2008-09 UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA

 

MARCH 5, 2009

 

UNIVERSITY SENATE MINUTES: No. 3

FACULTY SENATE MINUTES: No. 4

STUDENT SENATE MINUTES: No. 3

 

The third meeting of the University Senate and the fourth meeting of the Faculty Senate was convened in Coffman Theatre, Minneapolis campus, on Thursday, March 5, 2009, at 2:33 p.m., as a joint meeting of the bodies.  Coordinate campuses were linked by phone.  Checking or signing the roll as present were 24 academic professional members, 16 civil service members, 120 faculty/faculty-like academic professional members, and 29 student members.  Vice Chair Carol Chomsky presided.

 

 

1. ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSES TO SENATE ACTIONS

Information

 

Faculty Senate

 

Amendment to the Policy and Protocol on the Student Rating and Peer Evaluation of Instruction

Approved by the:

Faculty Senate December 4, 2008

Approved by the:

Administration February 20, 2009

Approved by the:

Board of Regents – no action required

 

Statement on University Responsibility to Researchers

Approved by the:

Faculty Senate December 4, 2008

Approved by the:

Administration - See comment*

Approved by the:

Board of Regents – no action required

 

*The President supports the underlying principle of this policy statement, and is asking Vice President for Human Resources Carol Carrier to consider ways to incorporate the principle in the current comprehensive review process of administrative policies.

 

Border Searches of Electronic Materials

Approved by the:

Faculty Senate February 5, 2009

Approved by the:

Administration PENDING

Approved by the:

Board of Regents – no action required

 

 

2. TRIBUTE TO DECEASED MEMBERS OF THE UNIVERSITY COMMUNITY

 

FACULTY/ACADEMIC PROFESSIONALS/STAFF

 

C. Edward Bowers

Professor

Civil and Mineral Engineering

1919 – 2008

 

Dennis L. Nelson

Professor

Economics – University of Minnesota Duluth

1929 – 2009

 

Sharon L. Wikstrom

Assistant Director

Development

1939 – 2009

 

Donald H. Yardley

Professor

Civil Engineering

1917 – 2009

 

STUDENTS

 

Karin C. Murphy

Carlson School of Management

 

 

3. STUDENT ACADEMIC INTEGRITY COMMITTEE

Scholastic Dishonesty Reporting Process for Twin Cities Graduate Students

Information for the Twin Cities Delegation

 

Purpose:

 

The purpose of this document is to provide a recommendation to the Office for Student Conduct and Academic Integrity (OSCAI) on a structure for communication with instructors and program administrators about instances of scholastic dishonesty by students in the Graduate School[1] (but not professional students) on the Twin Cities campus.    It is hoped that by taking advantage of the existing structure of the academic programs it will be possible to remove some of the barriers to instructor reporting that may exist with the current method, and allow the Directors of Graduate Studies (DGS) to provide guidance.  In addition this process will provide notice to program directors and colleges.  This structure should also prove valuable for general communications from OSCAI to instructors and places the Directors of Graduate Studies (DGS) in a position to facilitate this process.

 

Scope:

 

This document covers graduate students in all levels of courses.  Undergraduate and professional students will be covered separately.

 

Recommendation:

 

There are two parts to the communication in the reporting process: 1. The instructor reporting the incident and, 2. The OSCAI notification. 

 

1. Instructor Reporting

The following diagram summarizes the reporting process.

* or equivalent person for graduate programs.

 

This process goes as follows:  The instructor informs the student that there is a problem and discusses with the student what the resolution to the problem will be (for example, F on the assignment, F in the course, etc.)  The instructor can use the DGS for the program that is offering the course as a resource in this process.  A Report of Scholastic Dishonesty Form (see below) is filled out.  The instructor is asked to indicate that the student has been informed.  The instructor then files this form with the DGS for the program that offers the course and OSCAI.  This completes the reporting process.

 

Because the DGS of the unit that offered the course is notified of the incident, there is also the opportunity to identify patterns of misunderstanding in course expectations and proactively address them with syllabus information and guidance to students, for example.

 

Role of the course DGS (as opposed to the DGS of the studentÕs program, who becomes involved in step 2 below) in this process is to provide information about the process to the instructor and the student.  The course DGS is not a decision maker or part of the appeals process.  Determination of penalties resides solely with the instructor and the appeals process.

 

2. OSCAI Notification

 

After an incident is reported to OSCAI they determine if any further response is warranted (in the case of repeated or egregious instances) and consult with the Graduate School and DGS of the studentÕs program to determine if that program wishes to impose any other sanctions on the student.  In any case, OSCAI sends a letter to the student indicating that they have received a report of the incident. Copies of the letter are sent to the instructor and the DGS for the program in which the student is enrolled and which offered the course, if different, and the Graduate School.  The following diagram summarizes the notification process:

This notification process is also used to announce the results of a hearing by the Campus Committee on Student Behavior (CCSB), should it be required. 

