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 about "branding" the University and what a research university can offer, Professor McCormick said, and one way to tackle that would be to require a research experience for honors students. But that is not an outcome, it is a component of the education. They have talked about how to tweak the system to measure the outcomes for honors students; is there a way to demonstrate more sophisticated outcomes? Dr. Carney said they have added to CESL faculty who are experts in assessment. The signal here is not clear, Professor Roe said. Will CESL implement, monitor, or do both? The devil will be in the details: some departments do not have the incentives to make sure these outcomes are part of their instructional program; it would be better to do this on a bottom-up basis, with incentives. In terms of measuring the outcomes, doing a census of each individual could be expensive; would it be better to do a sample? Professor Wright said she asked the Biological Sciences faculty how they assess outcomes. They know that they cannot use only one mechanism; faculty will need tools and help in remodeling courses to accommodate diverse learning styles (such as multiple-choice questions). That is hard to do with a large class and only one TA, Professor Roe observed. Even multiple-choice questions can be varied, Dr. Carney said, to address different cognitive functions such as displaying knowledge, comparing and contrasting information, synthesizing information, etc. There is more than one type of assessment and there are different ways at getting at different aspects of learning. This is not a top-down effort; CES is working with a lot of faculty and groups. The goal is to infuse the outcomes into the culture of the University. CESL, she added, was not just established to deal with the accreditation effort; it is a standing council that will continue. On the matter of assessment, Professor Wright said she is not an expert. She reported that the faculty at Michigan State evaluated every one of their exam questions in light of Bloom's taxonomy and discovered that none of them called on students to demonstrate the highest levels of critical thinking. There is a need to bring expertise to the faculty help them link their field with critical thinking. Many of the questions, Professor Gunnar agreed, are of the "have you read the textbook?" type. The challenge is to write questions that require students to synthesize the work of the course. It is very difficult, with multiple-choice questions, not to measure IQand if that is the case, one might just as well give the test at the beginning of the course. Professor Wright said the strongest predictor of a course grade in biology is the student's previous GPA. Professor Carpenter said that there was much of value in this discussion and that assessment is important, but it must be recognized that one size does not fit all; assessment will vary with the discipline. She inquired if this effort only applied to the Twin Cities. Originally this was part of the Twin Cities campus accreditation process, Dr. Carney said, but they consistently invite coordinate campus faculty to workshops and events. It is designated for the Twin Cities but is not intended to be exclusionary. They were told that the coordinate campuses were dealing with these issues themselves and that faculty on those campuses did not need to belong to this effort. CESL is open to coordinate campus participation, however, if they wish. Professor Elliott commented that students in the Medical School have long been measured by comprehensive exams. Students are not allowed to proceed until they can demonstrate proof of learning via national exams. They have adjusted teaching to meet the demands of those exams. She said she believed that approach was similar for all faculty who work with professional students. Dr. Carney agreed that professional schools require both formative and summative evaluation; CESL will be well informed by the work of professional schools with their long experience with accreditation. Professor McCormick noted that federal government is making noises about requiring universities to test students a la the "No Child Left Behind" act. There is a practical reason to think about developing the University's own model for assessing outcomes, as opposed to having one imposed. Have they heard from students that learning needs to be enhanced, Professor Martin asked? The senior exit survey is the best source of information, Professor Wright said. They use the data to learn from students and see what can be improved, Dr. Carney said. But students do not say they have wasted four years, Professor Martin asked? Generally they say the writing instruction is OK but they are less satisfied with their quantitative education. Next semester CESL is going to focus on faculty education: good ways to do assessment in the classroom. They will develop a new faculty orientation program to provide incoming faculty (at all levels) an understanding of the University of Minnesota and the tools available for classes. They also want to tackle one of the seven outcomes; they believe writing and critical thinking are inextricably interwoven and want to work on assignments that will develop these skillsthey want to develop a took kit, of sorts, for faculty. They will continue to provide workshops, Dr. Carney said, and will link to the Academy of Distinguished Teachers and will try to use funds in the wisest ways possible to help faculty in their teaching. Professor Krichbaum applauded the faculty orientation program. She said it takes awhile for new faculty to develop an identity as part of the University; this could provide a wonderful opportunity for them to become engaged. University asks faculty to learn a lot, Dr. Carney agreedIRB, SPA, research giving courses, and so on. They have wrestled with what University of Minnesota experiences are unique, Professor Wright said. She has been at several institutions and cannot identify anything that is unique to any of them. She said she would be grateful if the Committee could help to identify such facets of the University. The President had joined the meeting at this point. He noted that there are a lot of reform efforts in the air besides the strategic positioning task forcesand this is one of them. A big issue with accreditation now is assessment of learning. At first the accrediting team thought the University was missing something in this regard; when it learned of all the University is doing, they concluded it was on the cutting edge. They need to keep their eye on efforts that preceded strategic positioning and that fit into advancing education, the President said. This is an exciting project, he concluded. Professor Bauer thanked Vice Provost Carney and Professor Wright for joining the meeting.
2. Discussion with President Bruininks Professor Bauer welcomed the President to the meeting. The President reported/commented on a number of matters. -- The most recent report from the University of Minnesota Foundation reports very successful fund-raising for the last fiscal year, at $54 million, an amount exceeded only by the last year of the most recent capital campaign. -- The politics of higher education in Minnesota. -- The waiting period for the Faculty Retirement Plan. -- The budget model; most important is the need for flexibility to make academic investments. -- The capital budget: (1) the difficulty of funding big projects or historical buildings (e.g., Folwell exterior stabilization); (2) Northrop Auditorium (which also requires exterior stabilization as well as renovation, and for which the President will appoint a major committee to consider its future and how to build exciting programs in it); and (3) the need for a new model in funding "big biomedical science" buildings outside the University's traditional capital request, similar to the approach being advanced by many states with highly-competitive public research universities (these buildings now cost $60 million or more, and if funded as part of the regular University capital request, can consume half the request) All of these items, the President said, are about positioning the University as distinctive in the Minnesota higher education community and about why the University needs the state as a substantial financial partner. Professor Bauer thanked the President for joining the meeting.
3. Discussion with Senior Vice President and Provost E. Thomas Sullivan: Professor Bauer next welcomed Provost Sullivan to the meeting. Provost Sullivan began by describing changes in the compact process. In the past, the focus has been on new and ongoing academic programs. In light of strategic positioning, they will now include the budget and facilities/capital needs so there is a more thorough conversation. In addition, attention will be paid explicitly to interdisciplinary teaching and research and to international/global matters. As has been true in the past, there will continue to be a focus on diversity and on civic engagement. With respect to the strategic positioning task force reports, there are several categories of items that will be brought to the Committee for discussion: (1) issues which require Senate (and, where applicable, Board of Regents) action; (2) where there will be a need for special implementation; (3) where there is enhanced productivity; and (4) where there are cross-currents, overlaps, or inconsistencies in the task force reports. Provost Sullivan provided an update on the new process for the review of deans. There are eight deans being reviewed this year; two of the reviews are completed and took two months from start to finish. Everyone involved in the process seems pleased with it. There has been nearly a 30% increase in freshman applications to the Twin Cities campus. The increased number of applications does not mean there will be increased enrollment. The Committee asked for a profile of the 30% increase, compared to the 15% increase last year, when the files are completed. Professor Bauer thanked Provost Sullivan for joining the meeting.
4. Fiduciary Committee Bylaws Professor Bauer now welcomed Ms. Singer and Mr. Suedbeck to the meeting to present the bylaws of the new Fiduciary Committee. Ms. Singer explained that discussion in the Faculty Retirement Plan Subcommittee had led to the realization that there was no body responsible for monitoring performance of the University's fiduciary responsibilities with respect to the plan (although such monitoring has been done informally). The result is the proposal to create a committee explicitly charged with monitoring fiduciary responsibilities. It will be a broad-based group, with representatives from each employee group affected, and will report to the Board of Regents through Vice President Pfutzenreuter. She asked the Committee to identify potential members of the new committee and said it would not be a large time commitmentthere will be about 4 meetings per yearbut they are requiring that committee members have experience in financial matters. There will be a lot of learning required for those appointed. Several Committee members expressed strong support for the creation of the new committee. The committee will include as a member the chair of the Faculty Retirement Plan Subcommittee, who sits on and reports to the Senate Committee on Faculty Affairs, so there will be a reporting route to a Senate committee. The Committee and Ms. Singer discussed the meaning of "fiduciary" and what the responsibilities of the subcommittee would be. The new committee would take action on its own only if not to do so would mean the University were not meeting its fiduciary responsibilities. Professor Feeney reported that the Retirement Subcommittee believes this is a good model; the Retirement Subcommittee does not want fiduciary responsibility placed in a Senate committee. Ms. Singer added that the Retirement Subcommittee members do not feel they are prepared to carry the responsibility; they prefer an additional group with greater expertise. Professor Roe asked if the new committee would consider the University's market power. Ms. Singer said it would look at that, but because all of the accounts are individual, the University does not control them.
Professor Bauer thanked Ms. Singer and Mr. Suedbeck for their presentation and adjourned the meeting at 3:15.
2:30 - 4:30
238A Morrill Hall
Present: Richard McCormick (chair), William Bart, LeAnn Dean, James Leger,
Eric Ling, Claudia Neuhauser, Mary Ellen Shaw, Paul Siliciano, Craig Swan,
Douglas Wangensteen, Joel Weinsheimer Absent: Vernon Cardwell, Shawn Curley,
Gail Dubrow, Josh Feneis, Christopher Pappas, Donna Spannaus-Martin, Sara Tuttle
Guests: Senior Vice President Robert Jones; Steve Fitzgerald (Office of Classroom
Management) Other: none
1. Discussion with Senior Vice President Jones Professor McCormick convened the meeting at 2:30 and welcomed Senior Vice President Jones. He asked for a motion to close the meeting, which was made, seconded, and voted unanimously. Senior Vice President Jones discussed with the Committee various aspects of higher education in Rochester. He concluded the discussion by saying he would like to return to the Committee later in spring semester as events proceed.
