1994-95 UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA No. 1
UNIVERSITY SENATE MINUTES
OCTOBER 6, 1994
The first meeting of the University Senate for 1994-95 was
convened in the Hubert H. Humphrey Center Atrium, Minneapolis
campus, on Thursday, October 6, 1994, at 3:30 p.m. Coordinate
campuses were linked by telephone. Checking or signing the roll
as present were 65 voting faculty/academic professional members,
12 voting student members, 15 ex officio members, and
approximately 200 nonmembers. Professor John Adams, Chair of the
Faculty Consultative Committee presided.
I. STATE OF THE UNIVERSITY ADDRESS
A PARTNERSHIP RENEWED
Nils Hasselmo, President
=============
INTRODUCTION:
=============
The title of this State of the University speech is: "A
Partnership Renewed." Its subtitle is: "A Partnership
Threatened."
The partnership is the partnership between, on the one hand, the
State of Minnesota ‹originally, in 1851, the Territory of
Minnesota ‹ and, on the other, its research and land-grant
university and the students of that university.
This is a partnership that has produced enormous benefits for the
State and its citizens, and that must continue to do so as we move
towards a new millen-nium, and the University¹s 150th anniversary
in the year 2001.
===========================================
A VITAL UNIVERSITY GLIMPSES FROM THE PAST
===========================================
The past vitality of the University of Minnesota can be measured
by the vital-ity of Minnesota's economy‹of the long-term
development of Minnesota's natural and human resources; a
distinguished history over‹soon to be‹150 years:
* a history in agriculture, shaping, reshaping, and
continuing to reshape Minnesota's agricultural and
agribusiness economy‹providing Univer-sity- developed
crop varieties that now make up 80% of Minnesota's $12
billion a year agricultural exports;
* a history in mining, including as good an example as
can be found of long- term thinking and long-term
impact‹decades of research by Professor Theodore Davis
and his colleagues that produced a taconite industry that
has a$2 billion annual impact on northeastern Minnesota;
* a history in forestry, developing and implementing
renewable forest products and ever more sophisticated
forest management, sustaining a strong industry in
northern Minnesota;
* a history in health care, our Medical School and
other health sciences and our University Hospital and
Clinic laying the foundation for the state's leadership
in this field;
* a history in many fields of science and technology,
creating the founda-tion for Minnesota's high technology
industries, particularly computers and biomedical
devices; as Win Wallin, the Chairman of Medtronic said
recently:
"Medtronic would not exist without the
University of Minnesota and Earl Bakken's
collaboration with those doctors."
"...Nor would Medical Alley and most of
its member companies."
Medtronic employees total 10,000‹3,700 working
in Minnesota.
The value of its shares is $6 billion, 4th largest in
Minnesota.
* a history in the social sciences and human service
professions, ensuring the state's national leadership in
creating a more humane human environment;
* a history in the arts and humanities, contributing
to the state's rich cul-tural environment ‹ leadership in
music, art, and theater;
* a history that has produced more than 10,000
graduates a year for the last 20 years;
* a history that by now has created 16,000 full-time,
university jobs not paid for by the taxpayers of
Minnesota; the two-thirds of the total employment in the
University that is not paid for by Minnesota tax dol-lars
in a university that receives only 28 percent of its
total budget from the state;
* a history that has created over 2,000 corpora-tions
by Institute of Tech-nology and Carlson School alumni
alone; employing 370,000 people worldwide, at least
100,000 in Minnesota; with total annual sales exceed-ing
$43 billion, $17 billion generated in Minnesota's
economy;
and on and on and on!
It took a vital University to yield such long-term productivity;
it still does.
==================================================================
THE NEW AGENDA‹A CHANGING SOCIETY AND THE NEW CHALLENGES TO HIGHER
EDUCATION
==================================================================
The new agenda, the agenda of the 1990s and the 21st Century, is
even more important and even more demanding than that of the past.
