I. Introduction

A. Formation, composition and methodology of the Task Force

The Task Force on Faculty Consultation (hereinafter referred to as the Task Force) was appointed in late June of 1997 by the Faculty Consultative Committee (FCC). The members of theTask Force are Carol Chomsky (Law), Sheila Corcoran Perry (Nursing), Virginia Gray (CLA), M. Janice Hogan (Human Ecology), John Howe (CLA), Pete Magee (CBS) and David M. Nelson (U of M Extension Service). Mary Dempsey (Medical School) serves as Chair. Martha Kvanbeck (Senate) serves as an ex officio member.

Three members of the Task Force are also current members of the FCC (Virginia Gray, Jan Hogan and Mary Dempsey). The remaining members served on the three Provostal Faculty Consultative Committees (PFCCs). One PFCC consulted with the Provost for the Academic Health Center (AHC); another consulted with the Provost for Arts, Sciences and Engineering; and the third consulted with the Provost for Professional Studies. The three provosts were members of the previous central administrative structure on the Twin Cities campus. The three PFCCs and parallel Provostal Student Consultative Committees were established in 1996 by the Twin Cities Campus Assembly. A description of the duties of the PFCCs is included in the current bylaws of the Assembly. Our new President (Mark Yudof) decided to abolish the positions of the three provosts and utilize a different administrative structure [see the administrative structure chart, Appendix I(a)].

The formal charge to the Task Force was to make recommendations to the FCC for a system of faculty consultation that takes into account the new administrative structure (see appointment letter from Victor Bloomfield, FCC Chair, Appendix II). In order to accomplish our assignment, the Task Force gathered information from a variety of sources. The committee interviewed President Yudof, Executive Vice President and Provost Bruininks, Senior Vice President for the AHC Cerra, all three former provosts (Allen and Shively, as well as Cerra), a variety of deans, chairs of major Senate committees, and faculty representatives of the local AAUP chapter (see Appendix III for a complete list of interviews). The Task Force also welcomed and received input from individual faculty members. In addition, a survey was conducted, with the assistance of the Senate Office, to determine the existence and functions of college-level faculty consultative mechanisms on the Twin Cities campus. As a result of these interviews and surveys, the Task Force captured a broad view of the current status of faculty consultation on the Twin Cities campus. In further studies, the committee examined the constitution and bylaws of the University Senate and Twin Cities Assembly, especially the sections pertaining to the composition, duties and responsibilities of the FCC and other major Senate committees such as Educational Policy (SCEP), Faculty Affairs (SCFA) and Finance and Planning. We also reviewed the statements on faculty consultation available in documents from peer universities and the AAUP.

B. Overview of recommendations

The impetus for creating the Task Force came in part from members of the three Provostal Faculty Consultative Committees, which operated during 1996-97 to provide faculty consultation to provosts Allen, Cerra, and Shively. A number of the participants in those Consultative Committees believed a kind of cooperative consultation had occurred through those committees that should not be lost as President Yudof restructured his administration to replace the provosts with an Executive Vice President and Provost, with responsibility for the entire Twin Cities campus, and a Senior Vice President for the AHC. At the same time, the provostal faculty consultative committees created by the Twin Cities Campus Assembly Bylaws could no longer operate as originally envisioned, since the parallel administrative structure had changed. Early in our deliberations, the Task Force considered the possibility of recommending substitution of a new committee to provide faculty consultation with Vice President Bruininks in his role as chief academic officer for the Twin Cities campuses, but the Task Force was mindful of the need to avoid duplication of consultative and governance work already done by other Senate committees. At the same time, we wanted to respond to concerns expressed by both former members of the provostal consultative committees and by others who appeared before the Task Force that the administration is not always hearing from a full diversity of faculty voices as those voices have been filtered through the current governance structure.

The Task Force recommendations, contained in the subsequent sections of this report, do not propose the creation of any new consultative committee. Rather, we make a series of recommendations for strengthening and diversifying the current governance structure by suggesting changes with respect to faculty Senators, Senate committees, and college governance. Many of the recommendations suggest new ways of ensuring better communication among the many levels of faculty governance, to better promote both efficiency and more effective consultation. In addition, we recommend consideration and FCC adoption of a set of principles to guide both faculty and administrators in executing their roles in University governance. Finally, we recommend that new faculty and administrators, as well as newly elected Senators, be provided with an orientation program that would familiarize them with the governance and consultative structure and would introduce them to the established culture of faculty consultation at the University. Greater familiarity by faculty and administrators with the expectations for faculty governance and consultation would help to facilitate the cooperation of faculty and administrators in shaping the academic excellence of the University.

