February 13, 2002

CHAIR ROBERT WILCOX - If you take your seats, we will go ahead and begin.

This is a specially called meeting of the Faculty Senate. As you may have, hopefully, read in your e-mail, we will adjust the agenda a little bit today from what we had originally expected to do. We will begin with an hour-long discussion of value-centered management. We will then move into some of the merger issues. The Medical School faculty senators have asked that we defer the discussion of the Health Sciences merger until next week so that they can provide the body with some information before we have that discussion, and I said we will do that. But we will proceed otherwise on schedule.

There has been a request for an announcement for the good of the order before we begin.

PROFESSOR ROBERT LYON (ART) - I sadly tell you today that one of our professors, Dr. Ron Baughman, passed away last night from kidney cancer. As many of you may, I am sure, know Dr. Baughman who has been a long time pillar of the university and a long time faculty member of the Media Arts department and for the last seven years the Department of Art. So it is with great sadness that I announce this to you.

CHAIR WILCOX - Thank you for informing the body.

PROFESSOR WALT HANCLOSKY (MEDIA ARTS) - If I may follow up that, there will be visitation at the Dunbar Funeral Home this Friday morning and then there will be a memorial service this Saturday at the Westminster Church on Broad River Road. All of the times for these events are yet to be determined.

CHAIR WILCOX - If you did not hear that, there will be a visitation at Dunbar on Friday and then the memorial service will be at Westminster Church on Saturday. Is that correct? And, certainly on behalf of the Faculty. we would extend our condolences to his family as well.

The matter that we will take up today in our proceedings is the concept of value-centered management. It certainly has been raised several times already in our discussions and I felt it was something we needed to get to the table directly. In the discussion, I hope we will talk not only about the general concepts of it, but, to the extent that there are specific questions, as to how value-centered management fits with other goals and objectives - I think those questions will be appropriate as we proceed.

One piece of information: The Libraries have put together for the Provost's Office a bibliography of materials on value centered management. It is available on the Libraries home page at the university site. If you are interested in more reading on that, you can go and get that information from that site, so I will commend that to you as well.

I have asked that we begin today with a 10-minute or so introduction from Jerry Odom -- or whomever you would like to designate -- an introduction to what value-centered management is and what the committee had in mind in its recommendation. We will then throw it open to your questions.

PROVOST JEROME ODOM - Thank you very much Rob. If everybody can hear me I'll just stand right here and talk for just a moment. Let me tell you also that that information on the web site was put together for your benefit as well. John Olsgaard had the library gather this information and put it on its own address. But I urge you to read as much as you can about that.

This value-centered management or responsibility-centered management or incentive based budgeting is a management tool but more than a tool I think it is a philosophy. I told Rob earlier that clearly in this particular situation the devil is in the details. And, we don't know the details yet. I'll just be very frank with you. This is used at fairly large universities generally. Although smaller universities have used this as well, I think it works better in general for large rather complex universities. It works fairly well for multi-campus institutions as well. One of the articles that I found on this web page which has been very helpful to me is entitled "A Primer on Responsibility Center Budgeting and Responsibility Center Management." One that I found very interesting and I think you would as well is one entitled beware "Higher Eds Newest Budget Twist." It is by a physicist at Temple University. He gives some of the disadvantages and very clearly there are disadvantages.

Let me start with the basic philosophy, the basic concept of this and then we can go from there. The basic concept is that we establish what is called a center and that center is a college or school primarily. And, that we look at all the sources of revenue that come into the university and those sources of revenue primarily are state appropriations, student tuition and fees, research grants and contracts, and money through development. The development money, the research grants and contracts, and the student tuition and fees go to the center that is responsible for generating that revenue. The state appropriation goes to the central administration to be allocated based on discussions between the central administration and the deans and based on strategic plans and strategic priorities. Now we already let the units, and the units are the colleges, keep 50% of the indirect costs. That figure would go up with respect to research. And, of course, research funds, research grants and contracts also go to the unit that generates that. In general when your development officer and your dean or your chair generates money through development for specific things within the colleges clearly that goes to the college as well. So what is really new about this has to do with the tuition and fees that would go to the college or to the school. The question there is - is this done by FTEs or is this done by majors. And, it has been done in both ways. If you look at the different schools that have used this philosophy and this tool in one way or another (and every system is unique to the institution to some degree because every institution is unique), you will find that it has been done in different ways or it has been done in a combination of ways. And that is something that we have to determine. I can tell you that the committee talked on the phone for an entire afternoon to Bob McGuire, who is the chief financial officer at Indiana University, Purdue University in Indianapolis. That is where this concept started before it moved to the Bloomington campus. We also did a lot of reading about the system at the University of Michigan - who started five years after the Indiana system. That was the value-centered management that we used. We chose that title because we liked that title and one of the reasons is that Michigan continually emphasized the need for this particular management philosophy to protect the core values of the university. That has to occur if you are going to have a viable university. So we have talked to Bob again since then asking additional questions. Rick Kelly and I plan to put together a team of people that will visit several universities if this recommendation is implemented. We will visit several universities and we will try to find out what is good and what is bad about the system at each university. We have said that we would recommend that the two systems be run in parallel -- our normal budgeting system and the new system pretty much as a shadow system next year. To be very honest with you I would be very surprised if we could accomplish this in one year. It requires a long-term commitment and I think everybody who has implemented it will tell you that. And, at the same time it requires you to make adjustments to the system based on your institution and what is unique there within the characteristics of your budgeting. The people that will need to be very closely involved I think in this are the central administration, the people in business and finance but more importantly the deans and the Faculty Budget Committee of the Faculty Senate. This budget committee has been very important over the last several years in helping me and, in turn, I have tried to help them. Show them what we are trying to do with strategic plans and budgeting. They have attended, at least one member usually more than one member, has attended every budget hearing that we have had with the deans and with the vice-presidents and the president. So the Faculty Budget Committee is pretty much up-to-date on where we are right now. But I think it would be very important that they be involved in this. The deans clearly - they are the heads of the centers of the responsibility centers - so they clearly would be very involved.

One of the questions you might ask is - in this responsibility-centered or value-centered management does this go to the departmental level and the answer to that is - it is up to the dean. In some places it does go to the departmental level and in some places it doesn't go to the departmental level. One of the advantages is that this places the budgeting decisions, the planning decisions, the strategic decisions at a level removed from the central administration which clearly can't have the familiarity with what is going on in that particular center as well as the dean, the chairs, and the faculty. So it moves the responsibility down to where basically the action is.

Some of the disadvantages and I want to make sure that we really have very thorough discussion - disadvantages are that this can promote insular feelings within the colleges. In other words this college doesn't interact with that college. In one paper that I read it said: "It promotes vertical collegiality but in inhibits horizontal collegiality." And, I think that is a clear problem that can arise and you have to be careful about. As we move forward we are trying to increase and to encourage multi-disciplinary and inner-disciplinary research across colleges so we don't want to put a system in place where that is inhibited. So we are going to have to be very careful about that. It also encourages colleges to have their own courses if they are capturing the FTEs and the money associated with them. Again a paper I read discussed at one school the Forestry School decided that they would teach English. So they introduced English for Foresters. That is something that can happen. I really believe that there would have to be a committee or perhaps a subcommittee of the Faculty Senate Committee on Curricula and Courses and the Provost's Office would have to be very careful in monitoring that situation and not let that occur. There are going to have to be a lot of checks and balances in a system like this. We are trying to make ourselves aware of as many of those as possible. But as I said it is not going to be easy. It is not going to happen overnight. We may have to really work hard to get a computer system in place - and I don't know if Bill Hogue, Bill is not here yet, he will be here - but he is well aware of this. We have had those discussions as well.

Why don't I just stop there and I think that we can cover a lot of things with questions and comments.

PROFESSOR PHILIP ROLLINSON (ENGL) - What in the world is the virtue of this? Just from listening to you and I don't mean to be insulting, it sounds like a bureaucrat make work BS. What is the virtue of this and why are you apparently for it? What difference does it make.

PROVOST ODOM - Okay. When I became provost there was not one way that I could reallocate resources. Any time there was a vacancy - the vacancy and the money stayed in the college. So the provost had no way whatsoever of influencing where we were going after discussions with the president and even discussions with the deans. So I have changed that. The positions and the money now come back to the provost. The effected dean and the effected unit can make an argument for reinstatement of the money and the position or I can decide to put them somewhere else. And, I have done both.

PROFESSOR ROLLINSON - I think you are already doing that.

