Present:
Minutes
*
Faculty Consultative Committee
Thursday, February 3, 1994
10:00 - 12:00
Room 238 Morrill Hall
Judith Garrard (chair), Carl Adams, John Adams, Mario Bognanno, Lester Drewes, James
Gremmels, Kenneth Heller, Robert Jones, Karen Seashore Louis, Geoffrey Maruyama,
Toni McNaron, Harvey Peterson, Irwin Rubenstein, Shirley Zimmerman
Regrets:
Absent: none none
Guests:
Others:
Associate Vice President Mark Brenner, President Nils Hasselmo
Rich Broderick and Maureen Smith (University Relations), Martha Kvanbeck (University
Senate)
[In these minutes: (With the President:) administrative reorganization, capital request, supplemental legislative request; Conflict of Interest policy]
1. Chair's Comments
Professor Garrard convened the meeting at 10:00 and asked Committee members for suggestions for her Chair's report to the Board of Regents.
Committee members also raised questions about the delivery of the proposed 1994-95 salary increase and agreed to ask the President about them.
2. Discussion with President Hasselmo
Professor Garrard then welcomed the President to the meeting and noted that he had several items to discuss. The President commented first that while he had regained a voice, it was not the one he had lost!
The President turned first to the organization of and processes in central administration. When he set his agenda for the year with the Board of Regents, there were four issues on it; one of them was the
University's management capability in light of the special demands represented by U2000. There have also been lingering questions about the general management capability; much of the agenda over the last several years has been directed toward improved management.
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
February 3, 1994
2
At present several different models for the organization of the central administration are being considered; they will be explored over the next few weeks. First, the model the University now has will be examined, with vice presidents and chancellors for the campuses. One change has already been made, with the creation of the provostship for the health sciences. Two or three alternatives will also be considered to see if there is an optimum way of organizing the administration. One possibility would be extending the model of separate provostships to the Twin Cities campus or subsets of it. After the models have been explored with this Committee, other groups, and the Board of Regents, a decision will be made on what changes, if any, should be made in the structure of the administration.
The President said he did not know if changes would be made but said there is a need to define more clearly both authority and accountability within whatever structure is selected. The processes that lead to major decisions must also be reviewed so that they can be more clearly defined.
The possibility of reorganization is at the central level, the President repeated, but that would involve the relationship with deans. It is simply an extension of the agenda of looking at the University's management capabilities and at the definitions of responsibility and authority; there is nothing dramatically new. He said he wanted the Committee to be aware of the issue because he will be returning to it in the near future with specific models to be looked at as movement towards a decision occurs--whether it involves change or tightening up responsibilities within the existing structure.
Discussion of this issue will begin with the Board of Regents in February; it will also be the subject of his meeting with this Committee on February 17. The President stressed again that it will be the internal functioning of central administration that will be looked at.
When will the administration look at the management structure at the department levels, where all the work gets done? asked one Committee member. It is easy to say--and it happens from time to time-that one will look at the management structure and say "we won't do this, we'll let the departments do this." But the departments often have no resources, with all the retrenchments that have occurred; management structure is not suffering just at the central level. There must be the impression, especially at this University, that management is a distributed operation, not just all from the top.
The President agreed and said that much important administration takes place at the department level. The administration has been involved in various Total Quality Management projects and he is working with Mr. Erickson and his staff on a broader approach to those kinds of management issues-whether within the TQM framework or not. There are several pilot projects underway; special cases of management review should be continued, but within a broader framework. When the effort was started several years ago, he said, he did not want to come out with a big TQM approach to the University as a whole--there was too big a risk that it would all be rhetoric. So projects were started at the grassroots level in various parts of the University; the problem now is that those projects need a broader context and the activities need to be expanded. He is now reviewing proposals about such a broader approach to management effectiveness. But it is absolutely correct to say that all aspects of the University must be looked at.
There is a fundamental issue about departmental administration, because they will have responsibility for enrollment management, allocation of resources, allocation of faculty and staff time, and a myriad of things that have to be determined at the department level. It is very important to have

Faculty Consultative Committee
February 3, 1994
3 administrative structures and processes at the department level that can function effectively.
