Date:


To:




From:

Re:

8 June 1999


Robert Bruininks, Executive Vice President and Provost
Steve Gudeman, Chair, Senate Committee on Finance and Planning
Judith Martin, Chair, Senate Committee on Educational Policy
Sara Evans, Chair, Faculty Consultative Committee

Catherine French, Chair, SCFP-SCEP IMG Oversight Subcommittee

Spring Quarter 1999 Summary of Progress and Recommendations

This past year, subcommittees of the IMG Oversight Subcommittee worked on issues related to IMG in both the narrow and broad sense of the term. The subcommittees included:

During winter and spring quarters, subcommittee members revisited the deans and associated department heads to investigate how units have fared after the first full year of implementation of IMG. This report contains the committee recommendations followed by a series of appendices containing more detailed summaries of the subcommittee reports and a summary of the interviews with deans and department heads categorized according to topic. More detailed summaries of each interview can also be made available.

Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or would like further information.


Best regards,


Catherine French
Chair, IMG Oversight Committee


The IMG Oversight Committee was established jointly by the Senate Committees on Education Policy (SCEP) and Finance & Planning (SCFP) to develop recommendations for SCEP, SCFP and the administration regarding modifications to IMG or changes in policy. The Oversight Committee was initiated in October and has since met approximately biweekly to discuss issues of concern. Members of the committee include: Carl Adams (Dept. of Info & Decision Sciences), Carole Bland (Dept. of Family Practice and Community Health), James Cotter (Dept. of Science and Mathematics, U of MN-Morris), Catherine French (Dept. of Civil Engineering), Jo-Ida Hansen (Dept. of Psychology), Leonard Kuhi (Dept. of Astronomy), Russell Luepker (Division of Epidemiology), Paul T. Magee (Dept. of Genetics and Cell Biology), Don Siniff (Dept. of Ecology, Evolution, and Behavior), Tom Soulen (Dept. of Plant Biology), and William Van Essendelft (University College). Ex-officio members include: Liz Eull (Office of Budget & Finance), Steven Rosenstone (College of Liberal Arts), and Craig Swan (Vice Provost). Rebecca Hippert (University Senate) is the staff member working with this committee.


ORGANIZATION OF REPORT:

This report begins with an Executive Summary, which contains the primary recommendations of the IMG Oversight Subcommittee in general, followed by the primary recommendations from each of the subcommittees (i.e. Compact Process, Funding Central Support Services, and Interdisciplinary Programs). These recommendations are followed by a Summary of the Key Points of Interviews with Deans and Department Heads.

The main body of the report is followed by four appendices. Appendices A-C contain more detailed summaries of each of the subcommittee reports and recommendations. Appendix D contains a detailed summary of the interviews with deans and department heads. Appendix D begins with a listing of the deans and department heads interviewed. An attempt was made to interview all deans and a cross section of department heads; however, there are some notable exceptions to our list. In Appendix D, the interviews are organized by Dean and then Department Head. Each section is organized by common issues that were addressed (e.g. tools/resources, compact process, outsourcing, reserves, morale, etc.).

The following is an outline of the report.

I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY RECOMMENDATIONS

I.1 General
I.2 Compacts
I.3 Funding central support services
I.4 Interdisciplinary programs

II. SUMMARY OF KEY POINTS OF INTERVIEWS WITH DEANS AND DEPARTMENT HEADS

II.1 General
II.2 Positive and Negative Implications of IMG
II.3 IMG "Formula" and Revenue Neutral Implementation
II.4 Resources/Training/Tools
II.5 Changing Roles
II.6 Compact Process and Supporting Central Services
II.7 Effect on Interdisciplinary Activities/Outreach

Appendix A - SUMMARY OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT ON THE COMPACT PROCESS

A.1 General comments
A.2 Recommendations

Appendix B - SUMMARY OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT ON FUNDING CENTRAL SUPPORT SERVICES

B.1 General comments
B.1.1 Libraries
B.1.2 Graduate School
B.2 Recommendations

Appendix C - SUMMARY OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT ON INTERDISCIPLINARY PROGRAMS

C.1 General comments
C.1.1 General comments with regard to interdisciplinary graduate programs
C.1.2 Specific comments with regard to the relationship between the Graduate School and interdisciplinary programs
C.1.3 General comments with regard to cross college teaching
C.1.4 Specific comments related to interdisciplinary programs and cross college teaching
C.2 Recommendations

Appendix D - SUMMARY OF SPRING 1999 INTERVIEWS WITH DEANS AND DEPARTMENT HEADS

D.1 List of Deans/Department Heads Interviewed
D.2 Interviews with Deans
D.2.1 General
D.2.2 Tools/Educational resources
D.2.3 Interdisciplinary activities/Centers/Outreach
D.2.4 Faculty hiring/support
D.2.5 Faculty teaching across colleges/links to other units
D.2.6 Information on how IMG has affected budgets and planning across the University
D.2.7 Modifications of IMG
D.2.8 Outsourcing
D.2.9 Compact Process
D.2.10 Curricular Issues
D.2.11 Reserves
D.2.12 College-to-Department Fund Distribution
D.2.13 Semester Conversion Concerns
D.2.14 Morale
D.3 Interviews with Department Heads
D.3.1 General
D.3.2 Tools/Educational resources
D.3.3 Interdisciplinary activities
D.3.4 Faculty hiring/support
D.3.5 Faculty teaching across colleges/links to other units
D.3.6 Information on how IMG has affected budgets and planning across the University
D.3.7 Modifications of IMG
D.3.8 Outsourcing
D.3.9 Compact Process
D.3.10 Curricular Issues
D.3.11 Reserves
D.3.12 College-to-Department Fund Distribution
D.3.13 Semester Conversion Concerns
D.3.14 Morale


I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY RECOMMENDATIONS


I. 1 General


I.2 Compacts


I.3 Funding central support services


I.4 Interdisciplinary programs


II. SUMMARY OF KEY POINTS OF INTERVIEWS WITH DEANS AND DEPARTMENT HEADS

The following are just a few comments culled from the interviews with deans and department heads. More extensive comments are found in Appendix D along with a list of those interviewed.

II.1 General


II.2 Positive and Negative Implications of IMG


II.3 IMG "Formula" and Revenue Neutral Implementation


II.4 Resources/Training/Tools


II.5 Changing Roles


II.6 Compact Process and Supporting Central Services


II.7 Effect on Interdisciplinary Activities/Outreach


APPENDIX A: SUMMARY OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT ON THE COMPACT PROCESS

A.1 General comments

  • The compact process and the compacts themselves represent a major step forward in establishing planning and communicating the processes of the university.

  • Aspirations for the process are clearly presented in the compact document 10/2/98 Review and Outlook Statement and align well with the move toward decentralized authority and responsibility. The aspirations make clear the potentially central role of the compact process in the comprehensive planning and budgeting process of the University. It is therefore paramount that all parties understand how the process relates to important decision making in resource acquisition and allocation and how all parties are involved collegially in the process.

  • There remains a lack of clarity regarding how appropriate changes in the University subsidies should be determined especially in cases where subsidy levels seem to reflect historical circumstance rather than institutional priorities.

  • The 10/2/98 Review and Outlook Statement noted areas of emphasis which were to be expanded in the 1998-1999 compact process. These included four areas identified by the review subcommittee as requiring attention. They were: (1) academic directions, (2) support unit compacts, (3) inclusion of discussion of interdisciplinary efforts, and (4) attention to consultation and communication. The identification of these issues in the outlook statement is an indication that these concerns may be addressed in the current 1998-1999 compact process.

  • The brief 5+ page format of the compacts is highly desirable. The concept of referencing existing or anticipated reports on specific programs is good.

  • The concept of the compact as an iterative process and a dialog between central and the academic and support units is an essential feature. The undertaking can be time consuming on both sides such that it may be beneficial to investigate increasing the time period between compacts. A comment was made during one of the interviews that the compacts are a nice idea, but it is a lot of work when the provost does not have much money to distribute anyway.


    A.2 Recommendations

  • Faculty should be better educated regarding the compact process and its potential impact on the programs. As an example, the IT consultative committee polled the faculty to rank the priority issues for the committee to focus attention on in the 1998-9 academic year. The IT consultative committee identified a list of potential topics including the college compact; however, the faculty polled did not rank the college compact in the priority topics to be considered by the consultative committee.

  • Attention to longer range resource agreements and future estimates is desirable. While the academic priority statements were for the most part significant and longer range, most of the resource discussion was almost historical, listing approved allocations.

  • Historical inequities that were maintained in the revenue neutral implementation of IMG should be addressed. Now that IMG has been in effect for two years, it is time to investigate historical inequities. The compact might be considered a possible mechanism to remedy perceived historical inequities. This could be accomplished through shifts in the state subsidy allocation, or in the distribution of new resources.

  • Institutional initiatives/priorities should be defined and subsequently addressed in the compacts. With notable exceptions, unit initiatives were not clearly related to major institutional initiatives or priorities. This may reflect the sense that most of the major initiatives are narrowly based in specific units. In any case, general priorities identified in the Review and Outlook Statement, such as advancing academic excellence, expanding educational access, and developing a climate of quality service were not clearly visible in the individual compacts.

  • The process for developing and communicating institutional priorities and initiatives should be identified. It is not clear from the overall compact documents. One might envision a process of declaration of possibilities from Central Administration and a solicitation of revisions and alternatives from leaders of the units and the faculty that could be generated through the series of interactions with the units. This could be refined into a series of both initiatives and priorities to guide the compact development.
    Alternatively, one might consider a biennial cycle with one year concentrating on the development of initiatives and priorities (proactive) and the following year devoted to proposing specific actions to execute the chosen initiatives (reactive). However it seemed to the review committee that there are enough significant issues that arise each year that there is a need to convey these issues to central administration on an annual basis. It may be more work, the longer a unit waits between compacts.

  • Use multi-year data (e.g. annual data over a 5-6 year period) on the single page profile data sheet to identify trends. The single page profile data sheet is an excellent source of information, however the current format is inadequate. Enrollment estimates and resource implications into the future are important. The beginning and endpoint measures used are too volatile. In addition, measures that contribute to the institutional critical measures (e.g. graduation rates, NRC ranking, etc.) are important to identify.

  • Target performance measures should be identified and agreed upon in the compact process. These performance measures should be relative to previous compacts, as well as institutional priorities. Progress made in achieving the performance measures should be annually evaluated. Most of the compacts included long term goals that were quite ambitious. Some form(s) of assessment are needed to verify progress towards the ends. This assessment should/would include a commitment to overall quality.

  • Minicompacts between colleges and departments should be developed to facilitate planning and budgeting at the department level. The single most consistent concern expressed by department chairs during the interview process was that they were not adequately informed about the priorities and the resource arrangements for their units. These agreements between the colleges and the departments would facilitate the planning and budgeting at the department level.

