Faculty
Association: Andrew Larkin, Chris
Inkster, Robert Johnson, Judith Kilborn, Tracy Ore, Terry Peterson, Annette
Schoenberger, Sandra Williams
Administration: Roy Saigo, John Burgeson, Diana Burlison,
Larry Chambers, Nathan Church, Lin Holder, Steve Ludwig, Roland Specht-Jarvis,
Michael Spitzer, Rex Veeder Jackie Zieglmeier,
Notetaker
Approval
of Previous Minutes:
The
minutes of November 14, 2002 were approved.
OCE
Advisory Committee:
FA: For the record, I want to report that this
committee met yesterday. We are
underway. It was a good resolution to
get this going. We can move this item
to the completed list.
Plans
for Budget Cuts:
FA: I put this item on the agenda before our
budget meeting today. For the record,
with the likelihood of “x” percent budget cuts in the next fiscal year, what
are the administration’s plans for accommodating these cuts?
Adm: You are aware of the projected $5 billion -
$5.5 billion deficit. We will know more
when the February projections come in.
If that is the deficit, the simple math is that over a 2-year period,
our share is $22 million. We need to
cut approximately $7 million out of FY 04, maintain that cut in FY 05 and do
another $7 million cut the following year.
The only thing that I can say for sure is that the budget has so many
variables. Until the governor and
legislature meet, we won’t know the plan of action. We do know that FY 04 and FY 05 will be difficult. There is nothing on the table for cuts. At the same time, everything is on the table
for cuts. There is not much action
now. After January 1, there will be a
lot of action. We anticipate the
potential of the state taking some of our reserves. The state is having trouble paying its bills. We need to wait and see. Diana Burlison has been working hard to get
a reserve. We hope to have a
cushion. Different people are talking
about the issues. Economists don’t
agree. Projections do not include steps
and inflation. Because of the enormity
of the situation, we don’t know all of the facts that contribute to this. How did this come about? Some believe that it is because of money to
K-12 without a revenue stream. Other
states seem to be turning around.
Minnesota is in an enormous hole.
FA: We were asked not to distribute the
spreadsheets that the FA budget committee received from Diana this morning.
Adm: That is consistent with our established
distribution pattern. I will be talking
with the deans and other bargaining units.
We don’t look to place blame. It
will take all of us together to get through and weather this situation. The underlying pieces are that we will
register students, collect tuition and hold classes; but we will do it differently
than we are now. It will take all of us
to pitch in and do our share. If you
start hearing rumors, call me. I prefer
that you get the facts right away to dispel any rumors. I will be watching this closely. Rumor management may be the hardest thing to
do. We need to be careful not to let
rumors spread.
FA: If the state’s budget deficit is $5.5
billion and our take for FY 04 is $7
million, is that in addition to the single-digit deficit in our account from
this morning’s handout?
Adm: The most dramatic scenario includes the
state deficit. I also showed the
reduction in the reserve. There is a
lot of commotion but no facts now.
Given past behavioral patterns, to get out of the $5.5 billion deficit,
the state will find the revenue to offset one-third, trickery for another
one-third, and pass one-third on as cuts.
Of the one-third passed on, what share will we have? If governor-elect Pawlenty hold K-12 harmless,
the rest of us are looking at 40% budget cuts.
Remember, it will not be easy, but students need to be first and
foremost in our minds as we work through this together.
FA: We anticipate that you will be talking to us
about this on a regular basis.
Adm: One of the important things is that we need
to provide educational services in the most efficient and cost-effective way to
minimize severe consequences.
FA: In the mid-90s we went through a painful
process. We need to set out carefully
how we deal with this.
Independent
Review Committee:
FA: There is important work for us to accomplish
in the next several months. Who are the
non-faculty members on this committee?
Adm: Rex Veeder and Sharon Cogdill. The Student Government appointed their
members yesterday. We will try to
schedule a meeting next week to give an overview and talk about process and so
forth.
FA: I sent a
memo to President Saigo asking him to lend his authority and convene the first
meeting.
Adm: I would be happy to do so.
FA: On December 3 the Faculty Senate passed a
motion on the role of facilitator. We
wanted the IRC itself to decide if it wanted to employ a professional
facilitator and, if so, how it would use that facilitator.
Adm: The President appointed/delegated the
formation of strategy to Theresia Fisher and Nathan Church. A concern was expressed if the committee
could operate under a tight timeframe.
We have said the committee would make recommendations 2 months after the
Rankin report is finalized. There has
been a recommendation to get a professional person , independent from
constituent groups represented on the committee, to focus on process and
effectiveness of the work of the committee.