We face‹at least‹ the following new challenges:
* a knowledge explosion that is creating great new demands
and opportu-nities;
* a technological revolution that is changing the way we
function economi-cally, socially, and culturally;
* a globalization of the economy ‹ and many other aspects
of society ‹ that is creating many new interdependencies;
* a need for unity with diversity that is testing our
institutions, the very fabric of our society;
* a competitiveness in the economy, and ultimately among
societies, that is placing new harsh demands on our
institutions and on us as individu-als;
* a demand for accountability that is putting our values,
our ethical and moral standards, to the test; and, last
but not least,
* a questioning by society of our aims, our effectiveness,
our very value.
On this last point, Bob Zemsky has put it this way in "To Dance
with Change": ³The danger is that colleges and universities have
become less relevant to society precisely because they have yet to
understand the new demands being placed on them."
What are these demands, who or what are the wolves we are dancing
with? Jobs, jobs, jobs; cost-effectiveness; access and service;
accountability; the forces of a market-economy in higher education
that is turning knowledge into a commodity?
We cannot turn our backs on these wolves; they will bite our
heels.
We must face them, face change; look it straight in the face and
say:
We understand the new demands being placed on us. We will meet
them. We will make sure that the University's research, teaching,
and outreach produc-tivity is responsive to these demands, and
that our ability to manage and govern ourselves also meets the new
demands.
This requires‹I want to emphasize this‹that we preserve and
enhance academic excellence but with objectives and outcome
measures that are clearly defined, stated and communicated to our
leaders, to the constituencies we serve, and to the public.
What we need is a partnership that ensures that Minnesota
continues to have one of the leading research universities in the
nation.
* A university whose outstanding scientists, scholars,
and artists work-ing in an environment of freedom of
speech and freedom of inquiry make up the State¹s major
link to the knowledge network that is becom-ing the
backbone of this new global, diverse, technological,
competitive, and accountability-conscious world.
* A university whose outstanding research and graduate
and professional education ensure that we have our own
capability, our own expertise, our own leadership in key
disciplines and professions; in agriculture, business,
and industry; in government and in our civic and cultural
life.
* A university whose undergraduate programs will
provide outstanding learning opportunities for its
students, with special emphasis on those men and women
from all racial, ethnic, and socio-economic backgrounds,
whose talents and commitment will place special
leadership responsibili-ties on their shoulders, a
university that is demanding in its standards but
accessible in its delivery systems.
* A university where knowledge is widely shared and
placed at the service of all citizens; a university in
the community in the true land-grant spirit; a university
that effectively transfers its knowledge.
I¹m speaking of a university whose quality makes it stand out as a
leading research university‹perhaps one of a dwindling number of
research universi-ties‹in this country.
A challenging task?
Yes.
And it is a task that we can fulfill only in partnership, in a new
partnership with the State of Minnesota.
========================
A PARTNERSHIP THREATENED
========================
I speak with special urgency today. We are at a watershed.
The partnership is threatened. The state's most precious asset,
its flagship university‹this great university‹is in jeopardy!
Higher education in this state is in jeopardy.
The reason: A continuing decline in state investment in higher
education, in the University of Minnesota.
Since 1987, the proportion of the total state budget provided for
higher education has declined by 21 percent.
Look at the graph ‹ and let its implications sink in!
If we do not reverse this devastating downward trend, the flagship
university of this state, yes, all of higher education in this
state, may lapse into mediocrity, deadly mediocrity.
The effects of the State's budget cuts have been severe, in spite
of our massive, continuing reallocation of resources.
* We went without salary increases for faculty and
staff in 1991-92 and again in 1993-94.
* A serious erosion in the faculty and staff ranks has
taken place. One thousand faculty and staff positions
have been eliminated since 1991.
* The reallocations to, for example, CLA, IT, and Duluth
that were key elements in our 1991 Restructuring and
Reallocation plan were all but obliterated by the state-
imposed cuts, slowing down or undermining key quality
improvement efforts.
