FACULTY ASSOCIATION
No. 2 North Office Center - St. Cloud State
University - (320) 255-3979
MEET & CONFER NOTES
October 24, 2002
Faculty Association: Andrew Larkin, Theresia Fisher, Judith Kilborn, Annette Schoenberger, Sandra Williams, Terry Peterson, Tracy Ore, Bill Langen Sunshine Shaney, Notetaker
Administration: Michael Spitzer, Rex Veeder, Anne Zemek de Dominguez, John Burgeson, Diana Burlison, Larry Chambers, Dennis Nunes, Lin Holder, Steve Ludwig, Roland Specht-Jarvis
FA: We had a department chair that asked for information on how college budgets are allocated.
ADM: I think there are certain general principles that college deans follow with some variations. Some will allocate out a large chunk of it to individual departments; others may feel that they have specific needs that need to be addressed. There is a specific amount set aside for emergencies and in the spring when it is clear that there will be no emergencies the money is then allocated out.
FA: What if a dean has money left over?
ADM: Some asked for waivers to carry it over to the next year some requests were granted some were not. It can be carried over only with special permission.
FA: Could a dean transfer from one college budget to another and if so, would it have to go through the provost?
ADM: Not for supplies and equipment. We do not require any kind of approval on that. Usually if it happens the business office will ask if they should be doing it. It’s not a usual occurrence.
FA: This is the motion that was passed in Faculty Senate on October 22, 2002.
“That the Faculty Association participate in the University Council forum and that the FA President represent the Faculty Association and report back to the Senate.” Clarification that this is not a decision making body.
ADM: That’s perfectly acceptable to the administration, thank you.
FA: We have provided a list of the committee members representing the Faculty Association to the Provost.
ADM: Thank you for providing that to us so quickly. We will be proceeding with the search very soon.
Independent Review Committee on Campus Culture
FA: The original draft was revised in the Senate and this is the version that was approved. We are now looking for our members on this committee.
ADM: We will pass this on to the other bargaining units and the students.
ADM: I am passing out some documents for your information. The first sheet outlines the activity of Summer 2002. The column labeled “other” is the international programs, Honors, etc. We use the summer money as a “loan” for the academic year. The revenue generated from summer session goes into our total budget.
FA: I would like to know what the other expenses are outside of instructional. When I look at what will be allocated, next summer is less than last summer.
ADM: The recommendations for next summer are to increase the allocations by six percent. Special projects are requests from faculty reviewed by the provost. The last page in the far right column is my suggested allocation by the formula to each college in 2003. Within that total the increase may not equal 6% per college because it is an overall increase. The formula produces responses to the penny.
FA: As a general idea it seems to me that increasing the college budgets by 6% can be seen as a reward. It’s in relationship to the productivity that they achieved in the last two years.
ADM: The increase is what I believe will be needed to meet the requirements of each college in summer 2003.
FA: It seems that if I were a dean my reasoning would be brutally simple; more money is better than less. I got more money this year because I had more students so what can I do to get more students this year so I can have more money next?
ADM: I don’t disagree that our increases will follow our enrollments.
FA: So then what happens?
ADM: If you generate more money it’s added to the University’s budget and there is more flexibility as to where we can spend it.
FA: What kind of conversations are there with the dean to get more money for next year? Are they told that they will get more money if their enrollment increases?
ADM: No. Our level of productivity remains relatively the same. Classes are not getting larger every summer. We are essentially providing a budget for summer session. We are supporting higher demand classes over lower demand classes in the departments. Deans engage in conversations with the department chairs regarding the curricular needs.
ADM: I think you want to have a balance with the courses between the ones that produce the higher income and the ones that are needed for the major.
FA: Can you explain the last three columns of the last page?
ADM: Low enrollment course have less than nine undergraduate or less than six graduate students. Half the mean salary would be subtracted. The last column is a percentage of the total driven backwards into the colleges.
FA: How would I compare the last column with something that would tell me what the amounts were last year?
ADM: It is in the same column on the document from last year.
