Present:
Minutes
*
Faculty Consultative Committee
Thursday, June 2, 1994
10:00 - 12:00
Room 238 Morrill Hall
Judith Garrard (chair), Carl Adams, John Adams, Mario Bognanno, Lester Drewes, Dan
Feeney, Kenneth Heller, Robert Jones, Morris Kleiner, Geoffrey Maruyama, Harvey
Peterson, Shirley Zimmerman
Regrets:
Absent:
James Gremmels, Karen Seashore Louis, Toni McNaron, Irwin Rubenstein none
Guests:
Others:
Vice President Melvin George, President Nils Hasselmo
Martha Kvanbeck (University Senate), Maureen Smith (University Relations)
[In these minutes: (With the President) central administration reorganization, supercomputing, biennial request advisory committee; administration attitudes to faculty values; reorganization and searches; compensation]
1. Discussion with President Hasselmo
Professor Garrard convened the meeting at 10:10 and began by introducing and welcoming Melvin
George, the new Vice President for External Relations. Dr. George thanked the Committee for the welcome and the invitation to join it and informed the Committee background (a mathematician, dean of arts and sciences at Kansas, vice president for academic affairs at Missouri, and most recently President of St. Olaf.)
Professor Garrard also welcomed the President, who began his comments by reviewing the reasons for his proposal to reorganize the central administration. There has been a feeling in recent years, he commented, that the organizational structure is not what the size and complexity of the institution require, and he has received a number of signals in recent years that there is a lack of clarity and accountability in the system--that there are layers of administration that lack the desired clarity and accountability. The issue came to a head in the health sciences, where the Vice President for the Health
Sciences did feel, and the people did not act as if, he had well-defined authority and accountability. The same is true, however, in other parts of the University as well.
A number of positive steps have already been taken, he reported, such as in the improvements in financial management and the budgeting cycle, both in Academic Affairs and in Finance and Operations.
But there has not been a parallel improvement on the academic side of the administration.
*
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
June 2, 1994
2
Two issues have been prominent over the years: the mingling of campus and system responsibilities--a point the coordinate campuses have made for a long time--and the mingling of line and staff responsibilities. The reorganization is intended to define system and staff responsibilities in one group of people, campus and line responsibilities in another (treating each provostal area, for this purpose, as a "campus"--rather than introducing another term to describe those units). The major thrust of the reorganization is to clarify authority and accountability.
There are a number of models that might be used, the President related; the one he has proposed builds on what the University already has. The formal title of the health sciences is the Academic Health
Center; the other two provostal units will be (1) arts, sciences, and professional schools, and (2, tentatively) agricultural, biological, and environmental sciences. The latter raises the question of the location of the College of Biological Sciences and College of Veterinary Medicine, but the organization of disciplines accords with national patterns as well as gives a cohesiveness to a set of disciplines where the University is very strong.
While the proposal builds on the existing structure, it does so with provosts who have line responsibilities and central administrators with staff responsibilities--rather than vice presidents with mixed responsibilities. The Vice President for Academic Affairs (hereinafter VPAA) remains second in command but is not a layer between the provosts and the president. The three major staff functions in
Academic Affairs will be carried out by the Vice Presidents for Research, Undergraduate Education, and
Outreach (the last on recommendation of the Outreach Council). The incorporation of undergraduate education in the student affairs officer is new, as is the position of outreach vice president.
Also more clearly defined are the position of associate vice president for planning (Dr. Kvavik), which will consolidate analytical and evaluative functions (such as MPIS and others), and the associate vice president for budget and finance (Mr. Pfutzenreuter). They will be responsible for annual review of plans and budgets--provosts will make recommendations to them, which will be reviewed by the VPAA and the other academic vice presidents plus the Vice President for Finance and Operations, and the recommendations will then be forwarded to the President. The provosts will be approved plans and budgets, within which they will have the authority to make decisions.
This reorganization will help in the implementation of U2000, the President explained. The
University must be sure that administrators at each level, interacting with faculty and students, have decision-making authority. There will be guidelines and questions, but strategic options will come UP the chain as well. This plan also reduces the layers of administration--from President-Senior Vice
President-Vice President-Dean-Department Head to President-Provost-Dean-Department Head.
The reorganization will also require a major cultural change. It is his intent, the President related, to build on the changes that have occurred, to obtain effective faculty/student consultation at each level, and to have somebody who is RESPONSIBLE at each level. It will be important for U2000 for the
University to make tough choices. The deans will be essential; the provosts must help pull decisions together for a cluster of disciplines and provide an overview. The University must have effective priority-setting so it can be a national leader.