* And, frankly ‹ and perhaps most disastrously ‹ the
severe cuts in the face of such strong self-help efforts
have seriously undermined faculty and staff morale!
The University of Minnesota cannot remain a leading research and
land-grant university on these terms. The University of Minnesota
cannot be the spark plug of the state's economy that it has been
for well over a century; it cannot be the foundation for the
quality of life in this state as it has been for generations! On
these terms!
We must meet the fundamental issue head on. We have had a major
university for nearly 150 years. Is Minnesota to have a leading
research and land-grant university for the next 150?
That's the question before us, before the decision makers of the
state, before all the citizens of the state.
And, that is my basic message today:
The University of Minnesota is in jeopardy! The University of
Minnesota‹a healthy, vigorous, high-quality University of
Minnesota that is indispensable to the welfare of this state and
its citizens‹is in jeopardy!
Let's join forces ‹ inside and outside the University‹for a new
partnership, a new investment of state resources in a University
of Minnesota for the year 2000 and beyond.
==================================
OUR REFORM AGENDA‹SOLVING PROBLEMS
==================================
Sometimes I hear this objection: "Well, the 'U' has this problem,
or that problem, so I can't give it my support."
Yes, there are problems. The changing times themselves present us
with many problems.
But, the important fact is that we, the university community, have
identified and addressed those problems. We have in many ways
been our own harshest critics. We have defined the issues, and
addressed them.
Let me give you a catalog of major changes that we have undertaken
in the past five years or so:
* We have restructured our facilities management, have
introduced a new capital budgeting process, and have
launched a comprehensive master planning effort for all
our campuses.
* We have reorganized our financial management;
established a new strategic planning office and process.
* We have reorganized the Twin Cities Campus into three
provostships, eliminating a layer of bureaucracy; we have
reorganized the manage-ment of the Academic Health Center
under a provost with executive authority, and have
established a new University of Minnesota Health System,
integrating the University Hospital and Clinic with the
Medical School¹s practice plans, to be better able to
function in the new managed care environment.
* We have cut or reallocated $82 million in the past five
years about 15 percent of our state-appropriated
dollars! In order to do this, we have had to close a
campus; eliminate many majors, including most four-year
teacher licensure programs in the Twin Cities; and reduce
many adminis-trative functions.
And the list goes on!
Yes, there are problems. We have addressed them. We will
continue to address them.
Let me now discuss some examples of what we are, what we have
done, and what we are doing, and of the resource problems we face.
I hope these examples will help me make my point: We are
addressing our problems making change; but the lack of state
investment is placing the University in jeopardy.
============================
THE UNDERGRADUATE INITIATIVE
============================
The Undergraduate Initiative, launched in 1990, was designed to
deal with the long- standing effects of over-crowding and
underfunding in undergraduate education.
It was not a change in the mission of the University of Minnesota;
it was a reaffirmation of the fact that high-quality undergraduate
education is an integral part of our mission.
The Morris campus has focused on the need to deliver a quality,
liberal arts experience that has earned repeated national
acknowledgment of the Univer-sity of Minnesota-Morris as an
outstanding liberal arts college.
Our Crookston campus is engaged in a significant and exciting
restructuring of its programs in technical and applied education.
This restructuring is being undertaken in direct response to needs
of the citizens of our state.
The Duluth campus has, through significant internal reallocations,
improved and focused its undergraduate programs and is developing
nationally competi-tive programs in graduate education and
research.
There have been many achievements through concerted faculty and
staff efforts:
* New preparation requirements became effective in 1991 ‹
requiring strong backgrounds in such areas as English,
mathematics, science, and foreign language.
The effect? In 1993, 77.6 percent of new Twin Cities
freshmen had met all of these new requirements in high
school, as compared with 17% in 1986. A sea change!
* A massive new effort has been made to reach prospective
students with good information.
The result? This fall¹s Twin Cities freshman class is
the best in two decades!
Applications have increased by 24 percent in two years.
