Minutes*
Faculty Consultative Committee
Thursday, March 17, 1994
12:30 - 3:00
Dale Shephard Room, Campus Club
Present:
John Adams (chair pro tem), Mario Bognanno, Lester Drewes, James Gremmels, Kenneth
Heller, Robert Jones, Geoffrey Maruyama, Toni McNaron, Cleon Melsa, Irwin Rubenstein
Regrets:
Judith Garrard, Carl Adams
Absent:
Karen Seashore Louis, Shirley Zimmerman
Guests:
David Berg (Management Planning and Information Services), President Nils Hasselmo,
Professor Morris Kleiner (Faculty Legislative Liaison)
Others:
Maureen Smith (University Relations)
[In these minutes: Senate rules; faculty salaries (with Mr. Berg and the President); central administration
reorganization; biennial request; searches (briefly)]
1.
Various Items of Business
Professor Adams convened the meeting at 12:35 and asked for consent to close the meeting to hear
a report from Professor Kleiner about his activities and an update on the legislature. Professor Kleiner
noted, among his several comments, that he is working very closely with Professor Craig Swan, President
of the University of Minnesota Faculty Association.
Following the report and discussion with Professor Kleiner, Professor Adams drew the attention of
Committee members to a short memo from the Senate Parliamentarian, Fred Morrison, about alternates at
meetings of Senate committees. The question about sending alternates has arisen a number of times;
Professor Morrison's position is that alternates are not permitted, under Roberts' and Senate rules.
The Committee concluded unanimously, following brief discussion, that the present rule is
satisfactory and that alternates on Senate committees should not be permitted. It was noted that
committee meetings are generally open and that committee members may send someone their stead, if
they know they will be absent, to observe and even, with the consent of the committee, to participate.
Such an alternate could not, however, cast a vote.
Another issue that has been raised, Professor Adams then reported, is whether or not Senate
committee minutes should be available on Gopher. The present distribution system was explained,
including the proviso that anyone in the University community who wishes to be on the mailing list for
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 17, 1994
2
the minutes, by paper or email, need only request them. There was no sentiment for putting the minutes
on Gopher.
Professor Adams then introduced Professor Cleon Melsa from the Crookston campus, who has
been elected to replace Professor Harvey Peterson for Spring Quarter, who is on leave. The Committee
welcomed Professor Melsa.
2.
Faculty Salaries
(Earlier in the meeting, there had been a short discussion of the contract negotiated by the faculty
in the State University System; it provides for salaries of $68,000 for professors with 20 years of
experience, for $71,000 with 21 years of experience, $75,000 with 22 years of experience, and so on.
There is, in addition, an add-on for faculty with Ph.D.s of up to 10%; there is also overload pay. It
appears that the comparable mean for University professors (assuming 20 years of experience) is about
$66,000. These data provoked considerable consternation among Committee members.)
Professor Adams then turned to Professor Bognanno for a report on the Compensation Working
Group and the issues it is addressing.
Professor Bognanno explained the activities of the Working Group.
--
It has two jobs, first to define its mission (which it will do within the month) and second,
to address the problem.
--
The problem has two parts: a larger issue that must be addressed in a simple, credible,
professional way, and a series of smaller issues.
--
The bigger problem is: (1) to define and justify criteria for who should be in the
University's comparison group, for salary purposes; (2) once those criteria have been
identified, performance information will be collected about the comparison group
(reputational scores, research funding, etc.); (3) once the variables have been controlled
for, it must be shown that compensation drives performance. The link between
performance and compensation MUST be demonstrated when the University raises the
issue of salaries, and must ultimately be linked to U2000.
Once pay and performance have been considered, then the President and Board of Regents
must be asked what kind of university they want. Benchmarks and long-term objectives
can be identified. This will provide the University a measure it has not had before to make
the arguments crisply, coherently, and credibly.
--
The series of smaller issues the Working Group will take up include administrator
augmentation for faculty who take administrative positions, a way to link increments in
salaries, by unit, to faculty performance in areas such as teaching and service, and how to
balance the need to respond to the market to deal with competitive offers with the need to
reward individuals who are contributing scholars and participants in a department but who
have not gone on the market.
