Disclaimer: These minutes reflect discussion and debate at a meeting of a committee of the University of Minnesota Senate; none of the comments, conclusions, or actions reported in these minutes represents the views of, nor are they binding on, the Senate, the Administration, or the Board of Regents.
Notes from the 10/4/2007 Student Health Advisory Committee (SHAC) meeting Elissa Hansen, English Department COGS Representative
Smoke-Free Campus
President Bruininks has requested SHAC’s recommendation on a possible regents policy that would ban cigarette smoking on the Twin Cities campus. The Duluth campus has already adopted a similar policy, so it’s an immediate and realistic possibility. I volunteered for a subcommittee that will review the policy to determine its appropriateness. This subcommittee inc ludes students who represent constituencies likely to fall on both sides of the issue (for example, the resident hall rep foresees resistance to the policy, while the Student Athletic Association rep anticipates a positive response). On 11/16/2007, the Healthy Campus Summit at the Humphrey Institute will hold a panel on the possible smoking ban. The day before that, the summit will unveil a recent study linking college-student smoking to lack of insurance, missed work and class, and depression. I think the audience and panelists may prove more amenable to the ban after hearing those statistics. SHAC will select one representative to sit on the panel, but any students may show up to offer thoughts from the floor and possibly to speak with the media present. Could we have a quick vote at the next COGS meeting to get a general sense of how our constituency leans? That would help me contribute effectively to the smoking-ban subcommittee.
Insurance Conversion Plan
Blue Cross/Blue Shield is offering an insurance conversion plan to undergraduates and medical school students who purchase UMN’s student health insurance. The conversion allows twelve months on the student health plan to count toward the previous coverage time needed for new insurance to apply to pre-existing conditions. That’s great, but BCBS is not offering a similar conversion option to those with GA insurance plans. Our only option, should we wish to maintain BCBS coverage after we graduate, is to purchase the insurance out of pocket for a maximum of 18 months. It seems to me that grad students should have the same option to convert to a BCBS plan, even if it wouldn’t have all the benefits that our GA plans have. Bare-bones insurance after graduation is certainly better than no insurance. At the next SHAC meeting, the insurance rep will bring in a flow chart showing all student options, and we will discuss the matter of grad students’ post-graduation coverage at that time.
Flu Clinics
Boynton Health Services has 20,000 doses of flu preventative to administer. Student fees cover the cost, so we can simply go to the Boynton lobby or to any of several walk- in clinics and receive a quick shot. The clinics will also offer the Flu-Mist nasal spray this year; this option contains a “live” but weakened virus, whereas the vaccine contains a “dead” virus (inasmuch as viruses are ever alive or dead, I guess). The vaccine has about a 70% success rate, and when a community’s younger population receives it, the elderly are better protected than if they themselves received it. Boynton will advertise the preventative beginning next week (10/11) via the UMN website, posters, and daily emails to all students and employees. Boynton will also reserve a vaccine supply for high-risk constituencies and send those people additional emails.
Gopher Quick Clinic and Boynton Staffing
The Gopher Quick Clinic saw 479 people in September, but had to turn away a daily average of five or six people because of space limitations. Boynton’s chief operations officer will see if he can locate additional space for the clinic so that it can accommodate all comers. Urgent Care saw about 900 people in September, and Primary Care saw 8,449. Saturday hours have been well attended and will continue. Primary Care is understaffed, which means it takes longer to get an appointment, but it’s getting one new nurse practitioner this month and two new MDs in January. That will bring it up to full capacity. To make scheduling appointments for women’s health easier, Boynton has merged the women’s clinic schedule with the Primary Care schedule. This means that when women seek sexspecific appointments, all qualified providers will show up as options instead of just dedicated women’s healthcare providers.
2:30 - 4:15, 238A Morrill Hall
Present: Judith Martin (Chair pro tem), Arthur Erdman, Daniel Feeney, Steve Fitzgerald, Dan Hennen, Thomas Klein, Joseph Konstan, Kathleen O'Brien, Kathryn Olson, Justin Revenaugh, Karen Seashore, Charles Speaks, Alfred Sullivan Absent: Calvin Alexander, Charles Bachmeier, Rose Blixt, Charles Campbell, Lincoln Kallsen, Michael Korth, Ian MacMillan, Fred Morrison, Tim Nantell, Jacob Olson, Richard Pfutzenreuter, Michael Sertich, Thomas Stinson, Kate VandenBosch, Sue Van Voorhis, Michael Volna, Warren Warwick Guests: Terry Cook, Jerome Malmquist, Steve Spehn
Professor Martin convened the meeting at 2:30 pm.
1. Utilities Update Vice President O'Brien presented a utilities update. She distributed materials and introduced Mr. Steve Spehn, Associate Vice President of Utilities Management, and Mr. Jerome Malmquist, Departmental Director, Facilities Management. Vice President O'Brien noted that the handout was the fourth in a series of updates to the Regents, and she noted that in considering the utilities budget, it was appropriate to look at costs and how to control them, and how to be good stewards of resources. Associate Vice President Spehn reiterated this by highlighting the mission statement, which says "Manage the procurement and distribution of energy and provide facility engineering expertise to support the University's mission of research, teaching and outreach." Mr. Spehn said that their energy management team was a relatively small group for a $91 million budget. Mr. Malmquist added that there were seven student engineers who were a tremendous asset to the team, and noted that they continue to recruit students. Mr. Spehn described the utilities and services provided. Utilities include steam, electricity, chilled water, water, and sewer, sanitary and storm. Services include engineering, commissioning and recommissioning, and University engineering record storage and retrieval. Mr. Spehn pointed out that chilled water is a new utility. He then outlined the technical support services to coordinate campuses. In reviewing the budget, Mr. Spehn noted that for FY07, the Twin Cities campus budget is $91 million and system-wide, the budget is $150 million. He pointed out that steam and electric costs comprise 86% of the budget. Professor Martin said that encouraging people to pay more attention to conservation could make a significant impact in the budget. Mr. Spehn went on to discuss energy principles: reliability, environmental stewardship, and risk and cost management. Mr. Malmquist highlighted notable accomplishments, including utility modeling and their agreement with Foster Wheeler. He said that they were in the second year of a three-year contract. Professor Martin asked how long contracts were and Mr. Malmquist replied that it is usually 25 years, but that the University had renegotiated the contract with Foster Wheeler for three years due to various issues. The renegotiation had made a significant difference and Vice President O'Brien said that the contract provided the opportunity to extend it based on performance. In discussing challenges and strategies as noted in the handout, Mr. Malmquist described the University's relationship with Xcel Energy and how they had been researching reliability issues with Xcel. He cited a recent incident of the St. Paul campus losing power due to failures on Xcel Energy's part. A substation had failed and the facility was only five years old. Professor Martin asked if this sort of thing happened often, and Mr. Malmquist replied that he felt it happened too often. Vice President O'Brien stressed their requirements for reliability and that they were trying to factor that in to future contracts, and she stressed that that failure is not acceptable. Professor Speaks asked who assumed liability in such failures. Mr. Malmquist and Vice President O'Brien said that although it was Xcel's responsibility, the University still bore the brunt of handling the situation. Mr. Malmquist said that Xcel Energy states that the University must provide its own redundancy, or backup system. Professor Speaks asked what N+1 meant, as noted in the materials under Challenges and Strategies. Mr. Malmquist explained that is was a backup in the system. He went on to discuss back-up generators across campus, and that they were reviewing preventative maintenance on them, as this was a significant concern. Mr. Malmquist discussed environmental stewardship, and risk and cost management. He noted that in terms of implementation, they were trying to change consumer behavior in the interest of conservation. Professor Martin pointed out that in some classrooms the lights go off and on automatically, and asked if that technology could be more broadly used. Mr. Malmquist said that although motion detector technology is much cheaper than it used to be, installing it in some buildings is prohibitively expensive in some buildings. He added that they are trying to use such technology whenever possible. Professor Speaks clarified that in all these areas, there is a main system and a back-up system, to which Mr. Malmquist replied yes. Professor Speaks asked who funded each, and Mr. Malmquist replied that Xcel Energy funds the primary system. Professor Konstan asked what the difference was in costs for facilities engaged in heavy research as opposed to a general purpose classrooms or buildings, and asked if there should be two tiers of service and charges. Vice President O'Brien said they'd be charging by use, and Mr. Klein noted that earlier discussions concluded that the concept was valid and had been talked about in SCFP meetings. Questions had been asked about the accuracy of the allocations and the Budget Office had explained their rationale for making the allocation less complex in the first year of the new budget model. They had opted for simplicity and more transparency over greater detail and accuracy. Mr. Malmquist went on to discuss environmental stewardship, and cited accomplishments in energy conservation, bio fuels, and partnering with the academic community. One challenge he cited was the acquisition of a Title 5 permit which would allow the University to test-burn bio fuels. In terms of risk and cost management, Mr. Malmquist discussed the compressed air upgrade in the Academic Health Center, which he cited as a money-saving strategy. The challenges and strategies that faced them were the cost allocation in the budget model. He referred to the risk and cost management chart in the handout, citing their new use of financial instruments as part of their strategy to buy natural gas. Vice President O'Brien explained that this allowed them to secure a price at a very good rate in a period of volatile prices. In comparison, Mr. Malmquist cited other Big 10 schools' gas purchases, noting that the U of MN saved significant amounts of money by using financial instruments. Mr. Malmquist highlighted the utility master plan, citing accomplishments in terms of utility assets identified, production capabilities, and distribution systems modeled. Areas of challenges and strategies included five areas of focus for change and growth, which he described as having divided the campus into five areas to study cost estimates, as well as furthering a central district energy approach. Professor Konstan inquired whether increasing the number of personnel would help to keep energy costs down. In other words, was staff efficiency being held back by the head count? Mr. Malmquist responded, saying that the number of people on the team changes depending on the capital improvements budget and that they were considering adding personnel. He that they were taking a managed growth approach and that some projects were outsourced, and he reiterated that most of the team members had saved the University more than their salary and benefits. Professor Speaks said the presentation was very useful and asked if it might be possible to write a white paper, perhaps 3-5 pages, to explain this aspect of the University, what it does and why it costs what it does. Vice President O'Brien acknowledged that they were considering ways of implementing such a message. Mr. Malmquist referred to the last chart in the handout, which showed how energy usage is continuing to decline, but leveling out. Professor Martin reiterated that there needs to be a way to communicate to people that they can help control costs. She thanked Vice President O'Brien, Mr. Spehn and Mr. Malmquist for the presentation.