2. Classrooms Professor McCormick now welcomed Mr. Fitzgerald to provide an update on classrooms. [Note: unless otherwise indicated, the term classrooms in these minutes will refer to centrally-scheduled classrooms, the facilities for which Mr. Fitzgerald's office is responsible.] Mr. Fitzgerald began by noting that this Committee has historically been a tremendous supporter of central classrooms and efforts to improve teaching and learning on the Twin Cities campus. He highlighted the Committee's support in three critical areas: technology in central classrooms, scheduling and utilization of classrooms, and financial support. In all three areas there are positive things to report. Mr. Fitzgerald said his purpose today was to provide a feedback/status report to the Committee and to listen to any concerns or questions from members. Before his office was established (Office of Classroom Management, hereinafter OCM), there was little technology in central classrooms or support for these classrooms. Now there are central classroom technology standards in place that were developed in close consultation with faculty and instructional staff. This "Projection Capable Classroom" standard was strongly supported by SCEP (and other governance committees) and implemented in the Central Classroom Technology Upgrade plan. As of the start of the Fall 05 semester, 78% of UMTC centrally-scheduled classrooms meet the standard. The University has come a long way; the Big Ten space management group now ranks Minnesota #1 in the percentage of central classrooms with projection technology. OCM is responsible for 287 classrooms, and 221 of these are now tech equipped. Positive feedback from students and faculty regarding the Projection Capable tech system has led a number of departments to purchase the same standard equipment from OCM's Classroom Tech Services ISO for use in their departmental spaces. As a result, there are now about 400 classroom, meeting, or conference rooms on the UMTC campus in which faculty can consistently find the same technology. This common operating protocol is easier for all users and the economies of scale in purchasing and maintenance benefit the entire campus community. In regards to scheduling, the Minneapolis campus classrooms have improved to a 68% time utilization rate. Projected seat occupancy is 66% based on department scheduling submissions. Actual seat occupancy is 56% after the drop-add period. (The standard, and the desired goal, is 71% time utilization and 65% seat occupancy, over the 8:00 - 5:00, Monday-Friday week). Both the East Bank and the West Bank are approaching the time standard for the overall week, and both experience some classroom shortages during peak times. Overall, this reflects a significant improvement and indicates that the Minneapolis campus is close to the standard set for classroom use. St. Paul is below standard, with a 44% time utilization rate, a 61% projected seat occupancy based on departmental scheduling submissions, and an actual seat occupancy of 46%. The data continue to show that there is more demand for classrooms than there is inventory on the east and west banks; there is insufficient demand for existing classroom inventory on the St. Paul campus. The Committee has asked in the past about the efficiency in scheduling and utilization of classrooms, Mr. Fitzgerald recalled. There have been a number of initiatives to improve scheduling efficiency; he outlined four of them: -- Establishing an automated interface between the scheduling system and PeopleSoft, thereby eliminating "double-entry" of course scheduling requirements -- Replacing the paper-based departmental submission process with the Electronic Scheduling System (ECS) -- Empowering departments with real-time, on-demand ECS reports to identify scheduling problem areas while correction was still possible -- Providing a user-friendly version of the enterprise level scheduling system (Resource 25) to departments to give them a proven and efficient system to use in scheduling their departmental classrooms (while preserving the control of the departments over their own spaces). The Committee has also previously discussed four problem areas that adversely impact utilization of our valuable classroom resources. -- One is projected versus actual enrollment; this trend is improving, but is still above the +- 10% standard (20% in Fall 04, compared to 24% in each of the two previous fall semesters). -- Two is peak time/overuse of classrooms (the 60/40 rule, requiring that 40% of classes be outside peak times of 9:00 - 2:00); the trend is improving, and in the aggregate, the campus is now largely on target, although some of the larger colleges schedule more than 60% of classes during peak time while smaller colleges schedule fewer. The focus on the 9:00 - 2:00 period as peak has, however, created a bulge in the 2:30 period on Tuesday-Thursday. Mr. Fitzgerald said he would return to the Committee with a further analysis of this problem. -- Three, excess class cancellations: this has greatly improved and the rate has significantly declined (to 7% in Fall 04, compared to 23% and 17% in the preceding two fall semesters). -- Four, non-standard courses (non-standard time or day patterns); this area has not improved and continues to be problematic. In Fall 05, there were 1297 non-standard courses, an increase over Fall 04 (this does not include the numerous exceptions that are allowed under the policy, such as grad/professional courses in non peak times). Mr. Fitzgerald and Scheduling Manager Nancy Peterson will discuss this at the next Council of Undergraduate Deans meeting, and will continue to examine collaborative solutions to this ongoing problem area. Campus-wide implementation of the Resource 25 initiative is pending (which provides electronic scheduling capability for classrooms). The systemproven and effective softwarewill be available to departments for departmental classrooms and will preserve department autonomy. His office is getting positive feedback; the system provides a way to measure use of department classrooms and is a helpful tool for departments. There has been study of whether classrooms could be used (in the summer) for other kinds of non-academic events, such as conventions; one question was whether Resource 25 would help. It would. This is a pending issue, Mr. Fitzgerald told the Committee, and his office could assist in new uses of classrooms, but only if provided funding to do so and as long as the effort did not detract from the mission and resources of OCM to support academic needs in classrooms. Mr. Fitzgerald indicated that there is classroom capacity available for this convention/outreach support in the summer periods, and that teaching, learning and academic support (including necessary classroom maintenance) would take precedence. In terms of the physical environment of classrooms, much as been done but there is still much to do, Mr. Fitzgerald said. The Facilities Condition Assessment documents the needs of central classrooms. They also use the student evaluation data (the question on the classroom physical environment) to use as a performance measure; they see the trend is improving. The data from that question are a valuable feedback mechanism. This Committee has been helpful in supporting funding for the life-cycle needs of classrooms, Mr. Fitzgerald said; this year has been a turning point because now 58% of the recurring lifecycle requirements are funded (up from only 35% in FY 05). This increased funding level allows them to begin to plan and make targeted improvements instead of the frantic band-aid approach of the past. Given the significant progress in achieving Tech Upgrade plan goals and the challenges of recurring lifecycle funding, OCM's emphasis on the tech side has now shifted from initial installation to sustainability of technology in classrooms. Lack of funds in the past has caused many OCM-responsible facilities issues to be deferred. With the increased level of recurring funding (to 58% of requirements), classrooms are still not fully funded. However, they hope now to begin to address these previously-deferred areas. Committee members offered a number of comments on classrooms. -- The technology layouts are superb. Some classrooms, however, are still atrocious (e.g., Fraser 101). Until recently, funding has not permitted OCM to do a great deal with the physical element of classrooms, Mr. Fitzgerald said; they have had to focus on technology. They acknowledge the existence of serious classroom facilities and hope to address the physical problems. -- The OCM website works extremely well; can all rooms on campus be on the site? It is difficult to figure out who to contact when a room is not on the site. Mr. Fitzgerald discussed the recent addition of a departmental classroom scheduler viewer capability which shows that information - this is a value-added benefit of adopting R25 for departmental classrooms. He said that the Academic Health Center (which is what the question was about) has unique clinical-based scheduling requirements and treats all their classrooms as departmental classrooms. AHC has adopted the Departmental R25 system for some AHC managed rooms and these are on the website; part of the current initiative is to put them all on the website as departments allow. Mr. Fitzgerald noted that AHC was one of the pilot program early adopters of the Departmental R25 system, and the question illustrates some of the potential benefits of the initiative. -- There should be a system that, in response to an inquiry about room availability, provides the whole range of rooms available. Mr. Fitzgerald noted that the prerequisite for such a capability is the implementation of a common database and scheduling systemprecisely what the current initiative will provide. -- Does the problem with non-standard times include labs and film courses? (It does notthe unique requirements of labs and film courses are covered by exceptions). Is there any possibility of a Monday-Wednesday schedule for some classes? Mr. Fitzgerald discussed the difference between the 50-minute "A" time Scheme and the 75-minute/TTh "B" time scheme, and indicated that there is an ongoing limited pilot program to allow 75-minute courses to go into underused periods early on MF or later on MW or WF. However, due to demand for classrooms and utilization requirements, this was a limited program, and applied only in available time periods. -- Many times students will not sign up for classes, or will not attend, if pushed into the 8:00 slot. This does not contribute to a positive student experience. Mr. Fitzgerald said that this office has heard these same comments, but has also been told by many students that "we work" and want to get classes so they can get in early and then out to work. Some students do not like early classes, others do. In addition to these issues of preference, Mr. Fitzgerald noted that we must consider the resource and cost implications of not fully using valuable classrooms. -- Vice Provost Swan offered several observations. The University has compared its classroom use with external efficiency standards. It could do without 8:00 or Friday classes if it had more classrooms than it does, but that would not be very efficient. With respect to Friday classes, enrollment drops a small amount but the situation is not as bad as some media stories have portrayed it on other campuses. (Comparing Friday to other days can be a little unfair as there are no evening classes on Friday. Looking just at classes that meet before 5 pm on the Twin Cities campus, the pattern of enrollments for this fall is: Monday 21% Tuesday 21% Wednesday 21% Thursday 20% Friday 16% Saturday 1% Sunday 1%) -- OCM should find another name for Resource 25. -- Demolition of the Science Classroom Building (in order to construct the new Science Teaching & Student Services Center) will have a big impact on classroom availability, Mr. Fitzgerald said. There are 4 auditoria and several smaller classrooms that would be taken out of the inventory, but he said that they believe they can handle it, based on the commitments of IT, CLA, College of Education, and others to be innovative and flexible in scheduling during the construction period. The campus will need to collectively and cooperatively look at a variety of other venues for classrooms (although not Northrop). -- Ad hoc meetings of classes can be scheduled through OCM. -- What is the technology standard that OCM is trying to achieve? Mr. Fitzgerald explained that the Tech Upgrade plan goal is to install the Projection Capable Classroom standard as the basic technological infrastructure for teaching and learning in all central classrooms. The Projection Capable Classroom standard includes a fixed data/video projector, Internet connectivity for the instructor station, wireless networking for students, smart control system with networking option, a user-friendly laptop interface, standard operating protocol familiar to UM faculty and standard input/output devices (VCR and DVD), integrated sound support system in large rooms, additional modular "add-on" capabilities (slide projectors, document cams, installed dept computers, etc.), a "Hotline" telephone for emergency support and accessibility features. -- Has OCM given thought to putting in amplification equipment? Yes, replied Mr. Fitzgerald, they do this in new classroom installations. When they measure existing classrooms against the standards, Mr. Fitzgerald said, two primary problems appear: lighting and acoustics. They have identified the problems but have not had the money to address them; they try to do so with renovation. The classroom standards which now exist (and which are codified in Appendix DD of the UM Facilities Construction Standards) specify acoustic performance standards and identify the need to isolate classrooms from building machinery. -- In closing, Mr. Fitzgerald thanked the Committee for its interest and its questions, noting that he viewed the periodic connection with SCEP as an important way of ensuring that OCM stays closely attuned to the issues and needs of faculty and students. He recommended the OCM website www.classroom.umn.edu as a resource for more detailed information on all the issues discussed today. Professor McCormick thanked Mr. Fitzgerald for providing his report.
3. Task Force Charges Professor McCormick said the Committee needs to think about how it will approach the task force reports. The drafts will be available in mid-December, with comments due January 27. The next meeting of the Committee is January 18, which should be devoted to review of the reports. He asked that Committee members read the reports, especially those addressed to undergraduate reforms (writing, student support, and honors). Discussion turned to the charge to the task force on small colleges. -- The mission and deliverables are great. Sharing administrative functions makes a lot of sense and should be possible with current technology. -- The hard part will be with the new budget model: who owns what and how do they get paid? The question of the relationship of the budget model to strategic positioning is one that arises again and again. If three units share a function, do they just share the bill? Will the system allow for that? And not all colleges using a function will necessarily be the same size. Attention then was turned to the task force on CLA. -- The recommendation to cultivate intellectual and analytical inquiry skills is reasonable, but these are not the same skills in verbal and visual/spatial learning. The way these skills are manifested varies with the materials. Critical literacy of visual media is an important part of what students should learn. -- One Committee member argued that CLA should have a serious problem with schizophrenia: it is the largest college, with the largest number of students, and is also the general education college. It has to come to grips with that situation. Composition is the typical course in the college, not a graduate course in Political Science or any other field. CLA wants to benefit financially from general education courses, to earn as much as it can from them, and to provide as good a service as it can, but it is still suspicious of general education courses. They are seen as remedial, or verging on it. It may be that the University wants to be one of the top three public research universities in the world, but one has a sense that the Rochester model is the wave of the future and where the University may be heading: more applied, more technical, and more advanced courses, with general education courses sent to MNSCU. If that is so, the writing is on the wall and CLA is an outdated college. With Composition the largest program, that is a sign of weakness. Some in the college could have the sneaking suspicion that some of its major departments are superannuated. Implications for lower-division courses are similar: they could be seen as expendable and taught more effectively elsewhere. One recent President thought the University should be an upper division and graduate institution. (That is the German model, which German universities are moving away from.) Another Committee member strongly disagreed, saying that undergraduate courses are of value to research faculty and they bring something to students that other institutions cannot. Part of the education at the University is being taught by research faculty, and that should not go away. -- One issue is the permanence of learning. There is tremendous learning loss in general education courses; in others there is more longevity. It is important to identify the properties of courses with longevity of learning and apply them to courses that do not have such longevity. It is a shame to have students work hard in a class and not remember anything about it. -- If a student wants to learn, he or she will study hard and will learn; if students have no interest in the course, they will not. -- There was discussion of what can be expected from students; perhaps more can be expected for students coming into a top-three university. It may also be that general education cannot be delivered at the level expected because of what students come in with from the high schools. -- It is difficult to believe the University could be among the top three if it farms out general education. If one thinks about the premier public research universities in the country, they have not done so.
