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), Calvin Alexander, Brittny
McCarthy Barnes, Stanley Bonnema, David Chapman, Michael Frankosky, Thomas
Klein, Joseph Konstan, Michael Korth, Kathleen O'Brien, Richard Pfutzenreuter, Terry
Roe, Rose Samuel, Charles Speaks, Alfred Sullivan, Susan Van Voorhis, Warren
Warwick, Susan Carlson Weinberg
Absent:
David Brown, Daniel Feeney, Yi Li, Timothy Nantell, Thomas
Stinson, Michael Volna
Guests:
Associate Vice President Stephen Cawley, Mr. Bernard
Gulachek (Office of Information Technology); Executive Vice President and
Provost Christine Maziar
[In these minutes: (1) initial budget assumptions for 2004-05;
(2) Twin Cities campus network upgrade; (3) the compact process]
1. Initial Assumptions, 2004-05 Budget
Professor
Campbell convened the meeting at
Investments:
-- Investment
in academic directions (the compact planning process): $12.1 million
-- Investment in student goals ($2.3
million, need-based financial aid, $7.2 million for the compact process)
-- 2.5% compensation increase (salaries
and fringe benefits; amount unknown at this time)
-- Facility infrastructure (utilities,
new building operations, debts, leases):
$3.9 million
-- Technology and other infrastructure
needs: $7.2 million
-- Unanticipated financial obligations
(items that must be funded but that are not known at this point): $6.5 million
-- FY04 recurring structural
imbalance: the 2003-04 budget included
use of $10.5 million in one-time funds to cover recurring expenses; to balance
the budget by the end of the biennium, the 04-05 budget must fund the
commitments with recurring funds.
Sources:
-- State appropriation:
$2.8 million increase (all attributable to enrollment/formula
adjustments)
-- Tuition: an increase of 11% for Twin
Cities undergraduates and 10% for all other students. Revenue will be used to cover any increase in
IRS obligations of colleges, college compensation costs, and potentially some
college initiatives. Remainder will be
used to balance the budget. Total
increase expected to be about $37.5 million, of which $14.4 million for the 1%
IRS increase, $13.2 million for planned compensation increases in the O&M and
State Specials, and $9.9 million to balance the budget.
-- University
Fee: increase from $600 to $750 per
year, estimated to increase revenue by $9.5 million, to be used to balance the
budget.
-- Selective reductions:
$12 million; allocation has not been made final.
-- Central ICR: a
conservative estimated increase of $1 million.
-- IRS: a 1% increase
in the academic IRS, from 7.5% to 8.5%, assessed against total revenues.
Professor Roe inquired about tuition. Mr. Pfutzenreuter said the administration was
not taking more from the units than tuition would generate. Tuition income will be required to cover
compensation and the IRS, with the rest swapped for O&M funds. There will be none left for unit
initiatives. In the current year, a
small amount was left behind for use by the units.
There is a difference between taking the increase and
giving back 2.5% for compensation and the proposed model that assumes units
will have enough left to pay the increased IRS and still cover compensation
increases within the unit, Professor Konstan said. What about units where the IRS plus 2.5% of
compensation is more than their revenues increase; will they be made
whole? Mr. Pfutzenreuter said he did not
believe there was any unit that would have that problem, but there could be
units that do not increase tuition enough to offset cuts, compensation, and the
IRS increase. Mr. Klein reported that
the
Vice President O'Brien commented that all of the units
that report to her pay the IRS tax and will pay the 2.5% compensation increase
but have no revenues to offset those costs.
Ms. McCarthy Barnes asked about the number of students
who would be affected by the investment in student goals; would it only be undergraduates? Mr.
Pfutzenreuter said the only decision made so far is to increase funding for
need-based aid. He said he knows that
the President and Provost want ideas and urged her to forward ideas about
supporting graduate and professional students if she wished. They are focused on ALL students, he added,
not only undergraduates.
Professor Campbell asked what the total increase would be
when the tuition increase and the University Fee increase were added
together. Mr. Pfutzenreuter said it
would be in the range of 12-14%.
With respect to the selective reductions, Mr.