* 9.6 million in re-invested university dollars have
helped us address problems in recruiting, admissions,
advising, course access, instructional equipment,
training of teaching assistants and faculty, and has
allowed students to learn through an Undergraduate
Research Opportunity Program and new service-learning
courses.
The combined effect of all this? The five-year graduation rate
for the Twin Cities Campus, exclusive of General College, has
improved from 34 percent to 39 percent for students entering in
1982 as compared with students entering in 1988. A 15 percent
improvement in six years.
Rates have also improved at Duluth from 32 percent to 35 percent
and at Morris from 41 percent to 54 percent.
We are continuing those efforts under University 2000: attracting
mostly students from the top quarter in high school, well prepared
students or in special cases students given the opportunity to
prepare themselves in General College for regular college work.
* The new liberal education curriculum is being
implemented this fall through the combined efforts of
many liberal arts and professional school departments.
It combines solid grounding in the major areas of
knowledge physical and biological sciences, history and
social sciences, humanities and the arts, and mathematics
with topics or themes crucial to the times the
international perspective, cultural diversity in the
United States, citizenship and public ethics, and the
environment.
* New partnership programs with North Hennepin and Inver
Hills Com-munity Colleges and a new Transfer Curriculum
are helping provide new access to the special learning
opportunities of the University.
* Crookston has initiated its four-year programs, with
lap-top computers for every student and a new emphasis on
applied, employment-oriented degrees.
Solid education for jobs and life, based on the principle that
liberal and special-ized education complement each other.
U.S. NEWS AND WORLD REPORT this week ranked undergraduate
education on the Twin Cities Campus the 21st best buy in the
country among national universi-ties. This ranking is directly
related to state funding; the educational quality required for the
ranking is dependent on resources available, and the relatively
low tuition required for the ranking is, of course, dependent on
the availability of state funding.
As the legislative auditor pointed out in his report of February,
1994: The rise in tuition at the University has been very
directly related to the reductions in state funding and to
inflation. Using the Higher Education Price Index, reduc-tions in
state funding account for 46 percent of the tuition growth,
inflation for 51 percent, and spending increases in the University
and enrollment reductions for the remaining 3 percent.
Will we get the necessary state investment to sustain quality
improvements and keep tuition at reasonable levels?
Let me give you another example.
THE ARMY HIGH PERFORMANCE COMPUTING RESEARCH CENTER
The Army High Performance Computing Research Center was
established at the University of Minnesota in 1989. It was made
possible by the existence of our world- class Supercomputer Center
and selected investment of state funds.
The State of Minnesota invests about $750,000 a year in this
project.
The original federal grant that established the Center was for
$63,688,309 for the period 1989 through 1995, about $12 million a
year, most of it spent in Minnesota.
The Center¹s researchers also generate an additional $4.3 million
or so from eleven other public sources per year, and about $1
million a year from over thirty industrial sources, for a total of
over $17 million per year.
The Center itself employs 20-25 graduate students every year, and
15 post-doctoral students; about the same number work in related
research projects.
A good return on an investment of $750,000 a year in state
funding!
That return on investment will continue. I¹m happy to report that
Congress-man Sabo announced this morning that the contract has
been renewed $21 million for the next three years, with the option
to renew two more years at $7 million a year.
And then there is the return on the research itself!
And, there are educational benefits as well, even apart from
graduate education: A Summer Institute on High Performance
Computing for Undergraduate Students attracted 18 students this
past summer freshmen through seniors from Minnesota, and
thirteen other universities, including four Historically Black
Colleges and Universities.
A good educational return!
A judicious investment!
Will we have the resources to continue such centers?
These are models for our future development‹on a selective basis.
These kinds of initiatives have placed the University of Minnesota
among the top 16 U.S. universities, public and private, in annual
federal funding for research and development. In 1992-93 our
researchers brought $262 million into the state's economy, quite
apart from the knowledge and skills gained and the jobs created.
