The second meeting of the University Senate, Twin Cities Campus Assembly, and Faculty Senate was convened in 25 Mondale Hall, Minneapolis campus, on Thursday, December 2, 2004, at 2:34 p.m., as a joint meeting of the three bodies. Coordinate campuses were linked by telephone. Checking or signing the roll as present were 141 voting faculty/academic professional members, 28 voting student members, 1 non-member, and 1 ex officio member. President Bruininks presided.

FOR INFORMATION:

Following the September 30, 2004, University Senate/Twin Cities Campus Assembly meeting, an electronic vote was taken to pass the proposed Senate constitution and the revised representational structure for the Senate. At the end of the three working day voting period, 158 votes in favor of and 31 votes opposed were received. These motions were approved. The approved Senate Constitution, with the representative numbers, will now be presented to the President and the Board of Regents for approval.

3. TRIBUTE TO DECEASED MEMBERS OF THE UNIVERSITY COMMUNITY

FACULTY/ACADEMIC PROFESSIONALS/STAFF

Elmer L. Andersen
Regent Emeritus
1909 – 2004

Lyle A. French
Professor
Neurosurgery
1915 – 2004

Edith L. Mucke
Professor
Continuing Education Program Development and Management
1914 – 2004

STUDENTS

Grant Geiselhart
College of Science and Engineering – Duluth


4. EDUCATIONAL POLICY COMMITTEE
Resolution on Tuition Policies
Information for the University Senate

FOR INFORMATION:

The Senate Committee on Educational Policy opposes any tuition policy change that includes differential undergraduate tuition rates for different programs or colleges on a given campus. The Committee endorses the current Board of Regents' policy.

Approved by the Committee, October 20, 2004.

Professor Marvin Marshak, Chair of the Senate Consultative Committee (SCC), introduced Patrick Lloyd, the new Dean of the School of Dentistry, and E. Thomas Sullivan, the new Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs and Provost.

Professor Marvin Marshak, Chair of the Senate Consultative Committee (SCC), said that Strategic Planning has been continously discussed by the committees this fall, and is a topic later on today’s agenda. Linked to planning is the discussion of a new University budget model to revise how funds are allocated. The Finance and Planning Committee has done much of the work on this topic.

The Faculty Consultative Committee (FCC) has also done much work off the record with its Faculty Legislative Liaisons this semester. If senators are interested in hearing more about this topic, please contact any FCC member.

Policy issues have been discussed at meetings with invited guests from outside the University: Art Rolnick, Vice President for Research at the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis; Susan Heegard, Director of the Minnesota Higher Education Services Office; and, Charlie Weaver, former Chief of Staff for Governor Pawlenty and currently Executive Director of the Minnesota Business Partnership.

Today, the FCC met with the Instrumentalization Task Force. Its report agrees that the University is the economic engine of the state, but outlines the non-economic contribution that the University makes to the state and its people.

The Chair of the Academy of Distinguished Teachers also attended today’s meeting to discuss the contributions that the Academy has been making to education at the University.

The SCC has dealt with a few other issues, including inter-campus transportation, late night buses, and student housing.

MOTION:

To approve the following resolution.

On behalf of the faculty and students of the University, we convey our deepest sympathy to the family of the Honorable Elmer L. Andersen.

Elmer L. Andersen was a statesman, an outstanding leader of the state, and a supporter of this University. In addition to his business leadership, he served as a legislator, as governor, and as chair of the constitutional commission. At a critical time for our University, he served as Regent, as Chair of the Board of Regents, and as Chair of the University Foundation Board of Trustees. Even after leaving active service, his counsel, guidance, and support were invaluable to us. He will be missed.

DISCUSSION:

With no discussion, a vote was taken and the resolution was approved.

MOTION:

To approve the following resolution.

The Senate of the University of Minnesota offers its heartiest congratulations to former University of Minnesota Economics Professor Edward Prescott on his being awarded the Nobel Prize in Economics.

DISCUSSION:

With no discussion, a vote was taken and the resolution was approved.

MOTION:

To amend Article IV, Section 1 of the Faculty Senate Rules as follows (language to be added is underlined). As an amendment to the Faculty Senate Rules, the motion requires a simple majority vote.

ARTICLE IV. RULES FOR COMMITTEES OF THE FACULTY SENATE

...

- Research--Office of the Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs and Provost (two representatives, including the Director of Agricultural Experiment Stations); Office of the Vice President for Finance; Office of the Senior Vice President for Health Sciences; Vice President for Research; University Librarian; Director of Compliance; Assistant Vice President for Regulatory Affairs

...