Pfutzenreuter said there has been no decision that the $12 million is final or
how the cuts would be allocated among academic and support units or which units
within those categories. The President
has the final say on the cuts; some (but not much) of the $12 million has
already been decided on. Intercollegiate
athletics, for example, will be cut, as part of a plan that was adopted
previously. The President, along with
Provost Maziar and Senior Vice President Cerra, will decide how to apportion
the cuts. Professor Campbell reported
that he believes, based on a conversation the President had with the Faculty
Consultative Committee, that there will be a mechanism
for faculty-student participation through the reappointment of the Budget
Advisory Committee.
Mr. Pfutzenreuter repeated that the numbers will change
as the President assesses cuts and investments--whether there should be more or
less for investments, where tuition should be, and so on. All the variables are in play. But the President does want decisions made
earlier, not so late as April or May.
Mr. Klein asked if the expected ICR increase was because
the formula changed or a volume increase.
Mr. Pfutzenreuter said it was strictly a volume increase.
These assumptions assume a stable state situation,
Professor Konstan noted. Does the
University plan to seek a supplemental request?
There have been preliminary discussions about a request, Mr.
Pfutzenreuter said. The University has
received a letter from the Department of Finance said that the state does not
anticipate having a lot of new funds, agencies can think about a supplemental
request but it must be framed in terms of the Governor's priorities, and
prudent planning would suggest agencies plan for a 5% cut. Any supplemental request would be focused on
the priorities the President outlined in his State of the University address.
Professor Konstan asked how much of the 2.5% compensation
increase, for non-tuition-generating units, would be cuts and how much would
the administration absorb? Mr.
Pfutzenreuter said the administration would pay about $4.5 million of the total
for central support units.
Ms. McCarthy Barnes said she had read in the newspaper
about a proposal to take operating funds from the University for extension
services and about the proposal to restore $95.5 million of last year's budget
to the U and MNSCU; has there been any analysis of the impact if any of
those were to happen? The proposal
is to take $9.6 million from the University and give it to the counties, Mr.
Pfutzenreuter said; if it were to happen, the President would have to decide
where to take the funds from--all from Extension? He said he has not talked with the President
about this, but the money would need to come from somewhere. He surmised the University would not increase
tuition on students to shore up the Extension budget. Mr. Klein pointed out that if the legislature
takes the money out of the University and gives it to the counties to buy
extension services, the counties might well end up buying the service from the
University, which may be the organization that has the expertise and structure
needed to reach throughout
Professor Campbell asked when the discussion of budget
principles for the next biennium would start.
They will be linked to other things, Mr. Pfutzenreuter said. The Board of Regents is discussing financing
the future of the University, which will start in December. The University will receive official
instructions from the state about the first week in June; they will set the
parameters for preparing the biennial request.
For the Board discussion to inform the biennial request, and to have
more governance committee involvement, the process will have to start earlier
than the summer. Does the administration
take a package to the Regents to guide their discussion, Professor Campbell
inquired? Not typically, Mr.
Pfutzenreuter said. The Regents'
discussion about financing the future of the University should inform the
biennial request.
Is there any time frame for the administration to look at
IMG as the basis of the budget and allocations, Professor Konstan asked? The system has worked, but the only way to
keep it working is to sweep funds into central administration. Mr. Pfutzenreuter said he knew of no formal
effort to review IMG. Questions arise
whenever it gets close to budget time--there should be different taxes, the
amounts should be different, etc.--but there has never been a soup-to-nuts
review. Professor Campbell reported that
the committee chairs had raised the same question with the President and had
thought about an ad hoc committee. In looking
at IMG, no one has looked at the unintended consequences (e.g., colleges start
a new set of courses in order to avoid having their students take courses in
another college). It was reported that
the President would like to incorporate a review of IMG in the reconstituted
Budget Advisory Committee, with the appointment of several work groups to look
at various elements of the University's budgeting system.
Professor Roe said there may also be unintended
consequences from IMG in research funding by including formula funds; IMG may
tax research more than grants and contracts.
Mr. Pfutzenreuter said that the IRS does not include sponsored accounts
but does cover formula funds. The
Extension/agriculture side has argued, for example, that it should be treated
like sponsored research.