In the sections below, we first describe the guiding principles that might be adopted to describe governance expectations at the University. We then detail the specific recommendations for each level of the current governance structure, and conclude with a section describing the orientation we envision.

Our charge was limited to making recommendations regarding the faculty consultation processes on the Twin Cities campuses. Consequently, we did not address changes in student consultative mechanisms or in faculty consultation on the coordinate campuses. The Task Force received several pertinent comments from faculty at Crookston, Morris and Duluth, however, and many of our recommendations are applicable to faculty consultation with administrators on those campuses.

II. Summary of Recommendations

We summarize below, in brief form, the primary recommendations contained in each of the remaining sections of this report. The sections themselves contain both more explanation of the rationale for each recommendation and more complete description of the recommendations. We include the summary here for easier reference.

• A. Guiding Principles for Faculty Governance and Consultation
  
  • The Task Force proposes a set of guiding principles on faculty governance and consultation for consideration and adoption by the FCC.

• B. Recommendations Related to Faculty Senators
  
  • Senators should be expected to communicate on a regular basis with college faculty and governance bodies; colleges may establish more formal roles for their senators in their own governance processes.
    
  • Newly elected senators should be provided with orientation materials to familiarize them more fully with the governance and consultative process and their responsibilities.
    
  • Senators should be given priority in selection for Senate committee membership and should be encouraged to participate in committees.
    
  • Senators should be provided with more information in easily accessible form about matters under consideration by the Senate and its committees so that the senators, and through them their constituencies, may better participate in Senate decision-making.

• C. Recommendations Related to Senate Committees
  
  • Senate committees should circulate drafts of proposed policies as early as possible to allow senators, and through them their constituencies, to be more familiar with issues on the Senate agenda. In addition, in order to encourage broader consultation, Senate committees should, when possible and appropriate, bring items to the Senate for discussion in concept form before drafting specific language.
    
  • Each standing committee should review its ex officio representation to ensure more effective and efficient consultation with University administration. The President should be consulted in the course of this review.
    
  • Each standing committee should consider whether to invite ex officio representation from administrators from the Academic Health Center in order to facilitate better coordination across the campuses.

• D. Recommendations Related to Faculty Consultative Committee Elections
  
  • In addition to the information currently made available to those voting for FCC at- large members, faculty should be provided with candidate statements and photographs to ensure more informed voting.

• E. Recommendations Related to the PFCCs and the Operation of the Faculty Consultative Committee
  
  • The Twin Cities Campus Assembly Bylaws should be amended to remove reference to the provostal faculty consultative committees. To perform the consultative function of the former PFCCs, the faculty members of the FCC from the Twin Cities should convene regularly as the Twin Cities Faculty Assembly Steering Committee to meet both independently and with the Provost and Senior Vice President for Health Sciences to address issues relevant to the Twin Cities campus or clusters of collegiate units.
    
  • The members of the Twin Cities Faculty Assembly Steering Committee should meet periodically with groups of senators from the represented units to facilitate communication of concerns previously raised mostly in the provostal faculty consultative committees.
    
  • The FCC should make more regular use of joint meetings of standing committees.
    
  • As appropriate, the FCC and administration should jointly appoint ad hoc task forces to address particular issues demanding such attention, taking care to protect the faculty role in any such processes.

• F. Recommendations Related to College Governance: Recommendations to Colleges
  
  • Each college should have a meaningful consultative committee, the members of which are elected by their constituencies.
    
  • Each college consultative committee should meet both independently of and together with the dean to ensure both independent action and effective consultation.
    
  • College consultative committees should meet regularly to ensure a regular forum for consultation on emerging issues.

• G. Recommendations Related to College Governance: Recommendations to the FCC
  
  • Chairs of the college faculty consultative committees should be non-voting ex officio members of the Senate.
    
  • The FCC should sponsor an annual workshop for the chairs of the college consultative committees to assist them in establishing more effective consultative mechanisms.

• H. Recommendations Related to the Academic Health Center
  
  • The chair of the AHC-FCC should be a non-voting ex officio member of the Senate.
    
  • The Senate FCC should meet quarterly with the AHC-FCC to ensure coordination and communication between the faculty consultative bodies.

• I. Recommendations Related to Decanal and Administrative Support of Faculty Governance and Consultation
  
  • In reviews of the performance of deans and other administrators, consideration should be given to the way in which the administrator carries out the responsibility to consult with faculty in decision-making.
    
  • Deans should be encouraged to attend and participate in University Senate meetings as non-voting ex officio members.

