and
Planning committee; (with Senior Vice President Marshak:) matrix management, funding
interdisciplinary research, biweekly payroll; legislative, student actions on making teaching evaluations
public; (with Vice President Brenner) changes needed in the Academic Misconduct Policy to meet
federal requirements]
1.
Various Items of Business
Professor Gray convened the meeting at 1:00 and said there were several items of business to be
dealt with before Senior Vice President Marshak arrived.
She began by distributing notes from the FCC retreat with the Executive Council the previous
Friday. Most points were about agenda-setting, and implementation will have to await the presence of
President Yudof. There was also discussion of whether to have a task force; at the suggestion of
Professor Evans, it should perhaps be put on hold until President Yudof has made decisions about
structure, and then the Committee can decide if it needs to do anything about the structure of the
governance system.
Professor Steffes reported on the meeting of President Yudof with the AHC faculty. It appeared,
from his meetings with the Committee, that he has made no decision about the provostal structure, but it
also appears that he wants the strength to be at the collegiate and departmental levels. That proposition
gained applause when made to the AHC faculty. It seems that if there is to be a provostal level, it will be
weak; if that is so, then there should not be one at all. Committee members discussed possible changes in
structure that might ensue from the change in administration. Professor Gray noted that Dr. Yudof has
said publicly he believes the University has too many administrators.
*
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
February 27, 1997 (Part I)
2
Professor Gray reported that she had just come from the legislative session to elect the regents; all
five candidates had been elected.
COMMITTEE MINUTES Professor Hobbie pointed out one item on the list Professor Gray had
compiled, a question about the minutes of the Committee. ("The minutes are too long and identify
administrators by name. This should be changed.") Professor Hobbie agreed that one administrator had
made this point; he disagreed. One problem the Committee has had is credibility with the faculty, and he
and others have received a number of comments preferring the more detailed discussions. Professor
Morrison said he has heard from a number of people, including deans, that the only way they find out
anything is through the minutes; the Committee should say that that was an interesting alternative. The
Committee took no action on the question.
SUPPORT SERVICES Professor Gray next inquired of Professor Morrison if the administration
had consulted with the Finance and Planning Committee about selling the food service operations. He
said there are two different ideas going forward. One is privatization, or contracting out, of food service;
there was vague mention of it last spring. The other idea is putting all or some of the support services into
a private corporation. The administration tried to consult on this issue, in which Peter Robinson was
involved; they infer they have consulted on the food service as well. They have not; the Finance and
Planning Committee should have it on the agenda. It appears to be moving forward, Professor Gray said;
it should be considered.
Professor Bloomfield cautioned that the Committee needs to be careful in picking its battles in
establishing matters of principle on which it wishes to be consulted; this item is low on the list. There
are no obvious academic implications. The implication is that the administration should consult on this
kind of thing, which means in a meaningful way, which means taking time. He wondered if this issue
does not fall below the bar.
Professor Morrison said there should be a comment about it, but it should probably not be pursued
at great length. What needs to be asked about a lot of administrative services is whether they could be
delivered better with private sector contracts than with an established bureaucracy. In some cases, the
answer may be "yes," and that seems to be the decision reached with food services. If it works properly,
the University sets the service standards and the contractor must meet them. The faculty should have
some say about service standards; the idea of contracting out is not itself a bad one.
Professor Gray noted that the questions are whether food will be improved, what the hours of
service will be, whether certain facilities are open or closed--issues that have community-building
impacts. There have to be places where people can go to eat and sit and talk with people. It may be
better; it sounds like it will be different.
Professor Adams said that Professor Bloomfield's point is important, but there could be policy
issues worthy of consideration. For example, there could be a monopoly, where the University earns
money but the "customers" may not be happy or be getting what they need. Or if there are significant
revenues earned, how are they treated or who controls them?
Professor Bloomfield agreed, and said there are a range of services that might be better if
Faculty Consultative Committee
February 27, 1997 (Part I)
3
contracted out. There must be agreement on policy, and then the managers asked to perform, without
using a lot of faculty time and good will with administrators that are needed on other issues.
Policy issues and service standards may be the same thing, Professor Morrison said, and faculty
need to be involved in them. Finance and Operations may not be the right unit to make the decisions,
because they look at the profits, rather than the service delivered.