Another place the IRS hits is Foundation funds, Professor
Campbell observed; the rate was raised a few years ago and is now being raised
again. Mr. Pfutzenreuter agreed that
those funds are included in the calculations, but the vast majority of units
pay the tax out of O&M funds anyway.
Professor Campbell said it would likely not go over well with potential
donors if they knew part of their donation would go to taxes. Is this a concern? Mr. Pfutzenreuter said the Foundation has
brought this question to the President and Provost and him several times; the
decision has been that the system is working fine and such funds should be
included in calculation of the IRS tax--because those revenue streams do cost
the University money and they should pay overhead. The official answer, Professor Konstan said,
could be that Foundation gifts are not taxed but the amounts are calculated in
the tax. This is more a marketing
problem than a problem of substance, he said.
People know that a new faculty position costs the University money;
there would, on the other hand, be serious consequences if the University were
to seek from donors the full cost of an endowed chair. This needs to be made clearer, Professor
Campbell said. Mr. Pfutzenreuter pointed
out that the Foundation itself taxes donations in order to support Foundation
activities.
Page: 4
Unmet and unanticipated needs determine where the money goes, but
individual units can be differently affected by the formula for distributing
the costs, Professor Campbell said. It
also says that the best way to get new things is by bleeding everyone and not
leaving money in the units, Professor Konstan added. Mr. Pfutzenreuter said that the IRS now
generates about $80 million per year, which money pours back into the O&M
budget--it is not discretely allocated to debt, etc. All units that receive O&M money are
getting some of it back. The original
IRS was imposed to pay for common goods, but the amount the IRS generates
exceeds what is needed for common goods; the excess goes for salaries, the
compacts, etc.
Professor
Roe commented that what it is supposed to do is take money that is marginally
less productive and put it where it is marginally more productive, but it does
not do that. It is not clear that
redistribution of the money puts it where it is more productive--and the
administration may be taxing things it really does not want to tax. The question is what is the
best way to garner seed money when there are no additional state funds and
tuition cannot be increased. Mr.
Klein agreed that it is an interesting question how the funds are used.
Professor
Konstan maintained that all units need seed money for investment, whether
because they are underfunded and could do better or because they are doing well
and could do even better. The question
is where the money should sit: the
President, the deans, or the department?
The University's model means that the lower down on the hierarchy one
is, the more difficult it is to get seed money and invest in new productivity
because the department needs to go through the dean to get money from the
provost. That could be the most
efficient way to allocate money, he said, but no one has tested whether it
would be better for departments to have money for new initiatives. This is discussed in the compact meetings,
Mr. Klein said.
There
are two ways to do academic initiatives, Professor Campbell said: by the President or through the compact
process. There is also a third, an
internal adjustment of funds, but there is not a lot of money available for
this method. One point of discussion
with Provost Maziar should be about how she determines the overall level of
funds that will be in the compact process.
Is it driven by unit needs? By the quality of proposals?
2. Twin
Cities Campus Network Upgrade
Professor Campbell now welcomed Associate Vice President
Cawley and Mr. Gulachek to discuss the upgrade of the Twin Cities network. He also turned the gavel over to Professor Roe
because he had to leave the meeting.
Mr. Cawley told the Committee that the last time the
network was upgraded was 1997, for reasons tied to PeopleSoft and security
issues. That upgrade has served pretty
well; the technology has about a five-year lifespan, and it is now time to
change--which is no surprise to anyone involved. There are deficiencies in the current
network: the University cannot provide
the security that is needed in some cases (e.g., HIPPA, other regulatory
requirements), and an upgrade will increase performance in research and
teaching (e.g., the network now supports 10 megabytes per second while the
upgrade will be 100 times faster, a gigabyte per second, with a protocol that
will support new video and voice applications that now have to be
"kluged" into the system). The
new system will also be integrated into the statewide network in
The
new system will cost no more than $16 million; they are using bonds to finance
it, which they needed to issue in June.
The Requests for Proposals were received in September and the vendors
want the business. They are providing
significant discounts, so the cost will not exceed $16 million and the
University will receive more than it expected for less than it expected to
pay. They will announce the finalist
within the next few days because it is important for people across the campus
to know what the University is buying.