The consultative process at all levels of the University also needs to be looked at, the President said. One of the issues that has come up in connection with U2000 has been consultation. The administration has gone to great lengths to consult--but there is a perception that people have not been consulted. Can the University be sure it has a consultative process that both reaches faculty, staff, and students more broadly and does it at the appropriate levels. That aspect of collegiate and departmental administration must also be reviewed.
The President said he would return to talk about the broader framework within the next month or two. There is the question of Responsibility Centered Management (RCM), which has already been raised with the Committee; its implications will be reviewed over the next six months or so. A decision will be made about trying that approach, or trying it in modified fashion. The President recalled that there had been a suggestion, apropos RCM, to first do it analytically, a suggestion he thought wise.
The President was asked how faculty might express their views on RCM. People could write directly to him, President Hasselmo said; better to write to Senior Vice President Erickson, who, with staff, is working on it. Professor Garrard suggested that copies of such letters should be sent to herself and to Professor Rubenstein, chair of the Finance and Planning Committee. The President said there would also be continuous consultation with the Finance and Planning Committee about the issues.
There are profound implications to RCM so a decision whether or not to adopt the model must move in systematic stages. Whether or not the model is adopted is one thing; as was indicated earlier, there remains a need for review of collegiate and departmental management.
One Committee member said there is a lot of concern about RCM. If the University is trying to think about integration and a sense of community, that might not be the way to go. There is also a concern that budgets seem to be tied to enrollments; one thing the University wants to do, and certain units want to do, is raise the GPA at which students are admitted. Doing so will have implications for enrollment; units that do so will be penalized if they are more selective.
The President said it will be important that those issues be addressed in a coordinated fashion, which requires that a policy committee at the institutional level--such as SCEP--be involved, as well as college and departmental committees. It will be important not to get contradictory and fragmented decisions.
If he is thinking about major rearrangements of authority and accountability among senior officers, that could be a good thing, commented one Committee member. There is a related issue where there is potentially much significance that may not show up: The issue of CEE and the Graduate School as operating units (in terms of admissions, etc.) as opposed to a unit that has policy and evaluation responsibilities. CEE or the new University College might have these responsibilities in terms of contact with the student body but not in terms of admissions. The clarification of the role of those two major entities could have enormous impact. CEE, for example, has a $50 million budget, which swamps that of most colleges. Yet the University does not have a good grasp on its operations and other responsibilities.
These two entities are very significant and important; the clarity of how the University thinks about them will be important to becoming more efficient and more effective.

Faculty Consultative Committee
February 3, 1994
4
In looking at models used by different universities, the President responded, they are also looking at their implications. One of them is the Graduate School as a system-wide function--that the University will probably want to retain. CEE--or University College as it is established--is also system-wide and needs to be reviewed from that perspective. That has implications if one were to divide the University into operating units of a different kind than now exist. What is retained as system-wide functions and what is delegated to the units?
One concern is system-wide versus something else, it was said. Another is the range of operating activity versus review or policy activity, which are very different. The University has major operating activities inside both CEE and the Graduate School, which may or may not be appropriate--for example, the way student records are kept or the way people are admitted or enrolled, the delivery of instruction.
There is a lot in both units that could stand review and discussion.
The University has tended to have staff and line, system and campus responsibilities intertwined, the President observed. One reason to look at the different models of administration is to see if there are better ways of sorting out staff and line, system and campus responsibilities. That is a fundamental issue; it is also very complex because of the University's traditions. The President cautioned, however, that evolution is being considered, not revolution, in the redefinitions of authority and accountability.
The administration has had a number of interviews on these issues that he is now trying to assess, the President told the Committee. One point that has emerged is the decisions tend to migrate to his office; he said he would like it better if they did not do so but that there were instead clearly defined authority.
One Committee member reported having received telephone calls on an issue that may be an example of the problem. If central administration says there will be a 6% salary increase, as the decisions filters down through vice presidents and deans and department heads, faculty members are becoming concerned. It appears there may not be a 6% salary increase because some deans are suggesting they will deliver a smaller amount and retain some funds for retention, or that the full 6% will not be awarded. The President was asked to explain that decision in particular but also what happens to decisions by the administration.