DRAFT STATEMENT FROM FINANCE AND PLANNING Professor Morrison drew the
attention of Committee members to a draft statement the Finance and Planning Committee (SCFP) will
take up. It is combination of a number of things; they have not been acted on by SCFP, but they are
items that will need to be called to the administration's attention if there is to be any impact on the
decisions.
Four items relate to the budget, and are an outgrowth of the golden grickle exercise: what would
be done if there were a shortfall in a hypothetical university? The statements represent positions taken in
the past: (1) the faculty salary increase MUST be retained and MUST be the highest priority; (2) tuition
increases should be held to the rate of inflation or slightly less (there was also a sentiment that if there
will be large faculty salary increases, they should not come in years with large tuition increases); (3)
retrenchment should be based on judgmental decisions, not across-the-board, and SCFP should be
consulted about them.
It will take about $20 million to balance the budget; point (4) was an argument strongly made that
there should be no more "administrative process redesign" until certain things happen. One such thing is
that there be specific expected outcomes, and outcomes oriented to simplicity and efficiency rather that
simply replicating an antiquated system in an electronic format. There is also a statement that there
should not be separate personnel systems for the separate provosts; "that way lies madness," Professor
Morrison remarked.
Committee members made several comments intended to help clarify the intent of the statements:
retrenchments AT ALL LEVELS should be judgmental; administrative computing systems that are not
functioning must be made to work, if there is to be "administrative process redesign"; computing systems
must be usable at all levels; the restriction on tuition increases should be in the aggregate, not for specific
units;
There was discussion about whether the salary target would be reached; Professor Morrison
explained that he understands there will be two pots of money, one for inflationary increases and one to
move toward the median of the top 30 research universities. Whether or not the goal will be reached will
depend on how much money is set aside for salaries and what other institutions do; the legislature will
provide a fixed amount of money, and the University is making a best estimate of what the median will
be in two years. Even if the University received all the money it requested, it might not make the goal,
Professor Morrison said, but "it would be much, much, much closer."
Another item on the SCFP statement concerns graduate assistant tuition; the situation changes
faster than statements can be drafted. A proposed surcharge on the fringe benefit rate will be paid from
another source, so there will be no surcharge. What needs to be impressed on the administration,
Professor Morrison told the Committee, is that there is a need for rationality and an academic orientation
Faculty Consultative Committee
February 27, 1997 (Part I)
4
in the policy. It will be necessary to come to grips with the fact that the University will either (1)
discount tuition (which is acceptable, and simply means there is less revenue), or (2) pay out a benefit
(which is also acceptable, and simply means costs are higher). It cannot say it will do both without
having any economic impact. The academic element needs to be emphasized, not just the financial, he
concluded, and there needs to be progress.
The other two items on the SCFP statement have to do with the perennial parking rate problem and
the long-distance telephone call rates. The latter is quite simple: the University pays more--significantly
more--through its carefully bargained and negotiated rate than anyone would pay dialing a call from their
telephone at home. There is much going on there that SCFP must become involved in.
2.
Discussion with Senior Vice President Marshak
Professor Gray now welcomed Professor Marshak to the meeting, who said he had two items he
wished to mention.
The President will announce a faculty salary proposal next week, Professor Marshak said. He
expects that it will be positively received.
The Governor is expected to recommend more one-time money for the University in his
supplemental budget; it will be on the order of $25-30 million, targeted at certain areas. One such area
will be for retention and attraction of quality faculty. It is not clear how one-time money can be used to
retain and attract faculty, but perhaps it can flexible enough to be used for set-ups and the like. The
University could also try to persuade the legislature to make it recurring. The University continues to
have a positive reception at the legislature, which is gratifying.
Professor Marshak related that he and Senior Vice President Jackson had had a discussion earlier
in the day, following ongoing conversations about the management arrangements of the University.
President-elect Yudof has indicated he wishes to review the central management structure, but that is not
what he is raising now.