• J. Recommendations for Orientation on Faculty Governance
  
  • An orientation session on faculty governance should be held each fall, and all newly appointed faculty members and administrators should be encouraged to attend.
    
  • The FCC should request an opportunity to meet with at least any newly elected Regents at the beginning of each academic year to introduce them to the University governance and consultation system.

III. Guiding Principles for Faculty Governance and Consultation

The faculty of the University of Minnesota/Twin Cities has long played a central role in university governance and consultation, a role fully consistent with the faculty's primary responsibilities for the teaching, research, and service missions of the University. Through the years -- and perhaps never more evidently than during the recent crisis over tenure -- the faculty has vigorously articulated the academic values that give definition and purpose to the University, and has defended those values against attack. Faculty participation in governance and consultation, moreover, has promoted the diversity of ideas, sense of shared responsibilities, and collegiality that have fostered institutional excellence. For all these reasons, it is essential that the faculty's central place in the leadership of the University be maintained in the future, and that the faculty voice be clearly and distinctly articulated as part of the close cooperation among faculty, administration, staff, and students at the core of the University of Minnesota's system of shared governance and consultation.

The Constitution of the University Senate, as approved by the Board of Regents, sets forth the formal understanding of the shared governance system. Article I of the Constitution commits to the president, the University Senate, and the several faculties "all matters relating to the educational and administrative affairs of the University." In Article III, the Senate is given "general legislative authority over educational matters" and "the power to enact regulations for the governing of faculty, academic professionals, and students in those relations with the University which affect the University as a whole." The University Senate, in turn, delegates to the Faculty Senate certain matters, including policies concerning faculty appointment and tenure and "policies and procedures that influence the personal and professional welfare of the faculty and academic professional staff." (Constitution Article III, Sections 3b, 3d and Bylaws, Article III, Section 8) The president of the University is given general administrative authority over University affairs and the final authority to make budgetary recommendations to the regents. "[I]n view of the necessary weighing of educational policies and objectives involved" in budget recommendations, however, the Constitution instructs the president to "consult with and ask for the recommendations of . . . the Senate Consultative Committee" concerning budgetary recommendations that affect the University as a whole. In Article V, the Constitution vests in each institute, college, or school of collegiate rank the power to control the internal affairs and policies of that school, including entrance requirements, curricula, instruction, granting of degrees, and academic disciplinary matters; each college, in turn, has its own constitution allocating decision-making responsibility for college governance.

The University Senate has thus been accorded primary legislative responsibility over educational matters and over regulations governing faculty, academic professionals and students. As reflected in the discussion of budgetary authority, moreover, "educational matters" has been broadly construed to require University Senate (and therefore faculty) involvement in decision-making that pertains to academic matters both directly and indirectly. The power to enact regulations governing faculty, academic professionals, and students has been similarly understood. In addition, it has been consistent practice at the University to consult with faculty with respect to decisions that have an impact on faculty, even if the matters are not, strictly speaking, "educational." By so consulting, the administration ensures that it can take faculty concerns into account before reaching a decision, which generally results in wiser administrative decisions that have broader support when announced.

Believing it important to reaffirm and strengthen the faculty's role in university and collegiate decision making, the Task Force proposes the following principles to guide faculty governance and consultation throughout the University and to amplify the formal delegation of authority to the University Senate and colleges:

• While the boundaries between principal areas of faculty and administrative responsibility cannot be sharply or permanently drawn in a system of shared governance and consultation, the faculty has primary authority over matters of academic and educational policy such as curriculum, subject matter and methods of instruction, research, faculty status (including promotion and tenure, academic misconduct, and faculty grievances), standards and procedures for admission, evaluation and graduation of students, and those aspects of student life that relate to the educational process.

• Budgetary policies and decisions directly affecting areas for which the faculty has primary responsibility should be made in close concert with the faculty.

• In areas where faculty do not have formal governance authority, faculty should be consulted on all matters likely to have a significant impact on the personal and professional welfare of faculty and academic professional staff.

• It is the obligation of university and college administrators to respect the faculty's role in governance and consultation, to consult with and provide relevant information to appropriate faculty groups in timely fashion, and to act promptly on governance and consultative outcomes. Consultation should in most cases occur during the early stages of administrative decision-making to ensure genuine participation by faculty in the decision-making process.

• Faculty and administrators share the responsibility for assuring that governance and consultative procedures are arranged so as to avoid unnecessary duplication of effort and blurring of responsibility, as well as to promote efficient decision making.