4. Teaching Evaluation Professor McCormick said he would share the latest version of the student-release questions. The Student Senate is happy with the work that Professor Rodriguez did; the questions now need to be piloted. In terms of the disposition of written comments, the view of this Committee (that the disposition should be decided by each college or campus) prevailed in the straw vote at the Senate meeting. More interesting, however, was the demonstration of dissatisfaction with the questions on the current form. It is possible that everything could be opened up. The Committee was of the view that the current effort should be completed but that there should also be review of the research on evaluation and new questions developedand that it need not take a long time to develop them. Professor Bart suggested that someone with access to the data for the current questions should do a factor analysis and determine how the items cluster. It may be that the four questions tap the same trait.
Professor McCormick adjourned the meeting at 4:45.
2:30 - 4:15
238A Morrill Hall
Present: Morris Kleiner (chair), Matthew Bribitzer-Stull, Dann Chapman, Vladimir Cherkassky A. Saari Csallany, Will Durfee, Janet Ericksen, Darwin Hendel, Theodor Litman, Steven McLoon, Kelly Risbey, Oriol Valls, Larry Wallace, Timothy Wiedmann, Lori-Anne Williams, Aks Zaheer, Virginia Zuiker Absent: Arlene Carney, Carol Carrier, John Fossum, Patricia Frazier, Eric Gupta, Jane Miller, Geoffrey Sirc Guests: Senior Vice President Robert Jones; Jackie Singer (Director of Retirement Benefits)
1. Health Care Reimbursement Accounts Professor Kleiner convened the meting at 2:30 and turned to Professor McLoon for a question. Professor McLoon asked Mr. Chapman if it is true that the federal government has increased the time period during which one can spend health care reimbursement funds, and if so, has the University embraced the additional timeand if not, why not? Mr. Chapman said the University is looking at the issue; to accommodate the change will require a significant modification to PeopleSoft. He agreed, however, that every institution that uses PeopleSoft no doubt faces the same issue. This is about employees losing their money, Professor McLoon commented. Mr. Chapman said that is really not true for the University; it has a very low forfeiture rate. His department counsels employees, and expenses can be submitted into the next calendar year. Professor McLoon said that making the change seems like the right thing to do, although spending a million dollars to fix PeopleSoft would not be. Mr. Chapman said that PeopleSoft is addressing the issue; it came up suddenly in the federal government and the rules are not clear, and organizations are scrambling to accommodate the change. Professor Wiedmann asked if the contributions to the reimbursement accounts can be changed during the year. They cannot, Mr. Chapman said.
2. Retirement Plan Fiduciary Committee Professor
Kleiner next asked Ms. Singer to present information about the Retirement
Plan Fiduciary Committee. Ms. Singer explained that in discussing the investment
policy in the Faculty Retirement Subcommittee, they realized there was no
good reporting structure on fiduciary issues. There was such reporting but
it was not formal. She distributed copies of bylaws presented to the Regents
and adopted by the President creating the Retirement Plan Fiduciary Committee.
The members include the Chair of the Retirement Plan Subcommittee and the
University's Chief Investment Officer as well as three at-large members,
one from each employee group (who will be required to have a background in
finance or investments). Voting rights for employee representatives will
extend only to the plans in which they are a member. Anything administrative
will continue to go through the Retirement Subcommittee; this subcommittee
will focus on things such as plan expenses, investment returns, investment
fund choices, and so on. Professor Hendel commended the inclusion of the
criterion for members that they have a finance or investment background,
something often not included in the selection of committee members. He encouraged
the University to do the same with other committees when appropriate. Discussion
turned to health care coverage. Professor Hendel commented that it appeared
there were a substantial number of employees who had not selected health
care providers by the November 30 deadline. Mr. Chapman demurred; he said
the number was very small and that there remains a window for AFSCME employees
to choose until Friday. He said he was not surprised that many had not made
their choices earlier; past experience suggests that 80% make their choices
in the last weekand 80% of those people make their choices in the last two
days. There were only about 500 (some non-AFSCME) employees who did not make
a choice; his office will follow up with those people to make sure they do
not default to "no coverage." Professor Cherkassky speculated that one reason
many people made choices at the last moment was because there was a lot of
material to read. Most people probably wanted to stay with their current
provider, but names change. Is there any way to simplify the process for
those who only want to stay with what they have? Mr. Chapman said that most
people feel that way. This is the first year since 2002 that employees were
required to make elections; before they have been able to continue with their
current provider. It was a difficult decision but they decided to do so because
there were a number of changes that people needed to pay attention to: different
plan administrations, the change in the least-costly plan, and the change
from a 2-tier to a 4-tier rate structure. They could not assume people wanted
to stay in the base plan when it was a new provider. Mr. Chapman said he
hoped the University would never again require positive enrollment; it was
not their first choice and they know it creates work for people. Committee
members offered other opinions.
-- The process was more cumbersome and unfriendly than in the past and the
web site was difficult.
-- In the last version, when a couple includes two University employees, it
was cheaper for one not to take coverage and the other to take family coverage;
in the new version, it is cheaper for one member of a couple to take family
coverage and the other to take single coverage.
-- It was very difficult to find clinic numbers.
-- It was cheaper to keep life insurance coverage for children than to go to
the work to get them removed. Mr. Chapman said he appreciated the feedback
because they always want to identify ways to better serve the University community.
He said he is both hopeful and skeptical about the on-line system. It is functional but not user-friendly; it is delivered by PeopleSoft, and they made the decision to go with the "vanilla" PeopleSoft system and not make modifications because any modification has to be installed on all future upgrades. They have been told that the next version of PeopleSoft will include significant upgrades to the administrative module (which includes health care). It is that possibility about which he is skeptical but hopeful. The University can revisit the decision to use "vanilla" PeopleSoft for this purpose in the future or whether to make modifications, if the site does not become more user-friendly. Professor Kleiner thanked Ms. Singer and Mr. Chapman for their reports.
3. Policy on Endowed Chairs Professor
Kleiner said that Professor Wiedmann had taken the lead on developing a draft
policy on endowed chairs. Professor Wiedmann distributed a one-page handout
summarizing the distribution of endowed chairs and professorships across
the colleges, proposed principles, issues, and information needed. The University
is spending about $31 million per year on these positions (2002-03), so it
is worthwhile for the Committee to pursue this issue. He said he had concluded,
in discussions with others, that post-tenure review was too complicated to
use for these positions. Proposed Principles:
-- Faculty with titles should be evaluated. (Professor Kleiner said there should
be a requirement that the review is by faculty.)
-- Goals and expectations should be set regarding teaching, scholarly productivity
and contributions to service and outreach that take into account the unique
expectations associated with the title.
-- For titles of limited terms, there should be limited or no reviews, whereas
faculty with titles without term limits should receive periodic reviews.
-- Details of the review process should be left to the reviewing unit. (As
is the case with post-tenure review.)
Issues:
-- Differences in the level of appointing and reviewing: Teaching, scholarly
activities, and contributions of titled faculty would be best evaluated by
faculty within the same academic unit. However, appointments may occur at
collegiate, provost or university level. (Should the faculty be drawn from
a wider unit if the position is collegiate or provostal? Professor Wiedmann
said he believed the academic unit should do the evaluation, since it best
knows expectations and goals.)
-- What should be the time threshold for initiating a review?
-- What should the process for/nature of sanctions? (Removal of the chair?
The post-tenure review process is formative rather than summative; should there
be provision for allowing the person holding the chair to improve his or her
performance?)
Information sought:
-- Do units currently review titled faculty and if so, what is the process?
(Is there a clever way this is being done that could be implemented across
the University? Or are there parts of a number of procedures used that could
be put together to create a "best practice"?)
-- What is the opinion of the U's Deans, Provost, President, etc., in carrying
out review of titled faculty in regards to process and sanctions? (The views
of administrators must be considered.)
One issue that Vice President Carrier raised, Professor Kleiner reported, is that there are no data on what is being done. He asked that each Committee member learn how their units deal with endowed/named chairs and professorships and return at the first meeting of spring semester with a short report.
4. Teaching Evaluation Professor Kleiner next reported on the debate at the Faculty Senate about the draft teaching evaluation policy. There were two sets of comments, he said: those about the general use of student evaluations of teaching (the questions are dated and there is research on how to do it better), and those about the two alternatives for the disposition of written comments by students (decided by the instructor or decided by the college or campus). This Committee took the position that the disposition of the written comments should be at the discretion of the instructor but the Faculty Senate was much more supportive of the position taken by the Educational Policy Committee (that each campus or college should decide). Professor Zaheer asked about the differences between the two positions. Professor Durfee, who chaired the ad hoc subcommittee that produced the original report that led to the drafting of a new policy on evaluation of instruction, said that it was their view that because different units do things differently, it would be better to leave those variations in place. One important change, however, recommended by the subcommittee is that whatever the policy is (e.g., on the disposition of written student comments), it be made known. They discovered that some faculty did not know who was seeing the comments. Professor Hendel said there was a clear sentiment in favor of the SCEP position; he said he also thought the more general comments were on the mark. The Durfee subcommittee had parameters, but in the discussions at this and the other committee, there has been sentiment that more basic changes are needed. Many of the Faculty Senate comments were thoughtful: if there is to be a policy on the evaluation of teaching, now is the time to start over. The system now in place is one that many do not like but it is the one we havebut it is not a forward-thinking policy. The University is putting a lot of money into instructional technology; the policy includes nothing about it. It is time to take a more basic look at the policy, he concluded. Professor Kleiner agreed that there was considerable sentiment along this line at the Faculty Senate meeting. Professor McLoon said the current system will drive this place into being a more mediocre university. He said he could change his teaching, and get more approval, but believes he must teach the subject as it needs to be taught, not to reviews. The University has a system to process data, Professor Hendel observed, but not to help understand how the evaluations improve teaching. If there are numbers involved, Professor Bribitzer-Stull said, it will always be a temptation for administrators to look at those numbers during promotion and tenure and merit reviewsit will not matter if the course was large or small, major or non-major, or what the personality of the instructor is. No faculty member wants to be evaluated solely on numbers. Professor Durfee explained, in response to a question, that the subcommittee had been asked to look at peer and student evaluation, but it felt that student evaluation was a sufficiently large topic that it could not also do peer evaluation. They did not believe their charge was a broad mandate, although they did make some statements about validity. Professor Wiedmann said a comprehensive review was what was needed. Professor Hendel said one must always keep in mind that there are three processes related to student evaluations of instruction: (1) how they contribute to decisions about faculty (an appropriate concern of this Committee); (2) how they affect the improvement of teaching (the appropriate concern of SCEP); and (3) how they are useful to students in making course selections. His concern, he said, is that all the data are processed and end up in faculty personnel files but the University knows nothing about how the system is working. It is irresponsible to have all that data out there but with no idea whether it is improving the University. Professor Cherkassky said that while the talk is about improvement of teaching, the focus should be the quality of learningdo students know anything six months after the final exam? Professor Kleiner inquired if the Committee wished to ask the Committee on Educational Policy to look at the issue in a more comprehensive way. There was a motion; it received many seconds. Professor Ericksen said that if SCEP looks at the policy, it needs to pay attention to what the coordinate campuses are doing. Professor Wiedmann suggested this Committee retain responsibility for the first item Professor Hendel mentioned; Ms. Williams suggested this Committee identify one of its members to work with SCEP. Professor Valls said that comprehensive means comprehensive; it would be a mistake to look only at student evaluation. Evaluation has two pieces, one of which is faculty/peer evaluation. It does not matter if the University must live with a mediocre system for another couple of years if it takes that long to complete a comprehensive review. The Committee should not just tinker with the existing system. A comprehensive study should look at how the three goals Professor Hendel outlined are being accomplished and which parts of the process work and which do not. Professor McLoon said that the objection should also be made that student-based surveys are a poor method of evaluating faculty and course content. Professor Kleiner suggested there should be a value-added approach; Professor McLoon agreed. Professor Zaheer responded to Professor McLoon: he said the Committee could not possibly say that the University cannot rely on student evaluations. It is totally appropriate that students evaluate faculty; the students are the client. The University has both a research and a teaching mission. But the evaluation system in place now is not a good one. Professor Valls said he urged a comprehensive review because evaluation has two legsand the problem is with peer evaluation. Student evaluations have numbers and comments; peer evaluation is a disaster. Some do a good job of it, others do not. There are no standards, no rules about what should be weighed. The Committee voted to table until the next meeting action on the motion because it was not clear what precisely it wished to ask SCEP to do.