Professor Marshak said the question is whether the University has at present, in effect, a matrix
management system. There is the traditional disciplinary structure, with provost, college, department,
that goes one way. Then, through the Graduate School and other structures, there is a second axis, and
the two intersect; it is through the intersections that interdisciplinary activities have traditionally been
supported. Some believe this to be a reasonable description of the structure; others do not find it useful.
If one assumes it is useful, there has been a trend recently to put resources into the traditional
disciplinary structure, and shift them from the Graduate School and other central functions. In
discussions with a faculty member who is a former dean and center director, Professor Marshak said, he
has begun to wonder if the matrix management system does not work: it creates too many conflicts at the
points of intersection, or it is too inefficient, with two different management structures, or both. In the
search for efficiency, there should be only one management structure; if there is to be only one, how will
interdisciplinary activities be supported?
The response of the faculty member was "am I supposed to go around with a tin cup and collect
Faculty Consultative Committee
February 27, 1997 (Part I)
5
money from provosts, deans, and department chairs?" There is a long tradition of doing that at the
University, but if that is the way things are to go, it is important to think about ways of facilitating
funding. One way might be long-term agreements (2, 3, or 5 years); another way would be to make it
important, in management accountability and the review of provosts and deans and departments, to
evaluate what they are doing to facilitate interdisciplinary activities. There could be a presumption
established that some part of the unit's resources must be devoted to such activities and that they are
responsible for ensuring that they occur.
Professor Marshak invited comments on these issues.
Professor Morrison said that his first reaction is that this is not matrix management, it is only one
line (the Graduate School) of matrix management; if it were matrix management, there would be a
number of other lines cutting across the provost/college/department columns. The problem has been, in
part, that the Graduate School has not done well because it has never provided many resources. The
resources have generally flowed through the traditional structure.
Professor Morrison then remarked on the possible measure Professor Marshak mentioned (i.e., had
colleges spend enough money on interdisciplinary activities). That is exactly the WRONG measure, he
said; it is an input measure. What should be reviewed is whether the college produced interdisciplinary
results, not what money did the college spend. Those are harder to measure, but if one looks at Compact
2000, that is what should be measured: what came out of it?
There are three levels at which the Graduate School operates, Professor Hobbie said. One is in
student support services, the second is the funding of interdisciplinary programs (where it is the only
source of graduate student financial aid, and possibly a source for secretarial support for interdisciplinary
programs), and the third is the big money for the centers. Centers probably ought to be funded by a
college, or consortium of colleges, with a multi-year agreement.
Is there not a university-level committee that provides seed money for centers, asked Professor
Evans? There is a place for such support; she recalled having been in discussions, over many years,
about the problems of funding interdisciplinary research. The frontiers of many fields will be at the
interfaces among disciplines, but the University's structure often pulls people away from those interfaces.
One thing to consider is whether the provostal structure accentuates the problem.
The funding that has come from the Graduate School has been seed money, not perpetual
financing for interdisciplinary centers, Professor Evans continued. One can be sympathetic to Professor
Morrison's point, but the seed money has to come from somewhere, and the pressures on money are so
extreme that if there is not a set-aside, either at the central or other level, one can fear that very little will
be made available. That will hurt the University in the long run.
Professor Bloomfield said Professor Marshak had raised a key question to the future of the
University, and Professor Evans identified the most difficult point: how does the University chart its
intellectual future? The interdisciplinary areas will, in many cases, BE the intellectual future. The
University is not well-positioned to take advantage of them because it is so strapped for cash.
What he has not liked about the matrix metaphor, Professor Bloomfield added, is that it implies
Faculty Consultative Committee
February 27, 1997 (Part I)
6
permanence; warp is always warp and woof is always woof. It should be possible for centers that are
successful to live, and for departments that are outmoded to die--for woof to be converted into warp. If
there is a way to do it without making everyone paranoid and insecure, it would be better to have a much
more fluid model of organization, where there is running planning for a 10- or 20-year horizon. Some
centers could grow; other units could disappear or be merged. He said he has always been skeptical
about the Graduate School, because it has never had the resources it needed. At one Big Ten school, the
Dean of the Graduate School is able to be very creative because he has money; here, the Dean has his
hands tied behind his back. What the answer is is not clear, but the question is the right one.