2. Emergency Preparedness, Avian Flu Vice President O'Brien distributed information about the University's pandemic influenza planning. She said that last fall they had started planning for an influenza pandemic and had started to develop a work plan. Through sessions on emergency planning, they had strengthened plans and they had an updated plan that had been approved by the State and the Department of Homeland Security. She described the committee addressing these issues, co-chaired by herself and Senior Vice President Cerra. She introduced Terry Cook, Departmental Director, Emergency Management, to speak to this project and she stressed that this was the planning aspect of the project and not the public health aspect of it. Mr. Cook presented materials and said that the emergency operations plan was approved in 2004 and that it was considered a model across the nation. Out of that plan came the Academic Health Center emergency preparedness program to address a pandemic. Mr. Cook reviewed the presentation and said the longer it takes before a pandemic occurs the more lead time they have - thus they'll be better prepared. He stressed that it was essential that panic is avoided inside and outside the University, and that they must know what steps to take in advance to minimize panic. He said that the pandemic influenza exercise they had conducted had clarified roles, responsibilities and expectations; and provided education for University participants. The exercise also identified numerous areas where further planning was needed. Professor Speaks asked about the budget for the planning process. Mr. Cook said that different action items had been assigned to different areas and were absorbed in those budgets. He also noted that different groups are working on supplies needed and developing budgets accordingly, at which time the administration would be approached for funds. Professor Speaks ask how it would all be funded when the pandemic occurs. Mr. Cook said that part of the work plan was identifying possible funding sources and that a proposal was being developed for the federal government as there was funding available. Vice President O'Brien cited the lessons learned from the impact of Hurricane Katrina on the operations of Tulane University. Mr. Cook reviewed the preparedness objectives which included monitoring international travel. Professor Martin noted that this might be difficult to do in times of an emergency. Professor Seashore concurred, saying that the tracking of overseas travelers was already spotty. Professor Konstan said that a large factor in many of these objectives was ensuring that these were not unfunded mandates. Mr. Cook acknowledged that working out these issues was complicated, but that it was important to know where University's human capital was. He pointed out that it will take five to six months to develop a vaccine once the flu mutates and can be transmitted human to human. Mr. Cook continued by citing other preparedness objectives, such as targeted vaccine distribution, preparedness of essential personnel, operations and services, surveillance and case investigation, healthcare needs, student housing needs, internal communications (faculty and students), external communications (government agencies, etc.), and providing services to the broader community. Mr. Cook continued by describing targeted vaccine distribution with pre-determined priority groups. He outlined essential personnel, operations and services, and said that one scenario would be a sudden or increased absenteeism due to public fear and panic. Professor Martin said she assumed most people would stay home in a pandemic, and Mr. Cook agreed, saying that the estimate was a 30-40% absentee rate. He noted that a pandemic would run eight weeks, subside, and then have another eight-week run. Professor Konstan asked how the planning of outside vendors were measured and factored into the University's plans. Vice President O'Brien said that other agencies were doing continuity planning as well, and Mr. Cook added that a template was being developed for units doing continuity planning which asks what can be expected of them when the pandemic strikes. Mr. Cook outline the final points his presentation and said that the risk of pandemic in the future is 100%, and it was unknown if it would be the H5N1 strain. He noted that as it interacts among species, the avian flu will recombine, at which point it would jump species. When transmission is easy, a pandemic occurs. Professor Speaks asked at what level decisions would be made on a day to day basis in the event of a pandemic, and asked if units have groups to decide who will get paid if faculty don't show up. Vice President O'Brien said that Kathy Brown was working with a team to address those questions. Professor Speaks said that guidelines should come from central administration and not each unit, and Vice President O'Brien agreed. Professor Seashore asked if there was a backup plan for those who might neglect their leadership assignments, pointing out that even if someone is in a position of leadership, it doesn't mean they are necessarily risk-averse. Mr. Cook said that they were requesting leadership be three- deep: primary, secondary and third options for people in charge for each unit. Professor Seashore asked if there would be a training program to rapidly train people, pointing out that bureaucracies don't function well in crises. Vice President O'Brien said that the medical response corps is a trained team to act in such instances. Professor Seashore asked about students who may have nowhere else to go. Mr. Cook said that Housing and Residential Services is quite far ahead in their planning stages and their backup strategy includes a list six deep of personnel. Professor Martin said that the academic side won't have that kind of backup as they are not set up to have that kind of arrangement. Professor Konstan pointed out that most disaster planning plans are for impact and recovery, and asked about accommodating classes or determining when the University should be shut down. Professor Martin said she thought it was the Provost's decision if and when to shut down. Vice President O'Brien added that the entire University cannot be shut down and that certain systems would be in place to ensure this. Mr. Cook said that a pandemic is likely to impact at least three semesters and that when the pandemic comes, the university could not depend on outside sources as everyone across the nation will be affected. In closing, he suggested people visit websites for further information about emergency preparedness: Dem.umn.edu, prepare.umn.edu, ready.gov, fema.gov, cidrap.umn.edu, pandemicflu.gov. Professor Martin thanked Vice President O'Brien and Mr. Cook for the update.
3. Administrative Strategic Positioning A discussion ensued regarding the implementation priorities of the Administrative Service and Productivity Steering Committee. Vice President O'Brien said that since September, the administrative task forces have been working on issues, and reports were written in December which identified objectives for the first phase of administrative strategic positioning. She said the report that was available online at the "Transforming the U" website. She distributed information on implementation priorities, and said they were trying to establish the essence of what they were trying to achieve, which was embodied in mission statement. It reads: In support of the University of Minnesota's academic mission, our administrative operations will be the best among our peers, focused on service to faculty, students, staff and units, and driven by performance objectives and define results. Vice President O'Brien noted that priorities established were in four areas: people, information, organization/structure and culture. She said they had been working with Associate Vice President Al Sullivan and the Measures and Metrics Committee in establishing measurements for success. Professor Konstan said there had been long-standing concern among civil service employees that there are limited career paths at the University and that the fourth objective under People somewhat addressed this. It states, "Enhance classification and compensation systems across all job families." Vice President O'Brien said that the task force believed that issues of compensation and development are essential to the University. Professor Martin asked if job advancement didn't fall under SCFA's purview or CAPA/Civil Service committees work. Ms. Olson said that the civil service committee is very interested in the issues, and Vice President O'Brien said that Carol Carrier would address issues with the committee. Professor Seashore expressed concern with project number X111, which she felt was a great idea in theory but should be addressed in a different way. It stated "Define and Foster a Culture that Propels and Reflects the University's aspirations." Vice President O'Brien said that she did not disagree but noted that while a culture change cannot be forced it needs to be paid attention to. She noted that the intent was to identify excellence and success, identify those characteristics, and build on those. Vice President O'Brien asked Professor Seashore to send her comments to the task force, and stressed that they wanted to get people's responses as they continue with their work. Professor Seashore remarked that the system of sending comments via e-mail was a good idea but that the process was very uninviting, given the multiple layers of surveys she had tried navigating. Vice President O'Brien said that the consultations they'd done over the fall had garnered much important feedback.
Professor Martin concluded the meeting at 4:35 pm.
9:30 - 11 a.m. 510 Morrill Hall
Present: William Durfee (chair), Arlene Carney, Tracey Anderson, Tom Clayton, Nancy Ehlke, James Farr, John Mowitt, G. Edward Schuh, Jennifer Westendorf, Jianyi Zhang Absent: Ronald Siegel Guests: General Counsel Mark Rotenberg, Senior Vice President Robert Jones
Professor Durfee convened the meeting at 9:30 a.m. He reviewed the action items from the last meeting, which included an e-mail to all faculty. He asked the committee if they still wanted to do this, the committee responded yes. Professor Durfee said he would draft a statement and asked for suggestions for the statement. Professor Clayton suggested attaching the Academic Bill of Rights to the statement as he felt it was important for people see it. Professor Durfee said it would be a broadcast e-mail and asked how it should be titled. Professor Westendorf suggested keeping it short and making people aware that the committee exists and its purpose. Professor Durfee said he would try to send it before the next meeting.
1. Academic Freedom Policies Professor Durfee welcomed Mark Rotenberg from the Office of General Counsel. Mr. Rotenberg began by saying that academic freedom is an important topic at institutions around the country, and noted that the committee had added "Academic Freedom" to its title to state its role at the University. Professor Durfee added that it is important to have a place to discuss issues of academic freedom and that the committee had had vigorous discussion about what academic freedom means. He noted that academic freedom issues could relate to legal issues, particularly in the event the legislature passes laws regarding academic freedom. Professor Durfee asked Mr. Rotenberg about the legal implications of the academic freedom statement. Mr. Rotenberg stated that questions about the tenure code and legal status of the term "academic freedom" have often arisen, especially as of late. He said that his office had a long-term perspective on the issue, and he offered several observations. He cited the history of education and academic freedom, and said that academic freedom was essential to higher education. It did not exist in its current vigorous form before the 20th century, and through the 20th century, the expansion of public higher education dramatically expanded the rights of people to express themselves. Thus, the principles of academic freedom became more robust. Mr. Rotenberg highlighted two essential components of academic freedom: the rights of students and faculty as individuals, and the independence of the institution from political pressure. He went on to describe the evolution of academic freedom principles, and said that the University of Minnesota has a well-developed concept of autonomy and independence from legislation compared to other institutions. Professor Durfee asked where the University stood compared to other institutions, in terms of the Regents' statement. Mr. Rotenberg replied that the University of Minnesota is well positioned to defend itself from legislative or gubernatorial attacks. He added that public attacks of the institution will continue, as well as attacks from other quarters, and it is necessary to maintain a robust atmosphere of inquiry. Professor Schuh asked how often the University has had to use the autonomy provision, and Mr. Rotenberg responded twice over the past ten years. He pointed out that more often, the university defers to faculty. He cited examples that, in many cases, when tenure is denied or revoked, the plaintiff cites discrimination. The University uses the autonomy clause which indicates that the courts should not second-guess the decision of the institution. Mr. Rotenberg said the University usually wins such cases, with the courts saying that it is up to faculty to decide who should be on its faculty and that is where the principles of autonomy usually come to bear. Professor Zhang asked about tenure cases in which individuals sued the institution. Mr. Rotenberg said that such cases are usually litigated outside the university and when such cases are contested inside the university, it is likely to be litigated outside the University. Professor Zhang asked what the committee's role and function was in those cases. Professor Durfee clarified that the committee deals with policy and changes in the tenure policy, and that the Senate judicial committee hears the cases. Professor Farr asked about instances in which a faculty member is legally attacked, defamation or harassed and if the defendant would apply for help through the General Counsel's office. Mr. Rotenberg said that his office would investigate the case and if warranted, defend the faculty. Professor Westendorf asked about incidences occurring outside the University, to which Mr. Rotenberg replied that if it is outside the scope of the person's employment, the request for representation through the general counsel's office would be denied. However, Mr. Rotenberg noted that a majority of requests are granted, and the University has other resources and means to support faculty beyond the scope of his office. He also added that the University sought to give a full-bodied expression of academic freedom and ensure that the principles are publicly supported. Mr. Rotenberg reiterated that their mandate was to support the prerogatives of the institution. He noted that most of their work was defensive, and that the University does not represent person in private interests when it is not congruent with the University's mission, nor do they deal with disputations with faculty. Professor Mowitt cited the academic bill of rights and asked to what extent it is vulnerable to interpretative challenge. He asked questions regarding how it affects students vs. faculty and at what point the autonomy provision kicked in. Mr. Rotenberg cited legal precedents and said that if there are ambiguities to the clause, the tactic is to argue the ambiguities. In terms of the issue of students vs. faculty, he noted that it primarily comes from a students' rights perspective and that the students' rights movement had grown considerably in the past twenty to twenty-five years and needed to be seen in that context. The policy comes from a more student-centered notion, and the need to respect and appreciate that students are embodied accordingly. Professor Mowitt asked if the University was protected by the doctrine and if the autonomy doctrine is becoming more vulnerable. Mr. Rotenberg noted that this was an emerging issue, and that the autonomy doctrine may not protect the University from student claims and noted to Professor Durfee's concern that the documents don't speak as clearly to student interests as much as they would like. He predicted that there will be more pressure for formal documents to give more voice to student issues. Professor Mowitt asked where in the Regents' policy it spoke to protecting students' rights. Mr. Rotenberg said the policy does so indirectly with oblique references to students' rights. Professor Farr asked about a student grievance policy and Mr. Rotenberg clarified that that was for students being accused of rule infractions. Professor Durfee thanked Mr. Rotenberg for the information he presented to the committee.
