These minutes reflect discussion and debate at a meeting of
a committee of the
Minutes
Faculty Consultative Committee
Thursday, May 19, 2005
1:15 – 3:30
238A Morrill Hall
Present:
Marvin Marshak (chair), Gary Balas, Susan Brorson, Jean
Bauer, Charles Campbell, Nancy Carpenter, Carol Chomsky, Tom Clayton, Gary
Davis, Barbara Elliott, Dan Feeney, Mary Jo Kane, Kathleen Krichbaum, Scott
Lanyon, Judith Martin, Fred Morrison, Jeff Ratliff-Crain, Steve Ruggles, Martin
Sampson, John Sullivan, Jennifer Windsor
Absent:
Emily Hoover, Morris Kleiner
Guests:
President Robert Bruininks;
Senior Vice President and Provost E. Thomas Sullivan; Vice President Carol
Carrier
Other:
Kathryn Stuckert (Office of
the Chief of Staff); Joe Kelly (Office of the Vice President for Human
Resources), Shelley Carthen Watson (Office of the General Counsel)
[In these minutes: (1) election of 05-06 vice chair; (2)
legislative liaison; (3) task force names; (4) Regents Professorships; (5)
discussion with President Bruininks; (6) thank you; (7) discussion with Provost
Sullivan; (8) statement on strategic planning; (9) Advisory Committee on
Athletics; (10) Benefits Advisory Committee; (11) UMC collective bargaining
election; (12) Senate clerk and parliamentarian; (13) another thank you]
Professor Marshak convened the meeting at 1:15 and began
by welcoming the new members of the Committee:
Professor Carpenter from Morris, Professor Elliott from the
1. Election
of the 2005-06 FCC Vice Chair
The Committee elected Regents Professor John Sullivan to
serve as vice chair for 2005-06.
2. Legislative
Liaison
Professor Marshak said that the incoming chair of the
Committee, Professor Bauer, should play the lead role in identifying the structure
and appointees to the legislative liaison role.
3. Task
Force Names
Professor Marshak said the President wishes not to
solicit nominations for the various strategic planning task forces until the
Regents act in June because it would be inappropriate to pre-judge what the
Board may do. The Committee can,
however, publicize the fact that it will be soliciting names, including
self-nominations, if the Board approves the strategic positioning
recommendations from the President. He
said that individuals from outside the University could be nominated, although
he noted that the Committee has already spoken strongly in favor of faculty
majorities and faculty chairs or co-chairs of all the task forces. He asked that Committee members continue to
forward names of individuals they would recommend for task forces.
4. Regents
Professorships
Professor Marshak reported that he had raised with the
President the questions that the Committee has posed concerning the Regents
Professorships. There is an administrative
plan to increase the number of Regents Professorships from 20 to 30 and to
increase the stipend/research support from $25,000 to $50,000. Members of this Committee have suggested that
the stipend/research support should be for a fixed term (e.g., 10 years) but
that an individual keep the title for as long as he or she is on the faculty. Professor Morrison said he would encourage
the President to adopt a term limit on the financial support and move to a
practice of appointing three Regents Professors per year. Professor Campbell said he would not favor
anything that would reduce the stature of the Regents Professors; with respect
to Professor Morrison's suggestion, he wondered if a requirement of selecting
three per year might mean appointment of someone who might not otherwise have
been selected.
Professor Martin asked what the two Regents Professors on
the Committee thought. Professor
Sullivan said his reaction would depend on the purpose of the change. Since the Regents Professorships were begun,
there have been five levels of McKnight Professorships also created. The latter were intended to help the
University with faculty retention. The
Regents Professorships were never intended to be for retention but were instead
a capstone to a career. The McKnight
Professorships are designed to develop and retain faculty; the Regents
Professorship is a quite different award, not a carrot to affect
performance. What is the purpose of
imposing a limit on the financial support?