These kinds of developments have led to a vigorous patenting and
licensing program. Between 1986 and 1992, we ranked 6th in the
nation in patents and signed 222 license agreements with 179
companies.
Let me give you an example from our outreach.
THE MINNESOTA EXTENSION SERVICE
Outreach, of course, takes many forms. In fact, most if not all
academic units participate in outreach.
The Minnesota Extension Service has broadened its range of
activities significantly in recent years. Essential work with
agriculture continues,drawing on University expertise in the
Agricultural Experiment Station. As part of the Minnesota
Extension Service restructuring plan, its ³re-invention² plan, ten
interdisciplinary areas of specialization within the MES are being
implemented and formal ties have been created with 15 university
colleges, campuses, and other units. This ³re-invention helps MES
address some of the central issues facing Minnesotans: environment
and natural resources, human development, community leadership,
and economic development.
It is work that is truly in the spirit of the land-grant
university, and essential to our communities.
But, both federal and state funding has been cut severely in
recent years. Fees have been introduced for certain services.
Considerable layoffs have been necessary: 72 people have been
laid off since December 1, 1991.
Will the state ‹ which sets the budget for the MES directly as a
state special ‹ will the state renew its commitment to this very
effective instrument for addressing economic and societal
problems?
What are the factors that determine success in research,
education, and outreach?
People, people, people! That's the key! Faculty members who are
the established and future leaders in their disciplines.
Supported by highly qualified staff, and the best technology
available.
Finally, and most important, are we going to have the state
investment to sus-tain the academic departments that make these
teaching, research, and out-reach activities possible?
THE DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY
Take the Department of Psychology, one of our premier departments.
A recent accreditation report written by a Princeton professor
said this:
(p.2) ³it is quite a feat of faculty talent and
commitment that Minnesota has managed to retain its
ranking in terms of quality of faculty and graduate
programs (e.g., ranking of 5 in latest Gourman Report,
1993). This is a notable achievement for a department
with so many students and so few faculty (e.g., Michigan
and Illinois each have approximately twice the faculty
for 60-70 percent the number of graduate students. . .
Lest you think that this department is only concerned
about graduate education, let me quote another passage:
(p.2) ³The Department mounts an extremely impressive and
broad-ranging undergraduate program . . . Special effort
is made to maintain a tradition of core faculty teaching
the core curricu-lum a particularly notable objective
in view of the small faculty and the large enrollments ...
The basic program is well-supple- mented by opportunities for
research participation and individual attention, especially
in the Honors Program.
(p.5) And poignantly: ³Our meetings with faculty,
staff, and students revealed tremendous strengths in all
sectors, but in each case resource limitations threatened
some vital aspects of the programs and offerings.
(p.6) ³The Department is extremely tight on secretarial
and technical support.
(p.7) ³. . . a crying need for computer networking and
support in the Department, and for a budget for equipment
repair and replacement.
and finally:
(p.7) ³A salary gap between Minnesota and its peer
departments at the Associate Professor and young Full
Professor ranks is also worthy of attention to ensure
retention of some very promising scholars who may well
represent the future leadership of the Department.
Overcrowded, underfunded. A national leader that may be slipping!
This is a decline that it has not been possible to stave off in
spite of the fact that CLA, and Psychology, were main recipients
of reallocated dollars in 1991. These investments achieved by
painful reallocation were obliterated by the State¹s budget cuts
in the last few years.
Can this trend be reversed? It must be! We are talking about the
intellectual life blood of the enterprise!
=======================================
UNIVERSITY 2000: A PARTNERSHIP RENEWED
=======================================
The new Partnership Proposal, our budget request to the State for
the 1995-97 biennium, is the first major financial installment in
University 2000 . It identi-fies essential needs, essential
investments‹$137 million worth of investments:
‹ Investment in faculty and staff salaries ‹ $45.4 million,
3 percent of our compensation base for a pool which we
will seek every opportunity to increase. Should the
state's finances improve and/or any other opening present
itself, we would leap at such an opportunity.
