Minutes*
Faculty Consultative Committee
Thursday, March 20, 1996
1:30 - 4:30
Room 625 Campus Club
Present:
Victor Bloomfield (chair pro tem), Carl Adams, Andrew Collins, Dan Feeney, Russell
Hobbie, Laura Coffin Koch, Michael Korth, Harvey Peterson
Absent:
Virginia Gray, Carole Bland, Gary Davis, Sara Evans, Fred Morrison, Michael Steffes,
Craig Swan, Matthew Tirrell
Guests:
Mario Bognanno (President's Office), Julie Sweitzer (General Counsel's Office)
Others:
Martha Kvanbeck (University Senate)
[In these minutes: KIOSK; use of email lists and distribution of information to all faculty; discussion of
major and not-so-major faculty issues pending; sexual harassment policy]
1.
KIOSK Columns
Professor Bloomfield convened the meeting at 1:30 and began by noting that two columns are
required for the April and May issues of KIOSK. After brief discussion, it was agreed that Professor
Campbell, chair of the Senate Committee on Computing and Information Systems (to write about
technology), and Professor Korth (to perhaps write about the Morris campus and its connections to the
Twin Cities) would be asked to write columns.
2.
Use of E-mail Lists and Distribution of Information to Faculty
Professor Bloomfield then reported that he had received a strong complaint from one of the
University's senior officers that it had been inappropriate for the governance system to use the all-faculty
email list to distribute the governance statement by the members of the provostal faculty consultative
committees (PFCC). The complaint was not that it went to Yudof, but that it was sent to all faculty. His
own reaction, he said, was that distribution was entirely appropriate, and the complainant disliked the
content rather than the mechanism.
The list is to be used for governance business; one question is whether the statement was actually
adopted by any PFCC. It was noted that every member of the Arts, Sciences, and Engineering PFCC and
every member of the Professional Studies PFCC had signed the statement (only two of the Academic
Health Center PFCC members had signed).
Asked if the objection was on narrow technical grounds that the PFCCs are not part of the Senate,
*
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
March 20, 1997
2
Professor Bloomfield said he did not know, but that the Committee could reaffirm its policy about use the
lists.
Professor Adams said he was concerned about the mechanics, even though he agreed with the
content of the statement. A group of individuals came to the Committee staff and asked that the message
be distributed; which groups are to have the right to send out such statements? And if the PFCCs HAD
adopted the statement, is it the position of this Committee that anything from the PFCCs can be
distributed? The Committee has said that minutes go out, that FCC statements go out, but there is an
ambiguity in the standard.
It is less the content than the principle, Professor Hobbie said. A large number of faculty still do
not trust faculty governance, and sending items such as this is necessary and will be necessary for a long
time. The process needs to be as open as possible.
Either the system must be one that is completely open, one that anyone can use any time, or the
rules must be known, Professor Adams said. One possibility would be for each PFCC set up their own
lists, and act on their own authority, Professor Hobbie said. That would make sense, but since it is not
clear that the PFCCs will survive, Professor Bloomfield said, since they are duly constituted by the
Senate, they should be able to use the mechanism used by the FCC.
It was noted that the question of distributing the PFCC statement on governance had been raised
with the chair pro tem of the last FCC meeting (Professor Sara Evans); she had approved distributing the
message to the faculty.
This raises a related question, that of the distribution and disposition of resolutions or letters by
Senate committees. Can they issue statements or compose letters and send them anywhere they wish?
To the President or Board of Regents?
Professor Bloomfield inquired what Committee members thought. Professor Adams said that any
committee can adopt any resolution it wishes; the question is what is done with it. (He recalled an
instance where a committee adopted and published widely a statement on the actions of a large
multinational corporation; if one did not know what was going on, it would appear that the statement
reflected official Senate policy, even though that was not the intent of the committee.) The system has
been loose; in some cases, the resolutions or letters have been sent directly to the President. There needs
to be more discipline in the governance system; no one should be muzzled, but the status of any
declaration should be clear. If the status is not clear, who and what a statement represents can be
misunderstood or misleading.
The question is where something is published, Professor Hobbie said. A committee should be able
to send any written communication to anyone it wishes. In addition, all committee output should be on
the web, where faculty can look at it. The question is really the authorization level for junk mail. If the
threshold is too low, the messages will not be read; if it is too high, it will be viewed as denying access.