The administration will make this suggestion. No decision has been made.
I will allow the committee to consider the recommendation. The rumor is that a person has already been
selected. Absolutely not. The other issue is that the EEOC has been
waiting for our response. We want to
avoid having the committee “blow up.”
There are substantive recommendations to put in place. There will be broad implementation. We are not here to manipulate you. We want the work of the committee to be fair
and focused. We prefer to start with a
neutral person. Because of timing and
sensitivity of issues we would like to get off to a good start. Again, we need to move quickly.
FA: We appreciate that. Our concern is that we don’t want you to
assume that the committee can’t handle this before they have had a chance to
try. Two things: 1)
We don’t think the committee will blow up. 2) There is the appearance that you have gone ahead and planned
for a facilitator.
Adm: Have you considered the need to identify
some staff support?
Adm: Georgian Gross from Student Life and
Development will serve as staff.
FA: We do not expect a blow up and we appreciate
the administration being prepared with an alternate plan.
Faculty
Overload vs. Adjunct Appointments:
FA: We appreciate Michael Spitzer’s talking with
Chris Dale to gather clarification of MnSCU’s interpretation of Article 21, Subd.
3. We want to go on record that we
disagree with that interpretation. The
FA position is that if teaching can be taken care of by current faculty,
including overload, that is the way to go.
If teaching can’t be handled by current faculty with the use of
overload, then adjuncts kick in.
Adm: Can we move this item to the “done” list?
FA: Yes.
We want to compliment you on being flexible in resolving the immediate
issue.
Traffic
Safety Faculty and Students:
FA: What is the status of the audit? Has it begun?
Adm: We have commissioned the auditor. It is in progress. We are waiting for the results.
You will be notified when it is completed. We gave the auditor the information she wanted within two days
of her request.
FA: What about the student licensure
applications rejected by BOT?
Adm: All students with credit-based coursework
have had their applications for licensure sent out. For those applications with no credit-based coursework, from any
institution, we are working with Brad Isberner to come up with a plan for prior
assessment. John Burgeson will give
Provost Spitzer a plan on Monday about assessing levels at other
institutions. John will write the 21
students and tell them what they need to do.
There was detailed discussion during the meeting Rex Veeder attended on
Saturday with the statewide group. Some
files are not complete. Sarah Riley is
running down the paperwork to be filled out that the students hadn’t completed.
FA: What statewide group?
Adm: The driver ed. teachers’ professional
organization.
FA: What do you see as SCSU’s commitment to
continuing drivers education?
Adm: I continue to see the program as being
successful. We will continue to recruit
students for spring. We had a
successful fall. I estimate that it
will take a couple of years to have an established program. I will employ Brad Isberner next year and
then assess after that. It is all fee
for service. We are developing
partnerships and considering training for commercial driving schools. I feel it can be made to work. I am bound and determined not to let my
part of this fail.
FA: I am glad that we will have those statements
in the minutes. The website lists people who are part-time but are not part of
SCSU. Why were they hired and not
people we already have at SCSU?
Adm: There is a meeting next week. I will get an answer to Andy Larkin next
week.
FA: Can you give us an update about the unit
meetings. Are these people meeting as a
unit? Two units?
Adm: There has been a full unit meeting. We have had separate meetings with the
separate groups. Brad Isberner is
working with John Burgeson. I have met
with people to talk about goals. The
EPT process is well underway.
FA: What is not resolved is faculty representation. It is difficult to meet with two groups of
three people each when there is antagonism.
Is there a chair?
Adm: We appointed a director at the driving
range—Bill Ruhr. The other three
operate in separate units—2 in the College of Education; 1 in Continuing
Studies. We may be able to clarify the
issue of faculty representation next week.
FA: We now have five full-share members. We want to express our appreciation to John
Burgeson for the work he has done.
Curriculum
Matters:
Overlapping
majors and minors:
FA: Students are being denied admission to
majors and minors. I can’t understand
why they are being turned down. It is
not fair to students. We do not have
rules on this. To use a rule to apply
to something else is inexcusable. The
Curriculum Committee is working on this.
My name was on the major/minor application for some of these
students. I was the advisor of record
but I was not informed. If advisors
are not informed, we have no way of helping students. One student was in the top 10%. He was
denied admission into a double major of math and physics. We have repeated asked, “Where is the
rule?”
Adm: To clarify, we are not talking about being
admitted to a major or minor, but admitted to a second major or minor.
FA: We cannot refuse admittance if students have
fulfilled the qualifications of the degree.
Again, it is not fair to students.
If the Undergraduate Bulletin does not say anything about
students being admitted to a major or minor, that is a serious problem.
