These minutes reflect
discussion and debate at a meeting of a committee of the
Minutes
Senate Committee on Finance and Planning
Tuesday, September 14, 2004
2:30 - 4:15
238A Morrill Hall
Present:
Charles Campbell (chair), Rose Blixt, David Chapman, Arthur
Erdman, Steve Fitzgerald, Lincoln Kallsen, Thomas Klein, Joseph Konstan, Ian
McMillan, Cleon Melsa, Kathleen O'Brien, Diane Parker, Terry Roe, Charles
Speaks, Thomas Stinson, Alfred Sullivan, Kate VandenBosch, Susan Van Voorhis,
Warren Warwick
Absent:
Calvin Alexander, Daniel Feeney, Michael Korth,
Richard Pfutzenreuter, Michael Volna
Guests:
none
[In these minutes: (1) response to resolutions from
the Social Concerns Committee concerning Lehman Brothers and concerning
renewable energy; (2) biennial request issues (and classrooms); (3) facilities
and core infrastructure issues and trends for the Provost
1. Resolutions from the Social Concerns
Committee
Professor
Campbell convened the meeting at 2:30, called for a round of introductions, and
then drew the attention of Committee members to two resolutions that were
adopted last spring by the Senate Committee on Social Concerns. The Committee needs to decide if it wishes to
take a position on these resolutions, Professor Campbell said.
The
first resolution concerned Lehman Brothers, the financial firm that underwrites
the University's bonds. Lehman Brothers
has also had financial relationships with the private prison industry, which
the resolution finds has engaged in reprehensible behavior.
Committee
members offered a number of criticisms of the resolution: that most of the "whereas" clauses
have nothing to do with Lehman Brothers, that the resolution does not indicate
if Lehman Brothers is the only firm with financial relationships to private
prison companies, and that Lehman Brothers may not be involved with the firms
any longer.
Professor
Speaks inquired why this is an issue for this Committee. Professor Campbell noted that it had been
forwarded to the Committee; it needed to decide if it wished to take it up. If it does, it might wish to invite a
representative from the Social Concerns committee to back up the whereas
clauses. Professor Konstan maintained
that it is the business of this Committee because it involves adjusting
University financial operations in a way that could cost a lot of money. The resolution does not hang together very
well, he said, and sounds vaguely McCarthyite; it is guilt by association
because there is no link between Lehman Brothers and the behavior to which the
University might object. The emphasis is
on the wrong actors, Professor Roe added.
Professor
Konstan moved that the Committee oppose the resolution on the ground that the
tie between Lehman Brothers and any particular acts that would warrant such
extreme action is not established in the motion. To endorse the resolution means accepting the
facts as presented, Professor Speaks said, and he did not know if they are
true. Mr. Klein said that it is more
than not knowing if the facts are right; the stronger argument is that the
approach is unwise; it injects policy into operations.
There
are questionable practices in the private prison industry, Professor Campbell
noted. Professor VandenBosch said she
was not sure this was an appropriate issue for the Committee. When
Professor
Macmillan said that the Committee should leave open the option of objecting to
what companies are doing. In this case,
however, the link is not clear. The
issue of prisons is not for this Committee, Professor Speaks said, but the
issue of Lehman Brothers is.
Professor
Konstan agreed with Professor Macmillan that it is important to say that there
are times it is appropriate for the University to sever connections with a
company because of its actions in the world at large. Part of the Committee's responsibility is to
set the framework for when the University should take such action. His view is that the University should go
after the entity whose behavior the University is trying to change, not take
action on the basis of guilt by association.
The latter incurs too large a cost for the University.
The
Committee approved the following resolution 10-0 with one abstention.
The Senate Committee on Finance and Planning (SCFP)
respectfully disagrees with the resolution concerning Lehman Brothers adopted
by the Senate Committee on Social Concerns.
SCFP decided to take a position on this issue because
it is directly tied to University finances.