Originally
this item was scheduled to go to the Regents in November but it has now been
scheduled for December in order to have a better idea of the cost and the
nature of the contract; they do not want to rush it, Mr. Cawley said. Immediately upon receipt of approval, they
plan to implement change, which will take about a year. It will replace the entire campus backbone.
Mr.
Cawley said he sent a message to the deans, directors, and department head list
explaining one point. Since information
technology is now treated as a common good, and units are not charged for
network connections, they have seen a significant migration of local networks
to the centrally-supported model (although some units have retained their
own). The message said that if units
want to migrate to the central network, they needed to tell him now (so the
University can build those units into the cost) and there would be no cost to
the migration for the units. Some units
are moving (e.g., the
Are
the upgrades from the University to the outside world or only internal,
Professor Konstan asked? The University
regularly upgrades the connections to outside, Mr. Cawley said, and also
between the campuses; this is internal, but nothing at the desktop computer
level or wiring in buildings. Then what
percentage of labs, offices, etc., will be able to take advantage of the
upgrade, Professor Konstan inquired? Mr.
Gulachek explained that they have a color-coded map, with every building coded;
some will be able to take advantage of it and some will not. The object is to get as much of the campus as
possible to the higher speeds, and more than 50% is at 100 megabytes already.
Will
the upgrade take into account wireless technology, Professor Konstan
asked? Mr. Cawley said that his office
is regularly upgrading wireless access out of current operating funds by
increasing access points and monitoring congestion. This project does not include an upgrade
beyond the current connections, however.
Will
there be a capability for visitor access, not to University databases but to
the internet, for example, Professor Konstan asked? That is theoretically possible, Mr. Cawley
said, but it is not in the set of requirements for the upgrade. Mr. Gulachek agreed that a lot of units are
looking for that capability and they do have it on their radar screen.
Professor
Roe asked that the website with information about the upgrade be included in
these minutes. These two sites offer
different information:
http://www1.umn.edu/nts/network_upgrade_funding/ and
http://www1.umn.edu/nts/projects/building_infrastructure_update/
What advantages are there for departments not to be part
of the central network, Professor Roe asked?
Meeting some research needs or research flexibility, tighter control
over the department network, tying computers together in an exotic network, Mr.
Cawley said, or there may be a computer floor that the department wants to keep
control over. He doubted that more 10%
of units would fit these categories, and most are in Computer Science and the
Mr. Cawley agreed, in response to a comment from
Professor Konstan, that it will take the next generation of new computers
before everyone will be able to take full advantage of the new system, but the
gigabyte switches will allow the system to be used for the next 5-6 years. They are excited that they are buying the
right technology at the right time.
What are they doing to move the coordinate campuses in
the same direction, Professor Korth asked?
Each of the campuses has a different funding mechanism, Mr. Cawley said;
Morris at this point is the best campus in the system in terms of network. His office must pay off the bonds for the
upgrade and the coordinate campuses have been uninterested in participating in
that debt, but they are very interested in the technology and will probably
migrate to it in the near future. The
Morris network is already 10 times faster than the
Where will he obtain the funds to pay the debt service,
since OIT does not charge units, Professor Korth asked? From his operating budget, Mr. Cawley
replied; they have paid off some debt and are cleared to take on more now. They will not be asking for additional funds
to pay the debt service.
For the 50% of the Twin Cities campus that cannot
accommodate the upgrade, will the buildings be upgraded as well or will that
wait on renovation, Ms. Carlson asked?
Both, Mr. Cawley said. For
academic units, there are some matching funds (see one of the websites listed
above); the problem is usually the last 100 feet within the building. Several colleges invest year in and year out
to improve the connections. This is also
part of the six-year capital plan to ensure that they do not duplicate
expenditures, Mr. Gulachek added. Mr.
Cawley reported that a policy change two years ago with respect to capital
projects now requires that they include technology in all buildings, and there
has been significant improvement in the wiring across the campus.