Perhaps the Senate should be asked how it feels about how much broadcast mail it wishes to see, he
concluded.
Professor Bloomfield recalled the recent discussion of this subject; it was the view of the
Faculty Consultative Committee
March 20, 1997
3
Committee that letters or statements from INDIVIDUALS should be posted on the web, and a mechanism
for allowing them to do so needs to be set up. So should anything passed by a Senate committee, said
Professor Hobbie; the question is how much email faculty should be bombarded with.
Things should be open, Professor Adams agreed, but there is a level of confusion that does not
help. There needs to be clarity about the "official" faculty voice--but anyone should be able to say
anything they wish--because if that clarity is lost, the impact of the voice is lost. If a statement is formally
adopted by a Committee and sent to the President, he must ask if it is a reflection of the governance
system or only of that committee? It would be helpful to have a sense of discipline and order to
strengthen the faculty voice; what is needed is a cultural understanding. But there should be no attempt
to muzzle anyone.
Professor Bloomfield moved that any statement adopted by a Senate committee can be forwarded
to the faculty at large by the Senate office in the same fashion that FCC statements are distributed.
Professor Korth urged establishment of a more elaborate set of criteria, identifying the
circumstances and issues for which the list would be used. This could communicate to people what the
list is for, thereby encouraging its proper use.
A boilerplate statement, indicating the conditions under which something is being issued, would
help, Professor Collins said. That status of the document should also be indicated: it is something being
considered by the committee, it has already been adopted, what further action is needed to make it an
official Senate action. Professor Peterson said that intent, the next step, should be indicated. One
example of the use of the list might have been distribution of the drafts of the semester conversion
standards, Professor Koch said; that would have helped get discussion going, if the document were
identified as intending to serve that purpose. Distributing such statements to the faculty as policy, once
adopted, would also be helpful, because otherwise they may not be aware of what actions have been
taken.
The question of too much email is a real one, Professor Peterson observed; people who receive 40
or 50 messages per day select half a dozen and delete the rest. People can always choose not to read,
Professor Bloomfield said, but Committee statements on University affairs should be available to the
University community.
It was agreed that a statement would be drafted for the Committee to review before formally acting
on the issue.
In response to a question from Professor Koch, it was clarified that at present there is only a
system-wide email list (which contains slightly over 3500 people). The question of email lists for
portions of the University (e.g., a single campus, or a subset of the Twin Cities campus) should be
explored.
Professor Bloomfield then recalled that there had been agreement that establishment of a web site
for individual statements or papers would be useful; what is the status of that site? It was put on the back
burner until after the union election was completed; the Senate office can readily establish it. It was also
agreed that Senate committee chairs should make more use of the committee web pages, including at
Faculty Consultative Committee
March 20, 1997
4
least the committee membership and the duties and responsibilities of the committee.
Professor Koch said she understood that minutes of each committee would be on the web page.
That is not true in every case, it was said; committees have different views of the disposition of their
minutes, which is allowed by governance policy. They may not keep the minutes secret, but can decide
how widely to publish them.
Professor Bloomfield said he would speak with Professor Gray and urge that committee chairs use
their web pages.
3.
Issues Pending
Professor Bloomfield next drew the attention of the Committee to a list of "top 40" issues pending
before Senate committees that are, in varying degrees, important to the faculty. Some should be attended
to this academic year; others can wait; some are going along which others may require a nudge to the
appropriate Senate committee.
1.
Tenure: the negotiations between the administration and committee of 8 is moving along.
2.
Administrative process redesign: many committees are involved, and this is long-term (it is the
expenditure of $40-plus million on redoing administrative computing systems, for which
departments will be taxed for a number of years). There is a steering committee overseeing the
process, out of Associate Vice President Riley's office; there are no faculty on the group. The
governance system needs to maintain its own oversight, and the Committee on Finance and
Planning should be encouraged to keep tabs on the issue. There are critical questions; the concern
is that things be done right, rather than throwing millions of dollars at computing that does not
work.
3.
Biennial and operating budgets: this is the domain of Finance and Planning. The issue for faculty
is to insure a connection between budgets and programmatic priorities, Professor Bloomfield said.
4.
