These minutes reflect discussion and debate at a meeting of
a committee of the
Minutes
Faculty Consultative Committee
Thursday, April 26, 2007
1:15 – 3:00
238A Morrill Hall
Present:
Carol Chomsky, (chair), Gary Balas, Jean Bauer, Nancy Carpenter,
William Durfee, Barbara Elliott, Emily Hoover, Jeff Kahn, Kathleen Krichbaum,
Scott Lanyon, Nelson Rhodus, Steven Ruggles, John Sullivan, Jennifer Windsor
Absent:
Megan Gunnar, Mary Jo Kane, Judith Martin, Richard
McCormick, Martin Sampson, Geoffrey Sirc
Guests:
University Librarian Wendy
Lougee; Professor John Adams, Mr. Chuck Denny, Vice President Karen Himle,
Professor Jeff Kahn (also present as a newly-elected FCC member), Professor
Kirt Wilson
Other:
Kathryn Stuckert (Office of
the Chief of Staff)
[In these minutes: (1) committee business (e.g., bylaw on
Faculty Senate membership, election of vice chair); (2) CIC statement on
authors' rights; (3) University culture task force report]
1. Committee
Business
Professor Chomsky convened the meeting at 1:20 and asked
Committee members to review the proposed revision to the Faculty Senate
constitution intended to clarify the eligibility of faculty-like P&A staff
and to extend eligibility to term faculty.
The Committee had been essentially unanimous in approving the language
by email, Professor Chomsky reported, but she wanted it to receive one more
review before being finally approved for the Faculty Senate docket.
The Committee also approved a proposed bylaw change which
would provide that only tenured and tenure-track faculty are eligible to vote
for candidates for this Committee. (That
is the case at present, but extending eligibility for the Faculty Senate to
term faculty would also make them eligible to vote for FCC candidates, which
the Committee concluded would not be appropriate. While the Faculty Senate is intended to be
representative of all categories of faculty, this Committee is not.)
Department chairs and perhaps senators will be provided
next year a list of P&A staff who may be eligible for the Faculty Senate;
the chairs and senators will be asked to provide corrections to the list in
order to be sure that the appropriate individuals are included on the
eligibility list for each college.
* * *
The Committee elected Professor Hoover as vice chair for
2007-08.
* * *
The Committee decided it would vote later on a
replacement next year for Professor Gunnar, who is going on sabbatical.
* * *
At the end of the meeting, the Committee agreed that the
resolution on child care from the Senate Committee on Faculty Affairs should be
brought up at the University Senate under new business. The Committee suggested one amendment to the
resolution.
2. CIC
Statement on Authors' Rights
Professor Chomsky welcomed University Librarian Wendy
Lougee to discuss the CIC Statement on Authors' Rights and noted that the
statement has been placed on the Faculty Senate docket, subject to FCC
approval. She also reported that the CIC
faculty leaders had discussed it and supported it. The statement reads as follows:
CIC PROVOSTS’ STATEMENT ON PUBLISHING AGREEMENTS
[For a fuller consideration of the issues addressed
herein, see ‘Copyrights and the Paradox of Scholarly Publishing” by R. Michael
Tanner, Provost,
Publication is the lifeblood of a research university.
It is incumbent upon faculty, campus administrators and librarians to ensure
the free flow of scholarly information in fulfillment of our campus missions to
advance the public good through research and education. Toward this end, our
campuses are committed to supporting a sustainable publication process and a
healthy publishing industry. The “information revolution” has greatly expanded
the means for disseminating and utilizing scholarly discourse, but this
opportunity for extending the reach and impact of our campuses is countered by
social and economic conventions of some sectors of the publishing industry.
Suitable publishing partners for academic enterprises should be encouraging the
widest possible dissemination of the academy’s work, and the management of
copyright should be directed to encouraging scholarly output rather than
unnecessarily fettering its access and use. Without some important changes in publishing
practices, authors and readers will continue to be frustrated by barriers to
the free flow of information that is an essential characteristic of great
research universities.