• Faculty governance and consultation should be democratically based in the faculty and be broadly representative of faculty diversity. Special care should be taken to encourage participation by new faculty.

• Faculty involved in governance and consultation are obligated to participate responsibly, to be well informed on the issues with which they deal, and to keep the larger good of the University and its colleges centrally in mind.

• While faculty participation in governance and consultation often requires discretion and confidentiality, faculty representatives are obligated to keep lines of reportage and communication open with their constituents.

• While the faculty is responsible for designing its own arrangements for governance and consultation, those arrangements should mesh closely with related administrative structures.

• Appropriate consultative bodies, rules, and procedures should be established for effective faculty participation in the governance of departments, programs, and colleges throughout the University.

IV. Recommendations Related to Faculty Senators

The University Senate is the primary agent for faculty participation in University-wide governance. Although faculty provide much consultation through membership on Senate committees, the Senate is the most representative group, containing delegates from every college and collegiate unit at the University. It is therefore vital that Senators be more active participants in the governance process than has been true in recent years. At the very least, Senators should be adequately informed about issues presented to the Senate and serve as effective vehicles for communication with their constituencies in their home academic units. Communication must be two-way: Senators should provide information to their faculty colleagues about policies and procedures that come before the Senate and should bring to the governance process the voices of those colleagues. Senators should also be encouraged to take a more active role in governance beyond attending quarterly Senate meetings and voting on matters on the agenda. To this end, the Task Force makes the following recommendations to enhance the role of Faculty Senators:

• Senators can be most effective in their governance role as representatives of the faculty perspective if they play a more active role in their college consultative and governance structures. Each college or collegiate unit should clearly define the role it expects its elected faculty senators to play in college governance. Currently that role ranges from no responsibility for governance in some colleges to forming the membership of the college consultative committee. At the very least, we recommend that senators should be expected to communicate with their college faculty consultative committee and faculty assembly on a regular basis and consult with faculty in their home college about agenda items prior to coming to the Senate meetings. (Such communication can and should occur at the initiative of the faculty senators, even in the absence of articulated expectations by the college.) Some colleges may wish to establish a formal governance role for their Senators, such as service on the college consultative committee. The college should inform new and prospective senators about their expectations.

• In addition to any information conveyed by their colleges, newly elected faculty senators should be informed by the Senate about their roles and responsibilities to the University. Written material should be sent to senators following their election and a briefing by the FCC chair should occur annually at the first Senate meeting. The orientation should include an overview of the Senate structure and process, Senate rules and procedures, the general roles and responsibilities of senators, important faculty issues likely to be addressed by the Senate, committee functions, and communication avenues (e.g., Web sites, Faculty Governance Update, Senate contacts).

• The Task Force considered, but rejected, recommending that senators be required to serve on Senate committees. Although increased committee participation by senators would make them more informed participants in faculty governance, it is also important that the diversity of faculty representation on committees be protected. In any event, there are not enough committee slots to accommodate all senators. In an effort to offer more opportunities for senators to be more actively involved, however, we recommend that senators be given priority in serving on Senate/Assembly committees, and that in their orientation they be encouraged to volunteer for committee responsibilities.

• The Senate staff has already taken steps to improve the amount and quality of information provided to senators about upcoming matters (particularly by publication of the Faculty Governance Update). We encourage continued efforts to ensure that senators receive or have easy access to concise information about significant issues that they will face in upcoming meetings so that they can make well informed decisions based on consultation with their faculty colleagues.

V. Recommendations Related to Senate Committees

• As discussed above, effective operation of the governance structure requires that faculty senators receive timely information about issues that will be presented to them for decision. To facilitate the flow of such information, standing committees of the Senate that will be seeking approval of policies at a Senate meeting should circulate drafts of their proposed policies via e-mail or the Web as early as possible. In addition, whenever possible and appropriate, committees should bring their items in concept form to the Senate for discussion before drafting specific language. Guided by the Senate debate, they can then draft policy proposals for final action and senators can consult with their colleagues about the general contours of the proposed policies before final adoption.

• Mindful of the need to avoid duplication of effort and to conserve time of administrators devoted to the consultative process, we recommend that each standing committee review and evaluate its ex officio representation in light of the current administrative structure, the jurisdiction of the committee, and the nature of its usual agenda. The president should be consulted in the course of this review as to who may most appropriately represent him in the committee deliberations.

• As part of the review of ex officio membership, each standing committee should consider whether it would be appropriate to have as an ex officio non-voting member an Academic Health Center administrator in addition to any representative of the University administration. For example, it may be desirable to have the appropriate AHC administrators in the areas of facilities planning or academic affairs serve on the relevant Senate committees. Such ex officio membership may facilitate the flow of information and ensure greater uniformity of operation throughout the Twin Cities campus.