Professor Adams agreed, and said the Graduate School has been very helpful in his
interdisciplinary work. It is possible to be more creative, however. If one asked people in the units, they
would probably agree on the importance and significance of interdisciplinary work; the question is how
to involve those people, collectively, in finding a way to support that work. One could talk about putting
in place systems or activities that everyone could agree to collectively, even if not individually. It may
not be necessary to have a totally separate Graduate School that is somehow at odds with
interdisciplinary work. The question is what mechanism should be put in place to ensure that it is
accomplished.
His observation, Professor Marshak responded, is that the University is in a centrifugal situation;
especially in the last few months, when there has been an effort to move the resources OUT into the
provostries. The problem comes in pulling them together to support interdisciplinary work. Trying to
look at it as an observer, Professor Marshak said, he has seen this centrifugal tendency. Given that, how
does the University facilitate exchanges without everyone spending enormous amounts of time arranging
each activity.
Professor Adams replied that the danger, from Professor Marshak's point of view, is that Vice
President Brenner may be inclined to accelerate the centrifugal force to the next level, to the deans. He
appears to be comfortable with that approach. The University may not mirror the federal government
very much, but there is a National Security Council or Economic Policy Council precisely because there
are some things one WANTS driven across State, Defense, etc. But these won't just happen; they have to
be systematized through mechanisms, and must involve the people in the units.
Professor Morrison agreed one needs a National Security Council to coordinate Cabinet agencies,
but one does not want the National Security Council to run its own shows; that's Oliver North. The
Graduate School plays a very valuable coordinating function, but it sometimes creates obscure and
difficult problems by running operations on the side that don't quite mesh with what the colleges and line
officers are doing. There must be the staff function of stimulating the academic vice president or
president to stimulate the deans to want to do the interdisciplinary work--rather than be constantly
fighting with the deans to get 25% of the time of someone to do interdisciplinary work, but without
paying them. Identification of line and staff functions more clearly would be helpful; were that to occur,
then there are other cross-cutting functions that should receive thought, such as in undergraduate
education, in finance and administration, human resources, which are not adequately served at present.
Professor Bland commented that George Mason University has made the commitment that the
basic building block of the institution is departments. In order to take advantage of interdisciplinary
opportunities, one can propose a center; if approved, it has a life span of five years and then
Faculty Consultative Committee
February 27, 1997 (Part I)
7
automatically sunsets unless it can be justified for continuance. There is a separate incentive pool for
centers. That has some advantages; it allows the flexibility to accommodate interdisciplinary activities,
but eliminates the need to carry a tin cup around to seek funding.
Professor Evans said the University has that, in part; it has a built-in sunset, but the small amount
of money allows for good start-ups for very few centers.
The implication is that centers should run themselves, Professor Bland said, and that may not be
desirable; the University should be able to make longer-term commitments if they warrant it.
A large part of the Graduate School money--$8.5 million per year--goes into one center, the
Supercomputer Center, Professor Marshak pointed out. That has been going on for nearly ten years. The
University now finds itself as landlord to a private corporation; it owns the building, has an internal loan
for $3.5 million for the building, and finds itself in the real estate business for a private company. This is
a center where one can wonder, from a technical basis, if it is going in the direction that is on the
technological cutting edge. Computing technology may not be just cycles any more. This is an example
of what Professor Evans was talking about: there may be an enormous investment in a center, over a
long period of time, but the field may change and the academic and intellectual directions may change-but there is a significant amount of money invested in the center.
Professor Gray next raised a topic about which she had received a call: what is the start date for
people on B (9-month) appointments who are on the biweekly payroll?
Professor Marshak said he was going to look once again at the biweekly payroll issue, although it
is not his favorite topic. One thing that has become clear, in his mind, is that the relationship of biweekly
payroll to grant encumbering has become more important than what he had originally thought. It is a
crucial issue. The University has been able to produce on-line reports for principal investigators, but the
reports are not now reliable because the encumbering does not work correctly all the time. That is simply
not acceptable; the University cannot have reports with an error rate of even a few percent. He said he is
told, for technical reasons that are not clear and that he cannot challenge, that there must be a single
payroll system implemented for the encumbering to work.
