These minutes reflect
discussion and debate at a meeting of a committee of the University of Minnesota
Senate; none of the comments, conclusions, or actions reported in these minutes
represents the views of, nor are they binding on, the Senate, the
Administration, or the Board of Regents.
Minutes
Senate Committee on Finance and Planning
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
2:00 – 3:45
238A Morrill Hall
Present:
Judith Martin (chair), Ruonan Ding, Adam Faitek, Thomas
Klein, Russell Luepker, Kathleen O'Brien, Richard Pfutzenreuter, Michael Rollefson,
Gwen Rudney, Warren Warwick, Aks Zaheer
Absent:
Jon Binks, Rose Blixt, David Chapman, V. V. Chari, Steve
Fitzgerald, Lincoln Kallsen, Joseph Konstan, Kathryn Olson, Justin Revenaugh,
Terry Roe, Thomas Stinson, Michael Volna, George Wilcox
Guests:
Leslie Krueger (Office of the Vice President for
University Services)
[In these minutes: (1) update on Twin Cities campus master plan;
(2) salary memo (salaries for graduate assistants); (3) debt service: comparative information]
1. Update on Campus Master Planning (Twin
Cities)
Professor
Martin convened the meeting at 2:05 and began by recounting that she and Vice
President O'Brien have been shepherding the campus-master-planning process
along and the two of them will report on the progress that has taken place.
Vice
President O'Brien explained that by Regents' policy, each campus must have a
master plan. The Twin Cities has been
operating under a master plan that was adopted in the mid-1990s, so a few years
ago the administration decided it was time to evaluate how the plan had been
effected and where it should go in the future.
This report is another update; the next time the issue comes to the
Committee there will be a draft master plan.
Ms. O'Brien distributed copies of slides and walked the Committee
through them.
The
academic mission drives the master plan, Vice President O'Brien said. A master plan is intended to ensure that the
academic mission is served by the physical campus, it establishes the framework
for the long-term evolution of the campus ("we are building a campus, not
just buildings) and how the buildings work with each other, it sets out a
vision for the future, and it ensures that the unique qualities of the campus
will be enhanced and that targeted areas will evolve. On the last point, one question is how the
campus distinguishes itself (one can think about how each of the campuses is
different). [Some of the preceding and
the following quote the slides.]
The
planning principles adopted by the Regents in 1993 were these: create and maintain a distinctive and
inspiring vision for the physical development of each campus; the physical
environment is to enrich the experience of all who come to campus; maximize the
value of existing physical assets while responding to new needs, and have an
inclusive, accountable, and timely process for creating and implementing the
vision of the master plan. The
University has 28 million gross square feet of buildings, Vice President
O'Brien said, 23 million of which are on the Twin Cities campus. They are worth about $7 billion dollars; the
question is how the University can be sure it is taking care of those
facilities and getting the best use out of them.
The
existing campus master plan was approved by the Regents in 1996 after a
comprehensive planning process. The
guiding principles for the plan include ten items (instill a sense of
community, preserve natural features, balanced systems for movement and access,
increase the mix of uses, promote architectural integrity, and so on ), items
that are hard to argue with and that are quite sound, Ms. O'Brien said.
They
thought a long time about the charge to the steering committee responsible for
updating the 1996 plan, Vice President O'Brien related, including having
discussions with many who were involved in the 1996 effort. They came to several conclusions, embodied in
the charge. The master plan should be
aligned and integrated with core processes such as strategic positioning,
academic planning, and funding; it should take advantage of the major
initiatives planned for the next decade, such as the East Gateway development,
St. Paul campus plans, development of the biological sciences, and LRT; it
should focus on "growing a campus" rather than just adding buildings;
it should instill the principles of sustainability (it should be beautiful and
also model stewardship of University resources); it should optimize the distinction
of the being largest research university that bridges the Mississippi River
(something it has not done but which the President believes it should do); and
increase University community ownership in the plan and ensure broad and
meaningful consultation with key constituencies. Professor Martin said that she and others had
argued against using outside consultants because the University has a large
number of experts on campus who could be asked to help—which they were gladly
willing to do. Vice President O'Brien
agreed and said that one result is that the plan will be "a product of
this place."