Adm: To clarify, we are only looking at students
who are asking for a second major or minor.
No one is being denied graduation.
No one is being prevented from completing a major or minor. I want to state for the record that the Undergraduate
Bulletin is not a contract.
FA: So that means you do whatever you want?
Adm: No.
FA: There are 2 problems. The student reads the bulletin. He says he has this many credits in his file
and he wants to get a minor or a second major.
We agreed to at least think through a way to do this. In the packet of applications we looked at
there is an international relations major.
He was turned down for an economics minor even
though he had sufficient credits. We
can’t do that. We ask that students not
be penalized because it is not in the bulletin now. We ask that there be time for settling the situation.
Adm: The problem is that the same courses are
counted toward the major and minor.
They are counted twice. It is
like double frequent-flyer miles for the same trip.
FA: We have that situation if credits are taken
for general education and the major.
Assessment says a student has learned the material—they have fulfilled
the requirements. Assessment doesn’t
say you have to have put in x number of hours in the classroom. That is the way the catalog is written.
Adm: How many students are affected by this?
FA: I don’t know.
Adm: I have instructed Records to notify students
and their advisors who are in this situation.
You might not have been the advisor of record.
FA: I was.
Adm: No one has changed the rules. We will take this back to Academic Affairs
Council and resolve it.
FA: We are not talking about students who are
prevented from graduating. We are
saying that students who have applied for a second major or minor should have
it if they have met the requirements.
Adm: The bulletin talks about x or y number of
credits. There is no place that says
they can or cannot overlap. What we
have is the first large group of students who have been here all the way on
semesters and are now coming through for graduation. I am happy that the Curriculum Committee is reviewing this. We will take this back to the deans and
discuss it.
FA: We have had discussions at previous meet and
confers with no resolution. Students
who are affected are graduating this semester.
We have no reason to tell them why they cannot have a second major or
minor. This affects all of the advising
we do. We need to know what the
guidelines are so that we don’t misadvise students. I appreciate the concern expressed that we do not know when a
rule is out there. When we allow a
major and minor, we recognize the work students do to get that major or
minor. When we deny that recognition,
it is a slap in the face to faculty and students. It says the work they do doesn’t count. A second major or minor is useful on the transcript. It helps students get a better job. We say we believe in assessment, but we want
seat time.
Adm: It is not a simple issue—for example,
computer science students take enough math as required for the major in
computer science. Do they get a math
minor as well?
FA: Yes, they get both. Students here now fall under the policies in the current bulletin.
Adm: They need to make a choice – courses count
for one or the other.
FA: We ask that the rule not be changed in the
middle.
Adm: Has there been a change in the way that this
policy in interpreted?
FA: Is this a brand new policy?
Adm: No to both questions. Starting last spring a huge number of
students had so much overlap of credits that Records could not interpret what
degree to award. We are concerned about
good academic practice. Most of the
cases have been resolved. There has
been no change in policy but the number of cases coming up in this way gives
the appearance of a policy change.
FA: Until a change is made, our interpretation
is that a second major or minor should be granted if requirements are met. We agree that the upsurge can be attributed
to where we are in relation to semester conversion.
Adm: To clarify, no decisions were made in
semester conversion. That is part of
the problem. We do not want to point
blame.
FA: I see this as an advising issue – should the
student be held harmless because of my uninformed advising? If the policy
changes, then notify everyone.
Schedule
25:
FA: We have asked people to volunteer to serve
on the committee. When we have one from
each college, we will let you know.
Adm: The committee should have been convened this
semester. We have Council 6 and
administrative members. We hoped to
have a meeting before the end of this semester. We may need to meet with partial membership.
Upper
Division Writing Requirement:
FA: The faculty completed its work a couple of
years ago.
Adm: I looked at past correspondence. I found a May 20, 1998 memo from Mark Nook
and Phil Keith representing the General Education Committee to Suzie Williams
and the FA Executive Committee. It is
brief so I will read it:
In response to Dr.
Williams’ request for a set of criteria and a list of courses for the upper
division writing requirement, we have developed the attached list through
discussion in the general education committee and through twice surveying
departments offering major
programs. The surveys have also
produced the attached list of courses that department major programs propose as
meeting this requirement.
Our plan is to review
and update both the criteria and list at the beginning of fall quarter and recommend
them as a report to the Faculty Senate at that time. We are sending this as a progress report to solicit reactions
from the Faculty Association and Office of Academic Affairs prior to acting to
recommend.
I made a copy
of Suzie Williams’ detailed response (handout). I don’t think we have received further response from
faculty. I ask that you take a look at
this and that we pull it together to see where we are.