He said he has asked Payroll why the delay has to be 10 days; why cannot it be 5 days? Or some
period shorter than 10 days? One of the concerns is about the time-delay; if it could reduced, so would
the concern. He said he wants to get a firm answer on that before he would say to the President the
University should go ahead with the biweekly payroll.
There was also a suggestion that it might be possible to pay people on salaries on a different basis
than those who are paid hourly, even though everyone would be paid on the same day. The problem with
hourly employees is that it is not known how much they will work until the pay period is over, so the
payroll cannot be calculated. Is it possible to pay salaried employees up to the pay day but have a
delayed payroll for hourly employees? That is also being looked at. There is no implementation date,
yet.
Professor Morrison said that Professor Marshak had evaded the question. Under the old semimonthly system, payroll dates started September 16 and ended June 15. Under the new biweekly system,
Faculty Consultative Committee
February 27, 1997 (Part I)
8
the reason last year was proposed for the conversion was because September 16 fell on a Monday, so the
first pay period would be a full period of two weeks.
As he understands it, from his experience in the Law School, Professor Morrison related, Payroll
has taken the position that the starting date for an employee will be the first-beginning-of-a-biweeklyperiod after September 16. In If it is later than September 16, everything will be shifted back. There are
14 days in a payroll period, and Payroll said they could not start paying people on the Monday in the
middle of the period; they MUST do it on the Monday that is the BEGINNING of a period, and they did
not want to pay anyone on a Monday that fell before the day they would otherwise have started. If the
16th is on a Tuesday, and Monday was the beginning of the payroll period, people do not get their pay
started until the 29th. This is after classes start, Professor Morrison agreed.
They went around and around with Payroll on this, Professor Morrison said; in the last analysis,
they said they were going to do it and that they could not satisfactorily explain why.
Professor Marshak said he had evaded the question because he had never heard it before. Where
did he hear this, when, and from whom?
Professor Morrison said he had been told this in August of last year, when the Law School payroll
was pushed back two weeks, because the 16th of August was not on a Monday [the Law School starts
and ends about a month earlier than the rest of the Twin Cities campus]; therefore, their pay period
would be pushed back.
The concern, Professor Gray said, is that there would be a floating start day, so also a floating end
date, and grants for the summer could be messed up.
Professor Morrison agreed, and said he pursued this issue last year with the payroll task force.
There has never been a better explanation than administrative convenience.
Professor Marshak said he did not mean to evade the question, and to be honest, he had never
heard the question before. He promised to look at the issue again, and also reported that he had heard
that President-elect Yudof had agreed biweekly payroll would start July 1; when Professor Marshak
inquired of Dr. Yudof about that, he had responded "what's biweekly payroll?"
That leads to her next question, Professor Gray said, which she asked last August: why cannot the
University have a 12-month pay out for B appointees, starting on July 1--thus eliminating the problem?
Professor Marshak said the University could do it. There is an issue with the cost-accounting for grants
that would require internal loans, but that could be done. Every other university at which she has been
employed has overcome this hurdle, Professor Gray said, so the University should also be able to do so.
Professor Marshak said it is possible.
Professor Morrison recalled that this question was asked 15 months ago; it was said then it would
ease the transition to biweekly payroll. The administrative team said "we will get back to you."
Professor Gray added that the finance people said it was an academic affairs policy that prohibits it.
Professor Morrison said he understood the provosts took the position there should be no pay before work
was performed, and would not permit it.
Faculty Consultative Committee
February 27, 1997 (Part I)
9
Professor Marshak repeated that he would again look at the issue. Committee members warned
that the issue will "blow up" if it comes. Professor Marshak said it will be his second priority; his first
will be to get the most funding possible from the state, his second will be to keep the University calm.
Professor Morrison added a footnote on the biweekly payroll issue. He pointed out there are 39
weeks in the academic year, plus or minus. The biweekly payroll people believe this must mean there
will be 19 full paychecks and 1 half paycheck. One of the alternatives that was put to them, when the
floating start date arose, was the option of starting on the Monday closest to the traditional starting date,
September 16. The payroll task force said that could not be; one can END with half a paycheck, but
cannot BEGIN with half a paycheck! Professor Morrison affirmed he was TOLD that by the task force!
Professor Gray thanked Professor Marshak for joining the Committee.