In particular, disrupting the University's relationship with its bond
underwriter and starting a new relationship could cost the University a
significant amount of money. Taking such
action, in the Committee's opinion, was not justified by the case
presented.
To be specific, the resolution makes a compelling case
that there are problems related to the level of incarceration in the
SCFP respects and appreciates the Senate Committee on
Social Concerns' role and agrees that the University must have the option to
object to unethical, illegal, or socially irresponsible corporate behavior, and
to sever connections with such companies.
At the same time, SCFP feels that severing such a connection is an
extreme step that should only be taken when:
(1) the behavior itself is egregious, (2) the company's involvement in
that behavior is substantial and clear, and (3) other avenues for influencing
the company's behavior have been pursued and have failed. We do not foresee the use of ultimatums as
the primary communication vehicle for causing change. And we do not feel that the information
provided to us with the Social Concerns Committee resolution justifies such
severe action.
Adopted
10-0 with one abstention September 14, 2004
The
Committee also took up a resolution concerning renewable energy adopted by the
Social Concerns Committee, which included a call for the University to derive
25% of its energy use from "a local, renewable source or purchased from a
wind energy program or other renewable energy sources." The resolution provided that "renewable
energy includes: wind, solar, biomass,
geothermal, hydrogen or future technology with a low impact on the
environment."
Professor
Konstan said he would recommend the Committee oppose the resolution, in part
because it is simply wrong: hydrogen is
not a renewable energy source and the state program in biomass may consume more
energy than it generates. It is also
undesirable because it sets a date to achieve a goal with technology that is
not yet developed or not yet economical.
He said he could support a more general statement calling for increased
reliance on renewable energy. He said
the resolution could also arguably include nuclear energy as a renewable
source. He said he did not like the tone
and moved that the Committee oppose the resolution.
Vice
President O'Brien recalled that she and Executive Vice Provost Sullivan brought
to the Committee last year a draft Regents' policy on sustainability and
renewable energy; the policy was approved by the Board and envisions
performance measures for the University in its accountability report. The faculty members on the committee that
developed the policy felt very strongly that before the University set a policy
on sustainability, there should be research by faculty experts to develop
performance standards. The President
intends to set up faculty-administrative subcommittees, on the basis of the
policy, to create measures. The Social
Concerns resolution is thus perhaps premature, and people in the University
community who are interested in renewable energy should make themselves known in
order that they can participate in the process.
Did the Social Concerns Committee know of this policy, Professor
Campbell asked? They did, Dr. Sullivan
said; he brought it to them.
Professor
VandenBosch said she would amend Professor Konstan's motion to say that the
resolution is superseded by the Regents' policy. Professor Konstan agreed, saying that the
resolution is not as well thought-out as the Regents' policy and it may
undermine the policy.
The
Committee voted unanimously in favor of the following motion:
The Senate Committee on Finance and Planning (SCFP)
respectfully disagrees with the resolution concerning renewable energy adopted
by the Senate Committee on Social Concerns.
SCFP believes that the resolution has
serious errors that undermine its purpose. We are concerned that current
renewable energy projects may not be truly renewable at present, in that their
consumption of fossil fuel used in production and transportation may actually
exceed the energy delivered. SCFP also believes the resolution
is ill-advised because it sets a date for University use of renewable energy at
a stipulated level when the technology does not yet exist or is not economical
to use.
It is the judgment of SCFP that the intent
of the resolution has been superseded by the Regents' policy on "Sustainability
and Energy Efficiency" (see below), adopted in July, 2004. The
Regents' policy is more thoughtful and practical, and SCFP would not want to
see that policy undermined by the resolution from the Committee on Social
Concerns.
Adopted
unanimously September 14, 2004
* *
*
REGENTS'
POLICY ON SUSTAINABILITY AND ENERGY EFFICIENCY
SECTION
Sustainability
is a continuous effort integrating environmental, social, and economic goals
through design, planning, and operational organization to meet current needs
without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.
Sustainability requires the collective actions of the
SECTION
II. GUIDING PRINCIPLES.
Subd.