Faculty Consultative Committee
March 17, 1994
3
Professor Adams next called on Mr. Berg to review for the Committee the information he
presented to the Board of Regents on faculty salaries.
Mr. Berg began by telling the Committee he has come upon a notion that he has not seen any
exposition of in the literature but that he believes deserves exposure. MPIS did a study last year of
tuition rate increases, for the legislative auditor. The study found that tuition tracked inflation through
about 1981; after that it increased dramatically faster than inflation. The causes of the increase can be
attributed to several factors (inflation itself, fewer students to bear the tuition burden, a decline in state
support, and increased spending per student). The study found that 85-90% of the increase beyond
inflation was directly attributable to the decline in state support--the vast majority of the large increase in
tuition was used to make up for the loss of state funding.
The legislative auditor adopted the study's methods for analysis of the other systems of higher
education and found the same result.
There are now data on tuition which suggest the phenomenon is generalizable to the entire nation.
The public institutions evidently used tuition increases to replace lost public funds, which
provided private institutions with an opportunity to increase tuition without harming their relative
position in the market. They used the increased tuition income largely for faculty salaries since they did
not have to replace any lost funding.
Mr. Berg then turned to the slides he had used in the presentation to the Board of Regents. A first
question was whether or not faculty salaries have kept up with inflation. Taking 1974 as the base year,
by 1982 salaries had dipped to 82% of the base, they reached 96% of the base in 1991, and have now
dropped back to 92.5% of the base year. There have been significant differences among professorial
terms and rank in impact; 9-month assistant professors have slipped only 1% below the base year while
12-month associate professors have slipped 10% and 12-month assistant professors have slipped 20%.
In terms of comparison with Big Ten public institutions (excluding Penn State), the University has
slipped slightly, both in cash salary and in total compensation. This is not a big deal, Mr. Berg
commented, and is unlikely to cause legislative concern. What they might listen to is the fact that IOWA
has passed Minnesota by.
None of the salary figures take into account cost of living, Mr. Berg told the Committee in
response to a query. An outstanding study done at Michigan State demonstrated that cost of living does
not vary enough to make any difference in salary comparisons (with the possible exception of extreme
cases, such as New York City). It is better to leave cost of living out because it contributes almost
nothing to the studies.
In terms of comparison with the most prestigious research universities, the University (ranked 16th
in quality in a 1983 CHANGE magazine article, the best standard available now); its compensation, all
ranks combined, is now 25th of the top 30 reporting institutions. It is 9th of 13 among the publics in that
same group. Full professor salaries are 30th of 30.
Faculty Consultative Committee
March 17, 1994
4
To what extent has the University kept up with national competition? Is the competition
changing? Mr. Berg said that for the period 1973-1993, the University's faculty salaries tracked public
doctoral institution salaries quite closely, varying between the average and 5% above the average (and
some of the institutions in this group are not major research universities). (All figures are for 9-month
professors, although the data likely reflect the entire market.)
During that same period, salaries at private doctoral institutions have increased much more rapidly.
In 1973, private salaries were about 1.9% above the University's salaries (4.7% above the publics); in
1993 they are 21% above the University's salaries (27% above the publics). The private doctoral
institution salaries began to increase dramatically about 1981-82; the cash salary for 9-month professors
at private institutions is now over $80,000.
If one considers again the tuition study, it is clear what has happened. As states cut support, public
institutions raised tuition to make up the lost funding. That gave the private institutions license to raise
tuition as well, the additional income from which was funneled into faculty salaries.
Mr. Berg emphasized and underscored his conclusion from these data: If the legislatures continue
to not provide funding for universities, and populist legislature and regents continue to hold down tuition,
THERE WILL SOON BE TWO HIGHER EDUCATION SYSTEMS IN THIS COUNTRY, ONE THAT
PAYS WELL AND ATTRACTS THE BEST FACULTY AND ONE THAT DOES NOT PAY WELL,
DOES NOT ATTRACT THE BEST FACULTY, BUT THAT HAS LOW TUITION. THE SYSTEM
WITH THE BEST FACULTY WILL BE PRIVATE, THE ONE WITH LESSER QUALITY FACULTY
WILL BE PUBLIC. It is, Mr. Berg also concluded, crazy for the University to continue to compare its
salaries only with public institutions.