The CIC Provosts suggest that faculty authors consider
a number of factors when choosing and interacting with publishers for their
works. The goal of publication should be to encourage widespread dissemination
and impact; the means for accomplishing this will necessarily depend on the
nature of the work in question, the author’s circumstances, available suitable
outlets, and expectations in the author’s field of inquiry. In general, we
encourage authors to consider publishing strategies that will optimize short
and long-term access to their work, taking into account such factors as
affordability, efficient means for distribution, a secure third-party archiving
strategy, and flexible management of rights.
Protecting intellectual property rights is a
particularly important consideration, as many of our authors unwittingly sign
away all control over their creative output. Toward this end, the CIC Provosts
encourage contract language that ensures that academic authors retain certain
rights that facilitate archiving, instructional use, and sharing with
colleagues to advance discourse and discovery. Accompanying this document is a
model CIC publishing addendum that affirms the rights of authors to share their
work in a variety of circumstances, including posting versions of the work in
institutional or disciplinary repositories.
[Model addendum appended to these minutes.] While the particular circumstances and terms
governing publication will vary on a case by case basis, the underlying
principle of encouraging access to the creative output of our campuses should
inhere in all of our efforts.
The CIC Provosts recognize the complexity of the
issues involved in publication, but are nonetheless committed to helping our
faculty make the most of their work. For further discussion of these issues, or
for help in assessing options for the publication of particular works, members
of our faculty are encouraged to consult with academic deans, campus counsels,
university librarians, or academic staff in the provosts’ offices.
[end of CIC statement]
Ms. Lougee reported that the Senate Library Committee has
reviewed the CIC statement and forwarded it to the Senate for the May 3
meeting. She said she was prepared to
provide background information so that the Faculty Consultative Committee might
also endorse the statement.
The Chronicle of
Higher Education has had many articles about the costs of journals, Ms.
Lougee pointed out, Congress has proposed legislation, and NIH has taken the
position that recommends authors make journal articles based on
federally-funded research available through open-access sites. The CIC Provosts
have endorsed the open-access legislation.
The
Provosts also considered authors' rights.
Authors' rights are a bundle of rights that can be unbundled, and
include right "to publish and distribute a work in print or other media,
to reproduce it, to prepare translations or other derivative works, to perform
or display the work publicly, [and] to authorize others to exercise any of
these rights. The rights may be
segmented and transferred to others.
Copyright creators may transfer some or all of these rights to a
publisher. The copyright creator may
also retain ownership but grant licenses to other parties. . . . Copyright licenses may be exclusive or
non-exclusive, for a specified period of time or for the full term of the
copyright, royalty-free or royalty-bearing; for one medium or many, or defined
or restricted in various other ways."
The point is, Ms. Lougee said, one need not give all rights to the
publisher. One can retain the right to
post the article on one's website, to use it in classes or course reserves or
course packets, to develop derivative works or translations, or to include it
in anthologies, without the publisher's permission. The CIC Provosts' statement both educates
faculty about these options and encourages them to negotiate with publishers.
Ms.
Lougee noted that other faculty senates have passed statements that range from
suggesting faculty choose publications that are not exorbitantly expensive to
using cost-effective publications to retaining institutional rights. The
The
CIC statement is in between. It
encourages understanding of rights, supports sustainable publishing
enterprises, encourages consideration of publishing options and mechanisms for
conveying/retaining rights, and offers a model addendum that authors can use in
negotiating with publishers (which is not mandatory).
What
have been the publishers' reactions, Professor Lanyon asked? Ms. Lougee
said the American Association of University Presses has issued a statement
recognizing the principles of open access, but also underscoring the challenges
in sustaining publishing systems. When federal legislation was proposed, some
involved with publishing initiated a
letter-writing campaign saying that open access would undermine peer review—but
open access literature often has higher citation rates and draws higher use,
Ms. Lougee reported. In his field, Professor Lanyon said, there are two kinds
of journals, those produced by scientific societies and those produced by
commercial entities. He asked how these different kinds of journals were responding
to the idea of open access. They both are, Ms. Lougee said. Some commercial publishers have taken steps
to allow authors to retain rights (for example, one can pay to have the
individual article made open-access).