PROVOST ODOM - We are doing that but if you think about it that is a very small way of influencing what goes on in the university. When we get from the state a zero percent increase in our budget or we are losing our budget or even a 3% increase - that is passed onto the colleges as we see fit with priorities. And, I can show you how I've done that. But that is not a way to make any kind of change that is a major kind of change at all. Another thing that happened in the School of Business is - their majors and their students have increased dramatically. I can't keep up with giving them money to add faculty and positions. Plus the fact that if you look at their enrollment over 10 years it goes like this (a wavy curve). The same thing happens in a lot of other colleges. The enrollment is cyclic. This allows the responsibility-center to adjust for the changes that they have and I don't do it at the central level. Okay? But it allows….

PROFESSOR ROLLINSON - The first part of it is you doing it at the central level. Like taking all the funds from every school and college under you. Is that correct? So that is centralized.

PROVOST ODOM - I'm sorry would you just ask me that again?

PROFESSOR ROLLINSON - You just said that you have already implemented a process where the colleges and departments don't keep their own slots. Everything just goes back to you and you reallocate it.

PROVOST ODOM - I either reallocate or reinstate.


PROVOST ODOM - Yes, based on priorities.


CHAIR WILCOX - Another question.

PROFESSOR ROBERT CARLSSON (ECON) - I think part of the answer to some of the questions that have been raised is can we or the question really is - can this institution thrive or at least survive if we keep on the way we are going? Over the years the portion of the university's budget that has been funded by the state has declined and it looks to me as though it is going to continue to do so. I don't have the latest figures but I expect it is somewhere around 35% give or take at the moment. I don't think any of us would argue that the university has plenty of money. In budget hearings and so forth that I sat in, deans comment that we can do this if we have the money. The question then is where do you get it? What money? If we continue on the same path, things will probably get worse. It could turn out that we see more budget cuts which often end up being cuts across the board and hit all units at the university. Think about it - at some point the budget cuts may well leave a unit below the critical mass it needs to operate. Implicit in this type of proposal from SDI or the value-centered management or whatever is a means of increasing revenues coming into the university. In order to do this the units that have the ability to attract the outside funds must not only be permitted and encouraged to do so but have to the organized in a way that they are large enough and visible enough to attract those resources. As far as I can tell the value-centered management approach to budgeting encourages those units which are able to do so to maximize revenue from outside sources. I wish the SDI committee had spelled this out in a little more detail, but they didn't. If they are allowed to accomplish this - allow them to become entrepreneurial there will be more dollars in the university budget. The value part of the value-centered management implies that those units which have units which are essential to a university but cannot generate adequate funds are subsidized. Now certainly there are dangers in it. It implies that there is some trust that the university administration will not abandon those traditional values that many of us hold dear. But may I point out that the university administration can gut those programs anyway and may be forced to sometime in the future if state funds continue to stagnate or decline. I would much rather take a chance on the collegial spirit of the university with more funds available than the collegial spirit of the university with fewer funds available. The SDI report and the reorganization it suggests are all about increasing the university's revenue not damaging or eliminating academic activities. You can call it over emphasizing the bottom line if you like, but these are economic realities that we must face. Now I personally don't care for some of the aspects of the SDI report, but in principle I support it, and I would expect that there will be opportunities to alter the proposal as it moves forward and is implemented.

PROFESSOR RICHARD CONANT (MUSC) - Is is not true that Michigan stopped using this? And, that their president lost his job because he instituted it?

PROVOST ODOM - No, their president is now the President of Columbia University. He might have lost his job but going to Columbia is not a bad place. The provost who instituted this is now at Rice University and they didn't do away with it Richard, but they have changed it probably more substantially than most. But Nancy Cantor, their Provost, who really was involved in this very intimately for five years has recently become President of the University of Illinois - who also uses this particular system of budgeting. They went from what they called value-centered in the end to something they call university budgeting. They actually have taken more responsibility back to the central administration in Michigan. They had problems with two things, that I am aware of, duplication of courses was a big problem for them. They didn't seem to have the controls that were necessary and they also had some real concerns about a lack of interdisciplinary research - that that was being inhibited. Now I asked Bob McGuire about that and I asked him if they built in incentives for interdisciplinary research - which it seems to me would be a good thing to do. He said they haven't done that and they haven't seen a problem that the deans seem to work this out.

PROFESSOR CHARLES ALBER (GERM) - I would like to respond to Professor Carlsson. I am not an economist but what I see in this report is some major institutional reorganization with no cost analysis about how it could be accomplished, no cost benefit analysis as well, and it is like we are about to proceed into a fog not really knowing what is going to happen. If we were serious about reorganization and we did not want to do it in a hurried - a rushed way - then we would conceivably contribute a fit amount of money to this project, hire experts and get some solid opinions about where we were going. I don't fault the SDI committee, obviously they were doing their best, but I hardly think that they are experts in reorganization of universities. And, I think we have got to go back and redo this thing or we may wind up in very serious trouble.

PROFESSOR DAVID BERUBE (THSP) - I just have two things to say today. The first thing is I did read the articles that were at the web site and I know the economic realities that are confronting the university. I am on the budget committee. I understand that probably something has to be done otherwise we are going to confront facts of life when we do fall below the capability to meet our needs within our own units. The one thing in the literature that I thought which was missing when I was looking at it was when you define the unit as a school and let's assume it's a school of liberal arts. Then in the school of liberal arts there will be, to borrow one of the budget committee references, there will be cash cows. There will be certain departments which generate incredibly large number of FTEs and teaching speech, we're one of them because we teach to everyone it seems. I am sure that English is another one of them and there will be other departments within that school that won't meet those efficiencies levels at all and what ends up happening is that you have units who are incredibly productive supporting some of the units that are not productive by that definition. What ends up happening? In the literature that I have read, the literature does not talk very much about what the organizational culture is like in these schools where it has been successful. There has to be a special dynamic occurring in these schools because the efficiency theory says if I get to keep what I make I am happier and then I tend to be more efficient. It is pretty simple theory. But the way that it is structured you really don't keep it at the department level, it goes back up to the college level. To keep the incentives at the department level for those who are producing, for example, large amount of FTE, it takes a special organizational culture and I don't see that in the literature.

I see it working well in some locations and not in other locations. I have an odd feeling that maybe one of the reasons that it works well is because there is a really peculiar organizational culture in that school. Where people are willing to go for grants, solicit a lot of development, teach an incredible number of basic courses, and then the efficiency is used to support other departments within that same school. That is the part of the literature which is weak.

CHAIR WILCOX - Do you have any information along those lines as to the impact within units that he refers to -- the potential tensions there?

PROVOST ODOM - We had one member who checked with two department chairs. Both chairs were departments of computer science who did generate a lot of money. They were not as enthusiastic about it because of just what David said in both cases the money stayed at the deans level rather than using RCM or VCM at the departmental level. The dean had chosen not to do that.

CHAIR WILCOX - Was it the recommendation of the committee not to break it down to the departmental level or was that just left for later?

PROVOST ODOM - It was left to the dean.

PROFESSOR JOHN MACDONALD (CRJU) - Doesn't that exist today at universities in general? There are always cash cows. Right? Presently we are in a really different environment than we would be with a value-centered management with regard to the issue of how the dean's administer the funds.

PROFESSOR BERUBE (THSP) - The present structure doesn't claim all these advantages from all this efficiency? This system is based upon some substantial advantage to the greater efficiencies you get and if that is true then there has to be a basis for it. Some how, as I close my eyes, I get a fleeting image of Darwin passing before them.

PROFESSOR CHARLES MACK (ART) - I am just wondering what the relationship is and if it is a relationship between value centered management as applied and downsizing? Is there a downsizing implication? Is there an objective to this which is towards downsizing-streamlining, however, you want to call it, or making things more efficient? I can see a sort of "big fish eating little fish" in all this.

PROVOST ODOM - No, there is nothing having to do with downsizing, Randy. Let me just read you one statement that stuck out to me from this particular article, "As funding shrinks." And that is really happening to us and its going to happen and I don't think that anyone can argue with that. "This style of management can help improve the quality of decisions as noxious and unfortunate as they may be about the optimal allocations of resources and balances between income and expense." But not downsizing. We did not talk about downsizing but shrinking funding yes. We wanted to know is this going to work in a time of shrinking funding as well as of increased funding.

PROFESSOR MACK (ART) - What I am worried about is the words in here such as basis of productivity -- what we mean by productivity. I can visualize in the future someone saying this unit is not being productive enough so lets reallocate funds. We might reallocate areas that are getting support that are really vital to the entire meaning of what a university is and should be. I get back to the idea about: are we moving away from the idea of a comprehensive university. I realize what you have been saying is strikingly sensitive to the issues both pro and con; I realize that but I can't help somehow but being apprehensive about it.