  • Develop minicompacts between the individual Directors of Graduate Study (DGS) for interdisciplinary programs and the designated "home" collegiate units to identify the support for the interdisciplinary programs and to enable the DGS to plan accordingly. Under the current budgeting system, funding for interdisciplinary programs has been directed to single collegiate units; to recognize the involvement of the "other" collegiate units in cross college interdisciplinary activities, these activities should be identified in the academic unit compacts with central administration. This identification of the interdisciplinary programs within the compacts provides some assurance of the stability of the program.

  • Significant curricular issues or proposed changes in mission should be included in the compact. This would enable the possible identification of mission creep and cases where other collegiate units may be impacted and thus can alter plans. An example of such identification is the IT Physical Science course which will be offered every semester and might have an impact on student distribution across the campus.

  • With decentralization, academic units that flourish under the IMG model may find it increasingly easier grow without regard to overall balance at the university as a whole. Proposed increases in faculty lines should be identified and agreed upon in the compact process to ensure that the university as a whole is balanced and that academic units do not mortgage positions on potentially risky revenue sources. [There was a split in opinion among deans regarding whether or not the provost should be involved in unit hiring practices.]


    APPENDIX B: SUMMARY OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT ON FUNDING CENTRAL SUPPORT SERVICES

    B. 1 General comments

  • This subcommittee reviewed the matter of providing revenue to support the activities of central support services (e.g. graduate school, libraries) that have no direct mechanism to increase their revenue under the IMG framework.

  • There was a clear understanding from all sources (dean/dept head interviews, Bruininks/Kvavik white paper, SCFP and IMG subcommittee minutes) that central support services must be supported. Although the list of what comprises "central support services" is not clear, at a minimum most would identify the Graduate School and the libraries. The most enthusiastic support was for the libraries. A broader list includes: the Graduate School, SPA, enterprise project, student modem pool, campus technology, utility costs, risk insurance, grants management, web development, steam plant debt, general maintenance, regents professors, new debt and lease costs, outside legal costs, central initiatives and more. Some of these items are funded by central's portion of ICR, direct legislative appropriation or "off-the-top" cuts from state appropriations. Central claims that these sources are insufficient, and is seeking funding mechanisms.

  • There is interest in knowing what reasonable portion of the total budget should be spent on central services versus academic programs and how this compares with other research universities.

  • There is interest in understanding why the costs of central services are increasing at the rate they are and increasing over the amount budgeted for them. Even though the university is receiving an increase in budget from the state, it is facing a shortfall in basic central costs. There should be accountability for these resources by the units that receive them. It is unclear, what happens to the revenue streams that were used to retire previous debts (e.g. telephone switch system). It seems that some of those revenue streams should be available to pay off new debt. Another concern is that the Enterprise system seems to have generated a tremendous cost overrun. In addition, new costs are associated with requirement for technical support, training, and associated infrastructure costs.

    B.1.1 Libraries

  • Support units such as the library experience increased costs without the opportunity to generate new revenue under the IMG model. There is concern that the library is not receiving enough funds to remain up-to-date and complete. The special legislative request for the libraries offers a one-time fix but may not be a long-term solution. Possible solutions include taxing units to reflect increasing demands on the libraries and implementation of user fees since a large number of users are not directly associated with the University of Minnesota, and in some cases, not even associated with the State of Minnesota. It is not clear what impact this would have on interlibrary loans. Some felt that the costs (in terms of implementation and reduced good will) associated with an imposition of such a user fee would outweigh the possible benefits.

    B.1.2 Graduate School

  • In addition to support of the Graduate School, the Office of Research handles the budget for SPA (ORTTA), UPress, CURA, and some other programs. Over the past five years, the Office of Research and Graduate School have been retrenched $4M of the $32M budget from central. The retrenchment has resulted in closures of some centers and funding reductions for others.

  • The Office of Research does not receive a formulaic appropriation of ICR funds, although the volume of work associated with processing grants out of SPA (ORTTA) might be considered associated with the level of ICR. During one year, there was no inflationary increase on the proportion of ICR even though salaries were increased.

  • Regarding the Graduate School , there is concern that it is not receiving enough funds to support essential programs such as interdisciplinary programs and fellowships. The general Graduate School fellowship support is mid-range compared to that of comparable institutions and is losing ground. In the implementation of IMG, the Graduate School chose not to receive any tuition funds from the IMG formula. As a consequence, interdisciplinary graduate programs have each been assigned to a "home" academic unit to which any revenue they might generate is directed (which may be a different unit than that of the DGS). The Graduate School has only a minimal source of revenue it can generate on its own through the graduate admissions fee of $50 that generates approximately $400k/yr (a fraction of its total budget).

  • In 1998-9, the Graduate School and other support units were directed to develop compacts with central administration. Thus the experience of support units within the compact process is lagging one year behind the academic units. It is possible that the compacts may provide an efficient mechanism of communication between central administration and the support units in terms of identification of budgetary needs and benchmark performance measures.

    B.2 Recommendations

  • There was a consensus that there is a need for an accountability mechanism for central services including incentives for increased efficiency. While interviewees were in general supportive of a tax to pay for the common goods (particularly the libraries), they were equally vocal in expressing a need to better understand how central spends the money it receives on these services before additional taxes are assessed.

  • If taxes/assessments are deemed necessary to support central activities, the committee should investigate the potential impact on units and determine an equitable implementation. Most thought a tax only on tuition dollars was inappropriate. A tax on all revenue (with the exception of private donations/endowments) or all salaries seemed the most equitable. Under the current system, there is not a lot of flexibility in academic unit budgets. Most of the O&M funds are directed to faculty salaries so that taxes and assessments are covered by reducing supply budgets and support staff. There is less and less flexibility in the budgets as these revenue sources dwindle. In addition, units that have reported net losses under IMG may be more heavily impacted by these taxes.


    APPENDIX C: SUMMARY OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT ON INTERDISCIPLINARY PROGRAMS

    C.1 General comments

  • This subcommittee reviewed the mechanism of support for interdisciplinary programs, particularly, cross-college interdisciplinary programs as likely being more susceptible to negative impacts. The two primary foci were interdisciplinary graduate programs and cross-college teaching. There are approximately 43 interdisciplinary graduate programs at the University, 16 of which are minor-only programs. Centers and institutes, of which there are over 160, were not included in the review as many of these are largely supported by external funds. In addition, outreach activities were not investigated due to inadequate time, although there is potential for departments and faculty engaged in outreach activities to be shortchanged in the IMG environment due to pressures to increase enrollment and ICR revenue sources.

    C.1.1 General comments with regard to interdisciplinary graduate programs

  • In the interviews with deans and department heads there was little mentioned specifically about IMG related advantages/disadvantages with respect to cross college interdisciplinary programs. A few stated there were no problems and/or there was good progress in implementing or improving new or existing programs. Others stated that it was too early to tell what impact IMG may have.

  • Interviews with DGS's of interdisciplinary programs had a very different view of their situation. All of those interviewed had concerns about how their programs would be funded on a long term basis, even one currently enjoying considerable stable, non-tuition related support. All stated that without a dependable, continuing support base, the quality of their programs would deteriorate, and a number felt that their program would not survive. Programs have always had problems because so many of their faculty make their interdisciplinary contributions on top of departmental responsibilities. IMG is likely to exacerbate that situation.

  • A major problem with interdisciplinary graduate programs is that they are not guaranteed a supportive administrative home. Cooperation among benevolent deans and department heads can enable such programs to flourish, but there can be no assurance of continued administrative support. Even with a supportive administrative home, there is potential for diminished activities from cross-college faculty because of the perception of the program tied to a specific home college.

  • There is confusion among some colleges and DGS's regarding the revenue attribution to the administrative home available for the interdisciplinary program. With the revenue neutral status implementation of IMG, it is not clear that college budgets were increased with the shift of the costs of an interdisciplinary program to their unit. This confusion has caused some uncertainty with some interdisciplinary programs.

  • Uncertainty related to interdisciplinary graduate programs makes it difficult to commit to graduate students who require a multiyear commitment toward pursuing their degree. Some sense of stability is essential.

    C.1.2 Specific comments with regard to the relationship between the Graduate School and interdisciplinary programs

  • With the implementation of IMG, the Graduate School chose not to receive any tuition funds. The reasoning was that the faculty in the individual colleges teach and advise the students rather than those activities being conducted through the Graduate School. As a result, the tuition income associated with interdisciplinary programs has been designated to a "home" academic unit for each program.

  • The Graduate School has some funding for interdisciplinary programs (approximately $330k for infrastructure costs such as secretarial staff, postage and printing, etc. and $1M to provide $50k seed grants for new interdisciplinary research center initiatives). The Graduate School views itself as an incubator of new ideas to provide seed funds, but cannot sustain ongoing costs for centers and interdisciplinary graduate programs. If the programs are successful, the value-added benefit of the programs should garner support from the Deans.

  • The review committee believes that intradisciplinary programs within a single academic unit can be more successful in identifying the value-added to the program. In the case of cross-college interdisciplinary programs the case may be more difficult to make, particularly, to those academic units with faculty involved in the program which are not the designated "home" of the program.

    C.1.3 General comments with regard to cross college teaching

  • Interviews yielded differing perspectives with regard to cross-college teaching. Some colleges were managing to negotiate agreements to compensate for what otherwise would be a one-way allocation of tuition revenue. At the other extreme, some cross-college teaching was terminated very specifically because of IMG. One center has begun to offer courses with its own designator to ensure receipt of tuition revenue. In one graduate program that is currently in good financial condition, it is becoming increasingly difficult to get faculty to agree to teach program courses (although this situation is generally not new to the IMG environment, the situation appears to be exacerbated under IMG). Statements were made about several units offering new courses in response to IMG.

  • Those interviewed noted that it is now more difficult to handle the mechanics of any "arrangements" (e.g. tracking), and it is bothersome to consider possibly having to formally renegotiate on an annual basis. Most agreed, that a template procedure for making such arrangements would be desirable, however the procedure should be flexible.

    C.1.4 Specific comments related to interdisciplinary programs and cross-college teaching

  • Gene Allen shared with the IMG committee observations that he had made during extensive discussions with faculty and administrators about the interdisciplinary programs at USC. A common theme in the discussions was that such programs had been "progressively weakened over more than 20 years of Resource Centered Management (RCM)." Specific concerns included: - RCM has been detrimental to a sense of community
    - Interdisciplinary programs are too low among the priorities of individual schools and size differences impede joint work
    - There are too few flexible resources held centrally to seed appropriate interdisciplinary efforts--it is too decentralized
    - There is too much concern about protecting tuition income of a school rather than joint teaching some classes
    - A program can serve a school well but may not be among priorities of the university.

  • A review of centers and interdisciplinary programs is desirable. Some programs can be created through the development of letterhead. The university should develop a mechanism to oversee these activities and develop a possible sundown mechanism.