5. Discussion with Senior Vice President Jones Professor Kleiner welcomed Senior Vice President Jones to the meeting and accepted a motion to close the meeting. The motion passed unanimously. The Committee and Senior Vice President Jones discussed issues related to the University's activities in Rochester. It was agreed that Dr. Jones would return to the Committee in February.
Professor Kleiner thanked Dr. Jones for joining the meeting at adjourned
it at 4:10.
2:30 - 4:30
238A Morrill Hall
Present: Richard McCormick (chair), William Bart, Vernon Cardwell, LeAnn Dean, Gail Dubrow, Josh Feneis, James Leger, Eric Ling, Claudia Neuhauser, Christopher Pappas, Mary Ellen Shaw, Paul Siliciano, Donna Spannaus-Martin, Craig Swan, Douglas Wangensteen, Joel Weinsheimer Absent: Shawn Curley, Sara Tuttle Guests: Barbara Brandt (Academic Health Center), Judith Buchanan (School of Dentistry); Tina Falkner (Office of the Registrar),
1. Teaching Evaluations and the Academic Health Center Professor McCormick convened the meeting at 1:35 and welcomed Assistant Vice President Brandt and Associate Dean Buchanan to discuss the proposed teaching evaluation policy being discussed later in the week by the Faculty Senate. Dr. Brandt began by commending the Committee for its effort to improve the teaching evaluation system at the University. The draft policy was provided by Vice Provost Swan; she circulated it to the associate deans in the Academic Health Center (AHC). Dean Buchanan, she said, was asked to represent the associate deans on this issue. Dean Buchanan also thanked the Committee for its efforts and went on to point out elements of the current draft that will cause problems for the School of Dentistry as well as other colleges in the Academic Health Center. First, they are responsible for their students in order to protect the public, to respond to the professions, and they accordingly have strict accreditation requirements. They look closely at both the course and the instructor. Second, most of their faculty are not tenure-track; many are part-time and teach only in a clinical setting; it is very important they have assessment of clinical teaching so they know which of it is of valuebut the instruction can be taking place four hours away from the campus. They need to be sure students are learning the right things. Third, their programs are differentthey are team-taught, in a lock-step curriculum, individual faculty are not free to choose what courses to offer, and the students who enter are very highly qualified. Fourth, much of the student learning occurs in the lab and in clinical rotation. Curriculum standards are held to a high level by the profession and the School must have a lot of data on courses, faculty, labs, etc. (If the school loses its accreditation, there will be no students because students from unaccredited institutions cannot obtain a license to practice.) So, she concluded, it is a very different environment. As a result, they need to be able to pose different questions about the courses and about each instructor, and for different settings. They also require all students to complete the evaluations (something explicitly not permitted in the current revised draft of the policy). This is common in dental schools and it is in the student's and faculty's best interest, Dean Buchanan explained; when everyone must complete the evaluation, the respondents are not just the outliers. The students support requiring evaluations as part of the course. Dr. Brandt emphasized that the Department of Education mandated outcomes-based education, health education standards were re-written to meet that mandate, and accreditors want to see what is done and the data used to improve the programs. In response to a question about the authority of the Committee, Dean Buchanan explained that some language in the draft policy suggest it does not apply to the Academic Health Center (e.g., the policy does not apply to team-taught courses, which are widespread in the AHC, and many clinical rotation courses appear not to fit). Professor McCormick recalled that the last time the Committee discussed this it had noted the exemption for team-taught courses and had thought about a provision to allow professional programs in the AHC to vary from the proposed policy, if the variance was approved by this Committee. Dr. Brandt said they understood the spirit of the policy and very much want to meet it. Dr. Buchanan affirmed, in response to queries from Vice Provost Swan, that they evaluate both the setting and the instructor, because students can work with different faculty each day, varying with the specialty, and some faculty only work with the program half a day a weekand they can be all over the state. Committee members discussed the AHC software that is used for School of Dentistry and other college evaluation procedures. The Committee agreed that in general colleges should decide which programs would need an exemption from the policy and should make the request, rather than individual programs, in order to filter the number of requests made to the Committee. Dean Dubrow suggested that one criterion might be programs where a significant portion of the coursework occurs outside the classroom. The policy does not allow requiring students to complete an evaluation; AHC schools do. Their students are high-quality and homogeneous and the questions are only about the course and instructor, Dr. Buchanan said. Professor McCormick said he was almost inclinedcontrary to the current draft policyto suggest that the policy REQUIRE participation if electronic evaluation is to be used, in order to prevent unacceptably low response rates. Both Drs. Brandt and Buchanan concurred. There are two problems with mandating evaluation, Vice Provost Swan said. One, the instructor becomes the police officer and knows who did and did not complete the form; if the system is run through the dean's office, that problem is solved. Two, if students receive extra credit for completing the evaluation, that could be seen as a bribe. Dr. Brandt said the system they use is completely confidential, the names cannot be tracked, and students like the opportunity. Committee members deliberated for a brief while about whether to recommend a change in the proposed policy to permitor requirethat courses using web evaluation also require students to complete the evaluation before they can receive a grade. Mr. Ling said he believed most students would support mandatory evaluation because they know it would benefit students. (Professor Leger suggested that if evaluation is mandatory, students should be given the opportunity on the web site to register but to decline to participate; other Committee members agreed, and Professor Wangensteen said that is what is done in pre-clinical courses in the Medical School. Dean Dubrow agreed that students should have the opportunity to decline to participate. The Committee took no action on whether to make mandatory evaluation for any course when the evaluation is on the web but agreed to take up the issue again. The issue will not go away, Dr. Shaw commented; technology is moving in that direction and the Committee will not be allowed to forget it. With respect to the case at hand, Dr. Swan suggested that the Committee vote to grant Dentistry interim approval for its evaluation process, with the understanding that a change to the policy will be proposed that will allow exceptions to be granted. Dr. Buchanan asked if it would help if the associate deans of the AHC colleges were to prepare a package of information describing the procedures they use. Professor McCormick said that would help the Committee consider the bigger picture. Dr. Swan noted that although the policy excludes courses with multiple instructors, the Committee still needs to be informed about what evaluation procedures are used in such courses. The Committee voted unanimously in favor of granting the interim approval suggested by Vice Provost Swan.
2. Graduate School Fellowships Professor McCormick turned next to Dean Dubrow to provide an overview of Graduate School fellowships. Dean Dubrow told the Committee that when she came to the University, she was aware of the report about funding deficiencies, and was relieved that the Provost has committed $5 million more in recurring funds to support graduate fellowships. The question is what to do to induce departments to support graduate students on multi-year stipends and how those stipends relate to time to degree. She reported that she has made three changes to the fellowship and block grant awards. The number of awards has been increased, the size of the awards has been increased, and the Graduate School will reward units that develop plans for multi-year plans for students, using all sources of funds, for nearly all students in their program. This is part of a long-term plan to evaluate the gap in resources for programs. While trying to provide incentives in the award of block grants and fellowships, Dean Dubrow said she sees this as a partnership effort with programs in order to achieve the best practices. It also constitutes truth in advertising: units can communicate to graduate students what they can expect in fellowships, TAships, etc. One size will not fit all; some programs could be more research-oriented while others more teaching-oriented. But until plans are in place, it will not be clear what the funding gap in graduate education is. The stipends will increase from $17,500 to $21,000, which will help units avoid losing students on price. There will be a second-year award, the year to be taken at the student's discretion. Professor Neuhauser observed that with an increased stipend, they will not know how many students will accept offers. Dean Dubrow observed that if a program successfully recruited all of its number-one choices, there could be a deficitbut that would be a sign of success and the Graduate School would need to restructure the program. Professor Leger said his department had discussed these issues and was surprised that students would decide on the basis of a $4000 difference in support. Dean Dubrow said they have heard from students: the funding is a tie-breaker. Support for multiple years is also a factor. Mr. Pappas said the multi-year package would add security for graduate students in an uncertain process. In terms of years to degree, Professor Weinsheimer said there is not absolute number. If a student is offered support for six years, it will take six. If four years, it will take four. And students do not always try to get out. If the average number of years to degree is eight, a department will have to calculate how to support an appropriate number of students for that long (or do without Graduate School support). This will create an incentive to look at the curriculum; she has not heard any negatives, Dean Dubrow said, but they will need to look again at the plan if it creates unintended consequences. Professor McCormick said this was exciting news because there has been a lot of concern about support for graduate education. From everything they know, graduate education must be subsidized, Dean Dubrow said. If the assumption in the new budget model is that colleges must support themselves, how will graduate education be supported? When they identify the gap between what units have or are willing to commit to graduate education, and what they need, that will raise questions about support for graduate students (and whether they should be supported). Professor McCormick commented that the University will not achieve its goal of being among the top three public institutions without adequate support of graduate education. It will be supported, Dean Dubrow replied; the question is how to close the funding gap. Professor Cardwell said a number of his colleagues with outside support find it more efficacious to hire postdocs rather than graduate students; he said he believed the incentives favor the postdoc. Dean Dubrow said she has heard a lot about this issue and agreed that incentives favor hiring the postdoc. If there were a general requirement for training when hiring postdocs, rather than simply using them as employees, that would level the playing field some. One option she has mused about is raising the floor for postdoc salaries. The question, however, is not fringe benefit rates, it is training. Committee members made additional comments about the fringe rates making it more attractive to hire employees than supporting graduate students; that led Dean Dubrow to inquire rhetorically whether some party other than the department should be responsible for the tuition and health care costs of graduate students. Professor Siliciano said that they are working as students and colleagues and departments should not be treated as employers that must pay health care and tuition. Professor Neuhauser said that postdocs are not cheaper and that she would like to see their salaries increased; it is not fair that graduate student costs approach that of postdocs when first-year graduate students are nowhere near as research-productive as a postdoc. Dean Dubrow concluded that she needed to hear more from those who are making the choices. Professor Weinsheimer said there is also a limit to the number of graduate students who should be in each field, an issue that is not being addressed. At a certain point, it is inappropriate to keep admitting and training graduate students and it should be stopped because it is not in the interest of the student or the institution. Dean Dubrow commented that enrollment management occurs primarily in undergraduate education; at the graduate level it is vague except in for-profit institutions. There is no real control at the University, but one could look at factors such as development and the market. It would be a worthwhile discussion to talk about the management of enrollment, which should not be based on teaching needs. Professor McCormick said his department made that decision ten years ago: it would hire teaching specialists and lecturers rather than admit an inappropriate number of graduate students. Such discussions are needed in humanities departments, Professor Weinsheimer maintained. Dean Dubrow said she was glad to talk to the Committee about these issues and would return in the future to discuss changing practices. Professor McCormick thanked Dean Dubrow for her report.