FA: You have the recent memo from Steve
Klepetar.
Adm: We have not had a chance to review it.
FA: We have no resistance to having an upper
division writing requirement. We just
want to have it done right. Departments
did not have a chance to review other departments’ requests for asking for
their classes.
Adm: We agree.
Special
Administrators, Appointment, Bonuses, etc.:
FA: We are expecting additional information from
you regarding salaries and positions.
Adm: You were going to provide further questions
to us. You were concerned about the
reported large increase in the number of administrators. The number of MSUAASF and MnSCU
administrators were consolidated in the report. I cannot get at the genesis of the numbers in the report prepared
by the former affirmative action officer.
Right now we have 37 excluded administrators. That is an increase of two or so over the last couple of
years. The lead investigator and the
associate dean of learning resources and technology services are two of those
new positions. For MSUAASF, six
positions were added in the advising center.
We also found that in the report the interim person and permanent person
were both counted for a single position in one year.
FA: So, you are saying we don’t know what the
numbers mean?
Adm: Everyone hired or who occupied a position
was counted.
FA: Whether they still worked at the university
or not?
Adm: Yes.
FA: It seems like the data could be resurrected
by pulling information from personnel files.
Adm: We can look at FTE and headcount for
administrators and MSUAASF that is now available in the MnSCU system. We will also send you a web address that can
provide additional information.
FA: We asked for a report.
Adm: We will send you disaggregation of
administrators and MSUAASF – numbers from FY99 through the current year. That is what is available in the current
MnSCU system. You can examine the
website. It gives you gender and other
information you might find interesting.
FA: Are the faculty numbers in the affirmative
action report wrong?
Adm: I don’t know.
FA: One of the problems is that this looks like
an official report and it is so inaccurate.
Adm: The numbers are about hiring and not total
employment. The report was prepared for
affirmative action purposes.
FA: Can we have a report with accurate information?
Adm: When I was in the Business Office, I used to
do a U.S. Labor Department Census of Employment. Their definition of an employee was not what our definition is. Part of the answer comes from what the
definitions of the categories are. That
is the piece that is missing. We can
do a new report for the current year.
We are hiring an affirmative action person for the interim to get
reports square. The issue you brought
up was what appeared to be a huge increase in the number of administrators. The report shows an inaccurate
percentage. We will forward a report to
you by FTE and headcount from FY99 through the current year—broken down by
bargaining unit. We also will send you
the website address.
FA: That’s the bonus—but not the report we
requested. Tell us how we got to
this. If I were you and I saw this, I
would question it before it went out.
Adm: I did, but I could not get satisfactory
answers.
Assistant
Deans:
FA: At the November 19th Faculty
Senate meeting we distributed Roland Specht-Jarvis’ response to our earlier
questions. There was a motion to table
the item until more information about these positions and more information
about assistant deans in other colleges is available. The general consensus was support for this innovative idea. Is there still a college with two people
serving one-half time as assistant dean?
Adm: No.
FA: There are numerous other people assigned
100% in deans’ offices. They function
as assistant deans but are not assistant deans. They are part of our bargaining unit.
Adm: Some are MSUAASF.
FA: In this college where there were two
half-time assistant deans last year, there are a number of people who appear to
be supervising peers. That causes
concern. In your model for assistant
deans, how do you deal with the fact that there are people who are still
faculty members making decisions?
Wouldn’t they have to recuse themselves as a judge would?
Adm: Discussion around this topic has been
helpful. I would like to look at
assistant deans differently than I first proposed. Deans and associate deans would continue to work with RPT
materials. The assistant deans would be
individuals who would perform certain functions to free up more time for deans
and associate deans to work on personnel decisions. I would like to move forward.
Searches are occurring now. I
don’t want any screw-ups.
FA: What about our question concerning IFO
members assigned to the deans’ offices?
Adm: That is a different topic.
FA: It came up in our discussion of assistant
dean positions, but it was not tied to it.
Adm: Colleges operate differently. We can give you a list.
FA: This is related in terms of resources for
deans to use to assist with their tasks.
Adm: I intend to go ahead with the assistant dean
positions.
FA: As you indicated before, you will search in
two colleges?
Adm: Yes.
FA: When will
you have people in place?
Adm: Soon.
FA: How will you pay for it?
Adm: That is a good question.
FA: Would these people receive faculty salary or
administrator salary?
Adm: Release time.