One response one gets from legislators when the University is said to rank 30th of 30 in top
research university salaries, said one Committee member, is that the University should raise its salaries-the legislature does not set salaries. And non-resident students at Michigan, for example, pay $16,000
per year. What should be said vis-a-vis Michigan, Mr. Berg pointed out, is that if the legislature and
Regents will permit the University to raise tuition by 50% for resident students, Minnesota could be like
Michigan. The University does not do so because the populist legislature intensely dislikes posted tuition
rates that high.
The argument, now, may be with the Board of Regents, it was said. They are not facing the facts,
and since there is no one available to do the loaves and fishes routine, if state funding is not increased, if
tuition is not increased, salaries will not be competitive, and something will give. Quality, pointed out
another Committee member. It won't be programs, said another; the legislature won't allow that; there
was an enormous hue and cry the last time a faculty committee recommended cutting units (Dentistry and
Veterinary Medicine). One argument that has not been made is that the faculty could work harder.
One alternative would be to have 10% fewer faculty, who would teach 10% more (larger classes),
and pay those faculty more. That would be a hard sell, Mr. Berg observed. The argument has been made
that by increasing the teaching load by one hour, there could be fewer faculty and those faculty could be
paid better. Another argument, it was recalled, is that there are hundreds of applicants for every
University faculty position; why not take number five rather than number one? It can't be argued that
number five isn't any good. One Committee member pointed out that the University is already doing
Faculty Consultative Committee
March 17, 1994
5
that--it can't get the number one candidates now, which suggests it is not competing at the level it should
be. Those outside the University seem to think that taking the #5 candidate rather than the #1 candidate
will make a difference, it was said.
One problem with all of this is that the University is so heterogeneous, with so many colleges and
tasks, that to speak in general terms is necessary--but the local case is not representative of the
differences between colleges and campuses. The University is badgered about teaching, but the load
varies between almost none, for faculty who do research with post-docs, and those who teach
Introductory French. Does this issue come up in conversations? The more one knows the University, the
harder it is to make generic statements about it. There are over 200 different units with 200 different
national pools from which they hire.
Some among the legislative leadership appreciate that variety, Mr. Berg said, but the general
legislator tends to be naive about it. There is also a tendency to forget about everything except the
undergraduates, he added, and he has had to make that point repeatedly. When more detailed
explanations are attempted, he said, attention tends to wander.
One must also consider unit aspirations. For example, in another slide, the data suggest the Law
School salaries are 7.6% above the mean of the AAU public institutions and 5.1% above the mean of the
Big Ten publics. Dean Stein would argue, however, that those are not the appropriate comparison
groups, and he would probably be right. U. S. News and World Report is about to issue a report ranking
Minnesota 17th in quality among all U.S. law schools, including privates. Dean Stein would argue that
Minnesota is not competing anywhere near the mean of the AAU publics or the Big Ten. But until one
knows what the aspirations of a unit are, it is difficult to make sense of the disciplinary salary
comparisons.
Except for inflationary comparisons, Mr. Berg said, the data apply only to the Twin Cities campus
faculty. There are similar data on the coordinate campuses, however (except for Crookston, for which
the comparison group has not yet been identified); it appears that Duluth is slightly worse off than the
Twin Cities, relative to its appropriate comparison group, and it appears that Morris is MUCH worse off
than the Twin Cities vis-a-vis its appropriate comparison group.
Allusions were again made to the State University System contract salaries. It may be that there
are few in the rank who are at the levels mentioned earlier. It was also pointed out that their assistant
professors start at lower salaries than those at the University, but they do appear to make more money
after a period of years--and the increases come automatically, much like increases for K-12 teachers. Are
those salaries due to a populist legislature or due to the fact that they are unionized and can bring
pressure to bear for their salaries?
The explanations are not simple, Mr. Berg said, and said he doubted the salaries are as high as the
contract appeared to suggest. He has not seen averages, but noted that the legislature funds the State
system no differently from the University--and that the University, in fact, has received supplemental
appropriations for faculty salaries that the State system has not. The State system has raised teaching
loads, their enrollment has expanded, and they have increased tuition revenues; now it appears they are
losing those revenues, and state funds as well, so they will be faced with significant problems. Mr. Berg
promised to obtain faculty salary data for the State University System.
