Minutes*
Faculty Consultative Committee
Thursday, April 28, 1994
12:00 - 3:00
Dale Shephard Room, Campus Club
Present:
Judith Garrard (chair), Carl Adams, John Adams, James Gremmels, Kenneth Heller,
Morris Kleiner, Karen Seashore Louis, Geoffrey Maruyama, Toni McNaron, Cleon Melsa,
Irwin Rubenstein, Shirley Zimmerman
Regrets:
Mario Bognanno, Lester Drewes, Robert Jones
Guests:
Professor Mary Dempsey (Tenure Subcommittee), Senior Vice President E. F. Infante,
Vice President Anne Petersen
Others:
Martha Kvanbeck (University Senate), Rich Broderick, Maureen Smith (University
Relations)
[In these minutes: Tenure code amendments; committee business; budgets and related issues with Senior
Vice President Infante; research and strategic planning issues with Vice President Petersen]
[Correction: Professor Kleiner attended the April 14 FCC meeting, although the record did not show him
present.]
1.
Report of the Chair
Professor Garrard convened the meeting at noon. She noted that a question had arisen about the
electronic distribution of the Committee's minutes outside the campus and suggested that the issue should
be discussed with the President at a future meeting.
The Committee then received a report on the activities at the legislature from Professor Kleiner.
Committee members talked briefly about the presentations to the Board of Regents budget forum.
2.
Tenure Code Amendments
Professor Garrard next welcomed Professor Mary Dempsey, chair of the Tenure Subcommittee of
the Committee on Faculty Affairs, to introduce two proposed amendments to the Regulations Concerning
Faculty Tenure.
The first amendment, from the Committee on Equal Opportunity for Women and approved
unanimously by the Committee on Faculty Affairs, provides that a probationary faculty member may stop
*
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
April 28, 1994
2
the "tenure clock" for up to two years in order to care for a family member (Section 5.5). This provision
parallels the one adopted last year, permitting a probationary faculty member to stop the clock for
parenting reasons. "Family member" is defined in the amendment as "a blood relative, or a marital
partner, or a domestic partner (registered with the University), or an adoptive/foster child." The
application for extension of the probationary period would be made to the department head and would be
approved through appropriate University channels. If denied, it would be grievable. Exercise of
extension of the probationary period for EITHER parenting or caregiving would be limited to two years.
Committee members noted that in some cases the decision may require a judgment call on the part
of the unit head about whether or not the caregiving responsibilities are extensive enough. While one
does not have a problem with reasonable discretion on the part of chairs, it was said, it is a problem if
there are inconsistencies, which lead to conflict, and then to litigation. The proposal depends on
reasonable people making reasonable decisions; the problem is that there are a lot of people who are
NOT reasonable--but the Committee should endorse this amendment anyway and deal with the
consequences, because the principle is sound.
Extending the probationary period is not the same as the University giving notice. Some are
concerned that a faculty member may not be doing his or her job and will use parenting or caregiving
extensions as a way to circumvent the probationary period. But there is nothing to prevent the University
from giving notice to a faculty member before the end of the full probationary period--whether or not a
faculty member has had it extended. No one is GUARANTEED a maximum probationary period. The
safeguard is that the faculty must move to terminate someone who is abusing these provisions.
These provisions for extending the probationary period do NOT affect other possible extensions
that may occur if a faculty member cuts the appointment to two-thirds time or less.
The other safeguard against abuse, said one Committee member, is the tightness of the job market.
Faculty who use these provisions will do so conscientiously and with knowledge of the risks; job market
pressures, where there are many times as many applicants as positions, will mean the provisions are not
used capriciously.
It was moved, seconded, and unanimously voted to endorse the amendment and to place it on the
docket of the Faculty Senate, subject only to final review and approval by the Judicial Committee.