1. Leadership. Through excellence in
environmental education, research, outreach, and stewardship, the University
shall strive to be a world leader by promoting and demonstrating sustainability
and energy efficiency and by producing leaders and informed citizens.
Subd.
2. Modeling. The University shall
strive to be a model in the application of sustainability principles to guide
campus operations by:
(a)
meeting and aspiring to exceed all applicable regulatory requirements;
(b)
preventing pollution at its source;
(c)
reducing emissions to the environment; and
(d)
encouraging the use of a life-cycle cost framework.
Subd.
3. Operational Improvements. The
University shall undertake a continuous improvement process that seeks to meet
the operational performance targets, goals, and objectives designed to achieve
sustainability.
Subd.
4. Energy Efficiency. The University
shall undertake a process to increase energy efficiency, reduce dependence on
non-renewable energy, and encourage the development of energy alternatives
through research and innovation.
2. Biennial Request Issues
Vice
President O'Brien reported that the biennial request is still being drafted and
that the Committee can make contributions to it if it wished.
Professor
VandenBosch said she had heard that there will be a bonding bill. Ms. O'Brien reported that the Governor has
said he will support a bonding bill in the next legislative session; the
University will bring its request back to either a lame-duck session held after
the elections or to the new legislature next year. It appears that the delay has inflated the
cost of the University's projects about 3.8%, or about $7 million, and that
amount will be added to the request.
There will also be slight fine-tuning, given changes that have occurred
since the request was originally made; she said the final request can be
presented to the Subcommittee on Capital Projects and this Committee.
Professor
Campbell recalled that Senior Vice President Jones brought the biennial request
to the Committee last spring; it is his sense that the structure is the same,
with the proposed partnership with the state, the University funding some
elements and the state others. The
University would fund regular salary increases; the legislature would be asked
to fund retention and special merit increases, along with other items.
Professor
Speaks asked if the central administration would fund the salary increases or
if the costs would be pushed down to the colleges. That has not been determined, Professor
Campbell said. And what about funding
for common goods, Professor Speaks asked?
There should be two groups expressing concern: faculty and students. In past years this Committee has adopted
statements about the need for funding for classrooms, for example, and he would
like to see the faculty efforts expanded by bringing in the Faculty
Consultative Committee and perhaps also the Senate Consultative Committee,
which includes students. He said he was
concerned that students seem so passive with respect to the conditions in which
they learn. If Professor Marshak agrees,
the issue should be brought up when Senate committee chairs meet with Provost
Sullivan.
There
are three issues surrounding classrooms which may explain why there is no
unified voice, Professor Konstan said.
First is instructional technology; there are still a significant number
of faculty who do not use technology and who are happy to use chalk and the
blackboard. The average professor is not
a problem yet, but the problem is coming.
Second is the general condition/repair of classrooms; there are not
enough complaints about them and this should be a common concern. Third is the construction of new
classrooms—this is the biggest issue—because departments are shifting classes
all over due to the lack of classrooms with appropriate technology. One argument that might help is the one made
by the Libraries: they are a state
resource and make that fact known. No
one markets the classrooms in the same way as a resource for the Twin Cities;
if the number were expanded by 25%, with the appropriate technology, perhaps
they could be.
Professor
Speaks said that the argument for technology in the classrooms should be framed
around the fact that faculty have invested hundreds and sometimes thousands of
hours in classroom technology and that letting the technology slip will pull
the rug out from underneath them, and around the fact that students who are
used to technology would be in an uproar if the quality of the University's
technology were to decline.
Vice
President O'Brien said that the custodians of the University would agree with
the view that there is a problem in classrooms.
Their greatest concern is lack of student respect for classrooms,
reflected in food ground into the carpeting and damage to equipment. They would ask for the help of the faculty in
taking care of the rooms.
