These minutes reflect
discussion and debate at a meeting of a committee of the
Minutes
Present:
Charles Speaks (chair), Stanley Bonnema, Bruce
Brorson, Charles Campbell, David Chapman, Tom Gilson, Gary Jahn, Thomas Klein,
Joseph Konstan, Richard Pfutzenreuter, Terry Roe, Thomas Stinson, Susan
VanVoorhis, Michael Volna, Susan Carlson Weinberg
Absent:
Jean Bauer, Robert Cudeck, Michael Korth, Marvin
Marshak, Timothy Nantell, Warren Warwick
Guests:
Vice President-designate Kathleen
O'Brien; Associate Vice President Judy Kirk (
Other:
none
[In these minutes: (1) the capital campaign results and impact;
(2) agenda for the Subcommittee on Twin Cities Facilities and Support Services;
(3) update on the football stadium; (4) new financial system]
1. The
Capital Campaign
Professor Speaks convened the meeting at
Ms. Kirk said she understood the Committee was interested
in the impact of the campaign on the University, so would provide an update on
the fund-raising and a review of how the money will be used.
As of
How much default is there on bequests, Professor Speaks
asked? Not much, Ms. Kirk said.
She
reviewed the objectives of the campaign and the amount of money that had been
raised for each. (All numbers are
millions of dollars.)
Goal Progress %
of Goal
Faculty 275 296 108
Students 225 206 92
Strategic Initiatives 40 31 78
Research 350 480 137
Facilities 50 115 232
Libraries 15 11 71
Ongoing Programs 345 259 75
Total 1,300 1,399 108
The Facilities goal was
purposely set low, after a very successful capital request, so it would not
overshadow the other elements of the campaign, Ms. Kirk said.
Ms. Kirk then reviewed the categories of donors by size
of gift. There were no donors who gave
$25 million or more but there were 29 donors who gave between $5 million and
$24.9 million and 261 who gave between $1 million and $5 million, for a total
290 gifts of over $1 million. At the
beginning of the campaign, the University had about 1200 people who gave more
than $25,000; by the end there were over
4,000.
At the start of the campaign one goal was to broaden the
base of donors; during the 1985-88 campaign, most of the donors were
corporations. This time around there
were 76,200 alumni donors (who gave 27% of the funds raised) and 100,077 other
individual donors (who gave 20% of the funds raised). The University has a high number of
non-alumni donors, compared to its peers.
Foundations (1,136) gave 14% of the total and corporations (15,679) gave
30%. Other organizations gave the
remaining 9% of the funds donated. The
giving is now more balanced than it has been in the past.
Of
the 2002 donors, there were 3,937 faculty and staff who contributed $11.1
million. To date in the campaign,
faculty and staff have contributed over $56 million (the goal was $40 million).
With respect to this last datum, Ms.
Kirk said she did not know of any other institution in the country that has
received this kind of support from its own faculty and staff. She related that former Vice President
William G. Shepherd, who headed the 1980s campaign, has been delighted with the
willingness of faculty and staff to support the University.
Ms.
Kirk reviewed the progress of major capital campaigns at other universities
(tracked assiduously by The Chronicle of Higher Education). A couple of those institutions have not
reached their goals and are worried, given the state of the economy, that they
may be unable to do so.
In
terms of the cost to raise a dollar, Ms. Kirk told the Committee the University
is consistently below national standards in the cost of fund-raising. During 2002 (a difficult year), the costs
have risen to 11.4¢ per dollar (still below the average); in prior years of the
campaign the cost has ranged from 6.6¢ to 10.4¢. In calculating this cost, they look at the
costs of the Foundation and fund-raising expenses in the colleges. Professor Speaks asked if a donation of $1
million to Computer Science, for example, would result in Computer Science
receiving $1 million; it would, Ms. Kirk affirmed. Where do the funds to support fund-raising
come from, Professor Konstan asked? Are
units that are not doing much in the way of fund-raising losing money because
the University's budget provides support for fund-raising? To some extent, Ms. Kirk said, but fund-raising
budgets are not all central; units that can raise money often have significant
unit-level development budgets.
Ms.
Kirk next reviewed highlights of the changes in University fund-raising. In 1963 the Foundation had $600,000 in
assets; in 2002 that number is $1.014 billion.
Annual gifts in 1963 totalled about $62,000; in 2002 they are $164.5
million. There were 27 donors in 1962;
in 2002 there were over 70,000.
Distributions to the University, in turn, have also grown. In 1992 a total of $32 million was
distributed ($19 million from the Foundation and $13 million from the Minnesota
Medical Foundation). In 2002 the
corresponding numbers were $109 million ($74 million UMF and $35 million MMF).
In
terms of the campaign impact, there have been 98 new endowed chairs created,
bringing the University's total to 390; they have a combined endowment value of
$578 million. Endowed fellowships have
grown from 117 in 1996 to 333 in 2002; endowed scholarships have increased in
the six years from 557 to 925. What are
the guidelines on endowments, Professor Konstan asked? The University requires $1 million for an
endowed chair and $500,000 for a professorship, Ms. Kirk told him; there will
be a recommendation to the Regents in the near future that these amounts both
be doubled, to go into effect after the capital campaign ends. [This policy recommendation is being reviewed
by the Senate Consultative Committee during September.] What is the yield from the endowments,
Professor Konstan asked? About 5% per
year, Ms. Kirk said. How much do these
endowments provide budget relief for existing expenses versus supporting new
activities, he asked? And do they track
these uses? Ms. Kirk said they do not
track the expenditures because the endowments are all so different.
Ms.
Kirk noted that the "pipeline of deferred gifts" will continue long
into the future; 75% of the deferred gifts will probably come after 2012, a
projection based on life expectancy tables.
In terms of "legacy gifts" (bequests), the University knows
about 62% of them before they are received (but over a third are a surprise,
although in many cases the individuals have otherwise donated funds to the
University). From 1985-1996 there was
$82 million in bequests, of which the University has thus far received $62
million (and most of the balance has not been paid because the donors have not
died). From 1997-2003 there has been
$179 million in bequests, of which the University has received $44 million
(again, the balance has not been received because the donors are still living).
The payout to the University from the Foundation has risen
noticeably recently, Ms. Kirk noted. The
estimated pay-out (5% of a five-year trailing average) was estimated at $8
million in 2000, $12 million in 2001, $15 million in 2002, and projected to be
$18 million in 2003.
Ms. Kirk concluded her presentation with brief stories of
three contributors. One couple are
alumni of the University who met at the University; he is a vice president at
Microsoft who donated $1.5 million; in another case, the husband of one couple
graduated from the Northwest School of Agriculture before it became the
Crookston campus and donated $1 million in a remainder trust to fund
scholarships for UMC; in the third case, Professor Emeritus Bettina Blake
(Morris) has endowed the first professorship at Morris.
Professor Konstan observed, from the data tables Ms. Kirk
presented, that the University spent $18.7 million during fiscal year 2002
(7/1/01-6/30/02) to raise money. What
happens to those expenditures in 2004, after the campaign? Will it shrink due to budget cuts so the University
has fewer fund-raisers? Ms. Kirk said
that the ten-year data show the value of a dedicated Foundation staff. When she started her current position in 1996
(after many years at the Foundation in other jobs), she said she did not want
to make the mistake of devoting a lot of money to fund-raising during the
campaign and then lay off a lot of people and let the effort go downhill. She has worked with the Foundation Board of
Trustees and the University on a 10- to 20-year plan. The University will continue to provide some
funds (although will not increase the percentage of support to the
Foundation). At the same time, the
Foundation will continue to increase the support for its own budget; at present
the University provides only 20% of the funds, down from 50% only a few years
ago.
Professor Roe inquired if the Foundation had identified
reasons why some of the individual collegiate units have not met their
fund-raising goals. Ms. Kirk said they
continue to meet with the units and work on different strategies as well as
evaluate the potential for the unit.
Professor Speaks thanked Ms. Kirk for her report.
2. Agenda
for the Subcommittee on Twin Cities Facilities and Support Services
Professor Jahn noted that the Subcommittee submitted a
report last spring recommending that this year begin with this Committee
identifying issues for the Subcommittee to take up. It would be helpful to receive guidance from
the Committee, he said.
Committee members made several suggestions:
-- Competitiveness of bids for minor remodeling (with costs
under $10,000)
-- Prices and quality at the food service
-- Scrutinize the increase in parking rates more closely than
this Committee is able to do
-- FCC may suggest involvement of the Subcommittee in review
of support unit compacts
Professor Jahn said there were also two matters left over
from last year. First, he recalled that the
Subcommittee prepared a letter to then-Provost Bruininks, which he and
Professors Speaks (for this Committee) and Ahern (for the Committee on
Educational Policy) signed, asking about budgeting for common goods. The Subcommittee has received no response to
the letter. Second, the Subcommittee
concluded that there is a serious problem with support for classroom management
and urged that this Committee take up the matter. The situation is starting to verge on the
dire, he said; equipment is introduced into classrooms without funding for its
support in the future.
Professor Speaks agreed the Committee should again
address the problem of funding for classroom upgrades and maintenance. The letter on common goods budgeting should
be sent to Provost Maziar, he suggested.
He also noted that there have two new committees appointed, the Biennial
Budget Steering Committee and the Budget Advisory Task Force, both of which may
well discuss common goods funding. Dr.
Maziar is chair of both and may well be able to respond to the letter.
3. Update
on the Football Stadium
Professor Speaks next welcomed Mr. Maturi to the
meeting. Professor Speaks noted that he
had prepared (and distributed to the Committee) a brief synopsis of the
discussions of the football stadium that have taken place at these Committee
meetings since 2000. He reported that
more recently, the Faculty Consultative Committee is urging that if there is
any possibility that a stadium will be built on the campus, alternative uses
for the space in the stadium be considered.
There is now in place an alternative-use space task force which will
consider the possibilities.
Mr. Pfutzenreuter took the Committee through a
presentation that will be made to the Board of Regents in September. He reviewed a brief chronology of events,
starting with Fall, 2000, when the Vikings approached the University about a
joint-use stadium. The Vikings were told
by the political leadership that they would only get a stadium if it were joint
with the University, thus solving two problems at once. Winter-Spring 2001 the University hired a
consulting firm to review the proposal to renovate the Metrodome; the Vikings
rejected this option and went to the legislature with a proposal. The University did not want to be left out of
the discussions so agreed to work with them.
By December, 2001, a stadium task force issued a report endorsing a new
stadium for the Twins and a joint-use stadium for the Vikings and the
University. In May, 2002, the
legislature adopted and the Governor signed a stadium bill, primarily for the
Twins but which also included language requiring predesign of a joint-use
stadium on the University campus (to be owned by the University) and a
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Vikings and the University. At several points along the way the Board of
Regents was provided updates.
The
2002 legislative action provided $500,000 to the University for predesign
(covering "all things physical") and the MOU (covering "all
things operational"). The deadline
for document completion is
The
University's approach to the stadium has included a lot of consultation, Mr.
Pfutzenreuter reported, including with
alumni, the neighborhoods, and the faculty (including through this Committee). It has retained a number of consulting firms
to provide advice on facility planning and urban design, transportation and
public works infrastructure, environmental & geotechnical & utilities,
cost estimating and "constructability," and a general stadium
facility consulting firm. In addition,
it has retained a law firm to assist in negotiating the MOU. The lawyers from both sides met last week and
will likely begin doing so more frequently as the deadline approaches, Mr.
Pfutzenreuter surmised.
Mr.
Pfutzenreuter itemized the issues that the MOU will be expected to address,
including parking and infrastructure, allocation of revenues, lease/management
agreement, design and construction management, restrictions on the Vikings, and
other matters. While the MOU will likely
not resolve all the issues, the goal is to try to hammer out as many as
possible in order to avoid the necessity of legislative intervention. It is also hoped that the MOU agreements will
be embodied in any legislative action.
Mr.
Pfutzenreuter also pointed out, but did not elaborate on, the proposed
principles guiding the University's negotiations. They include respect for the University's
fundamental academic mission, ensure a financial benefit to the University,
promote physical and programmatic integration with the Twin Cities campus
community and adjacent neighborhoods, enhance the Gopher game-day experience
and increase community enthusiasm for Gopher football, and assure project
design and construction meet the highest standards of fairness, integrity, and
sound business practices. Mr.
Pfutzenreuter said there has been no public discussion of these principles but
such discussion is needed because this is too big a project for staff to work
without guidance from the Board of Regents.
Professor
Speaks asked if the original 10 principles enunciated earlier are embedded in
these new principles. Mr. Pfutzenreuter
said he thought they were and he has set up a matrix to identify where each of
the 10 fits in the new set.
Professor
Chapman said that given the state budget situation and the subsidy of
intercollegiate athletics, he is surprised that this project continues to move
forward. Mr. Pfutzenreuter pointed out
that there was legislation passed, with funds for predesign and the MOU, so the
University is obligated to meet the legislative request. What will happen after that he could not
predict. If this is driven by the
legislative process, Professor Chapman asked, will the University have a
voice? It will, Mr. Pfutzenreuter affirmed,
although ultimately the legislature will do as it wishes. The Vikings intend to press hard this
legislative session to get a stadium approved.
Professor
Speaks recalled that one of the original 10 principles was that the University
would not be responsible for any project costs, and he had the impression from
the President that the principles were "deal-breakers." Now, however, ten months later, the
University will apparently be responsible for a $60-million parking ramp that
is projected to lose $3 million per year.
What happened? The legislature
drafted proposals, Mr. Pfutzenreuter said, and the University subsequently made
statements to the effect that "maybe that would be OK." So the principles are NOT deal-breakers,
Professor Campbell observed.
One
of the principles was that the limit to the University's risk would be that a
new stadium would not cost the University more than what it cost to play
football in the Metrodome, Professor Konstan said. Is that a realistic expectation if the
Vikings were to leave after 10-15 years?
The Vikings must sign a long-term lease, Mr. Pfutzenreuter said, and the
lawyers believe such a lease can be made enforceable. The team must be around long enough to help
pay for the parking, he said. But he
agreed there is some risk that the University might be stuck with something;
when the deal is being made in the last two hours of the legislative session,
will the University blink?
Professor
Speaks noted that this Committee has had stadium discussions since 2000,
focused primarily on the financial aspects. He said he had developed the
impression that former President Yudof wanted the Committee to keep relatively
quiet about the University's donation of $25 million in land, $60 million to construct a parking ramp,
and $3 million per year to support the ramp. The Faculty Consultative
Committee, however, has told Interim President Bruininks that it believes this
is a sensitive enough issue that it is time for public discussions, on the
record. He said he did not find any compelling issue that would warrant the Committee preparing a
statement on the stadium at this time, but that it should remain vigilant and
be prepared to issue a statement, pro or con, on stadium issues when and if it
seems appropriate.
Mr.
Pfutzenreuter said the Board of Regents will NOT be asked to take a position on
the stadium at their September meeting.
The Board will not take a position until it can see the predesign and
the MOU. There is also the larger
question, does the University want a joint-use stadium with a professional
entertainment business on the campus? He
said he did not know what the Regents would do in December, when they have
predesign and MOU, but neither will be sent to the state without action by the
Board, so the December statement will be important.
Professor
Speaks recalled Mr. Pfutzenreuter's comment at the last meeting that if he were
a wealthy betting man, he would bet on when, not if, the University would be
playing in a new stadium. When the idea
that the new stadium was a foregone conclusion was presented to the chair of
the Board of Regents, she responded that the train has not left the
station. What does he say about that,
Professor Speaks asked Mr. Pfutzenreuter?
"Reasonable people can disagree," Mr. Pfutzenreuter replied.
Professor
Konstan said he hoped that any stadium design would allow other intercollegiate
athletic or University events as well and that it would not sit vacant if there
are no football games being played. He
asked whether the designers were instructed to pursue designs with low marginal
operating costs so such events could afford to use the stadium. Mr. Pfutzenreuter said those working on it
are aware it will be there 365 days a year and should be used appropriately, in
ways that need to be identified. It is
possible the legislature will issue a mandate for such use, as it did with the
Twins' stadium. He agreed the University
must find a way to leverage the use of the stadium; it is an open question what
those other uses should be. He affirmed
that such planning is explicit in the directions to those working with the
project.
At
the same time, Professor Campbell observed, this Committee was concerned
BECAUSE there might be 365-day-a-year use of a stadium with the concomitant
impact on University activities. The
more one hears about this, the more one has reason to worry, he said. This will not be like
His
worry, Mr. Pfutzenreuter said, is that the legislature will fund part of the
capital cost of the stadium but provide no funds for operating costs. That would be a deal-breaker as far as he is
concerned, Mr. Pfutzenreuter told the Committee; he said he would walk away
from any deal that did not include operating funds, because the University
could be forced to allow tractor-pulls and other such events in the stadium in
order to pay maintenance costs.
Professor
Speaks recalled that former Vice President Kruse said his worst nightmare was
that the Vikings would leave the Twin Cities and the University would inherit
the Metrodome, which has an operating cost of about $7-8 million per year. Now, however, the University is talking about
participating in a stadium that includes, at the outset, a parking ramp that
will cost $3 million per year. How can
these be reconciled? Mr. Pfutzenreuter
said that the "pro forma" on the parking ramp was very conservative,
such as keeping costs down for students.