COMMENT:

The Committee on Committees and the Senate Research Committee concur that the Assistant Vice President for Regulatory Affairs should be an ex officio member of the Senate Research Committee. This officer (currently Richard Bianco) has responsibility for the Institutional Review Board (IRB) and the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC), among many other things, so has a central role in assisting faculty in carrying out the research mission of the University. Mr. Bianco regularly appears at Senate Research Committee meetings on items related to his work; there are other items that come up where the Committee would appreciate having his insights.

DISCUSSION:

With no discussion, a vote was taken and the motion was approved.

DISCUSSION:

President Bruininks said that the University has begun to rethink its long-range planning and positioning for the future, and Provost Sullivan has been asked to lead this effort. The results of this effort will be taken to the Regents in February or March for a more formal review. He then thanked the senators and Faculty Consultative Committees members who have hosted the community forums.

E. Thomas Sullivan, Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs and Provost, also thanked Professors Carol Chomsky, Mary Jo Kane, and Marvin Marshak for moderating the three town hall meetings that have been held. Almost three dozen other presentations have also been held on this subject. Today’s discussion will focus on the process and procedures, as well as outlining the basic principles on the web site, but which are constantly changing because of the dynamic process being used during this effort. He then presented the following information to the University Senate.

Why now?

Process and timeline

July 2004: Provost Sullivan convenes internal working group to lead strategic positioning process.

September 2004: President Bruininks and Provost Sullivan present framing concepts to Board of Regents for comment.

October 2004: President Bruininks and Provost Sullivan present criteria for setting priorities and reviewing programs and services to Board of Regents for comment.

October-November 2004: Comments on two documents--Framing Concepts and Criteria for Setting Priorities--invited from University community via Web site and town hall meetings.

November 2004: Working Group develops environmental scan from data submitted by colleges and organizational groups across the University. Trends and strategies for future are identified.

December-January 2004: Working group reviews comments, revises documents.

February 2005: Revised documents presented to Board of Regents.

Working group members

E. Thomas Sullivan, SVP, Academic Affairs and Provost
Shirley Baugher, Dean, College of Human Ecology
Frank Cerra, SVP, Health Sciences
Donna Peterson, University Relations
David Hamilton, Interim VP, Research
Patricia Hampl, English Language & Literature
Robert Jones, SVP, System Administration
Jeffrey Klausner, Dean, Vet Medicine
Robert Kudrle, HHH Institute
Marvin Marshak, Physics and Astronomy
Judith Martin, Geography
Kathryn A. Martin, Chancellor, (Duluth)
Kathleen O’Brien, VP, University Services
Jeffrey Ratliff-Crain, Social Sciences (Morris)
Steven Rosenstone, Dean, College of Liberal Arts
Al Sullivan, Office of Planning and Academic Affairs
David Tilman, Ecology, Evolution and Behavior
Dan Gilchrist, Office of the President
Lincoln Kallsen, Office of Budget and Finance
H. Jeanie Taylor, Office of the President
John Ziegenhagen, Office of Planning and Academic Affairs

Questions to consider

Part I: Framing Concepts

Goal

To be one of the top 3 public research universities in the world.

(For coordinate and partnership campuses, we will require an equivalent level of excellence in their respective peer groups.)

Vision

To improve the human condition through the advancement of knowledge

Mission

The University’s mission, carried out on multiple campuses and throughout the state, is threefold:

Values

Organizational culture

Strategies

Part II: The criteria

Will be used for:

The criteria will address:

The criteria

Strategic Action Areas

Questions to consider

Q: Two areas of the University that occupy significant space are sports and business, but they are not mentioned here. What do they have to do with the strategic plan and future University spending?

A: Strategic planning is a process which permits the University to have a framework to review and make priorities for the University. The goal is to align all decision making within the context of the strategic planning principles, concepts, and criteria in terms of academic priorities. With regard to athletics, the President has been clear that whether the University goes forward with a stadium, the principles that will guide the decision are those that are consistent with the academic mission and priorities of the University.

Q: According to this plan, from where will new ideas come?

A: New ideas have always come from and will continue to be generated by the faculty, staff, and students at the University. The President wants the best ideas, and is open to these ideas and suggestions. This entire process is meant to be open and transparent.

Q: While this process is impressive since it provides a general statement about improvement in an abstract way, what does it actually mean to be one of the top three public institutions? Which other institutions and factors are being used for this comparison?

A: The presentation today is simply some ideas and concepts, but there is a much richer description at the core. This fuller description will be conveyed to the Regents, along with a full document which includes definitions, benchmarks, and timelines.

A senator noted that these details need to be available before presentation to the Regents to allow full faculty feedback.