FA: What is column #6?
ADM: It is the amount expended by the colleges. It will take into account the initial allocation plus special projects, high demands, etc.
FA: So in fact “final allocation” is a bit misleading.
ADM: It is the amount predicated to the deans to begin the discussion with each of the departments
FA: I would find it helpful to see how that compares to last year.
ADM: I can forward last year’s report to the FA President and he can then get it to you.
FACULTY OVERLOADS IN THE COLLEGE OF EDUCATION
FA: During our last discussion on this I understood your reply was that the contract provided for the use of adjuncts instead of overload in cases where we were cramped for resources. We asked Frank Conroy and he said there was arbitration but when the faculty proposed and MnSCU accepted, the particular phrase was revised and the key word was “resources.” It is our understanding that the enrollment in these particular courses has been stable for some time.
ADM: I think one of the questions is addressed here within the context of the COE but it is really a university wide issue. I don’t think overload is provided to faculty on a regular basis. Faculty position has been that we should reduce the workload. If we are going to reduce, then the argument to request overload seems contradictory.
FA: All faculty are not requesting such. Faculty from time to time are saying that they would like to avail themselves of that opportunity. I don’t believe that it is our position that adjuncts should be used routinely.
ADM: I think we use far fewer adjuncts than nationally is the case.
FA: Some departments have to use adjuncts regularly and it’s our understanding that the contract allows that a faculty member instead could say that within the faculty workload including overload I can teach that class and would like to. I think that a reasoned approach to resolving this is important and part of what is being requested is that a faculty costing $55 more than an adjunct seems like a minimal thing. There are instances where hiring a faculty member would be cheaper and yet the dean is insisting that an adjunct be hired. I would like us to look at some flexibility which I think is what has been done up to this point.
ADM: In some cases there were no other options available, faculty were given overload because adjuncts were not available. I would be interested in discussing cases on an individual basis. But as a general rule, I would discourage overload. There are opportunities for faculty in Continuing Education. As a general principle I think it is not a good idea for faculty to teach overload.
FA: I can personally agree on that, but one part that I’m not certain we agree on is that if there’s a need our first direction should be to go to an adjunct. I would tend to believe that the contract would suggest the first place we should look is if there is a faculty member who would like to teach it as overload.
FA: You’re right on the money about our concerns. It is an unusual circumstance that a faculty member will want to take an overload. But there are crosscurrents and other considerations to be made. There are marginal instances that I don’t think compromise the general principle of the faculty and administration.
ADM: I think it would be worth looking at as something we could discuss further but not as something that we look to first.
FA: We need to be open to special cases.
ADM: If we could agree that we would not do it as a matter of routine but consider it on an individual basis, then we would be amenable to that.
FA: Sometimes by going to adjuncts first you actually are ending up reinforcing the overload.
ADM: I think we go to adjuncts when we have not been able to hire other people.
FA: My reading of the contract is different, I think, than yours. When it talks about adjuncts it says that adjuncts will be considered when “the tasks cannot be accomplished by permanent faculty, including overload.” I think that the prohibition of overload is not something that makes sense.
ADM: I believe that is open to interpretation and I will need to consult on this. As stated before, I would be willing to discuss this issue on a case-by-case basis.
HIGHWAY SAFETY CENTER
FA: We still have some senior faculty who aren’t employed. Rather than rehashing those same positions I am wondering if there is some way that we could identify that we could get the additional funds that we had hoped for that would have allowed for the remaining people to be employed. It is my understanding that [faculty] did attempt to get the funding and found that there were additional things we needed in order to move forward with receiving the funding. He was told that they were ready to release funds but needed an accounting of the funds that were previously released.
ADM: I was not aware of that. [Faculty] told me that he would be able to get the funding within a week last time I met with him.
FA: What about EPT?
ADM: We are working on it, and they are rostered with Academic Affairs right now. I will check on when the Seniority Roster will be published.
FA: There isn’t anyone rostered in the MN Highway Safety Center?
ADM: At this point there is no one officially rostered there.