2. Post-tenure Review Policies Professor Durfee updated the committee on post-tenure review issues and welcomed Vice President Jones to the meeting. Professor Durfee noted that post-tenure review had been instituted in 2000- 01, and that it was appropriate for the committee to review and update the policy accordingly. Dr. Jones distributed an update which gave background on the formation of post tenure review, and highlighted summary data in the document. He noted the goals of post-tenure review and implementation, and said that the post-tenure review process was introduced as a part of the 1997 revision of the Regents' Policy on Faculty Tenure. It is a peer-driven process conducted at the departmental or other academic unit level, with primary oversight by the unit heads and deans. Dr. Jones cited other institutions that have implemented post-tenure review processes, and said that the University had followed standards, policies and practices as established by the American Association of University Professors. Dr. Jones stressed it was a misperception that the process was a means of getting rid of undesirable faculty; rather, it is a mechanism to maintain academic vitality, foster continuous improvement and recognize peer contributions. He noted that it is also part of an accountability process to encourage faculty to continue to do their job to the best of their ability. Dr. Jones continued by reviewing the structure of the process, stressing that everyone had to go through post-tenure review, and that some units could review 1/3 of its faculty on a rotating basis. The professional development plan was created as a remedy for unsatisfactory performance. The dean then could make subsequent recommendations, such as a reassignment of duties or reduction of salary. If that is insufficient, then the dismissal process is effected. Dr. Jones also noted that the tracking process had been underway since 1999, and that 92 to 93 faculty are reviewed a year. Ninety-eight percent of these were found to be performing at a satisfactory level. He noted that the Regents wondered if the process was effective with such a high percentage. Dr. Jones highlighted some factors in considering that concern. The numbers do not reflect the six to eight faculty who retire rather than go through the post-tenure review process. Also, the process is not executed exactly the same way across colleges. In addition, the University has a rigorous promotion process in the first place. Dr. Jones added that the post-tenure review process does provide a degree of accountability for the University, and it provides the opportunity to put into place a professional development plan for the faculty member. He added that at other institutions there is a gap between how valuable administrators and faculty feel the process is. Vice Provost Carney added that she was struck by how many units had appended their review processes as indicated in 7.12 statements. She said variances should be expected but that each unit's plan should have clarity. Some units have stated clear objectives as to what constitutes appropriate scholarship for faculty while others are more general. Vice Provost Carney noted that if the language is ambiguous in each plan, it allows for wiggle room, but they do need to state what the minimum amount of scholarship is acceptable. In addition, there needs to be consensus among faculty about this, as some language is too ambiguous. Most 7.12 statements have more specific language about promotion among professorships, and she stressed that the appropriate values and criteria need to be established in the statements. Dr. Jones agreed, and said that post-tenure review does allow for a remedy for situations, and he stressed that it is not an easy process for dismissal. He added that a critical issue is how to deal with research being a part of everyone's job duties. Vice Provost Carney said that one unit identified a minimal research component to ensure that people were engaged on some level of scholarship. Professor Mowitt said that the language in 7.12 statements will always have the taint of ending someone's job, so it will always be phrased ambiguously. He noted that there should be a positive aspect noted in the statement, stressing the positive aspect of the process. Vice Provost Carney cited an example in her career which was an egregious abuse of the tenure which then tainted the view of faculty as a whole and said it might be reasonable to ask for statements to respond to requirements. Vice Provost Carney acknowledged the dilemma of the language being too vague vs. being too specific, and cited the variance in clarity. Professor Mowitt asked if 7.12s are intended to flesh out provisions in the tenure code and Vice Provost Carney said yes, and that this committee would be valuable in discussing further issues of the 7.12. She said that many task forces had brought up 7.12 issues in their reports and noted that many would like to see them be a much more robust document in addressing the issues. Professor Durfee asked if the post-tenure review statements were drafted by college and Dr. Jones said that they were approved by deans, then submitted to provosts to review and approve. Professor Durfee thanked Dr. Jones and Vice Provost Carney for the information they presented.
Professor Durfee adjourned the meeting at 11 a.m.
2:30 - 4:15 238A Morrill Hall
Present: Morris Kleiner (chair), Arlene Carney, Dann Chapman, Vladimir Cherkassky, A. Saari Csallany, Will Durfee, Janet Ericksen, John Fossum, Patricia Frazier, Theodor Litman, Steven McLoon, Jane Miller, Kelly Risbey, Rod Squires, Larry Wallace, Timothy Wiedmann, Virginia Zuiker Absent: Matthew Bribitzer-Stull, Carol Carrier, Darwin Hendel, Eric Gupta, Oriol Valls, Lori- Anne Williams, Aks Zaheer Guests: Connie Tzenis, Dean Steven Rosenstone, Associate Dean James Parente, Dr. Peter Zetterberg
Professor Kleiner convened the meeting at 2:35 pm.
1. Report from Committee Members on Endowed Chair Review Processes Professor Kleiner solicited reports from various committee members regarding endowed chair review processes in their particular colleges. Professor Wiedmann said that in the College of Pharmacy it is an informal process whereby the dean and the head of the department discuss the endowed chair, and there is no faculty involvement. He added that there are four endowed chairs and they are permanent appointments. Professor Litman asked if the Chair remained in the department, and Professor Wiedmann replied that the chair is defined within a discipline so it would difficult to move. Professor Durfee said that in Mechanical Engineering, endowed chairs were determined department by department. Professor Frazier said that in Psychology, the chairs are in perpetuity though they are supposed to be reviewed. Professor Wallace said that in Veterinary Clinical Sciences, there are a couple of endowed chairs underway: one has funding and the other has a search committee established. However, as of yet, there is no one in those chairs. He added that two other departments have endowed chairs with people who've been in them a long time. Professor Csallany reported that in Food Science and Nutrition, there is one endowed chair and the money for the chair is to the department, not the individual. Professor Fossum said that in the Carlson School of Management most chairs are not additional positions, just funding for a position. Endowed chairs pay a faculty salary and term professorships are appointed on a three-year basis. There is an evaluation committee comprised of faculty, and some chairs are for specific positions as indicated by the donor. Some chairs reside in a specific department. Term professorships are renewed every three years and chairs are renewed every five years, and both are required to complete annual reports. Professor Kleiner's report summarized how chairs function in the Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs: titled faculty are evaluated by an elected faculty committee, and the Dean evaluates each faculty member. Chair faculty and regular faculty are evaluated in similar manners. Professor Kleiner suggested that his written summary could be used as a template for further evaluation and research on the matter. He also noted variances in each of the department endowments, and said that the committee would continue gathering data to see if a policy should be developed. Professor Durfee asked Professor Wiedmann to follow up with people on collecting further information, and said that Professor Kleiner's template is helpful in moving forward.
2. Request and Discussion with Dr. Tzenis on Evaluation of Instruction Professor Kleiner welcomed Dr. Tzenis from the Center of Teaching and Learning Services. Dr. Tzenis told the committee about Dr. Raoul Arreola's upcoming visit to the University to facilitate a conference on teaching evaluations. Dr. Tzenis said she felt it was a priority for Dr. Arreola to work with the committee and asked members for help in establishing how best to use his time at the University. She noted that she had met with the Senate Committee on Educational Policy and had developed a plan based on their suggestions, and that she would now like to incorporate this committee's changes and additions. The committee reviewed Dr. Tzenis's proposal and a discussion followed. Professor McLoon expressed skepticism that a student survey was an accurate measure of the mission of education in the first place, and wanted Dr. Arreola to take a position on this. Dr. Tzenis said that she would ask Dr. Arreola to address this. Professor Kleiner asked if Dr. Arreola was going to address evaluation of outcomes and Dr. Tzenis suggested that the committee present this in their small groups. She said she would send information to the committee members about Dr. Arreola's background and a summary of student evaluations. Professor McLoon expressed the need to adopt change but that faculty must be convinced and therefore should be invited to Dr. Arreola's presentation. Dr. Tzenis clarified that all faculty would be invited to all the sessions that Dr. Arreola would be facilitating. Professor Miller said she appreciated the need for faculty involvement but that different groups have different decision making processes, and different groups have different needs. Dr. Tzenis expressed her concern that with a large general audience it would be difficult to move forward accordingly. Professor McLoon suggested that a committee spend time with Dr. Arreola, and Dr. Tzenis again stressed that she would review the ideas that the committee established, incorporate them into Dr. Arreola's agenda, and review it with the committee. She thanked the committee for their time.