Discussion then turned to the second amendment, also approved unanimously by the Committee on
Faculty Affairs, which inserts timelines into the provisions governing termination proceedings (Section
14). In a recent case, a Judicial Committee action was not forwarded to the administration for six
months, and the administration then failed to act on it for some time thereafter. These amendments add
timelines.
Professor Dempsey reported that Associate Vice President Carrier has indicated the proposed
timelines are reasonable.
The language of the amendments uses calendar days; originally the Subcommittee had used
working days, but all other provisions of the tenure regulations use calendar days. Professor Dempsey
said that if the Committee wished, the Tenure Subcommittee would, next year, consider revising the
regulations so all provisions are in working days.
Faculty Consultative Committee
April 28, 1994
3
The Committee voted unanimously to endorsed the amendments and place them on the docket of
the Faculty Senate, again subject to final approval by the Judicial Committee.
Professor Garrard thanked Professor Dempsey for the work of the Subcommittee on formulating
the amendments.
3.
Other Business
Professor Garrard then informed the Committee that a recent Minnesota Court of Appeals ruling
directed the Judicial Committee to improve its procedures. She is working with Professor David Ward,
chair of the Judicial Committee, and with members of the administration to work on the procedures.
Once developed, they will be acted on by the full Judicial Committee and the Committee on Faculty
Affairs, and then reported to this Committee and the Faculty Senate for information. The essence of the
ruling, she reported, is that Judicial Committee will be expected to function more like a District Court;
this announcement provoked dismay among a number of Committee members.
There will be an article in FOOTNOTE about the changes, she also said.
Questions were raised about whether or not the University would appeal the decision of the Court
of Appeals and whether or not the ruling would affect cases currently before the Judicial Committee. It
was agreed to raise the questions with Senior Vice President Infante.
Professor Garrard announced that the Lame Duck Committee, in accord with procedures in use for
a number of years, has nominated Professor John Adams to serve as FCC Chair for 1994-95 and
Professor Carl Adams to serve as Vice Chair. Both Professors Adams have consented. The Committee
then elected them by acclamation. (The Lame Duck Committee consists of outgoing Committee
members plus the ex-officio members.)
Professor Garrard then reported, in accord with the instructions she had received at the previous
meeting, that individuals to fill the positions that she and Professor McNaron are vacating have been
identified. Professors Sara Evans and Gerhard Weiss will fill one of the positions (Professor Weiss
during Fall Quarter and Professor Evans during Winter and Spring Quarters); Professor Roberta
Humphreys will fill the other. Professor Sheila Corcoran-Perry has agreed to be the FCC nominee to
serve as vice chair of the University & Faculty Senates (and thus would serve as a voting a member of
this Committee, if elected to either position).
The ex officio members of the Committee will be Professor Heller (who will continue as chair of
the Committee on Educational Policy), Professor Virginia Gray (who will serve as chair of the
Committee on Finance and Planning), and Professor Daniel Feeney (who will serve as chair of the
Committee on Faculty Affairs).
Professor Garrard also thanked those members of the Committee who attended the Regents' budget
forum. Committee members discussed the presentations. [Professor Garrard's statement to the Board is
appended to these minutes.]
Faculty Consultative Committee
April 28, 1994
4
One Committee member inquired if there would be time for discussion, before the end of the
academic year, about the issues associated with expression of faculty views to the Board of Regents.
Professor Garrard promised to put the issue on the agenda of an upcoming meeting.
4.
Discussion with Senior Vice President Infante
Professor Garrard next welcomed Senior Vice President Infante to the meeting. He began by
reviewing the current status of the appropriations and bonding bills in the two houses of the legislature
and the various outcomes that might be imagined.