 

Report of Scholastic Dishonesty Form Content Recommendation

 

This form should include the following:

 

 

OSCAI Educational Communications

 

OSCAI needs to provide information about implementation of this process and about other issues related to academic integrity from time to time to instructors.  This should be carried out by OSCAI informing the program DGS (with copies to the Dean of the Graduate School and Deans of colleges with graduate programs) and then letting the DGS communicate with the instructors in their program.  This will keep the DGS aware of the process and allow the DGS to answer questions and inform new faculty of the process.

 

Approved January 28, 2009

 

TOM SHIELD, CHAIR

STUDENT ACADEMIC INTEGRITY COMMITTEE

 

 

4. STUDENT ACADEMIC INTEGRITY COMMITTEE

Scholastic Dishonesty Reporting Process for Twin Cities Students

for Non-Course related Academic Activities

Information for the Twin Cities Delegation

 

Purpose:

 

The purpose of this document is to provide a recommendation to The Office for Student Conduct and Academic Integrity (OSCAI) on a structure for communication with faculty and program administrators about instances of scholastic dishonesty by students in academic activities that are not related to a specific course on the Twin Cities campus.    These activities include exams (written preliminary, etc.), theses and other academic work that is connected to their program, but not a specific course.

 

Scope:

 

This document covers students at all levels on the Twin Cities Campuses.

 

Recommendation:

 

There are two parts to the communication in the reporting process: 1. The person reporting the incident to OSCAI and 2. The OSCAI notification. 

 

1. Reporting

 

This will vary depending on the circumstances of the incident, but all incidents are to be reported to the OSCAI.  The OSCAI office will provide a form on their web site for this purpose.

 

2. OSCAI Notification

 

The OSCAI notification process will follow either the undergraduate or graduate notification process depending on the level of the studentÕs program.  See these documents for details.

 

Report of General Scholastic Dishonesty Form Content Recommendation

 

This form will have to be much more general than the course related forms and thus it will be left to the OSCAI to design this form based on their experience with these types of cases.

 

Approved January 28, 2009

 

TOM SHIELD, CHAIR

STUDENT ACADEMIC INTEGRITY COMMITTEE

 

 

5. INTRODUCTIONS

Dean James Parente, College of Liberal Arts

 

Professor Hoover introduced James Parente, Dean of the College of Liberal Arts.

 

 

6. SENATE CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE REPORT

 

Professor Emily Hoover, Chair of the Senate Consultative Committee (SCC) and the Faculty Consultative Committee (FCC), said that todayÕs remarks would incorporate both committees and focus on the process for restructuring graduate education.  If senators take away one message from this report, let it be that shared governance works when everyone when everyone works with it.

 

Since the ProvostÕs memo on February 9, she has received over 1000 emails from faculty, staff, and students about the restructuring and has spent much time in the last few weeks in meetings or on the phone on this topic.  The University community has expressed a high level of concern, anger, and angst about how the decision was made, and although people were divided on whether it was a good decision, it caused controversy.

 

At the FCC, meetings were held with college deans and faculty representatives from the Executive Council of the Graduate School to discuss the process.  FCC also met with the President and Provost on several occasions to discuss the Graduate School and to convey faculty, staff, and student concerns.

 

As representatives of the faculty to the administration, FCC members have openly and vigorously voiced concerns about the process.  As chair, Professor Hoover met individually with central administrators to convey the sentiment of the University community.  FCC leadership consulted with the President multiple times to shape the nature of the discussion that will now follow.  These conversations have been confidential, but they have been repeated and extensive.

 

The result of this consultation is a confirmation from the President and the Provost that all aspects of this reorganization, including the timeline and the specifics, are on the table with the implementation committee.  There will be ample opportunity for anyone interested to give input to the process and comment on the proposed decisions before any implementation occurs.

 

This experience has also resulted in discussions of how to ensure full consultation with faculty governance at early stages of University decision making in a very trying time.

 

 

7. MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 5, 2009

Action by the University Senate

 

MOTION:

 

To approve the University Senate and Faculty Senate minutes, which are available on the Web at the following URL. A simple majority is required for approval.

 

http://www1.umn.edu/usenate/usen/090205sen.html

 

STUART GOLDSTEIN, CLERK

UNIVERSITY SENATE

 

DISCUSSION:

 

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

 

APPROVED

 

 

8. UNIVERSITY SENATE OLD BUSINESS

 

NONE

 

 

9. UNIVERSITY SENATE NEW BUSINESS

 

A senator made the following motion:

 

The University Senate does not approved of the abolition and reorganization of the Graduate School as it has been proposed.  While streamlining, budget cuts, and reorganization might be needed, the Graduate School should be preserved.

 

This motion was seconded.

 

A motion was then made and seconded to suspend the rules to consider the proposed item.  A vote was taken and the motion was not approved with only 70 votes in favor, 63 opposed, and 13 abstentions.

 

The motion will be referred to the Senate Consultative Committee.

 

NOT APPROVED

 

 

10. UNIVERSITY SENATE RECESS

 

The University Senate was recessed at 2:46 p.m.

