Minutes*
Faculty Consultative Committee
Thursday, November 21, 1996 (Part I)
1:30 - 4:30
Room 238 Morrill Hall
Present:
Virginia Gray (chair), Carole Bland, Victor Bloomfield, W. Andrew Collins, Gary Davis,
Sara Evans, Dan Feeney, Russell Hobbie, Laura Coffin Koch, Michael Korth, Fred
Morrison, Harvey Peterson, Craig Swan
Regrets:
Carl Adams, Matthew Tirrell
Absent:
Michael Steffes
Guests:
Professors V. Rama Murthy, Paula Rabinowitz, and Thomas Walsh (UFA/AAUP);
Professors Leonard Kuhi and John Imholte (the latter by telephone); Vice President Mark
Brenner
Others:
Martha Kvanbeck (University Senate), Maureen Smith (University Relations)
[In these minutes: Discussion with Professors Murthy, Rabinowitz, and Walsh about next steps, tenure,
and governance under unionization; the presidential search process]
1.
Discussion with AAUP/UFA representatives on Tenure and Collective Bargaining
Professor Gray convened the meeting at 1:30 and welcomed Professors Murthy, Rabinowitz, and
Walsh. She recalled that Professor Rabinowitz had inquired if they could speak with FCC; they have
issues to raise, and it would also be a good time to discuss the proposal from FCC to the UFA/AAUP
about tenure negotiations.
Professor Walsh distributed copies of a short written statement from the three of them to Professor
Gray, welcoming the FCC response to the UFA/AAUP proposal to negotiate about tenure and setting
forth their views on the conditions that must obtain for the cease and desist order to be lifted.
Professor Gray also distributed copies of a memo she received at this point in the meeting, from
Regent Reagan to the members of the Board of Regents: "For your information the Board of Regents has
formally ended its consulting agreement with Dr. Richard Chait and the Office of the General Counsel
has terminated its contract with Hogan and Hartson with regard to the issue of tenure." Her reading of
this memo provoked a round of applause from the Committee.
Professor Walsh told the Committee that they were happy that FCC had responded to their
proposal to the Board of Regents for negotiating a new tenure code, and bringing an end to the stand-off
*
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
November 21, 1996 (Part I)
2
on the tenure issue. They want to see the whole faculty involved in developing responses on tenure, and
on other issues. He said they would welcome an opportunity to explore how the UFA/AAUP could work
with faculty governance on a structure to put in place after a collective bargaining agreement is in place,
to give the existing faculty governance system "some teeth," so that when faculty governance discusses
issues with the administration or Regents, they do not feel free to ignore the faculty advice. Professor
Walsh said they would like to get started discussing this now; he pointed out that the Regents have not
yet responded to the UFA/AAUP proposal, but that does not prevent FCC and the union from exploring
the issues now.
Professor Murthy said that it would be wonderful if all faculty groups, including the UFA/AAUP
and existing governing groups, worked together. The impasse on tenure cannot go on for long, because
damage is being done. They have not heard anything from the Regents, and even sent a reminder. It may
be, Professor Gray responded, that the Regents are waiting for the FCC and UFA/AAUP to work out an
agreement.
One subject upon which agreement is needed is the proposals and counter-proposals for discussion
of the tenure code, Professor Gray said. Another is that some units have made a decision about collective
bargaining; faculty governance needs a process of consultation for those faculty that is separate from the
process being considered with the UFA/AAUP for those who remain under the cease and desist order. It
is her understanding that the Regents will not act precipitously, and will have tenure on their December
13 meeting docket for action. There needs to be consultation before December 13 for Crookston and
Morris, and the Academic Health Center if it votes not to join the Twin Cities campus unit, through the
regular process. FCC would continue to work with UFA/AAUP on a process for consultation for the
remainder of the Twin Cities campus on some other timetable. She noted that some members of FCC
had just had lunch with assistant professors from Arts, Sciences, and Engineering; one thing they asked
was that the tenure debate be settled as soon as possible, because their departments are doing searches
and having this issue unsettled is harmful. Everyone is feeling that.
Professor Walsh said that he wished to emphasize that their view is one for the long term, not the
short term one having to do with a particular tenure code. The problems that departments are having
conducting searches are long-term problems with the status of the University and the way it operates.
The presidential search was a good example. The candidates do not look stellar. Their perspective is
that long-run problems need to be addressed.