CHAIR WILCOX - Those are the things that Professor Carlsson said -- and tell me if I misquote you here -- but what I think what he said is we have that risk anyway -- you could gut central departments or programs under the current system. Would VCM change who made those decisions? There is a concern that eventually some core programs might end up losing out because they don't bring in revenue. Is there a change between how it works now and how it would work under VCM as to who would make that decision to phase something out?

PROVOST ODOM - In my opinion no. It still would be the dean talking to the central administration and as now again you have to protect the core values. You have to ask the question is this valued by the university? Is this something that the university needs to have? Whether its making money or not is not really the issue and productivity is not making money Randy. Each unit defines its productivity right now when it looks at tenure and promotion criteria. How are you productive within the unit.

PROFESSOR ALBER - I like the expression "protecting core values," but when I read the SDI report I don't read about protecting core values. What I read about is something pushing us even further towards the managerial university that some of us have been complaining about. I cite as a prime example the proposal under Develop Communication and Marketing Strategies that we "include an individual with strategic marketing and communications expertise at all academic and administrative levels." Now I am wondering isn't this a bit of overkill? Again, with no cost analysis of what it would take to do it. No cost benefit analysis of what it could do and no appreciation of really what it would do to the university as a whole to put this profit motive, this profit incentive, in front of every single unit.

PROFESSOR ELDON WEDLOCK (LAW) - I would like to say that SDI did a pretty good job of what they were charged with. If I was just trying to figure out how we could get more money into the university, I agree with Bob Carlsson over there. What it did not do however was to take the next step and figure out how these extra monies were going to be reallocated. It seems to me that there is going to be a problem and maybe Jerry Odom will say that this also belongs to the deans within the college. I think that at the University level there is going to be some decision making made about what the values of the university are.

I can appreciate that the comprehensive university is protected not only by our own vision of what it is, but also by the accrediting agencies and peers that view us. I am not really all that concerned with us becoming a research institution like Johns Hopkins -- after all they have an excellent history department, I found out the other day, and that must have something to do with their peers among research universities. The SDI report doesn't provide any guarantee, or plan, or scenario, or however you want to say it for how the core value constituencies of the university (which are not income producing) are going to share in the wealth. As I put it last time, some of us are going to be asked to sacrifice so that we can recruit these researchers here that can land the big grants. There is a promise out there that somehow these big grants through overhead costs are going to generate money that can then be redistributed around the university. SDI didn't touch that. I don't think they were even tried; they had enough of a problem figuring out how to get revenue to the university. Somebody needs to take that step and to tell us how these initiatives are going to benefit the core values of the institution as well as the income generating part of the institution.

CHAIR WILCOX - I think the question is: Once you build these revenue centers, now how are you going to go? What's going to be the process to shift some of that income back to the university? Or is it going to stay in these centers that have been built?

PROVOST ODOM - First of all indirect costs, Don, stay in the center that generates the indirect cost. The indirect costs are not moved to another place in the university. That stays right there and many people may not understand now that there are colleges on this campus that generate a large portion of their budget. The School of Public Health is probably the best example. Its budget includes probably 60 to 65% soft money. It's not state allocated money it's soft money it's money that they generate themselves. The College of Science and Mathematics budget is 50% soft money it's not allocated money. Those two colleges right there have the ability and the potential to generate more money. That money stays there. Central Administration takes right now what is 182 million dollars that is allocated to the University by the state and they decide where to allocate where to put that money. If the College of Science and Math, College of Public Health are doing fine are a revenue center are generating plenty of money then we don't have to put as much money there unless we decide to. That is done on the basis of strategic plans and priorities. So the central administration in concert with the deans conversations of right now would have 182 million dollars to put wherever they wanted.

PROFESSOR WEDLOCK - If the revenue centers were covering a hundred percent of their budget with the soft money?

PROVOST ODOM - That's right and that's not going to happen. That's fully understood from the beginning.

PROFESSOR WEDLOCK - Well, that's an answer to the question. Thank you.

PROFESSOR WANZER DRANE (HEAL) - One of the questions that this brings up is that if we are taking the overhead and reallocating them they look a little bit like profit to me. Does this fly with the major funding agencies? DOD, NIH, CDC, and the other major funding agencies?

PROVOST ODOM - I don't think I understood your question Wanzer. Overhead when we reallocate overhead funds and the only recommendation there was to reallocate fourteen cents out of a dollar out of indirect costs toward facilities. The rest of that overhead would primarily go to the units that generate it. Right now the School of Public Health gets fifty cents on the dollar. Fifty cents comes to the central administration.

PROFESSOR DRANE - All right, I am not really asking the question about my own college.

PROVOST ODOM - That is true throughout the university. Every college gets fifty cents of a dollar of indirect cost. Then the dean decides how to allocate that money. In some cases the dean takes twenty-five cents and the unit gets twenty-five cents.

PROFESSOR DRANE - I am just wondering how value-centered management is going to apply for the major funding agencies.

PRESIDENT JOHN PALMS - I think the overhead it pre-based by the state. We get to keep it and do what we want to with it. There is no obligation to do it the way we are doing it. Paying the overhead and such.

PROVOST ODOM - Are you talking about Federal indirect costs.

PROFESSOR DRANE - Yes, the 45% that we add to.

PROVOST ODOM - If you look at Cornell and Michigan, UCLA, and Southern Cal; that is the way they do it. Federal agencies can't have a problem with it.


CHAIR WILCOX - This will be your second one.

PROFESSOR BERUBE (ART) - This is my second one - right. I talked to you about this already. The three things I think this body can do if the Board of Trustees decides that VCM is a good idea. It is going to happen. We need to plan to see how we are going to have to deal with that world.

Here are the three recommendations that I think we should consider. The obvious one is the first one. University courses and curriculum is going to have to be shored up and we probably need that committee personed by some full professors who can handle the heat. Because having served as the chair of that committee there is a lot of heat when you tell people that that course has no pedagogical value. You probably want a full professor to do that.

The second recommendation would be that this body in some way serves to help define what efficiencies are because there seems to be a real concern that the only efficiencies that we put into the mix would be quantitative and that is not necessarily true. There could be quality to values that go into computing what the efficiencies are the Faculty Senate or members of the faculty feel they are playing a role there they could check some of the fears and abuses they perceive might occur.

The third one is that if you adopt a system like VCM, I presume we are going to assess it periodically. That we will have some sort of methodology we will put together to assess it and we will have people studying it and detailing where the problems are. That's the other place where the Faculty Senate needs to play a very critical role to make sure that all of their interests are met. They would serve on an assessment committee to help to develop the assessment methodology itself and that's the role that this unit, the Faculty Senate, can function in terms in a VCM world. Because it seems like all the other issues I mean I just read too much about this I guess. All the other issues seem to be directed much the same way that they are now or would be directed by the upper administration anyway. I am just trying to figure out where we would fit into this method and it seems like those are the three areas that we can actually do something.

PROFESSOR THORNE COMPTON (THSP) - I would like to talk about the other end of this for a moment. We would be talking about the money that would come into departments how that would be allocated. One of our concerns is whether there are additional costs that would be assessed to departments or units because of the system. There was discussion about making departments responsible for classrooms for infrastructure that is provided in other ways at this point. Under this system will units have a greater responsibility for paying for those costs that are already covered in other ways?

CHAIR WILCOX - One of the answers that I take from the report is yes. One of the goals they saw being fulfilled by this would be the potential for reallocating space that was not being utilized sufficiently. Where a unit might have a large amount of space that is not being particularly well utilized, they might choose not to be responsible for that space -- to diminish their tax, if you will, to the university -- their payment for that overhead. That space would then become available for somebody else to use. I think there is some aspect of a charge off the top each year. We don't know the details as to how that would be calculated yet, necessarily. There would be a tax off the top for your maintenance, your utilities, that type of thing.

The Budget Committee raised some questions with the Provost on that. This building is a good example. The Engineering building is a good example. What if the Law School decided that we didn't want to pay for the law auditorium one year. Could we just cut it off and let somebody else have it? It's not particularly practical. Or if the engineering school decided that they didn't want to use room 193B in the engineering school, could they just not use it that year. Whatever we might want to do in that regard, I think there are some questions there that I don't know have been answered yet. But that was certainly one of the motivations.

PROVOST ODOM - Certainly there are services that units pay for now that in a line item. All colleges pay for human resources. All colleges pay for business and finance. All colleges pay for student services. The thing that I like about this system is that now you know exactly what you are paying for them. I think that should make them more accountable. If you don't like the service you are getting you can't just say I am not going to pay you. But you can say I don't think its right for me to be paying this at this level and I am not getting the service that I ought to get. That goes right down to maintenance as well. That's a problem within the university. There is an amount of accountability here that I like very much. That's what we heard from other universities.