Dr. Infante then related that he had read the statements that the faculty had made to the Board of
Regents at the forum on the budget; he expressed thanks for them. He said he was optimistic about what
the Board would do; they want to keep tuition down but they recognize that there are problems that must
be faced. In terms of the request to consider a tuition increase of 3%, he said he had interpreted that
Board action as a wish to see the consequences; those consequences are now quite clear. The amount
involved ranges from $1.8 to 2.3 million, depending on what is counted, which is a significant part of the
Strategic Investment Pool. It may seem only a minute part of a $1.5 billion budget, but that is the wrong
number on which to focus. One Committee member suggested that the more appropriate number is $60
million--that 10% of state funding that is subject to reduction or change.
Asked if they had questions or advice for him about the legislature, one Committee member
inquired about the long term. Given the recent decline in support for higher education in the state
budget, what strategy does the University have to convince the legislature to reallocate funds to higher
education and to explain how the University is different and should receive additional funding?
The case must be made that investment in higher education is more fruitful and appealing than is
investment in correctional facilities, for example, and has a greater payoff. Higher education must stand
together on this argument. With respect to the University, the point must be made that it has three
missions and that the intellectual and economic well-being of the state depends on the University. Facing
an aggregation of power and campuses in the new merger, Dr. Infante said the University must present a
straight case for what it does and how it pays off and that he still believes virtue pays off.
The arguments of virtue are being made, it was said; the questions from legislators usually revolve
around what has been done for their district or constituents, relative to others. One of his arguments, Dr.
Infante rejoined, is that if the health and well-being of the state is to be maintained, it will not be the
result of pork-barrel politics. As to the need for concrete answers to that question, Dr. Infante pointed
out that the University educates the health professionals as well as practitioners in other professions. The
University, moreover, educates students from all over the state. Committee members offered a number of
other observations on this point (University contributions by district are still being summarized; higher
education means higher income which means higher tax revenues; education must stand together,
because if it is internally divided, all will lose). There is, moreover, plenty of evidence that businesses
are attracted to a place because of higher education (as well as the quality of K-12 education).
One Committee member expressed amazement that the legislature cannot understand the need for
facilities maintenance--and that a leaky roof is cheaper to fix than is a whole new roof--or a whole new
building. The legislature, Dr. Infante said, wants the University to allocate funds from its resources--they
Faculty Consultative Committee
April 28, 1994
5
look at the bottom line, and point out that the University has a lot of independence with the funds the
legislature invests.
This same point is made, observed one Committee member, with respect to faculty salaries:
faculty need to talk to the Regents, not the legislature. Given regental commitment to holding down
tuition, said another, the only alternative is to cannibalize programs. Dr. Infante said he was not quite so
pessimistic.
One piece of advice to Dr. Infante was to think about politics as local--and immediate. Logical
plans are made for the long-term--and then some news event occurs to which all pay attention and which
cannot be ignored in long-term strategy. In terms of spatial attention to issues, people at the University
attend to national and disciplinary matters and their implications for the University. Legislators represent
neighborhoods, and to ask what has been done for them lately is reasonable. The University focuses on a
discipline; they focus on what is done in their county. In terms of what the University does, the focus
must then be on such things as better-qualified teachers. Outreach must be more evident and compelling
and something all believe in--it must be more than talk. One cannot underestimate how much
reconfiguration of a discipline may depend on service to Koochiching County. The other system of
higher education in the state will also look to the University for help and for people to staff their
positions.
But how do those graduates who work in the other system see the University? Does it have what
they want? Another Committee member pointed out that the University's value system says that the best
jobs are at research universities, so the state system faculty believe the University does not think them
good enough. When that has been the message, one cannot expect them to support the University.
What is needed is a fact sheet, district by district, showing the University presence, in terms of
faculty and staff, students, businesses from the University, agricultural value, and so on. That is a big
task, but it is a way to get to the legislature and demonstrate the University's role in concrete terms. Such
a demonstration must also be down TO THE PERSON in the district--not just a $14 million increase in
soybean production, but someone explaining how the University's work improved THEIR soybean
production.