Provost Sullivan said that this document will be available on the web, for review, prior to presentation to the Regents.

Q: If the University is going to be one of the top three research institutions, these other institutions are fairly selective for students. Is the intent then to make the University a more selective institution?

A: This is a question that needs to be addressed. In the recent report from the Citizen’s League, the recommendation was that the University should become more nationally selective in its undergraduate programs. However, the University has a rich and distinguished land-grant tradition which includes access to high education to students of the state. The University will need to define ‘access’ for the institution in the future, but will not ignore its history and traditions, as well as providing an education for low-income students. To protect access for students, a $150 million student scholarship campaign has been started Lastly, the University cannot forget its tradition of promoting diversity of people and ideas.

Q: How will the current document be integrated with the separate documents from the coordinate campuses? How will all the documents be discussed among the larger University community? How will the develop of broader, University-wide goals proceed?

A: Ideas, goals, and visions from each coordinate campus will be integrated into the current document so that there is one system-wide document for the President to consider.

Q: The goal to be a top three research institution carries the assumption that public research institutions in the United States know what they are doing and what quality is. The University needs to consider how utterly false these assumptions are. The University needs to ask the question if there are things that desperately need doing that the University is in a better position to do than anyone else. There is an under-utilization of current resources and a proliferation of everything a public research institution should have, and more. The problem is that people do not talk to each other. How can the University make better use of what it has and promote cross-collegiate conversations? How can the University move away from seeing its land-grant mission in terms of just outreach? Making knowledge from the University available to the public is a limited goal and it does not promote collaborative, knowledge creation between University members and people from diverse communities throughout the state. The University should claim its uniqueness and commit itself to doing a task that needs to be done. There are bits and pieces of this vision on the document on the web, but there is no commitment to bringing them all together and taking advantage of what Minnesota can do differently.

A: The committee has spent time on these topics. Uniqueness and comparative advantage are key components in the criteria. The University’s breadth is often criticized, but it is also a strength. The committee is discussing how to better integrate knowledge across colleges and departments. If there is a major flaw organizationally, it is probably the lack of integration.

Q: The University is committed to excellence, but how can this be accomplished with declining resources? There are doubts that the public, legislature, and Governor are equally committed to excellence versus an institution that is just good enough. In the past, the University has confronted these issues by saying it will be better by being smaller in terms of campuses and programs. How does this process deal with decreased public commitment and resources? Does the plan contemplate the University becoming smaller?

A: The committee does not view itself as here to cut, slash, and burn. The committee is inspired to take advantage of an opportunity, during difficult times, to create a better, more-effective, and more-engaged University. The end goal must be to finish with a much stronger University. The President works every day to get more funding from the state, yet the University knows that it needs more resources from the private sector and grants. If the University finishes this process with a credible plan, it will increase public and private support in the long-term.

Q: Will the committee be addressing the declining preparedness of incoming students and including this in the plan?

A: The University needs a better partnership with K-12 to have its students be more successful. The University is not satisfied with the job that has been done so far. The President is committed to reaching out to communities to help, assist, advise, and support these students. The University will fail unless this is recognized as a major part of the University’s responsibility.

President Bruininks said that, according to public perception, many citizens do not have a clear idea of the value, importance, and role of the University in the state, although many see the University as the state’s best asset. The University needs to make its position clear when talking with the public.

The strategic plan is a living document that changes as new ideas emerge, but helps frame new discussions and think about how resources are spent on the academic priorities. The University will need to think more broadly and creatively about resources, since it relies on much more than tuition and state support.

The recent state budget forecast still projects a deficit. It is less than two years ago, but any deficit is still a problem for the University. The University will still be challenged in seeking to obtain its requested $42 million since it cannot achieve its goals without a strong partnership from the state.

At the Governor’s press conference yesterday, he mentioned the enrollment adjustment for higher education. In 1994, the state passed a law which would provide a financial adjustment to the base budgets of the University and MnSCU for changes in enrollment. These adjustments are paid two years after the enrollment is counted. For higher education, this amounts to $220 million, which is reflected in the deficit. The Governor said that he will try to grant these adjustments. This is good news for the University, since it amounts to $15 million in recurring funds and $43 million of one-time funding. The primary commitment of these funds would be to educational programs.

The University, however, still needs to pursue its biennial and bonding requests. The University community needs to make its voice heard for the best outcome.

A question in the last item of business addressed the business school program. It is requesting a new building on the West Bank, to be included in the 2006 bonding request. This building has a substantial private gift and includes classrooms solutions for the entire West Bank. The Carlson School receives relatively little state support in relation to its total budget.