1997-98 compensation: Professor Adams noted that there was a compensation committee
established; where is it? It met once last year and not at all this year, Professor Feeney reported;
there is uncertainty about the amount of funding available, although there is discussion of cost-ofliving versus market amounts to be awarded. The compensation committee operates by itself, he
said. Professor Adams said either FCC or SCFA should either require that the committee be used
or consent to its demise. Also an issue is the apparent autonomy of chancellors and provosts to do
whatever they wish with respect to salaries, Professor Feeney, and the unwillingness of central
administration to enforce delivery of increases; there needs to be a central policy.
5.
Reorganization of the biological sciences seems to be moving along, haltingly.
6.
University College is still an issue of concern, Professor Koch said, and especially proposals for
degree programs without faculty involvement. Professor Bloomfield said this needs to be taken up
with Senior Vice President Marshak, and ties into the "notebook U" and polytechnic degrees. It
was agreed that SCEP should explore the specific issues of educational policy with respect to UC.
Faculty Consultative Committee
March 20, 1997
5
7.
Incentives for Managed Growth and its impact on many things must be reviewed. President-elect
Yudof has been unenthusiastic about it; it is difficult for SCEP to spend a lot of effort on it, with
its many other issues, and SCEP does not want to spend time on it if IMG will not be adopted.
8.
The travel policy (use of frequent flyer miles) has been brought to the Finance and Planning
Committee; a policy change to accord with state law has been proposed and appears to be
satisfactory.
9.
The University Plan will be brought to the Finance and Planning Committee by the administration.
10.
The sexual harassment policy remains an issue with the administration, and will be taken up later
at the meeting. There is a proposal that will go to the Senate on April 17.
11.
Graduate assistant tuition benefits seem to be subject continually to new plans; this is an issue that
should be monitored by SCEP, SCFA, and the Research Committee. Professor Bloomfield noted
that the Washington University graduate school has decreed that enrollment will be decreased but
that all students will receive support for six years, from institutional funds; this is an approach the
University should consider as well. Graduate student recruitment and support is key to the future
of the University as a research institution.
12.
Use of student evaluations of teaching is the subject of proposed legislation in St. Paul (putting
student evaluations outside the Data Practices Act, thus making them public data); Professor Koch
said she would have to leave this meeting early in order to testify. Committee members expressed
opposition to legislative intervention in the use of teaching evaluations; one possibility of such
intervention may be that student evaluations will no longer be used. Declaring these data public,
but not other data, is problematic; should students not fund and manage this effort, if data are to be
public; there have been strong arguments for including student evaluations in the tenure code and
that low rankings could serve as grounds for sanctions. Questions about the reliability and validity
of the data can also be asked, but those problems would not be evident to students (or anyone) who
gained access to them.
Professor Adams reported that the Carlson School has a system that works, in large part because it
is informal and voluntary; if formalized, it would break down.
Professor Korth reported that Morris faculty appear to be generally opposed to making the
evaluations available. He noted that results of administrative reviews are becoming increasingly
secret, and anonymous contributions are not accepted. Those should also be made public, if
anonymous student evaluations are to be public. There is also the risk that if these are public,
legislators could take an interest in the data, and decide, for example, that salary increases will
only go to faculty who have evaluation scores about a certain number. (Professor Koch noted that
the data are highly skewed toward positive evaluations.)
The message is not that the faculty do not want to be accountable, or not have the system work,
Professor Adams said, but that if the legislature intervenes, it will NOT work.
Faculty Consultative Committee
March 20, 1997
6
There is also a process in place to reach a decision on this issue, Professor Koch commented, and
the general direction of the discussions thus far are not IF information will be made available to
students, but rather WHAT will be made available.
13.
The issue of the biweekly payroll and paying "B" appointees over 12 months should be flagged,
Professor Bloomfield said. The Crookston faculty are very interested in the issue, Professor
Peterson said, and somewhere along the line the Committee (or someone) needs to be more active
on the issue.
14.
The use of email lists was discussed earlier in the meeting.
15.
Faculty representation to the Board of Regents remains to be pursued with the Board. Professor
Koch reported that she has been sitting in on meetings of the Regents' committee on Educational
Policy and Planning; while it has been interesting, it would be more useful were she at the table.
The idea of having a faculty member present is very good; given the amount of work that serving
as chair of SCEP, SCFA, or Finance and Planning entails (chairing their own committees, serving
on FCC and SCC, and a lot of other work), it would be best to allow them to designate a
representative to the Regents' committees (perhaps a vice chair), if there is to be representation. If
that is not permissible, it may be more difficult to get individuals to serve committee chairs.