Another Committee member, commending the observation that politics is local, pointed out that
for legislators, in many cases the primary product of the University is teaching--and they have letters
about how that is not working. A lot of the messages the University sends are negative, Dr. Infante
observed, including not treating well those who approach it. At the same time, however, he hears a lot of
"thank yous" because of how someone was helped. That notion of service, and the "thank yous" that it
generates, must be made important to faculty and staff. One way to get people to be nicer, emphasized
one Committee member, is to simply learn to say "thank you" more often.
Discussion then turned to the ruling of the Court of Appeals and various issues associated with
legal matters.
Professor Garrard thanked Dr. Infante for joining the meeting.
5.
Discussion with Vice President Anne Petersen
Faculty Consultative Committee
April 28, 1994
6
Professor Garrard next welcomed Vice President Petersen to the meeting. The discussion turned
first to her nomination to the National Science Foundation; she said that she had decided that if
confirmed by the Senate, she will accept the position. It was, however, difficult to decide to leave the
University, she related. The Committee expressed support for her decision and commended her on being
offered a tremendous opportunity.
Dr. Petersen then outlined recent discussions at the CIC meetings she had attended. [The
Committee on Institutional Cooperation, comprised of the Big Ten universities plus the University of
Chicago.] She and her counterparts were deeply concerned about the large issues and the future of
research universities, even though they spend much of their time putting out fires.
There is, Dr. Petersen related, a crisis of public trust in research universities that has appeared in
Congress and at other levels of society. This is an important time for these institutions. They have taken
much for granted and have not done a good job of communicating why what they do is important. They
have in many cases also lost key linkages, such as integration with undergraduate education and outreach
to the broader public. While organizations that serve these universities, such as the AAU and
NASULGC, must be on top of these issues, so must the individual institutions and the groups within
them. The faculty in particular have a critical role; if they are not involved in addressing the critical
issues, the future will come out badly for the research universities. There are many groups outside
universities who want to tell them how to do their work, and some of them offer good advice. But
legislators, accountants, and attorneys, for example, offer advice based on THEIR perspective--which is
appropriate--but often they do not understand why universities are special, and especially research
universities. Faculty will be key in the deliberations, because they are engaged in the work of discovery,
and because that work flavors their teaching and other contributions to society. We need to convey why
we are distinctive and why our contributions are important. There are many instances of encroachment
on the research universities, and if they do not remain alert, those encroachments could change the
character of research universities--for example, to institutions that only teach.
One example of encroachment is the new (A21) guidelines for indirect cost recovery and the
"pause" in indirect cost funding. Universities have been a little sloppy, and the demand for more
accountability is not unreasonable, but the regulation should not go too far. One Committee member
pointed out that accreditation is another problem: because some proprietary schools have acted
inappropriately, the federal government has responded with proposed regulations that will have a major
impact on the University. The President, Dr. Petersen replied, has been actively involved in that issue
and it appears to have been settled satisfactorily in Minnesota, at least for now.
It seems, observed one Committee member, that when one talks to deans about these issues, the
universities are always playing "catch up." Do the deans know what they need to know in order to act
wisely? Or is there an infrastructure problem in getting them the information they need? One problem is
that the University constantly puts people into a job, which it takes them two or three years to learn, and
then they leave, requiring new individuals to learn all over again. Is this is an issue with the deans?
This is a problem, Dr. Petersen said, and those involved would like to see the CIC active on the
issues, to make sure all are well informed and to formulate collective action where appropriate. In
general, some universities choose not to believe what is happening; they have, for instance, talked about
Faculty Consultative Committee
April 28, 1994
7
taking a "wait and see" attitude about the A21 regulations--when those regulations are already in force!
That, interjected one Committee member, is like waiting to see if the Titanic will sink as the ship is
beginning to tilt. There is a point to that view, however, Dr. Petersen observed, in that if universities
implement the regulations too quickly, it will appear to be acknowledging that they SHOULD be
implemented.