They have a problem with the process, Professor Walsh told the Committee. In their view, the
Sullivan II code could be referred to as a union-busting effort. It is clear that the Regents are free to
adopt whatever tenure code they wish for Crookston and Morris, and if the AHC votes not to join the
Twin Cities unit, then also for the AHC. Their position is that the Board engaged in unfair labor
practices and prevented a free and fair election in the AHC, and have written to the Board telling them
so. Their complaint, however, is with the Regents, not with FCC.
During the course of the AHC campaign, Professor Walsh maintained, there were, in effect,
promises and threats made, which they found very disturbing. There were promises made that if the
faculty votes against joining the Twin Cities unit, the AHC management--through contacts of their own
with the Board of Regents--assured the AHC faculty that Sullivan II would be adopted for the AHC.
There were also threats made that if they voted to join the Twin Cities unit, and there were a subsequent
Faculty Consultative Committee
November 21, 1996 (Part I)
3
vote in favor of a union, they would lose part of their research grants. The UFA/AAUP is unhappy about
that, Professor Walsh reported, and that may cloud any process that goes forward; it is important that
FCC know this.
That said, it is clear that the Regents are free to do what they wish, he concluded. If it is desired
that the faculty consultation process move forward for units that are not under the cease and desist order,
the faculty can do so.
Professor Rabinowitz observed that the discussion about the tenure issue has been framed in such a
way that it is said that "it is the union's fault that this is not moving forward." That is contrary to what is
happening. As has been made evident, when the Regents decide to move, can move with instantaneous
speed.
On the other hand, she pointed out, they have been engaged in the most disingenuous stalling
tactics on the procedures moving towards an election. The only reason the Crookston, Morris, and AHC
elections happened is because they are legally required. The Regents are in the middle of controversy
about hundreds of names on the election list, but they had to hold these elections by the end of the month.
There is no law that requires the Twin Cities election be held at any particular time; those involved in the
process last time will recall that it took years to resolve the issues. That consumes a lot of money in legal
fees from the University. It is a stalling tactic that has been interpreted as the union trying to keep the
process from moving forward, when in fact it is the Regents that are doing so. They wished that
clarified, Professor Rabinowitz said; this has become the reigning discourse with the Regents and the
media, but it is not factual. They have not been reporting at length on what has been occurring at the
Bureau of Mediation Services hearings, but at the most recent meeting the University's representatives
were quite proud of the fact that they finally paginated the lists of names.
Professor Morrison interjected an observation. He said that Professor Rabinowitz was absolutely
correct, and that the University has engaged in a massive stalling tactic. The University has managed,
over weeks, to say it didn't know who worked for it, and then to say it didn't know what they did. Some
recognize that this reflects the level of performance in that office, but it is more than that; it is straight out
of the book of how to handle a union election if you are an employer contesting a union election at a
hamburger stand. The complaint is well-founded.
If FCC and the UFA/AAUP could agree on a process for negotiation, Professor Gray said, perhaps
that could be speeded up.
These are different things, Professor Evans said. There is the process of negotiation to deal with
the issue of tenure; there is also the issue of the election. The University is using stalling tactics, and this
is related to a refusal to include department chairs and directors. Those individuals were included last
time, and this Committee is on record favoring their inclusion. Professor Gray noted that Professor
Bloomfield has drawn up a resolution on the subject that the Committee will take up later in the meeting.
There are three separate issues at hand, Professor Morrison said. One is how would a union and
faculty governance work in parallel, later on. A second is how to deal with the problem at present, when
the union is not certified but represents a large segment of the faculty, and when faculty government is
the elected body; how is there to be a united front when the union holds a trump card in that they can
Faculty Consultative Committee
November 21, 1996 (Part I)
4
agree or not to lift the cease and desist order? The third issue is the union elections themselves, which is
for the union and the Regents.
Apropos the first issue, Professor Morrison said it was his view that an ideal solution to the first
issue is that there be a distinction between "terms and conditions of employment" and "academic issues."
The distinction can never be sharply drawn, but it is drawn in the labor law and in other ways. On terms
on conditions of employment--which, he said, includes the tenure issue almost in its entirety--if a union is
elected, those are entirely union issues. If there is not a union, they are Faculty Senate issues.