The
steering committee, co-chaired by Professor Martin and Vice President O'Brien,
has 15 members (7 of whom are faculty, 2 of whom are students) and began meeting
in the fall of 2006. It created five
issue-based work teams and began testing the guiding principles against a
series of core questions about teaching, technology, sustainability, etc. The work teams (enhancing the campus, natural
features and open spaces, movement and access, community connections &
collaborative ventures & safety, and design and preservation) gathered
information in a number of ways and from a large variety of sources. The work teams were launched in February,
2007, and submitted their draft reports last month.
Among
the ways they gathered information were a series of campus-wide open forums,
Vice President O'Brien reported. A
number of themes emerged from the forums:
enhancing the campus experience, the importance of green space as a
sense of place and connector, sustainability, balancing the needs of all modes
of transportation, relationship of the University to the community, and campus
design.
Professor
Martin next reviewed briefly the principles and issues addressed by the five
work teams. (The co-chairs, issues, and
foci of the work groups are appended to these minutes.)
In
terms of next steps, findings will be ready in April for discussion with the
University community; a draft report will be available in the fall. It is expected that review and approval by
the Board of Regents will come at the end of 2008 and early part of 2009.
Professor
Zaheer complimented Vice President O'Brien and Professor Martin on the
comprehensiveness of the work. He
suggested the prospective report could be improved by integrating it with
strategic positioning. Is there overlap
between the two? Can strategic
positioning be enhanced and supported by the campus master plan? For example, for the purposes of
interdisciplinary research, it would be helpful to have a faculty lounge or
club in the new building on the West Bank, a place people could meet. There is a lot of research about interaction
patterns: impromptu conversations can
often lead to productive interdisciplinary research. The master plan ought to mandate common space
like this. Vice President O'Brien said
they have been thinking about spaces that create community and encourage
discourse and relationships across disciplines.
Ms. Krueger, staff to the steering committee, reported that that theme
was part of the recommendations of several of the work groups. Professor Zaheer commented that there is the
Campus Club, but that is inaccessible for some and it is not cheap, and not
something one would drop into between classes.
Professor Martin noted that one of Vice President Rosenstone's goals is
have interdisciplinary space in the remodeled Northrop Auditorium. Professor Zaheer said that was a good idea
but that the concept should be worked into the master plan.
How
would it be funded, Mr. Rollefson asked?
The master plan informs the six-year capital plan, Vice President
O'Brien said. Not all of it will be in
the capital plan but it may be that some units would be willing to pay for
common spaces. There is a lot of
community-based thinking in the campus master plan, Mr. Rollefson said, but the
budget model is not based on that kind of approach. Vice President O'Brien agreed that some of
the elements of the master plan may challenge the budget model. There are some good ideas that will not be
carried out immediately. The mandate for
more interdisciplinary space will be part of the six-year capital plan; other
items in the master plan are longer-term, things to be done before the next
master plan. Her work team will
recommend there be a new, clear principle about implementation, Professor
Martin reported: the master plan will be
something that Facilities Management and Physical Planning go to in order to
evaluate proposals for fit with the plan.
(They will also come to this Committee with recommendations.)
Mr.
Klein differed with the views expressed about the budget model. It does not ratify values, he said, but it
does distribute costs. If the University
values something, there are mechanisms to pay for it: central funds, a pool that is charged out to
units by some formula, or a pool that is simply divided among units. It is a reasonable way to move costs
around. The budget model can help
implement decisions, and can help inform decisions, but it is not a designed to
be a decision making mechanism.
Mr. Klein then asked, if the planning
process identified key shifts for the University and perhaps the larger
community, for example what if the study recommended that pedestrians are to be
favored as a planning principle; how would the specifics like a decision to
enact a 10 MPH speed limit be made? What
is the mechanism for deliberating the idea?