 

 

11. FACULTY CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE REPORT

 

NONE

 

 

12. FACULTY LEGISLATIVE LIAISON UPDATE

 

Professor Martin Sampson, a Faculty Legislative Liaison, said that legislature has been in session for a few weeks, but not much has yet taken place.  The Regents selection process is moving forward.  The combined Senate and House will vote on this Monday afternoon.  Preliminary groundwork is being laid for capital investment projects that may be affected by stimulus funds.

 

In these weeks, the central issue has been the state forecast and how the stimulus funds will affect the biennial budget.  The state economist released his budget this week.  Within two weeks the Governor will issue a revised report, followed by legislative proposals.

 

 

13. FACULTY AFFAIRS COMMITTEE

FINANCE AND PLANNING COMMITTEE

Health Care Savings Plan

Action by Faculty Members Only

 

MOTION:

 

That the Faculty Senate advises the President that it revises its motion of May 1, 2008, which read as follows:

 

"The Faculty Senate recommends to the President that the University adopt a Health Care Savings Plan for the faculty that uses the 0.5% of the 2.5% faculty contribution to the Faculty Retirement Plan. If there are questions about the details of the plan, the administration will consult with the appropriate Faculty Senate committees and the Faculty Senate."

 

To now read:

 

The Faculty Senate recommends to the President that the University redirect 2.0 percentage points of the 13% points the University currently contributes to the individual's Faculty Retirement Plan to the individual's Health Care Savings Plan.

 

Approved unanimously January 27, 2009, by the faculty members of the Faculty Affairs Committee and the faculty members of the Finance and Planning Committee at the Faculty Affairs Committee meeting

Endorsed unanimously January 29, 2009, by the Faculty Consultative Committee

 

COMMENT:

 

At the urging of a number of constituents, the Senate Committee on Faculty Affairs (SCFA), in conjunction with the Senate Committee on Finance and Planning (SCFP), revisited the Health Care Savings Plan (HCSP) option for faculty.  In brief, the HCSP is a vehicle to allow employees, group by group, to save money for health-care expenses after they leave the University or retire.  It is the only fringe benefit program that allows tax-exempt contributions and tax-exempt withdrawals.  Because it is a tax-free vehicle, it allows retirees to save substantial money, but the plan must be the same for each employee in each group (by federal law).   Civil Service employees have already adopted an HCSP. 

 

It is estimated by Money magazine that a person retiring in 2016 may need savings of $200,000 to cover Medicare premiums and out-of-pocket costs.  HCSP savings may be used for a wide range of expenses from aspirin to long-term health insurance to traditional reimbursable costs.  HCSP savings never expire.  Both SCFA and SCFP believe that it is in the best interests of the faculty that HCSP accounts be established through the redirection of 2.0 percentage points of the UniversityÕs contribution. 

 

KATHRYN HANNA, CHAIR

FACULTY AFFAIRS COMMITTEE

 

JUDITH MARTIN, CHAIR

FINANCE AND PLANNING COMMITTEE

 

DISCUSSION:

 

A senator stated that he is opposed to this motion because it increases existing inequities between heterosexual faculty and staff and gay, lesbian, and bisexual faculty and staff who are in domestic partnerships.  The funds in this plan can be used to pay for the expenses for married spouses of heterosexual faculty and staff, but not for the spouses of gay, lesbian, and bisexual faculty and staff.  This constraint is not something that the University chose, but is imposed by federal tax codes.  It creates an inequity between two types of committed households that the University strives to recognize as equal.  This has been presented to the Faculty Senate as a measure that will benefit faculty and staff, but it will only benefit one class of faculty and staff.  This would put the University at even greater odds with its own anti-discrimination policies which treat sexual orientation as a protected category.  The University did not choose the federal tax law to be what it is, but senators can choose to take a brave and self-sacrificing stand to honor its own statement and all classes of faculty and staff.  For those faculty who intend to vote for this motion, he asked that they consider the consequences and messages that it sends to GLBT colleagues.  Decisions need to be made now that contribute to the unity of faculty at a time when faculty faces challenges from inside and outside the University.

 

Q: What will happen to the 2 percent contribution when someone is allowed to opt-out?

 

A: The 2 percent would be paid out in salary.

 

Q: Who manages these funds?

 

A: They are managed by the State Board of Investment and includes seven options for investment.

 

Q: If this motion is not approved today, does the plan remain a personal option that can individually established under the current tax code?

 

A: The Health Care Savings Plan cannot be an individual choice, but is mandatory across a group of people.

 

A senator said that it someone opts-out of the plan, that person can defer these funds into an optional retirement plan.

 

Q: What will happen to these funds if the country adopts a universal health care model?

 

A: Even if there is a universal health care plan, faculty will likely still have health care costs and premiums.  The funds could also be used to pay long-term health care.

 

With no further discussion, a vote was taken and the motion was not approved.

