1993-94 UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA
FACULTY SENATE MINUTES
NOVEMBER 18, 1993
The first meeting of the Faculty Senate for 1993-94, was convened
in 25 Law Building, Minneapolis campus, on Thursday, November 18,
1993, at 2:30 p.m. Coordinate campuses were linked by telephone.
Checking or signing the roll as present were 127 voting
faculty/academic professional members, 4 ex officio members, and 10
nonmembers. Professor Judith Garrard, Chair of the Faculty
Consultative Committee, presided.
I. MINUTES FOR MAY 20, AND JUNE 3, 1993 - Action
APPROVED
II. FACULTY CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE
Strategic Planning Procedures - Action
President Hasselmo has set forth his vision of University 2000 in
the draft planning document which is being mailed to Faculty Senate
members directly and will be distributed widely by the President's
Office. The text of the document appears on the Gopher Internet in
the University Planning folder which is in the University of
Minnesota Campus Information folder. Copies are also available
through department and college offices and through University
Relations (612-624-6868). The President has asked the Faculty
Senate to consult with him on the directions contained in the
planning document. Because of the importance and complexity of
this item, the Faculty Consultative Committee believes that it
should be considered at two meetings of the Faculty Senate.
The first meeting (November 18) will be primarily for discussion.
Members of the Faculty Senate or other faculty members may make
their points in discussion or may propose non-binding "straw vote"
motions to assist in further development of the policy. Faculty
Senate members or other faculty members who wish to propose "straw
vote" motions should submit them in writing to the Clerk of the
Senate (427 Morrill Hall, fax: 612-626-1609) no later than 2:30
p.m. on Tuesday, November 16. The proper form is "Resolved, it is
the sense of the Faculty Senate that . . .". Motions not received
by that time can be considered only by special action of the
Senate. Motions calling for final action (for or against the plan)
will not be considered on November 18.
To allow for appropriate distribution of the final draft planning
document and to give Faculty Senate members and other faculty
members an opportunity to propose amendments before the December 2,
Faculty Senate meeting, the Faculty Consultative Committee moves
adoption of the following special procedures:
MOTION:
At the conclusion of the November 18 meeting, the
President will consider the comments made and will
prepare a draft for action. That draft will be made
available by Monday, November 29. The Faculty
Consultative Committee will formulate a motion in
response to the President's draft. That motion will be
published in the "Minnesota Daily" on Tuesday, November
30, and Wednesday, December 1, and will be faxed to
coordinate campus Faculty Senate members. Copies will
also be available in the Senate Office by 9:00 a.m. on
Tuesday, November 30. Faculty Senate members or other
faculty members who wish to propose amendments to this
final proposal must submit them in writing to the Clerk
of the Senate no later than 2:30 p.m. on Wednesday,
December 1 (427 Morrill Hall; fax: 612-626-1609). The
Faculty Senate will consider the Faculty Consultative
Committee recommendation and any proposed amendments on
December 2.
JUDITH GARRARD, Chair
Faculty Consultative Committee
DISCUSSION:
The strategic planning procedures were approved without discussion.
APPROVED
III. FACULTY CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE
University of Minnesota Strategic Planning - Discussion
Professor Judith Garrard, Chair of the Faculty Consultative
Committee (FCC), outlined guidelines for the planning discussion--
copies of which were distributed to senators. Before opening the
discussion, she said the FCC would like senators to think about
framing the debate around four fundamental questions:
Following is the text of Professor Garrard's comments.
"1. Do we need a strategic plan at the University of Minnesota?
Without a doubt, we do! The matter is not one of whether we
want or need CHANGE. Change has been thrust upon us.
Most major research universities in the U.S. are in the midst
of change and are facing common problems:
- concern about the quality of undergraduate education,
- deteriorating physical plant,
- reduced federal and other research funding,
- decline in prestige and trust in the eyes of the American
public.
Here at Minnesota, we have an additional overlay of problems:
- the decline in State funding,
- a series of scandals,
- negative publicity over the past 5 years,
- salary freezes,
- decline in faculty morale, and
- problems with user friendliness--not only for students,
but also for faculty and staff, especially on the Twin
Cities campus.
Do we therefore need a strategic plan that addresses these
problems? The answer has to be yes; the alternative is that we
will continue to be at the mercy of changes and events that descend
upon us. One of the vehicles for managing change in this complex
organization is a targeted strategic plan that addresses some if
not all of these problems.
"2. Are the 5 areas outlined in Strategic Directions the ones we
as an academic community should be focusing on?