A letter outlining the proposal will be coming next week. There will be discussion of the

Faculty Consultative Committee
June 2, 1994
3 reorganization with the Board of Regents at their June meeting and a proposal for adoption in July. At that point the position of each central officer will be considered in detail, in terms of function as well as a sorting of line and staff, system and campus, responsibilities. Staffing will also be considered, but it is his assumption there will be no net increase in administrative positions--and over the long-term, it is hoped that economies can be achieved.
One Committee member asked the President to explain why his proposal makes more sense than an arts and sciences (including the biological sciences) unit and a professional school unit? It is common to have that arrangement, it was noted, and is one reason why the health sciences have a separate provost.
There is more similarity among the professional schools than between them and a physics department, for example. Why not the older model of science, literature, and the arts?
The President said he seriously considered the alternative, including the biological and physical sciences and creating a separate College of Engineering. Had the old SLA model been intact, it would have been a more viable proposal. But IT has been a success in combining sciences and engineering; it seemed radical surgery to tear apart a college. In addition, the arts and sciences concept of education will be more broadly defined and professional school faculty participation will be important in enriching the educational environment and will draw on University strength. As a result, he did not want to isolate the arts and sciences from the professional schools. Further, although not a strong consideration, there is the issue geographic contiguity; most of the arts and sciences and professional schools are in Minneapolis while the agricultural, biological, and environmental sciences are in St. Paul. That geographic distribution will permit, with a provostal structure, a link between space/facilities management and academic decision-making.
The President affirmed, in response to a question, that there will be national searches for the two provosts. The transition will be a painful process, in that it interferes with the lives of incumbents in central administration, but he felt national recruitment will be important. Similarly, national searches will take place for the vacancies in Research, Student Affairs (with redefined responsibilities), and
Outreach.
From the faculty viewpoint, observed one Committee member, the three most recent central administrative appointments (Drs. Bognanno, Brody, and George) have been very positive, in that all have strong faculty backgrounds. It is to be hoped that the same attention will be given to that factor in the next appointments. The President accepted the commendation but expressed puzzlement about the concern, given the credentials of the central administrators. The comment, he was assured, was not intended to reflect on incumbents.
Professor Garrard then reported that she had talked with the President about the impact of the reorganization on faculty governance; there is now a need to reactivate the task force on governance appointed over a year ago. Inasmuch as Professor Bognanno will be working for the President, a new chair will also be required. The reconstituted task force will want to look at governance within the provostal areas as well, inasmuch as the President has called for a strengthened governance role at that level.
The President commented that he had not assumed there would be changes in faculty/student governance, although the reorganization does raise questions. The VPAA will remain second in

Faculty Consultative Committee
June 2, 1994
4 command, he said, and he has written into the job description the responsibility for playing a lead role in consultation, as is presently the case. A similar responsibility for consultation within their campuses will be entrusted to the provosts.
Asked about the Duluth chancellor search, and the role of the chancellors in general, the President said the search would be national and that he would like FCC to consider the membership of the search committee. The role of the chancellors will not be greatly changed; the president will remain Chancellor of the Twin Cities campus. Both the Twin Cities provosts and the other chancellors will report to him.
Asked if he had considered moving individual units, the President said he was trying to create an organizational structure, not resolve all of the questions. It may take a couple of years to review all central offices and determine the structure of the provosts offices. Additional restructuring of colleges and departments would follow, through the strategic planning process.
Several Committee members warned of the danger of delay, noting that a good idea could be undermined by a failure to quickly divide responsibilities, at least in a first iteration. It may take several years to achieve a steady state, but if immediate initial steps are not taken--within a couple of months--the entire proposal could be side-tracked. The President agreed, and said that if the Board acts on the proposal in July, he would begin implementation immediately and hopes that searches for the provosts could be completed within a few months. He has not set any dates, however, and repeated that there are central officers whose lives will be affected.
It is commendable that he is considering the people involved, the President was told, but the organization has needs as well. This reorganization holds a lot of potential for the University, but it appears as though it could be a year before even the fundamental details are worked out--which is worrisome. The President assured the Committee he has already discussed reviews of central offices with the senior vice presidents. Most people, moreover, will be retained, with some revision of functions given the provostal responsibilities.