 

NOT APPROVED

 

 

14. FACULTY SENATE OLD BUSINESS

 

NONE

 

 

15. FACULTY SENATE NEW BUSINESS

 

NONE

 

 

16. FACULTY SENATE ADJOURNMENT

 

The Faculty Senate was adjourned at 2:58 p.m.

 

 

17. UNIVERSITY SENATE RECONVENE

 

The University Senate was reconvened at 3:03 p.m.

 

 

18. STATE OF THE UNIVERSITY ADDRESS

 

New Realities, Renewed Urgency

 

Introduction: The Future Is Past

Twenty years ago, in his book The New Realities, management guru Peter Drucker announced the imminent collapse of the Soviet Union, and was roundly ridiculed. Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger called the notion Òsheer nonsense.Ó Two years later, the great Russian Empire crumbled, and Drucker was vindicated.[2] He insisted that he made no predictions; he simply declared the new realities as shaped by 50 years of history.

 

The premise of DruckerÕs book—namely, that the future has already happened—has profound implications for us today. YouÕve heard one of my favorite proverbs, ÒYou must run to catch the future.Ó But in truth, catching the future is like sailing to the horizon, or following the North Star: you are drawn ever onward, but you never reach your destination.

 

And thatÕs as it should be. Our aspirations and ideals should be bright and distant—bright, so we do not lose sight of them, and distant, so we continue to track straight regardless of the obstacles in our way.

 

For nearly 160 years, the University of Minnesota has sought Òthe bright horizon.Ó [3] In the past decade, weÕve made historic changes that have strengthened the University and the state:

 

 

Clearly, the value and impact of the University of Minnesota system extends well beyond our classrooms and laboratories. Yet despite tremendous progress, today we face historic challenges to our public mission. State support is on the wrong trajectory—and recent history shows that as state funding slips, so does our ability to compete for federal dollars and private support.

 

Without this support, our ability to serve the state is diminished. For the second time in my six years as president, we face the prospect of wage and salary freezes and layoffs—this, despite the fact that the University is as strong and productive today as ever. Our degrees and our graduates are highly sought after, and the knowledge and innovation we generate here fuel the stateÕs economy. Now is not the time to reduce the UniversityÕs quality and capacity; now is the time to invest in excellence. It is more important than ever that we elevate our gaze to encompass both our immediate challenges and the future we are shaping today.

 

The New Realities

If you accept DruckerÕs thesis, then the economic downturn weÕre experiencing is the culmination of decades of public policy and private decision-making. If you take it a step further, the actions we take to manage these challenges will shape our future for decades to come. As a result, we must not plan for today, or even for the biennium. Instead, we must ask ourselves these questions: ÒWhat challenges will remain even after the economy rebounds? What are the new realities we face?Ó

 

Funding for higher education

The first new reality is the slow but steady shift from public funding to a more private model. This is not a transition weÕre making by choice—but with the proposed budget cut, this year could mark the first time in the UniversityÕs history in which tuition revenue contributes substantially more to our operating budget than state support.

 

Every dollar still matters. We cannot suddenly replace state funding with tuition dollars, nor can we support our day-to-day operations with restricted federal dollars or private support. As an educational institution, we must continue to improve service and productivity, graduating more students in less time without sacrificing quality. As a research enterprise, we must be responsive and entrepreneurial, collaborating when appropriate, and competing effectively for available resources. As stewards of the public trust, we must reduce costs and increase revenues from other sources to support our public mission. But as MinnesotaÕs only research and land grant university, we must also fight to maintain and strengthen the stateÕs investment.

 

What can we do? We must continue to make the case for higher education. Today, when so many of our political leaders want to strengthen the middle class, we all know that the completion of a college degree is the best indicator of a personÕs ability to successfully transition from poverty to prosperity. We know that human capital and innovation are critical to economic growth in the global creative economy.  But we also know that today, many Americans are more concerned with health and safety than they are with education. As support grows for their priorities, funding for education and research will be increasingly hard to come by.

 

Age and diversity

The second new reality we face is tightly tied to the first. Changing demographics in Minnesota and surrounding states will have a profound impact on the UniversityÕs future. An aging population means the proportion of state and federal spending that goes to health care and entitlements will continue to grow. According to the Peter G. Peterson Foundation, the sum of AmericaÕs unfunded liabilities and entitlement promises is more than three times the size of the entire U.S. economy.[4] This problem demands a long-term vision and substantial reform—we cannot continue to borrow against an unknown future.

 

The aging population also has implications for MinnesotaÕs workforce. State demographer Tom Gillaspy has noted that even as boomers begin to retire, the number of young people graduating from high school in Minnesota will peak this spring. This means declining numbers of young people entering MinnesotaÕs work force. As a result, the size of our stateÕs work force will hit record lows by the end of the decade.[5]

 

To meet the stateÕs long-term workforce and leadership needs, the University of Minnesota must recruit, support, and graduate promising students from all walks of life. We must actively recruit local students; minority and immigrant students; low- and middle-income students; out-of-state and international students. Our role as a talent magnet for the state will be critical. Our challenge is to outperform our peers, attracting and keeping more students from more places than ever before. This will require sustained effort and targeted investment in financial, academic, and social support programs throughout the University system.