‹ Investment in University 2000 Critical Initiatives ‹ $43
million for the biennium including.
* Recruitment and retention of key faculty, to keep
the creative and productive people who give us national
and international leadership, and who provide exceptional
learning opportunities for our students, and to recruit the
next generation of scientists, scholars, and artists to
continue that tradition.
* Strengthening of top-ranked departments and
interdisciplinary centers and programs ‹ our claim to
leadership in research and education‹including the new
Cancer Center and other initiatives.
* Investment in student services, from recruitment and
admission to financial aid, registration, and community
building.
* Investment in educational infrastructure, including
libraries and distance education.
‹ Investment in physical resources to support our academic
programs and at least prevent further deterioration of our
deferred maintenance situation ‹ $33 million;.
‹ And, of course, cancellation of the $16.2 million cut in our
current base that the state's budget cap would impose on us ‹
if maintained!
A total of $137.6 million of investments in the most crucial needs
of the state's flagship university!
Like any good partnership, this partnership is based on objectives
to be achieved, on specific commitments to, and measures of,
outcomes, on specific benchmarks. The investments we are asking
for are tied to specific results to be delivered. Our Partnership
Proposal is a new contract that we are placing before the state.
Among the critical measures are:
* Characteristics of entering students(readiness and diversity)
* Graduation rate
* Student experience
* Post-graduation experience
* Responsiveness to compelling state needs
* Scholarly, scientific, and artistic accomplishment
* Outreach/public service.
We are staking our reputation on being able to live up to
ambitious benchmarks.
If we are given the necessary investments by the state, I have no
doubt we can deliver.
Aren¹t we all spoiling for the opportunity to prove it?
It will take $137 million to begin to restore what has been lost
over a decade or more.
We have every right ‹ and I think obligation ‹ to lay this
proposal out to the Governor and the Legislature. That is what I
have proposed to the Regents.
It is still early, but the early reception by state leaders and by
the Finance Department has been positive. I am absolutely
convinced that our political leaders want to support the
University, but to do it we need to prove that we are even more
important than the many competing needs.
It is important that our proposal does not ask the state for the
entire $137 million. We want a partnership, and we have proposed
a partnership financing agreement:
* $77.7 million from the state over the next two years ‹ a
5.5% per year increase on the proposed capped budget;
* $30.3 million from increased tuition revenue over the
next two years ‹ a 5.5% per year increase;
* $1.5 million from other revenue increases over the next two
years; and
* $28.2 million from University reallocation over the next
two years.
We are asking the students to join us in this partnership to
contribute $30.3 million through tuition increases. We do not do
this lightly, but we do it in the conviction that the students
are the ultimate beneficiaries of the University 2000 plan.
The proposal also launches yet another major restructuring and
reallocation effort, another self-help effort by the faculty and
staff of the University of Minnesota.
$28.2 million has to be carved out of already seriously stretched
budgets to meet our self-imposed target for re-investment of
existing resources. On top of the $82 million already reallocated
or cut from those same budgets over the past five years!
But, if we can do that in partnership with the State with our
main partner giving us abadly-needed infusion of funds -- I
believe we can make yet another major effort to help ourselves.
=================================
THE IMPORTANCE OF A UNITED EFFORT
=================================
It is important that we should be united in these efforts to
secure the future of our University.
Unfortunately, I already see the signs of corrosive dissension.
Yes, of course, we may have differing views. There are many
constituencies within the University, with different aspirations
and concerns. Faculty and staff salaries are a matter of deep
concern.
Ultimately, a biennial request has to serve the interests of the
entire Univer-sity, as an institution of research and education.
Ultimately, a biennial request has to serve the people of
Minnesota. The request that I have placed before the Board of
Regents does that. It is not perfect, but it is a good plan to
which many have contributed over a period of a full year Regents,
faculty, staff, students, community leaders from across the state.