  • On April 29, 1999, a meeting of the Faculty Assembly Steering Committee with six Regents Professors to discuss the intellectual future of the university included the following comments: - As comprehensive as the university is, it has the opportunity to integrate disciplines in ways that other institutions cannot. It provides more opportunities along this line than many, and it should build on those special opportunities that are not being taken advantage of.
    - One of the factors that contributes to interdisciplinary activity is the structure of the Graduate School with its free-floating graduate programs--they enjoy tremendous breadth. IMG, however, works against it; the faculty view of IMG makes them hesitant to participate in the interdisciplinary courses. One Regents Professor present announced termination of a course that had been taught for five years because there was pressure to quit teaching it because it was not making money for the department.
    - [further comments were made on interdisciplinary work, concluding with:] ...some departments support faculty in cross-departmental endeavors. Generally, however, departments see them as competitive with the department.

  • It was reported that at a recent meeting of FCC with a number of new faculty, some of those new faculty were eager to participate in interdisciplinary activities, but were strongly discouraged from doing so by senior faculty in their departments.

  • Several COAFES Horticulture faculty have taught CBS General Biology courses for several years. Reasons attributed to IMG have terminated this effort. It was not possible for the involved parties to negotiate a cross-college agreement. This may be due in part to confusion upon the revenue neutral status implementation of IMG. That is, because Horticulture faculty had been teaching for CBS prior to the implementation of IMG, in the revenue neutral status implementation of IMG, CBS was attributed the tuition for all of the CBS classes including those taught by Horticulture and its state subsidy allocation was reduced in proportion. In this situation, the university students have lost access to several outstanding teachers of the general biology courses.

  • IMG has prompted some colleges to develop their own courses rather than continue cross-college teaching or sending their students to other colleges for certain courses. Examples include CNR offering its own economics course, and Horticulture Science now offers its own basic biology course with a lab.

    C.2 Recommendations

  • The subcommittee strongly recommends that a mechanism be created to ensure that quality interdisciplinary graduate programs are supported in such a way that those programs have some sense of stability regarding their resources. Operationalize the flow of funds from tuition, etc. to the interdisciplinary program. If allocations depend on good will, the sources of funds and institutional memory may be lost in the change of a dean or in budget crises. Minicompacts could be developed between "home" academic units and interdisciplinary programs to negotiate the agreements.

  • The interdisciplinary programs might best be served by having an intermediate party serve in an advocacy role. Because the Graduate School has traditionally had a role in ensuring the quality of our graduate programs, the committee viewed the Graduate School as a likely candidate to serve in an advocacy role for interdisciplinary graduate programs, and the next few bullet points are framed with that assumption. Note however, that the issue of whether or not the Graduate School specifically should serve in the advocacy role should be given further consideration.

  • The Graduate School should have a more formalized role with the DGS's involved in cross-college interdisciplinary programs. In addition, an operational mechanism should be developed for the Graduate School to serve in an advocacy role for these programs. That is, as an advocate for the programs within the "home" college as well as in the encouragement of other colleges to be involved with these interdisciplinary activities.

  • If the Graduate School had more funds, it could assume a more central role in funding interdisciplinary programs so that they would not have to depend on the "home" unit and they would be "housed" in a neutral program (i.e. the Graduate School) rather than a single unit within the interdisciplinary program. More than funding, the Graduate School validates the existence of the program.

  • Whether or not the interdisciplinary program is housed within the Graduate School or a single academic unit, it is necessary to investigate how to create a climate that encourages deans to promote involvement in interdisciplinary programs. This might be accomplished in the compact process as one of the criteria to evaluate academic unit support.

  • A number of the interdisciplinary programs are currently underfunded compared to competitive institutions with respect to the offers of support that can be made to potential graduate students (particularly in terms of support duration). A substantial increase above the current funding level is required to enable the university to attract top graduate students in an increasingly competitive situation.


    APPENDIX D: SUMMARY OF SPRING 99 INTERVIEWS WITH DEANS AND DEPARTMENT HEADS

    In the Winter/Spring Quarters of 1999 the IMG Oversight Subcommittee revisited the deans and department heads interviewed during the previous academic year to ascertain the effect of IMG after the first full year of implementation. The following is a list of those deans/department heads interviewed, followed by an overall summary of the comments/concerns heard during the interview process. The interviews have been organized according to dean and then department head. Each of these sections is organized by common issues addressed during the interviews (e.g. tools/resources, compact process, outsourcing, reserves, morale, etc.)

    D.1 List of Deans/Department Heads Interviewed

    Carole Bland interviewed (2/15/99):
    IT -Matt Tirrell, Chemical Engineering and Material Science
    IT - Naresh Jain, Mathematics
    IT - Ron Gentry, Chemistry

    Cathy French interviewed:
    Law School- Dean Tom Sullivan
    COAFES- Dean Phil Larsen
    COAFES - Applied Econ, Vern Eidman
    COAFES - Rhetoric, Billie Wahlstrom
    COAFES - Horticulture, Gary Gardner
    COAFES - Ag Experiment Station, Ken Walther

    Jo-Ida Hansen interviewed:
    CBS - Dean Robert Elde
    Summer Session - Jack K. Johnson, Continuing Ed Director
    AHC - School of Public Health, Dean Edith D. Leyasmeyer

    Len Kuhi interviewed:
    GC - Dean David Taylor
    GC - Terry Collins
    CSOM - Dean David Kidwell
    CSOM - Tim Nantell, Finance

    Russ Luepker interviewed:
    CLA - William Malandra, Classical and Near Eastern Studies
    CLA - Mark Pharris, Art
    CLA - Richard Leppert, Cultural Studies and Comparative Literature
    CLA - V.V. Chari, Economics
    CLA - Guillermo Rojas, Chicano Studies

    Paul Magee interviewed:
    AHC - Katherine Newell, Director of Dental Hygiene Program, School of Dentistry (3/29/99)
    AHC - James Moller, Interim Head of the Department of Pediatricts, Medical School (3/18/99)
    AHC - Karin Karney, Director of Medical Technology

    Don Siniff (interviews with interdisciplinary grad studies DGSs or representatives)
    Conservation Biology
    Water Resources Science
    Interdisciplinary Archaeological Studies
    Quarternary Paleoecology
    History of Science

    Bill Van Essendelft interviewed:
    Crookston - Division of Humanities, C. F. Farrell, Jr., Chair
    Morris - Divison of Science and Mathematics, Michael Korth, Chair
    Center for Bioethics - Jeffrey Kahn, Director
    College of Vet Med, Larry Schook, Associate Dean

    SCFP interviewed:
    CSOM - Dean David Kidwell
    IT - Dean H. Ted Davis
    Graduate School - Dean Chris Maziar
    CLA - Dean Steven Rosenstone
    CEHD - Dean Steve Yussen
    UC - Dean Gail Skinner-West
    COAFES - Associate Dean Beverly Durgan

    D.2 Interviews with Deans (CSOM, IT, Graduate School, COAFES, CBS, CLA, CEHD, General College, UC, Summer Session, Law School, Crookston Division of Humanities, Morris Division of Science and Mathematics, Vet Med, School of Public Health)

    D.2.1 General

    Dean of CSOM indicated advantage of IMG is that it gives units the ability to identify and make possible revenue sources. IMG has been a very good system for CSOM--to their benefit. There is greater fiscal accountability among academic units. Also must teach well--the system makes faculty members accountable. CSOM has become freshmen-admitting. In addition it offers special programs such as an MBA that can be earned at night, on weekends, or in the summer. Many new programs have been started which do not compete with any other programs on campus.

    Dean of Law School is supporter of IMG and decentralization. Dean sees no negatives, things are running smoothly under IMG. IMG provides dean with control over budget which is very positive. With IMG have better idea of budget, more efficient, deans can make decisions and are accountable. Bureaucracy in between is minimized. Only negative is not related to IMG, related to timing of request from central for budget numbers. Takes months to work out agreements and then central wants numbers within a couple days. Dean believes that the University is running well and individuals within the office of finance are superb to work with (helpful and approachable).

    Dean of IT indicates impact of IMG has been that IT is willing to recruit a few more students. The number of engineering majors has been huge, but before IMG, there was never any motivation to increase the numbers. IMG has enabled colleges to become more masters of their own destiny. There is some concern about competition among units for student enrollment; games can be played and the deans must not permit that to happen.

    Dean of Graduate School has seen little change in budget initially. The budget was based on pre-IMG budget and is not driven by ICR funds. For departments that do a lot of state-funded research (i.e. receive no ICR) care must be taken to ensure they receive appropriate O&M support.

    Associate Dean of COAFES indicated COAFES has not been able to identify the impact of IMG because it has had a difficult time obtaining student numbers. IMG has caused a focus on undergraduates which is only a small part of COAFES activities. A positive of IMG is that it has made units think about the cost of teaching. IMG helps to identify where funds are going and whether or not some activities are subsidizing others. Interim Dean of COAFES indicated that they are still sorting things out. Some problems with bookkeeping (keeping track of tuition to be attributed by UC). CBS admitting freshmen had an impact on their budget.

    Dean of CBS feels that it will take an extended period of time for IMG to work. The dean's office is spending much more time steering behavior to minimize risk, which is new for them. The dean's office must act as an insurance agent for the college, preparing for hard times such as semester conversion, etc. However, the dean feels his college may be less affected by semester conversion IMG issues because they have had an increase in the number of students admitted (as of two years ago, they began admitting freshmen), which has generated more IMG revenue for them. They may actually have more students than they can handle (900-1000); they had 100 new students in '97, 200 new students in '98, and 300 new students in '99. Compared with peer institutions, departments are woefully underfunded in terms of staffing etc. possibly due to overextension in the 60's and 70's.

    Dean of CLA believes the ICR and tuition formulas seem to be working and are providing sensible revenues. Before IMG, there were few direct incentives at collegiate level that led deans to be concerned about costs or serving more students or serving students better. Before IMG, there was no way to automatically recover ICR. Space costing needs more work if it is to be effective. IMG puts into clear focus the subsidies that exist within and across colleges. In the past, summer school and extension were heavily subsidized, now the college can make deliberate decisions about whether to subsidize these activities. CLA has invested new monies to improve the quality of the educational experience provided to students. It is boosting quality and creating new programs to make it more attractive to students in Minnesota, and other states, rather than boosting enrollments to increase revenue.

    Dean of CEHD (College of Education and Human Development) joined University in August 1998. Noted that U of MN is very decentralized, and that experience with IMG, compacts, etc. has been positive. The financial independence and management of departments has been reduced by the creation of a service office in the Dean's office which some departments do not feel functions as it should. In addition, many things are happening concurrently (i.e., IMG, semester conversion, enterprise systems, compacts, etc.). In general, impact of IMG has been positive. The six departments and three centers within the college think more carefully about their funds. Many creative ideas are emerging which the college tries to support. Things happen quickly.