Many do not realize, she told the Committee, that the CIC accounts for 20% of the doctorates
awarded by research universities and that it receives 20% of research funding. The AAU tends to be
dominated by the private institutions, and NASULGC is composed of the land grant schools, while the
CIC has both. It is a good group to make its views known. These issues affect all of the universities and
it can work on all fronts to address them. All of those in the CIC believe these are serious matters and
that the institutions must be positioned well so that the institutions can deal with them intelligently,
effectively, and in a timely way.
Discussion turned to specifics of the difficulties with indirect cost rates and the differences
between public and private institutions. The University is presently involved in rate negotiations with the
federal government. Among the 100 universities that receive the most research funding, the University
of Minnesota is 99th in indirect cost rate--of those 100, only the University of Mississippi has a lower
rate. That must change, Dr. Petersen said. The University could live with caps on administrative
expenses (now at 26%) and the overall rate (proposed at 50%), but the private institutions cannot afford
to let such caps be established because it would devastate their research activities.
One source of friction between public and private institutions, pointed out one Committee
member, is the fact that increased tuition revenues in private higher education appear to have made
higher faculty salaries possible. The faculty in the public institutions are not likely to support high rates
for private institutions while the public sector is "starving." Dr. Petersen agreed that this is a concern and
a subject of discussion in the CIC. But, she maintained, the private institutions must be included in the
discussions because ALL the research institutions must do better by students and conduct responsible
research--or ALL will lose.
One Committee member then took up planning and the apparent lack of ACADEMIC planning. It
seems that "academic" planning has taken the form of differential budget cuts among units that are
basically decided by one person. "What should we do," Dr. Petersen was asked? There is a desperate
need to identify high quality programs in which the University must invest in order to retain that quality,
high quality programs that are fragile and require investment, and programs that MUST BE of high
quality for a research university and which require investment. But one sees no such discussions taking
place. The Research Strategic Planning Committee (RSPC) report recently prepared by her office is a
step in the right direction but it has no teeth; there is no arena in which these decisions can be made. Dr.
Petersen was asked if she concurred.
She said she did. The effort to conduct graduate program evaluations is moving ahead. But if the
proposals contained in the RSPC report are not implemented, the decisions will again be top-down. In a
recent meeting with the Directors of Graduate Studies, Dr. Petersen told the Committee, there were
discussions of the RSPC report and critiques of the quality indicators it proposed. As she listened to the
discussion, she said, she began to wonder what is going on. The people speaking represented some of the
best units in the University; there appears, she concluded, to be a genuine fear of the drawbacks of
Faculty Consultative Committee
April 28, 1994
8
evaluation and little recognition of the benefits. What is missing is talk about what MUST be supported
and enhanced and improved if the University is to remain a great institution. If those conversations do
not occur, the University will be the loser.
Dr. Petersen was asked what advice she had to offer. The process has been identified, she said,
and she has told her Research and Graduate School colleagues that their role must be one of partnership
with the faculty in moving the issues along. There is power in the numbers of faculty and graduate
students that is not being exploited.
Another big issue she has finally come to understand, she told the Committee, is that she came to
the University knowing that faculty were active in governance. What has impressed her is that the
faculty who are active are the BEST faculty (unlike at some institutions, where the faculty in governance
are not the ones who are most accomplished). The problem is that these outstanding faculty do not have
the impact that they should. It is time to reframe the issues and to involve the faculty in the decisions.
The University has about 200 academic units of varying sizes. If one asks a department of 45
faculty what it wants to do or stop doing, there will be 55 or 60 answers, and the discussion will
inevitably turn to protecting what the units are already doing. Other units have an autocrat who decides
what will happen and the faculty can go or accept the plans, as they wish. There should be something in
between that constitutes effective governance, and there is likely a range of possibilities. Small
departments, for example, could work together as a unit. The most usual occurrence, however, is that
units are either dominated by a clique or everyone in it has a veto. This situation will effectively stall
any initiative to identify units that must be strengthened or supported.