The five areas are
- research
- graduate and professional programs
- undergraduate education
- access and outreach
- user-friendliness
Are these five areas the ones that will address the problems
we face? This is a harder question to answer. As we have debated
this question among ourselves at FCC meetings, as we listen to our
colleagues, and as we interact with the members and chairs of the
other Senate Committees, especially SCFA, SCEP, Finance and
Planning, and Research, we continually ask, are these the areas of
emphasis?
In order to gather more data, FCC members have made site
visits over the past month. Teams of FCC members met with groups
of faculty senators throughout the Twin Cities campus. Those who
met with us tended to be informed and interested in the content of
U2000. There were some very knowledgeable and creative suggestions
for improvement in the Plan. In one or two of the groups, we found
discouragement, but even in those groups, there was the willingness
to think together about 'what could be.' We found more
consternation about the details of the Plan than the Plan itself.
But what about these 5 areas of emphasis? Faculty Senators in
the site visits told us: œof course these are the five areas; in
fact, there was nothing new in these 5 areas -- we've been
discussing them in one way or another for years." Well, that's
verification of one sort!
Are there other areas that should be included? No others
seemed to emerge. So, based on our own deliberations, our own
consultation with colleagues in other Senate Committees, and in
discussions with subsets of this Faculty Senate, we as an FCC have
concluded that these are the five appropriate areas of emphasis.
"3. Finally, we come to the crux of the matter. If these are the
five areas for the Strategic Directions, then what is right and
wrong with them? Which parts are acceptable? What needs to be
modified?
I ask that you spend most of your time today discussing each
of these 5 areas of the strategic plan.
"4. How can the planning process be improved?
Perhaps the Faculty Senate is collectively satisfied with the
planning process to date and especially with the process outlined
in the current draft of the Strategic Plan. If that is the case,
then say so, and we can spend our time on other issues.
The FCC has made some specific suggestions:
- We want true consultation about all aspects of the
Strategic Plan before the material is formally
distributed to the community outside of the University.
A creative faculty member suggested that we use the
"bathrobe criterion" to determine whether consultation
had occurred: If faculty who should have been consulted
find out about a University issue that involves them for
the first time in the newspapers as they sit at breakfast
in their bathrobes, then there has been no consultation!
- We want an active and specific role for the faculty and
the academic units, and we want those roles to be
explicitly spelled out in a planning document.
- The process must be oriented to energizing departmental
and collegiate planning.
The faculty must plan a central role in this process.
- We want a more direct role for faculty in the resource
allocation process.
If YOU have suggestions for how to improve the planning
process, then focus your comments on what needs to be done and done
better.
"As we begin this debate I ask that you bear in mind 3 additional
points:
- This planning effort must not be 'business as usual.'
The faculty cannot allow it.
- We the faculty must shake loose the dust of
discouragement and demoralization and commit ourselves to
active participation in the development of this Plan.
- I have been assured by President Hasselmo that the
information we provide today will be used specifically to
revise this Plan before it is brought back to the Faculty
Senate for our December 2 vote and before the Plan is
submitted to the Regents at their December 8 meeting.
Our specific task today is to provide direct advice to
the administration about the proposal before us.
Now get out your red pens!"
Professor Garrard then welcomed President Hasselmo to the
meeting. The President said he was pleased to once again have an
opportunity to discuss planning with the Faculty Senate. A
planning process, he said, always takes place in a historical
context and that historical context shapes the way it unfolds. By
historical context, he meant Commitment to Focus, the principles of
which are very much in evidence in the current planning efforts.
That effort, he said, floundered because it was misunderstood in
the broader community. In 1991, the University entered into major
restructuring and reallocation within the University that included
the closing of a campus and a number of other programs. The
institution has also been through a series of budget cuts by the
State that in many ways erased the positive effects that were
intended by the reallocation and restructuring in 1991. The
University faces many challenges, including challenges by the
media, which poses problems related to distribution of information.
The President said he was urged by faculty leaders to present a
framework by which the University could do its planning, the result
of which is University 2000. University 2000 lays out a mission
and some strategic directions for achieving the aspirations of that
mission. It is a working hypotheses--a set of ideas which tries to
set directions. The cluster planning is an effort to bring
together faculty members in a way that they can look at what the
intellectual frontiers should be in the year 2000 and to look at
where the University must position itself in national and
international leadership. A number of mechanisms are being used:
the cluster concept; planning at the collegiate and departmental
level; and planning that is cross-cutting, such as the Outreach
Council and the forums on teaching. The President emphasized that
planning is a partnership effort, an attempt to synthesize trends,
efforts, principles, and directions that have emerged over many
years and in many ways is a reaffirmation of the basic values of
the institution. President Hasselmo said he wants to ensure that
the academic substance is preserved and flourishes and that the
University offers an environment where faculty and staff can lead
productive working lives, and where students can enter into a
stimulating intellectual life that will prepare them for their
roles in society.