The University will be playing football after 2011 and is looking after its own interests. The two professional teams will probably no longer be playing at the Metrodome after 2011, and he does not want the University to get caught without options available. The University has proposed raising most of the funding for a new stadium from private funds, with a modest state investment of $7 million per year in bonds to pay off the project. If the University inherits the Metrodome, it will cost $10-12 million per year. The University athletics’ program can also be more self-supporting with its own building. An environmental impact study proposal on the possible site will be presented to the Regents. This does not represent a commitment to build a stadium.

Q: Graduate students are alarmed with the recent decision to close the Occupational Therapy department. What has happened to this department? What is the administration’s response that this process has not been transparent or allows for an appeal? Does this signal an open season on other graduate programs that are not determined to be efficient or essential?

A: The University could have handled the closing of the Occupational Therapy department better. At the present time, there is a committee with members from the University assessing the Occupational Therapy needs in the state, but no report has yet been issued. This program closing is not the first step of an open season, but the University cannot continue to take budgetary hits, meet the growing costs of higher education, keep the University strong for the future, and not make some changes. If the University keeps everything going through a challenging period, it is a compact to be mediocre and lowers the quality of what the University provides. This is the most painful experience for any person or program that has as a strong and rich tradition. There will be some recommendations over the next few years to reallocate needs. This is not easy, but it is the right decision.

Professor Fred Morrison, Faculty Legislative Liaison, said that from the November elections, there is only a two-vote margin between the parties in the state House of Representatives and a three-vote margin in the state Senate. This will make it a hard legislative session, and is compounded by a state deficit of $700 million to $1.3 billion once inflation is included.

There are some indications that the University situation might be better than anticipated. The legislature has agreed to set up two joint committees to address stadiums and one other issue. This leads him to believe that this session might involve more cooperation. He has also talked with House Republicans and he was surprised to hear that their constituents were positive about the University.

Professors Morrison and Sampson are helping the three professional lobbyists handle faculty issues. However, all faculty are critical to the effort and can help in several ways. First, if you know a legislator, talk to him or her since personal contact is always worthwhile. Second, you are valued because you carry a vote in elections, so call the representatives who have been elected.

He said that they are hoping to set up in many districts faculty gatherings with legislators in January. He will be asking some faculty to host or attend these meetings. Second, he asked faculty to read their emails instead of deleting them since they ask for specific messages to be conveyed to legislators. Lastly, the University will have a lobbying day at the legislature.

Professor Sampson, the second Faculty Legislative Liaison, said that there is no substitute for legislators hearing from people in there own districts.

The meeting was adjourned at 4:12 p.m.

APPENDIX A
MEMORIAL STATEMENTS

Edith L. Mucke

Edith Mucke, former director of the University of Minnesota’s Continuing Education for Women program, published author, and long time advocate of lifelong learning, died on Oct. 6, 2004 at age 90 in Minneapolis, Minnesota.

Mucke was born in Minneapolis and grew up in the southern Minnesota town of Triumph (now Trimont), where her Swedish-born parents ran the general store. She attended the University of Minnesota but with the onset of the Depression, she switched to a Minneapolis business school and took a job as a secretary at Gamble-Skogmo.

In 1939, at age 25, she married her boss, Paul Mucke, and as was customary for married, middle-class women at the time, quit her job. Mucke threw herself into her new roles as bride and homemaker, volunteering for Girl Scouts, Parent Teachers' Association, and serving as president of a women's club. On November 7, 1961, when her children were grown, she made an appointment with counselors at the University of Minnesota's ground breaking Continuing Education for Women program to discuss re-entering the University. Edith began on that very day what she later described as "a love affair with those halls of learning," earning her bachelor's degree in humanities in 1967 and a master's degree in American studies in 1971. She joined the staff of Continuing Education for Women as a graduate student, and a few years later, in 1974 was named its director.

Under her leadership, enrollment tripled to 7,000 students per year and was heralded as the premier program of its kind in the country. Then in the mid 1980’s after achieving its mission of making the university as accessible to women as it was to men, the program disbanded. But courses formerly taught in the program became part of the Compleat Scholar program now in the College of Continuing Education.

Edith retired in 1983 and in retirement, devoted herself to her memoirs, travel and to her greatest passion - life long learning. In celebration of her retirement, friends and colleagues established the Mucke/Roff Scholarship Fund in the College of Continuing Education to help insure that other motivated adults would also have the opportunity to attend the University.

Her memoirs were published in 1994 and in 2001, her second book, "The 85th Year" was published.

In addition to her daughters Jane Elmore and Cathy Meagher and her sister, Ruth Runsvold, she is survived by four grandchildren and numerous great-grandchildren.