PROFESSOR CAROLINE EASTMAN (CSCE) - I have a couple of comments and questions. First comment is that there are a number of decisions that we are talking about that are obviously going to be made at some time. I have heard a couple of recommendations that perhaps we need further studies and more cost benefit analysis. Personally I think that decisions like these need to be made and implemented quickly because otherwise we will have paralysis set in from the uncertainty. I see it starting already when talking to other units about courses that our majors might take of theirs and vice versa. In the back of everyone's mind is how will VCM affect our ability to do this. We don't know because there has not been that decision yet or even a decision, as Provost Odom mentioned, as to whether the basic unit would be FTE's or Majors or some combination. Without that information people are going to hold back on things.

The other reason for that comment is that my unit got in early on the reorganization game. In our case the process was perhaps dragged out longer than was productive. We had lots of studies. We had self studies; we had outside studies; we had consultants from elsewhere. They all provided useful information and each individual part was useful; but the process as a whole was probably dragged on too long.

The second comment is as a former member of the budget committee and hearing the budget hearings. You very much got the impression that there were several elephants and a few mice. The reorganization plan would result in at least one more elephant, or large unit; and there would still be a number of mice. It really wouldn't have enough going on to be able to manage the resources. If there is only one program or maybe two there is nothing to move resources around in. Like the follow up on David Berube's comment on Curricula and Courses and duplicated courses. I agree that this is something that is clearly within the scope of this body and something that we need to address. I am not sure how to address it. I would disagree it is sufficient just to have full professors who are willing to take the heat. That will not prevent the problem of units proposing courses and then doing something completely different. This happens more frequently than we might like. Or units mutually agreeing that they will duplicate each others courses. I doubt that Curricula and Courses even with full professors can deal with that.

CHAIR WILCOX - There are a couple of issues that have been raised, and this is one that I have gotten several comments from people on. Also, what happens, if we have mergers, with things like T&P issues and the like. I think that there are some details of implementation that, if these things happen, obviously we are going to be very involved in working out. I think one of the big issues that we can consider now, in regards to the points that you have raised, is the practicality of a university committee that is going to perhaps be aggressive and will go into a college and say you have overlap and you need to get rid of some courses. That is going to be a very different culture than we have right now, in terms of courses in curriculum. That is going to be a change that we need to address, more than the detail of how we set that committee up at this point. We will have to deal with that as we go.

PROFESSOR ADRIENNE COOPER (ENGR) - On the discussion of the space issue and the space allocation issue and being required to pay for space allocation. One of the big concerns that we have in the department such as civil engineering which deals with things like structures and water resources. We have a lot of resources a lot of space that is required for our research. So we have large structures. We have for example a 60 foot flume that we use for research and teaching as well. It seems to me that there maybe some inadequacies that may not have been addressed. Or that may have been addressed and we just haven't heard. I would like to hear someone speak to how we will actually look at how space is utilized. Obviously, the efficiency issue is one thing. There are some things that are inherently larger than other things. So structures is inherently larger than nanotechnology and that is something that we probably need to consider.

CHAIR WILCOX - Are you contemplating a formula sufficiently sophisticated to take into account the different situations?

PROVOST ODOM - I think certainly if you're going to charge for space in some way you don't have to charge the same for every square foot. You have to have a model that lets you take into account the various kinds of uses that the space has.

CHAIR WILCOX - I read in the Indiana report that it got so complicated that sometimes people had trouble figuring out how to use the model once they had it.

PROFESSOR JERALD WALLULIS (PHIL) - It seems to be a feature of many of the universities that have implemented VCM that there also be a university discretionary fund to try to promote goals that don't fit within a single unit but may advance the University's mission. Will that indeed be foreseen in our adaptation of VCM and what sort of parameters will that have, maybe also in terms of size of the fund and what goals it will have? Will it include beyond the promotion of entrepreneurial activity. The promotion, as it is suggested in the Indiana report, of quality concerns and of what we earlier called more intrinsic goals in education?

PROVOST ODOM - Jerry, in talking to various people about this thing they all recommended that a small percentage of the funds that the central administration had be retained at that level. Basically for opportunities so various seed funds for things that had the potential to develop in any area of the University. Now I think that is a crucial part of it.

PROFESSOR LAURA WOLIVER (GINT) - I wanted to ask a question. It comes from my experience in Women's Studies. A program like women's studies is not just a multi-disciplinary program but one that crosses colleges. In fact we have joint appointments in women's studies that are between two very different colleges. I wonder if VCM is nimble enough and flexible enough to be able to have two different colleges cooperate with the multi-disciplinary programs like women's studies in a way that doesn't harm those multi-disciplinary. cross university programs. I am very concerned that VCM would make the revenue homes like the colleges very protective of their revenue and not have many incentives to do collaborative or cooperative appointments or programming.

CHAIR WILCOX - Jerry mentioned the concern of some of these schools of that disincentive. Do you all have any information on how major interdisciplinary programs such as women's studies have been affected or have been treated at these schools?

PROVOST ODOM - Actually Peter Sederberg recently did a review of the Honors College or the honors program at Indiana. I think that his feeling was that it wasn't treated as well as it could be. Peter I don't know if you want to say anything about that or not.

DEAN PETER SEDERBERG (HONORS) - Not to put too long a point on it, VCM took a second rate program and turned it into a third rate program at Indiana.

CHAIR WILCOX - What specifically about it caused that to occur?

DEAN SEDERBERG - Well it's more than that. It's hard to go into detail and I would have to share my analysis of it and I will certainly share it with the Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences when he visits the campus in March. The basic problem was the structure that they had for their honors program at the beginning when they created it in the late 1970's. It has evolved and some significant resources were invested in it in the 1980's to really bring it into a pretty good lower division program. That is why I said it is not comparable with what we were doing here or the ambitions that we set out for our program. Once they instituted VCM, the institutional resistance to doing anything to enhance what they had already built by 1990, I think, increased tremendously. Now there are some other variables in terms of leadership and in the way they organized in the first place that also contributed to this. When we did our review every single modest suggestion that we made, by we, I mean the External Review Committee for enhancing the program to make it live up to the new appellation they attached to it now that its a college, was met with the resistance that the deans won't agree to that under responsibility centered management.

CHAIR WILCOX - Do you have concerns as dean of that of that college? We talked last time about the goal of improving that college -- specifically enlarging it, but maintaining its quality. Assuming that is a possibility in and of itself, do you see some of those same concerns? Does VCM put another level of concern on that for you? Will we repeat some of those things you saw in Indiana?

DEAN SEDERBERG - Now you are asking me to play Cassandra. That would be a major concern of mine. I believe that under VCM, in order to maintain the current integrity of the Honors College, the budget of the Honors College to compensate departments, given the fact that there will be undue clarity to the tuition costs of offering an honors course, will have to be increased significantly. I have always argued, and Jerry will confirm this as will the President, that as you add to the Honors College under any budgetary system given a relatively fixed university in terms of its size and resources, the marginal cost of increasing the size of the Honors College, while maintaining again the integrity of its programs, increases. And so I think those two put together would mean a significant increase in the resources required by the Honors College to: A. maintain what it has currently created and sustaining. B. to add to that mission another one, two, three, or four hundred students.

CHAIR WILCOX - Did the committee take that particular aspect on and look at what might be the predicted concerns there, and did they reach conclusions?

PROVOST ODOM - I certainly will tell you that the committee as you know considered the Honors College in a very detailed way. One of our recommendations is to increase the size. We clearly don't want to increase the size and decrease the quality. I think Laura has raised good points. Again, a recommendation in the report is to increase the importance and the research ability of not only Women's studies but African American studies. Those are two programs that clearly must be valued so we have three things. I think we have to make it nimble enough and we have to value those to put the resources there.

PROFESSOR AL LEITCH (ACCOUNTING-BADM) - I would like for somebody on the committee to share with us how you can link VCM with the goals and core values of the university. It seems to me that what I am hearing is some of VCM can lead to some dysfunctional consequences with respect to those goals. I would guess that the committee has talked about this some. How can you encourage the deans to work towards those goals and not costs and revenue.

PROFESSOR MARTIN MCWILLIAMS (LAW) - As a former budget chair I will talk to you about that. First thing I would like to say is that VCM like any budget system has no inevitable results. Peter I almost never disagree with anything that you say but I would like to disagree with one little thing. You said that VCM took something second rate and made it third rate. I disagree. VCM didn't do it people did it. What the SDI committee thinks is that VCM has no inevitable results. Its' only as good as the people that implement it and they way in which they implement it. We took a lot of this into account when we looked at VCM.

