Minutes*
Faculty Consultative Committee
Thursday, September 30, 1993
10:00 - 12:00
Room 238 Morrill Hall
Present:
Judith Garrard (chair), John Adams, Mario Bognanno, James Gremmels, Kenneth Heller,
Robert Jones, Karen Seashore Louis, Geoffrey Maruyama, Harvey Peterson, Irwin
Rubenstein
Absent:
Lester Drewes, Toni McNaron, Shirley Zimmerman
Guests:
Associate Vice President Carol Carrier, Senior Vice President E. F. Infante
Others:
Rich Broderick, Maureen Smith (University Relations), Martha Kvanbeck (University
Senate)
[In these minutes: the planning process; exceptional hires & search procedures; faculty participation in
reviews of administrators; the strategic plan]
1.
The Planning Process
Professor Garrard convened the meeting at 10:15 and began by reviewing the various means by
which the governance system is seeking to solicit broad faculty participation in the discussions of the
strategic plan. A major objective is to be certain that the faculty speak with a DISTINCTIVE voice--as
should the other groups discussing the plan.
She pointed out that much will remain to be done if the Board of Regents acts on the general
direction at their December meeting. The details of the plan will need to be in place by Fall, 1994,
although the process for developing them is not yet clear. The President has said that the cluster plans
will be presented to the governance system for its reaction, although what form they will take is also yet
uncertain. There will be, in any event, continuing consultation after the December Board meeting.
Professor Garrard then mentioned that she would like to appoint an ad hoc advisory committee on
the planning process, advisory to FCC, consisting of some of the Regents' Professors and others, to
consider the implications of the plan for teaching and research excellence. It was suggested that any such
group should also include some of the Morse-Alumni teaching award winners. Committee members
agreed that such a committee would be helpful.
2.
Search Procedures
*
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
September 30, 1993
2
Professor Garrard next welcomed Associate Vice President Carol Carrier to discuss proposed
changes in search procedures. Dr. Carrier began by recalling that when the Rajender consent decree
expired, the University, with much consultation, adopted new search guidelines in January of 1991; those
procedures have since been tweaked a little here and there since. This proposed change comes from the
Committee on Equal Employment Opportunity for Women (EEOW) and would amend the exceptional
hire procedure. The President has asked that the governance system consider the proposal, after which it
will be acted on by the President's Cabinet.
The exceptional hire procedure has been used in several different ways: spousal hires to recruit or
retain a faculty member (the decision is made by the President and EEO Director, with the assistance of a
3-person committee); to hire people of color (also with the assistance of a 3-person committee); and, less
frequently, to hire administrators (as in the case of Senior Vice President E. F. Infante, for instance).
There have been 22 "exceptional hires" since 1990.
The concern of EEOW is that the exceptional hire procedure be used for academic administrator
appointments only in RARE circumstances--and that it may have been used too liberally. The proposed
change is that President could use the process for academic administrators only for individuals who
report directly to him.
Following discussion with a group convened to discuss the issues, Dr. Carrier told the Committee,
the consensus was that if the process could only to be used for those reporting directly to the President,
ultimately it would be extended to other appointments--and the University could end up shooting itself in
the foot. A compromise being suggested is to make the President totally responsible for all exceptional
hires of academic administrators--without reliance on any committee. If, for example, there is a critical
need for the President to have a vice president, he would make the call.
Is the purpose of the proposal to make the President accountable? Yes, replied Dr. Carrier. The
President would consult with relevant groups but would only use the process in an emergency situation-where there is an immediate need for a permanent replacement. Committee members suggested that use
of the term "permanent" is misleading; permanent has a different meaning in the tenure code and should
not be used here. The intent, Dr. Carrier explained, is to differentiate the appointment from one that is
"acting," but she agreed that a different term might be appropriate.
Often such appointments also carry tenure, it was noted. Dr. Carrier said that the normal faculty
review process for granting tenure would remain in place--no tenured appointment would be offered
without relying on it.