3. Dental Hygiene Calendar Professor McCormick noted an email message he had received from Dental Hygiene asking that it be permitted to align its calendar with the School of Dentistry rather than the standard calendar for the Twin Cities campus. Committee members offered several observations. -- Dental Hygiene is an undergraduate program and there is a common undergraduate calendar for financial aid, grades, scheduling information, drop-add, and so on, that would all have to be changed for Dental Hygiene. There are no exemptions for any other undergraduate program. -- There are many changes in Dental Hygiene: it will switch to a masters program (so there will be no undergraduate Dental Hygiene program in the state) in order to get in line with the University's research mission. -- There would be a significant difference in the calendar, about three weeks. If Dental Hygiene students must take courses in other colleges, this change would be a problem; perhaps they only take courses in the program. If it is going to become a masters program, could it not just work with the current calendar until the change is made? Taking courses on two different calendars would be very difficult for undergraduates. -- Assistant Vice President Brandt did not know about this request, and she is the one trying to coordinate AHC calendars. Professor McCormick said he would communicate with the Dental Hygiene program about the issue and explain the Committee needed to talk more about it.
4. Comments on the Charge to the Science and Engineering Task Force Professor McCormick said that Professor Neuhauser, who serves as a co-chair of the strategic positioning task force on science and engineering, wished to hear Committee comments on the charge. A number were offered. -- Professor Bart said that with respect to the capacity of students to do well, there are three types of students: those of high ability and a lot of background, those who did modestly well in high school but who will flunk out in college science and engineering, and those who did modestly well in high school but who do not have the thinking skills to handle these fields. There are two schools of thought about this: one, students should take more class work, and two, these students need supplemental experiences to handle the materials. Some students take courses but lack the skills for them, but there are techniques that could help them. Will the task force be open to supplemental activities that would increase the likelihood that students would pass these courses? Some students can achieve in these fields if they have assistance. -- In terms of integrating engineering and science with biology, the Institute of Technology is already structured differently, Professor Leger said. Most colleges have a college of arts, sciences, and engineering; the University in 1935 chose to do things differently. The question is whether there should be a new structure, to integrate the biological sciences with engineering and the physical sciences. Professor Siliciano said for someone in Biological Sciences, it is difficult to work with IT and that they would be better off with a united administrative structure. The current arrangement also sets up competition between the two colleges (e.g., IT might want to offer its own biology courses) and they spend time contending because of the way tuition dollars flow. He added that he has never seen an academic structure where chemistry and biology were not in the same unit. -- The same question could be asked about the agricultural sciences, Dr. Shaw said; where would it stop? There is a need for more connections and it makes sense to put people together; what is not clear is where. It does not make sense to have all the sciences except agriculture in one place and they in another. There need to be permeable boundaries. -- Professor McCormick said he would favor a larger sciences college (which would be a step toward an Arts and Sciences college, which is what many of the top universities have). -- Vice Provost Swan cautioned that the existing college structure could be indigenous (a given) rather than endogenous (something the University has some control over). Professor Neuhauser said she believed that structure should follow content, but that the task force is early in its discussions. -- Professor Leger said there are two separate issues which suggest going in opposite directions. One is the way dollars flow and the other is getting people to work together. One can imagine a structure that solves one problem but not the other. Professor Cardwell agreed on the need to provide a system of integration of the physical and life sciences so that most problems would be solved. These also need to include engineering and technology. -- Mr. Ling suggested that the University institutionalize emphasis areas so that undergraduates can go between colleges more easily. Adding honors sections in some fields could also help promote excellence. -- Professor Bart said he was concerned about the part of the charge dealing with configuring "the sciences and engineering to best integrate and promote academic synergies, teaching, and research": in teaching, part of the role should be to make complexity understandable to students and make the interactions and synergies clearer to them.
Professor McCormick adjourned the meeting at 4:35.
1:15 - 3:00
238A Morrill Hall
Present: Steven Ruggles (chair), Dianne Bartels, Linda Bearinger, Richard Bianco,
Arlene Carney, Sharon Danes, Genevieve Escure, Steven Gantt, Paul Johnson,
James Klaas, James Luby, Brian Reilly, Thomas Schumacher, Virginia Seybold,
Charles Spetland, George Trachte, Barbara VanDrasek, Jean Witson
Absent: Mark Ascerno, Kathy Bowlin, James Cotter, Christopher Cramer, Dan Dahlberg, Robin Dittman, Penny Edgell, Jacob Granholm, Timothy Mulcahy, Mark Paller, Maria Sera, Michael Volna
Guests: Dean Gail Dubrow (Graduate School); Mark Bohnhorst (Office of the General Counsel); Ed Wink (Sponsored Projects Administration); Professors Susan Berry, Michael Oakes, Sarah Jane Schwarzenberg (IRB), Moira Keane, Carol Siegel (Research Subjects Protection Program)
Professor Ruggles convened the meeting at 1:15 and welcomed the new members of the Committee, Professor Bearinger and Mr. Klaas.
1. Graduate Fellowships Professor Ruggles now welcomed Dean Dubrow to the meeting to provide an update on graduate fellowships. Dr. Dubrow distributed a handout with details on Graduate School fellowship funds and discussed three key developments in Graduate School policy related to student support, including raising the level of graduate school fellowships to $21,000; awarding more two year fellowships; and rewarding units that develop multi-year funding packages for all of their students. She also provided facts related to Graduate School investments in the support of graduate students and shared news of new investments by the Provost in graduate student support. Dean Dubrow reviewed the current status of the fellowship funds. -- 2005-06: 130 fellows (58 Graduate School Fellows and 72 Doctoral Dissertation Fellows) (Graduate School funds are supplemented by one-time TCF funds) -- 2005-06 costs: $30,000 per fellow (stipend = $17,500, health insurance = $2,700, tuition plus U fee = $9,700) -- Recurring fellowship budget ($5.7 million) plus new funds ($3.2 million): GSF/DDF: $3.3 million current plus $1.28 million new = $4.58 million Block grants: $2.4 million current plus $1.92 million new = $4.32 million An additional $300,000 is designated for DOVE fellowships -- Current year block fellowship accounts, which are decentralized to programs, are being increased by 30% immediately, for spring 2006 use or to carry over in FY 2007. -- 2006-07 fellowship cost estimates: health insurance = $2,800, tuition plus U fee = $10,200, for a total of $13,000 in non-stipend costs. -- 2006-07 fellowship stipend costs @ $21,000 plus $13,000 in non-stipend costs for a total of $34,000 per fellow. $4.58 million divided by $34,000 equals ~135 fellows. -- Beginning in 2006-07, many more Graduate School Fellowships (for incoming students) will be offered as two-year awards, which recipients may take in their second, third, or fourth year (which will effectively reduce the number of awards in out years). -- An additional $1.5 million is to be allocated in FY07. If in the same proportion as the new $3.5 million, $550,000 in additional funds would increase the number of GSF/DDF awards by another 15, to 150+ fellows. OR, additional funds may be targeted to summer research awards of $4,000 (subject to recommendation of the fellowship committee). The effects of the large budget increase will be less dramatic than at first glance because 1) the larger share of the new funds has been designated as Block Grant fellowships, 2) necessary stipend increases, along with tuition/health insurance increases, will raise fellowship costs for 2006-07, and 3) the 2005-06 fellow numbers are higher because of the availability of non-recurring TCF funds. Committee members and Dean Dubrow exchanged views on several matters, after which Professor Ruggles thanked Dean Dubrow for her report.
2. Update from the Office of Regulatory Affairs: Professor Ruggles next invited Assistant Vice President Bianco to provide an update from his office. Mr. Bianco began by saying that his office is not well known, by design; it works in the background. It was formed by Senior Vice President Cerra in the mid-1990s in response to the University's troubles with NIH; Regulatory Affairs is now part of the Office of the Vice President for Research. He handles the operational side of compliance matters; Mr. Schumacher oversees the processes. Mr. Schumacher said that if individuals have questions about what they are doing, they should call Mr. Bianco's office. Part of his job is to sign the form for the federal government ensuring the University is complying with regulations relating to subjects protection (human and animal). He is involved in policy development; a number of policies were revised last year. The University is the first to have a comprehensive institutional conflict-of-interest policy, which is still being implemented. The Office of Regulatory Affairs has four divisions and seven FTE employees. The divisions are (1) conflict of interest (including managing the policy for the entire university and provides staff support for the two personal conflict-of-interest management committees), (2) clinical monitoring (of IRB-approved protocols for both the University and Fairview), (3) veterinary monitoring (for animal-approved protocols), and (4) general research policy and education. With respect to the last, they are working on revising the outside consulting policy and will bring it to the Committee soon.