3. Endowed Chairs in CLA Professor Kleiner welcomed Dean Rosenstone and Associate Dean Parente to the committee to discuss the topic of Endowed Chairs in CLA and the different ways that evaluations occur. Dean Rosenstone discussed the ways that some chairs rotate: for instance, in one department, a chair is assigned to faculty for a fixed term. The chairholder's performance is then evaluated and a determination is made whether to re-appoint the chair or award it to someone else. In most cases, chairs and professorships are tied to a specific field and some to a specific department. He noted that there were just a few number of chairs in CLA that can be used at the discretion of the college. Moreover, in most case there is no special prescription of what is required of a chair. Dean Rosenstone went on to cite different examples of different requirements for chairs. He added that the one constant is the annual review of all chair holders as part of the faculty merit review process. Professor Wiedmann asked if it would be valuable for the committee to develop a policy for chairs. Dean Rosenstone said that the highest aspirations of the institution should be embodied in the expectations for chair holders, and while they are reviewed on a regular basis, he felt there was no practical way to apply additional uniform standards to all chairs. Associate Dean Parente added that there were standards for chairs but that a policy might inhibit to some degree negotiating with candidates for chairs. Professor Kleiner expressed concern with the checks and balances in place for chairs, suggesting that a chair might want a faculty member out of their position. He reiterated the committee's concern about faculty input in the process. Dean Rosenstone gave examples of drawing upon endowed chairs to enable the college to compete with comparable major institutions to retain outstanding facutly. He noted the University strives through the merit process to act in a preventive manner.Assessment of who is most deserving to hold an endowed chair is based on information from the merit review process--a process that faculty is involved in. Professor Kleiner asked him if there would be any objection to a statement that faculty input be part of the process. Dean Rosenstone said no, but that that was already part of the process. He said he felt that they were meeting the spirit of the intent already, and if the committee recommends it, that it would be consistent with current practice in CLA. Dean Rosenstone also noted that two things they were trying to avoid was putting valued colleagues in a situation in which they were being turned down for an honor or adding more bureaucracy to the process. Professor McLoon asked about the process of endowed chairs that reside within specific departments and Dean Rosenstone gave examples of recruiting and appointing faculty to such chairs. Professor McLoon asked if faculty had a say over every appointment and Dean Rosenstone indicated that faculty consultation is indeed part of the process. He gave an example of recruitment, and said that many chairs are restricted in terms of what field they can be in. He stressed that they were walking a fine line of using input from departments without complicating theprocess. Professor Wiedmann asked that if the committee came up with a policy statement, would he consider it. Dean Rosenstone replied he would be pleased to, but asked that the committee be sensitive to the variety of different types of chairs throughout the University. He urged the committee to consider ways to use precious resources which are crucial in faculty retention, and stressed that they wanted to effectively use those resources. Professor McLoon asked about salary obligations to faculty members. Dean Rosenstone said that in some cases, chair resources are being used to meet the base salary obligation to faculty members and suggested that a paragraph be included in the hiring letter that indicates a statement of expectations. He said that the aspirations of the chair are often outlined in the donor's endowment of the chair, and that he hoped this conveyed a sense of the responsibility that came with the chair. Professor McLoon noted the limited resources available and asked how to remove someone from a chair who was ineffective, and said that how the letter is written should be taken into consideration in the future. Professor Csallany queried as to whether the question should be left alone since it was so complicated. Professor Kleiner said that the question is, should there be a policy that governs the appointments. A discussion followed. Dean Rosenstone suggested that perhaps an affirmation of norms and expectations of good practices might be helpful. Professor Wallace said that he assumed there were no endowed chairs that escaped the merit review process, and Associate Dean Parente confirmed that was correct. Dean Rosenstone reiterated that all faculty are treated the same in the merit review process regardless of fund source, and said that they'd be pleased to give comments on a draft of a statement. Professor Kleiner thanked them for their discussion with the committee.
4. Faculty Cultures Professor Kleiner welcomed Dr. Zetterberg, who presented information on faculty cultures. He noted that the strategic plan for the University is dealing with issues of faculty culture and he distributed materials outlining such cultures. Dr. Zetterberg cited NIH, USDA and NSF cultures and reviewed the differences in cultures. He pointed out that while the University did not establish these cultures, they have just evolved, it is helpful recognize these differences. Dr. Zetterberg stressed that these were observations, not analyses, and noted that these different cultures are why it is so difficult to develop policies or models that work for everyone. Even discussions of "common good" are difficult because of the different "worlds" of the institution. Dr. Zetterberg also cited other major institutions which have parallel cultures and noted that the different cultures are driven by funding source. The committee discussed the various differences in cultures, and Dr. Zetterberg noted that while there might be overlap or some might not fit into any of these cultures, they were just discussing fundamental differences. Vice Provost Carney asked about cultures that are underfunded and don't fit into any of these groups, noting that this is a sizable group. Dr. Zetterberg reiterated that for the purposes of this discussion, he was speaking to fundamental differences in the predominant cultures, as these differences affect how policies are determined and effected across campuses.
Professor Kleiner thanked Dr. Zetterberg for the informative discussion and adjourned the meeting 4:10 pm.
1:15 - 3:00 238 Morrill Hall
Present: Steven Ruggles (chair), Mark Ascerno, Dianne Bartels, Lyn Bearinger, Arlene Carney, Christopher Cramer, Penny Edgell, Genevieve Escure, Paul Johnson, James Luby, Tim Mulcahy, Brian Reilly, Maria Sera, Virginia Seybold, Charles Spetland, Barbara VanDrasek, Ed Wink, Michael Volna, Jean Witson Absent: Richard Bianco, Dan Dahlberg Sharon Danes, Robin Dittman, Kathy Ensrud, J. Stephen Gantt, Jake Granholm, James Klaas, Mark Paller, Thomas Schumacher, Virginia Seybold, George Trachte Guests: Brittany Lloyd, David Lee Other: WinAnn Schumi Professor Ruggles convened the meeting at 1:15 pm.
1. Enterprise Financial System project Professor Ruggles welcomed Ms. Brittany Lloyd, and she and Mr. Michael Volna presented an update on the Enterprise Financial System. They distributed supporting materials, and noted that the new financial system enhances the sponsored and nonsponsored financial management capabilities of the University, and that the system is part of the necessary infrastructure for a top 3 public research university, as well as being a transformational project within the President's strategic positioning efforts. The project from January 2004 to July, 2005 included a joint analysis and design for budgets, general ledger, and chart of accounts; implementation of the treasury module; and plan for Phase 2. Implementation of Phase 2, underway in August 2005, encompasses accounts payable and employee expenses; accounts receivable and billing; asset management; endowments/treasury; grants, projects and contracts; general ledger; chart of accounts and management reporting; and purchasing. It also includes technical, functional and change management teams. Ms. Lloyd referred to the handout distributed and highlighted the fact finding summary, which illustrated the progression of the current proposal/award process. The grants fact-finding summary recommendations include retaining EGMS for proposal preparation and routing, as well as the use of full PS Grants suite to replace remaining grants systems. She acknowledged that having data in one format is critical in moving forward as a Top 3 institutions. Ms. Lloyd reviewed the reasons for the recommendations which include the data being in one format; integrated F&A expenditures and allocations; enhanced functionality; commitment control; and continued use of EGMS proposal preparation. Some parts would be eliminated: for example, EGMSi and CUFS. Ms. Lloyd reviewed the EFS project timeline and work plan, and summarized the analyze phase. Upcoming activities include preparing for conference room pilots (system simulations) and documenting future business processes. She said that determining what system modifications will be completed to enhance delivered functionality and a critical milestone will include input from the committee. She went on to cite the implications for sponsored research. These include retention of EGMS; certified approvers; enhanced financial competencies; roll out strategies and more accessible financial data. Mr. Volna expounded on the enhanced financial competencies, saying that he was working with departments to establish policies and procedures. He emphasized that the purpose was to simplify the lives of departments, and noted that there hasn't been an effective means of communicating functionality of the system. At this point, they were trying to ensure that end users can use the system as needed. Mr. Volna also noted that many end users expressed concern that their jobs would be eliminated if the system changed and he assured the committee this would not be the case. Professor Edgell asked who the typical end users were, and Mr. Volna replied that in identifying end users, five or six key roles have been identified which include initiator, preparer, approver and end user. Professor Edgell and Mr. Volna agreed that the system needs to be flexible for the initiator. Mr. Volna stressed that flexibility lies not in the system but in the policy. Once the policy is set, the system needs to accommodate it and the vision they are working toward is striking the right balance from policy to initiator to end user so it works more effectively and efficiently for everyone. Ms. Lloyd added that as the project continues, they are focused on the integrity of the strategic initiative, and she emphasized that if the launch occurs as planned, there will be much more data available in the central database. Professor Edgell pointed out that various tracking capabilities and report generating functions are essential to small foundations who don't like working the bureaucracy of large institutions and that flexibility in such would help in dealing with smaller foundations. Ms. Schumi said it would be helpful to forward such comments to the task forces. Professor Bearinger asked that the various needs of the departments be kept in mind as the project moves forward, particularly concerning the financial management of training grants as well as research grants. Bearinger indicated that the financial reporting and monitoring of training grants differ from research grants, particularly if they are cross-school, cross-disciplinary training grants. Professor Cramer added that when it comes to reporting, there should be a mechanism to remind principal investigators (PIs) when a report is due. Ms. Lloyd said that she would see that this was taken into account. Edgell asked if there was a system for NIH grants, for example, by which grant reports can be organized by codes that the NIH uses vs. those of the University. Lloyd said there are rules and ramifications if that is not set up properly and that they would continue to run scenarios. Volna said this too would be taken into consideration Mr. Volna added that they'd tried to consult with a broad variety of people who might be affected by policies, and in making the changes, they analyzed and canvassed all who might be affected. Professor Escure asked for clarification regarding travel policies, and Mr. Volna outlined the policy, noting that as of January 1, the University had changed the per diem policy. He noted that the new policy established, clarified and simplified per diems, and said that the university will pay out up to $300, 000 more in per diems but the money saved on administrative costs far outweighs this. Returning the discussion regard the Enterprise Financial System, Ms. Witson asked if there was a way the initiator could trace how grant monies were being spent, rather than just seeing the balance. She noted that PIs have a difficult time tracking expenses and asked if the new system will be clearer and if PIs will have access to that data. Ms. Schumi responded that reports are available on the web and tell how much is available, how it is budgeted, and percentages allocated. Categories may be chosen based on account numbers and one can go on-line any time to track these figures. Mr. Volna asked if she was using reporting tools developed by AHC, and Professor Bearinger added that in the School of Nursing this information was accessible on-line with immediate updates. Professor Bearinger also suggested that, given some shadow reporting systems had been developed, presumably to address gaps in the current systems, these be considered in identifying ways to adapt the new system to meet current needs for grants management and reporting. Mr. Volna said that his department had identified many shadow systems across the University and they were then trying to incorporate practical aspects of such shadow systems, with the intent of eliminating such redundant systems. The goal was to provide functionality after identifying the nature of the shadow systems. Professor Ruggles thanked Mr. Volna and Ms. Lloyd for presenting the information to the committee.