One problem is that a number of professional societies rely on income
from the journal and do not have the flexibility to move to new models. In either case, commercial or society, the
publisher may reject the amendments, Mr. Lougee observed, in which case one can
only say that one tried. Many major
publishers, however, grant some leeway—for example, allowing self-archiving
(posting of one's article on a personal website).
Professor
Balas moved that the Committee endorse the statement. The faculty have to take ownership of this
issue, he said, and not let others decide their rights. As faculty at a public research university,
they must put their work out where all can read it; that must be part of the
mission, he said. It also helps to have
the addendum, Professor Chomsky said, so faculty don't have to wade through a
contract to find specific provisions. Is
there a plan to disseminate the statement and addendum so authors know about
it, Professor Durfee asked? And will the
libraries track which journals accept the addendum? The question is how to track the responses,
Professor Lanyon commented. Ms. Lougee
said it was a good question; they could establish a site where authors could
submit their experiences with publishers.
It would also help if the journals could see the results, Professor
Durfee said. Publishers are quite aware
of what others are doing, Ms. Lougee said.
Economic
models for open access journals (i.e., those freely available and with flexible
rights policies) are not yet stable , Ms. Lougee reported, and usually authors
have to pay about $1500 to have articles placed in them. This model is not
always acceptable within a discipline and the use of an addendum may provide an
option to allow authors some rights. She provided the Committee with two
websites of interest.
Access Denied: The libraries' website on these issues, with
link to its ongoing blog.
http://www.lib.umn.edu/scholcom/
SHERPA (online service that provides
profiles of publisher policies -- it is also a link off Access Denied under
"Resources")
http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo.php
The
Committee voted unanimously to endorse the CIC Provosts' statement on authors'
rights.
3. Culture
Task Force
Professor Chomsky welcomed several guests at this point
to talk about, and react to, the Culture Task Force report: Professor John Adams, Mr. Chuck Denny,
Professor Jeff Kahn and Professor Kirt Wilson (co-chairs of the Faculty Culture
Task Force), and Vice President Karen Himle (whose office, under her
predecessor, was responsible for the Culture Task Force report). Professor Chomsky noted that Professors Kahn
and Wilson served as chairs of the Faculty Culture Task Force and had talked
with this Committee in the past about the report of their task force. She and Professor Lanyon learned about the
Culture Task Force report, although it is not been issued; she spoke with Vice
President Thrane before she left (Vice President Thrane chaired the Culture
Task Force), and with Vice President Himle now here, she thought it would be
useful to talk with the present co-chairs of the task force about what the
report is, where it stands, and how it overlaps with the Faculty Culture Task
Force report.
Professor Adams began by noting that the Culture Task
Force was one of over 30 task forces that engaged over 500 people; their task
force was charged with developing an overview of the basic elements of
University culture, with the thought that their recommendations would be used
to open the way to move the President's agenda forward.
The questions their task force addressed were:
-- What is the culture of the University?
-- What are the similarities and differences
compared with other top public research universities?
-- What unites us?
-- How can we create a culture that works toward
excellence and leadership?
Professor Adams next reviewed the work of the task
force. It had 21 members (faculty, civil service staff, P&A staff,
students, and administrators) and five individuals from the President's
Emerging Leaders program, and met
weekly for over a year. The task force
reviewed and gathered a variety of material and information, including the PULSE
survey, an internal communication audit, focus groups, a benchmarking against
15 other top public research universities, assessment of public attitudes
toward the University about public engagement, the other task force reports,
the University's culture statements, and also spent time on implementation
strategies.
The task force considered the central challenges of "faculty
culture" that confront the University as it moves forward:
1. Universities are exceptionally conservative
in defining their mission, organizational structure, day-to-day operation,
reward systems, and behavior of faculty members and P&A staff. It takes heroic and sustained effort to
redirect faculty and staff activity in teaching, research and outreach (e.g.,
reorganization of the Minnesota Extension Service).