VI. Recommendations Related to Faculty Consultative Committee (FCC) Elections

One of the themes that emerged early in our discussions was the importance of ensuring that a full diversity of faculty voices be heard in the consultation process. The most significant locus of faculty consultation is the Faculty Consultative Committee, and its central importance is reflected in the requirement that the membership of the FCC be chosen in a contested election rather than selected by the Committee on Committees with confirmation of the Senate. While such election provides the form for broad faculty participation in the consultation process through the selection of representatives to consult on behalf of faculty, in reality the election process has not adequately fulfilled this objective. In order to strengthen the connection between FCC members and the faculty they represent and to ensure system-wide representation, the Task Force considered whether FCC membership should consist of slots allocated by college or clusters of units. The Task Force decided not to recommend this change due to the importance of having FCC members maintain an institution-wide perspective. In order to ensure that a diversity of voices is heard at the FCC, however, the nominating committee should endeavor, as always, to ensure representation across the spectrum of colleges. In addition, the Task Force recommends the following change in the election process for FCC members:

• In the electoral process, voters should be supplied with additional information so that they may make more knowledgeable choices. In addition to the usual biographies, candidates should be encouraged to supply a photograph and to write a short statement (about 100 words) about their views and their reasons for seeking election to the FCC. The ballot should include a description of the process by which nominations are made to the election slate, a statement about the importance of diverse representation, and the biographies, statements, and photographs of each candidate. The nominating committee, or other group, may also wish to hold a "meet the candidates" forum prior to the election.

VII. Recommendations Related to Operation of the FCC

One of the benefits of the provostal organization of the administration was the opportunity for faculty to consult directly with the head of their own administratively-defined portion of the University through the provostal consultative committees. Under President Yudof's administration, two of the three former provostal areas were merged and now report to Executive Vice President Bruininks acting in his capacity as Provost. The units in the third provostal area now report to Senior Vice President for Health Sciences Cerra.

The faculty in the Health Sciences have decided to maintain a separate faculty consultative committee to work with Senior Vice President Cerra. The Task Force considered, but rejected, creating a new consultative committee of faculty from the units reporting to Provost Bruininks. Instead, we recommend that the FCC itself assume the consultative functions performed by the former provostal consultative committees. We recommend that the FCC maintain a consultative relationship with Senior Vice President Cerra as well, in order to facilitate communication and coordination of policies and efforts across the Twin Cities campuses.

• In particular, we recommend that at regular intervals the faculty members of the FCC from the Twin Cities meet as the Twin Cities Faculty Assembly Steering Committee to deal with issues arising on the Twin Cities campuses as a whole or in clusters of units. This Steering Committee should meet both independently and with the Provost and Senior Vice President for Health Sciences, as appropriate, to identify and address those issues. Some of the issues facing the former provostal FCCs could be dealt with in this forum, for example the perceived decline of the core, the need and opportunities for interdisciplinary work, and opportunities for faculty development.

• To facilitate its consultative role as representatives of the Twin Cities campus colleges, we recommend that the members of the Twin Cities Faculty Assembly Steering Committee also meet periodically with groups of senators from the units for whom it speaks in that consultative role. One of the often-cited strengths of the provostal faculty consultative committees was their representative quality, with a committee member elected from each college. The FCC cannot duplicate that structure, but the voices from all the represented units can still be heard in the consultation through such periodic meetings with elected senators, whose role we have recommended be redefined to include more communication with their own constituents.

• To ensure that consultation with faculty occurs early in the decision-making process, the Task Force recommends that the FCC encourage the administration to include ex officio faculty representation on centrally-appointed committees, when appropriate. Moreover, it is the recommendation of the Task Force that the chair or vice-chair of the FCC serve on the President's Executive Committee and/or Cabinet.

One of the concerns expressed to the Task Force as we considered how to maintain the consultative role of the faculty under the new administrative structure was the duplication of effort as multiple Senate committees and other consultative groups consider and reconsider the same issues, with the consequent need for administrator involvement on multiple occasions. To respond to this concern, the Task Force recommends that the FCC, in its capacity as the Steering Committee, actively manage the flow of committee business so that meetings are not redundant. In particular, we recommend:

• The FCC should use the mechanism of joint meetings of standing committees more vigorously than at present so that all committees with a stake in the discussion be present, especially for consultation with administrators. In addition to representing greater efficiency of effort, joint meetings will have the salutary effect of bringing more diverse voices to the table together.