One of the things we were particularly worried about was the Honors College suffering. We were particularly worried about cross-disciplinary research and scholarship suffering and in particularly diversity centered things and we make those focuses of the report. We try to make clear that if we are going to use VCM let's not forget that the Honors College needs to be supported and that diversity needs to be supported. You will find cross-disciplinary matters as a value that runs as a threat through the whole report. So, yes we did take that into account. We actually talked very specifically about some strategies that we could use for the Honors College and you and I talked about them Peter. They go into really too much detail to get into the SDI report. I want to go back to what I said in the beginning and that is that VCM like any other budgeting system is as good as the people who implement it and is as strong as the values of those people. As long as we have people of good faith who are paying attention to the core values of the university or implementing VCM. We think it provides us with the tools to make it a better university. After lengthy discussion that was the conclusion of the SDI Committee.

PROFESSOR ROLLINSON (ENGL) - Can I go back to the budget funding business a moment and ask the Provost if the VCM will involve an increase or additions to augmenting of the administration of the university? Will it take more of you people to do this?

PROVOST ODOM - I will just say that I hope not.

PROFESSOR SHAHROUGH AKHAVI (GINT) - I have been thinking about the conversation the last couple of weeks. I wonder if there is a shining example of success. We have talked about Indiana University and we talked about Michigan and various institutions. Its seems that at best they are sort of muddling through. I am mindful of not a university wide effort but indeed a national effort to move in this direction. Maggie Thatcher in England and it seems to me there are a lot of negative consequences moving in this direction. So I am wondering perhaps some of my colleagues who taught in English universities can speak to this more directly. But I would think that we have to pay attention to empirical examples more closely before we dive into this.

PROVOST ODOM - If I could just respond a little bit. If you look at the Universities who are using this and who have used it for some time. They are top universities. They are top ranked universities. The deans like this system. It lets them make the decisions and it puts the responsibility for those decisions where they think its best done and that's at the unit level at the responsibility center level. So again if you have colleagues that you would like to talk to at Cornell, UCLA, USC, Ohio State, Michigan, Indiana then I would ask you to do that. I don't get the impression that most of those universities feel that they are muddling through VCM.

CHAIR WILCOX - I have heard a comment or two -- suggested both before the meeting and again during the meeting. Is somebody from Indiana coming down here to visit?

PROVOST ODOM - We have talked about that Rob. Rick and I felt like that the first thing that we would like to do is send a number of people to Indiana and perhaps two or three other places. So that we could ask if we could talk to a number of deans, small colleges, professional colleges, and large colleges. Joan Stewart has invited the dean of Arts and Sciences to take part in a retreat that she and her chairs will be having. He has agreed to also discuss this with all of our deans.

CHAIR WILCOX - Is there an opportunity at that time to maybe meet with -- I don't know if we will invite him up here to stand up here in front of a hundred people -- but with a group of the faculty to answer some questions that we may have?

PROVOST ODOM - I would defer to Dean Stewart because he is her guest.

DEAN JOAN HINDE STEWART (LIBERAL ARTS) - I would be a little bit hesitant to commit him to that at this point. Since the terms on which he agreed to come were to have an informal round table with the chairs and I have added on an informal round table with the deans, I am a little reluctant to ask him to do very much more.

CHAIR WILCOX - If there is a possibility, if maybe you could explore it, I think it might be helpful.

PROFESSOR WEDLOCK (LAW) - I know we can beat Ohio State in football. We almost got to try Michigan State. The universities that you have listed, Jerry, are pretty good universities before they started this program. I am wondering whether or not we are in a similar position? Has there been any experience with this process in meeting, what is the term, financial crisis and shrinking of resources from stable sources?

CHAIR WILCOX - Indiana had budget difficulties when they first implemented this. They had had some years of growth, but they went through this VCM at the time their state budget leveled off.

PROVOST ODOM - I don't know, Don, to tell you the truth.

PROFESSOR ROLLINSON - May I remind you, would you speak to our opportunity as a body to make motions and resolutions and when we might do this sir?

CHAIR WILCOX - My thought has been all along that -- although obviously we are subject to the will of the body -- as we came to a conclusion of our discussions, when we had a broader feel of the subjects, that we would entertain motions of the body, if there were any desired. My thought would be that toward the end of next week's meeting would be the appropriate time. Along those lines, if you do feel the need, I think what we need to look toward resolutions that are sufficiently broad, in the sense that they express the will of the body. I am not sure how much 59-58 vote on resolutions. I think we are looking for some statements, if there are going to be any, of the faculty where there are some broader consensus. Toward that end it, would be very helpful if we could have proposed resolutions in hand by Tuesday of next week, so they could be circulated to the senators before the meeting. I think that would be ideal.

PROFESSOR ROLLINSON - Can we get those to the Faculty Senate office?

CHAIR WILCOX - Send it over to Jeanna Luker at the Faculty Senate office and we will then attach it as an e-mail to people.

PROFESSOR ROLLINSON - Would it be appropriate? A couple of us have talked to float some ideas that may or may not just to warn people or do you still want to take the time?

CHAIR WILCOX - You can be real quick.

PROFESSOR ROLLINSON - After all of this one of my concerns with all of this is that everything that has been recommended by the SDI and the other mafia group is that we are going to consolidate. We are going to reorganize. We are going to merge. We are going to VCM and all of this is going to be revenue production administration. Blah. Blah and so on. It seems to be all driven by economics. It seems to me a bad thing to do to change the whole institution because we are under a budget crisis and particularly when the chairman is here or the budget committee had the answer at the December meeting. He mentioned then they had studied it and that 20% of our revenues are expended on administrators and staff in this university. At that time we were anticipating possibly a 1% budget cut and Mr. Chairman we could very easily take care of our whole economic problem simply by cutting the budget of the administration by 5%. That would be a 1% cut right there. In fact it is already being done and my colleague here Ina Hark is resigning and with her salary alone we could probably take care of the problems of the college.

PROFESSOR INA RAE HARK (LIBERAL ARTS) - My salary will come back to the English department to pay me to teach.

CHAIR WILCOX - I think we are getting a sense of where you are headed with the resolutions next week

PROFESSION ROLLINSON - Thank you Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR WILCOX - Let me move us a little bit, unless there is something that is absolutely pressing that you have got to say on this. We can talk about VCM as we talk about these other issues. Let's talk some about the proposed College of Fine Arts. We are going to put the Health Sciences off a week or so. Let's get some sense of concerns and considerations on that. I thought you might be first Professor Mack.

PROFESSOR CHARLES MACK (ART) - In the interest of both time and clarity, I will make my comments from a prepared statement.

In these discussions, I am fearful of appearing an obstructionist. In the words of a US Vice-President of increasingly distant memory, if it weren't for my financial standing, I might well be seen as a "nattering nabob of negativism". But let me assure you that I do believe in change but I believe in a change that works towards a positive end. I do not believe in change for Change's Sake. Change must represent improvement. That, unfortunately, is not the case with this proposal.

In making my comments concerning the creation of a College of Fine and performing Arts and the merging of the Department of Art with it, I speak from the perspective of an art historian within the Department of Art with more than 30 years of service. Let me start by saying that this proposal is a A BAD IDEA BASED UPON A FALSE PREMISE. The first line of the SDI proposal forms the basis for the rationale for what follows and it is totally erroneous. The first line states that: "music, art, theatre and dance share a creative orientation toward scholarship and publication markedly different from that of other disciplines." That statement makes a demonstrably false assumption.

The Art Department consists of four different but related disciplines: art education, art history, studio art, and media arts. If we exclude media arts (as this report proposes to do), that leaves three disciplinary areas with a current staff of 17 tenure-track faculty members. Nine of these professors --those in the studio art division -- might conform to the SDI report's definition of a "creative orientation that is markedly different" but that is most definitely not the case for the other eight, those in art education and in art history, including myself. My methodology is no different from that of an historian, or a scholar of philosophy or literature. The SDI committee either has not taken the time to familiarize themselves with the Art Department and what is faculty does and how we do it or else has chosen to conveniently ignore the facts. The later recommendation to strengthen connections with the Koger Center is a clear testimony to the failure of the committee to understand the diversity of our faculty members.

The "public and private proposals may well have enhanced weight and coherence emanating from a college of fine and performing arts" is a speculation without any evidence to support it. It may sound nice as a phrase in the SDI report but cannot be demonstrated and is, in effect, meaningless.