"They should be complied with!" the President responded. Whatever the instructions of the Senior
Vice President for Academic Affairs are, they should be followed, and there should be a way of checking that they are carried out. This is an instance of where the University is struggling to create uniformity and equity across the institution and, at the same, time, preserve some level of discretion at the collegiate level. Dr. Infante is being more explicit about salary distribution in the instructions that are being issued, the President said, and he would prefer that Dr. Infante speak to it. It is his understanding, however, that the faculty in any college, on average, will receive a 6% salary increase.
That could include retention, pointed out one Committee member.
Another Committee member said that the President should understand the other dimensions of what is occurring, although he did not have to respond. Two department chairs had called and said that they had been told they had to pay for the fringe benefits on the 6% salary increases. They understand

Faculty Consultative Committee
February 3, 1994
5 that the departments must use RA or TA money to cover fringe benefit costs--or cover the costs by not delivering the full 6% raise. This is not consistent with what has been said at these meetings, it was pointed out. What HAS been said is that fringe benefit rates have been reduced and that the colleges were told to retain the savings to cover increased fringe costs for salary increases. The deans were sent a letter on this subject last year, noted another Committee member, instructing them not to spend the extra money.
If the dean now tells the department it must come up with the money, and that it must retrench in order to do so, does the department have the license to say to the dean that the college has the funds and the department should not retrench? This, the President said, is what he means by delegation of authority and accountability to the appropriate level. Professor Garrard said it might be more appropriate to raise this question with Dr. Infante on February 17--but it should be understood that there is a great deal of consternation and anxiety about the salary increase and that it will be important to provide information that is accurate and complete. The President concurred--and added that even with these complexities, he much preferred these problems to the simplicity of a zero percent increase.
The President then touched on two other matters. The Governor has made a recommendation on the University's capital request; although the amount was about the same, the Governor restructured it somewhat. The principal changes were postponing the construction of the archives facilities until 1996 and funding--now--of the renovation of Architecture and Mechanical Engineering. The recommendations follow quite well the University's priorities but they go beyond what was submitted--
Architecture and Mechanical Engineering were not part of this request because of concern about the
University's bonding capacity. There were two items on the University's 6-year capital plan that preceded Architecture and Mechanical Engineering (the Rec. Sports facility and an Agriculture building).
The Governor's recommendation, while generally following University priorities, also lays down the challenge of meeting the one-third debt requirement on the Architecture and Mechanical Engineering facilities.
At this point the University has not changed its request and is evaluating the Governor's recommendation. It does show an understanding of the University's facilities needs and will be discussed with legislative leadership. One thing that is important is that the fund-raising for the new Carlson
School of Management facility be completed; it seems to be going well but is not complete.
Second, and also discussed with Finance and Planning, is that the University intends to put before the state a special request for $16+ million to supplement the $8.5 million being set aside in the Strategic
Investment Pool from reallocation. The general thrust for the use of those funds is that the University will do certain things with the SIP and the state is being asked to add $16 million to do additional things along the same lines. The strategic directions of U2000 guide the request; specific projects under those directions are being proposed--projects that have been planned for some time about which there is no dispute that they need to be done. This does not represent an attempt to leap over institutional or collegiate planning and anticipating priorities--it stays with existing priorities. More specifics will be made available as the request is more fully developed. The request will be heavily oriented to enhancement of the student experience, such as registration, distribution of financial aid, and so on.
There will also be projects in research, graduate education, outreach, and other specific things the
University can do.

Faculty Consultative Committee
February 3, 1994
6
One Committee member then inquired of the President about the bonding bill: There was concern expressed in the last meeting that the University not exceed its bonding capacity. The Governor has suggested it should do so. The Committee was convinced the University should not do so. Are there political consequences to thanking the Governor for the recommendation--but declining it because the construction debt would jeopardize the University's bond rating? Is that a possibility?
The President said his approach is to say that the University will not go beyond its bonding capacity. What it will do is explore private fund-raising opportunities or ways of financing such an obligation over whatever time would be necessary. It is a dilemma--the University wants to move ahead with an important capital project, but must do so in ways that are fiscally responsible. Asked if he would
"hold fast" on the limit that was compellingly presented earlier, the President said that is his stance. The
University will not increase its bonding liability but will look at every possibility of funding the projects in some other ways--and with the proviso that fund-raising for the Carlson School of Management is the top priority.
