These minutes reflect discussion and debate at a meeting of
a committee of the
Notes
Faculty
Consultative Committee
Fall
Retreat
Tuesday-Wednesday
St.
Anthony Main Event Centre
Present:
Judith Martin (chair),
Gary Balas, Jean Bauer, Susan Brorson, Charles Campbell, Tom Clayton, Gary
Davis, Arthur Erdman, John Fossum, Emily Hoover, Mary Jo Kane, Marvin Marshak, Fred
Morrison, Jeff Ratliff-Crain, Martin Sampson, Carol Wells
Absent:
Dan Feeney, Marc
Jenkins
Guests:
President Robert Bruininks; Executive Vice President and Provost
Christine Maziar
Other:
Kathryn Stuckert (Office of the Vice President and Chief of
Staff); Dan Gilchrist (Office of the President)
[In these minutes: (1) reports from committee chairs; (2) the
intellectual future of the University (and its financial environment); (3)
other items of business and discussion]
1. Reports from Committee Chairs
Professor Martin
convened the retreat at
Professor
Campbell said that SCFP will deal with income (IRS taxes, IMG, the Enterprise
tax, and endowments) as well as expenditures (the annual budget for 2004-05,
the compact process, student financial aid, IMG, Facilities Management, debt
service, capital project management, cost accounting, subsidies, the Academic
Health Center-Mayo relationship, clinics for the practice plans, and a football
stadium). Other items suggested by
Committee members were the Coke contract and revenues and possible
destabilization of salary and health care issues depending on the outcome of
union negotiations.
With respect to
the last, Professor Morrison urged, and other Committee members agreed, that
the Committee should urge parity in treatment on salaries and benefits. Professor Marshak also urged that the
Committee take an active position vis-à-vis any on-campus Gopher football
stadium.
Professor Martin
turned next to Professor Hoover for the Senate Committee on Educational Policy
(SCEP). Professor Hoover said SCEP will
deal with calendar changes (a possible summer semester), starting spring
semester earlier, evaluation of instruction and electronic evaluations, and
graduation requirements/possible barriers to graduation/the 13-credit
rule. She also said, in response to a
query, that SCEP would try to evaluate the impact of budget cuts on education
(e.g., number of courses cut). Professor
Marshak also urged that SCEP look at improving quality because the University
must make money on undergraduate education (e.g., it might consider lower
non-resident tuition and increasing the number of non-resident students in
order to increase tuition income). Along
with this should be a consideration of retention, technology-enhanced learning,
and the effects of IMG and the IRS taxes.
Professor Martin
turned next to Professor Fossum for a report on the Senate Committee on Faculty
Affairs (SCFA). SCFA will look at staff
support and services for faculty work, faculty salaries in the Academic Health
Center (base/variable pay), dispute resolution procedures, faculty-General
Counsel relationships, privacy, course evaluations (with SCEP; their uses, the
degree to which they are public, and matters of civility), it will track
benefits issues (in an era when they will not increase), procedures for
reviewing administrators, and the acceptability of anonymous ballots in
departmental voting and administrator reviews.
What happens if the Equal Employment Opportunity/Affirmative Action
investigates and decides "you are bad," Professor Wells asked? Get an attorney, Professor Fossum
advised. To whom
is that office responsible, she asked?
Professor Martin suggested that SCFA
might wish to have a talk with Ms. Sweitzer, the head of the EEO/AA office,
about monitoring the ombuds function; Professor Fossum said it may also look
more closely at the grievance procedures, which are very adversarial.
Professor Martin finally turned to
Professor Balas for the Senate Research Committee (SRC). Professor Balas reported that SRC will look
at research secrecy (and will establish a standing subcommittee to deal with
requests for exemption from the Regents' policy barring secrecy in research),
funds from the legislature for research and how they will be allocated, the
agreement with Mayo Clinic, the St. Paul incubator/the Translational Research
Facility, searches for the Vice President for Research and for the Dean of the
Graduate School, conflict of commitment, PI eligibility, and the results of the
survey of those who have worked with the Institutional Review Board. SRC will also look at the policy on stem cell
research, the impact of IMG on cross-college collaboration, and the long-term
impact of budget cuts on research.