2. President Bruininks' plan is sound. Among the 21 task force members and 5 PEL
staff, there was nearly unanimous opinion that the President's agenda as
articulated in the two task force reports is sound–and overdue. Several previous efforts to chart a fresh
course foundered. This time things look
more promising.
3. Departments and centers are the critical work
units. Most teaching, research and
outreach activity at the University is carried out by faculty and staff in 160+
departments and research centers. If
there is to be improvement, it must be there; the department or center is the
key element in University productivity.
BUT,
4. Unit heads are
generally poorly equipped to do their
job. They are hired for one reason and then
asked to do something else. The heads
and chairs of the departments and centers receive little or no training for the
leadership and management tasks that they assume; they learn on the job, mostly
by themselves, if they learn at all.
This leads many to rely excessively on senior civil service and/or
P&A staff, who generally resist any changes in organization, goals or
procedures.
5. Key personnel in departments and centers know
little about universities. Faculty
members and P&A staff come into their jobs with almost no understanding of
how higher education in America came to be the way it is, how it is related to
other elements in the American educational system, how major research
universities operate today, the challenges they face, how this university
works, how colleges work, and how departments work. It is astonishing what people learn when they
participate in other activities (such as serving on this Committee).
6. University citizenship is wanting. A substantial fraction of faculty members
come to the University believing they have been given the opportunity to
support their career; the concept that there is a broader University mission is
difficult to instill because no one ever teaches it. The idea of University citizenship is poorly
understood by too many faculty members.
7. Too many students come to the University
unprepared. Deficiencies in students’
secondary education and preparation for college, coupled with problems within
University admissions, lead to excessive expenditure on remedial education and
low graduation rates to a degree that is unacceptable for a University that
aspires to rank with
8. Faculty reward system is out of whack. The reward system for faculty and P&A
staff is not aligned with the stated mission of the institution.
9. University's human resources system needs
fixing. The human resources system at
the University and in many collegiate units is an obstacle to change rather
than a facilitator of needed change.
10. IMG needs attention. The Incentives for Managed Growth (IMG)
system and now the new budget model at the University provides perverse
incentives to collegiate and departmental units for wasteful duplication of
curriculum rather than fostering efficiencies that would redirect resources for
research and outreach.
Mr. Denny next spoke about the work of the task force
"Over the course of a year, the [culture] Task Force assayed
the 'culture' of the University. Data
were gathered from interviews of senior administrators, focus groups of
individuals throughout the University, and task force specific questions
inserted in the annual PULSE survey. Our work uncovered no new territory. The issues identified by focus groups,
individual interviews, and the PULSE survey have long been known to thoughtful
individuals throughout the University.
Most are typical of any major research university." There are many cultures at the University, he
said, and their job was to find the overarching elements common to all of those
cultures.
"The
University's quest to become "one of the top three public research
universities in the world" begins from a very strong base. We are already ranked among the top ten
public research universities by several of the rating agencies. This says that we are doing a lot of things
'right.' Initiatives already undertaken
by the University's leadership team, together with selected recommendations
flowing from the thirty-five task forces, will further advance our standing
among the world's great public research universities. Faculty leadership is critical, for the
faculty set the tone of our culture.
They are the role models for the university staff and our
students."
"We
have certain characteristics that affect our culture, and that are unlikely to
change in the near future. Each has a
major impact on our culture. Our
challenge is to optimize the advantages of each of these factors while
minimizing their disadvantages.
-- We are:
large (powerful/slow, bureaucratic, rule and process oriented) (The University is also rule-bound; these
characteristics are endemic to large institutions, and the fact of life is that
while it can improve, "you can teach the elephant to dance but it will
never win the dance contest.")
-- Public (citizen ownership/political,
financially protected, politically correct) (It shares the characteristics of
public organizations generally)
-- Civil service and unionized
(democratic/resistant to change)
-- Land grant (noble mission/conflicting
missions)
-- Academic (the soul of the
University/entitled, individualistic and tenured)
-- Multi-campus (a state institution/competition
for resources, fragmented image)
-- In a small state with limited resources
-- In a Midwestern cultural environment
(stolid/cautious, insular)
-- One part of a bifurcated public post
secondary system (where state funding is divided one-half to each system
without regard for state priorities).