2. Human Tissue and Specimens in Research and Teaching Professor Ruggles welcomed to the meeting David Lee, Director of the Anatomy and Bequest program. Mr. Lee presented a draft of the policy regarding procuring, using and disposing of human specimens used for research and teaching, and said that the draft had been established due to an audit of the bequest program. There were concerns that specimens were coming to the University but not through the bequest program; the development of the bequest program was to establish a consent process in the donation and procurement of human specimens. He pointed out that many donation programs are problematic and use unsavory and unethical practices. He expounded on the reasons for the policy, and explained that the use of donated bodies is regulated by the 1987 Uniform Anatomical Gift Act. According to the act, the University must ensure that individuals who donate bodies or the body parts give informed consent to use these remains for research and teaching. The Anatomy Bequest Program has mechanisms for verifying that vendors have obtained informed consent for the specimens they handle. When the research or teaching activity is complete, the specimen must be disposed of according to environmental health and safety regulations, and the wishes of the next-of-kin. The Anatomy Bequest Program ensures that final disposition meets both health and safety regulations, and contractual obligations. Mr. Lee noted that the policy indicates that donations should be facilitated through the program directly, so the donations come through the appropriate channels and are appropriately documented, and appropriate final dispositions are made. He indicated that they are working on a final draft policy for the University. Professor Bearinger asked about the relationship between HIPAA and body donation, and how one affects the other. Mr. Lee said that bodies are assigned a number for the system, which allows students access to the information about the specimen but there is no name attached to the specimen. Further, students are reminded to follow HIPAA regulations. Mr. Lee went on to say that although a uniform anatomical gift act was initially effective, many for-profit body programs exist which have no policies in place. He said that University was trying to be proactive in the matter, as many private companies are not doing due diligence in the distribution and implantation of body parts. Professor Cramer asked if there were periodic inventories of bodies, to which Mr. Lee responded that the bequest program has a very good tracking mechanism in place and the audit confirmed that. To answer Professor Escure's question about definition of the terms vendor vs. donor, Mr. Lee clarified that a vendor processes the body and supplies the needed parts, and charges fees accordingly, though it is illegal to sell bodies. Whereas a donor makes a statement during his or her lifetime that they would like to make a gift of their body at the time of death, and the family must give consent to that when the death occurs. Professor Ruggles thanked Mr. Lee for the information.
The meeting concluded at 2:25 pm.
1:15 - 3:00 238A Morrill Hall
Present: Jean Bauer (chair), Gary Balas, Nancy Carpenter, Carol Chomsky, Barbara Elliott, Dan Feeney, Megan Gunnar, Mary Jo Kane, Kathleen Krichbaum, Scott Lanyon, Judith Martin, Richard McCormick, Fred Morrison, Terry Roe, Steven Ruggles, Martin Sampson, John Sullivan, Jennifer Windsor Absent: Morris Kleiner, Marvin Marshak Guests: Carol Carrier, Nan Wilhelmson, Becky Hippert Other: Katie Stuckert
Professor Bauer convened the meeting at 1:20 pm.
1. Use of Courtesy Titles Professor Bauer welcomed Carol Carrier to the meeting. Ms. Carrier discussed academic appointments: she defined current use of courtesy and adjunct appointments and the use of the term affiliate, outlined reasons for P&A teaching appointments and discussed current usage of without salary (WOS) appointments. One reason for use of WOS appointments is to indicate teaching effort by assigning a courtesy faculty rank or an academic professional (teaching specialist or lecturer) appointment when the primary appointment held is an academic professional or administrative position with non-instructional duties. The committee discussed this use of courtesy faculty titles. There was general concern expressed that faculty titles are given too freely, and Professor Martin said there was discomfort among faculty with this practice. She said that it was confusing because those with courtesy titles are not distinguished from regular appointed faculty, and Professor Gunnar pointed out those faculty do not go through the tenure process. Professor Roe asked what happened when a title is taken away after it is bestowed. Ms. Carrier referred to a proposal that was under discussion that requires a review of the courtesy WOS appointments with faculty title on a yearly basis prior to any renewal. Professor Morrison felt titles were devalued: he questioned the number of associate professors, and said that he felt the appointments should go through a review process similar to the promotion process. Dr. Carrier said that every college must submit a plan on how it will use titles. She asked the committee if there should be more stringent policies. Professor Martin said she felt the title should be "adjunct" professor if the person did not go through the review process. The committee discussed the faculty hiring process. Professor Lanyon raised the issue of how such hires present themselves to the community, and that they should identify themselves as adjunct. Ms. Carrier said that certain restrictions on use of the title could be noted in the letter of hire. Professor Carpenter said she felt that an adjunct title would not work on the Morris campus, and Ms. Carrier clarified that this was in relation to WOS positions. Professor Roe asked about adjunct professors who may be tenured faculty in other departments. Ms. Wilhelmson clarified that if someone has an appointment, he or she can also have an adjunct position in another department as well. Professor Krichbaum asked if there might be clarification of internal uses of titles, and cited an example where someone hadn't gone through the hiring process but used the "professor" title. Professor Lanyon felt that some working titles should be permitted, but that units needed to monitor courtesy appointments. Dr. Carrier suggested incorporating stronger language in the hiring contract, and said that while it won't guarantee anything it could help to establish regularity. Professor Feeney asked if there were regulations as to how titles could be used, for instance, on business cards and the like, and expressed his concern about people portraying an affiliation which does not exist. Dr. Carrier said this would be difficult to regulate, if some sort of affiliation does indeed exist. Professor Feeney stressed his feelings that there should be some mechanism for regulation. Professor Morrison suggested that "adjunct" not be the only adjective used, and that perhaps "clinical" or "auxiliary" might be used in certain cases. Professor Sullivan said that in the School of Law, some people have joint appointments, even joint tenure, but that even those with courtesy appointments receive a letter of appointment that says they can use "Professor of XXX and Law." He asked if there should be internal policies in place. Professor Gunnar pointed out that this might work against the university, and that they may wish to be careful about being too regulated because the University has many ties to the community. Dr. Carrier again stressed the freedom among the different colleges about how to approach it. She recapped the committee's ideas: the committee wants to ensure the annual review of titles; the committee wants the appropriate qualifications for titles; and the committee would like a statement in the letter of appointment about how a title is used. Dr. Carrier also suggested that Professor Bauer write a note to Provost Sullivan expressing the committee's opinion. Professor Windsor asked if there would be an annual review of internal appointments as well, and Dr. Carrier replied yes and that periodic reviews are determined by units. Professor Bauer suggested recommending criteria for review for each department and Professor Chomsky suggested following up on instances of misuse.
2. Senate Representation for Clinical Faculty The committee began a discussion of clinical faculty representation from the Medical School in the University Senate. As presented by a subcommittee comprised of Professors Feeney, Martin, and Morrison, the issue is the increasing number of contract faculty who want representation in the Faculty Senate and how granting this could create disproportionate representation for a college in the Faculty Senate. One solution would be to treat them as teaching faculty and therefore have them counted for purposes of determining Senate representation, but impose a limit so that no single unit could have more than 25% of the total number of Faculty Senate seats. According to the proposal, the total number of seats could not go above 39 for any collegiate unit based on the size of the Senate. Professor Morrison pointed out that teaching specialists would be allowed to vote but that they didn't want the Faculty Senate to be overloaded with representative from this classification. He asked if this approach was acceptable to the committee. The committee discussed the issue. To Professor Lanyon's request for clarification, Professor Morrison said that while the proposal caps the number of seats, it would result in an increase in the representation of the units adding new voters from this classification. Professor Gunnar expressed concern that non-teachers may be having too strong an influence on teaching policy. Professor Feeney pointed out that non-teachers too are dependent on the development of undergraduates. Professor Sullivan asked what the actual number would be after the change. Professor Morrison replied. 33. Professor McCormick asked if there was any danger in making the cap 25%; for instance, what if there are four large colleges resulting in the reorganization which could take 100% of the Faculty Senate seats. Professor Morrison clarified that the each college must have a minimum of two representatives; the actual danger lay in larger units being under-represented but smaller units being over represented. Professor Krichbaum pointed out that this was a significant issue for the Medical School. Professor Sullivan said that according to his calculations, one out of three representatives would be from AHC, and he was concerned that it was weighted too heavily to the AHC. He asked about the possibility of restating the draft policy to 20% from 25%. Professor Morrison said they would try but it wouldn't reduce any current representation. Professor Krichbaum said that she didn't feel that the Faculty Senate was in danger of being taken over by AHC, and that new faculty are interested in the direction of the university and participating in the process. Professor Bauer asked the committee if they'd like to propose 20% vs. 25%. The majority of the committee agreed to propose 20%, with Professor Balas voting for 25%. It was agreed that the motion would be amended and the committee would revisit the issue before April.
3. New Faculty Senate Numbers and UMD Medical Numbers Professor Bauer welcomed Becky Hippert from the University Senate office, who presented information about current and proposed changes in Faculty Senate seats due to University Strategic Positioning. She distributed information which illustrated the breakdown of Faculty Senate seats and tenure, tenure-track, and academic professionals by college. The committee discussed the information, and faculty, faculty-like, and P&A representation. There was concern expressed about the equal numbers of faculty and faculty-like representation, which could suppress tenured faculty representation, indicating a potential shift in the Faculty Senate. The committee discussed the Medical School-Duluth representation, and Ms. Hippert clarified that while the Medical School-Duluth still has a separate decanal position, that dean does report to Dean Powell of the Medical School-Twin Cities. Professor Elliott added that this was imposed by virtue of the accreditation process, and that both programs are accredited as one school. The committee then discussed appropriate representation. Professor Gunnar said she felt that, for historical reasons, the Medical School-Duluth should not be forced to be represented through the Twin Cities college. Professor Feeney said they should keep it simple and stick with the major academic units and cap them at 20% of representation in the Faculty Senate. Professor Balas said that making special cases, based on historical configurations, opens a can of worms and could then be used by the colleges that are now being merged. Professor Elliott agreed with the logic of the proceedings, and while acknowledging the school's small size, expressed concern that the Medical School-Duluth faculty may become disenfranchised. Professor Martin said that she felt that the committee should not tell units how to divide representation, but that Medical School-Duluth faculty should work on guaranteed representation within the Medical School procedures. Professor Chomsky said that the Committee on Committees should be alerted to consider this matter to ensure proper committee representation. Professor Bauer referred the motion to the March 2 Senate meeting.