I can assure you that internal strife at this stage will hurt us
badly with the State.
I urge you all, faculty, staff, and students to throw your full
support behind this plan.
This is a sound beginning of what must be done. The Partnership
Proposal lays a sound foundation for what we must do.
United we have a good chance to succeed!
Divided we will most surely fail!
==========
CONCLUSION
==========
For almost 150 years, the University of Minnesota has always been
the state's best partner and investment ‹ short-term and long-
term.
Short-term, every tax dollar invested in the University generates
more than three additional dollars during the same year.
Long-term, the investments in University research, teaching, and
outreach generate far greater returns, in the state's economy, in
the long-term solutions to the social problems that make demands
on the state treasury, in the quality of life in this fine state.
Today, with University 2000 as our vision and plan, and with
specific objectives and demanding benchmarks as a self-imposed
test of our productivity, we can document our investments and the
results they will produce better than ever before.
Those are the messages that we all must communicate to the people
and their elected representatives ‹ standing united in our
commitment to this fine university. With help from Minnesota's
opinion leaders, from members of the Alumni Association, from the
entire University community, and constituencies across the state
with the help of our political leaders we can make that case and
stay on track with a genuine and productive partnership.
Let's go forth!
NILS HASSELMO
PRESIDENT
===========
DISCUSSION:
===========
Following the address, senators and members of the University
community had an opportunity to pose questions to the President.
A summary follows:
QUESTION: According to some estimates, it would take $400,000 to
bring UMM faculty salaries up to the standard of a
Level 1 school among baccalaureate only colleges. To
improve the conditions for staff and to catch up with
physical equipment and the library another $1.5 million
would be needed. Is there anything in the legislative
request earmarked for the extraordinary needs of UMM?
RESPONSE: The University is looking at preserving and rewarding
quality and has built into the budget categories where
that can be done. They include opportunities through
the salary pool, investments in recruitment and
retention of faculty, and investments in the top ranked
departments and programs. All campuses will have
access to these kinds of funds for quality
enhancement.
QUESTION: The current budget proposal requests a real wage cut
against University staff. With such a proposal that
clearly fails to meet employees economic needs, how can
you expect a partnership with AFSCME and other
University employees?
RESPONSE: All employees of the University need to work together
to make as strong a case to the State as it can--one
that is credible and one that the legislators and the
Governor can espouse. It is in that context that
difficult tradeoffs have been made in developing the
request. The 3 percent pool that is being created is
to make the strategic investments in salary increases
that have to be made. At the same time funding needs t
to be set aside to make necessary quality improvements
in order for the University to serve the State even
better.
The President reiterated his belief that the
partnership proposal deals with the competing demands
in a reasonable fashion. It is just a beginning, he
said, but it is time to reverse the trend that has
developed in recent years.
QUESTION: How does the University propose to eliminate crowding
within undergraduate programs?
RESPONSE: The University can reduce overcrowding by using
available faculty resources more effectively and
structuring the curriculum in such a way that the core
curriculum receives first attention. Moreover, it can
set aside more specialized low enrollment courses and
use technology more effectively. There are many
learning opportunities that can be provided through
computer-aided instruction.
QUESTION: How will the responsibilities of the Vice President for
Institutional Relations and the Vice President for
Outreach differ and/or interrelate?
RESPONSE: The Vice President for Institutional Relations will
retain responsibility for development, alumni
relations, University relations, State and Federal
The Vice President for Outreach will focus on strategic
planning for the outreach function and distance
education. The University has an enormous number of
outreach activities and it must develop a strategic
plan in order to ensure it makes the proper investments
in these activities and to maximize the service and
outreach that it provides. Also emerging rapidly in
higher education is the utilization of distance
learning and it will be necessary to seek out a vice
president who has experience and competence in this
area. In order to remain competitive, the University
must assess, plan, and properly position itself in this
emerging field.