3.
Teaching Evaluations
Professor Gray turned next to the issue of teaching evaluations, and asked Professor Swan to
report on events at the legislature.
Professor Swan recalled that he had sent a message to Committee members on this issue. There are
students interested in making student evaluations available to students for registration information.
There were students who began talking about this last spring; his understanding is that they approached
the administration about it and were told they should talk to SCEP. They talked to SCEP in November.
In the meantime, there was also a group of students who began talking with legislators about
changing the Data Practices Act, to make student evaluations public. Professor Swan recalled that he and
Professors Gray and Koch met with legislators, and he and Professor Gray have talked individually with
a number of legislators (as have the students). Part of the message he and Professor Gray delivered was
that when the issue was raised with SCEP, Professor Koch established a subcommittee to look into it and
develop a report--and that this was the proper way to proceed, handling the matter on campus. They also
said it is the faculty's responsibility to tell students that doing an end-run of the campus process does not
build trust and the legislature should not reward that sort of behavior.
There is a question about whether the information students want is being obtained in the
evaluations; there is also a question about how the data are interpreted, given the differences that are
documented with regard to student evaluations. He has been told by a psychologist, for example, that
there is work that suggests the student's evaluation is formed in the first two and one-half minutes of the
first class. These are the sorts of things that can be reviewed by the campus process, not by a change in
the law.
The students talked to the "data practices guru," who said the data ARE subject to the Data
Practices Act, and if the University were to make it public, he would sue. This is interesting, inasmuch
as the Carlson School has been making the information available for some time. The threat to sue was
predicated on the assumption that the data would have to be made available, rather than voluntarily, as is
the case in the Carlson school, Professor Gray commented.
Faculty Consultative Committee
February 27, 1997 (Part I)
10
Professor Swan then told the Committee that he understood not all students agreed with the
strategy of going to the legislature; there are others who have argued not to. He met with a group who
testified before the Senate, primarily from the non-metropolitan campuses, who appeared to be
sympathetic to the issues he had raised.
The student legislative coalition passed a motion declaring that if there was no progress on campus
on this issue by March 15, they would then pursue a legislative strategy. What "progress" means is not
clear. He said he did not know when the SCEP subcommittee was expected to report. It was reported
that the subcommittee would probably not issue a report before April.
Last night he received an email message from a member of the legislature, Professor Swan
reported, who said she would introduce the language the students had proposed. It does not make release
of the evaluation data optional; it declares the data to be public. Presumably that means it would
available to anyone who asked for it.
Many Big Ten universities do make this information public, Professor Swan noted. For
Wisconsin, much of the information is available on the web.
Professor Hobbie reported on a recent faculty meeting with two legislators; one of them inquired
how the faculty felt about this issue. She said she would not introduce legislation, but is in a position of
responsibility with respect to the Data Practices Act; she reported, however, that other legislators would
introduce language. No one in the room objected to the idea; one faculty member said only that
evaluations of teaching assistants should be exempted because they are learning how to teach. This
legislator's constituents were not telling her to slow down on the issue.
Other faculty members have expressed contrary views. One problem is that since the issue has not
come out of SCEP, Professor Gray observed, it is uncertain what position will be taken. It would be
better to have the issue resolved on campus, where people can talk about it and be brought along.
Professor Bland said she knew a considerable amount about the teaching evaluation literature but
that she would be reluctant to make recommendations sitting around this table. It would be preferable to
await the recommendations of the subcommittee; Professor Gray agreed they should not be hurried.
Professor Adams said that requiring the information be made public might have exactly the wrong
effect, which is that the University will stop conducting evaluations. Now there is a system working--the
Carlson School is a good example--and that is moving in the direction of making the information
accessible. This legislation could be counter-productive. This may represent the law of unintended
consequences.
Professor Swan noted that he had suggested that if President Clinton is successful, the IRS will
want to know their grades. The easiest way to accomplish that is to make it available on the web as well.
He added that he personally favored what the students are seeking, but believes there are issues that need
discussion, rather than doing it by fiat from the Capitol.
Professor Gray recalled that she has also argued rhetorically that if these are made available, then
administrative reviews and reviews of all other employees should also be made public.