    Two great things regarding IMG: (1) IMG directly disclosed the use of the state subsidy; and (2) accurate information is provided regarding tuition revenue, etc. In General College, the revenue stream is limited due to an enrollment cap of 825 which did not allow for growth (925 is a good target). The actual demand exceeded the enrollment capacity by 150 students. This resulted from two reasons: (1) by not being able to predict how many will accept, and (2) the new stipulation that guarantees admittance to anyone who applies before 12/15 deadline. The demand is high, one in five students are accepted. Central needs to manage enrollment better. The increased tuition revenues has enabled General College to improve programs and hire new faculty. IMG drives better quality of teaching, especially in CLE courses.

    Interim Dean of UC noted that IMG has had a significant impact on UC. Considerable downsizing occurred before she arrived as interim dean. She came in following a tough year and had 11 exit interviews during her first month on the job (and that was not total number of people who left). There has been a decline in funding that was probably only hastened by the implementation of IMG. Three major ways in which tuition income shifts have had an effect on UC: sources of financial support, relations with colleges, and decision making about future directions for UC. Before IMG, 2.5% of UC funding came from state dollars. The total budget has dropped (before IMG tuition revenues were $28-30M, now about $11M). Now the percentage of state dollars funding UC is 26% (from decline in tuition as well as actual increase in state funds). UC is now developing principles for the allocation of those funds and how UC can best support University as a whole. In the past, there was an incentive (funding innovation) for departments to work with UC that no longer exists. UC is looking at other colleges as customers to determine expertise and services UC can provide them. UC hopes IMG will help lead to a stronger shared responsibility for adult students across all colleges. UC has typically dealt with students and programs on the margin and must be careful not to drop that responsibility. Income is only one measure of effectiveness. UC is evaluating whether some programs are important to the University even if they are not self sustaining. UC is in early stages of strategic planning which involves getting feedback from external constituents. A goal is to obtain information and data to be used for setting benchmarks (of things important to public). There is an expectation or hope that UC will be totally self-supporting. UC may have to discontinue some things it is doing, and in addition, create new revenue.

    The UofMN has the largest Summer Session offering in the country. The head of the Summer Session indicated that before IMG, Summer Session was highly centralized. They had an $8M allocation from central that they could distribute back to academic units. Very little was given to health sciences, law, medical and ag schools because their faculty were already on 12 month appointments. Now colleges receive money directly and the finances are the total responsibility of the deans. Some deans have taken an active role, some have deferred to the departments. Prior to IMG, most of the contact was with the departments. Now dean's offices are involved with Summer Session decisions more than ever before. The Summer Session office plays a coordinating role. They create the catalogue, do marketing and promotion, and handle registration for summer-only students. Now they are not nearly as involved with budgeting, payroll, or curriculum decisions. Half of the Summer Session budget comes via IMG. Their share of the tuition for summer-only students is 25%; colleges receive the other 75%. The other half of Summer Session budget comes from the state subsidy. IMG for Summer Session started one year later than IMG for other departments. The head has not yet received a budget for next year (comes from UC), but he anticipates a $60K retrenchment. Summer Session had less income than projected last year (shortfall of $90K) probably because the College of Education reclassified their summer-only students as Education Adult Specials. As a consequence, Education receives 100% of the tuition. IMG has created an environment where it is everyone for themselves. It has been difficult to collect the 25% that Summer Session should get from colleges. There is no system to ensure that colleges transfer their share. They are still owed $100K from last summer. Staff has been reduced from 7 to 3 people. Generally colleges and departments are showing more interest in offering summer courses (up 3% last summer and another 3-5% this summer). At the same time they are offering more courses, they are cancelling more courses at the last minute if classes are not big enough. Prior to IMG there were minimum enrollments which could be waived, but since IMG, some colleges are requiring higher minimum enrollments. There is concern, because typically, where summer session programs have been decentralized, the programs have declined. Resources are siphoned off. In cases with centralized Summer Session (e.g. Indiana), 100% of the tuition revenue goes to Summer School first. As a consequence, it is better able to protect special programs (e.g. Honors College) or to help a college that may be struggling. In the current UofMN model, Summer Session does not have any extra resources to help. In addition, decentralization leads to inefficiencies and duplication of effort. The head estimated that for some colleges, as much as three times more effort must be allotted by the college to administrative oversight of Summer Session than was the case pre-IMG. In addition, more errors are being made in payroll oversight (one college had $100K in payroll mistakes). Benefits of IMG include that everyone has a clearer idea of what it takes to operate a Summer Session and better understand the bottom line. Summer Session is working in a more consultative role with departments to determine what would draw in students. They play an acitve role in the fall to help colleges put together their curriculum and budgets. They collect proposals for courses and analyze the curriculum to determine the amount of money the college will need to pay instructors, etc. The office makes recommendations/suggestions and identifies problems.

    The budget of the Chair of Division of Humanities at Crookston has not been impacted by IMG. IMG revenues are handled at the campus level. He has not seen any changes.

    This was echoed by the chair of the Division of Science and Mathematics at Morris. IMG has had a negligible impact on the campus. The Chair does use IMG to instill a different attitude among service units by stimulating discussions about subsidization of services and raising the question of whether divisions should be free to outsource. Since his division does not receive many large grants, ICR has not been an issue. He did not know of any impact on interdisciplinary efforts. With regard to "tax" for common goods (e.g. the library), he felt that this problem reflects the flaw in IMG. This problem needs to be addressed, and should be addressed with only new dollars (new income or tax on new funds). He felt the one-year nature of compacts short circuited the three year planning process that had already begun. Maintaining IMG at the Morris campus level provides the divisions with a "buffer" from the "vagaries" of enrollment driven declines.

    Associate Dean of Vet Med believes IMG has had a positive impact on the college by forcing them to assess opportunities. Possible dangers in IMG may exist, but are not apparent at this time. IMG has not affected their support staff. Dean believes more emphasis has been placed on teaching, and there will be more readiness to revamp or retire old courses or replace them with new ones as means of attracting and attaining students.

    The School of Public Health is primarily a research-funded organization. Eighty percent of the budget is from research funds. The more research departments/divisions conduct, the more ICR they get. The same applies to tuition, the more students departments/divisions accept into programs, the more IMG they receive. The School of Public Health does not offer any undergraduate courses. Within the School of Public Health, they have one budget; all of the money comes to the dean and is then distributed to the divisions. IMG has been "absolutely devastating" for the O&M budget of Public Health. Before IMG, 18-20% ($7M) of the budget came from the university, now it is less than 10% ($4M). The dean senses that her unit has been the most heavily affected. The difference needs to be earned from ICR. Public Health has tenure obligations that are not covered by "hard" funds. Therefore, the state subsidy is used to fill holes, but it is not sufficient. Because faculty salaries are typically 85% on soft money, that level of effort needs to be certified (effort certification). Faculty correctly argue that they cannot be asked to teach more or do outreach, because more time spent on those activities would cause an imbalance at effort certification time. Faculty constantly have to pursue sponsored grants because grants bring in more funds than teaching. This results in making decisions based on the bottom line rather than on educationally sound bases. Benefits of IMG include knowing how much tuition income the School generates--it does exert pressure to teach, and to have classes with 25-30 students. It also provides good incentive for faculty to generate ICR funds.

    D.2.2 Tools/Educational resources

    CSOM indicates that deans need to be educated in the IMG system, in how to manage. Better cost data would help.

    Law school has sufficient tools. They can access student data and tuition is based on external factors (need to know market). Law school is willing to share template for side agreements.

    Under the decentralized philosophy of IMG, COAFES has not had the tools it needs to do business. Interim dean indicated that $100k of tuition was attributed incorrectly by UC. COAFES is having difficulty estimating and bookkeeping. COAFES would like a model for cross college teaching (e.g. Horticulture used to teach for CBS). There are costs associated with increased bookkeeping.

    CLA has been working hard to carefully model revenues and expenses, and has been reasonably accurate in doing so. Tricky because enrollment increases or decreases in other colleges affect CLA's tuition revenue. It models enrollment in other colleges as well to understand demand for CLA courses, staffing it needs to provide, and costs and revenues associated with various scenarios.

    General College has a spreadsheet it uses to set goals, designates responsibility and resources. The dean noted that there has been a large turnover in deans. More staff development is required. IMG has forced a shift in the role of the deans from one of academic leadership to more of a managerial role. It is difficult to hire deans who want to do this, and faculty must understand and assist the deans in making critical decisions.

    VetMed believes information received from central is good, but could use help on costing.

    D.2.3 Interdisciplinary Activities/Centers/Outreach

    CSOM indicated that IMG works well for interdisciplinary activities because both partners need to know real costs; then they can work out a deal. It cuts out rumors. They have created an executive MBA program in China at the real cost, a minor in business through CLA via Craig Swan. There is honesty in making decisions about budgets because the budgets have become transparent. Many departments want to work on joint courses to share the tuition dollars.

    Law School has not observed any negative impact on interdisciplinary activities. Such programs are created through leadership. Law school is establishing a joint degree program with CSOM and Humphrey Institute. Also establishing a degree with bio and Public Health. This is accomplished by negotiating a side agreement.

    IT gave an example of cross-college activity--Biomedical Engineering Institute--which is split between IT and the Med School. The institute can hire faculty directly who are associated with neither IT nor the med school. IT is also working with University college on programs which are negotiated on a case by case basis. In working out agreements IT's approach is to try to be fair to both sides, and in a partnership, align tuition revenue with the appropriate level of contributions. Dean of IT would prefer not to see rules governing cross-college ventures. If IMG appears to be stifling cross-college activities, IMG must be reconsidered--stifling intercollege ventures is the last thing the University would want to do.

    COAFES Associate Dean indicated that another problem with IMG has been working out agreements with joint departments. Agreements have been reached with other colleges, college by college, and course by course. This provides flexibility, but makes the process more complicated since it must be repeated each year. Also concerned with what happens if work out a deal with a dean, and then the dean leaves. COAFES is trying to get some programs back within COAFES (e.g. BAE (Biosystems and AgEng) back to COAFES from IT). Need to make revenue neutral adjustment, swap tuition revenue with state subsidy. Regarding interdisciplinary activities, Water Resources funds go to CNR.

    Fields in biology have evolved rapidly, and areas that used to be interdisciplinary now represent new unified fields, though the new fields remain divided across colleges. As a consequence, intercollegiate activities are at the core of CBS. IMG has served to define the "currency" for cross-college transactions. If it is done right, deans can trade "this for that." Three to four departments in CBS are partnered with other colleges. They are in the process of earnest and long discussions about how to divide IMG. As of 4/6/99, they had not yet reached full agreement. Regarding outreach activities, the dean has not seen a reduction in outreach activities, but these activities are run on sheer enthusiasm.