Business should be divided into three categories, Professor Morrison said: terms and conditions of
employment (tenure, intellectual property, etc.), which the union should negotiate on if there is a union
and the Faculty Senate should deal with if there is not. On the other side, there are strict educational
policy issues (curriculum, etc.); one would hope that the union would see it in its interest to maintain the
governance structure and consultative bodies that exist (the University Senate and Senate Consultative
Committee). There is a third set of issues that overlap (e.g., semester conversion, which is educational
policy but which has a number of terms and conditions of employment in it); there will have to be
interaction between the two bodies on this category of issues. In the long range, if there is a union, it
may displace the Faculty Senate for the units in which it represents faculty, but it is to be hoped there
remains the University Senate. It would be worthwhile to approach the Duluth union on the question of
whether that kind of dichotomy would work for them as well.
This may mean that if there are two unions and some unrepresented units, there are three separate
units dealing with personnel issues: the Duluth union, UFA/AAUP, and a Faculty Senate for the
remaining units. If that is the case, those groups have to work together, whatever their differences may
be, in dealing with the Regents and administration. There is no reason not to have some kind of coalition
like that, in the future, if there are separate entities. There will be at least two, because the Duluth union
exists no matter whatever happens on the Twin Cities.
That leads to what should be done in the near run, Professor Morrison said. The body that has the
immediate authority is the Senate structure, but the union clearly represents a large segment of opinion.
The Senate structure, as long as that body of opinion exists, should represent it in talking with the
Regents and other groups. One hopes that come kind of joint argument can be made, with representatives
from the several groups. The Regents should be told that whatever the minor disputes among the faculty
may be, on the general policy the faculty is all together.
Professor Rabinowitz agreed with Professor Morrison. Her sense of what collective bargaining
can do for the faculty is not that it will supplant or replace the Faculty Senate, but a process of further
democratizing faculty governance. It will bring people such as her into the process, people who have had
nothing to do with the running of the University and who have felt they have no interest or stake in it,
people who have felt it has been a small clique who take care of their own. Many people feel that
collective bargaining would provide access.
Furthermore, she continued, the hope is that there will be a larger, stronger, more unified faculty
voice to argue against policies generated by the Regents or administration. Over the last couple of years,
much of what is done in faculty governance is reactive--policies and changes come from the State, the
legislature, the Governor, the Regents, and faculty are informed there will be semesters or plus/minus
Faculty Consultative Committee
November 21, 1996 (Part I)
5
grading. These things get on the table and discussed, but it is all a rubberstamp. It would be nice to think
about reversing that relationship, so there is a mechanism by which the faculty could say what they
wanted for the University. People are clear on that: they want to stop sliding toward mediocrity and
return to the University's former status as a top 20 research university, they want to protect academic
freedom, and make it an excellent place to work and a place for students to come.
The question is what to do about this goal. She said she believed the more ways the faculty have
access to power and to decision-making, the better; "if nothing else, you can always play the screaming
crazies off against the more measured, temperate voices, but it's always nice to have the nuts in the
background." Or there are ways to coordinate on different sorts of issues that would be covered by a
bargaining agreement, freeing up faculty committees to talk about more imaginative things. There might
be a place for committees to do "proactive" work. There are ways to think about this not as competition
but as building different locations and voices for many faculty, and a broadening of faculty consultation
and governance.
Professor Walsh said the impression he has is that the administration of the University--not
President Hasselmo, but the organization itself--seems to have no problem with deception. He discussed
at some length the 10-day pay cut (in the change to the biweekly payroll) with various people, and it was
clear that no faculty committee was ever formally and properly informed of what was happening or what
the implications were. He said he also had the impression that there were people in the administration
who felt they were under no obligation to be accurate.
Another example is semester conversion, he said. They are hearing from a lot of people now. It
was promised that the conversion would be workload neutral, but as they are getting into discussions
with the administration, they are finding it is NOT workload neutral. Yet another example is the fact that
the University wants to charge for modem access, based on alleged charges that appear to be completely
fictional.
The reason the administration can get away with this is because faculty governance, by itself, does
not have any teeth. On the other hand, what happens at universities organized by the AAUP is that if the
governance system gets irritated with the institution because it is misleading the faculty, the faculty can
vote to have that issue transferred to the bargaining unit and brought up as bargainable issue. The faculty
can not only threaten the institution, but it can also offer a collaborative working environment where they
are NOT negotiating everything. This is a productive way, in the long run, that faculty governance and
any union structure could work together in getting things done.