There is an additional component to the recommendation, it was noted by another Committee member. It is to the credit of Dr. Infante, who has sensitized the Committee to the issue of deferred maintenance, that there must be a concern about the maintenance expenses of the new facilities. Would that alter the projected budget--and can the University afford to maintain the new buildings? The
President agreed this was a good question and said that the University has a long-range plan and a sense of the magnitude of what would need to be budgeted if the buildings were to be built. These are critical facilities, he said, and if the University can obtain them, it will accept the liability of the maintenance costs. Getting these big projects out of the way will also permit the University to get on with others that are also critical.
One concern that has been raised by professional school faculty, related one Committee member, is that in the SIP effort, the kind of support they need in order to contribute to undergraduate education
"does not look very sexy." There are costs incurred, for example, in increasing the number of times a popular course is offered at an undergraduate level--faculty members may be on soft money or doing so may require a change in the way they spend their time. There are also duplicating costs, TA costs, etc.-those don't look exciting as investment opportunities. But if the notion is that the whole University will focus more on undergraduate education, one can be afraid that the professional schools "will be left out in the cold." There is no mechanism in place to get those faculty involved, even though people are excited about being asked. The need is for small amounts of money; is there a way to increase undergraduate education opportunities in the professional schools?
This was addressed in the liberal educational proposals, the President observed, although only marginally; the desirability of professional school involvement in undergraduate education was clear.
The problem with funding is that basic programs have been so under-funded that it has been hard to allocate money to draw on the professional schools. But these could be basic undergraduate activities, it was pointed out; the President agreed. He said that he had no simple answer about how to budget for such involvement. Vice President Hopkins has funds for strategic investment, and the SIP could be used, but there is no obvious mechanism.
The concern, it was said, is that if the liberal education component of undergraduate education is to be re-focused, there are faculty in several professional schools who would like to submit proposals--

Faculty Consultative Committee
February 3, 1994
7 but who cannot because they cannot fund them. Professor Heller related that both Vice Presidents
Hopkins and Petersen have spoken with SCEP; in the most recent presentation, SCEP mentioned to Dr.
Petersen that there must be more interaction between the research and professional components with the undergraduate component. She recognizes this, he reported, and there seems to be a structural problem.
SCEP has been trying to make the point that people who are active in research and professional schools must be involved in undergraduate education. There needs to be a mechanism to provide small amounts of money to do so.
It was then pointed out that it is in the professional schools where there are more likely to be opportunities to involve undergraduates in research--because they have a lot of ongoing research funding.
The President agreed that this would be desirable and reported that Dr. Petersen is talking with Medical
School representatives, for example, to discuss this very issue.
It needs to be linked to the SIP, it was said, because that is the only quick way that the University could do it as a priority without penalizing departments or colleagues for becoming involved. The
President expressed doubt about the use of the SIP, suggesting it would be too blunt an instrument. It would be better to encourage the activity through Vice President Hopkins, using strategic funds under her control. That will be difficult, it was rejoined, because the effort involves multiple vice presidents.
Asked about the supplemental request, the President said it would be primarily non-recurring. A limited amount would be recurring funds.
When facilities such as Mechanical Engineering are remodeled, is there attention given to
GENERAL University classroom needs? Are those needs factored into renovation so that general-use classrooms are included? The President said he did not know if the plans for Architecture or Mechanical
Engineering take that need into account. Generally, some of the classrooms in such facilities go into the
University classroom pool. The special request to the legislature, he added, will probably include funds for classroom upgrades.
One Committee member then posed a long series of questions about funds for undergraduate instruction and how they seem to be aligned in ways that are unrelated to the mission. One can be concerned that when the Committee met with Vice President Petersen, and she was asked if she ever talked with Dean Julia Davis about the fact that a substantial portion of CLA efforts are related to graduate, professional, and outreach activities, Dr. Petersen said she had never had such a conversation.
The problem is that the money goes to the college with the presumption that it's instructional money--and all of this other "stuff" that the faculty is expected to do is somehow just supposed to happen. The
University doesn't have program budgets; it has chunks of money handed to departments; they are then expected to do the right thing for the University.