It would be most comforting, said one Committee member, if people would understand that the structure is evolving and trust the President, if they would be willing to go to an initial solution quickly, knowing that issues of division of work would have to be dealt with. But the interim stage should not be dragged out, because there are a number of forces that will want to delay. Knowing how difficult it is for the University to make up its mind, when the process is stretched out there will be forces that will paralyze it. It is better to act decisively now and clarify the details later. The President said he understood the point. He commented that there will not be consensus, and expressed concern about the distress that will be caused, but expressed hope that people would hold together and make the reorganization work. He did not propose it lightly, he added, but felt compelled to act.
One Committee member commented that while the five positions merit national searches, internal candidates should not be slighted. There will be a steep learning curve for those from outside with respect to U2000; to have FIVE new administrators all from outside could delay the implementation of
U2000. The President said he hoped the searches would be conducted fairly quickly--he noted that the health sciences search took less than five months. He also agreed that the search committees should be instructed to look carefully inside for leadership the University could draw on; he acknowledged that one sometimes has difficulty getting search committees to consider internal candidates.

Faculty Consultative Committee
June 2, 1994
5
The President then turned to other issues.
-- As is known, Cray has expressed an interest in purchasing the Minnesota Supercomputer
Center, Inc., and negotiations are taking place. The University team consists of Regents'
Professor Richard Goldstein, Senior Vice President Robert Erickson, Vice President Anne
Petersen, and four University Foundation representatives. The President reported that he has spoken with the CEO of Cray and that the two of them met jointly with legislators to answer questions; he said that Cray is extraordinarily sensitive to maintaining the
University's research and realizes the value of the continued association with the
University and of faculty research.
-- Senior Vice President Infante will present to the Board of Regents next week an overview of U2000 action plans and lead additional discussion of the benchmarks and critical measures. The President expressed hope that there could continue to be discussion of institutional measures; he said, following the expression of concern about faculty participation at the Senate meeting, that he wanted to be sure that discussion continues.
Professor Garrard said there will be an article in Footnote and reported that she had asked the DAILY to cover the issue as well (which it has).
Asked if a survey had been sent to the faculty, President Hasselmo said there had been wide distribution. The responses have been analyzed and there appears to be a preference for certain issues. There will not be a "vote" on the measures, because they must have intellectual coherence, but the expression of views has been important. The process will start with about six measures and will be expanded as the University's analytical capacity increases.
--
The President emphasized that the colleges and ultimately each department would have their own set of measurements and benchmarks; Studio Arts, for instance, would likely have very different measures from those of Mechanical Engineering. The institutional measures will address what is most important to the University as a whole.
In terms of the biennial request, the first meeting of the Biennial Request Advisory
Committee (BBAC) is taking place at the same time this meeting is occurring. The BBAC is intended both to be a communication vehicle as well as to advise on the development of the request. The members of the BBAC are as follows:
John Adams (FCC chair; CLA & the Humphrey Institute)
Eugene Allen (Vice President, Ag, Natural Res, and Human Ecol)
Sheila Corbett (President, MN Student Association)
Julia Davis (Dean, CLA)
Robert Erickson (Senior Vice President, Finance and Operations)
Gregory Fox (Vice Chancellor, Duluth)
E. F. Infante (Senior Vice President, Academic Affairs)
Melvin George (Vice President, Institutional Relations)
Virginia Gray (Finance and Planning chair; CLA)

Faculty Consultative Committee
June 2, 1994
6
Martha Johnson (AFSCME)
David Kidwell (Dean, Carlson School of Management)
Donald Sargeant (Chancellor, Crookston)
John Taborn (CLA)
David Thawley (Dean, Vet Medicine)
Caroline Turner (Education)
Professor Garrard thanked the President for joining the meeting and also reiterated her welcome to
Vice President George. Dr. George expressed appreciation for the invitation, noting he has always felt he is a faculty member and his strong commitment to the University.
2. An Issue from the Faculty Affairs Committee
Professor Garrard then asked Professor (Carl) Adams to introduce Professor Dan Feeney, incoming chair of the Committee on Faculty Affairs (SCFA; and as such an ex officio member of this
Committee). Professor Adams then recalled that SCFA had earlier notified FCC of its concern that the attitude of some central officers to faculty values was inappropriate. The issue was pursued within
SCFA and with the President; rather than "beating Nils on the head" in the midst of all the change that is occurring, SCFA decided it would try to provide suggestions for action that could be useful. One procedural issue is that if the conversation with the President on the issue is to continue, what should be the involvement of FCC? This is in part an FCC responsibility, and SCFA does not want to get ahead of its own responsibilities.