His own view is that the bargaining agent should not think of itself as an independent power
structure, with its own organization and its own bureaucracy. It should view itself as having a few, very
clear purposes; they are in the process of trying to articulate them now. The agent should not try to do
everything, because if it does so, it will get "screwed up," and that has been seen over and over again in
connection with unionization. In that sense, he said he does not disagree with the critics of unions; the
faculty should do it right or should not do it.
At other places, and here, there is an opportunity to give faculty governance a voice, because of the
fear of the crazies: "you can threaten them with us." It is not so much that the faculty bargaining agent
will run around waving hatchets, but the fact that negotiations are unpleasant and difficult when
Faculty Consultative Committee
November 21, 1996 (Part I)
6
conducted in a collective bargaining environment; neither the faculty nor administration and Regents will
enjoy it. It is much easier to deal in a collaborative, collegial manner than to face one another across the
bargaining table. That is what they would like to see come out of this, Professor Walsh concluded.
Professor Morrison commented on the biweekly payroll issue. It was worse than Professor Walsh
portrayed it. This was an instance where the committees were informed, they complained, and until the
faculty "really ran around the table and waived hatchets, nobody paid any attention." It was not that the
administration did not tell the committees; it was that they did not listen to the advice. In the end, they
listened, somewhat.
That highlights the present situation, Professor Murthy commented. The present governance
system is not functioning strongly enough to deal with the situation at the University. The question is,
how can the faculty position be strengthened? One can think of the role of AAUP in this context.
Professor Gray reported that she has spoken with faculty at schools that have collective bargaining,
and has been told that it works better when there is a relatively small number of items that are bargained
and most subjects are left outside bargaining. Professor Walsh said that if one were foolish enough to
start bargaining academic issues at a place such as this university, one would end up in such a morass
that the place would come to a stop, and there would be no point to it.
Professor Murthy said he had recently returned from an AAUP national council discussion of
Minnesota. The national council does not have a model of collective bargaining organization they wish
to put forward at Minnesota; this is a grass-roots organization, and it is up to the faculty here to decide
what they wish to do. The national council is prepared to guarantee that in writing. This is also an
opportunity for the AAUP to see if it is possible to generate a model that is applicable to higher
education more generally, because what has happened at Minnesota is happening elsewhere a little later.
(Professor Walsh noted that although Regent Reagan has terminated the relationship with Hogan and
Hartson, Georgetown University just hired them. Good riddance to them, Professor Rabinowitz
summarized.)
It is precisely because they want to defend faculty freedoms and rights that they are pursuing
collective bargaining. The tenure code was a spectacular event, but there are other events more gradual,
that do not attract attention. There is a gradual erosion of the rights and freedoms of faculty; it is
happening everywhere. It arises in part from the attitude that the faculty should be "employee-ized."
Professor Bloomfield returned to the issue of the tenure code, and said the Senate structure should
say something about Sullivan II for those units to which it can now be applied. The business and rules
committee has tentatively scheduled an hour for the Faculty Senate to hear recommendations from the
tenure, faculty affairs, and judicial committees about Sullivan II (since that is the only proposal on the
table). Should the plan be followed?
Professor Evans inquired if the Regents have asked the governance system to comment on Sullivan
II; they have not. Professor Bloomfield recalled that faculty examination of that proposal has been
requested; there has not been full and explicit examination of it. There have been significant issues
raised about clinical faculty income, and so on; there may be major questions that should be raised. The
assumption is that the Regents will act on December 13; the governance system should be on record
Faculty Consultative Committee
November 21, 1996 (Part I)
7
before that. Are the committees in a position to meet and bring advice and recommendations to the
Faculty Senate on December 5? Is that a good idea?
Professor Swan said he thought there were still good-faith efforts underway to figure out how
UFA/AAUP and faculty governance could work together on Sullivan II; scheduling meetings of Senate
committees is a bad-faith effort. Professor Gray recalled the Committee had begun the discussion by
talking about a dual track, one for units under a cease and desist order and one for those not. It is still a
bad faith effort until an agreement has been reached, Professor Swan insisted. That is what must be
discussed, Professor Gray said.
What is to be avoided is the situation where there is one set of judgments that the faculty thinks
this, and another set of judgments that the faculty thinks that, Professor Evans said. She expressed
concern that the Regents have not said they will consider Sullivan II; it would be a violation of the
procedures they abide by if they did not consult. They did not do so the last time, with Sullivan II; it is
possible to assume they will again not do so. There is a problem with locking onto Sullivan II, especially
since the Senate quite clearly said it did not wish to move forward on any proposal without fully
considering it. There is a problem in thinking the Committee could work out an agreement with
UFA/AAUP and at the same time have another process going forward.