• As special topical issues come up demanding urgent attention, the FCC and the administration should jointly appoint ad hoc task forces to address those issues and formulate blueprints for action. As these task forces would include representation from relevant faculty committees and administrators involved with decision-making on the specific issue, the recommendations of these ad hoc task forces should be approved and implemented in a more streamlined fashion. Recent experience with a variety of such task forces -- current examples include the Ad Hoc Committee to Revise the Nepotism and Consensual and Romantic Relationships Policies, the Health Plan Task Force, the Incentives for Managed Growth (IMG) Oversight Subcommittee, the Intellectual Property Subcommittee, and the Joint Committee on Academic Appointments -- suggests their utility. Past experience, with the Tenure Working Group, also reinforces the importance of ensuring that the faculty voice be central to the formulation of recommendations from such task forces and that the faculty governance system maintain its role in approving any such recommendations.

VIII. Recommendations Related to College Governance

A theme that emerged early in our discussions with Senate committee chairs, deans, and faculty members was the importance of strengthening consultation and governance at the college level. Expanding faculty involvement in college decision-making would likely be important no matter what structure existed in the University administration, but it takes on increased importance in view of President Yudof's plans to "flatten" the administrative structure and place primary authority and responsibility with the colleges. If most critical decisions are to be made by colleges, then faculty involvement in University governance must be centered in the colleges as well.

Before offering recommendations about the nature of future collegiate faculty consultation, the Task Force undertook a survey of the operation of current collegiate consultative committees. We asked about the frequency of meetings, whether the committees met independently or with the dean, who set the committee's agenda, what kinds of issues the committee addressed, whether the college also has a collegiate assembly and its relationship to the consultative committee, and whether the person responding to the survey thought the committee to be an effective consultative mechanism. We received responses from the Colleges of Agricultural, Food, and Environmental Sciences; Human Ecology; Law; Liberal Arts; Natural Resources; Nursing; Public Health; and Veterinary Medicine; and from General College, Libraries, U of M Extension Service, and the Institute of Technology. (In addition, the Agricultural Experiment Station, the Colleges of Architecture and Landscape Architecture, Dentistry, and Pharmacy, and the Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs reported having no consultative committees.) We also discussed collegiate consultative structures with those who spoke to the Task Force, including the deans of the Medical School and College of Biological Sciences.

The frequency of meetings of the collegiate consultative committees ranged from twice a month (or biweekly) to once a quarter. Most of the committees seem to meet regularly with the dean, and some, though not all, also meet independently. All of the consultative committees include faculty members, but some also include P&A and civil service representatives. Some of the larger colleges have several consultative bodies. The agendas for the committees are reported to be set variously by the dean, by the committee chair or co-chairs (often in consultation with or in response to the dean as well as with committee members), or by an executive committee (often based on requests from the dean and faculty members).

When asked to identify the kinds of issues that the consultative committee addresses, some respondents spoke generally of "planning and budgeting issues," "personnel, legal matters, conflict," "strategic planning," "changes in the University governance structure," "budget and training issues," and "issues of faculty concern." Others listed specific issues such as faculty salaries, teaching/work loads, fringe benefits, administrative review mechanism, technology policy, semester conversion issues, grade changes and readmission of students dismissed for reasons of academic performance, mechanisms for reducing student stress, construction plans for the college's building, relations between faculty and P&A staff, appointment of members of standing and special committees of the college general assembly, meetings with members of the external community to enhance outreach activities, and the allocation of ICR funds for set up and matches.

Although a few of the colleges have no Assembly, most do. Smaller units often have an Assembly composed of all faculty members, along with academic professionals with longer-term association with the University; some also have representatives from graduate students and civil service staff. Larger units have elected Assemblies, with representation from units within the college. In all colleges that have both a consultative committee and an assembly, there is some coordination between the two bodies. In some, the relationship is particularly strong, with the consultative committee setting the agenda for the assembly. In at least one, the assembly is described as primarily providing a forum for the dean to communicate to the college.

Many of the respondents to the survey indicated they believed their committees to be effective consultative mechanisms, though they also expressed some ambivalence. Most of those who appeared before the Task Force suggested that collegiate consultative mechanisms could and should be strengthened. One respondent to the survey said the college committee was effective "to some extent, but we could do more if we were proactive." Another indicated it "could be more effective if it addressed a broader range of issues" though suggesting "there does not seem to be a desire for a broader mandate." Others noted "ambivalence" and lack of clarity by the faculty and administration on their goals and how to achieve them or found the committee effective on relatively non-contentious issues but frequently ignored by the dean after reaching agreement.

