Minutes of the Meeting

February 9, 1999

PRESENT:Muriel Bebeau (chair), Daniel Feeney (ex officio), Timothy Wiedmann, Carole Bland (ex officio), Judith Garrard, David Hamilton, Kathleen Krichbaum

REGRETS: Stephanie Valberg, Patricia Ferrieri

ABSENT: Frederic Hafferty

GUESTS: Katherine Johnston (Associate VP & CFO - AHC)

Professor Bebeau called the meeting to order and welcomed Katherine Johnston, Associate VP & CFO. Ms. Johnston then talked to the group about a presentation she conducts on University finance and how resource decisions are made and the connection between the strategic plan and the annual operating budget. She offered to meet again with the AHC FCC and do a condensed version of her 1.5 hour course. Members expressed an interest in doing this. Ms. Johnston also plans to do an article for the AHC News on the compact process. Members were receptive of receiving a draft of the article and providing her with input.

REPORT OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND PLANNING

Professor Daniel Feeney, chair of the Subcommittee on Finance and Planning provided an overview of the work of the subcommittee. Professor Feeney pointed out that he routinely copies the AHC FCC on matters the subcommittee is working on. He went on to report that at the beginning of the year the subcommittee developed a master list of issues. The compact and budget process was high on the list. He noted that over the past year the subcommittee has learned a lot. Professor Feeney commented that he didn't believe the subcommittee would have a great impact on the individual dollar decision because it occurs at the Dean level, however, the subcommittee is having input on the process. The subcommittee was instrumental in changing the process to include the consultation aspect of how the Deans get information from their faculty. The subcommittee concluded that the consultative process was quite weak. It is important that faculty are involved in the compact process and know about the process and deadlines. The compact process is an evolution and the institution will get better at it every year, it was said.

The subcommittee has also been quite active with respect to the strategic initiatives. The subcommittee determined that the Deans are the sources and there is a need to mesh the School's strategic plan and that of the AHC. Members of the subcommittee questioned whether the Deans knew that an AHC FCC Finance and Planning Subcommittee existed. The subcommittee relies heavily on Katherine Johnston to carry the issues back to the Senior VP and the Dean's Council. He indicated that information is flowing back and forth between these groups.

The subcommittee has also been working on salary structure within the AHC. The subcommittee believes that there should be some degree of uniformity, not that everyone's salary structure will be the same, but identify parts of an individual's salary that may not be guaranteed year-to-year and those parts that are basically guaranteed but not locked into the tenure contract.

One member asked if the subcommittee has talked about doing something about defining consistency and the base on a faculty's salary. Professor Feeney responded that the discussion was limited because they couldn't get an objective idea of how the various items are evaluated and structured in the colleges. This lead to a discussion about faculty salaries and how the legislature might have an inaccurate picture of faculty salaries because there is no generic definition. It was agreed there needs to be a better definition of base salary across the institution. Professor Feeney indicated he would take this issue back to the subcommittee and ask that it consider forwarding a recommendation to the Senate Committee on Finance & Planning.

The subcommittee has considered the issue regarding the "staffing model" in the Medical School and provided Katherine with input. The subcommittee talked about the definition of a core staff. It was noted that if this model works in the Medical School it most likely would be applied to other schools in the AHC. Professor Feeney pointed out that many of the conceptions that people had about how the model worked were not correct. The subcommittee intends to write an article for the AHC News informing faculty that consultation did take place and communicate it in such a way that faculty understand it better.

Professor Hamilton reported that Grants Management is collaborating with Katherine to do a staffing model study based on the business process redesign. Epidemiology currently is participating in the process. The results from the study should be universally applicable and should fit in with any financial transaction process within the institution, Professor Hamilton said. Financial Forms Nirvana is now the University standard for doing financial transactions and mandated in grants. The Dean in the School of Public Health has sent a notice saying that there will be a surcharge on any forms filed that were not Nirvana. Departments using Nirvana on a regular basis speak very favorably of it, Professor Hamilton added.

Ms. Johnston interjected that most of the savings from using Forms Nirvana will occur in central organizations. She explained that every time a person submits an invoice it goes to a central organization and it has to be keyed in. Antidotal studies show that there could be a 50% error rate - which means that 50% of the forms submitted have to be reworked. Putting the forms in at the source point saves the central organization the extra work. The AHC anticipates saving the central organization between $300,000 - $500,000 annually when it is fully up and running on Forms Nirvana. Savings will only be maximized if everyone participates, Ms. Johnston said. In the Vet School, 95% of the forms are now submitted by Forms Nirvana. Other Schools at in the range of 10%. She explained that the monies charged to individuals who fail to use Forms Nirvana would be captured and reinvested so that other processes can be simplified.

One member expressed concern regarding training. Ms. Johnston responded that classes have been offered over the past year and unfortunately most of the classes were empty. She added that they also recognize that not everyone learns the same way and that efforts are underway to consider alternative learning formats other than the classroom such as desktop training. Information about this effort is being handled initially by the Focus Grants Management Departments.

Professor Hamilton reported that 70,000 documents have been processed on Forms Nirvana since last year; 10,000 of those documents were processed last month. EGEMS is the forms generation software package written for grants and 30% of the submissions in January were either wholly or in part electronic.

Professor Feeney then concluded his report by adding that the subcommittee is looking at tenure/tenure-track/clinical and term appointments across the various units and what the trends have been. The Faculty Affairs Subcommittee is also looking into this issue. Professor Hamilton added that NIH submissions have gone down in the clinical departments as well as the total amount of money and the basic sciences have slightly increased. Professors Feeney and Bland asked Professor Hamilton to forward this information to them.

OTHER ITEMS

• Professor Hamilton is working with Shih-PauYen, Director of Academic and Distributing Computing Services to develop listserves for each of the AHC FCC members' collegiate unit.
• Professor Bebeau received five nominations for the Grant Review Panel and will pass them on to Sr. VP Cerra.
• Members talked about the confusion that exists regarding the role of the Dean's Council in the awarding of grants. It is important that the AHC FCC member attending the Dean's Council meeting at which grants are discussed report back to the faculty.
• Professor Bebeau will attend the Dean's Council meeting on March 23 for Professor Krichbaum.
• Workshops regarding effective consultation will be conducted spring quarter with deans, department heads and faculty within the AHC.

REPORT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW OF THE DEAN OF THE SCHOOL OF NURSING

Members spent time discussing the report and the following points were raised:

• The public report reflects the process used but not the weight of the recommendations made by the committee.
• Sr. VP Cerra assured the Review Committee that Dean Edwardson would see both the recommendations of the committee and the raw data in its entirety. This did occur.
• Concern was expressed that a survey instrument was sent to 224 individuals and only 86 responded. How many tenured/tenure track faculty are in Nursing? What is the proportion of responses in each category? What process was used to get a good response rate? Professor Krichbaum who served on the Review Committee responded to some of the questions. She said there are 85 faculty - 48 are tenure/tenure track.
• Committee should provide Sr. VP Cerra with feedback about the review process
• Focus groups with students may be more effective than the survey.
• What are the outcomes of the recommendations made in the report?

AGENDA ITEMS FOR MEETING WITH SR. VP CERRA

• Review of the Dean of Nursing
• Timetable for future reviews
• FTE's
• Infrastructure to support distance education

Hearing no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 1:30.

Vickie Courtney

University of Minnesota

AHC