Professor Garrard next called on a member of the Blue Ribbon
Committee on Teaching and Research Excellence under the strategic
plan to read a statement developed by that group, the text of which
follows:
"The Blue Ribbon Committee on Teaching and Research
Excellence under the strategic plan, which has been
charged by the Faculty Consultative Committee to advise
it on the 'potential impact of the strategic plan on
faculty excellence in teaching...and on research and
scholarly activity,' believes that whether pursuit of the
five goal directions outlined in the November 5, 1993,
University 2000 draft would enhance the quality of
teaching, research, and scholarly activity at the
University of Minnesota--or whether it would
inadvertently result in a deterioration of quality along
one or more of these dimensions--depends critically on
the specific methods devised to move toward these goals
and on the financial resources available to support that
movement. Because the November 5 draft does not
sufficiently detail the ways and the means by which these
goals, each laudable in itself, realistically might be
achieved in consort with one another, it is not yet
possible to evaluate the impact that adoption of the
current University 2000 statement would have upon faculty
excellence in teaching, research, and scholarly
activity."
The floor was then opened for discussion. Following is a
summary of the questions raised and comments and suggestions made
by faculty senators:
- The planning document should explicitly
address issues related to serving an urban
population, particularly the issue of lifelong
learning.
- Identification of the problems and the areas that need
changing must be identified before the goals of U2000 can
be met.
- More definition is needed in what the core areas
are--what is core of the land grant university and what
are core/central disciplines?
- High school ranking is a traditional indicator of ability
and the University should not look only at traditional
criteria for selection.
- Is there a plan to redistribute undergraduate funding to
meet the goals outlined in the document? President
Hasselmo responded that the strategy is not to start with
budget cutting but to present a plan that will give the
University the best opportunity to make its case with the
State--to remind the State that there are great
advantages to investing in the University. At the same
time, the University needs to examine all areas and some
restructuring and reallocation may be appropriate.
- What mechanisms will be in place for deciding where
resources will be directed, and who will make those
decisions?
- As a research university, should University College be a
function of the University, particularly when this is not
the only urban university in the Twin Cities?
- Is it reasonable to expect faculty members in the
research area to also have the time and perhaps the
skills to deal with students in University College, as
the planning document suggests?
- Ought not the University first look at making its present
programs more efficient before embarking on a new plan?
- University College cannot be separate but equal as
suggested in the document-- if it is different, it must
be separate.
- It appears the document does not give the same rewards in
performance measurements to applied and interdisciplinary
work as to basic research.
- If outreach and access are different from service as it
is traditionally thought of, then greater definition is
needed.
- Throughout the document the term "reward" is used;
however, it is not clear what the concept of reward
means. Does rewarding excellence mean more money or is
there some other definition? Missing in the document is
the issue of "non-excellence." How do you deal with
units that are not excellent?
- Will there be inloading connected with the plan and what
will be the expectations for the faculty in terms of
outreach?
- In order to be successful in the 5 areas (directions),
the University will need to prune elsewhere. Before
approving the plan, the administration needs to identify
those areas that will be pruned.
Feelings of apathy, skepticism, confusion, and demoralization
were also expressed. A recurring theme centered on faculty
frustration with years of planning that has resulted in little
change, and their belief that their efforts will have little or no
impact on outcomes. One reason faculty are frustrated with
University planning, said one senator, is because there are no
financial incentives, and suggested that might be a way to improve
quality, to maximize change, and to reward innovation.
On a more optimistic note, one senator encouraged the
University to look at its "successes," such as the Weisman Art
Museum project, to show the University community and the State what
can be accomplished.
The chair of the Senate Finance and Planning Committee (SF&PC)
said the SF&PC is encouraged by the Reinvestment Fund proposal
which he views as a mechanism by which different plans will be
assessed by their quality, innovativeness, and usefulness, in
fostering the five basic directions for the University. This will
provide a source of funds to move the University in these
directions. It is not clear at this time how the efforts of
faculty and departments will be included in this process. On a
separate note, he said he believes central administration has
failed to transmit to faculty, students, and staff a clear
description of the results of past planning efforts and suggested
that the University's accomplishments be more broadly published now
and in the future.