    CLA dean believes there is nothing in IMG itself which prohibits interdisciplinary work. CLA has pursued new initiatives within IT and CBS to create new interdisciplinary minors and majors, and is creating three new interdisciplinary minors within CLA, since IMG. CLA continues to fund nearly a dozen interdisciplinary centers, most of which serve many faculty and students outside of CLA; CLA is partnering with other colleges in funding some of those centers.

    CEHD indicates that there has not been a great deal of contention with other colleges because of IMG, and those that have arisen have been worked out. Central administration must work for the common good and ensure things are done in the interest of the University as a whole. Central must create incentives for cooperation where necessary, it has done so.

    Summer Session indicated that interdisciplinary programs (e.g. Honors College and Summer Honors College) that do not belong to any one unit still operate, but have no source of money. Admissions programs love these courses, but they cost twice as much as the revenue they generate. If Summer Session "gets out of the business," who would pick it up?

    The School of Public Health indicates that sharing research (ICR) income with other colleges is an immense problem. The formula on the back of the BA23 is not followed and "bloody" negotiations result on how the ICR should be shared. This problem is becoming particularly serious as more interdisciplinary centers are springing up. The dean posed the following questions for people connected with a center:

    - Should the center get the ICR or the faculty members home department?
    - If the center sponsors courses, should the center's courses have a "center course number" to provide IMG to the center, or should the number be assigned according to the department of the instructor?
    - Who provides the startup money for centers?
    - If centers become self-sustaining (e.g. with IMG and ICR funds) does that detract form academic units?
    Some centers offer tenure in which case sending ICR and IMG to the center may make some sense; however, if tenure is held by collegiate units, then the home unit needs to receive something.

    D.2.4 Faculty hiring/support

    CSOM takes approach that all funds are co-mingled in supporting faculty lines, (i.e. state, tuition, entrepreneurial activities, ICR, fund-raising, Foundation accounts, and executive education programs). Departments have no positions, they are controlled by the dean. Every year the dean reviews student demand, resource needs and the needs of the college. The college has hired more adjuncts, such as business executives.

    In COAFES, virtually no faculty lines are funded by grants. Less than 5% of salaries are on sources other than O&M, state specials or secure federal dollars. Much of faculty is funded by state specials. As an example in one department of 15 faculty, 3 on O&M and 12 on state special. Sometimes central seems to take view that if have state special, don't need O&M. Have suffered O&M retrenchment. Faculty on state special teach. There is no concept of IMG on state special. If teach more students, do not get more funds??

    CBS believes that evening and methods courses will be taught by regular faculty. CBS has a P&A category for research faculty.

    Since IMG, CLA has increased the number of regular faculty. The number of non-regular faculty members teaching has not increased.

    General College was able to hire 7 new faculty and a new development director (in addition to establishing an equipment fund and purchasing classroom equipment). IMG provided the resources to do this.

    One result of IMG in VetMed is that more attention is paid to teaching ability in hiring, because of relationship of revenue to attract students.

    The School of Public Health is working far more aggressively to hire non-tenure track faculty. They can get promoted, but no tenure; so if crash comes, they are the first to go. The non-tenure track faculty do mostly research, but also some teaching. This approach has affected recruitment of faculty, particularly at the senior levels. They do not typically recruit clinical adjuncts or part-timers because they usually are not acceptable to the graduate school.

    D.2.5 Faculty teaching across colleges/links to other units

    CSOM believes IMG has freed units to be more flexible in this regard. They can go to prospective partners to see if something can be developed.

    CBS indicated that the IMG currency to be distributed is still not settled. Should cross-college teaching be distributed by percent of effort of the instructor, by the number of students enrolled from each college, by the department listed in the bulletin, by the quality of the instruction? Some colleges are scrambling to create cross listings, others are trying to wipe out cross listings. For grad courses, the financial consequence of cross listings are not as great because class sizes tend to be small.

    CLA is working with med school and COAFES on joint appointments. A joint chair is shared with CSOM and Law School, which provides powerful opportunities for interdisciplinary work.

    There was a "stand-off" between CLA and General College, but they were able to work it out. They renegotiated the 75/25 split to 50/50 to reflect real costs. General College teaches Ag students and receive 75% of tuition revenue. GC also works with College of Education in developiong new courses for minors, etc.

    Dean of VetMed believes IMG has had an impact on people's willingness to teach in other programs because of perception that department will not benefit. Dean believes the effect has been minimal, but the perception is high.

    Faculty in the School of Public Health occasionally lecture in other schools/colleges. It becomes a matter of negotiating what should come to Public Health, but it is not a big issue because there is not a large amount of such activity. Conversely, enrollment of students from other colleges is dropping in Public Health courses.

    D.2.6 Information on how IMG has affected budgets and planning across university

    In CSOM IMG forces a look at the budget process and management of tuition. CSOM has an activity based costing system that enables "fine-grained analysis" allowing consideration of the economic viability of each program. As an example before IMG, CSOM had to figure out how to find money for new programs it wanted to offer. Now, they can go to business community and start with a full-cost model for purpose of setting tuition. If tuition would be too high, can go to Provost and explain program and need for subsidy. Thus IMG offers cleaner decision making and more flexibility. IMG has enabled incredible innovation in programs that is fully costed. CSOM can raise tuition up to 10%/year without problems. They can charge full cost.

    In COAFES there is incentive to add enrollment, but must look at returns in offering courses.

    As a result of IMG, faculty in CBS better understand that they need to offer courses as well as they can, they need to fill courses, and they need to offer courses at times that students can take them.

    For Summer Session, there is a high level of uncertainty in the budget since funds come through UC and there is a great deal of change underway in UC. Uncertainties about the number of degree and summer-only students who will enroll each summer makes planning/budgeting difficult.

    GC indicates that IMG has had a positive effect on recruiting. IMG has funded a number of initiatives (developmental education, GC retrospective meeting in May, national agenda meeting in October, etc.).

    D. 2.7 Modifications of IMG

    Regarding the revenue neutral status, etc., CSOM believes that the U needs to ultimately change the focus and the budget. The U needs to determine whether it will meet the needs of the 21st century--will it be relevant? Old programs must be phased out. There should be no "bailouts" to programs. Programs must restructure. The state subsidy/costs should be allocated on a formulaic basis in proportion to the real costs. This should be done very carefully. Central should have some resources to fund new programs.

    Dean of Law school indicates that realistically provost needs resources. There are two methods: (1) central takes money off the top (dean not supporter of this), and (2) tax. Dean prefers latter method because funds can be tracked and colleges have option of deciding how to give back funds. Also could add a percentage increase in tuition so money does not have to come out of the budget. No assessment should be made on private funds. Note, law school has a library which has received only modest supplements. Mechanism is needed to fund libraries. Dean is not a proponent of user fees--they are not economical and make tax payers mad. Regarding "space" piece of IMG. Law school has been told it will be excluded next year. The $5 sq.ft. value was artificial, not relevant.

    Dean of IT indicated that the negative side of IMG is that if enrollment goes down, income goes down, and central administration does not cover the short fall. If the only source of funding for central administration is new dollars, it may be necessary to have an all-funds tax for the administration to support initiatives. Adjusting the subsidy is not really possible because the margins are so small; significant adjustments would lead to major cuts. Someone should decide about SHRINKING, which should be separate from the issue of a tax. There needs to be a way to return some fraction of the funds to administration to support new activities. Another problem with IMG is identification and financing of common goods (e.g. funding the libraries, which receive no tuition, but deliver lots of services to the students). The administration could "ramp up" funding so it would not harm programs.

    General concerns of CLA with regard to IMG include: IMG perpetuates the historical inequities that were in place when IMG was adopted, IMG does not provide adequate resources for central to support the collective good (e.g. libraries, new strategic initiatives). Executive VP & Provost must provide moral authority to ensure IMG principles (articulated by CLA in compact) are not perverted. The Executive VP & Provost must prevent: duplication of effort, mission creep, and building barriers that discourage students from taking courses outside of college of registration. To ensure that some of these behaviors do not happen or to exercise authority over these behaviors can be accomplished in the regular review of deans by the Provost. CLA dean believes the administration should endorse principles articulated in CLA compact.

    CLA dean indicated that if there is to be a tax to support central initiatives (e.g. libraries), it should be on all funds.

    CEHD dean indicated that colleges and departments do not want to see funds held back, but indicated that there are common goods which should not be subject to IMG (e.g. libraries, student services, space). Had no strong views on how central funds should be built up.

    COAFES has some sentiment regarding funding central, libraries, grad school, that funds should be held back rather than giving them out and taxing them back. Enterprise tax has been a staff drain and an accounting nightmare. Easier to manage a tax if specific accounts can be used to generate revenue. Regarding library specifically, formula assessment could be used, but still want input. Oversight committee of faculty would be desirable.

    CBS feels that IMG is not "evil" but needs some attention. If "things" are not priced right, even small decisions can have a huge impact. Colleges need to come to agreements that capture values of the University. Lots of discussions are needed at the deans level. CBS dean dislikes taxes but feels they are necessary. Staffing and support for graduate students take the largest hits when taxes are levied. CBS may be able to handle a small tax, but a large tax will really create problems.

    General College was able to rent out space to other programs (saved $30K). Regarding applying IMG to support services, the dean indicated that it is not possible to control all costs; however, need some across-the-board accountability. Historical inequities should be revisited. Outstanding issues include keeping faculty salaries competitive. Windfalls can be used to reward faculty, but for those who do not benefit from IMG, this does not work. There should be equitable treatment and accountability among other units. Need consequences of overspending (e.g. Enterprise System overspends budget and other nits pay). There are very tangible results for departments, but no equivalents for Central Administration. The 75/25% distribution in tuition should be reviewed in relation to real costs.

    VetMed believes central is keeping too much ICR, and is interested in knowing the justification for the 49%. Dean does not believe there should be a tax on IMG dollars. A suggestion is to direct ICR dollars to the library. Dean emphasized IMG doesn't recognize variations in instructional cost--a new lecture can generate a good deal of revenue more than a lab course. This is a problem! Too much of the IMG funds are being distributed by central which should retain some funds to support high end, low enrollment, lab courses which will not be developed without incentive. Since his is a relatively small college, IMG is a small portion of the budget.

    The School of Public health believes that there should be a University review criteria for distributing money. If the unit contributes to the core mission of the university, and if it has value to the university, there should be money to cover the costs related to activities that do not bring in money. Over a five to ten year period, funds should be distributed to address historical inequities. The first dean of Public Health thought that the school could rely on federal grants rather than university subsidy; however, times have changed. If their base does not increase, it follows that outreach and teaching may be limited. Regarding taxing, the School believes that the university already taxes the School of Public Health by keeping nearly half of the O&M funds that used to be targeted to the School, in addition to the 49% of ICR. The dean argues that if they tax ICR, why not IMG? In addition, the AHC taxes the School to support their administration. The dean believes that the AHC units are taxed far more than the other academic units. The substitution of ICR dollars for O&M creates too much variation in budget from year to year, with no provision to ensure that they have a stable budget as before.