But sometimes, it was continued, what the faculty want to do, or what the department heads think ought to be done--or what the dean expects to be done--might get done or it might not--but the money isn't aligned with the missions. This is a continuing problem. Departments with substantial graduate programs are often badgered that their student credit hours or degree production numbers don't compare well with other units that have a different activity mix. Dr. Infante has been badgering some of the college that their degree production and their student credit hours are out of line in comparison with other colleges. That statement suggests an implicit argument used by central administration that these ratios

Faculty Consultative Committee
February 3, 1994
8 are somehow supposed to be "in line." It isn't clear what that means. But as the University goes forward in the planning effort, if attention is not paid to the fact that money should match up with mission, and the incentives should correspond to money and mission, the University can do all the central planning it wants but it won't get the desired outcomes.
Further, when the point is made about increasing the GPA for admissions, for example, and the implications doing so would have for enrollment, one implication of the QUESTION is that since budgets follow enrollments, if a unit decides to do something about student quality, it may be jeopardizing their budget. There has been little conversation in the planning activities on how these things ought to be connected. If the University is to go to the health sciences and ask them to become involved in undergraduate instruction, will they be asked to donate on an overtime basis? Or will they be asked to divert time from their professional or research or outreach activities? Again, the answer is not clear. But if there is going to be a budget attached to undergraduate instruction, and it can be reallocated within the University to accomplish institutional goals, that's fine. But that should be made clear. And while that is being done, maybe the University ought to also pay attention to the fact that it does NOT currently have budgets for graduate education--it is assumed that it will happen and that it will be one of the "freebies" the University gets.
That, another Committee member said, is the opposite of the professional schools' problem--they have only graduate students and any undergraduate teaching they do must come on the margin. But that tends to be more expensive teaching because TAs are needed and other things.
This, it was then said, is tied up with concerns about salary. When people worry about the 6%, and when so much conversation is devoted to the raise they did or did not get, behind that anxiety is a sense that they are doing things they ought to be doing--but for which they're not being recognized. They read the mission statement of the University and devote their energies to accomplishing it--and something happens at the unit level to thwart that activity. There is no linkage here. This seems to be at the core of the effort the President is leading, and yet the connections are not there so that incentives are affected.
This is a cause for concern, and so is the answer from Vice President Petersen that she had never had a conversation with Dean Davis about these issues--or, perhaps, with the Dean of IT, which also has a large number of graduate programs. There is no money attached to them, despite the fact that professional agendas are tightly aligned with how successful one is as a faculty member.
There is no time to answer these questions now but they should be a matter of concern. The
President responded that they were clearly related to the University's management capability; it also has to do with the varied sources of funding for some faculty members, and budgeting for separate activities is difficult in any event. Perhaps it is time to go beyond assignment of lump sums to colleges, which then make discretionary decisions about departments, which also make discretionary decisions. Those decisions must be delegated to a certain extent; the central administration, he pointed out, cannot make all the decisions. It does raise the question of how different levels interact and how appropriate responsibility is assigned at each level. This is a fundamental management issue and the answers are not clear. It is especially important when resources are scarce and priorities must be set; it is more important that the right investments are made.
The President affirmed that the special request to the legislature will have funds for the coordinate campuses.

Faculty Consultative Committee
February 3, 1994
9
Professor Garrard thanked the President for joining the Committee.
3. Conflict of Interest Policy
Professor Garrard next welcomed Associate Vice President Brenner to discuss the most recent draft of the Conflict of Interest (hereinafter COI) policy.
Dr. Brenner began by commenting that there were only a couple of small changes in the policy and this draft reflects the comments of the Senate Research Committee, which met the preceding day.
Professor Garrard reported that she had asked Dr. Brenner to respond to questions from Professor Fred
Morrison; one had to do with the definition of family and the disclosure required because of activities of family members.
Dr. Brenner said he had added a footnote to the policy. A number of people were concerned about the definition of "family" in the policy; it appeared that the University would be best-served by having as inclusive a definition of family as possible. The reality, though, is that with respect to disclosure, it is difficult to hold people accountable for the actions of their parents or of children no longer living in their household or of siblings--one does not know what they are doing in the stock market, for example. How can one be held accountable for them? This is the argument that Professor Morrison and others were making.