4. Election of 2006-07 FCC Chair The committee elected Professor Carol Chomsky Chair of the FCC for 2006-07.
5. Other Business Professor Bauer called for any additional business for the committee to address. A discussion regarding the adoption of a statement regarding tenure-track faculty ensued. Professor Feeney felt individual units should be given discretion to identify faculty accordingly, and felt it was not the Senate's purview to make these determinations. Professor Bauer said that according to her figures from the University Accountability Report, there were 2377 tenure and tenure-track faculty, and 739 other faculty. She expressed the need to bring up the issue with Provost Sullivan. The committee agreed that there needed to be distinctions made in the hiring process and that it was necessary to communicate those distinctions accordingly. Professor Lanyon said that it was important that the faculty be aware of the policy, and that should be communicated from Professor Bauer. Professor Martin said that it would be helpful for people to know that the provost supports it. Professor Sullivan suggested that the provost notify the deans, and Professor Bauer said she would write a statement to circulate for the committee's feedback.
The meeting concluded at 3:04 pm.
1 - 3 pm 238A Morrill Hall
Present: Richard McCormick (chair), William Bart, Vernon Cardwell, Maureen Cisneros, Shawn Curley, LeAnn Dean, Josh Feneis, George Green, Eric Ling, Mary Ellen Shaw, Donna Spannaus-Martin, Craig Swan, Joel Weinsheimer Absent: James Leger, Claudia Neuhauser, Paul Siliciano, Doug Wangensteen Guests: Don Ross, Laura Gurak, Connie Tzenis Other:
Professor McCormick convened the meeting at 1:20 pm.
1. Discussion of Task Force Reports Professor McCormick welcomed Don Ross and Laura Gurak from the Writing Task Force as the committee began a discussion about the task force reports. Professor Ross solicited questions and comments from the committee their report. Professor Gurak said that two future meetings were scheduled to give the task force time to garner more feedback, and she stressed the usefulness of comments. Professor McCormick noted that it has been said that, of all the task force reports, it was the best written. Professor Gurak said that the task force had tried to tell a story, and while they were working without data, the task force tried to illustrate where they could be, how to achieve that, and what kind of leadership is required. Mr. Ling asked for an overview of the report. Professor Ross summarized the four main points: combine three units that offer freshman writing and a second course with writing instruction that would complement freshman composition; a vice provost for writing who would be responsible for starting the initiative; establishment of a research and teaching unit called writing studies; and coordinating outside learning, i.e., tutoring and individual assistance to students. Professor Gurak emphasized that faculty would look at writing as a whole to see how it is integrated into the bigger plan. She pointed out that writing proficiency varies from unit to unit and major to major, and emphasized the need for an outcomes-based curriculum. Professor Gurak acknowledged that there was difficulty in how it should be delivered. Professor McCormick reported the concern he had heard raised that there would be resistance from students to adding another requirement to freshman year. He added that some units have curricula that allow very little flexibility, which will make this requirement hard to complete. Professor Ross pointed out that many students already take writing intensive freshman courses. From a faculty point of view, the idea of introducing students to writing is an important part of freshman year. Professor Gurak added that the baccalaureate should be considered major by major with a plan to phase in the requirement. Professor Green asked about freshmen who might have previously had composition, such as transfer students, and asked if that requirement would count. Professor Gurak replied that those students may have to complete an additional writing course. For example, even now a previous course at a community college is often not sufficient. Professor Green said that the proposal assumes that students know their majors upon entering the university and asked how to track people who change majors or don't declare until later. Professor McCormick clarified that what was being proposed was a freshman writing experience, and then beyond that it would be by major. Professor Green asked what happens when a student changes majors and Professor Ross replied that the major determines the requirements and ideally, departments would have the requirements in sync with the major. Professor Swan asked how the departments would provide requirements, for instance, what if every department says a student must take a writing class but from another department. Professor Ross said in the lower division there are a lot of writing intensive courses available to students. Professor Swan pointed out that it is ambiguous where the weight of the recommendations lies, and Professor Gurak said that their proposal ventures into ideas and suggestions to implement these strategies. In doing so, they were trying to create a timeline and strategic plan, and had asked a lot of these same questions in doing so. Professor Gurak felt there needed to be an advisory group and Professor Ross noted the ambiguity in the delivery of the initiative to the lower division. Professor Green said that the freshman piece must be portable because the freshman experience is fluid and that there is enormous flux in the freshman year. He pointed out that the University negotiated transfer agreements with MNSCU and if the transfer agreements change students will be upset. Professor McCormick added that transfer requirements are always negotiable and that it is not unreasonable to assume that the Strategic Positioning Initiative may necessitate the renegotiation of transfer requirements. Ms. Shaw asked about the transfer requirements being a part of writing studies, and asked Ross and Gurak whether writing studies would be a department or cross-collegiate. Professor Ross acknowledged that that had not yet been solved, and Professor Gurak added that that was why leadership was needed from the provost's office. Professor McCormick pointed out that it has been proposed that an intercollegiate department might be the solution. Professor Gurak said that there could be ways to strategically align it and added that research is an important side to this. There is much national research which should be a part of this institution. Professor Weinsheimer indicated his agreement and said that a problem that must be solved is that as a research institution, it needs a research component to its writing initiative. Accordingly, it would be thought through carefully, taking the best of what the University already has and building on that. Professor Ross acknowledged that that was the goal of the task force. Professor McCormick thanked Professors Gurak and Ross for joining the committee for its discussion, and for their ambitious report about the importance of writing, which is a common good that is essential to a research university.
2. Evaluation of Instruction Professor McCormick welcomed Dr. Tzenis from the Center of Teaching and Learning Services. Dr. Tzenis told the committee about Dr. Raoul Arreola's upcoming visit to the University to facilitate a conference on teaching evaluation. Dr. Tzenis said she felt it was a priority for Dr. Arreola to work with the committee and asked members to establish priorities for his visit. Professor McCormick reminded the committee that the teaching evaluation revisions had been approved, and that the senate debate about the issue concluded that individual units would decide who gets to see the written comments on teaching evaluations. Up until recently no one has suggested rethinking the four mandated questions on the evaluations because of the interest in continuing to use the data accumulated over the years using those same questions. At the last senate meeting, however, there had been a demand that those questions be reconsidered. SCEP's position now is to continue toward senate approval of the revisions SCEP and SCFA approved last year but also to commit to rethinking the main questions. Professor McCormick suggested that some committee members could possibly meet with Dr. Arreola. Dr. Tzenis passed out questionnaires and said that as she developed the itinerary for his visit, she requested that the committee consider how best to use his time with them. From the committee's discussion, she would develop a list of topics that would be assigned times, and she would accordingly target groups to attend his workshop. The committee discussed ideas and presented them to Dr. Tzenis. Professor McCormick thanked her for meeting with the committee, and went on to say that voting regarding this issue would occur at the Senate meeting in March after Dr. Arreola's visit. He proposed that the committee should recommend approval of the policy to the senate but also recommend that a subcommittee be appointed to look at the mandated evaluation questions taking the latest research on evaluations into account. Professor Weinsheimer felt it was most efficient to have SCEP and SCFA meet jointly to discuss this issue and Professor Green suggested getting the senate vote before the joint meeting. The discussion continued regarding the various task force reports before the committee. Professor McCormick distributed his report on the honors task force report which he had presented to FCC. The task force had recommended consolidation of all honors programs on campus into a central structure that would also include a new program called the "Regents Scholars Option." The committee reviewed Professor McCormick's handout. Professor Weinsheimer said he had previously asked about the purpose of an honors program, and Professor McCormick reiterated that it was in large part a recruitment tool. He added that it was also a large motivation for the investment that the task force wanted: their report made recommendations meant to attract students who might not be considering the University and to give honors at Minnesota "brand-name" recognition. Mr. Feneis offered that the honors program had been a draw for him and asked what kind of courses would be offered. The recommendation was that there would be more of what was already offered, including honors freshman seminars offered University-wide that would have smaller enrollment caps. Ms. Shaw asked how the Regents Scholarship option would co-exist with the current honors programs. Professor McCormick said that the proposal was that it would be another option within the University Honors Program just as the current honors programs would be. Students in the RSO would be admitted both to the RSO and to a particular college. Some smaller colleges had asked that there be representation of all colleges in the RSO. Professor Green asked if the RSO would be open to students entering any of the colleges at the university, and McCormick responded that that was the intent, but that the details would be worked out in the implementation. The report proposes that associate deans, honors directors, and some task force members would comprise a group under the vice provost to implement it. Professor McCormick said he felt that the new honors program should reside in a central structure if it is to serve students across all the colleges. He said that the name given to the new campus-wide honors entity should make what currently exists more visible. Professor McCormick suggested that if the RSO in particular is too restrictive it might not attract as many students as is desired. Mr. Ling emphasized that flexibility was the key to attracting a wide variety of students. Professor Green said that adding too many requirements may result in fewer applicants to the RSO from IT. Professor McCormick said that he felt that the RSO would compete more with Honors-CLA but stressed that it was intended also to attract students interested in the sciences for whom IT Honors is not the right fit; IT Honors will nonetheless continue to attract far more applicants than can be admitted. Professor Bart complimented Professor McCormick on Honors-CLA (for which Professor Bart had taught a seminar), and, referring to Professor Weinsheimer previous query about the purpose of an honors program, said he was of the opinion that many students wanted to explore things in-depth and the program offered that. It offered creativity and innovation, and offers students the opportunity for interconnection among disciplines. Professor McCormick said that the goal of honors is to provide a qualitative enhancement of education, not quantitative. In discussing the Student Support task force recommendations, the feeling of the committee was that it was more modest in scope than the other task force initiatives, at least in terms of asking for new administrative positions; the task force did however make a recommendation for central investment in student support as a common good, which Professor McCormick supported, saying that advising for students deserved such an investment across the university.
Professor McCormick concluded the meeting at 3 pm.
2:30 - 4:15 238A Morrill Hall
Present: Fred Morrison (chair), Rose Blixt, Charles Campbell, Daniel Feeney,
Steve Fitzgerald, Dan Hennen, Lincoln Kallsen, Thomas Klein, Joseph Konstan,
Michael Korth, Ian MacMillan, Judith Martin, Kathleen O'Brien, Richard Pfutzenreuter,
Justin Revenaugh, Karen Seashore, Alfred Sullivan Kate VandenBosch, Mike
Volna, Susan Van Voorhis, Warren Warwick Absent: Calvin Alexander, Charles
Bachmeier, Arthur Erdman, Tim Nantell, Jacob Olson, Kathryn Olson, Michael
Sertich, Charles Speaks, Thomas Stinson Guests: Julie Tonneson Other: Jean
Bauer, Scott Lanyon, Steve Ruggles Professor Morrison convened the meeting
at 2:30 pm.