How would its validity be tested?
It is possible to run the test, Professor Martin said: post 10 MPH speed limits and see if drivers
adhere to it. (If the goal is 10 MPH,
the posted speed would need to be 5 MPH.)
The issue is where traffic on campus should be, Vice President O'Brien
said, a topic that needs considerable discussion as the plans are made
final. If one watches behavior,
Professor Martin said, it is clear that people who do not live nearby or who
must drive believe they should be able park next to their building or should be
dropped off by transit close to their building.
That may need to change. Those
propositions need to be put in view and tested, Mr. Klein said. To some extent they have been tested since
the fall of the 35W bridge, Ms. O'Brien said, because there has been a lot more
traffic on other routes.
Professor Warwick thanked Vice
President O'Brien for mentioning teaching.
He said he was offended by "Driven to Discover"—who is driving
the University? It should have teaching
and discovery. The major point of the
University is to teach students, the state, and the nation. Who's behind "Driven to
Discover"? It could apply to 3M as
well as the University. Professor Zaheer
said he sees discovery as learning; the faculty encourage students to learn,
which is part of the discovery process.
In terms of who is driving it, he suggested that faculty are driven
themselves; it is a reasonable phrase, he said, and one can argue about
it. The academy is driven, Ms. O'Brien
said, both faculty and students; she added that there were lengthy discussions
about the phrase.
Returning to the theme of common
spaces, Professor Luepker recalled that when he was at Cambridge, he stayed in
his host college, where the faculty ate together every day—and it was a nice
meal. The University is not set up to do
anything like that. In his department,
they use all available space for offices, labs, etc., and that isolates
people.
The lack of informal space is an
impediment to a lot of things the University would like to do, Professor Martin
said. No one would now design the Social
Sciences Building on the West Bank the way it is, and that same thing could
probably be said for most of the campus spaces.
All space has been dedicated to something. In the private sector, companies designate
space so that people can work together, Professor Luepker pointed out. People involved in the process are aware this
is a problem, Professor Martin said, but the question is how to address it
within the budget constraints that exist.
Often the University is its own worst enemy in things like this,
Professor Luepker concluded.
Vice President O'Brien then held a
largely off-the-record conversation about the status of the Central Corridor
light-rail transit proposals. She noted
that by law the Metropolitan Council is the decision-making body, and it is
scheduled to act next Wednesday (2/27/08) on the scope of the project. She emphasized that the University supports
mass transit and light-rail transit, its students and employees have high
transit usage, and one-third of the ridership on the proposed Central Corridor
line would be making trips to or from the University. The President's position is that the
University wants to see the Central Corridor a success, but not at the expense
of damaging the University. The
University is trying to be a constructive partner in the process.
There are essentially three
options: a tunnel under Washington
Avenue, trains at grade and traffic diverted off Washington Avenue (all except
the train and emergency vehicles), or the northern alignment. Vice President O'Brien said the University is
looking carefully at the elements of each option. (An elevated train, which some have asked
about, would probably cost nearly as much as a tunnel and might create even
more vibrations in the nearby buildings than would a train at grade.)
2. Salary Memo
The
Committee turned its attention to the salary memo sent out by Provost Sullivan
and Vice President Carrier containing "principles and strategies for
salary adjustments for faculty not covered by collective bargaining agreements,
academic professional and administrative staff, and graduate assistants and
other student employees" [job-classification numbers deleted]. The only concern Committee members expressed
was about this provision in the memo:
"Salary increases for graduate assistants and other 95XX classes
should be based on criteria established by the graduate or professional
training program. Individual performance
should be a major determinant, but your unit may also consider other
criteria."
Two
Committee members, unable to be present for the meeting, had both sent emails
to the Committee objecting to this language.
One wrote that "in my program (and I believe in many others"
there is a set rate for graduate assistants (both RAs and TAs). That rate has a couple of levels based on
degree status . . . but there is no individual adjustment. Is this approach against University
policy? It is common for units to set
graduate assistant salaries individually?"