Within that context, we
attempted to determine our current culture.
We recognize that significant cultural differences may exist between
academic, geographic, and organizational units.
Our goal is to identify an overarching culture that embraces all parts
of our university.
"A summation follows of the major issues identified through
our interviews, focus groups, and surveys, together with the responsible
parties or task forces assigned to these issues.
"1. The goal of being a top three public research
university is not clearly understood by all members of the University
community. As the goal drives our
strategies, every effort should be exerted to develop an understanding of, and
support for, our vision.
"2. Leadership at all levels is key to improved
performance. Improved selection and
training of qualified leaders at unit, department, college, and university
levels will have a major impact on University-wide performance." Leadership issues have been around a long
time, Mr. Denny said, and while Human Resources may have plans, it may not
receive support from the deans for leadership training.
"3. Accountability is mandatory in every
job—faculty and staff alike. The faculty
will set the tone. Performance management must have rewards and
consequences." Civil service staff,
P&A staff, and union employees have encountered a lack of accountability: there are no consequences if one does not do
his or her job well. That is insidious
in an organization with 18,000 employees, he said.
"4. University management practices are in need
of a major overhaul. The bureaucracy is
stifling initiative." There is a
deep feeling that governance is bound by rules and regulations.
"5. Silo boundaries are obsolete. Cross border cooperation is required to
compete in today's educational environment." The boundaries restrict the University from
using the institution's entire resources to get to the top three.
"6. While recognizing that excellence in research
will bring dollars and prestige to the University, there must be an equal
commitment to provide a high quality undergraduate education." There is a feeling that undergraduate
education may not receive the priority it should, a sentiment that has also
been around for years.
"7. A major communications effort must be
launched to create a sense of common purpose for the University community, and
to educate the citizens of our state as to the importance in their lives of
what we do.
"If the University were to seriously address these few
issues, it will achieve its goal of being a viable competitor amongst the best
public universities in the world."
The faculty sets the tone on how the work will be
done, Professor Adams concluded, so their report is a twin to the one prepared
by the task force chaired by Professors Kahn and Wilson, he said, which was an
excellent report. The faculty create the
climate of work.
Professor Kahn recalled that the faculty culture task
force report was issued May 10, 2006, and the University has done a lot of work
in some areas (for example, on the tenure code). The charge to the faculty culture task force
was to focus on faculty and the academic mission that is the core of the
institution, so it focused on faculty as the ones who deliver that
mission. The task force had eight
"deliverables":
1. Recommendations regarding faculty
recruitment, hiring, review, mentoring, promotion, reward, and retention, in
light of the University's goal of becoming one of the top three public research
universities in the world.
2. Recommendations regarding
whether present hiring, tenure, promotion, and post-tenure review standards are
written, communicated, and implemented across departments and colleges in a way
that promotes the University's goal of becoming one of the top three public
research universities in the world.
3. Recommendations regarding
how we create a faculty culture that provides incentives, appropriate
recognition, and rewards for intra- and inter-disciplinary collaboration.
4. Identification of
intellectual, information, or physical infrastructure issues that would better
promote a culture of academic excellence and achievement.
5. Recommendations regarding
how we create a faculty culture that promotes active public engagement.
6. Recommendations regarding
enhancement of a culture of intellectual engagement, ambition, achievement,
collegiality, improved curriculum integration, and excellence in teaching.
7. Recommendations regarding
enhancing the external perception of the University faculty, including
international and national awards for faculty.
8. Recommendations regarding
the high number of associate professors who do not achieve full professor
status.
The task force developed 36
recommendations focused on the faculty.