 

We will also need to attract our own diverse and talented workforce. A world-class university requires exceptional faculty and staff to thrive. Diversity of perspective and experience strengthens the University by ensuring that new ideas are evaluated from every angle. In the past, diversity in higher education has been viewed as a problem to be solved, but we have identified it as a core value. We know that opening our doors to as many people, with as many different backgrounds, identities, and perspectives as possible, is not only the right thing to do, it is also the smart thing to do.

 

Local and global competition

The third new reality we face is increased competition—here in Minnesota, and globally, as well. The United States is still the destination of choice for many of the worldÕs best and brightest students, but global investment in research and education has skyrocketed. Today, international students are increasingly able to find more affordable opportunities to study abroad in countries other than the U.S.

 

In addition, universities overseas are becoming more aggressive in recruiting U.S. students. Last May you may have noticed a bus shelter on University Avenue, advertising the Discovery Scholarship at King Abdullah University in Saudi Arabia. Recipients of the scholarship were promised full tuition and expenses while they completed their bachelorÕs and graduate degrees. I take great pride in our efforts to keep education affordable for our students—but we have yet to launch any scholarship program of this magnitude!

 

And itÕs not only other nations that are giving us a run for our money. Our list of competitors now includes online universities, as well as local degree offerings from public and private institutions across the region.

 

Last semester, the University of Minnesota system offered 600 online and hybrid courses to students in Minnesota and around the world—targeting academic areas where the needs are greatest and the University has distinct comparative advantages. We are meeting a demand that is met nowhere else in the state—but if we neglect the benefits of technology-enhanced teaching and learning, we will quickly become outmoded.

 

Increasing accountability

The final new reality we face is a steadily increasing emphasis on accountability. For educators at all levels, as competitive pressures intensify, funding is increasingly tied to results. In an environment of increased competition for tighter resources, the University of Minnesota will be asked to demonstrate its worth in concrete terms that policy-makers and the public can understand. Too often, we hold the value of our work to be self-evident. As academics, weÕve always been good at tracking data and measuring results within our own disciplines. But as a community, weÕve been less adept at turning that same careful eye toward our own outcomes and operations.

 

This push for accountability presents a silver lining—if we can successfully integrate real results into education and research policy, we can help to depoliticize the discussion, reduce costs, and encourage greater investment in teaching and research that work.

 

Beyond the Biennium: The Future of the U

We cannot ignore these new realities, and in the face of such dramatic shifts, our common knowledge wonÕt be enough to maintain our quality and competitiveness. We must work hard—together—to plan now for the long term.

 

I realize that this is not easy. Planning for the unknown demands vision, creativity, and a sense of urgency. Vision and creativity we have—they exist in abundance on all of our campuses. But true urgency—what leadership expert John Kotter describes as a gut-level determination to act now in order to win—is often lacking. 

 

Our current economic challenges, coupled with the new realities we face as a University, demand immediate action in the best interest of our future. These actions are not ours alone; they must be mirrored and supported by the actions of state leaders. Today I propose four strategies to solidify the UniversityÕs quality and mission for coming generations.

 

A new covenant

First, we must seek a new covenant with the state of Minnesota. The Minnesota Educational Futures Covenant would be an agreed-upon vision for the future of education, human capital, and innovation in Minnesota. It would include aspirational goals, defined strategies, appropriate measures, and sustained resources. In January, I delivered a speech to state education leaders in which I began to lay out such a vision. It included a strong focus on college readiness and a deeper commitment to collaboration among all education stakeholders statewide.[6]

 

Focusing on college readiness is a practical way for Minnesota to graduate world-class students. Many countries that outperform the U.S. in elementary and secondary education still send their best graduates to college here—so if we graduate students who are truly ready for college in the U.S., they will be Òglobally competitive.Ó

 

A stronger financial model

Second, we must strengthen the UniversityÕs financial model to ensure that each of our primary sources of revenue performs as part of an integrated strategy. Financial stability is critical for our long-term planning efforts. With state funding essentially flat over 30 years and now declining significantly, it makes sense to bolster our sponsored funding, private support, and other existing resources. We must also continue to refine our strategy for managing tuition revenue and maintaining affordability. To this end, IÕve assigned a task force to develop a stronger, sustainable financial model for the University.  Our goal is to stabilize our base budget so we can take a longer view of the UniversityÕs future.

 

As IÕve said, we cannot raise sufficient private funds to replace the critical annual contribution of the state. It simply isnÕt possible—and if it were, it would change the very nature of our University. Our essential role in MinnesotaÕs economy and quality of life is tied directly to our public mission and public support—take that away, and we are no longer MinnesotaÕs university. So even while we maximize other revenue sources and increase our productivity, we must re-establish higher education as a long-term priority for the state. This wonÕt happen overnight—but it must happen!