The decision was that there is family and then there is family: The proposal is a definition of (1) immediate family, which includes a spouse, children who are claimed as dependents on the tax return, and domestic partner, and (2) extended family, which includes children who do not qualify as dependents for tax purposes, parents, and siblings. The implications lie with disclosure, of which there are two types, depending on the relationship of the family members to the individual. One is not expected to know about stock dividends, for example, received by an extended family member--although one is expected to know if such a family member holds an executive position or holds 10% or more interest in a business with which the faculty member is involved financially or through research.
If this is an attempt to eliminate loopholes, said one Committee member, what about investing a lot of money in the name of children and then not claiming them as dependents? Dr. Brenner said he had thought about that possibility and concluded it is not likely that children would be that involved in such activities. Other Committee members contended that the existing language provided sufficient guidance.
Another major concern raised by Professor Morrison, Dr. Brenner reported, was a delineation between full-time and part-time employees. The policy does so, but does not go as far as some would prefer. An academic employee does not include those appointed solely for the purpose of classroom instruction responsible for no more than two courses annually. [This language has since been removed.]
A related concern has to do with a prohibition on professional referrals to a business in which the academic employee or family member has a financial interest; this prohibition has been limited to fulltime employees. Part-time academic employees may make referrals but must go through the disclosure and approval process. Professor Morrison still does not like this, saying it is too restrictive, and would

Faculty Consultative Committee
February 3, 1994
10 prefer only that disclosure is required. The Senate Research Committee, however, believes that for fulltime employees, their prime responsibility is to the University and referrals are inappropriate--one should not be making referrals to one's other business.
The use of the term "family" in the policy, without qualifier, includes both immediate and extended family members. This has been a little confusing, Dr. Brenner agreed, but the alternative is a considerably wordier document.
One Committee member inquired about a hypothetical example. If a faculty member owns IBM stock, and serves on a department committee to purchase computers--which committee decides to buy
IBM computers--is self-referral required? It is not, Dr. Brenner said, but is prohibited for other reasons-and one must own 1% of IBM to be covered by the prohibition of participating in a purchasing process if one has a financial interest. So, it was said, anyone who receives $5000 per year from IBM stock cannot sit on a committee that deals with computers? That is correct, Dr. Brenner affirmed, if the committee deals with purchasing. That is already state law. Some Committee members expressed varying degrees of skepticism about this requirement; Dr. Brenner repeated that this is state law and this policy only reminds people of it.
What if the faculty member consults with IBM and earns $5000 per year; would that relationship preclude service on the purchasing committee? It would, Dr. Brenner affirmed.
A number of other points were made about the policy in the discussion:
-- It was suggested that the definition of part-time employee should be consistent throughout the policy. Dr. Brenner concurred.
--
--
There is an appeals process.
If one has a question about the policy: Dr. Brenner said another concern is about the possible onerousness of the disclosure form; the model is one used at the University of
Illinois; it includes identification of who to call with questions. At present that office or individual has not been identified at the University; the central officers will have to decide who should. ORTTA handles questions now. He said he will draft a form, for review by the Academic Integrity Committee and the General Counsel's office.
Professor Carl Adams reported that the Committee on Faculty Affairs has reviewed the policy and generally applauds Dr. Brenner's efforts. One point SCFA made is that there will be a move (1) from a set of standards, breeches of which one reports, to (2) a process of prior approval. This clearly moves to prior approval and the faculty will sense that shift. SCFA concluded this may be necessary. Dr. Brenner said that characterization is not quite correct; current procedures require prior approval. Perhaps, it was said, but this will be seen as a shift.
Second, Professor Adams said, SCFA believed it important for the faculty to see this as positive and beneficial for them, not big brother checking up on them. Somewhere that should be made clear-that one reason the University is doing this is so that if people follow these procedures, and if someone challenges them, the University will bring its full efforts in support of the faculty member. Dr. Brenner

Faculty Consultative Committee
February 3, 1994
11 agreed and said that notion had been included, although perhaps the point has not been made strongly enough.