If it is because too many of the current Regents Professors seem to be
too old and not taking a leadership role on major issues, it seems like it is a
mildly punitive proposal.
Professor Balas said he brought this issue up three years
ago. Awarding a Regents Professorship is
an opportunity to celebrate faculty accomplishments; without a mandatory
retirement age, there are too few such opportunities at the level of Regents
Professor. There is nothing subtracted
from the award if the financial support is limited to ten years.
5. Discussion
with President Bruininks
Professor Marshak welcomed the President to the
meeting. The discussion began with the
appointment of and remits to the strategic positioning task forces. The President said he will work with the
Committee on what the task forces will do and who will be appointed—but not
before the Board of Regents acts on the strategic positioning
recommendations. Up to that time, the
Committee might give some thought to key issues and people who might serve, and
the architecture of the groups and subgroups, but no formal action will be
taken that would pre-empt the decisions of the Regents. Whatever task forces are eventually appointed
will work most intensively during fall semester; the President said he would
set aside one-time money to support their work.
The
President agreed with a suggestion from Professor Campbell that there ought to
be a coordinating committee and that it should include any task forces
appointed to follow through on the administrative as well as the academic
recommendations. The President also
assured the Committee, in response to a query from Professor Morrison, that
there should be and will be interaction between the task forces and governance
committees as the work of the task forces moves forward. He also agreed that the deadlines for the
task forces can be open to discussion; he would like, in any event, a
preliminary report by the December deadline.
He said he would like to press on the recommendations concerning
undergraduate education so that they can be implemented for the 2006-07
academic year.
In
terms of task force size and composition, the President noted that he has the
recommendations from this Committee. He
said the task forces will be balanced, as appropriate. He observed that the majority of the work of
appointing and assisting the task forces will be in the Provost's office. More on these topics can be discussed once
the Regents have acted in June. Of greatest
concern is framing the issues in order that the task forces get done what is
necessary. The President also said that
the issues would be brought to FCC and other key Senate committees.
Professor
Windsor asked if the task force recommendations would affect budget
allocations. They should, the President
said. If there are cost savings from
restructuring, those funds should be segregated, reinvested in University
priorities, and tracked. He said he
expected that all task forces would come up with ideas and all will assume the
University will spend more money on them—or spend money in different ways.
The
Committee and the President discussed the outcome of the legislative
session. The numbers are better than
they have been for some time, the President commented, and while that does not
mean the University is flush with money or that it has made up what it lost, it
does mean the institution is in a decent position. The President said he would like to appoint a
working group at the end of the summer to rethink the University's budget
strategy vis-à-vis the state. The
Committee also discussed tuition rates and the campus at
The
President again thanked the Committee for its help this year, and extended a
special thanks to Professors Morrison and Sampson, who spent much time at the
legislature on behalf of the University.
Professor Marshak thanked the President for joining the meeting.
6. Thank
You
Professor Martin, following up on the President's comment, moved
that the Committee thank its legislative liaisons, Professors Morrison and
Sampson, for their steady work and for keeping the faculty so well informed
about legislative issues. The Committee
gave both colleagues a vigorous round of applause.
7. Discussion
with Provost Sullivan
Professor Marshak next welcomed the Provost to the
meeting.
The Provost began his comments by also extending thanks
to Professors Morrison and Sampson for the enormous amount of work they had
done in
Discussion turned to the appointment of the strategic
positioning task forces. Professor
Chomsky raised again the questions about how they would be appointed, how this
Committee would be involved, and how the faculty would be able to express
interest in serving on them. The
Provost, like the President, observed that no action will be taken in advance
of Regental action in June, but made a few comments about the task forces, and
said he would work with the Committee on their appointment and charge. The Committee discussed with the Provost
possible problems caused by his suggestion of taking existing staff members and
significant numbers of the best faculty for a large number of task forces. He reassured the Committee that there were
resources available and he would be mindful of these issues.