16.
Funding for activities of the Committee on Public Understanding has been supported in general by
President-elect Yudof, Professor Bloomfield said; the interest in the effort should not be allowed
to dissipate.
17.
Metropolitan undergraduate education and distance education are tied to the University College
questions. Dr. Marshak has said that discussions are at an early stage with the legislature and no
commitments have been made; this is an issue with long-term as well as short-term implications.
Professor Adams reported that the legislature is very interested in this, it assumes that the higher
education systems are all of one mind on it, and that there are no problems. This should be of
concern, Professor Bloomfield said.
18.
Tenured and tenure-track appointments versus term appointments is a serious long-term issue for
universities in general, Professor Bloomfield said. Professor Collins reported that his college is
developing a policy on this, and it is time for the governance system to move ahead quickly on it.
Professor Bloomfield said that SCFA should take up the matter; Professor Feeney reported that
SCFA had spoken with Provost Cerra about it during the tenure crisis, and that there is wide
variability in what units are doing. He expressed doubt that SCFA could do more than issue a
position paper, but invited suggestions.
Professor Adams suggested SCFA could consider criteria to be used, in policy form, and it could
also monitor practices in the various units so there is information available.
Professor Koch said that the concerns of the Academic Health Center faculty require that the issue
be addressed quickly. There are other units of the University that also rely extensively on term
faculty, Professor Bloomfield said. Professor Feeney recalled that SCFA had heard from faculty
across the University on this subject, and had also received a statement supporting tenure from the
Faculty Consultative Committee
March 20, 1997
7
graduate students.
This issue needs attention from SCFA soon, Professor Bloomfield said, and it should develop a
policy or general statement recognizing the need for flexibility and that there are teaching needs
perhaps not appropriately handled by tenured faculty, but that the long-term health of the
institution and support of the faculty are needed. This should be a faculty policy, developed with
the administration, that goes to the Senate.
19.
Faculty indemnification is an important issue, although not a crisis issue; it is one faculty care
about and needs to be resolved, Professor Bloomfield said. SCFA will address it.
20.
The graduate and professional teaching award will be on the Senate agenda this spring.
21.
Support for research is an continued issue for the Senate Research Committee. Professor
Bloomfield inquired if the chair of the Senate Research Committee should serve as an ex officio
member of at least FCC. Committee members agreed this change should be made, and that a
bylaw change should be drafted.
22.
The 3-year salary plan is separate from the question of distribution of increases for 1997-98, and
calls attention, for the new administration, to the importance of achieving the goal of faculty
salaries reaching the mean of the top 30 research universities, and the importance of achieving the
goal. This is an issue for next year.
23.
Sabbaticals and workload under semesters is important for SCFA to pursue. This is somewhat
urgent, Professor Koch said, because it is related to the class module and college workloads.
Professor Feeney said that this includes single quarter leaves, and that SCFA has a subcommittee
working on these issues.
24.
The academic misconduct policy will be brought back to SCFA and the Research Committee by
Dr. Brenner.
25.
The central reversion of one vacant faculty position in four is an issue before SCEP, Finance and
Planning, and this Committee. This is part of long-range planning, Professor Bloomfield, and how
the University achieves flexibility and follows new intellectual areas; it is very important but not
urgent. Earlier discussions left the question unresolved, Professor Koch said; Professor Feeney
observed that it was less a long-term planning measure than a step to ensure flexibility with respect
to tenure.
26.
The transfer policy is an item that will come to the Senate from SCEP, probably this year; it relates
to treatment of the records of transfer students.
27.
A reorganization policy will also probably be brought to the Senate by SCEP, and relates to
reorganization of the University. The draft policy it is considering requires Senate approval for the
addition, elimination, or merger of colleges or campuses, and committee consultation (SCEP,
Finance and Planning) for changes below the level of a college or campus.
Faculty Consultative Committee
March 20, 1997
8
28.
A policy on honors degrees will be brought by SCEP to the Senate.
29.
Charging the faculty for modem pool access remains an issue for SCFA and the Senate Committee
on Computing and Information Systems. Professor Feeney reported that the two committees
agree; the disagreement is between the committees and academic computing. There will be a joint
letter from the two committees to the administration requesting reconsideration of the issue; it will
not come to the Senate in the near future.