1. Per diem rates: The committee discussed the per diem expense policy, which Professor Morrison cited as essentially an honor system with limitations imposed, and for which documentation no longer has to be provided. Professor Konstan expressed support for the policy, stating that the previous policy was too confusing. Ms. Blixt concurred. Professor Seashore asked if the University was also going to adopt the federal rates for hotel rooms. Mr. Volna noted there were many variables in hotel rates by areas and regions, but that this was under evaluation. He said they were looking for opportunity to provide guidance to departments, according to reasonable rates established by circumstances and other factors. Professor Campbell asked for clarification that if the per diem is not spent, one still receives the per diem. Mr. Volna responded that that is the intent of the policy and that inconsistencies are being addressed. Professor Campbell asked if it was possible to claim less than the per diem, and Mr. Volna said yes, but that the old policy wasn't being enforcedand emphasized that the language of the policy was still being clarified. Mr. Klein said the policy is based in common sense, and Mr. Volna agreed saying that it ultimately simplifies the procedure.
2. New budget model: Ms. Tonneson then presented an update on the budget model. She referred to the handout that she distributed, which reviewed information on investments and investment decisions. Broken down, Part 1 includes budget decisions for service unit activities and Part 2 includes budget decisions for academic unit activities. Each of these includes considerations of compensation, strategic academic priorities, and infrastructure-related costs. Professor Campbell asked if Part 1 constrained Part 2, and Ms. Tonneson responded that they were aware of the potential impact of Part 1 on Part 2. Professor Morrison asked if was possible that Part 1 may be redone, and Mr. Pfutzenreuter acknowledge that possibility. Ms. Tonneson then went on to cite the resources and tools for budget decisions for Part 1, which included internal reallocations, additional unit earned revenues, and approved budget items added to cost pool. Resources and tools for budget decisions for Part 2 include increased state appropriation, state appropriation reallocated between academic units, additional unit earned revenues and unit internal reallocations. Ms. Tonneson then referred to the decision framework, saying that the budget office made initial recommendations and is in the process of finalizing recommendations to take to President Bruininks. The decision framework involved establishment of revenue neutral cost pools, then review of service unit compacts and budgets, approval of service unit budgets and cost pools, and then subsequent review and approval of academic unit budgets. She noted that there will consultations about each step of the process. Ms. Tonneson then noted the revenue neutral transition and referred the committee to the spreadsheet, and the page which reflects totals for each of the cost pools. The double step down model takes these amounts and redistributes costs, and Ms. Tonneson noted, for example, that a library's share of administrative costs are based on the library's proportionate share of total expenditures. Accordingly, other funds are moved into the pool. Mr. Pfutzenreuter pointed out the column that indicates percentages of central costs based on statistics and depending on the nature of the specific unit, it will differ as to where costs are made up. Professor Konstan asked about the margins, which he said may be an indicator of fairness among the units and maybe useful for the compact process. Ms. Tonneson said it is proportional and that a million dollar change may affect colleges differently. Professor VandenBosch asked about the colleges that currently exist but will cease to exist. Ms. Tonneson noted that the model was created from the current structure, but will be reworked to show the revised structure. She then cited the Medical School Fiscal Page for Budget Development included in the handout, and noted the different columns indicating non-sponsored funds and pointed out the variations in column C. Professor Konstan asked if the O&M model was a fair representation of numbers, for example, for the state legislature. Ms. Tonneson felt that it was a more accurate representation than previously presented and Dr. Zetterberg added that, in his experience, the legislature does not make such distinctions. Professor Konstan said that leadership needs to consider if each unit's amount was appropriate in relation to the University's mission: for example, are units delivering enough to continue at their level of subsidy. Ms. Blixt asked if these were preliminary figures and Ms. Tonneson responded that it is projected for 2007 and that it is based on tuition estimates for the upcoming year. Professor Seashore asked what would happen if the Medical School lost grants but had no control over expenses, and Professor Konstan suggested that they would have to lay off people to accommodate such changes. Ms. Tonneson agreed, saying that such changes would flow through and affect the cost and revenue estimates. Ms. VandenBosch asked if this information was publicly available, and Ms. Tonneson said that it was. Professor Morrison thanked Ms. Tonneson and Mr. Pfutzenreuter for the information.
1. Per diem (continued): The committee returned to the issue of per diem, and Professor Konstan said that many units are still confused about procedure. He suggested that a follow-up memo clarifying some issues would be helpful. Mr. Volna agreed, saying that people could go to the website, which listed common questions and their answers.
3. Delivery of salary increases for 2005-6 Dr. Zetterberg presented 2005-06 faculty salaries and compensation comparison information. He distributed handouts and explained his analysis, saying that the figures compare faculty salaries of those who have been at the University for two years in the exact same job. Professor Martin asked if these were straight salaries or augmented salaries, and Dr. Zetterberg clarified the figures do not reflect fringe benefits and that retention increases granted after salaries were established were also taken into account. Professor Konstan pointed out that knowing variances among colleges might be helpful, and Ms. Martin said that the percentages seem to reflect higher numbers than what people actually received. Dr. Zetterberg cited average increases at colleges and Professor Morrison asked about comparing the median to mean. Dr. Zetterberg replied that it would still come out fairly close, and pointed out the Academic Health Center is not considered in the figures. He said that in total compensation, only two colleges ranked ahead of the University of Minnesota, and Professor Morrison said that Michigan and California were used as models. Professor Seashore asked about the situation at the Crookston campus, noting the disparity between tenured and other faculty. Dr. Zetterberg noted that a number of factors were involved in the situation at Crookston. Professor Morrison thanked Dr. Zetterberg for the information.
4. Memo on salary policy: The committee began a discussion of the salary memo draft, and Professor Morrison asked for feedback from the committee, noting that a sentence should be added that ties the University of Minnesota into the top 30 colleges. Professor VandenBosch asked for clarification on the paragraph regarding first step salary adjustments and Professor Morrison suggested adding the phrase "on average." Other changes in the memo were suggested. Mr. Pfutzenreuter speculated that these adjustments could come to 10-12 million dollars over the next four to five years. Professor Seashore brought up that many P&A and faculty-like personnel were difficult to retain because they could go to other colleges and attain faculty status, and she expressed concern that many units cannot function without P&A. Professor MacMillan asked how living expenses factored into salary considerations. Dr. Zetterberg replied that multiple cost of living factors are considered, even in different areas within the Twin Cities, but acknowledged that these are sometimes hard to quantify. Professor Morrison said that there other negative factors at play, such as the weather. The committee discussed how the University of Minnesota compared to Michigan's policies. Professor Konstan said that despite comparisons of what's better or worse, salaries must match the market, and this should include the support spent on faculty, including administrative support, research support, grant mechanisms, and the like. Mr. Klein noted that CAPA had asked how the competitive salaries memo might effect P&A , Civil Service and bargaining unit employees, and that CAPA had contacted him and felt that the role of competitive P&A, Civil Service and bargaining unit salaries should be part of the overall draft. Professor. Konstan noted that there is no evidence that faculty salaries impact staff, but that it is important that the committee be available to work with CAPA on the issue as the committee has a university-wide role and representation in its membership. Professor Korth asked how this affected the goal of the Morris campus to be in the top three and Professor Morrison acknowledged that the salary memo was based on comparison groups that had been broadly accepted. The memo could certainly acknowledge the desire of Morris to move to the top 3 of its comparison group, but there had been no acceptance of that by the Central Administration, unlike the strategy for "top 3" for the Twin Cities campus. It can also note, but not necessarily endorse, the new comparison group that the Morris campus wished to use. Professor Konstan noted that a key distinction between faculty and staff when it comes to using higher salaries to retain and attract the best is that there is no career path model in place for University staff. Whatever salary approach is used, it is critical to have a mechanism for exceptional staff to move up to positions of higher responsibility and highly desirable to have a model where units don't automatically lose good staff because the only way up is to apply to a higher-level vacancy elsewhere. Professor Morrison said he would redraft the memo, ask for a response from the committee again, and then send to the provost. He suggested to the committee that CAPA could bring the issue they raised to the committee as a separate matter. Professor Campbell returned to the issue of per diem and asked that a request be made that the paperwork state that the amount claimed is the amount spent. Mr. Hennan said he supported the per diem system and explained his background with such issue. Mr. Klein, in addressing Professor Campbell's concern, said that perhaps the issue that Professor Campbell is pointing out on the impact of the per diem is actually a budgeting issue and that there may be another more efficient way to address the issue through the budget rather than trying to use the travel policy to deal with it. Using the travel policy is likely to entangle multiple people in dealing with numerous receipts, documentation and interpretation of the rules
Professor Morrison concluded the meeting at 4:35 pm.
1:15 - 3:00 238A Morrill Hall
Present: Jean Bauer (chair), Gary Balas, Barbara Elliott, Dan Feeney, Megan
Gunnar, Mary Jo Kane, Morris Kleiner, Kathleen Krichbaum, Scott Lanyon, Marvin
Marshak, Judith Martin, Richard McCormick, Fred Morrison, Steven Ruggles
Absent: Martin Sampson, John Sullivan, Jennifer Windsor Guests: Provost E.
Thomas Sullivan
1. Task Force Reports: Professor Bauer convened the meeting at 1:05 pm, and called for a discussion about the Academic Task Forces issues to present to Provost Sullivan. A discussion ensued with committee members bringing up various matters. The committee expressed concerns about resources being available for the many and varied task force recommendations. Professor Balas raised concerns about many of the recommendations calling for additional administrators. Several committee members pointed out that many of the initiatives noted in the recommendations would require significant cultural changes, which are not addressed in the reports. Professor Kane suggested that the initial changes to the consolidation of colleges should be an open and transparent process as an exemplar for how the other changes will proceed. Professor McCormick said that, with regard to resources, some of the initiatives may be in a position to attract potential donors, thereby creating necessary resources. He also stressed that advising should be centrally supported as it serves the common good (although the management and delivery of advising services should remain decentralized). Professor Gunnar added that the necessary resources should be targeted to groups being forced to change. The committee also stressed the need to address the growth of P&A, and Professor Kane reiterated that the University cannot send the message that faculty can become P&A if not measuring up academically and in research. It puts the University in a difficult position and is an inherent contradiction. Professor Kleiner also said the issue of faculty titles needs to be addressed. Professor Martin said that space issues also need to be addressed with regard to resources. Professor Bauer went on to say that there are inconsistencies in naming different units in the task force reports and these should be consistent. She also pointed out that recommendations in some of the task force initiatives affect other recommendations, but neither set of recommendations reflected these potential impacts. Professor Balas also stated that there needed to be some way to evaluate and assess progress toward the goals.
2. Discussion with Provost Sullivan: Professor Bauer welcomed Provost Sullivan to the meeting. A discussion followed regarding the issues raised by the committee.
Professor Bauer adjourned the meeting at 3:40 p.m.