Professor Konstan, referring to security issues, noted
that wireless communication is not encrypted; is there a timetable to make the
communications secure or will the University deny information to non-secure
networks (e.g., HIPAA)? Not all service
is secured as well as it should be, Mr. Cawley said. All central services are secure and encrypt
messages to prevent snooping. With the
new network it will be easier to enforce security rules. They will also be able to segment the system
into a lot of networks with different security rules; each manager can select
the level of security needed. They will
create virtually enclosed networks and can apply virtual firewalls to those
networks and let local units choose their options.
Who is responsible for coordinating this across the
campus, Professor Konstan asked? This is
a compliance issue, Mr. Cawley said, and his office is responsible; they work
with the General Counsel, law enforcement, and so on.
Do departments have any incentive to use both systems,
Professor Roe asked? A complex
department might use both, Mr. Cawley said; they might a system 98% centrally
supported but some unique elements they want on a local network. Those details can be worked out with units,
he said.
Professor Roe thanked Messrs. Cawley and Gulachek for
joining the meeting.
3. The
Compact Process
Professor Roe welcomed Executive Vice President and
Provost Christine Maziar to the meeting to discuss the compact process; Vice
Provost Al Sullivan was also one of the presenters.
Dr. Maziar said that Dr. Sullivan,
as vice provost, manages the compact process and ensures that documents are
moving through the system; he has significant interaction with the budget
office, colleges, and other vice presidential units. All vice presidential offices, colleges, and
campuses are expected to do compacts; some deans also use the process within
their colleges with individual departments, although that is not a uniform
practice.
Dr. Sullivan noted that he was Dean of the
The philosophy is to "improve alignment of broad
University goals with the directions, investments, actions, and results of
campuses, colleges, and service units, to create an atmosphere of collegiality,
peer relationships, and a focused discussion of the unit's and the University's
mission, values, and priorities, to promote decentralized authority,
responsibility, and accountability, to move from a model that depends on
regulation to one that focuses on accountability and outcomes, and to integrate
IMG principles into planning and budgeting, including use of multiple revenue
streams to address priorities, rewards for increased productivity, and shared
responsibility for jointly addressing issues and priorities." There is an annual schedule of discussions
and documented outcomes that includes the dean's office, the budget office, and
Dr. Maziar's office; meetings are scheduled, with an agenda, to talk things
through, after which the unit turns in a compact which is reviewed by a number
of offices in the administration.
The goals of the compact process are: "implement a common, systematic, and
integrated planning and budgeting process for campuses, colleges, and support
units; engage faculty, staff, and students in local-level decision-making;
expand discussions of issues while establishing documented, public agreements
that move units toward clear goals and expected outcomes; develop and
articulate standards of excellence for each unit and the institution as a
whole; create a shared University plan through assessment of strategic issues,
priorities, and directions; [and] implement an ongoing process that improves
management of University resources and public accountability."
The compact process started with President Yudof about
five years ago, Dr. Maziar recalled, and the concept of a "compact"
came from his legal background; a "contract" seemed too legalistic
and a "covenant" didn't seem right either, but the process struggled
with the tradition of college budget hearings.
A compact is more than budget and allocations,
it is a place where the dean and the provost have an opportunity to talk about
the right yardstick to measure progress in that college or unit. Not all units should be measured by the same
yardstick, she said: Law has no
undergraduates and the graduation rate is not a significant issue while other
units do and it is. The coordinate
campuses may have some measures that are not appropriate for the Twin Cities
campus. Even if there are no funds to
put in compact allocations, the agreements should still be reached because all
units have funds they manage, with opportunities to reallocate. The compact process allows the unit to have
communication with Morrill Hall about funds being used in as effective a way as
possible.
Is annual compact scheduling optimal, Professor Speaks
asked? Dr. Maziar said that the compacts
are a burden and there could be a desire to do them on a biennial basis. They have tried to reduce the amount of work
involved; the compacts do not need to be rewritten every year but instead can
be updated. Updates allow a mid-biennium
correction; because budgets are generally more stable in the second year of the
biennium, there is an opportunity for deans to engage in more aggressive
planning.
Dr. Sullivan pointed out that he has been on both sides
of the table in the compact process. It
is true that everyone may work too hard on the compacts; what is key is to get a good compact because then it can easily be
updated.
What is the significance of the compact for the dean, Ms.