Conflict of commitment generated
considerable discussion at this meeting; the Committee agreed the subject
needed careful attention. SRC will
identify people to work with Interim Vice President Hamilton.
Professor Wells said that space
commitments may not follow in the case of research associates who obtain
grants. She asked that SRC consider
whether there ought to be a policy on the matter.
Professor Erdman
urged that SRC look into differentiating between guidelines for NIH research
and guidelines for donations from small groups.
The same requirements should not control a multi-million dollar research
grant and a donation of $5000.
Professor Martin
said that the Faculty Consultative Committee would be focusing on the budget,
on conflict of commitment, analysis of IMG and the way the University does its
finances, a football stadium, and if need be disinvestment in Israel. Professor Marshak said, apropos the budget,
the University needs to figure out a way to stop the state from continuing to
cut. Any cuts need to be tied to the
budgeting scheme (discussed at greater length later in the meeting).
2. Intellectual
Future (The Future of the
Professor Martin opened the second
afternoon discussion with an invitation to consider the intellectual future of
the University. The discussion turned
quickly to the environment in which public research universities,
and the
A summary of observations follows:
1. The
President should articulate a vision of what the University will be in five
years or 10 years in the face of likely continued budget cuts. It may be that
the University is becoming like
2. Our
intellectual future is inextricably linked to financing. But if we do not address intellectual
quality, the institution will go straight downhill. It was noted that
3. With
respect to securing funding for the University, there appear to be two basic
models in play: (1) The University should continue to seek state funding and
there is every reason to believe we can (and should) stay at current levels of
funding. There are perhaps three reasons why the University took an
unprecedented budget cut from the state: we are not making the right arguments,
we are making the right arguments but not making them well (e.g., our message
is not getting through), or we need to make different arguments; (2) The
University may not want to over-emphasize a strategy that would continue to
rely on attempting to capture significant state funds. No one is suggesting
abandoning the strategy of trying to secure state funds; we should attempt to
remain at current funding levels, but we must also recognize that a "new
day has dawned" in higher education. If the latter scenario is the case,
the University should consider additional strategies with respect to non-state
funds. In sum, if state support is unlikely to increase, and may very well
decrease, the University should begin a discussion about if (and how) large
public research universities can make the transition to semi-private status.
4. The
University is in a new era and needs to ask, among other things, what the
appropriate balance between undergraduate and graduate education is. Also, the
curriculum has evolved, fitting faculty interests more than efficient use of
space. The University needs to look at
specialization versus generalization as it considers curricular priorities.
5. The
Committee must work with the administration on educating the University
community about the effect of the cuts. There must be other ways to protect
quality and also do what is important to the state, and not just say that there
has been a paradigm change.
6. As
a utilitarian institution in a society with great material needs, the
University cannot talk about the value of ideas without being pushed into
talking about their application. But it is the freedom and ability to use the
mind to develop new ideas that is the most important single thing the
University teaches or enables.
7. The
University should clearly identify what activities the state funds support. The University needs a credible baseline to
compare this year with last, and there must be a consensus on what is
important. If the University cannot
identify for the legislature what happened as a result of the cuts, the
legislature will not worry about them. Across-the-board cuts are not the
appropriate approach to budget cuts.
8. What
does land-grant mean?
9. Universities
are one of the few places in the world that foster basic research. The focus of
many funding agencies is now on targeted research, on a product that can
sell. If the University loses basic
research, it will be lost for a generation.
How will it be possible to keep part of the University that allows
faculty to pursue ideas for their own sake?
10. The
people of
11. What
about accountability: to whom and for how long is the University accountable? Do Minnesotans understand that
research requires long-term commitments to people and the institution?
12. Of
the most recent U. S. News and World Report ranking of research universities,
the top 20 were private, 21st was
13. The
President has asked what makes the University unique in the state? The answer is that it is the undergraduate
experience and graduate education. The
University has to keep an eye on local private institutions; they could become
major players in graduate and professional education.
14. Undergraduate
education at the University is significantly improved. Students
report being very satisfied with their undergraduate education here. There is a danger that the University could
return to the 1980s, however--a reduction in course offerings, larger classes,
shabby classrooms, and so on.