A review of the surveys suggests healthy consultative processes in colleges where consultative committees exist, but it remains unclear to the Task Force how effective the consultative mechanisms are in practice. Colleges that have a strong culture of consultation with faculty appear to have strong consultative committees that identify and address issues of concern to faculty and establish communication with their deans facilitating effective consultation before decanal decisions are made. Colleges with weaker traditions of consultation have committees that are available to consult with deans on a variety of issues, but the scope of the committee's agenda remains limited and deans in those colleges appear to make decisions with more limited input from faculty.

In order to ensure more effective consultative processes throughout the University, the Task Force makes the following recommendations about consultative structures within colleges. We note that most of the recommendations are made to the governance bodies of the colleges, which control the shape of college governance and consultation. In order to be implemented, some of the proposals may require amendments to college constitutions. The final two recommendations are to the FCC.

Recommendations to colleges:

• Each college should have a meaningful faculty consultative committee whose members are elected by their constituencies, as is the case for the Senate Consultative Committee. It may be best if elections are contested (that is, with more individuals running than are to be elected). In any event, the membership should not be selected by the college dean. Election of the membership will ensure that the members both will be representative of the faculty voices in the college and will maintain a degree of independence from the dean.

• The consultative committee should meet independently of the dean to identify issues and set its own agenda, as well as meet with the dean to provide consultation on issues raised by the committee and/or by the dean.

• The committee should have regular meetings, perhaps monthly, in order to ensure that a regular forum exists for discussing issues as they arise. Meetings once or twice a quarter or semester seem too infrequent to make consultation ongoing and effective.

Recommendations to the FCC:

• In order to ensure more effective communication among the various consultative and governance structures, the chairs of the college consultative committees should be non-voting ex officio members of the Senate. Such a relationship would have several desirable effects. First, the consultative committee chairs would receive all information distributed to Senators about issues being considered by Senate committees and the Senate as a whole, providing the college committees with more and better information about issues related to their own concerns. Second, the relationship would promote communication from the college consultative committees to the Senate governance bodies of issues being addressed on the collegiate level, which will allow the Senate and its committees to be more effective as well. Finally, as noted in other portions of this report, many who appeared before the Task Force reported that deans, other administrators, and faculty who do not serve in the Senate or on Senate committees are relatively uninformed about governance issues. If college consultative committee chairs are members of the Senate, the flow of information between the Senate and the consultative committees will facilitate greater communication between the Senate governance structure and all administrators and faculty in the colleges and other academic units.

• The FCC should sponsor an annual workshop for the chairs of the college consultative committees to assist them in establishing more effective consultative mechanisms. Such an annual workshop could also be a forum for the FCC and the college committee chairs to identify areas of common concern and strengthen the communication among the various levels of faculty governance.

IX. Recommendations Related to the Academic Health Center (AHC)

The AHC presents a unique situation to the governance and consultative process because it is an identified and, to some degree, separate cluster of colleges that have common interests and concerns requiring joint consultation and decision-making. For example, the AHC now faces a number of major changes requiring extensive faculty consultation and involvement, including the reorganization of biological sciences, the proposed new building for Molecular and Cellular Biology, the relocation of current faculty during the new construction, and involvement of the Fairview Health System in the clinical activities of faculty. The AHC is also attempting to recover from a recent history of faculty concern about the lack of consultation by administrators and the consequently prevailing climate of distrust of administrators. In recognition of this, the AHC faculty have determined that they will maintain an AHC assembly and faculty consultative committee, in addition to whatever college assemblies and faculty consultative committees exist. The Senior Vice President for the AHC has expressed his support for this new consultative structure. At the same time, the AHC constituent colleges and faculty are represented, as are all other colleges and faculty, through participation in the University Senate and Senate committees.

To facilitate necessary consultation within the AHC, the Task Force recommends that the FCC express support for the processes being developed for faculty consultation at all levels of AHC administration. Consistent with our recommendations for involvement of faculty Senators in collegiate governance, the Task Force commends the use of elected faculty senators in the newly formed AHC consultation groups. In keeping with our recommendations about meaningful college governance, we also urge that the members of the AHC-FCC continue to be selected independent of the deans or the Senior Vice President, that the membership be large enough to provide effective access to faculty voices, and that the committee continues to meet independently and regularly, set its own agenda, and serve in a meaningful consultative role as decisions are being made, not simply be reactive.

In addition, the Task Force recommends the following:

• The chair of the AHC-FCC should be an ex officio non-voting member of the University Senate, for the same reasons we recommend that role for the chairs of the collegiate consultative committees.