30.
The "Notebook U" idea has considerable educational policy implications, and may be urgent if the
administration is making commitments to the legislature, Professor Bloomfield. Professor Swan
has not mentioned it in his reports on legislative action; Professor Bloomfield agreed to inquire of
him about the topic. This is related to the issues of metropolitan undergraduate education and
University College, all of which require conversation with Senior Vice President Marshak.
31.
Suggestions for making faculty governance more effective have been made by SCFA. Professor
Feeney said this is not particularly a SCFA issue, and arises because SCFA takes the message from
the union vote seriously; SCFA would take it up only if FCC declined to do so. There is, for one
thing, a concern about what individual committees do and the relationship of those activities to
FCC and SCC; do the FCC and SCC serve as the fount of all knowledge and the source of all
authority, and stifle the activity of other committees? That must be addressed, so the system is not
dysfunctional. Committee chairs serving ex officio on FCC does not solve the perceived
problems, and feelings vary about the role of FCC/SCC and the relevance of committees.
It was noted that beginning this year, neither FCC nor SCC any longer prevents any item from a
committee from being placed on the Senate agenda. The business and rules committee only
determines placement and time, not whether or not an item will appear. The PERCEPTION that
FCC serves as a barrier must be dealt with, however, Professor Bloomfield said.
One way to look at this is comes from the accreditation team report, which suggested the
University has too many things on its plate, Professor Bloomfield said. The administration
founders, and the faculty are too busy dealing with administrative initiatives. There are 400
faculty on various committees; there is ample room for mischief. One can be committed to grass
roots participation in governance, he said, but there is a question of priorities; should the
governance system try to grasp a few things and do them right, rather than deal with the top 40
issues? There is no easy answer to this, but the issue raised by seeking to make governance more
effective is important, and one that FCC must come to grips with. SCFA could certainly provide
substantial input, and perhaps there could be a joint SCFA/FCC meeting on the topic.
It is important that issues of importance be addressed by someone, Professor Feeney said; it is not
important whether FCC or SCFA does so, and it would probably be better for FCC to do so.
The University came through a crisis of shared governance, Professor Bloomfield said; it will be
incumbent on FCC to address, with the new President and new Board of Regents, is how to make
governance work better and what has been learned from what happened. This could include an
attempt to reach a new understanding of the roles of all the players. The incoming president has
commented on the number of faculty committees; it is difficult for an activist president to move an
Faculty Consultative Committee
March 20, 1997
9
agenda ahead if there are many constituencies to be dealt with. The faculty cannot be ignored, but
governance must be structured effectively so that faculty can have the right kind of influence
without being seen as impediments. That will be a tricky matter, he said; it is unclear whether the
faculty can get the attention of the administration and Regents for a serious discussion.
This is a long-term issue, but with new players coming on board soon, part of it must be taken up
quickly.
32.
Intellectual property is a subject that will be brought back to SCFA and the Research Committee.
33.
Cafeteria benefits is the focus of attention of one of the subcommittees of SCFA; the subject is
being discussed.
On this list, #34 and #35 are two items the Professional Studies provostal FCC intends to take up.
36.
Parking and transportation never go away, and will be taken up by Finance and Planning.
Professor Bloomfield said that the last four issues (public-private partnerships in support services,
telephone rates and telecommunications issues, the Fairview-University hospital merger, and the steam
plant) seem to him issues others can handle. They all fall within the bailiwick of the Finance and
Planning Committee, but that committee must also set priorities. They should be in the governance
system, Professor Collins said, in order to be sure issues that affect faculty are dealt with. They may
appear to be trivial, but they can affect faculty in various ways.
Professor Feeney also reported briefly on the status of the tenure negotiations with the
administration and Board of Regents.
4.
Sexual Harassment Policy
During the discussion of issues pending, the Committee was visited by Dr. Mario Bognanno and
Ms. Julie Sweitzer from the General Counsel's office to discuss the administrative views of the sexual
harassment policy. At the conclusion of the discussion, the Committee requested the administration to
return to the Sexual Harassment Board with any changes in the policy it might wish to suggest.
Professor Bloomfield thereupon accepted a motion to adjourn, which was agreed to without
dissent at 4:30.
-- Gary Engstrand
University of Minnesota