Professor Wilson commended the Academic Freedom and
Tenure Committee, and the Faculty Consultative Committee, for the tremendous
work they did in getting the tenure code changes to and through the Faculty
Senate. There is still a difference
between what the University says and what it rewards, however, something of
great concern to assistant professors in particular. How will their work be judged? The question is not easily answered by
Section 7.11 of the tenure code; perhaps the departmental 7.12 statements will
do so. Questions about being promoted
from associate to professor include (1) service and what it means and how
departments can meaningfully reward it, and (2) teaching; it is remarkable the
number of faculty who have the label "distinguished teaching
professor" who are still associate professors who have been unable to
attain the rank of professor. He said
the faculty culture task force fell short of addressing those issues; this
Committee could address the role of teaching in promotion from associate to
professor, he suggested.
The matter of "unity" is a big issue, but
complicated, Professor Wilson said. He
and Professor Kahn talked about how a big place like the University can achieve
it; when they talked about what it needed to do, they identified several steps.
-- It is possible to talk ourselves into it
(communication in the institution must include a consistent discourse on
institutional values; that might seen as corporate, or branding, but there are
other models that are preferable for faculty.
-- Leadership can galvanize institutional
commitment (e.g., the President, the Provost, this Committee); they need to
identify and elevate the issue.
-- Although he acknowledges it with some
reluctance, there is no doubt sports and athletics play a role; a robust
intercollegiate athletic program does create unity; Professor Wilson said he
was somewhat baffled by the phenomenon, but it is true. Often, however, at
faculty meetings there is intercollegiate athletics on one side, the
intellectual on the other, and never the twain shall meet.
-- Unity can be created organically, with small
part of the institution in conversation with other parts about shared values;
these lead to growth and can be unifying.
Achieving unity, however,
"is tough," Professor Wilson concluded.
They spent a lot of time talking to faculty, Professor
Kahn said (they conducted 50 faculty focus groups), and concluded there is no
real unity at the University, especially among the coordinate-campus
faculty. They received an earful on the
coordinate campuses; there is a strong "us versus them" mentality,
focused on where resources are allocated.
Leadership is key to unity, but not just at the top; it starts at the
top but has to run through departments—and if there is not effective department
leadership, the President and Provost don't matter.
Professor Kahn said he did not believe there was much
disagreement between the faculty culture task force and the culture task
force. There is agreement that the
infrastructure does not support the mission (e.g., human resources, research;
in these examples, at the best institutions the offices bend over backward to
help while at
Professor Lanyon asked how different the coordinate
campuses are vis-à-vis the Twin Cities compared to how different the colleges
on the Twin Cities campus are from each other.
One big difference is that on two of the campuses the faculty is
unionized, Professor Kahn said; that sets a very different tone because it is
"us versus them," faculty versus management. That is different from the variations among
Twin Cities colleges.
The other big difference is related to research,
Professor Wilson said. On the Twin
Cities campus research is first or at least first among equals. At the coordinate campuses, the faculty love
to do research but they do not see it as the primary mission of their
campus. As a result, they do not have
the infrastructure support for both teaching AND research. On the Twin Cities campus there is rarely
disagreement about whether research is good; there may be squabbles over
methodology, and social sciences versus physical sciences, but the fault lines
on the Twin Cities campus are different.
The Morris campus is not a public research university, Professor Kahn
pointed out; why should a liberal arts college be held to the standards
articulated for a top-three research university? Professor Carpenter noted that the Morris
faculty do participate in scholarly activity but feel they do not receive
enough support for it. Professor Kahn
said he also heard that the Morris faculty are good at what they do but are not
acknowledged by the University.
Professor Rhodus observed that certain academic units on the Twin Cities
campus might share the mindset of the coordinate campuses; some might take the
position that it is not their mission to be in the top three.
Professor Chomsky said these themes resonate with the
conversations the Committee had with the senior officers about issues raised by
department chairs. What is the status of
the culture task force, she asked? What
particulars underlie the themes? The
issues should be put on the agenda so the University can move forward on
them. Where do things stand in terms of
getting items on agendas and making recommendations? Professor Adams said he thinks of the
University as a complex system, with many parts interacting and energy flowing
in a lot of directions, and when it has leadership with vision, some cannot see
the goal and want instead tangible things.