Dr. Petersen suggested that there are models of effective governance in units that have made
significant change in a positive direction. Knowledge of those models is one thing, it was said;
implementing them is something else. Without good leadership, Dr. Petersen observed, the units will not
get anywhere. The message must get out that the kind of bickering and reinforcement of the status quo
described [in the preceding paragraph] will be the undoing of units and will adversely affect the
University.
One problem is that in the larger colleges, the daily business is undergraduate instruction. When
the deans talk about activities and budgets, they frequently do not mention graduate education and
research. In one recent meeting, the financial officer did a report that included enrollment divided by
personnel costs as the cost of instruction--it is as if there were no research or graduate education! It is
unclear how units get away with this and how her office can play a role in stopping it.
The plan laid out in the RSPC report is moving forward, Dr. Petersen replied, and it will take a lot
of work at a lot of levels. But there are people who are beginning to understand. She has, in addition,
tried to work with the deans, because there is a "serious disconnection" between some deans and graduate
programs. The deans have the resources and see them linked to undergraduate education; they
sometimes do not think about graduate education when they cut TA positions or other funds.
People are threatened when everything is on the table, pointed out one Committee member--but in
fact NOT everything is on the table. There can be agreement on what units must continue if this is to
remain a great university. Some may need strengthening, but they will not be eliminated. The notion
Faculty Consultative Committee
April 28, 1994
9
that everything is up for discussion must be dispelled. That point is in the RSPC report, Dr. Petersen
noted. In an egalitarian university, it was then said, it is difficult to focus on specific units.
Dr. Petersen mused that she had contemplated, before departing, she would specify the units that
should be strengthened and supported and those that should not. A number of Committee members
vigorously urged her to do so--and to do so in writing.
One Committee member then thanked Dr. Petersen for what she had accomplished while at the
University, including moving the Graduate School in new directions. One cause for concern is how to
preserve what she has started in terms of the impact of changes in technology on graduate education, of
retaining quality, and of the quality of students, among other things. Those changes have not all been
institutionalized and could wither in her absence.
Dr. Petersen agreed but emphasized that the changes are not HERS. Some of them have come
about because of her assessment of the situation here, but she said she hopes that if the ideas are good,
they will continue to be good for the University after she leaves. There is much resistance to some
changes, and no doubt some are waiting for her departure in order to go back to doing things the way
they were before; she expressed the hope that others would join in continuing the current movement.
There must be increased seriousness about self-evaluation of graduate programs, said one member
of the Committee, and about institutional support for innovation in graduate education. If those items are
not continued, the University will not be able to "stay at the table with the best research universities" and
it will "fritter away its resources on mediocre programs."
Another Committee member recounted academic planning efforts at another institution: several
years ago, eleven programs of excellence were identified as places where resources should be invested,
and six programs were identified as so important they required investment if the institution were to
remain a great university. Those programs are evaluated on a four-year cycle. As positions become
available, moreover, deans must justify where they are to be located--and they have a better chance for
obtaining a position if they are in one of these programs. In addition, almost all of the programs were
interdisciplinary, including more than one department or college. Dr. Petersen said that Penn State had
done the same thing, although it was departments that had been identified. The process CANNOT be
college by college, it was argued, because that misses an entire dimension of where higher education
should be going, it was argued. But who is to do this? At the institution cited, each dean identified five
programs; the deans then wrestled over which would be identified as the ones to be supported. Does the
University wish to undertake a similar process?
Professor Garrard thanked Vice President Petersen for her service to the University; the
Committee gave her a round of applause and wished her the best.
The meeting was adjourned at 3:00.
-- Gary Engstrand
--------------------------
Faculty Consultative Committee
April 28, 1994
10
FCC Statement to the Board of Regents' Budget Forum
April 26, 1994
Judith Garrard, FCC Chair
I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today representing the Faculty of the University.
I would like to structure the time we have today into four parts:
--
First, I will make a statement about the faculty position on the 1994-95 budget.