Samuel inquired? Do they do them because
they must or is it used in decision-making?
Dr. Maziar said she has made it clear that evaluation of college
performance, through the compact process, is one surrogate for evaluation of
the dean's performance--and they do measure college performance in the compact
process.
With respect to the language about engaging faculty,
staff, and students, Professor Konstan commented that if he did not read Senate
committee minutes, he would never know there was a compact with his college; is
the process meeting that goal? Different
colleges use different strategies, Dr. Maziar said. CLA relies heavily on department heads as
well as faculty advisory committees; IT may rely more on department heads. If one decouples the budget from the process,
one gets the benefit of developing consensus and engagement, Professor Konstan
responded.
When writing grants, Professor Konstan continued,
sometimes one will write for what one believes one can get rather than what one
really wants. Is there some risk that
units write compacts for what the President wants rather than for unit
priorities? Dr. Maziar said she has
looked at a lot of compacts; the President's priorities are coming from the
compacts rather than the other way around--his priorities have been bubbling in
the compacts for some time but funding has not been available for them. They encourage deans to keep high-priority
initiatives in their compacts even if they cannot be funded--for one thing, the
colleges might be able to start them and should receive credit for doing
so. It is rare that the President's
initiatives spring "from the brow of Bob, or the mind of Mark, or the
cranium of Chris."
There seem to be two different models in play. First, it should be easier to do small
things, Professor Konstan maintained.
The last ten years of budget cuts have drained flexible funds from
departments. To take an initiative
through the compact process means one must convince the department head, who
must convince the dean, who must convince the provost. Alternatively, one could say that each
department has 2% in flexible funds that it can try things with--the
administration could push the funds out where the action is to see what
creative people might do. Dr. Maziar
said that as Vice President for Research and Dean of the
Professor Konstan said that money will not come pouring
in and there are not a lot of flexible funds.
There is a question of how money does flow in, in amounts that might be
of "subcompact" size. $1000
could allow a department to do something it otherwise could not. He said he has never heard that one priority
of the President or Provost was to leave money in units that is
unrestricted. Dr. Maziar said she has
heard this point made in the past. The
administration keeps an eye on reserves and monitors both growth and shrinkage
of those reserves at the unit level.
While there are encumbrances on some of the reserves, over a period of
time those encumbrances should presumably be exercised so any growth in the reserves
needs to be explained. She said she has
not seen a model (and there may not be one) for what reserves are needed to
mitigate risk at various organizational levels in the University versus what
could provide local flexibility. She
said she did not want to see local reserves built to ensure against large
risk. Whether or not that happens,
Professor Konstan said, depends on whether the department trusts that the
college will help. It may be that units
are "over-insured," Dr. Maziar said, and this may be a promising
problem or issue to devote energy to.
Professor Roe inquired about the extent to which the
compact process links inputs and outputs, efficiencies, and guides allocations
between units. That is why there is need
for a negotiating yardstick, Dr. Maziar said.
It is not appropriate to have the same discussion about return on
investment with CLA as with CBS or IT.
She does not expect humanities faculty to generate the same amount of
external funding as CBS or IT faculty; that is not their research or scholarship
model. The question is what is the right measure.
The administration is responsible for identifying where
there is a surplus or a deficit in productivity, Professor Roe said, and for
carrying on a dialogue about it. Dr.
Maziar said her office negotiates these issues with the deans.
Professor Roe noted that under IMG the income streams are
higher for units with major undergraduate activities than it is for units with
major professional and research activities, like the Experiment Stations. Has the compact process been helpful in
addressing this balance? Dr. Maziar said
there are different and complex financial and academic ecologies in each
college, she said, and she is not sure that all of the cross-subsidies have
been illuminated, although IMG has enabled some progress in that regard over
past budget approaches.
To what extent does the compact process fulfill the
information needs required to allocate, at the margin, resources across/between
units to get the highest returns to them, Professor Roe asked? The compacts are developing stronger
documentation of the priorities of the college and how they are progressing on
them, Dr. Maziar said, and the colleges negotiate with the administration on
how to support those priorities. It is
essential that these discussions were held for several years because they
helped develop the President's priorities and will inform the biennial request.