This proposal implies a two-tiered arrangement, it was said; a dean could use the same process to
hire a department head. Would that appointment land on the President's desk? Or would there be a
different intra-college process? Dr. Carrier said no second process is envisioned; this is to be used for
higher-level appointments. Once the process is established, how would central administrative and
collegiate appointments be distinguished? All would fall under the process, Dr. Carrier said, and the
question would be whether or not the President wanted to champion such an appointment. There could
be a test of the process later, she agreed. If its use is intended for senior administrative appointments, it
was said, the language should make that clear. There are times when they are needed, pointed out one
Faculty Consultative Committee
September 30, 1993
3
Committee member--such as when the President loses a director of state relations during a legislative
session; anyone appointed on an acting basis would have no credibility.
This is a good policy, said another Committee member. It should put the brake on these hires by
placing the decision in the hands of the President--it makes one person clearly accountable. Since this is
not a preferred method of hiring, the President presumably would not use it very much.
Issues surrounding exceptional hires have arisen in collegiate spousal hires, it was said; what is the
overriding rule governing exceptions? That question has not been thought through. Why should the
process be used on a short-term basis when the University then makes a long-term commitment? One
becomes skeptical when considering the long view because one cannot clarify why the process is used.
Permanent tenure is often more permanent than the partnerships or marriages used to justify it--the
University commitment exceeds the partnership commitment. Discussion is needed on why this is a
reasonable way for the University to act. It isn't clear how these issues relate to the proposal being
presented today, but with the exceptional hire process, doors are opened that are elsewhere closed. The
conflicting agendas have not been reconciled.
In many instances, it was said by another Committee member, the spousal hires are at the assistant
professor level, so a decision must later be made. Even so, the hires are not made unless both individuals
are of high quality. It is a fact of professional life, however, and departments face it a lot. It would be
useful to have data about spousal hires, it was suggested; one could surmise that the decision is NOT to
tenure both individuals in the majority of cases.
The decision is usually not in the department making the original hire, it was pointed out. A
faculty member is added to satisfy one department--but the flexibility of another department is restricted,
a department that might have gone in different directions if the spouse were not hired. It is up to the dean
to reconcile the issues. A department can always refuse the individuals, noted one Committee member.
It was agreed that the record of spousal hires and the associated questions should be directed to the
Committee on Faculty Affairs.
A related question about searches, said one Committee member, arises when an individual is
known to be available but will let it be publicly known--how does one think about that situation with
respect to the exceptional hire process? The President may want to hire someone who will not be in a
pool and may have to make an offer to get him or her. If it is an open search, Dr. Carrier said, it must be
open. Then what constitutes an emergency? The legislative director example, she said, or a finance vice
president who dies two days before the start of a legislative session. This Committee, noted one member,
discussed with the President the appointment of Dr. Infante; there was an immediate need for an
experienced insider, the University could not afford the start-up time an outsider would have needed, and
any search would have been a fake.
In terms of spousal hires, Dr. Carrier then noted, there are instances when the spouse is hired on a
non-tenured basis, or as a P&A appointee, or on a short-term basis. When a tenured appointment for the
spouse is needed, there is a lot of scrutiny and there are a number of funding questions. Colleges have
paid for an individual in another college--the funding issue becomes a sorting mechanism, because if that
cannot be worked out, the appointment is not made.
Faculty Consultative Committee
September 30, 1993
4
Another sore point in the appointment of academic administrators with tenure, one Committee
member commented, is when the individual leaves the administrative post--the college where the tenure
was granted becomes responsible for the salary, not central administration. Colleges need to be aware of
the implications when they offer tenure--they may need to absorb the salary. The administration has
sometimes been forced with the need to bankroll the college because it faces a $90,000 commitment it
cannot meet.
3.
Reviews of Administrators
Professor Garrard then asked Dr. Carrier if there were an update on faculty participation in the
reviews of administrators. She recalled that the Senior Vice President had written a policy on
administrator reviews and the Faculty Senate had adopted a resolution advising him on its
implementation.
Dr. Carrier noted that the policy called for annual and periodic written reviews of every
administrator, regardless of level. The Faculty Senate resolution had called for faculty participation in
EVERY review, annual or periodic, for administrators who work to any extent with faculty. The
resolution engendered discussion among the vice presidents; they thought there would be logistical
difficulties in collecting data every, so suggested that perhaps faculty could participate every two years.
Dr. Infante joined the meeting at this point, and said that his position has been to send a notice to
the faculty inviting their comments when an administrator is being reviewed--and to also designate a
group of two or three faculty members to whom comments could be made if an individual were unwilling
to comment directly to him. This, he thought, was in the spirit of the Faculty Senate resolution. He does
NOT favor sending pieces of paper where faculty members are asked to check boxes; the responses tend
to be too small a sample. Faculty members should submit written evaluations. In the case of one vice
presidential review, he said, he received 80 written evaluations, and they were very productive.