 

Affordable access and support

Third, we must take creative and decisive action to ensure affordable access for well-prepared students, as well as strong academic support to ensure more timely graduation. The strength and reputation of the University of Minnesota will always be tied to the success of our teaching mission. As the real cost of delivering higher education continues to climb, so does the need to devote more resources to support students of modest means. We must expand our need-based financial support to include middle-income students, and we must graduate students in a more timely manner, with a high-quality education and a valuable degree.

 

The University has provided free tuition to low-income Minnesota students for the past several years. Nearly 5,000 students—12 percent of undergraduates system-wide—attend our campuses with free tuition through the Founders Free Tuition Program. This year, we are renewing and expanding this commitment. The new scholarship program will build upon the Founders model to include preK-12 outreach, college readiness, and enhanced academic advising for these students. In other words, low-income Minnesota students will benefit from proactive University outreach and support before high-school graduation—followed by a tuition-free college education with strong academic support on the University of Minnesota campus of their choice.

 

Need-based scholarship support for middle-income students is clearly the Ònext frontierÓ in our commitment to affordability. IÕm pleased to share that even in our current budget climate, we are modeling increases in need-based scholarship support in order to include middle-income Minnesota students. These scholarships, coupled with significantly expanded federal tax credits, will enable us to substantially reduce the impact of tuition increases on Minnesota families that earn up to—and even beyond—the stateÕs median family income.

 

The expansion of our Founders commitment for low-income students, and our new focus on need-based scholarships for middle-income students, comprise a comprehensive new tuition-reduction strategy. In keeping with our historic land-grant mission and leadership position on these issues, I propose that this year we launch the University of Minnesota Discover U scholarship program. We have demonstrated our ability to increase exponentially our private support for scholarships and fellowships. With modest internal investment and new state support, we can greatly reduce the cost of education for thousands of future Minnesota students.

 

Strengthened core and capacity

Fourth, we must act today to maintain the strength and quality of the University, so that we are well positioned for future opportunities. This means sticking to our strategic plan, our shared values, our high aspirations, and our commitment to excellence. Whatever difficulties we face today must be met with equal resolve to preserve this great institution.

 

By statute, the University of Minnesota is the stateÕs only research university system and its only land-grant university. We have a unique mission of teaching and learning, research and innovation, and public engagement and outreach. University of Minnesota students—undergraduate, graduate, and professional—are taught in state-of-the-art laboratories and technology-rich classrooms by faculty who are leaders in their fields. Our alumni and friends are investing in the University because they recognize the great promise and potential of the work we do. Minnesota companies are seeking deeper relationships with our campuses, laboratories, and offices statewide. And the federal government intends to increase research funding, as expressed in the America COMPETES Act.

 

Clearly, opportunities abound for a university that is poised to take advantage of them. We must continue our capital investments in order to ensure that our campuses meet the needs of tomorrowÕs students, to protect MinnesotaÕs competitive edge in key fields and industries, and to sustain the UniversityÕs statewide role in advancing the arts and humanities. But we must also better leverage existing resources and capacity to increase productivity and revenue while improving service, flexibility, and responsiveness.

 

The 21st Century Land Grant University

A new covenant with the state must be based upon the unique and essential role that this university plays in the future of Minnesota. Students choose the University of Minnesota for a world-class education, and employers look to us for tomorrowÕs leaders. The University of Minnesota system is the stateÕs strongest source of new ideas and innovation. Our campuses easily outpace the R&D spending of all other Minnesota universities combined. But we also have a unique responsibility to Òthe Welfare of the State,Ó as the words above the pillars of Northrop attest. University research and responsibility come together in major discoveries like the one announced yesterday. Two University researchers have unveiled a promising breakthrough that could have a profound impact on preventing the transmission of HIV—a discovery that could change the lives of millions of people around the world.

 

Our mission has never been more important than it is today. In recent years, when Minnesota needed an institution to lead the investigation into mesothelioma on the Iron Range, to spearhead the development of a statewide environmental plan, to address strategies for enhancing MinnesotaÕs transportation system, or to make an accurate economic forecast, state leaders again turned to this University.

 

We continue to shape our state and transform our University. As we do so, however, we must all strive to protect the values at the core of academic life, including academic freedom, integrity, civility, and dissent. In 1934, University President Lotus Coffman wrote, ÒMuch as we may decry the academic life at times, we must remember that it is the sole safeguard of the university spirit.Ó [7] Not everyone knows what goes on in our classrooms and labs. Not everyone understands the alchemy of ideas—old and new, complementary and contradictory—that shapes the understanding of those who work and study here. But we understand. We know that the university is a stronghold for free expression, civil discourse, entrepreneurial spirit, and shared responsibility. These values are critical to our own future—but they are also essential to the prosperity of a free society.

 

If that sounds lofty, it should. In challenging times, it is easy to lose sight of ideals that are higher than the here-and-now—but if we are focused merely on incremental improvement in the near term, we will never achieve lasting success. We must look beyond the bottom line and make decisions not for the University of today, but for the University of tomorrow.