3. Institutional Review Board (IRB) Issues Mr. Bianco introduced a number of individuals involved with the IRB: Moira Keane, Director of the Research Subjects Protection Program (the administrative home for the IRB and IACUC), Carol Siegel, the Associate Director, and three of the IRB committee chairs: Professors Susan Berry (the executive IRB committee), Michael Oakes (the social and behavioral science panels for student research), and Sarah Jane Schwarzenberg (one of the medical panels). They have no special report, he said, but were present at the meeting to answer questions. Professor Berry explained the structure of the IRB and how it relates to the institution. It is a peculiar committee, she said, because it is peer-constituted but mandated by federal policy and also includes non-institutional members. It is peculiar but it makes sense, she said. They do what the federal government mandates so they have sufficient representation from special areas (pediatrics, geriatrics), and if they do not have the expertise they need, they seek it. It is a faculty group but it is accountable directly to the Regents; their job is to protect human subjects so conventional governance processes do not apply, and the federal government mandates that the IRB be independent. The vast majority of its members, however, are faculty colleagues at the University, fellow faculty members who are also users of the IRB. She herself must obtain IRB approval for her research, Professor Berry pointed out. There are seven panels, six of which are working panels (four in medical fields, two in social sciences, and one of the latter is for student research because it includes special training activitiesit assists students to do research without delays). Professor Schwarzenberg made a plea that people volunteer to serve on the IRB. Professor Oakes observed that the social and behavioral sciences panel is more contentious for faculty. One reason is that the rules were written by and for biomedical research, which created problems from the outset. In some institutions, there is no social science representation on the IRB, but that is not true here; the social and behavioral sciences IRB panel is filled with social scientists. Professor Berry said that IRBs exist to protect human subjects. They (1) WANT research to be carried out, and they also protect investigators, (2) questions have been raised and suggestions made about streamlining the process, which the IRB endorses, (3) there is no reason not to make the membership lists of the IRB panels public, although they do not want to see individual members of the panels harassed, and (4) there is an appropriate concern that the PI does not always agree with what the IRB suggests and there has been a suggestion for an appeal process. With respect to the last, federal IRB regulations leave no room for an appeal process but the IRB agrees there should be discussion and welcomes an ongoing dialogue. They work hard to accommodate PIs, she said, but one must remember that there is no RIGHT to do human subjects research, a privilege that the individual retains by following federal regulations. Ms. Keane commented that they will make more transparent the process a PI can use if he or she disagrees with the IRB. She also said that they will make public the names of the panel members in order to honor their volunteer contributions. Professor Oakes said that they have ongoing discussions with PIsthe IRB makes suggestions, which the PI accepts or makes alternative suggestions in response. The process usually works out, and the appeal is within the regular channels of communication in the IRB. Professor Johnson said that a faculty member would have little idea if there is disagreement within the IRB about a specific proposal. Professor Berry said the panels have a general discussion after the PI presents the risks; the panel can decide it needs more information and there can be strong disagreements. They vote on all proposals and strive for consensus. There have been minority opinions (e.g., this research should not take place). Professor Schwarzenberg reported that her panels usually reach consensus, with only one or two people raising questions. Professor Johnson asked if information is available to the PI; are there minutes? Ms. Keane said that minutes are kept but only the decision is communicated to the PI; it would be unusual for a minority opinion to be communicated to the PI. And there are no names, Professor Oakes added; it is the committee speaking. Committee members must feel free to discuss proposals with the understanding that their comments are confidential, Professor Berry said; where they have strong dissent, they seek outside expertise, Professor Schwarzenberg added. Ms. Keane noted that applications to the IRB typically go through a department, or scientific groups will look at them, so by the time they reach the IRB they are about ready to go. Proposals that have had intense scientific review are usually in great shape, Professor Schwarzenberg agreed; where they have more problems is with unfunded, un-reviewed, single-investigator proposals. In the latter cases, the IRB has to start from the beginning. Professor Oakes said they up the special student panel because typically there is no benefit to humanity from student research. These are usually learning projects, so they use three factors to evaluate proposals: risk, benefit, and training. The risk is usually low, there is usually no benefit, but the training is great. In the case of applications from someone with an advisor, they try to work with the advisor to enhance the training experience and get the advisor in a mentoring relationship with respect to human- subjects research. Ms. Witson said she works with the IRB on a daily basis and commended the performance of the staff and panels. She offered suggestions on speeding up the process in order to meet deadlines and consolidation of responses when several different committees are involved. Ms. Siegel said that she is the ex officio liaison with PRDU (the Protocol Review and Data Use Committee that reviews protocols in the Department of Surgery for scientific and resource issues). The IRB has negotiated with the PRDU to not make stipulations to the consent forms. If they see something they believe the IRB missed, they call her and she adjudicates through the IRB, thus eliminating stipulations from multiple committees. Ms. Keane agreed that sometimes the process takes longer than they like and there are tensions because of the volume of proposals. The University has indicated there will be more money available, and they are trying to do more electronically, but there is a limit to how far that can go. They try to get information to the PI as soon as possible. Ms. Siegel added that every letter from the IRB must be written and then someone else must review it. She did not believe they are missing the 10-day deadlines, but they will try to get better. The problem is not electronics, it is lack of people, Mr. Bianco explained. And nothing puts off a researcher more than a rude letter. Professor Berry agreed and said they work with people to help them understand the collegial process. Mr. Bianco told the Committee that a big part of what they do is recruit people and work with departments that have a large number of projects but no representation on the IRB panels. Professor Schwarzenberg, he recalled, was a disgruntled researcher before becoming involved with the IRB. If someone does human subjects research, Professor Berry asserted, they have an obligation to participate in the IRBand they will do better research once they have served. Professor Ruggles asked whether an appeal could be made to another panel, if a PI has a dispute with one panel. Professor Berry said they try to have panels develop expertise and they do not believe faculty should "shop" IRB panels. They do occasionally have another panel review a project, but there have been no major differences. But there are cases with a minority opinion, Professor Ruggles said; there is no point to an appeal if there is a consensus on the panel, but if it is a close call, an appeal might make sense. The panel can work through a difficult case, Professor Berry said, and the executive panel that she chairs can help (they do not discuss individual cases but can help with the "what should we do about this" questions). They also help maintain uniformity in results. Professor Schwarzenberg said they will not ask one panel to second-guess another. There is no ultimate Supreme Court, Professor Oakes commented. The panel will engage the faculty member with a problem, Mr. Bianco said, but he is not authorized to override a panel decisionnor is the President or the Provost. If there is a problem, the PI is welcome to come back and discuss it, but by law there is no appeal. But there is more informal discussion and appeal than might appear to be the case, Professor Oakes said.
4. Openness in Research Administrative Policy The Committee briefly discussed the administrative policy on openness in research, and agreed that it should bring the policy back to the full Faculty Senate. Gary Balas, chair of the Subcommittee on Research Openness, will present the policy to the Faculty Senate at the March 2 Senate meeting.
Professor Ruggles adjourned the meeting at 3:00.
2:30 - 4:15 238A Morrill Hall
Present: Fred Morrison (chair), Charles Campbell, Arthur Erdman, Steve Fitzgerald,
Lincoln Kallsen, Joseph Konstan, Michael Korth, Ian McMillan, Kathleen O'Brien,
Kathryn Olson, Richard Pfutzenreuter, Justin Revenaugh, Karen Seashore, Michael
Sertich, Alfred Sullivan, Kate VandenBosch Absent: Calvin Alexander, Christina
Bachmeier, Rose Blixt, Daniel Feeney, Dan Hennen, Thomas Klein, Judith Martin,
Jacob Olson, Charles Speaks, Thomas Stinson, Susan Van Voorhis, Michael Volna,
Warren Warwick
1. Administrative Strategic Positioning Task Forces: Professor Morrison convened the meeting at 2:30 and turned to Vice President O'Brien to provide an update on the work of the administrative strategic positioning task forces. He noted that there will be a report to the Regents next week on this same topic; this meeting is a chance for the Committee to get its oar in if it wishes to do so. Vice President O'Brien distributed copies of a set of slides and began by discussing the relationship between vision, strategies, plans, and budgets. She recalled President Bruininks's declaration, in his inaugural address, that "the University of Minnesota will be known as much for its service and business innovations as for its high quality research, education, and outreach." Those in support services see the President's statementvision as a challenge; they appreciate the recognition and need help in strengthening what they do. The guiding principlesthe strategiesdefine the playing field. These include (and are largely direct quotes) working toward optimal alignment of administrative services with the academic mission, openness to reviewing all and any administrative process, structure, and policy (that is, everything is on the table), recommending administrative initiatives that can be implemented within the targeted timeframe, identification of structures and processes that can remove barriers, eliminate duplication, and reduce regulation, assumption that any such recommendations will be University-wide (with minimal opt-out provisions and only for specific reasons agreed on in advance), emphasis on the need for decision-making that is driven by reliable information rather than past practice or anecdote, and understanding the impact of change on individuals and units and planning appropriately. The objective, Ms. O'Brien said, is to provide administrative services at the best value to support the education, research, and service missions of a top-ranked public research university. The administrative culture and services will be integrated and cross-functional. The action areas include recognizing the University (campuses, colleges, departments) as a single enterprise; embracing and achieving a culture that is committee to excellence, service, and continuous improvement; transforming the "centralized versus decentralized" administrative structure; adopt best-practices management tools; focus administrative support on serving students, faculty, and academic units; maximize opportunities for people of the University to grow, develop, and contribute; and optimize the use of the University's physical, financial, and technological resources. Vice President O'Brien then identified foundational work and current projects for four of the action areas. In the area of a single enterprise, for example, foundational work includes development of "single enterprise" systems and current projects include Resource 25, the new classroom scheduling system, and a single IT network. On the example of Resource 25, Professor Konstan asked if there is place where resolution of conflicts will take place. For instance, perhaps the University could serve students better (by having classes when they want them, concentrated early in the day) and faculty research (by concentrating classes, allowing larger blocks of time) by being inefficient in the use of classrooms. He would not argue that is the case, but is there a place where these potential conflicts can be resolved? Ms. O'Brien said there are a number of places, including the administrative task force steering committee. She noted that space is debated holistically during the capital planning process (what is the right kind of space, how much is needed, and so on). Professor Konstan's question is important: is the process is asking all of the questions and the right questions? Professor Konstan commented that there needs to be someone watching to see when optimizing (in one area) might not be optimal (overall). The vision of administrative strategic positioning is to break down barriers between and across units so that resources can be leveraged to achieve transformational change and achieve the President's objective. The task forces are at work, identifying projects and keeping focused on action areas, and there is substantive work in each area that one can point to as implementation. Ms. O'Brien reviewed the implementation structure, the responsibilities of the steering committee (and its membership), its objective, and the general responsibilities of the task forces (achieve system-wide success, refine and periodically verify the scope and direction, and provide direction and resources to project implementation efforts). She said that she expects to receive reports from the task forces in January and they will be on line in February for review. That will be when the Committee reviews them as well. Professor Erdman asked two questions. One, how will the reward system for faculty and staff change to ensure the success of these efforts? Two, how will the process sustain itself over the years? Vice President O'Brien noted that one of the administrative task forces is "People," and that group has talked with Human Resources Vice President Carol Carrier about compensation and performance. There is a recognition that if the University is to develop people, compensation and reward need to be looked at. Professor Morrison said that this would also involve the creation or changing of job families so there would be progression opportunities; job satisfaction as well as cash compensation will be part of the equation. As for the second question, Vice President O'Brien said the President has asked that the task forces remain in place for two years to assess the changes for their efficacy. The reports from these task forces will look different from the academic task forces. The task forces will meet to assess projects, whether they require redirection, and whether they are on track. Professor Seashore asked what is meant by "transforming the 'centralized versus decentralized' administrative structure." The objective is a defined, distributed administrative structure, not centralized or decentralized, but rather aligned and integrated, Ms. O'Brien said. The goal is to restructure activities so they are at the level they belong (central, college, department) and that they have appropriate resources. They are assessing each management system and functional area to determine what needs to be centralized, what decentralized, and where there are core competencies and appropriate resources. Professor Seashore said that a one-size-fits-all model could be difficult because colleges vary in size so much; CLA may be able to do things on its own that the Humphrey Institute could not. Professor Morrison noted that another task force is looking at small colleges to see if there are economies of scale that could be achieved. Ms. O'Brien said that there are discussions with the small college task force and she agreed that one size would not fit all; they will need to fine-tune the system to meet the needs of the colleges. Professor Seashore observed that it would not be desirable to rationalize the University by making all colleges the same size. Ms. O'Brien agreed but said that a defined and distributed system does work in large, complex organizations and it can work at the University; such a system is necessary to eliminate duplication and ensure quality. There are also regional and sub-regional approaches, Mr. Kallsen said; Professor Morrison concurred, noting that some activities could be collegiate and some regional in order to ensure all units are covered (e.g., West Bank, St. Paul, AHC, etc.). Ms. O'Brien said they expect a mixed model. Are they looking at other universities doing the same kind of vigorous planning, Professor Seashore asked? They are, Ms. O'Brien said, in particular UC San Diego and the University of Illinois. Professor Konstan asked if Vice President O'Brien had any sense of how information would be disseminated to unit levels. Departments are managed by people who have been promoted for things other than their management skills and they do not receive a lot of training. If information is to filter down, they need to be sure department heads receive advice based on the profile and budget of the department. Ms. O'Brien said that is exactly right and which is where the challenge of implementation will come in. A broader group from across the University must be engaged to achieve implementation. One project might be a "chair camp," Professor Morrison said, which would be a more fulsome training program for people appointed to management positions. A number of service unit heads can do things without cross-unit work, Professor Konstan said. For example, Parking successfully spent effort years ago to consolidate parking spots centrally when they had been considered, in some cases, the property of colleges or units. On the other had, Parking still has a line in its publications stating that the only reason justifying special reciprocity in parking is for teaching-which is strange for a university that has as its goal being one of the top three public research universities. In fact, Parking does not enforce that rule and recognizes that research is important, but the rhetoric sends the wrong message. Professor Morrison thanked Vice President O'Brien for her report.