Dr. Brenner deserves almost sole authorship credit for the policy, observed one Committee member, but the group that talked about the policy saw it primarily as a document to protect faculty members in a situation which is increasingly uncertain and in which many people outside the University-for example, on newspapers--have a very different idea of how it ought to conduct its business. The full consensus of the committee was this is a document to protect faculty members. That statement should be made when the document is introduced at the Faculty Senate meeting, Professor Garrard asserted; it was agreed that Professors Carl Adams and Karen Seashore Louis would make the initial statements.
One point that is still confusing, it was then said, is the difference between conflicts and potential conflicts. The language should not talk about identifying conflicts of interest--under the terms of the policy, one must then plead the Fifth, because they are prohibited. It must call for disclosing
POTENTIAL conflicts of interest.
Other points were:
--
--
The imagery of big brother should be avoided.
The intent of the policy is that even potential conflicts that are not itemized in the report should be reported.
-- There needs to be clearer language in the report about what a faculty member should DO to comply with the policy--about what operational steps should be taken with respect to each of the categories of possible conflicts. (Category I, exempt activities, do not by definition require disclosure.)
One Committee member observed that the definitions try to do two things, define both relationships and activities; the problem arises when the activities are juxtaposed with the relationships.
The relationships without activities are no problem, the activities without relationships are no problem, but if one has certain relationships and engages in certain activities, then provisions of this policy could apply. There is nothing wrong with the policy but it would help to sharpen up these issues.
One Committee member recalled that the General Research Advisory Committee of the Graduate
School had a problem for a long time with people in the creative arts business use University money to produce works of art--and once produced, the person owned the work. This could be a sculptor, artist, painter. Questions have arisen about residual University rights of ownership since the works were produced as part of their job.
The policy appears to cover royalties for creative works, such as a photograph, but not for the photograph itself--which may be sold to a gallery. The language of the policy is not fully clear when it speaks of products from a specific job assignment--because one of the "job assignments" of a studio arts professor is to produce works of art. There is an ambiguity that is not covered. Has this question come up in the discussions about the policy?

Faculty Consultative Committee
February 3, 1994
12
Dr. Brenner said that there had been discussion earlier about this issue; the question is whether it belongs in this policy or in one that will be developed on intellectual property. In the case of intellectual property, when there has been a University investment in a work that generates income, should the rewards be shared? The rules are clear on patents, it was pointed out. This is a soft spot, Dr. Brenner agreed, that needs to be addressed. The existing language of the policy is directed at people who, for example, are directed to produce a study guide--it is not intended to impose restrictions on faculty members. The person who produces the study guide should not then be allowed to market it under his or her own name.
One Committee member expressed a concern about the blanket requirement to report all possible conflicts of interest, irrespective of whether or not covered by the categories outlined in the policy.
Some administrator could, in the future, describe any activity as regulated. It is understandable what the intent of the policy is, but the language could be construed as a hunting license; time should be spent developing parameters to ensure that does not happen.
As things become more and more complicated, said another, there is a need for a clearer statement on intellectual property. People in the sciences, for example, feel that those who write books have an unfair advantage--one can write a textbook and make a lot of money, it is done on University time, perhaps even with a grant, and yet the faculty member owns all the rights. If a patent is obtained, however, ownership is shared with the University. There are tensions that need to be resolved, and resolved in print. It may be that the present situation is what ought to be retained, but that needs to be addressed--and this policy is not the place for it. There are even a variety of ways to implement existing policy, pointed out another Committee member.
It would make sense for the University to reserve the right to expand the activities covered by the three categories set out by the policy, and to codify that reservation in the policy. But faculty members who have no intent to defraud or engage in a prohibited activity should not be subject to sanctions under this policy.
The policy, said another Committee member, makes it clear that department heads and deans have the responsibility to monitor what faculty members are doing, based on their disclosures, and to provide them with reasonable advice. That reasoning would apply in some parts of the University, but not others, it was responded; faculty chairs in some places do NOT know what their professors are doing and few will read this policy. That is why the document must be clear, reasonable, and "keeps us out of prison," but there is reason to worry about sanctions where they were not intended. Those instances must require evaluation. The two chairs on the committee that developed the policy, it was reported, said the responsibility HAD to be on the chairs--or the policy would be too onerous. Some chairs don't want the responsibility, it was said, because it creates too many conflicts--but, it was rejoined, the chairs already have responsibilities to monitor conflicts of commitment.