FA: So they would perform their EPT procedures as a unit within Academic Affairs?
ADM: I am not absolutely sure until we see the roster where we put them. I would like to wait until I see the roster, I honestly cannot remember where we put them. We can access the data tomorrow morning.
FA: I want to ask in response to the information regarding student applications, if these are not ours then I am hoping they have been returned to the students.
ADM: They were returned to the students and the students resubmitted them to the Board of Teaching.
FA: Can I ask you to double check to make sure they were sent?
ADM: Yes, I can check and give you confirmation.
FA: I would personally express that I would be very pleased if they have been sent somewhere. Thank you. Finally, I think that you had some knowledge of a request for some audit information, but what I am hearing now is that you did not have knowledge of that. It would be helpful if an administrator would accompany a faculty member to a meeting with the commissioner in order that communication be improved regarding the process for obtaining these funds.
ADM: I think that’s part of the problem and that we are on the right track with this. We are conducting an audit and when it’s done we will make the results public.
UNIVERSITY RESEARCHERS FUND AND MCARI GRANT PROPOSAL
FA: Earlier this week there was a series of emails between faculty and administrators. I think we had some communication that may not have been productive. There are issues in the Committee on Diversity Education (CODE) and they are not unlike issues among committees in other universities. The comment that the FA Executive Committee didn’t have the authority to determine that the CODE meeting with Bremer Foundation should be open to all members of the committee was out of line. We actually left it up to the committee to decide. I have some concern with that comment.
ADM: My sense of what [administrator] was doing was stating his opinion of what would work best predicated on his experience in working with Bremer. It is my understanding that in the past Bremer has visited with the principal investigators. I think that what he was saying was that in his opinion if you want the grant, this is what you should do.
FA: I don’t think we have an issue with that part of the conversation. Particularly his comment that we did not have the authority, and the fact that I requested a meeting because I didn’t think this was appropriate for email.
ADM: I think what he was doing was offering his opinion.
FA: There is an issue within the committee with the grant writers being the only two members at the time that the proposal was written. This is an FA committee and we made a decision based on that.
ADM: Was this an FA committee proposal?
FA: It was a CODE proposal. Which is a Faculty Association committee. There are two people who did a lot of work on the proposal, but that’s not the issue. There are other people on the committee and the FA had trouble saying some people could go and some people couldn’t. He is entitled to his opinions but I would hope that next time instead of doing that on email he should do a face to face.
ADM: My understanding is that it is their project.
ADM: I will talk to [administrator] about that comment and the appropriateness of using the email for such discussions.
FA: Thank you. I think one of the things the EC is concerned about is that this project is very important and if we should get the funding we should have an open buy-in to the project.
ADM: It is pretty clear that this is different from most grant proposals and that he was venturing his opinion based on what he thought would be best to support getting the funding from Bremer.
FA: The meeting with Bremer went very well. I think that I was concerned that it would be hard for the project to go through without more support from the committee. Despite the fact that two people had written it, it was a committee project.
FA: I heard that the meeting went very well and I want to thank everyone for their support.
ASSISTANT DEANS
ADM: One of the things that is a concern of the FA and Administration has been the way in which hiring and EPT matters are handled when they reach the colleges. In order to address that particular issue, it seemed to me that we could put into place assistant deans in the two largest colleges who could help with this issue. They would be hired to ensure that the appropriate affirmative action procedures are followed and to help see to it that promotion and tenure recommendations are handled appropriately in the colleges. We would provide an individual who would be 51% administrative to help with that process on a probationary period and if it worked then perhaps expand it to the other colleges.
FA: I will take it to the senate and get their response.
FA: There are currently associate deans, do they have teaching as part of their load?
ADM: I think some of them teach because they would like to maintain some presence in the classroom.
FA: You are talking about two separate individuals right? What are they going to do with the rest of the their time, the 49 percent?
ADM: They would be teaching. I see this also as a way of trying to develop leadership skills in faculty.
FA: How will we pay for it?