Dr. Sullivan pointed to an item on a part of the handout
identifying the elements of a compact to make the point that there is no
formula for the data profile for a college.
Much of the data is maintained by Institutional Research and Reporting, standard numbers for all colleges. There are also unique goals; the agenda of
the compact meetings are prepared with participation by his office AND the
college. They look at the compact, the
data profile, and see if there are items to discuss, but there is no formula
for the proceedings.
One issue this year is that too many students reach 90
credit hours--students who are classified as seniors but fail to graduate. They will talk with each college about this
issue. If the University wants to
improve its graduation rate, Dr. Maziar commented, this could be low-hanging
fruit--successfully deal with the problem of losing 25% of seniors.
Are the same metrics used across all units, Mr. Klein
asked? Dr. Sullivan pointed out that the
Minnesota Extension Service does not have the same measures as CLA. It could be more productive to have a
standard set of measures and then allow each unit to explain its place on the
yardstick, Mr. Klein said. One could
spend more time building separate yardsticks for each unit than explaining a
unit's position vis-à-vis a common yardstick.
There are some standards, Dr. Sullivan said, but graduation rate, for
example, is not a measure for the Extension Service. There also might be different measures for
Law, Medicine, COAFES, CLA, IT, and so forth, Dr. Maziar added. It is difficult to think of the same standard
that would be used for all. If all are
explaining why they do not use the yardstick, Mr. Klein responded, that may
preclude the discussion getting to core issues of evaluation.
It is even subjective to make judgments across units
using a common denominator, Professor Roe suggested. Dr. Maziar agreed. But, for example, student success is a high
priority and they have had conversations with units that are not doing well on
that measure; that reflects an institutional value that has the endorsement of
the Board of Regents. Mr. Klein said he
liked the elegance of graduation rate because it reflects an organizational
value.
Has there been progress in meshing the compact process
with the capital planning process, Ms. Weinberg asked? She said she hoped that the compact discussions
include buildings that may be on the six-year capital plan. Part of his charge from Dr. Maziar, Dr.
Sullivan explained, is to include facilities as part of the compact
process. That connection has gotten
better over the years. The compact
process is not where a unit REQUESTS a capital project, but they do look at
facilities and are trying to avoid having things pop up in the capital request
that are not part of the compact process.
To what extent are the compact agreements public,
Professor Roe asked? They are on the
web, Dr. Maziar said. And on occasion,
she will suggest to a dean that he or she look at another college compact to
study exemplary formats. All from last
year are not on the web now, Dr. Sullivan clarified, but they all will be this
year. Dr. Maziar added that the deans
complete the compacts early in spring semester, before the administration can
make commitments in the process--which the deans understand--so her office
continues to receive updates until the final allocations have been made. Prior to the compact process, requests for
funds were ad seriatim and one could not identify where a request for funds fitted
into the priorities of the college. Now
such requests are evaluated for priority against other collegiate requests.
What other sources does the administration use in
assessing college performance, Professor Roe inquired? Or is the compact the primary
instrument? They constantly collect
data, Dr. Maziar said, and she has individual meetings with the deans about every
six weeks to receive an update.
What are the best practices to get students on board and
involved in developing a consensus, Professor Konstan asked? What works best is use of existing
governance/advisory structures, Dr. Maziar said. Dr. Sullivan recalled that when he was dean
he had a student-faculty advisory board that he met with about every three
weeks. Did the compact come up,
Professor Konstan asked? Did any student
read the compact? It did not come up in
discussions, Dr. Sullivan said, and most faculty would
say that they know enough, through the continuing series of conversations, that
no one would be shocked by anything in the compact.
Dr. Maziar said she should perhaps return to the
Committee in about two months to talk about the investments made this
year. The decisions made, she added,
will demonstrate that the process does not invest in glitz and baubles; some
deans have been concerned that they would only receive funds if they had
something new. The administration,
however, has put funds into the best departments, for recruiting new faculty,
into classrooms, to accommodate upper division students, and to support the
libraries.
Professor Roe thanked Drs. Maziar and Sullivan for
joining the meeting and adjourned it at
-- Gary Engstrand