Leadership must galvanize the institution and must align resources to
achieve the goals. Many people do not
like management, but when they cannot get something done, they do not see the
management problems in deans' and department offices that prevent them from
doing what they need to do. There are
problems in the middle management of the institution, but at the same time the
University has had outstanding deans.
If an organization is trying to stay out of jail, versus
trying to get the job done, it will have a different way of thinking about what
it is doing. At a seminar of presidents
hosted by former President Mark Yudof, one of them said that when he started at
the university, people trusted one another; now that atmosphere of trust is
rare, which is breaking the back of the institution. The University needs the bureaucracy, but it
cannot be so expensive and so rigid. It
is also difficult to make decisions; someone noted at a meeting recently that
at this university, a vote of 22-2 is a tie.
To the extent there is a "stay out of trouble" mentality in
the bureaucracy and people are not allowed to make decisions (and occasionally
fail), the institution cannot move forward.
This is the culture of the University and people have to pay attention
to it. And it cannot invest money in
talking about it; there needs to be a limit on consultation (just as with a
budget, one can use up all the consultation time; personnel time should be
treated like money—and time is more valuable than money).
Professor Adams said the task force report is ready; the
decision on the final report and release is up to Vice President Himle. Professor Wilson asked what the next step
with the report would he; he expressed the hope that this Committee would have
a chance to grapple with it.
The faculty set the tone, Mr. Denny pointed out
again. The faculty decide how great the
University will be; they are the role models.
In addition to that, the place must be organized, must have an
appropriate financial model, and needs to get over the shell-shock from the NIH
"exceptional" status. It needs
to look at how to design research facilities, it needs to look at how to design
best practices. There were 35 task
forces; how the faculty respond and how the administration carries them through
will be a monumental reorganization and change of gears. This organization is more difficult to deal
with than an industrial organization because it contains so many units that do
not depend on each other. Certain
things, if done, would change the culture of the University.
Professor Adams said that he has emphasized, in discussions
with Provost Sullivan, that faculty and administrators do not normally come
from a background acquainting them with an understanding of complex systems and
so there is a need for training. It is
routine in large corporations to provide regular training on how the
organization works. Units within the
organization are expected to perform at or above a certain standard. If they under-perform, a decision is made
either to improve them or eliminate them.
"Our University must decide to improve or eliminate units that are
not performing—but that is not the way we operate at this place."
Professor
Adams provided an example of the lack of understanding. "If the University were a typical
company, it would depreciate annually its buildings and equipment, and enter
those annual costs into its annual budget.
For example, it would depreciate Morrill Hall. But the University does not do so and most
who work here see no reason why we would do so.
But since the building is not free, costs of running the University are
misunderstood and there are fights over the allocation of indirect cost
dollars." The University needs to
train people to be informed and effective citizens, he concluded.
Professor Windsor suggested that the Committee could move
the discussion forward by reminding the Provost that the faculty are waiting
for this and other task force reports and responses to recommendations. Otherwise people are just spinning their
wheels. Professor Chomsky observed that
the Committee does not run anything. Some
things the administration must do and some things the faculty must do, the
latter through colleges and departments, not the governance system. The Committee has spent the year talking
about these issues but they are hard to grasp; one way to go forward would be
to deal with the pieces—communication management, the budget model, and perhaps
speak to faculty about other things (the Committee cannot mandate but it could
endorse).
The Committee could encourage the administration,
Professor Adams said; sometimes it is tentative and worried about
pushback. That is where this Committee
can be helpful, but to do so it must understand the stakes and the
implications. It is easy to get drawn
into minutiae.
He alluded to the fact that the University is in the
This
Committee exists to help the administration think and to make the best
decisions they can, Professor Adams agreed.
The administration will implement decisions and must decide what works
best; the power the Committee brings is in HOW the decisions are implemented,
not the particulars, Professor Lanyon said.
What the Committee can do is try to get everyone to say "what am I
doing today that will help the faculty be more successful?" The University does not have that attitude,
Professor Kahn remarked, but many universities do. That is what the Committee heard over and over
again in its discussions with department chairs and others, Professor Chomsky
said.