But faculty face standardized questionnaires filled out by students every year; there is a sense here
that is what is good for the faculty is also good for administrators. Students and faculty are very different
groups, Dr. Infante said; one can expect a different kind of evaluation from faculty.
The sense of the discussion of the resolution, recalled one Committee member, was that whatever
procedures were adopted be systematic and ensure participation. That does not mean sending out a
blanket letter inviting participation. The resolution did not say how the faculty participation should be
accomplished; that will depend on the degree of contact the administrator has with faculty members. It is
unlikely that faculty participation levels will be low in the case of a dean; most faculty have strong
feelings about their dean. But when he was dean of IT, Dr. Infante responded, 12 faculty responded to a
request for evaluation.
The Committee also said, Dr. Infante was told, that for senior positions with indirect faculty
contact, a committee should be appointed to obtain input rather than the reviewer just calling up people
he or she knows. The point is that there is no single way to proceed but that there should be a systematic,
unbiased, genuine faculty participation. For senior administrators in some instances, it was agreed, use
of the Committee on Faculty Affairs might be appropriate.
Faculty Consultative Committee
September 30, 1993
5
Deans and department heads are also covered by the policy and Faculty Senate resolution, it was
pointed out. Dr. Carrier said that all deans and department heads must be reviewed annually and relevant
groups should be consulted. Just as it is appropriate to insist that the vice presidents be accountable, she
observed, it is also appropriate to be certain that the deans are being systematic in their reviews (although
the procedures might vary among colleges). It is about the deans and department heads that the faculty
feel most strongly, one Committee member observed, not associate vice presidents. The point, again, it
was said, is that deans should be expected, as they do reviews of chairs, to have a procedure to be
followed to obtain faculty views, and it should be more than the faculty the dean happens to know. A
mailing, it was asserted, is NOT acceptable.
Another Committee member said that faculty should be notified that the review is taking place and
be invited to participate; it is up to the faculty member to respond. Evaluation of faculty teaching is
different because that is one specific function whereas deans and department heads do a lot of different
things. But the systematic aspect of the review is important; most senior administrators, for example, are
ex officio members of Senate committees, and those committees should be involved in the review. It
may not be necessary that deans and vice presidents have their review procedure in writing, but it should
be one that the Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs approves of it.
The genesis of the Medical School issues, it was said, was that faculty felt they were not being
listened to in ANY review of any administrator. The reason for the policy is to establish a process to
determine if things are working for faculty where there are autocratic administrators.
Another Committee member said the Senate resolution suggested that systematic procedures
should apply at all three levels. Specific points beyond that were several. First, the reviews of
administrators are of the quality of their management and it ought not be periodic--it should be annual,
with deeper reviews at the end of the appointment term. Too much happens between appointment and
end of term. Second, there must be a measure of anonymity. At present comments by reviewers are
made known to the administrator; that is not consistent with anonymity. Third, the process is more
important at the collegiate level--it is at those levels that faculty are most concerned about management
quality. That is also the level where threat, intimidation, and reprisal most easily occur, which is why
anonymity is important. Right now there is NO systematic review of deans and department heads--in 25
years, he has NEVER been asked to participate in the review of a dean. What is on the books is great-but it never happens.
That is the point of asking 3 faculty members--not a committee--to receive comments, Dr. Infante;
in one case, he received no written comments but he got an earful from the 3 faculty. That may be
acceptable, said one Committee member; what is important, said another, is that there be guidelines so
the individuals asked do not bias the collection of data.
There is a systematic procedure in place at Morris, it was reported. The Chancellor selects an
evaluation committee in consultation with the Consultative Committee on membership. Once the
committee is appointed, it can use whatever evaluation procedure it wishes. It is important that the
committee have a say in how the evaluation will be conducted. Some administrators have been removed
as a result of the reviews.
Faculty Consultative Committee
September 30, 1993
6
One Committee member inquired what use a more complicated structure would be when the one in
place is not being used. Dr. Infante said that as far he knows, every dean is reviewed every five years
(with one exception, who is being reviewed in his sixth year). College constitutions, he noted, require
periodic reviews. The Committee thought that was also part of his policy, one Committee member
pointed out, and the resolution was intended to support that provision. The resolution also called for
both annual and then deeper periodic reviews.