Professor Gray said she was trying to anticipate the need of the governance system to act, and the
means to do so. The meeting on December 5 will precede the Regents' December 13 meeting, so would
provide the opportunity for the faculty to speak on Sullivan II. She has also been told, by faculty in units
that have voted against collective bargaining, that those faculty have made a choice not to have collective
bargaining, so having a union involved in their negotiations would be inappropriate. She does not want
to substitute one process for another; should there be two processes? Or should everyone be told they
must wait on the outcome of the Committee-UFA/AAUP negotiations?
Professor Walsh cautioned that considering Sullivan II for the Academic Health Center could get
tangled up in legal action the UFA/AAUP may take against the Regents for the way the election was
conducted in the AHC. That is not certain to happen, but it could be a problem.
Professor Hobbie recalled having talked about collective bargaining with Professor Walsh on a
number of occasions; he has been ambivalent, but the probability he will vote for the union is now about
80%. The reason he would so vote is not because of tenure, but because of the way society is changing
and the things that Professor Walsh has spoken about. He commented on the Regents' behavior on this
issue, and speculated the Board would like to get out from under the issue. He said he would also like to
see it resolved, and Sullivan II looks good; it should be examined. The only reason for NOT looking at it
is that with tenure still hanging over the faculty, they are more likely to vote in favor of collective
bargaining. Does the union believe it a strategic mistake to resolve tenure independently of the election?
It would be, Professor Rabinowitz said; tenure has come to represent a lot of other issues, both in
the way the media presents it as well as in people's minds. It is the hook that much of the effort hangs on.
She started out saying that the Regents have been stalling to delay the elections, but pointed out that they
have NOT stalled in "ramming various tenure codes down our throats the last few months." Their
position should not be made easy; they have moved along quickly, anyway, and should not be helped.
She urged that the Committee keep its hands off the issue.
Faculty Consultative Committee
November 21, 1996 (Part I)
8
This means they do not want consultation in the near future on Sullivan II, Professor Gray
inquired? If there is an acceptable way to jointly negotiate on Sullivan II, is that a strategic problem,
Professor Hobbie asked again?
Any negotiations of that kind will be extremely contentious and difficult, Professor Walsh said.
There is a split: some feel Sullivan II rescued them from an untenable situation, while others believe it
the last in a series of Machiavellian tenure codes that emerged from a process they did not understand,
and that Sullivan II came out tainted. To consider it is not to do so in an atmosphere of "let's investigate
this," but rather "we know this is bad because of its provenance." They were prepared to agree to
negotiations that were broad in scope; any negotiations about the 1985 tenure code versus Sullivan II will
take place in a damaged atmosphere, and will be a damaged atmosphere between the faculty engaged in
the discussions. Others have said what he said: Sullivan II is a union-busting effort. That point will be
brought into the discussion, so there is a problem with possible undesired division among the faculty.
The most straightforward interpretation of everything that has happened is to take the Regents at
their word, Professor Bloomfield said, and that is that they have done Sullivan II for the Law School and
that is the end of it. They may not take it up in December. The Regents may not want to deal with it
now. If so, then the faculty may also say it is a roiled time to deal with it, and wait on the outcome of the
AHC election and the election for the rest of the campus; after that, it will be known if the union has any
status to participate in the negotiation. If one could be confident the Regents felt that way, then the
faculty would be operating in a less pressured environment.
Professor Gray maintained that it is getting to "put up or shut up" time; the faculty cannot keep
complaining about the Regents not consulting if the faculty are not willing to consult.
The faculty have not been asked, Professor Evans observed. They do not have to be asked,
Professor Gray responded; Professor Bland agreed, and said the faculty could act. Morris has made a
statement that it does not wish to be represented by a union; the governance system has a responsibility
to serve them.
Professor Evans noted that the proposal to negotiate on tenure was issued before Sullivan II was
prepared. Before Sullivan II, the situation was one of no tenure code, threats of change, a presidential
search, and departments unable to hire. The proposal was a good-faith gesture to keep the University
from sinking under the weight of an unresolved crisis. Then Sullivan II was issued, and adopted by the
Board without full consultation by the Senate. Now there have been elections. The situation is different;
part of the burden for UFA/AAUP is trying to understand the risk to the faculty of lifting the cease and
desist order. What conditions should be put on lifting it? That is something that must be negotiated,
rather than simply consulted on, leaving the Board free to do what it wishes. Things must be worked out,
and the situation is complicated.