Another wrote that "in my view, it is likely that differentiating
among graduate students will be more costly than the value of additional
incentives it provides, and in other cases it will create controversy and
potential conflict." Professor
Martin inquired if these sentiments are shared by the Committee.
Is this new language, Professor Zaheer? The Committee should find out. (Mr. Klein left the meeting briefly to find a
copy of last year's salary memo. When he
returned with a copy, it was learned that this is not new language.)
Professor Zaheer said the provision is
a problem. It would create a huge
workload, and it is hard enough to do merit reviews for faculty, much less all
graduate assistants. Professor Luepker
agreed. How would they systematically
evaluate graduate assistants when they do such different things? And most of their graduate assistants are
paid off grants, so there would be pressure for raises. A flat system gets away from competition
problems. Mr. Rollefson said the
opinions expressed by Committee members reflect the general view of others that
he is aware of: the system should not be
a merit system. Mr. Faitek asked if
graduate assistants had been asked their opinion; maybe they would prefer to be
paid on the basis of merit. Professor
Martin commented that departments don't deal all that well with merit
compensation for faculty and that the decisions can cause enormous unhappiness;
to extend the system to graduate assistants is looking for trouble. In her department the graduate assistants are
a cohesive group that cooperates a lot; with a merit system, that would
disappear.
Upon learning that the language was the
same as last year, Professor Martin observed that perhaps no one read the memo
closely enough in the past. Mr.
Rollefson suggested that Professor Martin inquire if the intent of the memo is
to promote a merit-based system for graduate assistants. Professor Martin agreed to do so.
3. Debt Service: Comparative Information
Vice
President Pfutzenreuter joined the meeting at this point and distributed copies
of a set of slides that made up his report to the Board of Regents in February
about capital financing and debt management.
Most of the graphs and tables report on what he covered at the last
meeting of the Committee but a few of them look at Minnesota's peer
institutions as well.
By
and large the institutions have similar debt-to-asset ratios and a similar
proportion of their budgets committed to debt service. At the end of the day, Mr. Pfutzenreuter
said, the University sits in a very good position.
If
the biomedical sciences bonding authority is approved, that will not affect the
University's ratios, Mr. Pfutzenreuter said.
He also said, in response to a question, that the University cannot be
compared to the State or to MNSCU; the state is different and MNSCU's bonding
is all state bonding.
Given
the ratios for the University, theoretically the University could go from $80
million to $160 million in annual debt service and not endanger its bond
rating. The question is not the rating,
the question is how the University would pay for all that additional debt
service. The University has stayed close
to the ratios for its rating, but there is a tradeoff, because it could spend
more to pay for new buildings. If the
University of Minnesota Foundation assets are not included in the ratios (which
they are, by the governing rules), the theoretical debt limit would decrease by
nearly one-half. The agencies provide
the institution debt capacity; the challenge would be finding the money to pay
the debt service.
Professor
Martin adjourned the meeting at 3:30.
--
Gary Engstrand
* * *
1. Enhancing
the Campus work group
Co-Chairs
Denise Guerin
Jerry Rinehart
Guiding Principles
Instill a genuine sense of community
Promote optimization & rationalization of campus
facilities
Increase the mix of uses on campus, including housing
Issues to be addressed
Creating sense of community
Flexible learning and working spaces
Future space needs
Optimizing use of space
Appropriate adjacencies
Focus areas:
Campus spaces are designed to be:
Flexible
Accessible
Safe and Secure
Well maintained
Able to serve visitors as well as
students/faculty/staff
Consider components of place attachment to build
community
Develop a financial model that ensures funding for the
creation and preservation of public/community spaces within buildings
Optimize the use of the University’s 22 million gross
square feet
Create adaptable space when designing new or
remodeling
Develop metrics and measures for describing space use
and condition.