 

But even as we preserve these shared values, we must continue to evolve as an institution. In his book The Tyranny of Dead Ideas, Matt Miller writes, ÒIn an era when more change is expected to occur in the next thirty years than in the previous three hundred, the skill and speed with which people cope with new circumstances will be the key to success; those slow to adapt will be punished faster and more harshly than was the case in calmer times.Ó[8] The new realities we face demand a sense of urgency. We will be forced to make transformational decisions more quickly than in any time in our history.

 

Conclusion: The Unity in Community

Shifting finances, changing demographics, global competition, and increased accountability—these are the new realities that we will continue to face even after the economy stabilizes. They are not insurmountable, provided the University emerges strong from its current challenges.

 

WeÕve faced such challenges before—most recently in 2003, when we received a state base budget cut of $185 million. In my inaugural address that February, I called upon the University to be a partner for the public good. We adopted a strategic plan that renewed our commitment to excellence and our public mission, expanded core academic programs, and improved service to students. We reorganized and reduced spending. We consolidated and eliminated programs. We committed private and internal support to create a national model for scholarships for low- and moderate-income students. We secured significant state and private funding to build 21st century research laboratories and learning environments. We strengthened sponsored funding and technology transfer, and we began to leverage existing assets to create long-term financial resources.  But most importantly, we met the challenges of the day as a community, and we emerged stronger.

 

The importance of community cannot be overstated. In 1921, with the University facing a $3 million cut to its proposed budget, the Alumni Weekly declared, ÒThe crisis is upon us. It is impossible to believe that any thinking person is willing to see the University retrograde to the position of institutional mediocrity.Ó[9] Nearly 4,000 faculty, staff, students and alumni demonstrated on University Avenue, and they made themselves heard: the cut was reduced to just a few thousand dollars. Years later, University historian James Gray wrote, ÒThe significance of the faculty-student-alumni uprising lay in the spontaneity with which widely dispersed groups of citizens came together to express faith in the University and in its purpose.Ó [10] 

 

That faith and sense of purpose remain strong today. In 1861, President Abraham Lincoln urged a struggling nation toward unity by appealing to the Òbetter angels of our nature.Ó In recent months, weÕve heard the echo of those words, and many of us again feel the desire to make a difference on behalf of our community and our country.[11] We have the opportunity to do so—right here; right now.

 

In the depths of the Great Depression, President Coffman wrote:

              

It is my opinion that the universities of America never had such a unique opportunity as they now possess to serve the society of which they are a part É Surely they cannot ignore the sweeping changes that are going on all about them; they cannot set themselves apart from the life that sustains them.[12]

 

Today, we too must choose to serve. Our colleagues and communities, our students and our state, need a strong University of Minnesota—and although we cannot change the weather, we will not change our course. The storms we face today are serious, but momentary. True change is coming—it is our response that will shape our legacy.

 

Thank you.

 

 

19. QUESTIONS TO THE PRESIDENT

 

Q: In the March 1 email, the President mentioned a few cost-reduction initiatives.  One of those is a recommendation to the Regents that would require a 25 percent contribution from employees in the Regents Scholarship program.  The University has projected that it would save $2.5 million dollars.  As a full-time employee, she has been fortunate enough to return to college through the College of Continuing Education and use the Regents Scholarship to work towards an undergraduate degree.  However, as a single mother, paying 25 percent of the tuition is an unaffordable expense and she would no longer be able to attend school.  Essentially, there would be no cost savings, just an empty seat in class.  She respectfully ventures to say that she is not alone in this situation.  The cost-saving projection is inaccurate and does not take into consideration the reality of working adults who, when faced with the choice of paying the mortgage, buying groceries, or attending college, would cut out the higher education expense.   She has certainly been grateful to this institution for this opportunity, as attending classes has been the greatest gift she has given herself in her adult life.  Will the University reconsider this option?

 

A: He knows that this issue weighs heavily on the University community, but the facts are the facts.  This program was started in 1966 for two employee groups, civil service and bargaining units.  The program permitted two percent of the cohort group to access free classes based on an empty-seat model.  At that time, the state also provided two-thirds of the cost of instruction.  Under that model, only 200 employees would be able to participate, versus the 2300 that do today.

 

This program now costs $9 million per year and it does have a cost to the University.  It is charged against the fringe benefit pool so that revenue can be returned to the colleges and departments which teach the classes.  This program is growing at a rate of 10 percent per year.

 

This is a hard decision for the Regents and administration as he has been a strong supporter of this program.  However, 50 percent of employees who finish their degree leave the University, and they are not asked to pay back the cost of the investment.  He does not believe that employees should pay back this cost, since this is the UniversityÕs investment in the future of the state.