Professor Swan acknowledged that he has not been on the Morris campus, but his interpretation of
the vote was that the only definitive thing that can be said is that the Morris faculty chose not to join the
Duluth faculty union; it does not answer a question about whether there are other forms of organized,
collective action the Morris faculty might or might not desire. A second issue has to do with not being
only reactive, but one does not like to guess what the Regents may or may not have on their agenda. On
Faculty Consultative Committee
November 21, 1996 (Part I)
9
an issue of this importance, it is incumbent on the Regents to communicate their views. There is also the
problem of time; the Thanksgiving holiday is coming, Sullivan II is a complicated document. Even if the
Regents want to act on December 13, it may not be in the best interests of the faculty for them to do so.
Even absent the union question, a more deliberative process might be needed to consider something of
such magnitude.
Professor Bland said she did not understand why the Regents are not asked what their intentions
are. Professor Gray noted that there has only been half a day since the elections at Crookston and
Morris, and the Board is paying more attention to the presidential search right now. Informing this
Committee was not the first thing the Board had to do this morning. Professor Bland agreed, but said
they should be asked.
What do Crookston and Morris want the Committee to do, Professor Gray inquired of Professors
Korth and Peterson? It would be risky to summarize the motivations people had in voting 2-1 against
unionizing, Professor Korth said, but the faculty at Morris would probably like to have Faculty Senate
consideration of Sullivan II before it is enacted. It is in the interest of the entire University to have
Sullivan II looked at before it is adopted for more and more units. One has reason to expect its adoption,
and eventually a majority of the faculty may be covered by it before the Senate has considered it. It is a
mess, and any path out of the situation will be messier.
In the faculty forums leading up to the vote at Crookston, Professor Peterson reported, it was an
accepted fact that if the vote was "no," the campus would be subject to Sullivan II. The faculty at
Crookston were apparently more--or equally as--comfortable with that as they were with unionization.
Professor Morrison's summary of Sullivan II indicated that it was satisfactory, and it was probably not a
big part of the vote. There were other factors at Crookston as or more important than tenure. Speaking
for himself, he said, Sullivan II should be considered by the Senate, but there may not be a lot to say
about it. Professor Morrison's analysis leads him to believe it is acceptable, and while he may not like
the manner in which it is adopted, he can live with it.
Professor Feeney said that the Tenure Subcommittee and the Faculty Affairs Committee will do
what people ask it to do, but his concern is that the Senate made a statement in October about what
actions should or should not be taken until the collective bargaining issue is settled; that advice must be
respected. The only way the committees could act, if there is a proposal, would be to present a proposal
for thought and ask the Faculty Senate to vote it up or down. Perhaps that is what should happen. That
would give the body that should have the reins on the issue the opportunity to act. This Committee could
send it to the Faculty Senate for consideration, and would thus not be trying to second-guess what it
wants to do. It is the Faculty Senate that must be considered; it will tell the Committees if they've erred.
The Committee should live by the Senate resolution until the body has the opportunity to say otherwise;
if the Committee believes the Senate should have that opportunity, then something should be presented to
it in December.
That resolution did not anticipate that there might be different answers for different parts of the
campus, Professor Gray observed. That is what has gotten things tied up knots. But the resolution
stands, Professor Feeney; the Committee can say there are new players or the rules have changed, and
here is another option, and ask the Faculty Senate if it wishes to act.
Faculty Consultative Committee
November 21, 1996 (Part I)
10
Professor Gray noted that the discussion had run long over the time allotted and said the
Committee would revisit the issue later in the meeting. She promised to keep the UFA/AAUP leaders
informed of what decision is made.
2.
The Presidential Search
Professor Gray next welcomed Professor Len Kuhi to the meeting to discuss the presidential
search, and announced that Professor Imholte would participate by telephone from the Morris campus.
Professors Imholte and Kuhi served on the search committee. Professor Morrow, the other faculty
member on the committee, was out of town and unable to participate.
It was moved, seconded, and unanimously voted to close the meeting for the discussion, but it was
subsequently decided that most of the discussion should be reported in these minutes.