Professor Feeney then commented that several issues had raised the concern of SCFA (e.g., the recent contretemps about mandatory retirement, the apparent equation of tuition increases with faculty salaries). SCFA itself dealt more with the process than with the substantive issues, he reported, and is divided on how to handle them. Should SCFA bring these matters to FCC?
One possibility, Professor Adams noted, was for SCFA to get together with the President and central officers to discuss the concerns, but again, the question was who should be involved. SCFA does not want to tread on FCC responsibilities. He said he wanted FCC notified of the concern and that nothing would be done until identification of the appropriate participants had been resolved.
Professor Garrard said she has insisted that issues come before the specialty committees before they are brought to FCC or SCC, and expressed hope that this issue would not be lost. It should be followed up during the five national searches, she opined, in that people with strong academic backgrounds should be sought and that faculty members should serve on the search committees. If the faculty role is to be supported, there must be a strong faculty presence in the administration (recognizing that those who will be appointed may at present be administrators--but they should also be professors).
Does this issue run counter to the advice the Committee just gave to the President to act on the reorganization in order to move the institution to where it needs to go? When the issue arose, Professor
(Carl) Adams replied, there was no reorganization proposal; in the present administration, there seemed to be some insensitivity to faculty views and values. SCFA brought the concern to the attention of the
President; he asked for ideas about addressing it. The stage of making people aware of the concern is past; now the issue is what positive contributions can be made. The Committee must not find itself stuck

Faculty Consultative Committee
June 2, 1994
7 with traditional faculty values that run counter to the directions in which the University must move;
Professor (Carl) Adams responded that that was not his sense of the concern. It was more that the
University was drifting into a "we/they" mentality--administrators have one view and faculty another; what was hoped for was a more collegial interaction.
One Committee member observed that it seems issues arise which the administration feels must be handled in a timely fashion but would still prefer to have faculty consultation. There are two clocks involved: the faculty seek a more leisurely consultative process while the administration feels pushed to deal with issues, so there is a tension. One will hear about the compression of time in dealing with the budget, for example, or with reorganization, and that decisions will be made "when people are not here"
(i.e., faculty on 9-month appointments). The administration and Board of Regents operate on a 12-month calendar while some faculty do not. On key committees, there must be attentiveness to the rate at which things must be handled--there must be administrative sensitivity to faculty, but the faculty need also be sensitive to the exigencies of the administration. That is simply the world we live in. Perhaps the senior committees need executive groups to work with the administration year-round--or else the faculty will
"watch the train go by." Some of this discussion is related to questions of timing; some is also related to the lack of central staff who can do the necessary consultation.
3. Continued Discussion, Reorganization & Related Topics
It was then suggested that FCC might consider a resolution expressing support for the changes being proposed, urging that the process not take years, and at the same time raising this question of faculty interaction with line officers and noting that if the faculty will not implement some of the changes, they will not occur. One concern is that this will be a reorganization on paper, with nothing really changing; the President needs the support of the faculty. It was agreed that the Committee would consider a resolution at its next meeting.
The discussion of a full-time University brings to the surface the implication of U2000 that it is perhaps time to start thinking about year-round faculty rather than the tradition nine-month terms. The institution will be stronger in the years ahead if the faculty begin to think of themselves as full-time, and both responsibilities and compensation will have to be adjusted. Governance would function better, morale would be improved, and budget support would likely also be better. The University, however is locked into a "what is familiar seems necessary" mindset; faculty leaders need to begin thinking about alternatives. In contemplating the possibilities, if one starts out with the constraints, nothing will change; if one starts by thinking of faculty responsibilities, the outcome would be different. Rather than being locked into what was done in 1955, the faculty should think about what will be needed in 2005.
Perhaps faculty could work three out of four quarters, it was suggested. Or even two, said another
Committee member. Adjustments to the tenure clock have already been made, moving away from the rigidity that has existed. Most faculty would not want to be appointed for less than three quarters because of the fringe benefit implications, but there are perhaps many who would want to work only two quarters because they have other interests or for whom the money is not a significant concern. The point is that there are many ways that faculty talent could be used, and the faculty need to take the lead on such issues as phased retirement and post-tenure reviews as well as how work is defined and compensation determined--if the faculty do not take the lead, others will and the faculty will have to respond. Professor
Garrard interjected that these are issues the Adams Professors should take up next year.