Are the Category I, allowable activities, those which have no potential for conflict of interest? If so labelled, it would include more than what is enumerated. What is the category, really, and where is the talk about limits? Dr. Brenner responded said Category I activities are not seen as posing a potential conflict of interest. This again is the JUXTAPOSITION of the activity and the financial interest; in some cases, the policy says the relationship between the two is so minor--even if a "conflict of interest"--that it does not meet any threshold of concern.

Faculty Consultative Committee
February 3, 1994
13
One problem with this policy is that it "skates on intellectual slavery." There is nowhere a definition of work time or using University tools or anything--faculty members are completely fettered in all of their sleeping and waking moments as to what they produce. Faculty have signed over every part of their life to the University. Dr. Brenner demurred; the policy only regulates those activities for which the individual has been hired. If one has other activities unrelated to one's professional responsibilities at the University, they are not covered.
This misses the substantial point, again. There is NO prohibited activity if there is no corresponding financial interest and there is NO prohibited financial interest if there is no corresponding activity. What is prohibited or questioned are certain COMBINATIONS of activity and interest.
The language about research activity, it was then pointed out, is essentially a prior restraint on anything one might get. If there develops a financial benefit from one's research in the future, the policy nonetheless requires that one should have filed a report and obtained approval. Everything has the
POTENTIAL for financial benefit; one doesn't know. Dr. Brenner said he understood the concern and that the wording would be changed.
If someone appeals the dean's decision to the Conflict Review Committee (CRC), and the dean then acts contrary to the recommendation of the CRC, what then? Within the provisions of this policy, that would be the end of the matter, Dr. Brenner said, although one might be able to then use the
University's grievance procedures. The CRC is only advisory.
It was suggested that a small subgroup of this Committee meet with Dr. Brenner to mark up the document so it can be supported by FCC when it is brought to the Faculty Senate. If it is brought to the
Faculty Senate as now written, it will not pass. Another Committee member said that NO changes can be made that will satisfy everyone because there are sensitive issues involved; one more review and mark up will NOT eliminate concerns that might be brought up in the Senate--nor will they significantly improve the document. But there are changes that have been suggested today, it was pointed out, that people seem to agree on. But some of those changes, it was argued, would make the document unacceptable either to the Regents or the administration.
What if the Faculty Senate were to move to hold over action on the policy until later in the spring? one Committee member inquired. The Board of Regents have been asking for some time about the policy, Dr. Brenner said. Would reasonable progress be sufficient for the Board? he was asked. Another problem, Dr. Brenner said, is that there are activities being proposed in a number of colleges, and those colleges are looking for guidance. He said he knew of at least two faculty who have left the University because of an over-zealous interpretation of existing policy; the University will be harmed by not having a policy in place. One Committee member observed that this policy is looser than interpretations of current policy that exists in some colleges.
It was agreed (1) that Dr. Brenner would meet with Professors Carl Adams, Bognanno, and Heller,
(2) that if the subcommittee and Dr. Brenner could reach agreement on the language of the policy, this
Committee would consider it approved for the Faculty Senate docket; and (3) that the revised draft would be mailed to members of the Faculty Senate next week.

Faculty Consultative Committee
February 3, 1994
14
It is ironic that some of those who will object to the policy, on the floor of the Faculty Senate, it was observed, are those who have a conflict of interest. Is it appropriate to ask them to disclose their interests? Asking people if they would be affected by this policy, before they comment on the floor of the Faculty Senate, would be wise, said one Committee member. Some people will oppose it because they want it tighter, believing all controls have been removed; others because they want no oversight whatsoever. Both of those positions need to be understood.
Committee members discussed how the policy should be presented to the Faculty Senate. It was moved, seconded, and unanimously voted that it should be for discussion and action. One Committee member pointed out that many faculty have already seen it; this is not a new document.
Dr. Brenner distributed for information his first draft of the disclosure form on which he is working.
Professor Garrard thanked Dr. Brenner for meeting with the Committee; Committee members gave him a round of applause for his work on the policy. Professor Garrard then adjourned the meeting at
12:15.
University of Minnesota
-- Gary Engstrand