ADM: Well that is one of the reasons we are limiting it to the two largest colleges initially. If it proves worthwhile, we will find the money to do it.
FA: What about secretarial help in departments? Some departments are not satisfied with the amount of their secretarial support so there is competition for this funding.
ADM: This is a lot less expensive than funding a secretarial position. My sense about those positions is that this year’s budget was set last year and what we are trying to do is clean up the budgets to give the deans some flexibility with how their money is spent.
FA: Which problems that presently exist will this alleviate and therefore you would use to judge whether it is successful?
ADM: How clean the hires are, how well handled personnel decisions are, how many grievances come about as a consequence, etc.
FA: I think it would be more helpful to have someone in the searches.
ADM: I think that we can make sure that people on the search committees better understand what the issues are.
FA: I think that they understand the issues and that you can’t really know until you are in the meeting where someone is refusing to read files.
ADM: Well if that happens come and let me know.
FA: The COE seems to have a fair number of people assigned to administrative functions.
ADM: I know in FAH there is one secretary, one associate dean, and one dean.
FA: You will try this spring semester and so this position is going to be half reassign time for Article 22 and 25 personnel. My view of Article 22 and 25 is that they are the two most complex processes in the entire contract so in one year working half time are we dooming this to fail?
ADM: I think that with the assistance provided within the college that we will provide time for those processes.
FA: We have had a history at this university at least of having different views of these processes, so to figure out if the processes are working is a hard thing. Another question is do we have some idea of where the issues for evaluation purposes are currently to compare it to in the evaluation?
ADM: If this works the way I hope it will we can develop a model for use in the other colleges.
FA: Would you consider doing it for more than one year on a trial basis?
ADM: Yes I would consider that.
FA: I think I heard you say that this person would not necessarily do these things but that they may do other things to free up some time and that the dean would make the decisions.
ADM: I think that if the assistant dean is doing this then that frees up time for the associate dean to do other things and vice versa.
ADM: The duties are to make sure that the processes are being followed and that searches are working. Not necessarily making decisions.
FA: I want to congratulate you on coming up with an idea to deal with these issues that have been around for a long time.
FA: Well we can take it to the senate and see what they have to say.
ADM: We instructed them to return the rights to the registration overrides to the faculty and it has been done.
FA: Thank you very much.
ADM: Each department can decide whether to do it or not. It will be either on or off for each department.
FA: Students can register for classes not having taken the prerequisites
ADM: At one point MnSCU had turned off the prerequisite check and not told us or the user. We have been trying to go back to the curriculum database and I think we have most of it finished so that anything that is turned on should prevent the student from registering without the prerequisites.
FA: I brought this issue from the chairs meeting; we can wait and get something back to you on what we want to do.
FA: We had the Humanities program and Engineering Management placed on hold.
ADM: We’ve been struggling with this for a while and the UCC is working on a draft to improve our process. One of the ongoing problems is that there hasn’t been a way for us to communicate with the faculty if there are concerns that may prevent a proposal from being approved. We have tried a couple of different methods but none of them have worked. If any problem occurs that would cause the proposal to be returned to the proposer then Academic Affairs is to be notified. We are trying to get some earlier communication going to avoid some of the problems that have been occurring. UCC has committed to working very hard on this to try to find a way for us to do this. Those two were held over for initial discussion with the provost. In fact one has already come back to us and the other should be back relatively soon.
FA: Our current curriculum process was established in 1994 to try to speed up the curriculum process. Who is allowed to take it out and return it to the proposer?
ADM: Anyone along the process can do that. The issue is that we rely on the deans to communicate and work with their departments. We have to ask them to get it resolved within the department before it comes back to Academic Affairs.
FA: It is an issue that the faculty do not find out in time that it is being returned.
ADM: It is not our intention to do that. That’s why we would like to get better communication going. The curriculum bulletin goes out every week and it is publicly stated that something is going on hold. As soon as we realize it will be placed on hold a memo is sent out to the chair that it’s happening and the reasons.
FA: Procedures require that the proposer be notified.