 

With tax credits that have recently been approved, the cost is offset.  He also sees this as a matter of fairness to the students who have watched the cost of education increase dramatically in the past few years.  There are core principles on the PresidentÕs website, which are about protecting the academic quality of the University and issues of affordability.  Running throughout all these principles is a deep and strong commitment to maintain the talented workforce at the University, which is not possible to do without funding.  The $2.5 million savings equals almost 45 jobs at the University, so every dollar being saved is a way to protect the future of the University.

 

He would prefer to not make these types of decisions to balance this budget, but this is the deepest budget reduction that the University has experienced, or is likely to experience, in the foreseeable future.  Every cost needs to be considered this year.  He asked if there is a way to structure this program while still saving the same amount.  If this can be found, it will be done.  However, he can not leave the program structured the way it is when student tuition is increasing.

 

Q: Comments made today and in an earlier email have focused on several key points, specifically transparency, shared governance, accountability, and shared sacrifice.  The process by which decisions are now being made is opaque and wholly top-down; central administration declares what decisions it will perpetrate upon the University, and then invites questions.  This is not transparent or a model of shared governance.  If the University community has no role in the processes whereby decisions are made, then there is no stake in these decisions and they will not be supported.  With regard to accountability, much is heard but it is usually directed at faculty and instructional staff.  The administration also needs to account for how it spends the UniversityÕs funds and what students and the state are receiving for the vastly increased expenditures on administration in the past several years.  Students are paying more but only receiving more administration, not education.  When and how will the administration share the sacrifice, such as through a salary cut or cap of $250,000 per year?  What is being planned to cut administration and reduce its burden on the UniversityÕs finances?

 

A: While he respects her views on shared governance and decision-making, he noted that everything that the University does is done publicly.  However, when a budget needs to be balanced with a $200 million reduction in the base budget, there is not lots of time to make these cuts.  The federal stimulus funds will not provide much relief as they are one-time funds and create an enormous cliff in three years.

 

He knows that there is angst about how the Graduate School plans were announced, but he acknowledged that this could have been handled better and engaged more people in the process.  He is listening to these concerns, and notes that work will be done together to implement changes and ideas.  There will not be a diminishment in shared governance, but at the end of the day, some of the decisions need to be made.  By Regents policy, the President is responsible for organizing the administration.  This entity continues to be trimmed, since in 2003 administrative units received the larger cuts to protect academic budgets, and they will be asked to participate in cuts again this year.

 

Some administrative increases are also a direct result of the UniversityÕs productivity , such as new grant regulations, responsibilities, and compliance accountability.  He will watch that every dollar being spent is spent wisely, while still reducing administrative costs and overhead.  Many of the changes for the Graduate School are to reduce costs and decentralize responsibilities when there are great redundancies in the system.

 

Sometimes it is necessary to make a decision and then engage the community in assessing the decision and implementing it appropriately, but he agreed that a shared governance model is necessary to the process of shared sacrifice, which will include administration.

 

Q: How can the University system do a better job to highlight the differences between the campuses?  Too often, campuses within the system are all competing for the same students and moreover, those same students are not aware of the other options within the system that might fit them better.

 

A: This is has been made a priority by Senior Vice President Jones for this year and is one reason that he suggested instituting a common application portal to the University.  This would allow the student to submit one application and have it submitted to multiple campuses.  Each campus has a unique academic profile, so a better way needs to be found to work as a system and leverage joint resources.

 

 

20. UNIVERSITY SENATE ADJOURNMENT

 

The University Senate was adjourned at 4:00 p.m.

 

Rebecca Hippert

Abstractor

 

 

 

 


[1] This recommendation will have to be revised to reflect the new graduate program structure after the Graduate School replacement restructuring is complete.

[2] Drucker, Peter F. The New Realities. New Jersey: Transaction Publishers, 2003, preface.

 

[3] Bruininks, Robert H. 2008 State of the University Address, closing sentence.

[4] Peter G. Peterson Foundation Web site, www.pgpf.org.

 

[5] Kimball, Joe. ÒMinnesota facing negative effects of aging work force, state demographer says.Ó MinnPost.com, Jan. 26, 2009.

[6] Bruininks, Robert H. ÒMinnesota: The State of Education.Ó Association of Metropolitan School Boards Conference Keynote Address, Jan. 26, 2009.

[7] Coffman, Lotus. ÒThe Administration of Research During the Depression.Ó The Journal of Higher Education, Vol. 5, No. 1, January 1934, pp. 1-6.

 

[8] Miller, Matt. The Tyranny of Dead Ideas. New York: Times Books, Henry Holt and Company, LLC, 2009, pp. 231-232.

 

[9] Gray, James. University of Minnesota: 1851-1951. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1951, p. 267.

 

[10] Ibid, and Gray, James. Open Wide the Door: The Story of the University of Minnesota. New York: G. P. PutnamÕs Sons, 1958. pp. 131-132.

 

[11] Lincoln, Abraham. First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1861.

 

[12] Coffman, Lotus. ÒThe Administration of Research During the Depression.Ó The Journal of Higher Education, Vol. 5, No. 1, January 1934, pp. 1-6.