The chair of the Senate Educational Policy Committee (SCEP)
also reported on his committee's efforts in the planning process.
The SCEP has discussed at length the type of students the
University educates, and believes the type of education best suited
to the institution is one that is based on research, scholarship,
and artistic expression, and that should be the core of the
University's undergraduate education.
The chair of the Senate Faculty Affairs Committee (SCFA)
suggested three significant criteria be reviewed when discussing
U2000: 1) whether the vision and direction is energizing and
motivating to the faculty, 2) whether there is a sense of process
in which the faculty and others have confidence, and 3) whether the
University understands the fiscal realities.
In the form of a metaphor, one faculty member proposed why the
faculty are so apathetic. To some extent, he said, the faculty are
like the crew of a large 18th century sailing ship. That sailing
ship has a crew of hundreds of men and about 4 officers. The men
have no idea what is going on and all the knowledge is held by the
officers. While there is confidence in Captain Hasselmo and First
Lieutenant Infante, he said, the faculty really do not know what is
going on. Perhaps the President needs to persuade the faculty as
much as he needs to persuade the State that U2000 is the right plan
for the University. He hopes the University will not be engaged in
that other nautical operation which is "rearranging the deck chairs
on the Titanic." There is great power in rhetoric, he added, and
urged the authors of U2000 to consult with some of the University's
outstanding writers to assist in the composition of the document in
a way that will persuade the State that something is happening here
at the University of Minnesota.
One Senator was concerned with the language in the document
that describes University College as a working term for an evolving
mechanism which may or may not involve the creation of a new
entity. What does this mean, he asked? He then proposed the
following straw vote motion:
That all references to University College be eliminated
from the final planning document and amended language be
prepared that says the University will identify and meet
the needs of a population of parttime degree seeking
students.
A motion to suspend the rules to consider the motion was approved.
The motion was NOT APPROVED on a voice vote. It was noted that
failure of the motion should not be construed to mean endorsement
of the concept of University College.
Tinkering with the name, argued one senator, is not enough.
The concept of University College and the elements that would go
into it need to be addressed. Is the faculty ready and willing to
provide those services?
Another individual asked to respond to the comments several
senators made regarding planning at the University over the past 5-
10 years. The University, he said, has made significant changes,
such as the restructuring of the curriculum in the College of
Agriculture; the refocusing of the mission of General College; the
strides that have been made in the laboratory facilities in IT; the
significant downsizing of the largest introductory courses; and the
improvement of many departments, such as the School of Music. To
be successful two things are necessary: 1) leadership and 2)
commitment from the faculty and staff. The destiny of the faculty,
he said, is in the hands of the faculty and if apathy continues and
is self paralyzing, no planning will make a difference.
Embracing change is good, said another senator, and everyone
knows the University needs change. He applauded some of the
sentiments and principles of the planning document, but said he
cannot support a plan until he knows what the plan is. The faculty
have yet to hear what the plan is.
In summary, Professor Garrard said, 1) there is a strong need
for feedback on the University's accomplishments in prior planning
efforts and 2) the University needs a plan that raises hope and
evokes enthusiasm.
Concluding the discussion, the President said he appreciated
the comments and questions that were raised at the meeting. It
will be important, he said, to overcome some of the fragmentation
within the University. In response to the comments about prior
planning efforts, he brought the body's attention to a recently
published document entitled "Accountability and Change, 1989-93"
that is now available in his office. The document outlines the
University's accomplishments and changes during the past four
years. Oftentimes, the President noted, changes occur in one area
of the University and are not broadly known. Two recurring
questions he heard during the discussion were, "Can we do it?" and
"Will it make a difference?" The University HAS done it and much
more than the faculty and staff collectively realize. The change
has not been brought about simply by the administration but by the
faculty and staff. No public university in several generations has
ever closed a campus--the U of M did. The dental hygiene program
at UMD was closed--it had been tried for decades without success.
The University clawed loose $21 million by internal reallocation
among colleges and it was done with faculty, student, and staff
support. It is true, that the University faces an uphill battle
when it comes to working in the political arena, but if the
planning concepts are not formulated and if the faculty, staff, and
students, do not rally behind them, nothing will be accomplished.
However, if they do, great things can be accomplished.
IV. OLD BUSINESS
NONE
V. NEW BUSINESS
NONE
VI. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 4:30 p.m.
Martha Kvanbeck
Abstractor