The SDI Committee, following the fiat of WAG, proposes to separate the division of Media Arts from the Art Department and align it with another unit, perhaps Journalism and Mass Communication, or keep it within the College of Liberal Arts. No justification for this action is presented and it is a suggestion that has little academic or philosophical merit. the proponents of the SDI report encourage us to restrain from turf consideration, yet this suggestion is all about turf, about enlarging the film studies program, perhaps to the level of departmental status and about retaining Media arts FTEs in the college of Liberal Arts. One should remember that the marriage of media Arts with the Department of Art was a marriage arranged by the administration (I served on the committee that worked out the details). at times, the marriage has seemed shaky but it is getting smoother since we have physically come together in McMaster. The combination gives the Art Department a unique position among art departments nationally and to disrupt this union would be detrimental the institution's ambitions. The same, of course, might be said for the separation of the Speech program from its home with Theatre and Dance but I will let those more familiar with that issue speak to it.

I should note that the proposal to create this new College was developed without consulting the faculty of the concerned units. it is arbitrary and dangerous. The proposal would retain the title of "School" for the large Music unit with its 41 tenure-track faculty members, while leaving the smaller Art and Theatre/Dance programs with 17 faculty members each as satellite departments orbiting about the grand central luminary -- a clear invitation for rancor and disharmony. Finally, the suggestion that the Departments of art and Theatre and Dance be separated from the College of Liberal Arts at the very same time in which that college is to be designated as an area of excellence is, in my view, rather insulting. If the rest of the SDI proposals are as ill-conceived as this one, it brings into question the validity of the entire report. Thank you.

CHAIR WILCOX - As I recall at one of the first public hearings I believe that some people of the Art Department spoke in favor of this proposal. Am I remembering correctly? Is there anybody from the other side of the coin?

PROFESSOR PEYTON ROWE (ART) - While I agree with a lot of things that my colleague has had to say, I think that if a plan of this is done correctly with the right timing and attention to structure it could be a very good thing in the long run. However, I do have three specific questions, and he has already touched on all of them in one way or another. The main one is was there any consideration for how to implement this plan both in terms of timing or specifically in terms of structure as Randy already referenced a School of Music with two other departments? That to me seems to me the largest issue and I have other questions about Media Arts as well.

CHAIR WILCOX - Does the committee have any insight on potential problems or things you identified in that regard, of having a school and then departmental level entities within this college?

PROFESSOR MARTIN MCWILLIAMS (LAW) - This is one of my straws that I drew and let me say that one of the great things about having these meetings is that it gives us all a chance to get our opinions on the table. Most of us we had already heard actually what the rest of you just heard. We had already heard it in the SDI meetings we communicated with. We heard lots of other peoples opinions and did a good bit of research and were advised and not interestingly enough particularly by WAG in this respect.

It seemed to us that exactly what is in the SDI report was the key issue and that is if we can put these creative departments together they will all grow. Dance it seemed to us that there is as much dance going on in music as there is in dance as probably the simplest example. We would like for the Art Department to grow and have many more than 17 faculty members. I don't mean to be cute about this but I don't know whether its better to strand nine artists in the College of Liberal Arts or to strand eight historians in an Art Department in a School of Fine and Performing Arts. We stand by the conclusion that we reached and we think than in the long run it will benefit all these departments. It will make them all stronger. I personally think that the Music Department the School of Music is one of the true attraction units at this university to use our sort of ugly word. I believe that the School of Music is one of the real portals between the University and the rest of the community. I think that can be true of Art and it can be true of theatre and dance as well. We believe that there is a synergy to be achieved by putting them all together. Having said that I am not going to say that anybody is wrong especially a thirty year member of a department. I am glad to have your views on the table and am glad to have your views put before the trustees and maybe their conclusion will be different than the SDI's. But we stick by and speaking on behalf of the committee we stick by our conclusion.

CHAIR WILCOX - Richard, you are somebody from the music side. Is this going to create tensions or is it going to create synergy?

PROFESSOR CONANT (MUSIC) - We are concerned about it frankly and Martin I appreciate your nice comments about the music department, college, or school or whatever we are. We did go through this seven years ago or so before we had our building and of course we were on the outer fringe of campus (except for me), some would argue "the left fringe." Art is on the other fringe where we used to be (McMaster is kind of on the other outer part of campus). The theatre department is kind of in the middle but kind of scattered a little bit. We went through this entire discussion about 7 years ago. We had about a year's worth of meetings and nobody was for it. It probably could work with proper budgeting but we all know this current study started with a budget crunch -- both already felt and anticipated. And, we are of course in our new building, relatively speaking, with no room left over. It would be one thing if you had a whole new fine arts building coming, proper budgeting to really staff it right with development, alumni, admissions people and so forth. But, the fact is this would cost more money than we currently have. And, admittedly art and theatre have the problem that they would be kind of swallowed up by the larger numbers when it came to any kind of a vote because we would still have around twice as many faculty.

CHAIR WILCOX - Thorne, you have yet another perspective?

PROFESSOR COMPTON (THSP) - Just a little bit. I have a little bit different memory than Richard does. Though in the end we may agree. We did go through this eight years ago. At that time the heads of the music, art and theatre - we were all in College of Liberal Arts at that time we were all sort of on the same level. We did meet for about a year and discussed this in a variety of levels. And, at the end of the process we came to a recommendation that we be merged into a College of Visual and Performing Arts. That did not happen for a variety of reasons that didn't have very much to do with faculty. It was a decision that was made by the person who was then the interim dean of what was then College of Humanities and Social Sciences. At that time I was very vocal advocate of the proposal like this as was John O'Neal and Manny Alvarez.

Our concern then is one of the concerns that we have now. Our concern then was that we didn't want to come together without resources. That if the University wanted to invest in the arts then this might be a way to do that but it would take a major investment if we had a major ten or fifteen million dollar investment a year then I think we might have something. The other thing that I find curious about this that I don't understand is that a large portion of all the actors that we train end up working at least a large portion of their time in video and film. A lot of the designers that we train are going to work in new media. It doesn't make very much sense to me to take our program and remove it away from the areas that our people are being trained in. It would seem to me that media arts and film would have to be a part of any school of visual or fine and performing arts. I don't like the term fine arts because it implies that all the rest of them are somehow course and unpleasant. We prefer visual and performing arts. If film is not a visual and performing art I don't know what it is. So, it seems to me it would be essential if we do this. If we are going to have this kind of commitment to this school that we ought to have that it would have to have media arts and film in it as well.

PROFESSOR HANCLOSKY (MEDIA ARTS) - One of the things that we have done as a result of having these statements made is gone to Peterson's Guide to Higher Education Institutions. I can understand where the SDI Committee received their information because media arts based programs according to that document have 82% of media arts programs in communications based departments. They have 17% in fine arts based programs. We have a communications theory based curriculum. That is not to say that we should not be a college of fine and performing arts. One of the things that the division has done since getting this information is that we have been calling a number of meetings where we have invited in people from the various areas with whom we normally collaborate. Whatever the outcome this is not going to be our decision to make. I would like to compliment the SDI Committee very much for allowing us to in their words "to be consulted about this alternative of where our home will be." We appreciate that very much and wherever we end up we will continue the collaborations that we have in the past. It may be a little premature now to make any statement because we have a meeting coming up this week with the administration.

CHAIR WILCOX - You have a question?

PROFESSOR RICHARD JENNINGS (THSP) - Right before I came here I thought back to my old mentor his name is Robert Benedetti. He was the head of the Yale program. Dean of the School of Theatre at California Institute of Art. He has won several Emmy's, and Peabody awards. He is an outstanding trainer and in the preface of his new film book he talks about how remissed we have been in the academic world. Remissed not to train our students in film, television, and technical theatre.

We sort of look at it like Mortimer says in Arsenic and Old Lace as the bastard art. But the reality is it trains it will provide the most artistic and financial future for our students. I need that camera that camera and more importantly the people behind it. The students that run it and the people that train those students to run it in order for me to do the electronic theatre that I need to do in film and television. I would hope somehow that whatever happens that we can join together for the betterment of our students.

CHAIR WILCOX - You have a couple more comments?

PROFESSOR ROWE (ART) - The questions have been brought up in relation to media arts placement but I would just like to state my opinions. I teach graphic design but I really do a little bit of everything from professional graphic design to exhibiting to installation work. My feeling is it makes absolutely no sense to separate media arts from a department of art or theatre or dance.

First of all, there are so many overlaps between what actually is occurring within media arts classes and I am certainly not going to speak for Walt and his division. But in terms of my collaboration with faculty members and there is just a huge list of things that we share in common. For example, two of the three full-time faculty members have their MFA's as do all the studio faculty members. So, down to Laura Kissel, a media art professor and I are both on the leadership team for the new media group which is trying to foster collaborative research projects. There are so many natural overlaps in terms of what the arts do. Taking media out of that equation has been stated by a number people as not looking forward as not looking ahead to the nitches that exist where this university in some cases indicates it wants to go. It is simply separating a vital part of the arts from abandoning them and I think that would be a bad move.