Faculty Consultative Committee
March 17, 1994
6
One argument that can be made, it was said, is that the loss of faculty members with large research
grants that generate employment affects the state; are there data on that kind of turnover? Mr. Berg said
he would talk with Associate Vice President Carrier about it; his sense, he said, is that the argument
would not achieve what the University wants. That is a lagging indicator, which means that one is
unlikely to find much turnover yet--the turnover in quality faculty is likely to occur AFTER salaries have
deteriorated.
The phenomenon of declining public support for higher education, and legislative reductions in
funding being made up by increased tuition, is not unique to Minnesota--it's not a case of the Minnesota
legislature picking on higher education. How is it that the University can buck a trend in 49 other states?
It is a national problem that needs to receive national attention, Mr. Berg said. The attention higher
education funding has received thus far is ridiculous; one national study basically missed all the
important issues. A national forum is required to address what he is so alarmed about, he said--the
evolution of two different systems.
3.
Discussion with President Hasselmo
Professor Adams welcomed the President to the meeting, who had been present for some of the
preceding discussion. The President asked Mr. Berg to stay because he wanted to continue the
discussion of faculty salaries. He had no solution to offer, he said, but he wanted to talk about strategies
for the 1995-97 biennium. That request, he said, should be the centerpiece of U2000, and the University
will need powerful arguments for the economic and cultural impact of the University on the state.
The President made several brief points about faculty salaries: the Compensation Working Group
is important; there is an internal problem in the mal-distribution of salaries that must be addressed; the
problem with the legislature will be that if one looks only at the cost of living, the faculty have not done
badly; the situation is precarious, and a number of factors must be looked at, including the market.
President Hasselmo then raised with the Committee the possibility and wisdom of making the
arguments for support for the University on the basis of specific areas within it. There could be stronger
arguments, in an uphill battle, than arguments based on faculty salary averages.
An issue of internal distribution, said one Committee member, is the reward for solid performers-people who are not stars but who contribute to the work of the University. At present solid performers
are robbed to pay the stars and there seems to be no system for rewarding those who are doing a GOOD
job. The President said the market has be accepted to a certain extent, but there is a need to avoid the ad
hoc solutions to market demands and to reward solid performance while also having a meaningful review
of outstanding performance.
There are different strategies for obtaining funds, noted another Committee member. Some public
institutions have high tuition and use the money for salaries. Another solution is to have a large
university and use the large revenues for salaries. Is either appropriate for the University? The President
expressed doubt that high tuition would be acceptable and noted that the U2000 projections include
average annual increases of 5.5%. The University has flexibility on enrollment; the question is whether
or not productivity increases can be achieved. Are there more cost-effective ways to provide learning
Faculty Consultative Committee
March 17, 1994
7
opportunities for students without increasing the time demands on the faculty? If there are, the same
number of faculty could mean an increase in revenues. The President said he did not think the time spent
by faculty teaching could be increased. But the University also does not want to see overpopulation
again, either.
The President then reported on the actions and attitudes of the legislature as best he could assess
them thus far with respect to the capital request and the supplemental request for $16.5 million. Later
discussion of strategy also included the University's position in the future vis-a-vis the other public
higher education system resulting from the combination of the three systems.
The question of the orchestration of the 1995-97 biennial request was taken up next. Talking
about planning makes people's eyes glaze over, the President observed; talking about a specific center or
program gets their attention. Can the University construct a number of cases--perhaps as many as 25-around which to build its argument? They could include such activities as the Cancer Center, which may
bring as much or more money to the state as it costs.
The danger in making the University's case this way is that it can present a skewed vision of the
University. But the possibility is intriguing, since it includes the potential of identifying discrete
constituencies who could lobby strongly on behalf of the cases--as well as on behalf of the institution as a
whole. Can such groups be held together to argue not only their specific case but for the University as
well? The President said he believed it would be important to rally faculty leadership support for this
approach, were it to be used. The number of possible cases that might be used could run as high as 500;
it would need to be understood that a selected group of cases would be used this time and others in future
years.