    D.2.8 Outsourcing

    Desirable for short term projects where long term expertise is not necessary.

    D.2.9 Compact Process

    Dean of Law school believes that compact could be tied with IMG. Compact represents goals and objectives and the budget should line up accordingly. Initiatives should be put into compact, but provost should not have a say over new hires.

    CLA dean indicated that if compact process is a way for central to shape the direction of the university, then money is needed to do so.

    COAFES believes compact is a contract. Reasonable to list new courses. Faculty lines, staffing resources (e.g. adjuncts) are all contract issues and can be included in compact. Provost should provide oversight to balance the "big picture."

    CBS believes that the compact process is good; combined with IMG, the compact brings "sunshine" into what before was a "smoke-filled room" operation. The compact process provides an opportunity to request funding for special projects. As an example, CBS proposed dropping class sizes in certain mid-level courses from 130 or so to 90 to enhance the undergraduate experience. The problem with the compact is that the Provost does not have enough resources to implement much on a recurring basis. Some wonder, if there are not enough resources, why bother with the compact? The Dean of CBS feels even if only small amounts of funding are available, it is useful to see what the Provost says about proposals. He also believes that communication among the Deans is better because of the compacts, in that each Dean can see opportunities that they might not have thought about. Still, the compacts do not show everything. Regarding sources of information used to develop the compact, CBS gets information from department chairs, suggestions presented at the quarterly All-College Meeting with faculty, staff and students, and the consultative committee. In addition, there is a lot of iteration of the document with the department heads.

    Compact process is good, but central needs to be clearer regarding the availability of funds such that colleges have a clearer sense of possibilities.

    According to General College, the compact process enables colleges to think priorities through clearly. The process emphasizes mutual expectations and opportunities. The value of General College to the U has changed. The results are that the transfer and retention of students has been greatly improved.

    According to the School of Public Health, the compact planning process does not deal with the core of the school, it only deals with the fringes. It represents minimal new money to cover new initiatives and areas of expansion. For Public Health, the compact articulates the priorities of the School's Vice President.

    D.2.10 Curricular Issues

    CSOM indicated that there are currently no "minuses" of IMG at present; however, there is some competition for students (e.g. statistics, speech, etc.).

    CBS is concerned by CLE requirements such as the "biology with lab requirement" that has usually been satisfied with a course from his college. They have put a lot of effort into developing good courses that have satisfied students. It requires a certain level of infrastructure to maintain this course at a certain level of quality. Now other departments (e.g. anthropology) are offering competitive courses which reduces CBS's ability to predict how many students will take their course. If tuition revenue decreases, it undermines CBS's efforts to maintain academic quality and to have adequate course resources.

    D.2.11 Reserves

    CLA has a strategy for dealing with revenue shortfall. When questioned whether it is efficient for each college to have its own "insurance policy" against revenue fluctuations, the answer is not clear. Because central is not a backstop, colleges had to devise their own plans. Dean of CLA believes that withholding any money beyond what is necessary for insurance purposes represents missed opportunities.

    COAFES indicated it should develop reserves for matches, equipment, etc. No target value in mind. Departments can have carry-overs. Reserves can be used for new faculty setups.

    Summer Session has a small reserve that is essentially what was left over before conversion to IMG.

    D.2.12 College-to-Department Fund Distribution

    Funds generated by IMG (i.e. tuition, ICR) go to dean's office. There are incentives outside of IMG for certain behaviors by departments. Incentives are intended to have departments perform better, but rewards are at the margin, because CSOM doesn't want departments pitted against each other. The school will only be top-ranked as a whole not as individual departments. CSOM enables financially intelligent and rational decisions. Performance measures are used make sense, not based on student credit hours (i.e. a department isn't closed if it costs money and is important to the program). CSOM wants to help departments with problems and provide successful departments with rewards. Those performance standards are only now being developed. The dean has passed tuition revenue to the departments, which has led to many departments (e.g. finance) being able to hire new faculty.

    In IT some funds have been used for academic salaries, some was provided to departments, and some kept as reserve to deal with possible tuition shortfall in transition to semesters. IT prevents IMG from filtering down to departments by avoiding tying funding to student credit hours. The college needs to consider historic patterns and change in response to needs, rather than giving departments direct jolts in income as a result of variations in tuition revenue.

    In COAFES, IMG stops at the college level. The college looks at the overall mission of the college and the education of undergraduates, not whether specific departments are under- or over-funded by IMG criteria. Planning curriculum is a problem because funding lags behind when a decision is made to open a new course or section. The revenues from opening a new course or section cannot be easily predicted in advance. ICR funds are distributed by formula to the departments and PI (i.e. 30% of 51%); some is kept at the college level for infrastructure and setups. COAFES is not distributing funds back to departments via a formula. Things are being handled on a case by case basis. A committee has been charged with task of developing a process for distribution of resources.

    CBS is still "feeling its way" on how best to distribute funds.

    CLA has not and will not pass IMG down to departments. College decisions on investments of new resources in departments will not be driven by IMG, but rather by the intellectual and pedagogical benefits derived from the new initiatives. CLA distributes 1/3 of ICR it receives back from central to unit that generated it (using 3 year average to smooth out bumps). Remainder is used for faculty setups, research facilities, and to meet special needs (e.g. moves during building renovations).

    In GC, there are no departments.

    In the School of Public Health, the departments receive the tuition and ICR that they generate. The Dean takes a "little off the top" to support student services and accounting activities.

    D.2.13 Semester Conversion Concerns

    CLA has serious concerns because 2/3 of CLA's O&M budget is tuition revenue.

    CBS has been building a reserve, and hope to offset the effect of lost revenue with new students and transfer students.

    Regarding semester conversion, General College has budgeted for a 3% decrease in enrollment. IMG has helped with their enrollment management. They work to maximize class size to increase their tuition generating capacity.

    The School of Public Health is not concerned too much with semester conversion because of their reliance primarily on ICR.

    D.2.14 Morale

    Morale is up in CSOM because faculty are paid for extra courses they teach.

    Morale in General College is outstanding due to IMG. The past two years have been the best in the department head's history at the U. The faculty are enthusiastic.

    In the School of Public Health, faculty morale has gone up compared to the first year of IMG, but there is still a lot of anger. The faculty must work much harder to survive and there is no relief in sight.


    D.3 Interviews with Department Heads (AHC {Pediatrics, Dental Hygiene, Medical Technology}, CSOM {Finance} IT {ChemE/MatSci, Math, Chemistry}, COAFES {Rhetoric, Applied Econ, Horticulture, Ag Experiment Station}, CLA {Classical & Near Eastern Studies, Art, Cultural Studies & Comparative Literature, Economics, Chicano Studies}, Interdisciplinary programs {Conservation Biology, Water Resources Science, Interdisciplinary Archaeological Studies, Quarternary Paleoecology, History of Science}, Center for Bioethics)

    D.3.1 General

    Interim head of Department of Pediatrics did not know what IMG meant, had not heard of how tuition return will be used, and was disturbed by the removal of nearly half of his O&M budget and its replacement by ICR.? In his department there are 80 faculty and $970k in O&M (~$12k/faculty). Half of the department support is from clinical income, 15% from ICR and O&M and the rest from contracts for services with hospitals. He has not heard a debate of IMG in medical school. Committee has been set up headed by Ravdin (Medicine) and Haase (Microbiology) regarding setting up criteria for the allocation of O&M dollars in the medical school.

    Medical Technology has 50 baccalaureate students and 20 M.S. candidates. It has 4.75 FTE plus support staff. Tuition income is $200k/year and it goes directly to the Dean of the School of Medicine. The program costs $800k/year. Director was asked to cut $200k from annual budget, and tuition should support 50% of program costs (program currently costs $800k/year). Directors of analogous programs at St. Cloud State and Mankato States have asked her to find clinical internships for 10 students/year. Doing this will generate $60k/year. She has gained from IMG in knowing how much money she brings in each year. However, it was felt the IMG has been given as a reason to cut her program. Its only effect on the program has been to project budget cuts. The projected distribution unfairly disadvantages small units with expensive lab classes.

    Some departments have been asked to increase enrollment. Dental hygiene has accomplished this by developing degree completion programs for graduates of non-degree dental hygiene programs from area colleges. More courses were added while maintaining limited enrollment.

    Demystification of the budget process is the greatest benefit of IMG. There is logic in the budget discussion. CSOM has been a beneficiary of IMG--the Finance department in particular. IMG comes up often in hiring discussions. The interviewees bring up the topic and have an extremely favorable view. For the first time, there is access to new money. They can devote time to new programs. There is more flexibility. There is emphasis on teaching quality.

    IMG has not led to any increased effort for departments in IT. A benefit of IMG is that it has the potential to provide visibility and recognition for departments that are able to generate revenue through tuition or ICR. It has not had an effect on faculty morale in the departments interviewed (ChemE/MatSci and Mathematics). Very few faculty know what IMG is or have thought about it. The head of mathematics thought that IMG was causing some anxiety for administrators (department heads and up). He indicated a written document that explained IMG would be helpful to share with the faculty.

    The head of Chemistry indicated that IMG was not a good system overall, but in its current format, it is sufficiently watered down that it is probably irrelevant. He thought it possible to find many mechanisms to get around IMG. For example with ITs current formula for distributing dollars, it takes away a direct connection between increasing enrollment and the funds the department gets. Also the dean helps with increased enrollment or teaching demands by providing TAs, etc. making the dollar return on tuition unnecessary. A positive benefit of IMG is that it starts people to think about enrollment. Chemistry will benefit by increased enrollment though semester conversion (require two 4 credit semester classes rather than two 4 credit quarter classes). So they are not looking at any other strategies to increase enrollment. However, the way increased enrollments are handled in IT, it will not have a direct impact on their budget.

    Rhetoric has experienced problems under IMG. It is running a deficit. MAJOR PROBLEMS: Accounting problems with UC and not knowing "rules" for distribution of college funds to the department. UC money to college has been in error at times. Rhetoric has used "Clarity" to sort it out (found out about this tool from another department). A problem is that all UC money comes to the college as a lump sum making it difficult to sort out. Written contracts between departments and UC have been voided! Now all funds go to the college. Funds are received indirectly from the college. In opening extra sections, the department must go beyond the printed budget. How the college decides the attributable cost to the department is not determined. NEEDS: Each college should have budget adjustments made according to IMG dollars generated. A public forum regarding the implications of IMG should be MANDATED.

    Also in Rhetoric, there have been some problems related to enrollment attribution (e.g. UC enrolled high school students in Rhetoric sections to the extent that college students at times end up being in the minority. High school students do not appear with college enrollment numbers and associated funds are minimal). Believes that COAFES is sometimes "penalized" by central because of state special, even though such funds are earmarked by the state legislature for particular programs (e.g. swine research).