Faculty Consultative Committee
February 27, 1997 (Part I)
11
Professor Korth said that making the results public may change the way the evaluations are
perceived by students. There could be a problem in ascribing too many purposes to an evaluation; it can
change the way they are filled out and the way they are interpreted. The results could be less useful.
4.
Academic Misconduct Policy
Professor Gray next welcomed Vice President Brenner to the meeting to discuss possible changes
in the Academic Misconduct Policy.
Dr. Brenner began by apologizing for the short notice of the need for the discussion, and suggested
there should be discussion of how to proceed.
He reported that he has been under notice from the Office of Research Integrity (ORI), which has
responsibility for all cases which arise from funding from the Department of Health and Human Services.
ORI reviewed policies from several institutions, including Minnesota, and identified several areas of
concern. It is his view they are primarily technical issues, mostly related to notification.
Dr. Brenner said he had held off ORI for a considerable period; he told them he could not discuss
the issues with the faculty because of the cease and desist order, on advice from the General Counsel.
ORI recently informed him they are anxious to obtain a revised policy, and specifically advised
him that the University should not initiate any misconduct proceedings under the current policy, because
it could be successfully challenged. Unfortunately, there is a case that the University must proceed with,
so he believes the policy must be changed.
Dr. Brenner told the Committee that some of the changes respond directly to issues raised by ORI;
others were changes the University wishes to see made to deal with problems. He noted that the Regents
have made it clear there can be NO changes, even administrative changes, without their approval. The
policy needs a major reworking, and should be redone so that all the procedures are removed and this
process need not recur. The policy should be adopted by the Regents; the procedures should be under the
control of the Senate and the administration.
Dr. Brenner suggested that the Committee discuss the changes and take the document up next
week. The Committee concurred. Professor Morrison commented that even if changes are approved, any
investigations that are started would be under the old policy, not the new one.
Professor Bloomfield noted that this would be a Regents' policy; does it also have to go before the
Faculty Senate? Dr. Brenner pointed out that FCC has the authority to act on behalf of the Faculty
Senate between meetings, if required; any action is subject to affirmation at the next Faculty Senate
meeting. Professor Adams noted that FCC has acted in this manner in the past, and brought its action to
the Senate, so there is precedent.
Dr. Brenner then briefly walked the Committee members through the proposed language changes
in the policy, and identified which are required by ORI and which are institutional.
Faculty Consultative Committee
February 27, 1997 (Part I)
12
Normally this item would go to the Committee on Faculty Affairs, Professor Bloomfield pointed
out; he asked if this Committee is comfortable pre-empting the SCFA role. Dr. Brenner explained that he
had communicated with Professor Feeney, who intended to report to SCFA on the issue; his intent is not
to go around SCFA.
What imperatives is he operating under, Professor Bloomfield asked? Dr. Brenner pointed out the
language required by ORI, and reported that he had sent a letter to ORI indicating an intent to change the
policy, and explaining the process the University was going through (including approval by this
Committee). Asked about a deadline, Dr. Brenner said it was today for reporting on what he planned to
do; the other is that no new misconduct case can be initiated before the policy is in place, and it should
have started last week. Unfortunately, it has the potential to be a high-profile case.
Professor Morrison asked if the proposed language is required by ORI; Dr. Brenner said it was not.
Professor Morrison said the Committee should see whatever it is ORI requires before the next meeting.
Will this again raise the issue, if there is an allegation of misconduct against a faculty member,
what the obligation of the University is to assist in defending a faculty member against the charges? It
could raise it, Dr. Brenner agreed. Then it should be anticipated, Professor Adams said. It is a separate
discussion, Dr. Brenner said, but wanted it known that he believes present University provisions in this
respect are seriously inadequate. He and Provost Cerra agree, and will meet with the General Counsel to
develop a mechanism to ensure faculty receive good counsel, independent of the General Counsel's
office, during the early phase of an investigation.
If this comes to the Senate, Professor Morrison said, the Senate will raise the question and ask the
Committee why it approved the policy. He said he understands these are independent issues, but they
will not be seen that way in any debate. Professor Adams cautioned that Dr. Brenner could not be in the
position of saying he had not thought about it; Dr. Brenner agreed, and added that something must also
be DONE about it. Action is demanded on this item; it is creating much of the unease about the policy.
