Faculty Association: President Fisher, Andrew Larkin, Terry Peterson, Judy Foster, Robert Johnson, Judy Kilborn, Jack McKenna, Annette Schoenberger, Robert Johnson
Administration: President Saigo, Lin Holder, John Burgeson, Diana Burlison, Larry Chambers, Barb Grachek, Steve Ludwig, Roland Specht-Jarvis
Guests: J. Anderson, Steve Onstad, John Palmer, Cheri Rae Sundin, Karen Thoms,
Dennis Nunes, Kristi Tornquist
ADM: The issue is that we are not very happy about the level of participation that has begun to occur in faculty forum day. The issue is we are fully committed if it is meaningful to us. The first Wednesday of April for the Faculty forum day. We did not put it into the printed schedule because of these concerns. I would ask you to give some thought to preparing a plan to bring about greater faculty participation.
ADM: I am passing around some numbers from the workshop date. The first set of numbers is what we came up with based on the people who signed in. We had a grand total of 191 people attending. That’s not very good given the number of faculty we have. We had a number of panels and roundtables and workshops. I was able to provide you an estimate of how many people attended these sessions. We had some problems with the faculty workshop day last year. Generally the feedback from the people who attended came out fairly okay. Some brought us some concerns. We are already working on the presenter for April. I have several people in mind for that position. My intent is to identify the presenter by Nov 25 and have the first or second book talk of spring semester centering on that individual’s publication.
ADM: Some preliminary work is being done and I appreciate that. The larger issue is participation. Our request is to ask the faculty to come back with a plan to improve faculty participation and if you feel it has lost its value we come with an agreement that this is no longer needed. Please think about it and comeback in a reasonable time with a plan or recommendation to discontinue.
FA: My understanding is that the decision was made not to implement Schedule 25 for spring semester because it apparently doesn’t work as promised.
ADM: That is true. We don’t want to implement it until we are relatively confident that it will work.
FA: We are still getting a lot of areas where people are pointing out things that could be problematic. One of the things that occurred is that on the surface this appears to be something that will solve some bureaucratic problems. We would like to have a task force that will be charged with investigating these issues. To look at those 3 issues. So we have something the faculty can get behind rather than dragging their feet. It would be a joint committee
ADM: This actually was agreed to and initiated in one case by faculty. So there is a history that we kind of forget sometimes that this has been on the agenda for two or three years. An is our best estimation this is the only product that will work for an institution this size. It’s taking a lot of work. I am not sure what a task force would do, but if you would like to provide us with a proposal we would consider it.
FA: The task force would the nitty gritty of the implementation and the various issues involved. At this point we haven’t had a lot of faculty input. There were a number of concerns raised around campus. The idea of the task force is to meet all the various concerns of faculty, administration and such. How can schedule 25 be implemented to meet the various concerns around campus?
ADM: I’d like to have a proposal with composition and the charge you would like to see the committee have. I don’t know a lot about the technical side of it. I’d like to suggest that the person with responsibility of the implementation certainly would be one of our choices for part of that task force. We will certainly consider it.
FA: Would you have any suggestions for other ways to deal with this?
ADM: We will certainly consider the task force.
ADM: The first sheet you have you’ll note the income is the tuition income from COB. The return was instructional cost vs. instructional tuition. It appears that we have had the most productive summer of any of the universities in the state. That’s a function of faculty working with administration, selecting the right courses, and marketing our efforts. Page two all the data that lead up to the final allocation for 2002. This allocation has been increased from summer 2001 approximately 9%. The amount last year was one million 730,440 has increased to one million 894,831. There is nothing here you haven’t seen from the past several years. Last page is total summer session budget. This is for 2002 it’s 9.5 % increase from 2001allocation. This is an overall figure projected for 2002.
FA: If summer school enrollment is flat what impact would that have on the bottom line?
ADM: Summer session is conceptualized as alone from the budget of the institution. If we were to be well below the projections, it would be from the budget for the regular academic year. If we were to have substantially lower return it would have an impact on the money available for this institution to carry out its regular academic year.
FA: On summer school where does the state match come in?
ADM: We don’t get any money for summer session. Summer session is self-supporting. We are only allocated state funds for fall and spring credits.
FA: The chairperson expenses is that to fund a half time chairperson?
ADM: Yes. That’s right. I’d like to take it to the deans and if there are any more questions please let me know.
FA: Perhaps it may be just one view. Despite optimistic projections of the success of outlook faculty are having problems. Some of them are very serious problems, which may perhaps be a glitch. Faculty cannot get access. I think there are two parts. One is process that we think perhaps maybe flawed. Many faculty appeared the first of this term not having a clue what husky net was. Many students still don’t know what it is. I think what we are asking for new technology that there be either a longer lead-in or more information to get everybody up to speed. There have been conflicting statements that faculty will be required to switch to outlook. The second part for solving the current problems We are asking for a task force to discuss what went wrong with the rollout and what we can do to solve the concerns. Our recommendation is the formation of a joint FA/ADM task force to be charged with two parts; Solving the current problems that faculty are reporting to us and concerns for future technology:
FA: Would you like to receive a proposal on the formation of this task force?
FA: