These minutes reflect
discussion and debate at a meeting of a committee of the
Minutes
Senate Committee on Finance and Planning
238A Morrill Hall
Present:
Charles Campbell (chair), David Chapman, Dan Feeney,
Michael Frankosky, Thomas Klein, Joseph Konstan, Kathleen O'Brien, Richard
Pfutzenreuter, Terry Roe, Sue Van Voorhis, Warren Warwick, Susan Carlson
Weinberg
Absent:
Calvin Alexander, Brittny McCarthy Barnes,
Guests:
Regents' Professor Tom Clayton , Vice Provost Al Sullivan (Office of the Executive Vice
President and Provost)
Other:
Kathryn Stuckert (Office of the Vice President and
Chief of Staff)
[In these minutes: (1) steering committee on the
accountability of support and service units draft report; (2) 2004 capital
request; (3) review of the committee charge and role]
1. Steering Committee on the Accountability
of Support and Service Units
Professor
Campbell convened the meeting at
Vice
President O'Brien recalled that about a year ago, the Faculty Consultative
Committee (FCC) was interested in establishing a recurring process to review
support and service units because it was concerned that those units did not
have the same kind of systematic review that academic units and administrators
do. At the same time, the President was
launching a service and productivity initiative. The two efforts came together; the committee
that she and Professor Clayton co-chaired became part of the service and
productivity initiative and was jointly-charged by the President and FCC.
The charge to the committee was to: "1) examine means whereby the university
can provide for regular monitoring of the effectiveness of key service/support
units; 2) benchmark the relationship between the level of administrative
resources allotted to our service-and-support units and the quality of their
service; and 3) more consistently and effectively measure service outcomes of
service-and-support units." The
committee had a strong membership and good participation, Ms. O'Brien said,
especially from Professors Jean Bauer and Gary Jahn, and had excellent support
from Ms. Stuckert. They did not have as
much student participation as they wished, perhaps because of the frequency of
their meetings--they really were a working committee, she said.
Vice President O'Brien reviewed the work of the
committee. (This is material presented
at the meeting.)
The process:
1. Defined service-and-support units as
non-academic, non-research unit, and reporting directly to a vice president or
member of the Executive Committee.
2. Solicited information from other CIC institutions on review
processes in use.
3. Interviewed
over 25 (about half of the) service-and-support unit managers to learn about
existing performance measures and review processes at the University.
4. Evaluated
the 1989 Task Force for Review of Twin Cities Campus Service and Support Units
Report
5. Established
self-study guidelines that formed the basis of a pilot project involving three
very different University units during spring semester, 2003: 1) Center for
Human Resources Development; 2) Boynton Health Service; and 3) Department of
Parking and Transportation.
Their findings:
1. There
is a lack of uniformity of review processes in the CIC, and the process for
academic/administrative review at Northwestern was so extensive that it was
deemed too cumbersome to be effective at the
2. The
1989 Report of the Task Force for Review of Twin Cities Campus Support and
Service Units set forth a number of thoughtful recommendations for all
University service units, and although many of the task force recommendations
are observed in some service units, it is unclear whether the task force
recommendations were ever formally instituted.
3. Unit
managers are reviewed regularly, and their performance is often related to the
performance of their units, but a systematic review process for the units is
lacking.
4. Units
are not currently evaluated by the same criteria that guide the review of
academic units to ensure that each unit, whether business or academic, is
conducting its activities in full accordance with the University's academic
mission and priorities.
Their recommendations:
1. Adopt
an administrative policy to ensure comprehensive reviews on a 5-year, rotating
basis of each service-and-support unit that reports directly to the office of a
vice president.
2. Adopt
administrative procedures to provide guidance for the scope of reviews and to
ensure that all service-and-support units are held to comparable
standards.
3. Establish
a model for implementing the policy that places oversight and responsibility of
comprehensive reviews with the president, accountability with the vice
presidents to whom the units report, and opportunity
for units and Senate Committee members to provide input on review committee
membership and the final review committee report.
4. Strengthen
performance measurement by investing in the upgrade of the University's metrics
capacity and providing training in the evaluation of quality assurance processes.
5. Consider
establishing a central access point and process for accepting and responding to
complaints and commendations.
The administration of the
review model:
1. The
vice presidents would submit a schedule/plan for reviews in their units to the
president each year, who would be responsible for
publishing an annual list of scheduled reviews and delegating those reviews to
the vice presidents.
2. Responsibility
for the reviews would reside in the Office of the President, much as it does
for the comprehensive reviews of administrative officers.
3. Each
vice president would be responsible for charging an internal review committee
(with external participation in some cases as necessary) to conduct the
evaluation, discussing the committee recommendations with the committee and
unit manager, and ensuring the appropriate follow-up to the committee
recommendations.
4. Unit
managers and the relevant Senate committee would also have an opportunity to
provide input on the review committee membership, view the review committee's
report, and submit a written response to be included with the final report
submitted to the vice president and president.
5. The
vice president would use the review outcome as performance criteria in the unit
manager and unit's annual reviews; likewise, the president would use the
service-and-support unit reviews as criteria for the vice president's annual
performance review.
6. These
reviews, particularly the vice president performance reviews, would essentially
serve as a vehicle to ensure open and regular communication between the vice
president and president, ultimate accountability for the vice president to
produce positive service outcomes, and the appropriate follow-through of
recommendations for improvement.
7. Process
aligns with other institutional processes like the comprehensive review for
administrative officers, but places responsibility and accountability for
reviews in the hands of the administrators ultimately responsible for
service-and-support unit performance.
8. An
additional benefit is that it allows for archival and trend data to be located
and tracked in one central office.
They
intend to take this draft report to the President and Professor Martin, Chair
of FCC, this week; once they have reviewed it, the report will be circulated to
support and service units before it is delivered as a final report. They hope the recommendations are adopted as
administrative policy supported by FCC, Ms. O'Brien said. With respect to the review model, they are trying
to establish a process to build on the strength of the existing practices
without adding costs or a bureaucratic system to support it.
Professor
Konstan suggested that on item 4 of the review model, the Senate committee
should have a say in the charge to the review committee as well as about the
membership. He also said that it seems
like a set of goals/objectives/measures are missing. Before a unit is reviewed, someone (the
committee, the unit, the vice president) should identify what standards or
measures the unit will be evaluated on.
In terms of points 5, 6, and 7, providing for using the reviews as
performance criteria, it may be that the reviews will all be good and everyone
will be happy--why would anyone ever produce a negative review? Why would they not want to cover up? Or else the review process must also be
connected to the compact process or the allocation of resources.
What
did he suggest, Professor Clayton asked Professor Konstan? One option would be to have the committee
appointed not by the vice president; another would be to identify steps for
using the outcome of the review process in the budgeting/compact process. The latter could include identification of
areas that need strengthening and the funds required (which in most cases they
would be).
This
was all discussed by the committee, Vice President O'Brien commented. She agreed that the review outcome should not
stand alone and that it should be part of the University's core processes
(strategic planning/business planning/compact planning, whatever it might be
called). They suggest that each unit
should have such plans or compacts that are reviewed internally and approved by
the University's senior officers. They
agree that a unit cannot be reviewed unless there is a plan or compact against
which it can be reviewed. Most units do
have such a document, she said, but measures tend to be activity measures, some
have customer service or efficiency measures, but few have outcome measures.
The
committee debated the merits of charging the units with accountability versus
the amount of outside pressure to which they should be subject, Ms. O'Brien
related. The report proposes that the
University wants units responsible for improving themselves, based on the
notion that they can continuously improve themselves and that units want to do
a good job. This is the "do well,
get better" model rather than the "gotcha" model, she said.
Ms.
VanVoorhis said the review process was a good idea, as was the proposal that it
not be every year; her unit, she said, already has annual audits and other
reviews. She said that they have done
most of what was recommended in the 1989 report, but some of the
recommendations require additional funding that they do not have. She said one concern is that there appears to
be no call for student involvement, even though many of the support units deal
with large numbers of students. As for
the call to create a central office to receive complaints, would they be from
employees? students?
Yes
to both, Professor Clayton responded.
Such complaints are an ad hoc form of evaluation that can be as
important as any other review; they also speak to Professor Konstan's concern
about the possible partiality of the review process. A review process can be a vicious cycle,
where everyone approves what others have said.
Everyone at the University has a complaint about something at some point
but do not know where to send it; many feel it would be useless to send it to
the unit involved. The committee thought
it would be helpful to have an agency that was open and generally available to
which anyone could send complaints, commendations, or whistle-blowing
information. It would be good for the
University even if it cost a few dollars because it could relieve a lot of
pressure that can build up.
Students
complain to the President, Ms. VanVoorhis pointed out, but it would not be fair
if the unit is unable to give its side of the matter. Professor Clayton said the report does not
recommend that a unit not have a chance to respond. This is not establishing an office of the
inquisitor, Ms. O'Brien agreed; it is intended to provide an access point for
individuals. Ms. VanVoorhis is right;
the University must also hear the unit's side of the story to understand the complaint. This, however, provides an opportunity for
individuals to bring a complaint inside rather than to the media or to the
Board of Regents.
Would
the University have to pay for an external review, as suggested in #3 in the
review process, Ms. VanVoorhis asked?
The possible costs are why an external review is optional, Ms. O'Brien
responded. How would a committee know
how a unit should be run if it does not have experts on it, Ms. VanVoorhis then
inquired? Ms. O'Brien said that if she
told the President there were 5 units in her area to be reviewed in the next
year, but there were questions about quality assurance in one of them, that is
the unit for which it might be useful to have an external consultant. Those putting the review committee together
can advise the President or vice president on the need for an external review.
Mr.
Klein suggested that a review committee recommend an upgrade of the metrics to
be used in a review and that the upgrades be in place
by a date certain. That would help the
process, which will certainly not be perfect the first time. That would help avoid inquiries spiraling out
of control and every complaint seen as a systemic problem. Appropriate metrics would be a way to balance
the evaluation.
Reviews
are not cost-free, Professor Roe observed; since there are costs, the process
must be moderate. Units, knowing they
will be reviewed, will collect data and respond to their customers, which is
usual behavior. The sooner that standards are provided, the more it will help to make
the process less onerous.
Professor
Campbell asked about the outcome of the pilot reviews. They were very different, Ms. O'Brien
said. Parking and Transportation
provided a great deal of information; Boynton Health Service and Center for
Human Resources Development were more selective and less reactive. They are also very different units, Professor
Clayton observed. Parking responded
quickly, perhaps because it must routinely keep data and the review was a
minimal burden; for the other units, the review was a much greater burden.
Accountability
is not what one wants to hear about when funds are short, Professor Clayton commented. Optimization is what one wants to get at,
doing as well as possible with the available resources. This does not propose subjecting units to an
inquisitor or some kind of economic Gestapo; it is intended to promote service
with a smile, which goes a long way.
Professor
Konstan said that for the first reviews, some units might benefit from two
years' notice, not one. The review
committee could ask the unit to collect data over the next budget cycle, rather
than provide information that was not collected during the last cycle. In the future that notice would not be
required, but in the first instance the review committee could establish
benchmarks and then "sleep for a year" while the unit collected
data. Vice President O'Brien reported
that she had met recently with the chair and vice chair of the Regents' Facilities
Committee, which wishes to focus more policy and less on transactions; moving
into policy quickly gets into questions of what one is measuring. The Regents, FCC, and administration are
asking the same questions: How do we measure
success? And what outcomes measures do
we use?
How
would these reviews and review committees work with the Subcommittee on Twin
Cities Facilities and Support Services, Professor Campbell asked? It is charged to look at support
services. Ms. O'Brien said the report
will suggest draft review reports be provided to the appropriate Senate
committee.
Professor
Warwick asked where there is information on support and service units and their
tasks; Vice President O'Brien said the committee used the University directory
to identify the units. There is no
central point where they are listed, she said.
Mr. Pfutzenreuter commented that there is an organizational chart on the
Institutional Research and Reporting website [ http://www.evpp.umn.edu/orgchart/
]; it follows CUFS structure, however.
Nor does it answer the question of what a support or service unit is,
Ms. O'Brien added.
Mr.
Frankosky asked how reviews would be conducted and whence the standards for
measuring the units would come. The
model is intended for the Twin Cities campus, Vice President O'Brien clarified,
with application to the coordinate campuses to follow; the committee was
composed only of Twin Cities representatives. The intention is that the final report will
provide a guide sheet for reviews. Will
there be union involvement in some of the units, Mr. Frankosky asked? Union employees could participate in the
process just as any employee could, Ms. O'Brien said; the report does not
identify those kinds of specifics.
Professor
Campbell thanked Professor Clayton and Vice President O'Brien for joining the
meeting.
2. 2004 Capital Request
Professor
Campbell turned next to Mr. Pfutzenreuter, who distributed copies of the
materials that have been sent to the Board of Regents with information about
the University's proposed 2004 capital request.
The
request is for $155.5 million in state funds and a proposal to spend $33.2
million in University funds, which would be paid through a combination of debt,
fund-raising, and department balances.
Mr. Pfutzenreuter reviewed the elements of the request, which include:
90 million HEAPR
Traditional (System health and safety, building systems, utilities, UMC heating
plant, security, and classrooms)
74 million HEAPR
Major Building Renewal (UMD life sciences, Kolthoff hall, MRRC, AHC
education projects)
24.7 million New
Construction (UMD rec sports addition, UMM football and district
heating/utilities,
There would be no University debt service on the first
item and there would be some on the second because the renewal would also
include programmatic changes. The third
item would carry the usual 1/3 University debt service. The request in general takes care of what the
University has rather than emphasizing new construction, which is responds to
the Governor's request to do so.
The
Committee spent some time discussing the use of the HEAPR category. Vice President O'Brien assured the Committee
that in the second category there are detailed calculations that identify the
building system upgrades (heating, air conditioning, roofs, etc.), which
qualify for HEAPR funding, and separate programmatic changes. The HEAPR funds are directed to the
mechanical systems needed to support activities in the building. In general, Mr. Pfutzenreuter agreed, the
HEAPR funds are used to get the building up to speed for what it was designed
for and the University debt/state funds are used for new uses in a building. He cautioned, however, that often those
distinctions are very difficult to draw.
But in general, if the proposal includes a new function in the building,
the University is obligated for a portion of the debt service on that cost.
Is
there any building, the renovation of which is totally HEAPR funds, where the
University is happy with what is in it but needs to renovate it? There are none in this request, Mr.
Pfutzenreuter said; that kind of request has been made, but it is the
exception.
The
Committee discussed how decisions would be made if the University does not
receive the full amount it requested.
The list is in priority order; the expenditure of the HEAPR funds would
largely be decided by the facilities people on the basis of greatest need. Mr. Pfutzenreuter explained that while it
would be permissible, under the statute defining HEAPR funds (which the
University receives in a block grant), to move building renovation higher on
the list than the traditional HEAPR expenditures, it would probably not be wise
to do so. There is a priority-setting
process that should be observed.
Professor
Konstan said there is a problem with program changes in that they are often
unobserved. There would be a benefit to
having a University-wide program audit that would look at programmatic
reallocation (e.g., within departments, such as within chemistry programs in
the Chemistry Department) and that would identify routine program change versus
targeted, top-down program change. If
the University cannot itself identify these changes, it is difficult to explain
them to legislators.
Professor
Campbell thanked Mr. Pfutzenreuter for bringing the information to the
Committee.
3. Review of Committee Charge
Professor
Campbell reported that Professor Judith Martin, chair of the Senate
Consultative Committee, has asked that each committee of the Senate review its
charge, as part of the proposed reorganization of the Senate.
Committee
members reviewed the existing language of the bylaws identifying its
responsibilities. Professor Warwick
asked if the Committee could see all of the committee charges; Professor
Campbell suggested that the logical place for an overview is the Senate
Consultative Committee.
Professor
Konstan suggested the Committee not be charged to be involved in planning; its
expertise lies in operations, finances, resources (physical facilities, space)
at the University-wide scale.
The
Committee also functions as a billboard, Mr. Klein pointed out: It gets issues in view, even if it does not
have a significant impact on all of them.
The
Committee is charged to "consult and advise"
the President and senior officers, Professor Campbell noted; "advise"
implies that the advice is made in advance of a decision. It is a constant battle for the Committee to
get its advice in before decisions are made but sometimes it does happen. He said the Committee should continue to
emphasize "consult and advise."
Professor
Konstan said that if one wanted to think in terms of "power," there
are three elements to the Committee's:
publicity (probably the biggest); structural (the official committee to
consult with, which may be meaningless); and the value of consultation (people
may find it helpful to consult with a thoughtful committee with something to
say). The Committee needs to build on
the last, which is a reason not to go into areas where it is not expert. The bylaws should also say that the Committee
will address any issue referred to it by the Faculty Consultative Committee or
Senate Consultative Committee inasmuch as some issues may not have an
appropriate committee. Professor Konstan
agreed to forward suggested language for revising the
bylaw.
The
Committee should be active in identifying its own concerns as well as
responding to the FCC/SCC and the administration, Mr. Klein said. Professor Campbell agreed and said he should
have asked Committee members for suggestions; he requested Committee members
send any suggestions to him. The
Committee also agreed to review the list of issues pending.
Mr.
Klein said that the Committee should retain as part of its agenda items such as
the basic financing of the University (i.e., IMG). Professor Campbell said there will be a joint
committee on IMG. He related that he had
been asked to meet with Dean Steven Rosenstone, chair of the Twin Cities Deans
Council, because Dean Rosenstone wants the Council to be active and would like
the Committee to be so as well. They are
interested in the entire finance model of the University, which includes the
IRS taxes, IMG, and so on.
One
of the items that needs attention is the attribution
of costs to endeavors, Professor Campbell said (e.g., how much does it cost to
have an English department?) Such cost
attribution would include the costs of central administration, for example. The President and Provost would like such a
study as well. That effort would be a
good opportunity for the Committee to be involved.
Mr.
Klein suggested that perhaps twice per year Professor Campbell get a sense from
Committee members where they stand on the issues, which could shape how they
look at them.
How
does the Committee get past the view that it will be consulted with only after
the President approves a report or recommendation, Professor Konstan
asked? There is a need to convince the
administration that it could be HELPED if something were brought to the
Committee beforehand.
Professor
Chapman said he had a different view.
Sometimes this is a Committee in search of an agenda, which troubles
him. And Committee members listen to a
report, prepared by an expert, and then give advice on ten minutes'
reflection. It is easy to understand why
the President might not want a lot of policy issues floating around without his
knowledge. He said he has the sense that
sometimes the Committee is at the periphery, or deals with items outside its
expertise or with issues that do not matter very much. He said he did not know how the Committee
could be a driving force in ten minutes of talking with people who have spent
weeks on complex issues. He said he did
not mean to be negative but the Committee may take itself too seriously.
Professor
Konstan responded that the difference is the corporate versus the
community-of-scholars model. In the
latter, the faculty are in control and a few emerge to
lead, but they make decisions the faculty can overturn. The President is to lead the University, not
as CEO of a set of employees. The
Committee DID have insight to offer on a number of the issues brought before it
and may bring a different set of values from those who may have prepared a
report or proposal. There is an argument
that the Committee should be more active and deal with values that differ from
those it holds. One would hope the
President and others would respond to the discussions by saying "I didn't
think of that."
Nor does
the Committee know the counterfactual, Professor Roe observed; it may be that
those who put in the efforts they do might not do so, or might do things
differently, if the Committee were not here.
Health care was a good example; the administration might have looked
around and found some other solution, one that was not so burdensome on
lower-income employees.
Ms.
Carlson said she wanted to know what the Committee would hear from Parking and
Transportation at its next meeting. She
said she did not believe the Committee had any impact on rates so it should not
waste its time hearing about them and should deal with issues it can
affect. Professor Campbell agreed it is
reasonable to ask Vice President O'Brien why the recommendations were not
followed and why the Committee statements had no impact on decisions. Professor Konstan urged that the Committee
NOT hear another presentation except for what Professor Campbell deems
appropriate. Professor Campbell
suggested that Committee members send him suggestions for questions to be
asked.
Professor
Konstan said he would like to learn about the costs and usage of the
Upass/MetroPass program. It would also be helpful to see comparisons of
parking rates and costs with other Big 10 schools, especially urban schools.
The Committee has no data on which to base arguments. There is also a productivity
question, Mr. Klein said: For the millions of dollars the University puts
into parking each year, what number of spaces does it obtain? The
Committee could also ask what the minimum the University should spend on
parking, since every dollar spent on parking is money not available to spend
elsewhere. The Committee needs to ask more probing questions. It
also needs to ask questions of economic efficiency, Professor Konstan said,
such as the pricing of parking only based on whether it is a lot, ramp, or
garage--when there is a 10-year wait in some facilities but no wait at all in
others, one can inquire whether spaces would be more efficiently allocated by
having differential pricing. Prices may need to be restructured.
These are questions that can be asked of any department, Professor Roe pointed
out; if the Committee could help the administration identify the data needed to
make decisions, it could make a mark.
Professor
Campbell adjourned the meeting at
--
Gary Engstrand