What he has also heard about, Professor Morrison related, is that there is much protection in the
policy for the whistle-blower who turns out to be inaccurate. That is reinforced in the policy. There is
little protection for the individual who, it is determined, was falsely accused, and the role and
responsibility of the University with respect to such individuals (such as what communication should be
made that a false accusation was made). This gets to a balance between the whistle-blower and the
accused, but the issue will come up.
Another item is that this allows for administrative action before any inquiry has occurred,
Professor Bland; she noted language that would permit it. There must be some description when that
would happen. That part is right out of the regulations, Dr. Brenner said; if the University does not
comply, it will have to seek funding elsewhere. There needs to be examples of when that would be
appropriate, Professor Bland said.
Professor Steffes said that the tenor of the discussion at this meeting is what it is because the
University has not supported faculty, legally or organizationally. He said he would be comfortable
letting Dr. Brenner go ahead with this if he--Professor Steffes--did not have to deal with an ORTTA that
does not do its job, with a punitive attorney's office, and so on. The whole issue is that Drs. Brenner and
Faculty Consultative Committee
February 27, 1997 (Part I)
13
Marshak have come from the faculty, but are now part of an organization that makes faculty lives more
difficult, rather than easier. If it were not for the General Counsel, he would not worry about what the
University would do for faculty; with the present incumbent, he knows that the General Counsel's office
will do nothing for the faculty.
Professor Bloomfield asked about the definition of academic misconduct. Over the past few years,
there has been a lot of debate in various places about the proper definition. The debate has especially
revolved around terms such as "and other things that don't conform to scientific practice" Dr. Brenner
said the language tried to respond to concerns expressed by others; he distributed a handout containing
the University of Michigan definition and asked the Committee to think about whether it could be used.
He told the Committee that his colleagues at Michigan had no objection to Minnesota using the same
terminology. This is an alternative to terms such as "fraudulent." Professor Bloomfield's point, he said,
was important.
Committee members responded positively to the Michigan iteration of academic misconduct, and
encouraged Dr. Brenner to pursue it as a proposed change to the policy. It should not be rushed, Dr.
Brenner said; Michigan gave it a lot of thought, but there may be changes the Committee will wish.
Professor Hobbie said that if Professor Morrison's point about the applicability of a new policy to
investigations is correct, then the time pressure is off. Dr. Brenner said the federal government does not
take that view and that Professor Morrison is probably wrong. Professor Morrison said it was his
conclusion that when the University is all done, and imposes a penalty under the new policy, they will
sue and get it reversed, and the University will have to start over.
Dr. Brenner then noted other points of (largely procedural) change in the policy.
Professor Bland inquired if the mishandling of money that is used in research would be handled
under the academic misconduct policy. Dr. Brenner said he believed not, that it is a criminal problem,
and that the institution ought to have a policy on it; Cornell has a very good one. The problem with fiscal
issues is that there should be an ability to charge perjury. The court processes for dealing with financial
misconduct are well-defined; they can work inside the University as well as outside. The outside
community, however, does not know how to deal with academic misconduct issues, and the University
would not want to take them to civil authorities. That is why the policy seeks to ensure academic
misconduct is handled by the academic community.
Spending money for reasons other than what was proposed in a grant would not be academic
misconduct, Professor Bland asked? Professor Morrison said he agreed and disagreed with Dr. Brenner.
He agreed that if someone took $1000 out of the till, it can dealt with by the county attorney. If the
question is whether the $1000 was spent on appropriate research, that may be one on which the
University would prefer an internal rather than district court decision. It could fit under provisions of the
Michigan language, he agreed. It needs to be clarified where this would be decided, Professor Bland
said, because an administrator would probably rather pull it out than have to go through the academic
misconduct policy.
Dr. Brenner asked the Committee members to call or email him with any suggestions, so he can
return to the Committee with proposed language.
Faculty Consultative Committee
February 27, 1997 (Part I)
14
Professor Gray thanked Dr. Brenner for coming to the meeting.
End of Part I.
-- Gary Engstrand
University of Minnesota