--
Second, the chairs of the Senate Committees on Finance and Planning (Professor Rubenstein),
Educational Policy (Professor Heller), and Faculty Affairs (Professor Adams) will briefly
summarize issues raised in their respective committees.
--
Third, Dean Richard Jones of Agriculture and Dean Bob Bruininks of Education will briefly
describe how the budget affects those at the collegiate level.
--
Finally, I will make a brief closing statement.
Historical Overview
Let me begin by saying we understand the seriousness of the decisions before the Board of
Regents. Among other things, the Board is responsible for establishing the policy and approving a
budget for what amounts to the fourth largest community in the state of Minnesota. Although the budget
is supposed to flow from policy statements, when all is said and done, the budget that is approved
operationally defines the implementation of the policy. If there is inconsistency between policy and
budget, then it is the BUDGET that makes the final statement, not the words that make up the policy.
The approval of this 1994-95 budget at the May Regents' meeting will represent a milestone in this
year of major change. The faculty, as well as other members of the University community, have
observed and participated in the events that developed over this past academic year.
Let me enumerate six of those milestones:
1.
At the Regents' Retreat last September, you issued a clarion call for a Strategic Plan; one that
would carry this institution though the Year 2000.
2.
Central Administration responded with U2000, which was a structure, but not a complete plan, that
included five strategic directions:
------
research
graduate and professional education
undergraduate education
outreach and access
user-friendly University community
Faculty Consultative Committee
April 28, 1994
11
3.
The Faculty Senate approved both the need for a strategic plan and the five strategic directions at
their December meeting.
4.
From January to the present, faculty, students, and staff have begun to develop the details of the
plan -- to take ownership of U2000.
5.
Simultaneously, the administration embarked on a new budgeting process, one that called for the
announcement of Budget Guidelines in January, an exhausting series of budget hearings in
February, and the administration's presentation of a Proposed Budget at the April Regent's
meeting.
The Budget Guidelines focused on six key areas:
-------
tuition increase of 5%
salary increase of 6%
strategic investment pool of $8.5 million
retrenchment and reallocation as previously planned
non salary inflation of 3%
deficit of $7.5 million
At the April meeting, the Regents asked that the Administration reexamine the proposed levels and
determine whether additional cuts could be made to accommodate a 3% rather than a 5% tuition
increase.
6.
This Regents' budget forum represents the sixth milestone. Although you will be hearing from the
Administration over the course of the next several weeks, this Forum provides an opportunity for
the rest of the University community to express our opinions about the budget.
This we do independently of each of the others and of the administration.
This, then, is the FACULTY response:
FCC Concern: Emphasis on Long Term Investment
After a great deal of study and consultation, we believe that the emphasis on long term investment
is crucial to the goals of U2000. We cannot build a bright future for the citizens of this state on a
crumbling base.
There is evidence that our base is deteriorating in both the physical structures and the human
capital of this University.
Physical Structure
In the physical structures, we see
--
An erosion of the buildings around us -- many of the buildings are dirty and dilapidated.
Faculty Consultative Committee
April 28, 1994
--
12
There is a deterioration of classroom equipment:
--
increasing numbers of broken chairs stacked in the back of classrooms,
--
tables so wobbly that we dare not put a set of books down on them because we
will have to spend the first 10 minutes of class reassembling the table and
recovering our lecture notes,
--
audiovisual equipment that either doesn't work or isn't available in the first place.
We have to use our hands to illustrate our lectures or crudely drawn pictures on a
blackboard (if one is available and we've remembered to bring in chalk).
--
inability to even begin to take advantage of the new developments in information
technology such as faculty-student computer interaction on e-mail, or electronic
access to the library, or use of the Internet, because an estimated 1/3 of the faculty
lack the necessary equipment and hookups.