One Committee member pointed out that a recent study has suggested there is about a 9% rate of
return to the state on investments in higher education; where else can the legislature obtain that kind of
return? Is that not also a good argument? The importance of the University to the economy of the state
has been documented, the President responded, and it needs to be emphasized, but rate of return is an
abstract concept. If specific cases can also be talked about, with constituents excited about them, the
possibility for success may increase. The specific cases would not be simply for augmented support for
the University. Mr. Berg told the Committee that for the 1993-95 biennium the University spent a lot of
time informing the legislature that its investment in the University was equaled by the returns to the state;
the argument, he recalled, did not engender much interest or support.
The danger in the approach, observed one Committee member, is in trying to sell Arts and Letters
to the legislature this way; philosophy is an important discipline but it does not obtain a lot of funding
and generate jobs. President Hasselmo agreed that some cases will have to include areas that do not
bring in a lot of funding--but that are at the heart of the University. This might mean arguing for a noneconomic rate of return, said one Committee member: the humanities contribute to the quality of life.
The President agreed that identification of cases should not rest on narrow cost-benefit analyses.
One Committee member strongly endorsed the approach proposed by the President, noting that
getting vested interests galvanized in support of the University's request is likely to help. This
phenomenon is probably what was central in achieving the recent legislative reversal of the Governor's
veto of the state special appropriations.
Faculty Consultative Committee
March 17, 1994
8
This is not a new approach, the President recalled, but this form of the "decision package" is one
that entails seeking constituent support. He said he has begun discussing the approach with the central
officers and wants to hone it with faculty members--as well as to seek their support for using it. There is
a danger that it will create internal dissent, since use of some cases would obviously preclude the use of
others. People must be convinced that it is to everyone's benefit to use specific instances to make the
general case. It may be that a spring retreat, with the faculty leadership and perhaps the deans, could be
convened to develop such a strategy.
There is also a danger, maintained one Committee member, that such a strategy will perpetuate the
University's recurring problem of having strong centers on the periphery while the core declines rapidly.
Outside activities will have constituents; focusing on them will mean funds are directed to them.
Meantime, history, English, and philosophy, the intellectual heart of the University, will take cuts. Who
will stand for them? It may be appropriate to talk about specifics with the legislature, but the core must
also be there. The President agreed, saying the administration and faculty must be responsible for the
core--and pointing out that that is why the core has been favored in restructuring and reallocation.
One problem is that the core units have no advocates similar to those for the centers, said one
Committee member. Often the core units are headed by faculty members who go off in different
directions and who serve for short periods of time as heads or chairs.
The President closed this portion of the discussion by affirming that no strategy that undermines
the centrality of the arts and sciences would be viable. He emphasized that this is an important issue and
wants as much discussion as possible with the faculty.
Discussion next turned to the status of the possible reorganization of central administration. The
President first defined what he sought with a reorganization. The University may not be operating as
effectively as possible because of diffused accountability and responsibility, because of a decisionmaking process that is not as clear as it should be, and because of a lack of clarity on when consultation
should occur and with whom. Rather than reorganization, he said, the effort should be seen as an attempt
to increase management effectiveness: the University must be able to make hard and important decisions
crisply, clearly, and rapidly, to make them stick, and to implement them. The reason he is considering
the provost system is to deal with the problems created when campus/system and staff/line
responsibilities are mixed.
Part of the process will also include as much decentralization as possible, so that, for example, the
provosts would have the final say on promotion and tenure. The central administration would be the
organization responsible for institutional policy and management of infrastructure systems (to back up
provost and chancellor decision-making). Interviews with faculty, administrators, and regents are being
conducted as the possibilities are being explored; the President said he hoped to have a model to propose
by late spring. Research and the Graduate School, he affirmed, would remain under the vice president in
central administration.
The President then informed the Committee of the status of the searches for the Provost for the
Health Sciences (a strong slate of final candidates, with interviews to be conducted by mid-April, it is
hoped), the Vice President for External Relations (interviews also to be completed by mid-April), and the
Faculty Consultative Committee
March 17, 1994
9
Associate to the President (interviews to be conducted as soon as possible).
Professor Adams thanked the President for joining the meeting and adjourned it at 3:00.
-- Gary Engstrand
University of Minnesota