• The Senate FCC should meet quarterly with the AHC-FCC to ensure coordination and communication between the faculty consultative bodies. We considered, but rejected, a recommendation that the AHC-FCC chair be an ex officio member of the Senate FCC based on our support for maintaining the University-wide focus of all members of the Senate FCC.

X. Recommendations Related to Decanal and Administrative Support of Faculty Governance and Consultation

As the chief administrative officer of the college, the dean should provide assistance and support to the governing structures of the unit. Although college constitutions may provide for the existence of faculty consultative mechanisms, the consultative and governance process will work collaboratively only if the dean provides support to the implementation of those procedures and actively seeks and responds to faculty consultation. Senate rules encourage department chairs and deans to recognize and support faculty participation in University governance as an important and integral part of the individual's work. Pursuant to the Tenure Regulations and Faculty Compensation Policy, service to the University is one of the criteria used in evaluating faculty for compensation, promotion, and tenure, but the written criteria will only be effective if the dean recognizes the value of such work. Similarly, faculty consultation will only be meaningful if senior administrators in all parts of the University recognize the importance of faculty consultation and cooperate in making it effective. For these reasons, we make the following recommendations:

• As part of a dean's performance review, consideration should be given to the manner in which the dean carries out the responsibility to consult with faculty in college decision-making. This aspect of performance should also be added to the list of "core performance criteria" in the Recommended Procedures for Comprehensive Reviews for System and Campus Officers so that it may be considered in reviewing all senior officers. Relevant facts to examine include: whether the collegiate unit has a faculty assembly and/or a faculty consultative committee that meets on a regular schedule, whether the consultative committee is selected and meets independently of the dean and sets at least part of the agenda for consultation, whether there is appropriate consultation between the dean and the committee on all matters of general concern to the faculty, whether the dean consults individually as appropriate with faculty, and whether the dean effectively uses other advisory committees of faculty in decision-making on issues that affect the unit, both internally and in its relations with other units of the University.

• Deans should also be encouraged to attend and participate in University Senate meetings as non-voting ex officio members to be better informed about matters relating to the educational and administrative affairs of the University and to add their voices to deliberations in the Senate.

XI. Recommendations for Orientation on Faculty Governance

New members of the faculty and administration, whether taking their first post or moving from another institution, are often unfamiliar with the nature of faculty governance at the University of Minnesota. When faculty are uninformed about the process, they are less likely to become involved themselves, are less likely to understand their duties and responsibilities if they do agree to serve on committees or as senators, and are less likely to trust that administrative decisions are made with recognition of faculty concerns. When administrators are uninformed about the process, they may neglect to consult with Senate or other faculty committees when it is appropriate to do so, resulting in decisions that have less support from faculty because they were made without consideration of faculty perspectives and concerns.

Similarly, newly elected Regents may be unfamiliar with the procedures and traditions related to faculty governance at the University. As recent events demonstrated, when regents are uninformed about the process, they are less likely to respect the consultative mechanisms that operate as part of University decision-making.

To ensure greater familiarity by faculty, administrators, and Regents with the governance system, the Task Force recommends the following:

• An orientation session on faculty governance should be held each fall, in conjunction with the fall orientation offered to new employees, and each new faculty member and administrator should be invited and expected to participate. (Current faculty members and administrators should also be encouraged to attend if they are unfamiliar with the information being shared at the orientation sessions.) The orientation should emphasize the importance of faculty governance and consultation and should include a general introduction to the governance structures and processes and describe opportunities for participation in consultation and governance at both the University and collegiate level.

• The FCC should request an opportunity to meet with newly elected Regents to introduce them to the University governance and consultation system. Like the orientation for faculty and administrators, the orientation for Regents should emphasize the importance of faculty governance and consultation and include a general introduction to the governance structures and processes, especially those aspects of particular relevance to decision-making by the Regents.

XII. Conclusion

The Task Force on Faculty Consultation submits this report to the Faculty Consultative Committee pursuant to the charge from its Chair, Professor Victor Bloomfield. The members of the Task Force are available to answer any questions the Committee may have about our recommendations. We thank you for the opportunity to consider and report on these important issues.

Mary Dempsey, Chair (Medical School)
Carol Chomsky (Law)
Sheila Corcoran Perry (Nursing)
Virginia Gray (CLA)
M. Janice Hogan (Human Ecology)
John Howe (CLA)
Pete Magee (CBS)
David M. Nelson (U of M Extension Service)
Martha Kvanbeck (Senate), ex officio member.