Professor Gray said that she has heard several questions raised about the search. One was how
well the faculty on the search committee work with the other committee members; there was a lot of
concern about a lack of faculty participation. A second question was whether the tenure debate affected
the search and who agreed to be considered; some have said Michigan got better candidates than
Minnesota because of the debate over tenure. A third question is about the candidates generally; when
FCC interviews them, what should they be watching for?
Professor Kuhi said he would review the process and address the concerns. He recalled that the
search committee members were named by various groups; there were three faculty who were selected,
by a small committee of the Regents, from a larger list of nine faculty. Others were selected in a similar
fashion. Even though everyone came to the committee from different directions and different groups, he
was pleased with the way the committee worked together. People seemed to leave their representation
behind, and they worked as a committee for the good of the University, to find the best candidates that
they could.
The search firm was represented by individuals at most of the meetings, and they were very
helpful. Everyone was able to nominate candidates, and they received over 200 nominations. The first
step was for the search firm to call the nominees to ask if they would be considered a candidate; most
said "yes" at that point, although some "famous names" said "no." Those individuals were then asked to
send in vitae and references, which the search committee considered.
The committee met on a number of occasions to screen materials, and narrowed the list to 15
names based on those materials. For those 15, search committee members called the references the
candidates had provided, after confirming that the nominees were still in fact candidates. The search
committee was also provided files on all the public information about the candidates, including news
clippings, etc.
From that list of 15, they selected 8 they wished to interview. Those people were brought to
Minneapolis, and it was surprising the media did not learn of the interviews. One of the 8 dropped out
before the interview (as had some of the 15 before the interviews). Of the seven, the committee spent
several hours with each individual, and posed a standard set of questions.
Faculty Consultative Committee
November 21, 1996 (Part I)
11
Of those 7, the committee recommended 3 to the Regents.
Professor Kuhi said he wished to clarify one point. A DAILY article quoted the student member
of the search committee as saying the vote was 8-3. That was not a vote on the candidates; the committee
was unanimous in its feeling that these three were the best candidates that were available and should be
offered to the Regents. The 8-3 vote was on the process (and the "3" were not the faculty members of the
search committee); several committee members were concerned that the rules under which they had to
operate were unacceptable. One was about references; search committee member had to call the
references that were provided, not others whom they might know on the campuses, because the process at
that point was entirely confidential.
There was a concern that there might be better candidates out there. The reason a vote was taken
was to indicate that concern; the individuals who voted no were not willing to say these were the best
candidates in the country who could take the position. They were, however, the three best that the search
committee found.
The DAILY article also contained a perceptive comment by the student, which was that the search
committee obviously had good reasons for selecting these three candidates. They clearly felt the
candidates met the criteria.
As for the concerns: Did they have the best people in the pool? Professor Kuhi said he thought
they did. Everyone had their favorite candidate, and search committee members spent many hours on the
telephone trying to convince certain people to be a serious candidate. How many times did they have to
accept "no"? Some of them declined to become candidates, for a number of reasons. One primary one
was that they were sitting presidents happy with their jobs who did not want to leave.
How did the tenure debate affect the search? What happened to those who withdrew from the
short list of 15? Professor Kuhi explained what occurred with several of those candidates. Some who
said "no" said they were happy with their positions. Some were quoted in the paper as saying the tenure
debate affected their decision, but none of those individuals ever made it to the search committee's short
list.
The candidates who were interviewed in depth all talked about the tenure issue; they were all
concerned about it, from various angles. None of them said it would cause them not to be candidates.
Professor Kuhi said he did not believe the University lost any candidates because of it. The issue was
raised because it obviously reflects a serious problem in the working relationship between the Regents
and faculty and administration.
There were only three faculty on the search committee, and they held their own. The committee as
a whole understood very clearly the University's problems; some of them have already spoken out in the
press, and had a better view of how the Regents operate and what their problems are than do some
faculty. Professor Kuhi said he had qualms going in, with only three faculty, but the other committee
members were extremely knowledgeable. He was pleasantly surprised at how well the group worked
together, and the only question that arose was whether or not the committee had the best candidates. All
he can say, he said, is that they tried their hardest. One could say so-and-so might be a better candidate;
one does not know.
Faculty Consultative Committee
November 21, 1996 (Part I)
12
Professor Kuhi noted the concerns that had been expressed about the slate of candidates. He said
that the question of whether the candidates are coming from major research universities is not the issue;
if one looks at where the great presidents of major universities have come from, one finds they come
from all over. The search committee was looking for leadership characteristics that everyone would be
happy with, and they found them in these three candidates. They were also looking for evidence that the
candidates had actually DONE something; lots of people look good on paper, but they wanted evidence.