The spirit of the resolution, summarized one Committee member, was that the administration listen
to faculty, in a systematic way, between the five year reviews. There have been deans who have only
been reviewed when the faculty were ready to revolt. Elaborate structures are not needed and one need
not be distracted by whether or not a survey is used--but simply hanging around faculty is not enough.
"Systematic" does not mean it must meet social science research criteria--only that procedure is known
and can be described and representative faculty views can be obtained. It should not just be those faculty
who are noisy or happen to serve on a consultative committee.
One must be careful, cautioned one Committee member, not to get into an infinite accountability
loop where one spends all one's time being accountable to everyone. If a unit is working well, informal
methods should be acceptable if there is a diversity in means of obtaining information and a lack of
quantifiability is not important. If a lack of collegiality is a problem, changing the rules won't help.
Dr. Infante said he wanted to clarify the issues and would draft a memo on how to do
reviews--and he wanted to walk away from this meeting with an understanding. His biases, for annual
reviews, are to send a memo to the faculty in the unit notifying them of the review and solicit them for
nominations and charge to a committee to conduct the review. Once appointed, the committee would be
left to proceed as it wishes--and he would always meet with the committee. He reiterated that he dislikes
surveys because the return rates are low and that he always appreciates qualitative comments. He also
said he believed that there is a difference in annual reviews for line academic officers and individuals
who hold positions such as that of Drs. Carrier and Kvavik.
Also for annual reviews, he said, there should be a letter to the faculty welcoming comments. (To
whom, he inquired, in the case of people such as Drs. Carrier and Kvavik, would the letter be sent? That
is clearer in the case of a dean.) There should also be 2 or 3 individuals selected to receive comments.
Dr. Infante noted that HE cannot promise to keep anything anonymous--it is against the law for him to
withhold from the individual reviewed materials used in a review, nor will he accept anonymous letters.
(In the case of one vice presidential review, he has a friendly agreement with the individual that the
materials will not be made available, but the vice president could insist on it. It is for that reason that he
names three other individuals to receive comments; if the three can agree on comments, they can then
send a memo.) Committee members concurred with Dr. Infante's refusal to accept anonymous letters.
To a certain extent this is a triage situation, said one Committee member. One might assume 95%
of administrators are good and 5% are not--it is a tremendous time commitment to ferret out that 5%.
But reviews are valuable for administrators because they can tell individuals things they could do better,
even in the context of a review that is positive. Reviews require a lot of work, but there is no way around
them. Another Committee member agreed that they are very helpful and said that the focus should be on
improving performance, not ferreting out incompetents. Especially in academic administration, where
few have had any training.
Faculty Consultative Committee
September 30, 1993
4.
7
Strategic Planning
Professor Garrard then inquired if Dr. Infante had any additional comments on strategic planning.
He related that a retreat with the deans had been held and that it had been a difficult session; there was
not the understanding among everyone that he had wanted. He subsequently met at length with a subset
of three of the most outspoken deans and at the end they felt better about the ideas of the strategic plan-they just felt those ideas were not being presented clearly.
There are two areas of concern, he said. First is University College: it has taken on a magnitude
not intended in the context of Twin Cities campus planning--it would represent 5 - 10% of Twin Cities
activities. The most important part of the plan is the direction for the research university. The second
concern revolves around the clusters, about which there has been some discomfort because the deans felt
that strategic decisions (e.g., on reorganization) had been made but hidden. Blunt, hard questions need to
be asked, he told the Committee, but the answers are not yet there. No one should be reluctant to ask the
questions, but he said he does not feel compelled to provide answers now. The clusters, he said, must
engage with intellectual depth the question of what the University should look like. This is only the first
grouping, moreover; other clusters may emerge. One "super cluster," the health sciences, may need to be
disaggregated. There will, in addition, be parallel discussions occurring, because budgetary issues may
need to be addressed sooner than the clusters can plan, so college planning will continue as well. One of
the more difficult clusters, Dr. Infante added, is the biological sciences; one cannot expect conclusions in
six months when the issues have been debated for 25 years or more.