Each year the Committee hears about
classrooms and technology and that there is no collective energy to improve
them. In fact there is a strategy on
technology in classrooms—it is exactly what Mr. Fitzgerald described in the
summary "Some thoughts on facilities" emailed to the Committee. The
de facto strategy is to fund classroom technology "year by year and budget
by budget," Mr. Klein said. When the same sequence happens each year, it
seems almost to be as scripted as a well written play.
It is
easier to build prisons than to change national drug policy, Professor Konstan
said, and it is easier for his department to build private classrooms than to
wait for the University, which cannot deliver. If all departments do that, there are a lot of
classes taught in conference rooms and so on, so there ends up not being a
problem. If departments need classrooms,
and build their own, however, there are serious productivity and efficiency
problems.
Professor
Roe said that the University should be investing in classroom technology
because it is intermediate to distance education. He said he believes the University will be
asked to integrate more with MNSCU and with other land-grant institutions. The University must mentally get used to the
notion that capital investments in the classrooms are an investment in the
future.
Mr.
Fitzgerald said he agreed with some of the points that had been made and did
not agree with others. He pointed
out: the expectation of K-12 students
who come here is that the University will have great technology; some faculty
use the blackboard, but his office has received a steadily-increasing number of
requests for classrooms equipped with technology, which is a major reason for
the technology upgrade plan (a Camry, not a Cadillac); the faculty have
requested an ubiquitous protocol throughout the University, not different
technologies in each classroom; he was told to proceed with technology upgrades
as soon as possible, with a lot of one-time money. The idea was that other costs would be
covered later. They are well into the
replacement cycle now and a lot of faculty instruction will be at risk if they
cannot find the funds to catch up, Mr. Fitzgerald said. They have been obligated to put all their
recurring funding into technology, which has meant there is no money for other
elements of the classrooms (furniture, carpet, etc.).
Mr.
Kallsen commented that the University has not abandoned classrooms; former
Senior Vice President Maziar invested a great deal of recurring money in
them—in the worst possible fiscal climate—and while the campus is not where it
needs to be, there has been enough money to replace technology, even if not all
the chairs. Mr. Fitzgerald agreed; classrooms
are now much better equipped than they were in the past, but he cautioned that
the situation "is close to the edge" because they are surviving on
one-time funding.
Professor
Campbell observed that the governance system has been consistent in urging
greater funding for the libraries, classrooms, and other common goods. But it must also give advice on priorities.
3. Facilities and Core Infrastructure
Issues and Trends
Professor
Campbell noted that the discussion had veered in the direction of the next
agenda item, the Committee's response to the letter from Provost Sullivan to
him requesting its views about facilities and core infrastructure issues and
trends. Several Committee members had
sent comments electronically in advance of the meeting.
Professor
Konstan said he was impressed with the comments that Mr. Klein had sent with
respect to productivity (the number one issue is "inadequate improvement
in productivity while maintaining intellectual and operational quality in
research and teaching"). There are
two clear next steps, he said. One, the
University must be able to measure what it produces (right now it only uses
rough numbers and inputs), and two, a large part of productivity is not about
being lean, it means, for example, expensive machinery not sitting idle for
want of small parts. If support budgets
are starved, faculty waste time in the classroom, in the libraries, and on
paperwork that other units should do.
Since there is no way to measure research and teaching, there is no way
to measure their impact.
Professor
Campbell agreed that the productivity questions Mr. Klein raised need to be
pursued, and the points he and Professor Konstan have made belong in any letter
about the strategic planning process.
Professor Konstan has tied the more general productivity issue to the
more narrow area that the Committee has been asked to offer its views, on
facilities and core infrastructure. He
said he was interpreting that request narrowly, about the physical
infrastructure and buildings.
Dr.
Sullivan provided context. The
University is in a strategic directions exercise under the leadership of the
President and Provost that includes an environmental scan to see what the
University must react to. They have
erred on the side of inclusion and have asked a lot of individuals to
contribute to the process, including a number of governance committees and key
administrators. All of those groups and
individuals will contribute ideas, which a small group will then winnow to
draft a strategic plan that will be circulated for reaction.