2. Six-Year Capital Plan & 2006 Capital Request: The six-year capital plan went to the Regents in November for information and will be acted on by the Board in December, Professor Morrison reported. In the meantime, Vice President O'Brien met with the Subcommittee on Capital Projects and Campus Master Planning, chaired by Professor Erdman. Vice President O'Brien distributed another handout and, with Vice President Pfutzenreuter and Executive Associate Vice President Sullivan, led the discussion of the six-year capital plan. The principles guiding the plan are: "ensure long-term academic excellence by aligning capital projects with the University's strategic positioning goal and action step, promoting asset stewardship by investing in existing facilities and infrastructure, addressing academic and service unit priorities, leveraging space utilization opportunities, [and] upholding the institution's financial position and debt capacity." In other words, if the University is to be among the top three public research universities, Ms. O'Brien said, what does that mean for facilities? In terms of "promoting asset stewardship," the University has existed for over 150 years and will be here a lot longer; how can it get the best use of its buildings and its information technology and research infrastructure? In terms of "leveraging space utilization," the University cannot afford to add 28 million gross square feet of space every 50 years, it would probably not build that much space if it were starting anew, and it needs to make the best possible use of the space it has. "Upholding the institution's financial position" means that it has to have the money to pay for facilities. Vice President O'Brien reviewed the schedule and components of the six-year capital plan. The 2006 capital budget plus the plans for the next five years make up the plan. The 2006-2011 plan will continue to include an all-funds debt projection and financial planning parameters, will include a separate section for projects that have permission to seek federal funding (this is the first time this element has been included, but it will require a disciplined decision about what is most important and cannot be a license for many projects to seek federal funding), and adds flexibility to the 2010 capital request by limiting specific projects (because strategic positioning could lead to identification of projects that are not known today). Dr. Sullivan, alluding to the principles that Vice President O'Brien had enunciated, observed that many projects fit under more than one principle. Some examples of the principles in action, however, are inclusion of Physics and a new Medical Biosciences Building in the six-year capital request as part of aligning capital projects with strategic positioning; addressing academic and service unit priorities is exemplified by including the Science Teaching and Student Services building (replacing the Science Classroom Building at the end of the Washington Avenue Bridge), the UMD Labovitz Business School, and Research and Field Stations, Land Care Facility (the University is a small city and has much it must take care of), and Land Purchases; seeking to leverage space utilization is represented by the Carlson School of Management expansion (which also provides space for CLA) and the Strategic Positioning Reallocation Fund ($15 million to cover reallocation costs that are expected although not yet identified). The Carlson School expansion, planned in the context of the West Bank as an area, will save the University approximately $18-20 million and yet another project on the West Bank. "Promoting asset stewardship" is represented by including funding for HEAPR, Folwell and Northrop exterior stabilization (e.g., tuck pointing, roofs) and the Briggs Library at Morris. (Folwell and Northrop stabilization will cost $15 and $21 million, respectively, but will save having to pay more later.) Professor Morrison noted that part of the façade of the U. S. Supreme Court recently fell off, and a similar incident at the University "would be bad." Mr. Pfutzenreuter next reviewed the University's debt capacity. The University has approximately $596 million in debt capacity for 2006-2011; the question is how to pay for it were it to be used. The proposed six-year capital plan, if fully funded, plus other projects (including a new football stadium), would use $392 million of that capacity, leaving $204 million unused. He also reviewed the sources of funds for the six-year plan (state funding, University fundscentral reserves, etc.debt, and other sources such as grant funding and donations. Professor Seashore noted that one of the strategic positioning goals is an increased capacity for human service training by consolidating two or three colleges. That is a wonderful idea but there is a physical plant problem: the new college will be scattered across 16-17 buildings on several campuses and the goal will not come to fruition without changes in space allocation. How will this academic priority be translated into a capital priority? A big part of the issue is timing, Mr. Pfutzenreuter said; the capital plan has to be done before strategic positioning is completed, which is why the 2010 request has largely been left a blank (there is a big "to be determined item" for that year, amounting to $170 million). Second, they have set aside the $15 million for relocation, recognizing that some things would have to be done. Third, the 2008 projects to be requested could change. Professor Seashore said she understood that items move up and down on the capital plan; the simple question is when do academic priorities come into play in the planning process. Dr. Sullivan said the compact process includes a facilities section. The administration reviews these requests and builds a "contenders" list. He observed that there can only be one "number one" priority at a time and deciding among facility needs is an excruciating process. Professor Seashore said that her college is only one example of a situation that will arise a number of times, and the three deans currently in place will not make a joint request for space for the new unit. Any new dean will take a couple of years to become acclimated to the job. Ms. O'Brien agreed the process does rely on college leadership; Professor Seashore said that is why she brought up the centralized/decentralized question: there is a need for visionary deans. Some units have them, some do not. The compact is a starting point, Dr. Sullivan said, but the central officers and staff have an institutional memory and are aware of these kinds of issues. Professor Campbell said that he has been on this Committee a long time and in his view it was VERY important that capital project planning was added to the compact process. That makes capital planning more tied to academic priorities. It also reinforces the centrality of collegiate units, Professor Seashore said, and regionalization will not address college needs. Regionalization works on the administrative side. She said she believed the process is a good one but the administration needs to look for holes. Mr. Pfutzenreuter said that a key issue in the six-year capital plan is science facilities. There are few $20-million science buildings any more (the Physics building is projected at $72 million, medical biosciences facility at $60 million), so they have raised the issue of how to pay for these expensive science buildings. As the University goes to the legislature for capital funding, there will be HEAPR and four projectsand soon, as these price go up, it could be HEAPR and two projects. The University cannot build these buildings without state support, but there needs to be a different approach so the big science buildings are not competing with a lot of other small projects across the state. Professor Konstan pointed out that the 2006 request consists of buildings for the business schools at Duluth and the Twin Cities plus science buildings. That will not get a lot of internal support across the University unless it can be shown that other units benefit as well. Professor Morrison said the faculty would soon receive an email from him identifying the benefits of the proposed projects to other units. Is there any top-three university that is not strong in the core arts and humanities, Professor Konstan asked? Is there any way to say that the request is pushing toward the mission, even though there are not funds for those programs? The money is being sought so that space can be freed up for the arts and humanities, Professor Morrison said. That raises the question about who speaks for the entire University, Vice President O'Brien said. Someone must look at where investments have been made rather than just provide rhetorical support. Across ten years of capital requests, however, some areas have done well some times and others have done well at different times. But the strategic positioning process is not taking into account space needs that result from college consolidations, Professor Morrison observed, and it will have to do so explicitly at some point. It will, Mr. Pfutzenreuter said. Ms. O'Brien said there is not specific information available yet for each consolidation plan. Professor Morrison said that any task force plan will be incomplete if it omits how space should be configured. Professor Seashore disagreed; she said the task forces cannot identify which groups of faculty from the three colleges will get together. Professor Erdman also noted that the task forces have been asked not to address space issues. Professor Seashore said this is a 4-5-year project. Dr. Sullivan said that he, Mr. Pfutzenreuter, and Ms. O'Brien have talented staff with a lot of walking-around experience of campus buildings. They will not make decisions but will think about opportunities; at this point, however, there is not enough information to make any decisions. He said he wanted the Committee to be assured, however, that there are people thinking about space questions. Professor Morrison thanked Ms. O'Brien, Mr. Pfutzenreuter, and Dr. Sullivan for their report.
3. Faculty Salary Goal: Professor Morrison said the Committee needed to continue to work on the question of the faculty salary goal vis-à-vis the strategic positioning goal. He believed there were two conclusions from the last meeting: the preliminary resolution that will be brought to the Faculty Senate ("If the University aspires to be among the top three public research universities in the world, the aspiration must include salaries commensurate with that aspiration"), and that the Committee needed more study and data. What does it wish to do, he inquired? Professor Konstan said he would like to see salaries normalized by discipline, length of service, etc., so the case can be made. One question is how much of the University's faculty is in highly-paid areas; if a lot, the data may understate the problem. Professor Morrison said the first set of data, normalized by discipline, does not exist; data by discipline exist, but the farther down one goes, quality and accessibility decrease. And comparisons exist for some disciplines but not others. Those to whom the University wishes to compare itself may not release disciplinary data. The salary data the Committee has already receivedby rank in the Big Ten, top 30, and AAUP institutional dataare as robust as it will get. The Committee needs to provide a more complete statement to the Provost by December or January if it is to be effective, Professor Morrison said. He asked that Committee members provide him with suggestions on what might be included in an additional statement; a draft will be on the agenda of the next meeting or so. Professor Korth inquired if the statement would include Morris; he provided salary data for Morris comparison groups. Professor Morrison said it would; this is a University-wide commitment to excellence, and for Morris perhaps the goal is to be among the top three public liberal arts colleges. Professor Seashore, looking at the two lists provided to the Committee, expressed a preference for the "Morris 14" because it has institutions that are known locally. The only problem is that it is heavily private, Professor Morrison said. It has, however, been used for over a decade, Professor Korth pointed out, so is generally recognized as the appropriate group for the Morris campus. Professor Konstan wondered if Morris had not already achieved the goal of being among the top three in its category; what incremental changes are needed? Professor Korth said if one believes the U.S. News and World Report rankings, Morris has been number three a few times and in the most recent rankings it was number four.
Professor Morrison adjourned the meeting at 4:20.
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.
Minutes Senate Committee on Educational Policy Wednesday, October 26, 2005 2:30 - 4:30 238A Morrill Hall Present: Richard McCormick (chair), William Bart, LeAnn Dean, (Patricia Jones-Whyte for) Gail Dubrow, Josh Feneis, Eric Ling, Claudia Neuhauser, Christopher Pappas, Mary Ellen Shaw, Paul Siliciano, Donna Spannaus-Martin, Craig Swan, Sara Tuttle, Douglas Wangensteen, Joel Weinsheimer Absent: Vernon Cardwell, Shawn Curley, James Leger, Emily Ronning
1. Draft Questions for Student Release Professor McCormick convened the meeting at 2:30 and began by introducing the two new student members of the Committee, Mr. Ling and Ms. Tuttle. He then reported on the status of the "student release" questions for the student evaluation of teaching forms. He reviewed the development of the questions and noted that the Senate, at its last meeting of spring, 2005, delegated to this Committee final authority to approve questions. The Senate asked that Committee seek assistance from experts in survey questions; Professor Michael Rodriguez from Educational Psychology has been working on the wording and piloting of questions. At this point they are waiting for the Student Senate leadership to approve the wording of the questions; once that approval has been obtained, the questions will be piloted. The questions are very similar to the ones the Committee saw last year and they reflect the interests of the students. Professor McCormick agreed that the Committee would see the wording of the questions, for information, as approved by the Student Senate leadership before they are piloted.