And all ramps lose money, given what the University charges, he pointed
out.
Professor
Speaks turned now to Mr. Maturi to ask his perspective on how the stadium would
benefit intercollegiate athletics financially and programmatically. Mr. Maturi thanked him for the opportunity to
join the Committee.
Mr.
Maturi related that when he took the position of athletic director, he was
surprised to learn how far along the planning for a new football stadium
was. As one who inherited a program that
is not fiscally solvent but who wants to be fiscally responsible, he was
startled at the talk about the numbers involved with a new stadium. He said he has told Coach Glen Mason that the
Metrodome is a good place to play and that the coach should say the same to any
players he is recruiting--because anyone being recruited now will not be
playing anywhere other than the Metrodome.
At
the same time, he said, if athletics are a part of the academic mission of the
University--which he believes they should be--then football games should be on
campus. Whether there is need for a
$500-million stadium is not a decision he will make, he told the Committee, nor
could he justify it. There will be a
time in the future when the Metrodome will not be a place the University can
play football so another site will have to be found (and that time is not far
off). He said he doubted any new stadium
would be built unless it were joint-use.
A
new stadium would assist in recruiting in football but it would not cause the
Gophers to win the Rose Bowl. It would
benefit the program to have a stadium that students can get to, it would
benefit Recreational Sports as well as academic programs. Would those benefits justify the costs? That is not a decision he has to make, Mr.
Maturi said. What the department will do
is say what it needs in a stadium to run a Division I-A program and so is
involved in the discussions for that reason.
Mr. Maturi said he was concerned about the capital costs, the operating
costs, and the activities that might go on all year. He commented that the playing surface likely
to be installed would not lend itself to tractor pulls (it may not be real
grass but instead the most advanced version of artificial turf that is much
safer than earlier versions and that also requires no maintenance, unlike live
grass). The new turf does allow multiple
uses, which grass does not, but it cannot be easily removed for activities that
would damage it, so there are limits to what can be scheduled (such as tractor
pulls).
Professor
Speaks noted Mr. Maturi's surmisal that the only way a new stadium will be
built is if it is a joint-use facility.
How does he really feel about that arrangement, Professor Speaks asked
Mr. Maturi--is it a good idea? Mr. Maturi
said he thought it could work. The
University has a terrible deal at the Metrodome, he said; it does not receive
the revenue that other Big Ten schools do from their stadia. The University can get a much better deal
with its own on-campus stadium, although it is not clear that greatly increased
revenues would result.
Is
there likely to be any change in the policy providing that all parking revenues
go into the general parking and transportation fund, Professor Speaks asked Mr.
Pfutzenreuter. There is no contemplation
of any such change, Mr. Pfutzenreuter told him.
Mr. Maturi added that if the money goes to parking or to the University
that is fine with him, although he would like to see intercollegiate athletics
given credit for producing the income--his only concern is that parking
revenues not go to the Vikings. If
intercollegiate athletics receives the parking revenues from football games but
parking must then make up the money from elsewhere, that makes no sense. He said he has no interest in stealing money
from other units. He said he is also
very concerned about the community and the traffic implications of a stadium;
he said he does not want a stadium to be so disruptive people cannot continue
to live where they do.
Professor
Konstan inquired about the advertising that might be in the stadium. That will be dealt with in the protocols in
the MOU, Mr. Pfutzenreuter said. The
Board of Regents will retain naming rights, he added. There could be more money for the University
in advertising and naming--because now the University gets nothing from these
sources. He also cautioned that anything
anyone has written about the stadium, on any computer, is likely to be
requested by the press.
Professor
Speaks noted that this item would be back on the Committee's agenda twice more
this fall, before it goes to the Regents in December. He thanked Mr. Maturi for joining the
meeting, and asked Mr. Pfutzenreuter and Mr. Maturi to come back to the
Committee as needed if as events unfold it appears things may be moving in a
different direction; the agenda will be shifted to accommodate them, if need
be.
Mr.
Klein said he liked what he was hearing about the relationship with the
Vikings. He recalled the metaphor LBJ
used about having the camel inside the tent rather than outside. It is better that the University discuss
these issues than have them decided by a legislative group.
Mr.
Pfutzenreuter reviewed the timeline of events for the next six months. They will have the MOU and predesign done by
the end of November, in order to meet the docket deadline for the Board of
Regents.
Where
will be the discussion about whether this is the best use of the land on which
the stadium will sit, considering the University's mission, Professor Campbell
asked? Mr. Pfutzenreuter said that is a
question the Board of Regents will take up.