What
is the definition of "core infrastructure," Ms. Van Voorhis
asked? Dr. Sullivan said he did not
struggle with the term—it is generally intended to mean support for the
physical infrastructure, but the Committee can interpret the term as broadly as
it wishes. The Committee discussed the
issues surrounding space and facilities; Dr. Sullivan explained that the
genesis of the request was a
The
discussion started by asking why this Committee was asked about facilities, Mr.
Klein said. Because there is 24 million
square feet on the Twin Cities campus, which represents a huge financial
commitment, Dr. Sullivan said. The
Committee can make connections between productivity and space utilization, Mr.
Klein said, and he could envision a Committee report that makes those
connections.
There
is a gap between productivity and efficiency, Professor Konstan proposed. Productivity is something that applies to a
person or a building. Efficiency is how
one uses all of the inputs. He said he
worried that the tail is wagging the dog in the discussions if asking about faculty,
department, or student productivity, and then about efficiency. The discussion should start with what makes
the University unique and potentially strong, which is people, which in the
first instance is faculty and students.
Staff, facilities, energy, and so on, exist so that students can become
educated more efficiently and effectively and so faculty can teach and produce
knowledge. If the Committee report is
not linked to teaching and research, it will miss the point. Another dimension is public goods, Professor
Roe said; at the department level, the question must be decentralized. What constraints, future opportunities, and
directions do they face? The Committee
cannot really provide insights into what departments need, but it can speak to
the issue of public goods.
One
enormous factor is that the vast majority of funds are committed for life (in
tenured faculty). It might be possible
that the University could produce more by putting one-third of that money into
support for the two-thirds who remained, but there is no way to do that. If departments could say that for a certain
amount of money it could produce more education and research, the money could
be provided and then taken away if the department did not produce what was
promised, but the University does not have the infrastructure to make those
kinds of decisions.
Professor
Roe noted that the discussion is not about academic programs but the
distinction is artificial because facilities and core infrastructure are
integrally related to programs. There is
a need to identify productivity measures for the unit level. The core issue is how to make programmatic
decisions that are tied to facilities, Mr. Kallsen said.
Professor
Konstan said that what is needed is GUP—Gross University Product. If the University does not define it, it will
be unhappy if the product is defined by the outside. A landmark book on Mayan history might not
count if an outsider establishes productivity because such a book would not
contribute to the economy. If the
University, however, could demonstrate that the GUP was up 7%, that could give
it the basis for arguing for support and for comparing with other
organizations. The measure cannot be
developed quickly, but without it research universities will have a difficult
time making their case.
A key
issue for this Committee is to be sure it provides the administration with a
short list of things it cares passionately about, Dr. Sullivan said. Professor Campbell said the Committee could
provide a short list of priorities; Mr. Klein said the Committee might make a
stronger contribution by identifying a few things and not pretend to be
comprehensive. This could help focus
attention on the few critical issues rather than the many of importance. Others are also preparing priorities so the
Committee's need not be definitive. Will
the draft plan be iterated, Professor Campbell asked? The whole University will see it, Dr.
Sullivan promised. Professor Campbell
said he would prepare a draft and remained open for advice.
What
is the Provost looking for, Ms. Blixt asked?
Everyone agrees on what is needed and Professor Campbell can prepare the
list for the Committee, but where will the money come from? What kinds of decisions will be made if there
is no additional money? What will be the
plan once the document is prepared? Dr.
Sullivan said he doubted there would be many "eurekas" in the
plan. The idea is that the Provost has
asked what is most important in the environment that will shape the
University. There will be a collision
between wants and finances. When the
plan is done, there will be an environmental scan to identify opportunities,
weaknesses, and threats, but the process is not far enough along to identify
specifics.
One
should not assume that everyone thinks about these things the same way, Mr.
Kallsen observed. Faculty in the
Professor
Campbell adjourned the meeting at 4:05.
--
Gary Engstrand