CHAIR WILCOX - Let me take one more question on this, and then we need to sort of keep on the agenda. I am going to urge you again -- we are not going to be able to hear everybody all the time, but you can certainly submit things in writing and we will get them into the report if you feel you have something that needs to be heard. Caroline, one more thing at this point.

PROFESSOR CAROLINE EASTMAN (CSCE) - This might be somewhat a naive question but I am hearing discussions of where you should draw the line. It seems to me that you could just put music back in liberal arts where it was when I came here. Was this possibility considered by the SDI Committee?


CHAIR WILCOX - The question is: Was there a consideration of merging the colleges in Liberal Arts as opposed to a new school. The answer seems to be no consideration. Let's leave that, and if we need to come back to it we will have a little bit of time in the next meeting. We can work it in. Criminal Justice and Sociology. I have detected in my attending some of the public hearings, and also in reading some of the newspaper articles and things, that there is not unanimity among the viewpoints on this subject. I think we need to hear from both sides if they are here and have interests. I would ask that they go back and forth a little bit on this in our time.

PROFESSOR JOHN MACDONALD (CRJU) - I am on the Faculty Senate from Criminal Justice. I want to make a couple of statements about the SDI Committee's report. This may come as a surprise to many of you because I think the university is largely unclear on what criminal justice is. I think part of this has to do with a historical legacy of the unit and first I want to make a couple of statements. What you have seen largely in the media statements made on behalf of retired faculty not current faculty in Criminal Justice. What I want to do basically is explain to the Faculty Senate what the field of criminology and add that in and what criminal justice is about, who we are and what are potential promises in terms of research, teaching, and service. And I want to add all those together. So part of this is just informative and I will make a couple of statements of concerns we do have as faculty.

What is criminology and criminal justice? Criminology and criminal justice is a social scientific study of the causes of crime, the responses to crime, and the enforcement of crime. It seeks to understand and predict these behaviors using rigorous social scientific methods. I think that hasn't been articulated. For the most part of its history in the U.S. criminology and the study of crime has been dominated by specialty concentration in the discipline of sociology. However, over the past 30 years criminology and criminal justice have evolved into interdisciplinary programs rather than a specialty area in sociology. This is evident by that fact there is over 25 doctoral granting programs in the United States in criminology and criminal justice, over a hundred masters degree programs, and several hundred bachelors programs. I am going to come back to this. I am not making this statement to say that we are completely opposed to this.

Who are we? The majority of the present faculty in the college have Ph.D.'s in criminology and criminal justice from AAU institutions. This historically has not been the case in the college and this relates to our potential promise. Our real promise here I think is to train outstanding individuals to lead criminology and criminal justice as a multi-disciplinary social science in research, teaching, and public service. And we also have a unique advantage by providing rigorous independent investigations of central questions about the causes of crime and its prevention.

We as a faculty have the opportunity to provide some substantial guidance on issues of public policy concern in the areas of crime causation and prevention. I think that gives us a unique opportunity. This is reflective if you look at our current grants. Federally funded research grants. For example, criminology faculty are evaluating the effectiveness of local domestic violence courts in preventing domestic violence, and examining the relationship between the 1994 crime act and the drop in violent crime. Studying police behavior and racial profiling. Evaluating the effectiveness of residential substance abuse treatment programs for incarcerated offenders. All of these studies are being done using rigorous scientific methods. In other words we are not a cop shop, and while we educate people who go into the field of law enforcement, we do not train police officers. That's what the academy on Broad River road does. That's what they should do and that's where their expertise is and that's not where our expertise is.

Criminology and criminal justice remains a specialty concentration in many sociology Ph.D. programs. We recognize that and we welcome the idea of working with the sociology faculty to build this specialty area but we have some concerns. One, currently eight out of our thirteen faculty are assistant professors including myself. Four out of the five senior faculty are retiring within the next two years. Only one of those faculty members are actively engaged in scholarly research. So, one of our concerns is what direction does the university plan in terms of providing support for the senior faculty that we desperately need.

Two, we have a large number of undergraduate and graduate students especially graduate students and I am sure most of you are aware of that. Most of these students came here because of their interest in studying crime and many of them are going on into the field of criminal justice. We feel that we have an obligation to these students to maintain a separate curriculum and a separate degree program. That has been one of our additional concerns.

The third concern is really why the eight of us are here. The eight junior faculty here. We came here to USC over the past five years because we believed there was a tremendous opportunity in criminology and criminal justice. This is one of the few flagship programs. I know there is some debate on whether it's a flagship or not. I thought we were a flagship that is why I came here. As far as I know we are the only flagship program between Maryland and Florida. That was an attractive thing and in addition South Carolina as I am sure most of you know has historically had high rates of crime, violence, and incarceration. So another reason to be here is to try to make it a safe place. I think in order for criminal justice to live up to its potential, the unit needs senior faculty from top flight research universities who can help work with the junior faculty and build a strong stable core of criminal justice, research, and service. The other thing is that our research really does affect service. Our research is applied research. We are not just testing theories of crime. We are looking at actual practical uses of preventing crime. Second, faculty need independence and assessment. We study crime. Most of us study applied criminology or applied criminal justice. We are not studying sociological theory and that is one of our concerns as well. Without this leadership in senior faculty and independence and assessment this merger is not going to be successful. Some of my colleagues are in the back as well.

CHAIR WILCOX - May I ask one question? You mentioned the obligation to students regarding a separate curriculum. If the merger went through and you became a part of the larger college, how could that be maintained?

PROFESSOR MACDONALD - There are a few models. The University of Delaware for example has a separate baccaulerate program in criminal justice and they have a program in sociology. The devils are in the details and Delaware is one of the few examples of a success story in that merger.

PROVOST ODOM - I appreciate what John has to say. I would just like to say that we have a group of young faculty in the criminal justice college that are outstanding and they need to be nurtured and John is exactly right. They also need some leadership at the senior level. I think that in this case the committee is far enough down the track to recommend several things.

One, that the undergraduate and the graduate curriculum remains intact in criminal justice. That this be a program in the department of sociology. That there be a director of that program who is a senior level faculty member who is well recognized and respected in the field and that we continue to nurture these young faculty. An offshoot of this also that some students in one of the open meetings discussed and we are working on that right now is that their degree would say "Criminal Justice and Criminology". We have talked to Barbara Blaney in the registrar's office. We are actually trying to undergo a complete revamp of what our degrees might say. Our degrees really don't specify what the students major is and we think that would be a useful addition to all degrees. So we will be doing that as we go farther. I think that we can address the concerns that the young faculty have in the college.

CHAIR WILCOX - If I may...go ahead.

PROFESSOR SHELLEY SMITH (SOCY) - Unfortunately, I can't quote my faculty as much as John did. We are meeting before the next Faculty Senate meeting and we will be discussing what we believe the implications of the merger to be. I would like to request that maybe at the next meeting I can have a few minutes to report on that. I will say however, that to the extent that we have spoken about it in the faculty, our concerns are some of the mirror images of yours. We are a very top heavy department. We know that there are a lot of very active young faculty and there is sort of a mismatch in terms of that particular combination. We also would like to know what the implications are with respect to, as the SDI reports says, care should be taken to preserve the degree programs, professional integrity, and national recognition of the criminal justice program. It hasn't said anything about what the implications might be for sociology. That's our main concern so if I could have a few minutes next week to bring back the faculty's response.

CHAIR WILCOX - Sure. Any comments on that merger?

DEAN STEWART (LIBERAL ARTS) - I would like to speak not only as a member of the SDI Committee but also as the Dean of Liberal Arts. I'd like to say to John [MacDonald] that although I am not in a position of making specific commitments about lines at this point, if I didn't feel enthusiastic about having criminal justice and criminology in the college, I wouldn't have expressed the enthusiasm which I have. We certainly want to support the program if we have it. It is in our best interest to do that. My own feeling is that the various aspects of criminal justice and criminology that you have described and some of the applied aspects as well as the theory driven ones would mesh very nicely in creating a nice fit with some of the theory driven things that we have in sociology, psychology, and other programs. This could lead to interesting new research and funding opportunities and we very much want to see that happen. I also want to say that as far as the specifics of it are concerned, we have been looking at them as well. Mary Ann Byrnes has been in discussion about various things that would have to take place about requirements, degrees, and that sort of thing. So we are aware of that and are hopeful that we can work those out.

PROFESSOR HANCLOSKY (MEDIA ARTS) - I would like to make a comment between the two mergers. One of the things that has happened in media arts is that we have not looked at anything negatively. We try to look at things positively. We are meeting with a lot of other departments. We are talking about new kinds of collaborations that can come out as a result of this. That is one thing that the SDI is doing. It's bringing us out of our holes. Its forcing us to talk to one another and to begin to talk about different kinds of collaborative research that could go on.