Faculty Consultative Committee
June 2, 1994
8
Additional points that were made during the ensuing discussion included:
-- One can appreciate the differences between faculty and administrative views, commented one
Committee member, but there is no evidence that faculty are aware of the sense of urgency that attaches to these issues--or that they are important for faculty. There has been so much change that people are numb. It would be good to get the message out, but it should come from the Committee, not the administration.
-- The point is well taken, reflected another Committee member. There are differences among the colleges in how faculty are made aware of issues. In some, they know quickly because the heads or chairs are in charge and they notify everyone. In others, the chairs do not wield authority and the faculty are autonomous--when everyone is in charge, no one is. In some units, the faculty see virtually everything the dean sees, but there is no guarantee that the issues are followed up with the faculty.
Something in between is needed, some kind of effective unit leadership; those colleges that have it will prosper and those that do not will be left behind. The role of the Committee in alerting people about participation is not clear--it leads and it represents.
-- Discussion then turned to college newsletters and how the University communicates with itself.
It might be useful to talk to Dr. George, it was suggested. Traditionally, the University has 200 units that go their own way, and colleges talk inside themselves, but there is no pattern to the communication.
The University does NOT have a consistent way to talk to itself about what it does.
-- The possibility of a newsletter (newspaper format) for faculty to supplement Footnote was considered. Questions of focus and contents were deliberated. Committee members invited Maureen
Smith to offer observations and discussed with her the conversations that have taken place with Marcia
Fluer (Director of University Relations) and Vice President Anne Hopkins. The Committee reached no conclusions about how it wished to proceed.
-- It was agreed that each FCC member would be asked to suggest the names of individuals to serve on each of the five search committees. It was suggested, and met with Committee assent, that with the provost searches, the University is really seeking individuals of presidential caliber. It was also suggested that the Committee should help define what the jobs would be as well as to reinforce the proposition that the organizational changes should be sooner rather than later. It was also agreed that there should explicitly be an FCC representative on each search committee.
4. Compensation Issues
Following a closed discussion of matters related to the Judicial Committee, one Committee member raised a concern about salary equity for faculty: the data available illustrate the wide discrepancy in salaries for faculty of the same rank in different departments. The differences are said to be attributable to the market, but there are implied discussions about which departments are worth more.
The market, it was observed, often works in strange ways. This is an issue that needs to be discussed.
The Compensation Working Group is considering these issues, it was reported, and there are two to be considered. If there is a market orientation, then to what extent are some departments not paid at a

Faculty Consultative Committee
June 2, 1994
9 level comparable to their peers, given the effort the faculty put in, and are thus not being treated fairly.
The other issue is that if all are reasonably paid vis-a-vis their peers at other institutions, then there is no market problem; widely disparate salaries are then an equity problem. This is a vexing issue, it was said-
-it seems that people who work equally hard should be paid the same, but that flies in the face of the market.
One's gut instinct, it was said, is that it is unrealistic to think the University can ignore the market, but while being sensitive to it, it might be possible to take an intermediate position that recognizes the equity concern. In terms of the Compensation Working Group, it has one set of issues about whether or not the pie is the right size (are there sufficient salary dollars for the University to be the kind of institution it seeks to be). This is where it's emphasis has been. It has another set of issues about distribution of the pie.
If the pie is not big enough, it was said, the University is entirely at the mercy of the market--it has no freedom to deal with equity. Even if the pie IS the right size, it was then said, the equity concern remains, but the larger the pie, the more flexibility the University has to deal with it. One Committee member pointed out that one local chief executive received a severance package of $4.5 million--while others who work for the company for years receive a coffee cup. The University, it was said, should not be engaged in that kind of practice.
This may also be an issue to raise with the candidates for the provost positions, it was suggested; as CEOs, they may need to address compensation issues.
Professor Bognanno then reported on the status of the Compensation Working Group's efforts and outlined the major issues with which it proposes to deal.
5. Announcements
Professor Garrard then announced the appointment of a subcommittee, consisting of Professors
Carl Adams (chair), Bognanno, and Jones to draft the resolution the Committee agreed should be considered; it is to be circulated before the next meeting on June 16. She then adjourned the meeting at
12:10.
University of Minnesota
-- Gary Engstrand