Although all of us, faculty, students, staff, have been assigned an electronic address, we lack the
funds to fully equip ourselves. In effect, the "U" is an electronic Potemkin Village. In other words, we
have the facade, but we do not have the resources that would allow us to connect to one another by
computer.
The construction of new buildings currently underway is vital to the future of the University, but
new construction accounts for only 3-4% of all buildings on the University's campuses. We must have an
investment, a long term investment, in many other aspects of our physical plant to make it possible for
faculty to teach and students to learn.
Human Capital
Another part of the University is also deteriorating, but this erosion is not as obvious as a
crumbling building or broken equipment. I refer here to the erosion of the University's human capital:
faculty, staff, and administrators.
Impact on the Faculty
For the faculty, this erosion has already begun. There is documentation in a recent AAUP report
that our associate and full professor salaries rank 30th out of 30 leading research universities in the
country. How can we possibly plan to remain one of the top research universities in the Year 2000 when
most of the faculty who are supposed to make this happen are not being paid at rates competitive with the
market?
Faculty are at the heart of the teaching, research, and service missions of the University.
Recruitment of new faculty takes time, sometimes as long as 1-2 years, and retention of talented faculty
depends on some of the same factors needed for successful recruitment:
Faculty Consultative Committee
April 28, 1994
--
competitive salaries,
--
equipment for teaching and research, including a University-wide infrastructure of
libraries and computer networks,
--
professional colleagues, especially senior professors, who can help the newcomer realize
his or her full potential,
--
bright and motivated students, and finally,
--
the reputation of the University itself as an outstanding teaching and research institution.
13
These are the factors that define the quality of the University. These factors take a long time to
develop, but they can be lost quickly without on-going support. These factors are also interdependent.
For example, if the University doesn't have a strong reputation, then we will lose senior faculty and not
be able to recruit top flight junior faculty or highly qualified students. We could lose in the space of a
few years a reputation that took decades to build. Although such a loss may begin slowly, once begun,
we may not be able to recover from a downward spiral into mediocrity. I am concerned that we are in
danger of those kinds of losses if there is not a commitment in this and future budgets to long term
investment in the University.
Impact on Other Members of the University Community
As a faculty group, we are also concerned about the impact of years of declining resources on
other members of the University community:
--
We are concerned about represented and non-represented staff in the civil service and
P&A categories who provide the infrastructure of support for teaching and research.
As a result of cumulative budget cuts over the past ten years, many of the staff are doing
the work of two or three people. Additional budget cuts may have the effect of further
eroding the ability of the staff to perform competently.
--
We are concerned about reductions over the years in the numbers of student employees,
especially teaching and research assistants, who simultaneously serve as apprentices and
provide support for the teaching and research missions of the University.
--
Finally, we are concerned about administrators -- deans and department heads in particular
-- who are asked to lead an increasingly demoralized faculty as they attempt to accomplish
complex tasks with steadily declining resources. We need the leadership and management
skills of experienced collegiate administrators and those in the central administration in
order to realize the goals of U2000, but we're seeing burnout of these administrators as
they cope with increasing demands and decreasing budgets.
In closing, I want to say that we have examined the reasoning behind the different options for the
1994-95 budget. The concerns I have described today about a slide into mediocrity will not be averted by
Faculty Consultative Committee
April 28, 1994
14
this budget alone; but this budget represents a first step in preventing such a decline.
We, the Faculty, strongly support the administration's budget recommendation, and we urge you
to accept:
-------
tuition increase of 4.2%
salary increase of 6%
strategic investment pool of $8.5 million
retrenchment and reallocation as previously planned
non-salary inflation adjustment of 3%
deficit of $10.2 million.
Based on extensive faculty consultation and discussion, we believe that this proposal offers a
reasonable balance between the Regents' responsibility for a sensible budget and a commitment to long
term investment. We also believe that this budget accurately reflects the Regents' policy statements
about U2000, and the goal of remaining one of the top research universities in the country. In this case,
budget and policy are aligned.