2. Grading Data The Committee voted 11-1 to close this portion of the meeting. The Committee discussed courses with a high percentage of A's. At the conclusion of the discussion the Committee approved on an 8-2 vote (with two abstentions) the following statement: The Senate Committee on Educational Policy has reviewed material provided by Vice Provost Swan with regard to courses with a high percentage of A's. There are clearly some situations where a high proportion of A's would not be unusual, e.g., smaller classes with a large proportion of high ability students. While there are no simple numeric limits that the Committee would want to impose, a high proportion of A's in large classes for which there is little reason to expect that enrollment would be selective does raise questions about the appropriateness of the use of the A-F grading scale. In particular, SCEP believes that there are a group of courses for which S-N grades would be more appropriate. These include courses where there are not specific differential expectations of performance linked to grades; grades appear to be heavily based on attendance rather than an evaluation of learning. The Committee asks the Provost's Office to share this statement with colleges, to have follow-up conversations with colleges on specific courses, and to report back to SCEP by the end of the spring semester.
3. Charges to Strategic Planning Task Forces: Graduate Reform: Student Support Professor McCormick next asked Committee members to review the charge to the "Graduate Reform: Student Support" task force. He noted that the task forces do seem to be taking seriously the questions SCEP has raised about the other task force charges; one of the chairs of one task force has asked to meet with SCEP. Committee members made several suggestions/comments about the Student Support task force charge: -- At present, graduate students do not have access to the writing center, but there are students (native and non-native English speakers alike) who need assistance. These students do not have access because the Graduate School does not contribute to the support of the writing center. -- The task force does not appear to be charged to consider diversity and to have broad representation in the graduate student population. -- There is need to address support that is not available to graduate students, but needed, such as child care (which is available to undergraduates). -- Graduate students need help with visas. There is an office that helps with this, but visa issues have become more difficult since 9/11, and the office in question has difficulty meeting the demand. -- Graduate students in general are skeptical or cynical about the strategic positioning process and have little faith that it will help them very much. A lot of the wording in the charges is vague and does not seem to mean very much. There is little mention of the financial situation of graduate students, especially with respect to health care, and housing is also an important issue. There is a lack of data on salaries, the number of TAs and RAs, and no one is doing a systematic review of the data. The amount required for international students to come to the University, for example, is a random guess; there are no data to make an informed decision. -- This is an opportunity to highlight graduate education, which is something the University has not done much for the public or the legislature; inside the University it is recognized as important. There is, however, not enough money to pay students and the University loses some of the best students to other schools; that situation will make it tough to get into the top three. Top students get excellent offers from other schools and the University will not be able to compete without additional funds. A related issue is that Directors of Graduate Study turn over every three years so there is a lack of institutional memory. Quality in the DGSs fluctuates, even though the Graduate School trains them. The DGSs play a significant role. (A concurring view:) It is difficult to attract top graduate students to Minnesota because other schools offer $4,000 - 5,000 more. The high fringe benefit rate also makes it cheaper to hire postdocs, which some are doing because of the shortage of money. -- Even after one discounts prejudice, undergraduates cannot understand some TAs and professors. This is still a residual problem; the University needs to support accent-reduction programs and insist on proficiency in English. -- It is to be hoped that the thought that has gone into improving the undergraduate experience could be directed to the improvement of the experience of graduate students as well. -- Professor McCormick noted that the new Graduate School dean, Gail Dubrow, attended the Committee retreat and discussed a major re-thinking of graduate education at the University. It is to be hoped that an effort similar to what has gone into improving the undergraduate experience could be directed to the improvement of the experience of graduate students as well.
4. Charges to Strategic Planning Task Forces: Graduate Reform: Discipline Evolution -- There are graduate programs that are purely interdisciplinary and not linked to departments; funding for those programs is uncertain and insufficient to provide adequate student support. It is thus difficult for students to get through them and obtain positions in other departments. -- There is a contradiction here: The University wants to promote interdisciplinary/emerging work but it also wants to close departments. (But, contrarily, even with increasing resources, if there are new places the University should put its money, how can it do so without closing other departments/programs? The Committee could talk about the process for closing units. One criterion might be that they are too small. In the case of emerging programs, which will start small, they must be given time to grow, but if they do not, they should be closed.) -- The entire strategic positioning process is related to the new budget model; one hears that the new model is like the current model, only worse. The new model will assess all costs to colleges, which raises questions about whether it will support interdisciplinary work. There may be a pool of central funds available to provide incentives to colleges to support interdisciplinary units. Ultimately, with respect to this task force, it will be an issue of resources and how graduate students and interdisciplinary programs are funded. -- There was a prestigious department called "History of Consciousness" at one institution in California; it could not place students. That is a problem with new names for departments and centers: people do not know what they mean. The University is conflicted about this: it wants to promote cutting-edge research, but it could be that one must be in a department and do excursions into new research, rather than creating new units. It is not necessary to create a new program/center/department to do a lot of interdisciplinary research in a department. But departments must allow the flexibility to do such research. -- One thing that might be considered in this area is a request to the state for funding because the state is interested in interdisciplinary work. The Governor is interested in biomedical work. -- This discussion raises the question about the structure in which interdisciplinary research is done: with a new department and tenured faculty, or a research center and a couple of courses to bring people together? -- The Committee discussed the definition of "applied doctorates" and the University's role in the state in offering doctoral education. -- Interdisciplinary research as used in this context is what NIH and NSF have as a model, encouraging PIs from different fields to work together, not what might happen in CLA. And to do good interdisciplinary work, one must know the disciplines. Students are still trained in a discipline, but so they can talk to people in other fields. These interdisciplinary interests and efforts also shift over time, so institutionalizing an interdisciplinary program is a problem. -- It is beneficial for students to be plunged into another discipline and it is good for the University to encourage interdisciplinary "travel" so that students learn from other fields. (Every Ph.D. student must have a supporting program.) -- Biomedical Engineering is an interdisciplinary program but like some, it may be here for a long time. The University needs to think about how to set up these long-term programs. Most, however, will not be around for years.
5. Charges to Strategic Planning Task Forces: Faculty Culture -- It is surprising how far down the list teaching is. (But one can be happy to see that teaching is there at all. There is an issue in terms of what strategic positioning means for teaching and undergraduate education.) -- Vice Provost Swan expressed fundamental disagreement with a concern that teaching will be de-emphasized in the strategic positioning process. There have been discussions about which public universities are #1 and #2; the general consensus seems to be that they are Berkeley and Michigan. Both institutions offer great experiences for undergraduates and graduate students, and they attract great students. They seem to have solved any conflict between being a great research university and delivering good education. These are not polar opposites. -- Teaching is mentioned in the strategic positioning documents but there is a common perception that it is less important, especially outside the University and among undergraduates. The Provost has declared that this will remain a university, not become a research institute. -- There are a lot of competitors around the world, beyond Berkeley and Michigan; a number of institutions are publicly-funded but do not have the same missions as public universities in the United States. Rankings for public research universities come out but it is not clear what numbers are used for teaching. The University of Florida system, which seems to be one the University might use, includes one measurement that has to do with undergraduates: ACT/SAT scores. A lot of studies rely on graduation and retention rates as an indirect proxy for teaching. Retention and graduation, however, will also be higher if there are higher ACT/SAT scores. The metrics and measurement task force is working on measurement of learning. This is a tricky issue because one needs a measure that goes across institutionsand while the University does a lot of surveys of students, they are not the same as surveys that other institutions do. -- There has been talk of using the "University of Florida plus": using it plus other measures the University believes important. The Florida study, however, is domestic, so other measures will have to be used for international comparisons. -- The game (aiming to be among the top three public research universities in the world) is not a worthy one. The University is already among the top research universities in the world, and it can direct funds to improve or retain its position, but the emphasis on the numbers is contemptible. The only way to get to the top three is to go headhunting at other universities because that is the way it is done. The document mentions ambitions with respect to rankings several times; teaching is mentioned once. The University is "pretty damn good," and it can be better, but the articulation of this goal is not a good thing. -- Where the University ranks lowest is on the data for incoming students; it could fix that problem by lopping off the students with lower scores. -- The University should not make a fetish of the numbers but it does need aspirational goals to be excellent in all that it does, or it could easily be in 10th or 11th place and become complacent. Every hiring decision, for example, should be the best person the University can get to do research and work with students. -- The issue of resources is not brought up; the best faculty will go to places that provide more support and funding. -- The reason it is called strategic positioning is to help the state understand what a resource it has in the University. That could lead to more support, if successful, which could mean additional resources. Those who began the strategic positioning process were right: the University must move forward if it is to survive because there will not be as many research universities in this country in the future. In the national and international marketplace, the University must set an aggressive goal if it is to survive. -- It is not just a question of hiring; once people are here, it is important they develop a commitment to the University. They will not stay if they do not. -- With respect to retaining faculty, there are resource questions when it comes to faculty salaries and faculty size vis-à-vis the number of students. This is a small faculty, which leads to more service commitments, which take away time from research, so the faculty cannot be as productive. -- One general item with respect to culture is that it has changed to much more of a free agency system and with less identification with the unit or University. It is not just salary, it is also other elements of the job, but it is something the University does not often think about. One example: a faculty member received an offer of a large increase in salary from another institution; he told the Provost that he did not want a salary increase but wanted three new assistant professors in his area. Why the change in culture? One simplistic answer is because other universities became willing to raid and offer more money and endowed chairs. -- There has always been movement of faculty. One question is whether the counter-offers now must be larger; one could test that proposition but it's not clear what it would show. If the University creates a place where faculty are committed to the University, they will not leave for small differences in salary. -- But everyone knows there are two ways to get a big raise: get an outside offer or be in a situation where one MIGHT receive an outside offer (preventive retention). The ability to move is a criterion of value. It used to be that the Ivies had lousy salaries and the benefit was the prestige; this is no longer the case. They have higher salaries and are more competitive than public institutions. -- The cost of living in the Twin Cities is no longer as moderate as it once was. -- People are not as happy here (they are more cynical) than faculty at other institutions. That needs to change so that people LIKE to be here rather than just look at their paycheck. This is just a feeling about the University, but it seems to be true. At other places faculty respect the place and like the location; here they tend to get jerked around more. There is more buy-in elsewhere. At the University new faculty are provided a good salary and a big start-upand five years later they leave. It is hard to pinpoint the causes, but there is a need to build commitment to the University. A lot of faculty retire, and many of them retire angry. -- The University could do more to support families of assistant professors. Other places pay attention to that matter. It can be something as simple as daycare. -- Being in the top three is a big deal, but those already among the best are not going to wait for the University. The University must think about what will be important in the future. What does it not have for new faculty? What will help current faculty remain productive as new faculty are brought in? If there is no money because the University is paying senior faculty to keep up with students, what do new faculty have to look forward to? There is a question of career trajectory; faculty should be permitted to work in several disciplines without penalty. Bringing in new faculty could make the University more attractive. At one of the Ivy schools, the prevailing attitude among the faculty was "how can I shape the place," not "what can the University do for me?" The conviction on the part of the faculty that they can shape the place is missing here.
Professor McCormick adjourned the meeting at 4:35.