15. The
University can avoid decline only by further increasing faculty effort. It
cannot tolerate another salary freeze.
16. Given
the fundamental shift in the environment for higher education, is it time to
reexamine -look at the structure of disciplines?
17. Is
there any idea of what the optimal size of a department is? Some thought 15 or
greater -- if it is smaller, things such as promotion and tenure become
personal. The maximum should be about
50.
18. It
is difficult for this group to articulate what the University should be; no
wonder it is difficult to describe to others. It is difficult to enunciate
models because they vary across colleges.
19. Unless
the governor and legislature are willing to increase appropriations, in two
years the University will face a cumulatively much worse the same situation
than it did this biennium.
3. Other Discussion (including with the
Executive Vice President and with the President)
-- It was agreed
that for the time being, the question of emeritus status for P&A staff
would be put on the back burner, but that SCFA should look at the role of
P&A in the life of the University and how they are engaged in the
University.
-- With Executive
Vice President and Provost Maziar, it was agreed that she would bring to the
Committee a list of cuts made in non-collegiate units.
-- The Committee
related for Dr. Maziar's benefit the gist of the
discussion it had had about the budget situation. Professor Marshak repeated his suggestion
that there should be a message from the Committee and the central
administration about the situation. The
University does not have a decade to respond, he maintained. Dr. Maziar agreed that the Committee could
help carry the message to departments about the way they deliver their core activities,
an activity that must include the deans, she said. Professor Erdman said the University has to
look at IMG at the same time.
-- With respect to
the curriculum, there needs to be a change in philosophy with respect to IMG,
Professor Balas said, so that departments are not penalized if students take
courses in other departments--AND that departments are penalized if they
duplicate offerings in other departments.
The model should be collaborative, not competitive, Professor Brorson
agreed, and that comes down to dollars:
there has to be a reward for collaboration. Professor Marshak said that the academic
advising staff will know the bottlenecks and problems in the curriculum.
-- As part of the
new funding paradigm, Professor Sampson said, universities need to be more
aggressive and assertive about their value to society and to be less
inward-focused. The legislature may not
recognize all that the University does for society; are there opportunities to
re-articulate the land-grant mission and why universities matter to the
community, in terms of both economic growth and open inquiry?
-- The Committee
may wish to continue to develop the vision it began to articulate earlier in
the meeting but it must be in partnership with the administration. Perhaps the Committee should consider a first
draft. Professor Sampson suggested the
Committee lay out a tentative vision, explore
different funding models, and said the vision cannot be drafted in a
vacuum--why should there be research universities? What is it important to keep one's eyes on,
what must be protected? Professor Erdman
urged the Committee take a more aggressive role in establishing the future of
the University. He also expressed
support for examining practices inside the University in order to create
efficiencies; the faculty should take this effort on and lead it, he said,
rather than letting others do it for them.
The accountability and productivity initiative reports are worthwhile
but they may not get at the issue Professor Erdman is raising.
-- The Committee
reviewed with the President and Regent Metzen the President's workplan for
2003-04. Major themes in the workplan
are increasing interdisciplinary work, keeping the University strong, improving
the quality of life for students, and the University's public mission.
-- The Committee
needs to think about what its position will be if the Governor decides to
appoint a Commission on Higher Education.
-- There has been no
systematic collection of data on the free contributions the University makes to
the community. It was suggested that
SCFA take up the issue of the free work the faculty and staff are doing for the
state. For the long term, this reporting
should be institutionalized; for the short term, it will be important for the
audit of faculty salaries.
-- The Committee
discussed possible changes to the Faculty Retirement Plan so it would not
appear to be out of line with other retirement plans. The President asked for advice from the
faculty and said the administration would be unwilling to propose changes
without faculty assent. Professor Fossum
pointed out that the University and the state are avoiding considerable
liability with the Faculty Retirement Plan because it is defined contribution
rather than defined benefit.
-- SCEP should
collate the things known to increase the quality of the student experience so
the University can leverage those things.
-- The University
needs to reframe the principles concerning a football stadium.
Professor Martin
adjourned the retreat on Wednesday at
--
Gary Engstrand