    For Applied AgEcon the impact of IMG has been frustrating. There is not a lot of information. IMG has not affected the departments directly, the college is carrying the risk. The department itself has had to reduce staff due to the loss from last year. Some staff who had worked there for over 20 years were laid off. Believes that IMG is promoting larger section sizes of fewer classes. O&M doesn't cover teaching, it is subsidized by state specials. Only 1/3 of faculty salary is from O&M. Faculty must be responsive to the community. AgEcon welcomes extension assessing outcomes. Believes department should have the authority to appoint faculty to extension committees rather than extension appointing the faculty. Departments should brainstorm on annual basis to develop programs that meet needs of community/extension.

    Horticulture department head has been on sabbatical and is getting reacquainted with the implications of IMG. He had many negative comments of IMG and few positive comments. A few outcomes of IMG: Horticulture faculty will no longer teach CBS general biology courses (tuition designator went to CBS) and it was belief of department head that Horticulture was not getting credit for the teaching; agreements made between Horticulture and UC have been broken, now all of that revenue goes to the college and there is no flow of the funds back to the department at the present time; in "revenue neutral" implementation of IMG, COAFES state subsidy budget was reduced to reflect ICR income--which the college had already indirectly received as income for matches of setup packages. Now that source of revenue for setups has been severely cut.

    IMG has not affected Ag Experiment Station. Budget comes from state special. In addition experiment station produces and markets grain. Any extra income would subsidize research projects. Currently draining contingency fund that was built up by crop income to smooth bumps. When state special was reduced, Ag Experiment Station had to finance portion with contingency fund. No funds to maintain some of the buildings. Program growth may generate new funds. Multicollege initiative with CNR, CALA and VetMed is under consideration for the Ag Experiment Station.

    In CLA, the faculty are largely unaware of anything related to IMG. Dean Rosenstone has not allowed IMG to affect individual units. This is particularly important to the Chair of Classical and Near Eastern Studies which teaches well attended survey courses, but has few majors because of the nature of classical studies. The department chair indicated that college finances seem to be better managed with more planning in CLA under IMG. The college is now more concerned about maintaining enrollment, although there are no rewards for departments for increasing enrollments.

    As for Classical and Near Eastern Studies, the Department of Art indicated that the faculty are largely unaware of IMG and it has had no impact on their activities. There is only limited knowledge of IMG implications, perhaps because it (IMG) stops at the college level. Art has 19 regular faculty and 39 adjunct teaching faculty. Their courses are currently at capacity due to the need for studio space. They continue to campaign to raise funds for a new building and are high on the CLA priority list. The Department of Art has approximately 42 graduate students and 400 undergraduate majors which is the limit of the ability of the regular faculty to teach and advise. The adjunct faculty have provided diversity to the faculty in terms of gender, age and ethnicity (all of the regular faculty are white males). Under IMG, the department has received resources for greater secretarial support.

    The Department of Cultural Studies and Comparative Literature indicated the faculty in the unit do not have any idea about IMG. The department head is very familiar with IMG, and believes that changes in the flow of money may have impacted his own budget favorably. However this is not readily transparent because of the nature of the way funds are handled in CLA. The department is an interdisciplinary department that was created by the merger of humanities and comparative literature. They have 12 faculty and are trying to replace a number of faculty who retired in the early '90's. They have 75 undergraduate majors, 45 graduate students, and they teach 1200 students per quarter as part of the required CLE courses. The department receives $1M for CLA with both recurring funds and course access funds. Grants are rare and there is no endowment. Some concerns that the department head had the previous year still persist, but nothing particular has happened. His concerns include: course duplication, services and maintenance costs, and interdisciplinary teaching. In this latter regard, the department of Political Science would like to charge $10k if their faculty were to teach a course under another department's designator; however this strategy was rejected. There has been no inappropriate behavior that he knows of related to IMG. The department head has had more success than in the past in obtaining more graduate student support and in replacing faculty. He felt that it might be related to increased enrollments through IMG, but the connection is not clear.

    The chair of economics indicated that it is apparent to him that the faculty have no knowledge about IMG, and he views it as his responsibility to shield them from it. The Economics department has 22 full-time faculty, however, eight will be on leave next year. There are 85 graduate students in the program with 15-20 admissions per year. There are 280 undergraduate majors. Funding for the department is largely through O&M via CLA. There is some NSF money, largely used to support graduate students. They receive approximately 25% of the ICR they generate. The department head knows about the concepts of IMG, and as an economist, he believes it is a good idea to connect revenues with costs and allow the responsible units to administer them. For CLA, the department head believes that there is a zero sum gain with IMG within the college. If one unit attracts more students to their courses, another will lose them. The department head believes that CLA is heavily and disproportionately dependent on tuition income because of historical factors.

    Chicano studies has only two full-time faculty and it shares another position with Women's Studies. There are less than ten bachelor level majors and an unknown number of dual majors/minors. There is no doctoral program. All revenue sources come from CLA, there is no research or endowment income. The number of students taking courses in Chicano studies fell from 1200 to 500 approximately seven years ago as the course requirement for diversity studies was expanded to include many other topics besides US minorities. The chair believes that IMG is an accounting mechanism, with the likelihood of revenue sources becoming the driving force for decision making. He does not believe that it will benefit his unit, rather it may work to the detriment of his unit. One opportunity to extend the resources of his department might be through distance learning.

    Director of Bioethics indicated concern regarding the impact of IMG on interdisciplinary programs. Bioethics has created a course designator as a way of capturing tuition revenue. IMG has had a positive impact on the budget. In the past, bioethics never got any tuition funds, now they do. The director does not know where the 25% for college of enrollment is directed. Because of overload pay opportunities and teaching opportunities afforded by IMG, it is easier for him to attract post-docs. Connecting teaching with pay/revenue has made it more attractive.

    D.3.2 Tools

    Templates or guidance for deals would be nice. Infrastructure is not sufficient. Rhetoric computers do not have enough power. Found out about some tools from other departments (e.g. "Clarity), but had to send staff to track down information.

    AgEcon did not favor development of general tools. Did not want to get taxed for something developed by central.

    D.3.3 Interdisciplinary activities

    AHC formed committee to look at primary care and interdisciplinary activities.

    IMG improved interdisciplinary activities for finance in CSOM (e.g. accounting). All other departments wanted to work on joint courses.

    In IT, ChemE/MatSci department head thought it was too soon to tell whether or not IMG hinders interdisciplinary coursework. IMG itself, is unclear about interdisciplinary programs such as the Biomedical Engineering program. Currently Biomed receives $300k each from IT and Med School. It is unclear how tuition or ICR generated by the faculty associated with the Biomed center would affect monies that the center receives. It currently has two faculty full time in the Biomed engineering center and others part time or associated with it in some way. He saw some benefit in Biomed becoming its own entity under IMG.

    Mathematics head thought that IMG discouraged interdisciplinary activities. He thought so little money came back to the department if the instruction was being done outside the department, that it was more advantageous to offer a class where you can capture 100% of the tuition.

    For AgEcon, there is currently a discussion in progress with other colleges regarding environmental economics. Issues include what designator it should be offered under, and if co-teaching, the sharing of tuition. Unsure of how IMG will affect interdisciplinary work. A faculty member from the Humphrey Institute has served as an adjunct with an ongoing course. Unsure of that faculty member's continued involvement in new activity.

    Don Siniff interviewed DGSs or their reps from five programs. Each involved faculty from two or more colleges. The programs were created within the Graduate School structure because the disciplines represented by the programs did not exist within any one department or college. All now receive interdisciplinary funds from the Graduate School. The common theme in the discussions was the uncertainty of future funding. Some programs had promises from the dean of the DGS college and were satisfied with space and funding; however, if the dean would leave, it is uncertain what would happen to the arrangement. Others had no indication of future funding and were fearful the Graduate School would not be in a position to provide interdisciplinary funds. There was considerable ignorance regarding where tuition from interdisciplinary programs would go under IMG. For Conservation Biology and Water Resources, the impression was tuition would go to CNR (location of DGSs). Others received no information regarding the allocations under IMG. It was expressed by some that the channeling of funds to the college of the DGS might be inappropriate. All of the programs with the exception of Quarternary Paleoecology have own course designator for 8XXX courses. A faculty member from a college different than the DGS, could have a number of grad students paying thesis credits, and own college would not be rewarded financially--could discourage interdisciplinary grad programs. All expressed concern that without the grad school financial support, they would cease to exist. Some administrators are supportive of interdisciplinary efforts, but there was uncertainty that attitudes may change when competition for funds for programs aligned with departments begin to grow under IMG. In this situation, the participation in interdisciplinary programs would likely be possible when carried out in addition to department responsibilities.

    D.3.4 Faculty Hiring/Support

    CSOM gave four new positions to finance department. This would have been impossible to do under the old system due to political reasons. There are more part time/adjuncts which frees up resources. 20-25% of the adjuncts are full-time professionals.

    Classical and Near Eastern Studies has been able to expand the faculty because they have raised funds for two endowed chairs. The department believes the major opportunities for departmental growth under IMG are to raise donated funds.

    Some of the funds given by CLA to the Department of Cultural Studies and Comparative Literature are used to hire part-time teaching specialists, however the department has attempted to limit this.

    IMG has had no effect on hiring, staffing or space in the Department of Economics. There are several adjunct faculty in the Economics department from the Federal Reserve Bank who teach courses. Most of the 280 undergraduate majors are taught by teaching assistants. There is no large commitment to teaching specialists.

    D.3.5 Faculty teaching across colleges

    Dental Hygiene has no faculty who teach outside of college. Two members of faculty teach in dentistry courses.

    Department head believes tuition should follow course designator. In cross college courses Medical Technology indicates tuition should follow course designator. For courses without a home designator, tuition should go to unit coordinating the course.

    Rhetoric would like to recover credit for courses taught cooperatively (e.g. ethical contributions in genel mix ES1010, WStud, AmStud, etc.) It is difficult to get credit for teaching ITV courses. There are joint degrees through distance education with Crookston, Rochester and SW State. Four different rate structures. Getting funds to Rhetoric does not typically happen.

    Horticulture has withdrawn faculty from teaching CBS general biology. As consequence general biology program has lost a number of excellent teachers--Morse Alumni award winners. Horticulture will be teaching its own course which meets general biology for CLE.

    Classical and Near Eastern Studies indicated that there have been no disputes over cross listing of courses because all of the cross department teaching is done within the college.

    Chicano studies indicated that there are no collaborative agreements on cooperative teaching. The department head felt that the accounting system of CLA is not able to recognize when courses are cross-listed and may undercount the shared efforts.

    Bioethics will negotiate an agreement to receive a portion of the revenue generated by post docs in bioethics teaching in other departments.

    D.3.6 Information on how IMG has affected budgets and planning across University

    Dental hygiene has not had a need for new management tools. Department head would welcome information on how IMG has affected budgets and planning.