With respect to recent actions by the Faculty
Senate: the Provost said he believed
that exit interviews with faculty is an excellent idea and he will work on a
mechanism to conduct them; he is sympathetic to the request that the two-year waiting
period for new faculty for the Faculty Retirement Plan be dropped and that Vice
President Carrier is looking at the issues; he is also sympathetic to the
tuition benefit for dependents but this is a more complicated issue and also
has the problem of unequal benefits (for those without dependents). He said that he is not sure the evidence is
in that the University is losing or unable to recruit faculty because of the
lack of a tuition benefit. One
alternative might be to look at such a benefit for employees in lower-income
brackets.
Professor Marshak thanked the Provost for joining the
meeting.
8. Statement
on Strategic Positioning
The Committee agreed it wished to adopt a statement for
the Regents about strategic positioning.
Through email exchanges in the two days following the meeting, the
Committee unanimously approved the following statement:
The Faculty Consultative Committee
strongly supports the strategic-positioning recommendations that the President
has presented to the Board of Regents for approval at the June
meeting. The Committee views the
recommendations as a package. While each of you, and indeed each of us, may
have individual opinions about specific elements of the President's proposals,
the Committee believes that the recommendations should be viewed as a comprehensive
plan representing the President's vision for the University and that the
Regents should consider them as a whole, not individually. And the Committee strongly urges that the
recommendations be acted on as soon as possible. Uncertainty attending any delay would affect
adversely the University's ability to attract and retain outstanding faculty,
staff, and students. It would also
undermine the authority of the President and defer for years any systematic
efforts to improve the University.
The University Senate voted overwhelmingly
(120 yes to 3 no) to support the strategic positioning recommendations to the
President, and the President's recommendations to the Regents are strengthened
by their incorporation of suggestions made in the course of Senate debate. The
University Senate is the representative body of faculty and students; 80% of
its members are elected by the faculty and 20% by the students. The faculty members come from all colleges on
the Twin Cities campus as well as from the Morris and
The Committee believes that most
faculty members view President Bruininks's recommendations as only first steps
toward the goal you adopted of becoming one of the top three
public research universities. They are, however, critical first
steps. If they are not taken, the goal
will not be reached. If you approve the
President's recommendations, the members of the University community will work
together both to implement these changes and to plan the many additional steps
needed in the future to reach the goal.
Professor Marshak said he would send
the statement to the Regents.
9. Advisory
Committee on Athletics
The Committee agreed on the names of individuals who it
would ask to agree to be nominated as chair of the Advisory Committee on
Athletics. Professor Marshak said he
would contact them.
The Committee also agreed to propose a bylaw change for
the Advisory Committee on Athletics changing the designated decanal seat to one
that could be filled either by a faculty member or a dean. The problem has been that deans have so many demands
on their time that they are typically unable to attend meetings of the Advisory
committee.
10. Benefits
Advisory Committee
The Committee agreed on the names of four faculty members
to be nominated to serve on the Benefits Advisory Committee.
11. The
Crookston Bargaining Election
Professor Marshak welcomed Vice President Carrier to the
meeting to discuss the recent collective bargaining election at the Crookston
campus. She was joined by her Chief of
Staff, Joe Kelly, and Shelley Carthen Watson from the Office of the General
Counsel. Vice President Carrier asked
that the discussion be off the record.
12. Senate
Clerk and Parliamentarian
The Committee voted to recommend to the President the
reappointment of Professors Goldstein and Charles as Clerk and Parliamentarian
of the Senate.
13. Another
Thank You
Professor Bauer extended thanks to Professor Marshak for
his service as chair of the Committee, for being on target, consistent, and
tenacious, and for accomplishing as much as he did. She also thanked Professor Kane for her work
and especially her fun-loving approach to the discussions. She said she appreciated the steadiness of
both of them on behalf of FCC. The
Committee gave them a round of applause.
Professor Marshak adjourned the meeting at 3:45.
--
Gary Engstrand