CHAIR WILCOX - Now that we are all talking to each other, let me mention Foreign Languages -- the Foreign Languages merger.

PROFESSOR ALBER (GERM) - I have been in the department for thirty years. I founded the Chinese program here and so I have been familiar with the problems of the department from the very beginning. Ten years ago we were separated because we had a reputation as being the most ungovernable department in the college. I can attest to you that that is true. Part of the reason is because we have three major languages French, German, and Spanish put together with languages like Chinese, Japanese, Latin, Greek, Hebrew, Arabic, Portuguese, and Italian. It is inconceivable to me as the SDI report asserts that these eleven languages or 14 languages whatever however many the number is can have "common objectives" much less common standards. Any one who knows the problems of Chinese and Japanese for example knows that this is a non-alphabetic language and that Kanji and Hanzi are a major problem in pedagogy. The same of course could be said of Arabic and Russian.

To be really effective we really should be organized along the lines of various areas of study programs like Slavic studies, Asian studies, and Middle Eastern studies, which is virtually nonexistent at this point. This is the route that all of the major AAU universities in the southeast have gone. I mention the University of North Carolina, University of Florida. We say we want to be a quality undergraduate institution. The Board of Trustees has said we should be among the top 5 for undergraduate education. But when you look around and compare us in some of the more comprehensive fields like Asian studies, you see that we are far far behind, and that UNC-Chapel Hill and Virginia have been around for a long long time and have extensive programs.

I might even add for example President Palms knows very well that Emory University has a significant program in Asian studies. Among other things, they offer Hindu and Sandscrit. I don't know why, but for some reason we don't have aspirations along those lines. To me they are a part of a comprehensive university. Coming back to the original point of putting all these languages back into one big stew. I have the exact same concerns as a number of other faculty members have expressed. That the major languages - French, German, and Spanish - will dominate the minor languages as they have always done, whether or not there are program directors. And in terms of peer evaluation, it is just not fair for a professor of Chinese to be asked to evaluate a professor of Spanish or French or vice versa, when they have no particular expertise in the field. To say that we share foreign languages is true. It is obvious, but foreign languages are conditioned by their cultures which are vastly different.

CHAIR WILCOX - I had some comments sent to me by e-mail from some people who were in favor of this. Is there anyone here who would like to speak in favor of it?

PROFESSOR FREEMAN HENRY (FREN) - I am not sure I want to speak in favor of it exactly. I do want to give this body my reactions. Unlike Professor Alber, I haven't been here 30 years. I have been here 25 years. As a matter of fact I came here the same year as that former president named J.B. Holderman, and as of next year it seems to me, I will have outlasted two presidents in any event.

I was one of the individuals who pushed very hard for the separation of the department into the departments that still exist at present. The reason for that was, as Professor Alber has indicated, we were very dysfunctional. A primary reason for, as he has also explained, is not only is it a matter of varying disciplines but also of individuals from varying backgrounds, whose education, cultures and formation are all quite different, and who have varying perspectives of university, of teaching, of living. Therefore communication is long and drawn out - it always is. And thus when we go back to the new department, communication is going to be difficult.

It is not just a matter of the extra layering of the administration or bureaucracy, which is absolutely necessary because you have small units such as Chinese and so on and you have the larger units; each unit is going to have to have some sort of structure and some sort of internal governance, however its recognized, in order to make suggestions and to participate in the structure as a whole. Therefore, we will be spending a good deal more time sorting things out than otherwise we might.

There are other considerations, however, if this new management system goes into effect. Are we going to be better off as one department, as opposed to the various departments when we are fewer in number and are perhaps more vulnerable.

This institution doesn't have a strong history for supporting foreign languages. When J.B. Holderman and I came here, both of us, there was already in place support for the study abroad. Concessions money from the athletic department and so on and so forth came into the university was distributed. One of the distributions was the Ambassador Awards Fund which funded individuals who participated in our study abroad programs. We could tell our students in those days, "if you are going to study abroad, we can at least give you travel expenses." This committee was chaired by Bruce Marshall. Unfortunately, when Mr. Holderman perpetrated certain events, those funds were removed from the scholarship category, and our study abroad funds were absolutely wiped out, putting study abroad under terrible stress for more than a dozen years. We have somehow recovered from this disaster. We have done it by pulling ourselves up by our own boot straps. We have created six scholarship funds, for example in French, and we have done this virtually out of pocket. I edited a memorial volume whose royalties funded a scholarship, for instance.

In the interim as well, fortunately acquired a descent language laboratory. I can tell you that for years and years we had language laboratory facilities that were of lesser quality than those of most high schools in this state. It was absolutely awful.

There is history here. If this new management plan, and if this reamalgamation means that the dynamics of foreign languages are increased, if indeed there is going to be a reallocation and if funds are somehow going to be channeled - those that might be saved by the administrative adjustments - back into the program so that we indeed can get support where support has been lacking in the past, if we can be meaningfully encouraged to, perhaps, offer joint degrees and also to share course offerings, then perhaps this would be a very good thing for foreign languages. I suppose in that sense it depends on all of us in foreign languages, on the one hand. On the other hand, it is also a matter of good faith on the part of the administration.

Good faith has not always been intact. I start an exchange program with the Universite de Haute Alsace (Mulhouse, France). We signed a contract of agreement. It included provisions for a student and a faculty exchange, and provided for visitation to be funded by the university. The university funded me one time in six years. I funded myself for visitations all the other years. I housed the individual visiting our campus, and so on. This sort of support is nonsupport. If the university is truly going to help make us a better department and to provide for a better unit, then I can certainly support those efforts.

CHAIR WILCOX - Yes ma'am.

DEAN STEWART - Perhaps I would like to say just a few words. Not only have I already mentioned I have served on the SDI Committee and as a person in Liberal Arts who has been implementing this particular idea. But also my field is French. So I feel particularly vested in what is happening here. It is certainly true that there can be difficulties in bringing together a large assortment of programs which are different. I would like to say though that in the present situation it is not as though we have each language program in its own department.

We already have certain smaller conglomerations. We have French and Classics together. We have Swahili with German and Hebrew and Slavic. So we are talking about doing a little bit more of that but not necessarily doing something dramatically different from what we are doing now. The second thing I would like to say is that I think the SDI Committee felt and I certainly feel that bringing the language programs together would enable us to enhance our prestige, our role within the university, or possibilities of external funding as well. I think that a lot of collaboration could go on in the fields of language, literature, cultural studies, and linguistics. That would be facilitated by this kind of arrangement and shift some of the administrative burdens that we now have divided among three departments to faculty investing their time in research and scholarship. I hope very much that can happen. I think that the committee and I as well foresee that as the outcome we are hoping for from this.

CHAIR WILCOX - Let me make one announcement because we are going to lose our regional campuses in a couple of minutes to the satellite clicking off. We will meet again next week at 3:00 p.m. I want those people to be aware of that. We will take a couple of more questions here, and then we will break.

PROFESSOR ROLLINSON - One quick question for clarification. Is there any kind of national trend one way or another towards bringing separate languages together under one umbrella or separating them so they can grow separately. Is there any kind of a trend?

DEAN STEWART - If one were to try to identify a trend it would be the form of bringing programs together. Stanford has been trying to do this for a couple of years, though I have to add that they haven't quite succeeded because the faculty has opposed it.

PROFESSOR ROLLINSON - I wonder if the dean could comment on how many AAU schools have a single large foreign language faculty. It is my impression that only Appalachian State and some other lesser things have that. This is certainly not a step to me in the right direction for the prestige of the university.

DEAN STEWART - You have various configurations on different campuses. Typically if there is a Ph.D. program you are more likely to have a smaller grouping. We do not have Ph.D. programs in the languages here. We do have a Ph.D. program in comparative literature. One of the things that we have accomplished by doing this is we would have a Ph.D. graduate program into which all the languages could more easily feed than they are doing now.

PROFESSOR ROLLINSON - You mean your plan is to have the new conglomerated foreign language department offer a Ph.D.?

DEAN STEWART - We offer a Ph.D. in comparative literature now. The connections would be easier to make with one large department.

CHAIR WILCOX - We are out of time today. You have got the agenda for next time. The one thing to add on there is that we will take up the Health Sciences as well. See you next Wednesday. Thank you for the discussion.


This page created 15 March 2002 by the Office of the Faculty Senate and Computer Services.
Copyright 1999-2002, The Board of Trustees of the University of South Carolina
URL http://www.sc.edu/faculty/senate/02/minutes/0213.minutes.html