Framing questions will soon be sent to the clusters and then to the colleges; there will be different
questions for each cluster. But if the planning effort is turned into a budgetary exercise, the planning
process will be ruined. It must be an intellectual effort, with some sense of reality; the colleges are the
budgetary units while the clusters can been seen as the intellectual units. Dr. Infante affirmed that unit
heads and senior faculty make up the cluster teams; in the case of cross-college clusters, he will appoint
them. He also concurred that the clusters are not all independent of one another.
One Committee member expressed doubt that some kind of decisions could not be made within the
next six months in such areas as the biological sciences. If SOME decisions are not made about
structural changes within six months, the planning process will not get anywhere. Perhaps the details
needn't be settled. A major strategic planning question is what the University will be great at; one hears
from the biological sciences that reorganization is needed to be great. Dr. Infante concurred, and said he
wishes the group to present alternatives and implications and to think through the consequences; which
change may not take place in six months, there should be a clear identification of the problems and the
possibilities for addressing them.
If the University is to be challenged to think about how to be among the top 10 institutions, that is
the ONLY thing that should be done in the next six months, said one Committee member. And why can
there not be, in six months, three alternatives presented? The clusters should have the challenge to
identify alternatives within six months--if only to make the faculty feel that SOMETHING has been
accomplished. Most faculty distrust strategic planning--because nothing happens! It is critical to "get
something on the table" demonstrating that the University is organized, rather than just drifting
downward.
Faculty Consultative Committee
September 30, 1993
8
That is bothersome, responded another Committee member, because it makes the organizational
plan seem to be key. When the deans were splintered in their support of the plan at the retreat, one can
worry about money and who's in charge. The fundamental effort in strategic planning should be
DIRECTION. It is surprising how hard that is to achieve with faculty. Faculty are troubled by what the
University is all about and where it should go. When they squawk about University College, that is a
symptom of a lack of a shared idea of what the University is about; when confronted with the question,
many pull it down to the level of "what should I do today?" and they feel bad when it doesn't go as they
expect. The administration must pound on the vision statement and whether or not there is agreement on
it. If we can agree, other disputes can be resolved; if reorganization is decided upon before the vision
statement, the University will be in trouble. It is not, moreover, clear that people agree on the
University's mission--and an organization chart will not settle the matter.
Dr. Infante was asked to provide his vision of what the Twin Cities research university would be
like in 10 years. He began by saying that it must not be forgotten that this is a "damned good place." It is
in the top 16 to 20, of all universities, and taking the mid-point, of the 18, 12 are private.
He said he wants to be sure that the University is sustained as a first-rate professional and graduate
scholarly institution. Most institutions gain leverage for their graduate and professional programs
through the strength of their undergraduate programs; the University does not. Due to circumstances
(location, mix of students) the University has tried to serve all in the same way--and developed the
"lowest common denominator technique."
Students of high scholarly ability are only taking 12 credits! They are advised to do so! He
indicated he sharply disagrees with that practice; the University should not say to students that "it is all
right to be an intellectual slob." Students learn to take three courses per quarter--and they do so forever.
At the undergraduate level, the University must do much better--everywhere.
The land-grant component of the vision is important, he said; it is that way that the University is
accessible to the state and Twin Cities with the capabilities it has to offer. There will be problems in the
Twin Cities; the University must be part of the solutions. The major problem for the next 15 - 20 years
is that the University must make a contribution, in the land-grant sense; it must walk a tightrope between
fulfilling leadership obligations and delivery obligations.
One Committee member said he believed the central administration has identified five clear
directions: strong research/graduate/professional university; leadership in cooperative education in the
Twin Cities; strong undergraduate program; user-friendly to students, staff, and faculty; and strong
outreach. One wants the administration and Board of Regents to say to the college this is what we want
the University to do; you tell us your ideas how you can do it. There is a pot of dollars; if your ideas
come to the top, they will be funded. That is the idea of the clusters, Dr. Infante responded--without the
dollars.
No one need be threatened, it was said; units should put their best foot forward and tell what they
will try to accomplish and what they would spend. The administration would then pick the best, across
the University, that foster those five goals. Finally, it was said, form follows function; the University
must find out what it wants to do before deciding on the form to accomplish it.
Faculty Consultative Committee
September 30, 1993
9
The meeting was adjourned at 12:15.
-- Gary Engstrand
University of Minnesota