Establish focus groups to get perspectives on future
teaching/learning/living needs
Interdisciplinary use of space
Recreation and athletic facilities should preserve and
enrich the natural features within the campus environment and adjacent
communities
2. Natural
Features and Open Spaces work group
Co-Chairs
Lance Neckar
Art Erdman
Guiding Principles
Create a cohesive system of open spaces
Identify, preserve and enhance natural features
Issues to be addressed
Sustainable practices to preserve & enhance
natural
features
Storm water management
Riverfront development & preservation
Agricultural lands
Linkages to regional open space systems
Protecting and enhancing open spaces
Focus areas:
Natural features, ecosystems and hydrological services
transcend campus boundaries and therefore must be preserved and enhanced.
Integration of planning, design, management around
water resources is necessary
New development should respect and respond to existing
natural systems and topographic features
Embrace the River as the signature space for the 21st
century – protection, enhancement, and management of corridor
Create policies regarding conserving and renewing
carbon resources
Recognize and expand on the Campus as a learning
laboratory
Open space system must be durable, sustainable and
well integrated with buildings and infrastructure
Strengthen open space system to support and enhance
community connections and human activity
Support multiple kinds of recreation – active,
communal, ecological, aesthetic
Recognize system as part of our green infrastructure –
moderating water flows and carbon footprint
3. Movement and
Access work group
Co-Chairs
Bob Johns
David Levinson
Guiding Principles
Achieve balanced systems for
movement and access
Issues to be addressed
Alternative modes of transportation
Public transit
Impact of Central Corridor LRT
Vehicular movement and parking
Bicycle paths and storage
Pedestrian movement and safety
Service access to buildings
Signage and way finding
Focus areas:
Make campus a pleasant place to access and move about
Provide a broad range of movement options dependent on
trip function
Give priority to pedestrians and bicycle movement and
access, followed by mass transit, then automobiles
Develop a transportation system that facilitates
community connections and human interactions
Integrate the transportation network into the campus
in a manner that enhances campus design and land use goals
Strategically locate activities and services to
support and encourage appropriate modes of movement
Make the campus streets navigable, safe and convenient
for all modes of movement
Develop the transportation system as learning
laboratory
4. Community
Connections, Collaborative Ventures & Safety work group
Co-Chairs
Becky Yust
Sheila Ards
Guiding Principles
Foster accessibility and a sense of safety and
security
Develop connections
Facilitate and ensure healthy collaborative ventures
Issues to be addressed
Campus edge conditions and gateways
Enhancing safety and security – campus and community
Integration of the campuses
Definition of campus borders
Relationship with surrounding community
Partnerships with external entities
Focus areas:
Articulate campus boundaries for the next 10-15 years
Identify an area of essential interest to the
well-being of the campus and develop a plan (or plans) with adjacent
communities and stakeholders
Strengthen the step in the capital planning process
requiring identification of projects or planning steps (e.g. precinct plans)
that have potential substantial impact on the district surrounding the campus
Connect the Minneapolis and St. Paul ends of campus
Incorporate crime prevention through environmental
design (CPTED) principles in the design of campus facilities.
Provide for safe movement about the campus for
pedestrians, bicyclists, the disabled
Improve and extend wayfinding
Improve the visual image along student and visitor
pedestrian routes
Develop and promote recreational routes for health
Support community/housing revitalization. Develop ways
to collaboratively leverage existing and future University and community
resources
5. Design and
Preservation work group
Co-Chairs
Terry Bock
Judith Martin
Guiding Principles
Promote architectural integrity
Preserve historic buildings and landscapes
Issues to be addressed
Architectural diversity, harmony, and unity
Public art on campus
Historic preservation
Value of historic buildings and landscapes
Balance of preservation with functionality and cost
Focus areas:
Create collective experience of place
Consider buildings and landscapes as comprehensive
ensembles
Add high quality architecture
Preserve the best and selectively remove obsolete
Treat landmarks as Unique
Productively reuse historic buildings and landscapes
Establish and maintain a sense of community