Should this also be on the FCC agenda, Professor Speaks asked?
4. New
Financial System
Professor Speaks welcomed Mr. Volna to discuss plans for
a new financial system for the University.
As he reported previously, Mr. Volna explained, the University
continues to pursue two options for replacement of the financial system: purchase from a vendor currently marketing to
higher education and participation in a multi-school consortium exploring
rewriting a system currently running at two large research universities. The University issued a Request for Proposals
and received four responses (in addition to three concerning assistance with
implementation). He discussed the four
companies that submitted proposals and said, in response to a query from
Professor Speaks, that the University has dealt with three of them. There is a core team now evaluating the
proposals using a number of criteria.
Professor Konstan asked if the new system would replace
just CUFS or both CUFS and EGMS. Mr.
Volna said it would replace CUFS and parts of EGMS, but not EGMS itself. In terms of budget approvals, it will be up
to the Vice President for Research to decide whether to keep EGMS independent
or not; they can structure the financial system either way. This is an important question, Professor
Campbell said; is the Vice President's office involved? Interim Vice President David Hamilton is on
the steering committee, Mr. Volna said, and there are other representatives
from that office involved in different elements of the planning and evaluation.
Mr. Volna also reported on the pursuit of the consortium
option. Consortia are always slow and
difficult to make work, and there are challenges to working with seven schools,
but they are even further behind than he thought they would be. Neither Mr. Volna nor Committee members could
identify any consortia that had been successful, and members of the Board of
Regents share this concern, but they also thought it was too early to decide
not to pursue the option. The Regents
are concerned about financial viability and want a system that is
AAA-rated. They are worried about the
small vendor involved in the consortium--but since this is such a low-cost
option for the University to pursue, it makes no sense to get out before there
is enough information. The consortium
option also serves as a bargaining chip with vendors, Mr. Klein suggested.
The schools are having an easier time working together
than they are with the vendor, Mr. Volna reported. The vendor wants to be the next PeopleSoft
and want to control the product so they can market it to other schools. (The intellectual property involved is owned
by AMS, the company that produced CUFS, but the marketing rights are held by
individuals who used to work for AMS.)
Mr. Volna noted that the schools involved in the consortium proposal are
the only ones looking at this product, so the vendor has nowhere else to go at
the moment. The reason it is attractive
is that the system has been adapted at two institutions, including
How unique are the programs--how different is
It
is important to emphasize that the three institutions using PeopleSoft each
have different version numbers, Professor Jahn pointed out. A separate consortium holds out the
possibility of avoiding mandatory upgrades backed by a vendor threat not to
support the version the institution has, thus requiring an upgrade. Mr. Volna said the universities want to
purchase the software and run their own system, rather than rely on a vendor
for support, maintenance, and so on.
That is what is being negotiated.
Ms. Weinberg asked about the impact on departments apart
from the
Two things make financial systems more of a problem for
universities, compared to non-universities, Professor Konstan said: they have more rules to follow and they are
remarkably inflexible. Will the
University have any guarantee vendors will keep up to date with government
regulations? And how flexible will the
University be--does it do things because of government regulation or because
that is the way things have been done before?
Often the way universities do things is because that is the way they
have done them for 20 years, not because they want to or because that is a good
way to do them, Professor Konstan maintained.
In his view, the University will do what it needs to comply with
regulations, Mr. Volna said; the vendors will say that compliance will depend
on how the University uses the system.
Businesses are much more pyramidal while universities rely more on
consensus and consultation and do not measure success by dollars per
share. Those differences do make it more
difficult for universities. But they
intend to find out what the vendor products can do through scripted
demonstrations.
These comments lead him to worry that costs are often
more than what is actually budgeted, Professor Campbell said. Shifting tasks to departments costs the
departments a lot. He said he wanted to
see an assessment of department impact as part of the decision about what
system to buy; he told Mr. Volna he hoped that they would talk to people must
deal with what may come. Mr. Volna said
they are including 35-40 people from academic departments in the planning and
will include the same number in the scripted demonstrations to see if the
packages meet department needs. More
such individuals will be included as the final decision is made.
Professor Roe asked about changing the rules rather than
trying to fit everything into an old shoe.
A consensus should be arrived at as to what the basic needs are. Then, if colleges have special needs, (because
perhaps the
Professor Speaks adjourned the meeting at
--
Gary Engstrand