QUESTION: The president was asked to comment on the following
review about the decline of the City College of New
York in the context of presenting the meaning of the
University to the State: "The university is the one
site in our culture where knowledge is valued for its
own sake or rather for the free and enlarged views of
human life that it affords. Should it lose that sense
of purpose, the university would be just another social
service institution. Its sense of standards of high
purposes would be mere pretensions and nobody would
care especially whether it lived or died."
RESPONSE: Universities serve society best by being universities--
that is to say, places for free inquiry, free speech,
and free exchange of ideas. The University of Minnesota
must preserve that environment and at the same time see
that the benefits from having free and open inquiry,
research and scholarship, and artistic expression
accrue more systematically to the citizens of our
society who support the institution. That is the
difficult part. How can the University be a place of
free and open inquiry where the creation of knowledge
and insight occurs and at the same time share the
fruits of those labors effectively with our society in
a way that has credibility.
QUESTION: Reciprocity agreements with North and South Dakota and
Wisconsin have been an important factor in recruitment
for the University of Minnesota. What is the likelihood
that those agreements will continue and/or be expanded
in the future?
RESPONSE: One of the advantages of reciprocity is that it
broadens the student market. It enables institutions
like the U of M to draw on some of the best and most
qualified students that it might not otherwise be able
to attract. Reciprocity does pose some problems,
however. For example, the balance of trade with
Wisconsin is extremely skewed in that Wisconsin
students pay Wisconsin tuition in Minnesota, and
Minnesota students pay Minnesota tuition in Wisconsin.
Because the U of M has higher tuition than the U of W
there is a loss of net revenues from Wisconsin
students. On the other hand, the agreement between the
State of Minnesota and the State of Wisconsin is tied
also to income reciprocity and in that area Minnesota
is the net gainer. The University has brought to the
attention of the State its concern about the loss in
revenues in the hopes that it can be reimbursed.
QUESTION: Within the past few weeks both the graduate and
undergraduate branches of student government in the
Twin Cities have withheld their support for the
partnership proposal of the bienniel budget request
because there is insufficient information in it
concerning tuition increases. The President was asked
to clarify his position on the issue of tuition.
RESPONSE: One of the fundamental principles of the University is
that access should not be limited for financial
reasons. Because of this, there is deep concern about
tuition. Forty-six percent of tuition increases within
the past fifteen years can be directly attributed to
cuts in State funding. It is in the best interests of
students to work with the University in seeking an
increase in funding from the State. The President said
he believes this can be done best through a proposal
that is credible, even if it means the students must
shoulder another tuition increase. It is also
important that faculty, students, and staff stand
united in this effort.
QUESTION: The President was applauded for his efforts in
reinvesting and reinvigorating outreach as the third
component of the University's mission and for
establishing a new office for a vice president for
outreach. In connection with the outreach mission, he
was asked how he envisioned the role of University
College as it would be portrayed through the coordinate
campuses and throughout the State.
RESPONSE: University College is an enhancement of the
University's ability to deliver access to education.
It will enable students now enrolled in Continuing
Education and Extension to be better served and will
offer opportunities for access in ways that have not
been available in the past. To quote a well-worn
phrase, the University will be more "user-friendly" by
extending itself throughout the State and by putting
resources where they can be critically important to
serve students.
QUESTION: President Hasselmo was asked to comment on the
widespread concern about the significant increases in
graduate student fringe benefit rates, which for 1994-
95 increased to 43.7 percent. This will make graduate
student assistants more expensive than postdoctural
research associates who work fulltime on research and
who already have a Ph.D., it was noted, and there is
widespread fear that this will result in total collapse
of large sectors of graduate education at the
University.
RESPONSE: The University of Minnesota is trying to deal with a
situation that is not self-imposed and is working very
hard to find a solution. Universities have opted for
different approaches when it comes to dealing with this
particular problem and the President assured the
audience that the administration is doing all that it
can to deal with this matter in a most judicious
fashion.
II. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 4:30 p.m.
MARTHA KVANBECK
Abstractor