    There is a clear view of finances since the implementation of IMG. There still exists some politics. In CSOM, quality is emphasized. There is incentive to attract students. It is easy to meet the demand because excess students mean greater resources. IMG requires greater communication.

    In IT, ChemE/MatSci department head thinks IMG is beginning to have some impact on planning. Previously, enrollment was seldom thought about with regard to the revenue it can generate. MatSci has same number of faculty as ChemE yet one-tenth of the students. Thus MatSci class sizes could be increased without increasing faculty (they would not have been thinking about this without IMG impetus). In addition, of 229 grads, 3 are M.S. students. They are thinking of having more applied M.S. students to serve the needs of the area and to generate more revenue through tuition.

    Mathematics department head thought it too soon to tell whether IMG was having an impact (positive or negative). A negative impact of IMG, from his personal experience, was that former vice provost Shively had allocated dollars for innovative or improvement programs. These funds have not been available under the current administration. As a consequence, innovations that central administration use to fund are no longer possible. He felt IMG discouraged highly interactive classes that were labor intensive for faculty. He described several innovations that used small group and problem solving methods that required more TAs and faculty, but would not have large numbers of students generating tuition to cover the costs.

    Mathematics department head also felt there was less security under IMG and more difficult to plan. In past, the department seemed to have a guaranteed budget. Now it is unclear, making it more difficult to plan. When asked if this would cause him to hire more adjunct faculty, he had not planned to do so, but thought it was a logical way to handle the insecure situation.

    AgEcon first investigates demand now before offering courses. Must enroll at least 20 students to be economically viable.

    Classical and Near Eastern Studies indicated that IMG has had no impact on their planning nor budgeting.

    Art indicated that IMG has had little impact on the ability for the department to plan or budget. It is perceived that IMG might benefit units with increased teaching revenue; however they have inadequate classroom space to increase the number of units. Moreover, CLA does not pass through new tuition money.

    Economics indicates that here is no influence of IMG on budgeting to date. The dean makes all of the decisions based on the college income and broader needs of the college. Because there is no connection of the department budget and income, there is no advantage to increasing enrollment or tuition; however, he notes that tuition and enrollment are being monitored.

    IMG has not had an impact on the ability to plan or budget for Chicano studies. To date, IMG has had no effect on the budget, but there is little flexibility within the chair's budget (department of only two full-time faculty and one shared position).

    D.3.7 Modifications of IMG

    Dental hygiene supports taxing O&M funds (not ICR or tuition) to support flexibility. Adjust unit taxes for libraries based on student count; also investigate non-student user fees. Medical Technology supports access fees for those outside the university to help support libraries.

    Assess impact of IMG on academic units before devising a way to implement it on support units.

    CSOM finance department believes that the president and deans (who have most of the resources) should be able to make strategic decisions. The initial revenue neutral implementation of IMG should be revisited. The 75/25% tuition allocation gives incentives to have other colleges teach.

    ChemE/MatSci thought a tax on IMG to fund support services would be fair, but it would be important to tie the tax to usage or some other benchmark rather than an across the board tax. Accountability of those units with regard to how resources are spent is also important. He supported charging fees to non-university users to help support libraries.

    Rhetoric believes libraries should be supported as a common good.

    AgEcon believes that central needs a pool of funds to adjust outside of the appropriation, but indicates that if there is to be a tax, there must be a lot of trust. With so little flexibility in current budget, it is difficult to consider the potential of a tax. The space piece of IMG needs to be re-evaluated. AgEcon has lots of space, how can it be more effectively utilized.

    The chair of Economics felt that the upcoming 2% tax is going to be a problem, but is relying on the college to handle it. Unexpected taxes are very difficult to deal with and he would hope for a long term predictable plan.

    The chair of Chicano studies feels that it is reasonable to tax for common goods (e.g. library).

    Director of Bioethics thought it was reasonable to "tax" but was not certain regarding how or how much.

    D.3.8 Outsourcing

    Rhetoric supports outsourcing catering, physical plant projects (e.g. painting, etc.). There is currently an approved list of contractors.

    AgEcon in favor of outsourcing physical plant type projects (e.g. installing doors, etc.).

    D.3.9 Compact process

    Revenue neutral was only realistic way to start IMG (dental hygiene). No expectations have been given to her department except to increase enrollment. Incentives (e.g. added support) should be granted to those who comply with requests from the administration; uncomfortable with disincentives. Compact process seems to have helped the budgeting/planning process; but too early to know how well it works. Compacts are the place to address historical inequities. Compacts should identify activities that will be rewarded.

    Budgeting/planning is closely coupled with the compact process. The compact process provides a respectful environment of trust.

    The head of Chemistry thought that the compacts were another way to get around IMG in that colleges can acquire resources through the compacts that may have little to do with the revenue generated via tuition or ICR.

    Rhetoric is interested in involvement in compact. Rhetoric saw a void with TEL part and was recruited by dean to draft that part. Rhetoric supports oversight over encroachment of courses (e.g. CLA journalism to offer degree in science writing, something in which Rhetoric has an established reputation). Rhetoric supports identification of faculty lines in compact including how lines will be supported. Suggests an oversight group (e.g. Council of Deans) to review and prioritize college initiatives identified in the compacts.

    AgEcon notes that compact may be appropriate place to identify if a whole new course/program were to be offered.

    The chair of the Department of Art is aware of the compact process, however, did not play a particular role in it. He is aware that some CLA chairs did contribute to the compact design.

    The chair of Cultural Studies and Comparative Literature has been involved in the compact process for CLA because he was on the subcommittee of chairs and pushed a film initiative and a general liberal arts initiative. These initiatives ended up in the compact and have potential to be in the state budget.

    The chair of Economics was involved in the compact process last year because he was promoting a specific project. This year he has had little input.

    The chair of Chicano studies has not read or had any involvement in the compact process.

    D.3.10 Curricular issues

    CLA journalism to offer degree in science writing, something in which Rhetoric has an established reputation.

    CNR (Forest Products) is teaching its own economics course now to generate revenue. No one was alerted in AgEcon to readjust course offering pending the impact of such a course.

    Department of Art indicated that equipment and studios are important to the implementation of their teaching programs. Under IMG it is unclear how this will occur (it is a continual problem).

    Economics believes that within CLA there is a zero sum gain of IMG. However, the department head indicated that attracting students from other colleges would be a benefit. The Carlson School of Management and Applied Economics Department (COAFES) were described as aggressively attracting CLA students. Last year, the department head considered developing competing courses; however, this has been put on hold pending resolution to the reduced number of faculty.

    D.3.11 Reserves

    Everything in dental hygiene is required; therefore, they will not have problems with reduced student loads. Favors accumulation of reserves at a level above the department. Need a process to determine how to allocate reserves. Dental hygiene reserves come from external fund-raising efforts. Not in favor of college reserve pool for fear medical school would use it all.

    No plans to develop a reserve in Medical Technology, and it is felt that a multi-college pool would not work in the AHC.

    In IT, the head of chemistry thought it was essential that departments have reserves, and that most of the reserves are dollars already committed in the future. It is very important not to pull back dollars to central that departments have managed to reserve.

    Rhetoric department head believes departments should be allowed to carry a reserve and to apply for funds for innovation.

    In CLA, the Departments of Classical & Near Eastern Studies, Art, Cultural Studies & Comparative Literature, Economics, and Chicano studies are not maintaining any reserves. There is a hope/belief that CLA is retaining money to accommodate any shortfalls that might occur (e.g. as a result of semester conversion, etc.).

    AgEcon indicated it is difficult to develop a department reserve. Ag extension funds cannot be carried-over. Some type of loan program may have potential.

    D.3.12 College-to-Department Fund Distribution

    College budgets (e.g. Dentistry) are now open to department heads (uncertain whether this is due to IMG or not). No communication from School of Dentistry about fund distribution or what kind of behavior will be rewarded. Only thing approaching "minicompact" is that each unit has submitted personnel needs to Executive Committee of school.

    Medical Technology has no information regarding whether any of the IMG money has been distributed to any unit in AHC. The director has not had communication with the college administration regarding the sorts of results that will be rewarded or how they may be rewarded under IMG. Department head (medical technology) favors incentives to reward academic excellence (no recommendations on what the reward should be). O&M subsidy should be allocated according to cost of program.

    In CSOM, the dean did not push IMG down to the department level. Fifty percent of the net tuition goes to summer funding for faculty. The "Executive Education" program is very profitable. IMG provdies clear incentive to become involved in this.

    In IT IMG ChemE/MatSci indicated that tuition monies are not distributed directly to departments based on performance. Any increase in tuition money is distributed in proportion to the overall enrollment in the various departments, not according to changes in enrollments by departments. As a consequence, IMG does not have a direct incentive for departments to grow. Overall enrollments have increased in IT, thus all of the departments have benefited (even those with declining enrollments). It is unclear what will happen if the enrollments decline overall.

    Chemistry head thought that muting the direct impact of IMG on departments was a good thing. Regarding ICR, he thought ICR dollars were captured at the college level and used as recruitment resources and setups for new faculty. He thought it probably balanced out in that departments that generate a lot of research receive the setups in new faculty dollars, but that there is not a direct correlation.

    Rhetoric believes departments should get a % of IMG revenue back and should be able to apply for innovation monies.

    Horticulture department does not know "rules" college is using to distribute the funds. Difficult to plan, budget, open new sections without knowing whether the income those decisions generate will be returned to the department to offset the costs of those choices. It is very unclear. The department is currently running a $100k deficit.

    COAFES plans to return 50% of 51% of ICR (money going to college) back to department/PI. This will be ramped up over a three year period (30%, 40% and 50% of 51%). But there is not enough money to cover cost of setups. In past, setups were funded as follows: 25% department, 25% dean, 50% vice provost. Now setups are funded: 75 % from college (up to $40k), 50% from college (on next $20k), 25% from college (beyond). As a consequence, for a setup exceeding $60k, the department is responsible for 75% of the setup. The department is unable to be competitive with setups.

    Classical and Near Eastern Studies believes that there has been a gradual trickle-down effect of IMG because funding has improved.

    Department of Art indicated that there has been some discussion of IMG in CLA, but the actual implications have not filtered down to the department level. The department head believes that it is likely this will ultimately mean more responsibility for all of the costs of the program.

    The chair of Cultural Studies and Comparative Literature believes that the current CLA budgeting process is like a "minicompact." The dean gave the department heads a formal list of topics to respond to when budgetting.

    The chair of Chicano studies indicated that the dean of CLA is considering a minicompact process with individual departments, but nothing has occurred to date.

    Center for Bioethics has not had much communication on IMG from AHC but noted his is an unusual department. A minicompact is in the process.

    D.3.13 Semester conversion concerns

    Medical Technology has a concern that if students slow down, there will be few applicants to the program.

    D.3.14 Morale

    CSOM morale is up.


    Return to top of document