Vice
President Himle said she had known both Professor Adams and Mr. Denny for years
and was pleased that they had been intimately involved with the work of the
Culture Task Force.
Ms.
Himle commented that there are many important observations and facts in the
task force report that will serve as the basis for advancing the goals of
strategic positioning. One additional factor that was not considered in the
report is the desirability of transparency in decision making. In the
absence of this quality, it will be difficult to change the culture of
the University going forward. Next steps related to the report could be
to add transparency to decision-making among all university constituents.
Decisions need to be transparent both within and from the perspective of those
outside the University.
Ms.
Himle is trying to learn the ins and outs of the institution. To achieve change
in an organization as complex as the University there must be a repetitive
message at multiple levels with multiple messengers. The process of
change and change communication takes time. Professor Rhodus agreed that
the process must be transparent but said that people also must be able to
participate in the process; even if they do not own the agenda, it is important
they participate and understand the rationale for decisions. Ms. Himle agreed.
Vice President Himle said she has been impressed with the role and the work of
the Faculty Consultative Committee; things start with the faculty. She is
trying to blend the reports she has received in order to make them into
something actionable that can be transferred to the larger organization.
What has not been articulated at this meeting is where decision-making should
occur, Ms. Himle said. Decisions will be driven to the appropriate level
and processes will be put in place to ensure that decisions can be made—and
training provided.
Professor Chomsky thanked Professor Adams, Mr. Denny, and
Vice President Himle for joining the meeting and making their comments.
--
Gary Engstrand
* * *
APPENDIX
ADDENDUM TO PUBLICATION AGREEMENTS FOR CIC AUTHORS
This ADDENDUM hereby modifies and supplements the
attached Publication Agreement between:
Corresponding
Author______________________________________________________________
Additional Authors (if
any)___________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
AND
Publisher________________________________________________________________________
Related to Manuscript
titled__________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
To appear in Journal, Anthology, or Collection
titled_______________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
PUBLISHER AND AUTHOR AGREE THAT WHERE THERE ARE
CONFLICTING TERMS BETWEEN THE PUBLICATION AGREEMENT AND THIS ADDENDUM, THE
PROVISIONS OF THIS ADDENDUM WILL BE
1. The Author shall, without limitation, have the
non-exclusive right to use, reproduce, distribute, and create derivative works
including update, perform, and display publicly, the Article in electronic,
digital or print form in connection with the Author’s teaching, conference
presentations, lectures, other scholarly works, and for all of Author’s
academic and professional activities.
2. After a period of six(6) months from the date of
publication of the article, the Author shall also have all the non-exclusive
rights necessary to make, or to authorize others to make, the final published
version of the Article available in digital form over the Internet, including
but not limited to a website under the control of the Author or the Author’s
employer or through digital repositories including, but not limited to, those
maintained by CIC institutions, scholarly societies or funding agencies.
3. The Author further retains all non-exclusive rights
necessary to grant to the Author’s employing institution the non-exclusive
right to use, reproduce, distribute, display, publicly perform, and make copies
of the work in electronic, digital or in print form in connection with teaching,
conference presentations, lectures, other scholarly works, and all academic and
professional activities conducted at the Author’s employing institution.
THIS ADDENDUM AND THE PUBLICATION AGREEMENT, TAKEN
TOGETHER, CONSTITUTE THE FINAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE AUTHOR AND THE PUBLISHER
WITH RESPECT TO THE PUBLICATION OF THE ARTICLE AND ALLOCATION OF RIGHTS UNDER
COPYRIGHT IN THE ARTICLE. ANY MODIFICATION OF OR ADDITIONS TO THE TERMS OF THIS
AMENDMENT OR TO THE PUBLICATION AGREEMENT MUST BE IN WRITING AND EXECUTED BY
BOTH PUBLISHER AND AUTHOR IN ORDER TO BE EFFECTIVE.
AUTHOR
___________________________________
__________________________
(Corresponding Author, on behalf of all authors)
________________________________
_____________________________
Date
PUBLISHER
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
Date