Did they have to face serious issues? How did they deal with them? Professor Kuhi reviewed the
accomplishments of the three candidates.
Professor Kuhi commented that the premature release of the names was a great disappointment to
the search committee.
Professor Imholte said Professor Kuhi summarized the process well and agreed with the
observations. There was one characteristic that he searched for in each of the seven candidates they
interviewed (in part in response to the charge that even two of the three faculty members of the search
committee were former administrators), and that was trust: would the faculty, or administrators, or
students, or alumni, trust the individual? Does the person instill a measure of trust? Each of the three are
people who can be trusted completely, Professor Imholte said, and he is enthusiastic about the three
candidates.
Professor Imholte noted that the Committee would have a chance to meet with the three
individuals; the tougher the questions posed to the candidates, the better they will respond, he said.
Professor Imholte concluded by telling the Committee that on June 23, 1947, Dwight Eisenhower
wrote Columbia University that he would accept a formal offer to be president, but only under the
following conditions: no excessive entertaining, no responsibility for fund-raising, no burdensome
administrative details, and no involvement in purely academic matters.
Professor Imholte added one unrelated comment. He noted that Professor Gremmels--a member of
this Committee for the past three years--was identified as a proponent of unionization in the STAR
TRIBUNE. Professor Gremmels wished it known that he had not changed his mind, and was NOT a
proponent of unionization.
Professor Gray asked if there were questions. Professor Morrison pointed out that the Michigan
list was made public recently, and now this list has been made public. The two lists are VERY different,
in background and kind of people. The Michigan list is major academic figures; this list is substantial
administrators at institutions, two of which are the third-rate public institutions in their state--roughly the
equivalent of St. Cloud. To what extent did Minnesota end up with a different list by conscious choice,
to what extent did it end up with a different list because it didn't have many people in the category that
Michigan did, and to what extent did it end up with a different list because it operated in a very
constrained "if you don't apply, you're not a candidate" mode?
Professor Kuhi said the last question was not an accurate description. People were asked whether
they were willing to be a candidate. Did they seek candidates who were not nominated, Professor
Morrison asked? They did, and spent hours on the telephone persuading people to be candidates. The
Faculty Consultative Committee
November 21, 1996 (Part I)
13
group was very proactive. It called people who search committee members WANTED to be candidates.
Why are the lists so different, asked Professor Bland? One difference is that Michigan has no
sitting presidents on its list, Professor Kuhi pointed out. The search committee felt that there were so
many problems at Minnesota that a sitting president who has had to deal with similar problems would be
a better candidate than one who has not been a president. A vice president's job is very different.
Several search committee members consciously sought people who had experience in the presidential
role. All of the Michigan candidates were vice presidents or provosts; one reason there were no sitting
presidents may be that the Michigan open meeting laws are even worse than Minnesota's. As a result, it
appears that no sitting president was willing to be a finalist at Michigan.
One thing on his mind, Professor Kuhi related, is the question of whether they got the best people
in the country to be candidates; he said he did not know, but the answer is probably not. The reason is
that the best candidate would be a sitting president at a place like Michigan or Berkeley; of those whom
they contacted, those people did not want to be candidates. Are there better people out there than these
three, who are unproven in a big institution like this? Yes, but it does the University no good to say there
are better people out there, if they are not available. Professor Kuhi said he could not stress that enough:
they have heard people say there is someone better out there and that the search committee should have
gone after them. They tried, he said.
Professor Swan said that Professor Kuhi had phrased the issue, to put it at its strongest, that the
committee only wanted to consider sitting presidents (Professor Kuhi said "no" in response); his sense,
Professor Swan said, is that the University would be better off with people who it is believed, after
intense scrutiny, have the characteristics to get the job done--rather than whether they had a particular
type of experience, especially at institutions that are very different from the University. This raises the
residual question of whether the search committee approached its task in a way that ruled out a whole
class of people.
Professor Kuhi said it did not; the search committee never discussed the issue, but seemed to be
the natural inclination of the committee, the way it ended up. There were a number of candidates on the
short list who were interviewed who would not fit the traditional academic mold at all, he said; they did
not limit themselves to sitting presidents. That was not a condition for eliminating or including
candidates; it just worked out that way.
Professor Gray thanked Professors Imholte and Kuhi for their comments.
-- Gary Engstrand
University of Minnesota