2:00 - 4:30
238A Morrill Hall
Present: Fred Morrison (chair), Arthur Erdman, Thomas Klein, Joseph Konstan, Michael Korth, Judith Martin, Kathryn Olson, Justin Revenaugh, Alfred Sullivan, Kate VandenBosch Absent: Calvin Alexander, Christina Bachmeier, Rose Blixt, Charles Campbell, Daniel Feeney, Steve Fitzgerald, Dan Hennen, Lincoln Kallsen, Ian McMillan, Kathleen O'Brien, Richard Pfutzenreuter, Karen Seashore, Michael Sertich, Charles Speaks, Thomas Stinson, Susan Van Voorhis, Michael Volna, Warren Warwick Guests: Associate Vice President Gerald Fischer (University of Minnesota Foundation); Vice President Charles Muscoplat; John Engelen (Director of Federal Relations)
1. Financing the Mission: Strategies for Private Support Due to the necessary absence of the secretary, the chair of the Committee is providing these abbreviated minutes. Gerald Fischer, president of the University of Minnesota Foundation, presented the fourth of the reports to the Regents on Financing the Mission of the University. The report centered on the role of private giving in financing the directions that will be part of the Strategic Positioning exercise. He was assisted by Judy Kirk and Mike Polussa. A copy of the PowerPoint program is attached. It was noted that members of the next generation of major donors to the University are interested in targeted gifts that will "make a difference" not only to the university, but also to the community and the world. Part of gift solicitation is listening to the desires of the donors. The Committee also discussed the issue of fund raising for a new stadium. These are targeted gifts that are not detracting from the University's efforts to raise money for academic purposes. Indeed, the stadium fund-raising has enabled the University to promote the idea of parallel gifts to the academic programs from these donors. Mr. Maturi, the director of athletics has been particularly helpful in promoting the need for academic giving to these donors.
2. Financing the mission: Leveraging Assets Vice President Muscoplat then presented the third of the reports to the Regents. This emphasizes leveraging assets for enhanced returns. The current major emphasis is on the possibility of realizing greater revenue from the UMORE (or Rosemount) site of the University. A University task force has been working on this project for over a year. A copy of the presentation is also attached to these minutes. The University is now in the process of retaining a consultant to help define the nature of the development that will take place. The University's primary criterion for development is that any development must also provide research opportunities. These can be in a variety of fields; beyond traditional agricultural emphasis of the experiment station. For example, research could be conducted in construction materials (of interest to architecture and engineering), transportation issues (of interest to public policy), or to schools for the new residents (of interest to education scholars). The list can be expanded. The Committee provided some suggestions to Vice President Muscoplat.
3. Earmarking of Federal Funds. Mr. Engelen, the Director of Federal Relations for the University, discussed the issue of "earmarking" of federal funds. The University receives about $310 million each year in competitive federal grants (through organizations such as NSF, NIH, and some other federal agencies). It also receives about $12.7 million in direct grants authorized by Congress. The "earmarked" grants flow largely to units in fields in which competitive grant funding is not available. While most members of the Committee would prefer to see funding through the competitive, peer-reviewed processes, the Committee recognized that earmarked grants are increasingly a fact of life in Washington and that the University should continue to seek funding through this process. The members of the Committee concurred that requests for such grants should be coordinated through the President's office, which would establish priorities. Access to this funding is a University resource, which should follow University priorities. Separate requests to members of Congress by campus or collegiate units or by individual faculty members can be damaging both to the University's overall goals and to the chance of success of the individual project. The University must present a consistent set of goals to the federal decision-makers.
Respectfully submitted, Fred L. Morrison, Chair
1:15 - 3:00
238A Morrill Hall
Present: Jean Bauer (chair), Nancy Carpenter, Barbara Elliott, Dan Feeney, Megan Gunnar, Mary Jo Kane, Morris Kleiner, Kathleen Krichbaum, Scott Lanyon, Marvin Marshak, Judith Martin, Richard McCormick, Terry Roe, Steven Ruggles
Absent: Gary Balas, Fred Morrison, Martin Sampson, John Sullivan, Jennifer Windsor
Guests: Vice Provost Arlene Carney, Professor Robin Wright; President Robert Bruininks; Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs and Provost E. Thomas Sullivan; Jackie Singer (Director of Retirement Benefits), Chris Suedbeck (Employee Benefits)
Other: Kathryn Stuckert (Office of the Chief of Staff); Assistant Vice President Sharon Reich Paulsen (Office of the Provost)
1. Assessment of Learning Professor
Bauer convened the meeting at 1:15 and welcomed Vice Provost Carney and Professor
Wright to discuss assessment of learning. Vice Provost Carney distributed
handouts and began with a brief history of assessment of learning on the
Twin Cities campus: appointment in 2002 of the Twin Cities Learning Assessment
Council by Provost Bruininks to look at assessment of learning (which developed
over the course of a year a definition of student learning), followed by
the Council for Enhancing Student Learning (CESL), both of which she chaired).
Professor Wright has chaired CESL from 2003 to the present. Dr. Carney outlined
the mission statement of CESL: The Council for Enhancing Student Learning
seeks to enhance educational effectiveness in the colleges and schools, departments,
and classrooms on the Twin Cities campus of the University of Minnesota.
1. The Council works to achieve this mission by:
2. Providing models, tools, and learning opportunities for faculty and students.
3. Encouraging and supporting the use of data to enhance student learning,
and conducting research in learning assessment.
4. Sharing expertise across disciplines and among undergraduate, graduate,
and professional education units. The Council for Enhancing Student Learning
received its charge from the Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs and
Provost, and serves in an advisory capacity to the Provost. She then drew attention
to a list of working groups from 2002-03, including one chaired by Professor
Wright on curriculum assessment. The long-term goal is more faculty engagement,
given effect by a number of events sponsored on campus.
CESL has proposed undergraduate learning outcomes: Foundational life-long
learning and citizenship goals: At the time of receiving a bachelor's degree,
students will demonstrate (elaboration/examples):
1. the ability to identify, define, and solve problems (recognize the complexity
and ambiguity inherent in many problems, can evaluate and synthesize knowledge
and frame logical arguments based on this knowledge, understand and use the
scientific method and other modes of problem solving)
2. the ability to locate and evaluate information (can access information as
needed and work effectively with modern information technologies, understand
and practice the responsible and ethical use of information)
3. mastery of a body of knowledge and mode of inquiry, know the facts, theories,
and concepts central to their discipline, display appropriate disciplinary
literacy and sophistication, understand the relationships between the methods
and content of their discipline, understand the social and ethical context
and implications of disciplinary knowledge and endeavors)
4. an understanding of diverse philosophies and cultures in a global society
(understand the philosophical, artistic, scientific, and political roots of
civilization, are able to put issues in their historical, philosophical, and
societal context, can work with individuals from diverse backgrounds, perspectives,
and disciplines
5. the ability to communicate effectively (communicate ideas and information
effectively in appropriate formats to different audiences and in different
contexts, engage in constructive discussion by listening accurately, understanding
the perspectives of others, and demonstrating civility and respect)
6. an understanding of the role of creativity, innovation, discovery, and expression
in the arts and humanities and in the natural and social sciences (possess
a sufficient foundational knowledge to understand applications and impacts
of art, humanities, and science on daily life, can make aesthetic and logical
judgments, understand connections between disciplines)
7. skills for effective citizenship and life-long learning (display intellectual
curiosity, flexibility, and openness, are able to reflect upon and articulate
their own values, understand and practice professional and ethical behavior,
are aware of personal strengths and weaknesses and are prepared for life after
college (see Rinehart document), understand the nature and importance of responsible
citizenship)
Professor Wright commented, apropos the list of learning outcomes, that almost any person who thinks about education will come up with a similar list. There is concurrence on what it means to be an educated person. These outcomes are at the 40,000-foot view; there will be versions appropriate to each college and department (what do they mean for your discipline?). The hard part is answering the question "how do you know?" How are the outcomes measured? What data can one use to show that students can, for example, solve problems or communicate more effectively because they came to the University? This is not a problem unique to the University of Minnesota. CESL will come up with models. There is a lot of assessment of students going on all the time; some of the results could be put in a student portfolio. Part of the work plan is to obtain more faculty and student views (the outcomes have been discussed with about 100 people, so not all that widely). Ideally, they would like to see the outcomes formally accepted as what the University defines as what is needed to obtain a baccalaureate degree. Professor Roe asked if there had been any thought given to adding the seven items, in some form, to the teaching evaluation process. That is a key item, Dr. Carney said. One of their concerns is that the course evaluations do not address student learning so there is no feedback about whether the course is teaching something nor whether the student believes that he or she is learning something. There need to be evaluations that can help identify and measure something. Professor Roe wondered if some of the outcomes might not be appropriate for all courses; for example, would #1 fit a French class? They need both attitudinal and outcome data, Professor Wright said. Professor Wright related that she interviewed the faculty of her college (Biological Sciences) to ask if they emphasized the seven outcomes so that she could make a map of the curriculum and locate the gaps. Everyone does #3, but there are gaps for the rest. In professional school accreditation, Dr. Carney said, the learning outcomes must be articulated across the curriculum, so there are good examples of how to put things into a curriculum. Professor Martin noted that CLA requires a senior paper. That is a place where a student could demonstrate master of a large percentage of the seven outcomes. She said she has talked with students about the paper: is it just something they have to do or is it useful? They told her it demonstrates to them that they can do something. It is important to make sure that seniors must produce a project that they can put their hands on and can show to prospective employers or graduate schools. Dr. Carney agreed that it is important students be introspective about what they did, rather than just complete another project. Professor Lanyon said he liked the outcomes but was concerned about what is not there: this list is consistent with the goals of a small liberal arts college. He said he hoped the outcomes will highlight what students can get at the University of Minnesota but not elsewhere. Professor Kane asked if one goal is to show what student can do as a result of being at the University. (It is.) So there will be a need for baseline data. Professor Wright agreed and said there are already data available in the form of the ACT, essays, and high school grades. How will they deal with the ceiling effect, Professor Kane asked? By looking at what happens after students leave the University, Professor Wright said. Professor Carney said the task force on writing will have a number of interesting recommendations; one is that all students will have a first-year writing course and no one will be exempt. One way to measure change is to keep the freshman paper and compare to the senior paper. If a student comes in with high ability, one can look at the sophistication of the writing, the topic, the level of critical thinking, etc. Professor Kane cautioned that they will need to be sensitive to those who come into honors programs versus those students who are at risk; the latter students will start "low" and one can't necessarily say that improvement was a result of being at the University. Dr. Carney pointed out that they will never be able to have a control group of students who go elsewhere, but there will be data. Much of this is