Use of
Office Equipment for Professional Writing:
FA: This is a follow-up to one of your Academic
Affairs Council meetings. One dean
reported that there are state regulations not to use state resources for things
that might bring us monetary gain. We
understand that we cannot run a business out of our office. Some college deans are interpreting this
differently. The dean of the College of
Social Sciences has informed his faculty that they may not use state resources
to work on textbooks and that they cannot use their office computer or their
office phone for financial gain. The
same dean has allegedly announced that he will not count as credit for
professional development any publication for which the author earns an
income. There is no consistency from
college to college.
Adm: I want to check with this dean. You have said “allegedly.” The State of Minnesota is more stringent
than other states with what you can do with state equipment. I would want a legal interpretation of what
is permissible.
FA: I have a personal interest. I believe the university gains and the
students gain from research that I do.
Do I need to ask my publisher to buy me a computer?
Adm: I need to consult with the deans.
FA: On the one hand, we have standards for
scholarship; and then on the other hand, we are told not to use state resources
to work on textbooks.
Adm: We also need to review the section on
intellectual property agreed to in the contract.
FA: Can we get something in writing that
standardizes this?
Adm: When we discussed the application of these
guidelines at AAC, it had to do with a different issue. It is not an interpretation that I would
favor. The more attention that is given
to this, the scarier it gets. There are
two questions: one is the issue of
intellectual property; the second is how textbooks are related to scholarship
and how that fits the Boyer model.
FA: There is a line between scholarship and
classroom management. Regarding the
use of equipment for personal gain – what constitutes personal gain? How is that counted in terms of professional
development? The contract requires us
to engage in scholarship and creative activity. It does not say that we have to do it at home. In the natural sciences, labs and extensive
facilities and equipment are needed.
We need clarification as to legal opinion and state policy.
Adm: It seems like other regulations – ethics
laws and the contract – are in conflict.
FA: Is the purpose to include academic
work? I do not believe they understand
what work we do here. That regulation
is not written with faculty in mind.
Adm: We were told that faculty are employees of
the executive branch.
FA: Who told you?
Adm: Bill Tschida, MnSCU’s vice chancellor for
labor relations.
FA: Maybe this is something we need to take up
with Russ Stanton.
Adm: We need to look at this in the context of
intellectual property and review the law.
We also need to be even-handed across the university. We see the two issues as being intellectual
property and promotion, tenure and scholarship. In other states that I have worked in, using office computers to
write a textbook was not a problem. In
Minnesota doesn’t the state believe that it is entitled to part of the
royalties?
FA: We can ask the IFO about this.
Adm: Can we come up with a procedure to deal with
scholarship in terms of the promotion and tenure piece?
FA: It is not an issue. We can’t have closure there. The administration cannot dictate in advance
what is considered scholarship and creative work. First we need to clarify if the dean said he will not count as
professional development any publication from which the author receives an income. Our department faculty have defined
scholarship for ourselves. It is not a
meet and confer issue; it is contractual.
Adm: Maybe
we need to define income – does it need to be over a certain amount of
money to qualify?
Institutional
Research:
FA: Can you give us a summary of what is
happening in Institutional Research?
Adm: I understand that there was a search for a
director of Institutional Research last year and the search failed. Consequently, there were conversations about
MnSCU performing certain IR functions for SCSU. We have had discussions with MnSCU. We have finalized the monetary piece for this year. The agreement will be signed and sent to
the provost tomorrow or Monday. We had
a former enrollment management employee doing institutional research type of
things for us. The individual was
transferred to my office to coordinate with MnSCU and do other institutional
studies functions that MnSCU won’t cover.
We calculated what we would pay for an institutional research director
and assistant and compared it to the cost of the contract with MnSCU. There will be a data processing person yet
to be selected. We will be saving
$100,000 a year. This is on a trial
basis. We have a three-year
contract. After two years, we will determine
if this model works. If not, we will
again search for an institutional director.
FA: The previous institutional research person
is still on campus. The salary is still
being paid.
Adm: In a different capacity—in a different unit.
FA: In an existing position? If not, is that a real savings?
Adm: Yes.
We did not hire a fourth person in institutional research because the
search failed.
FA: The former person is on the payroll – still
here.
Adm: We gained teaching capacity. The person teaches part-time. The intent is to have two full-time people
in institutional studies: an
institutional studies researcher and a data-management person. Last year there were three positions and a
fourth budgeted for.
FA: There are no plans to search for a full-time
research position?
Adm: Not in the foreseeable future. We will be searching for a data management
position – a staff person.
FA: We have struggled because the university has
been unable to make the best decisions because the data is not available. I have not been impressed with MnSCU’s
ability to give us things. Do you have
reason to believe that these people will be able to provide these functions for
us?
Adm: At first I had the same reaction—my jaw
dropped when I first heard this suggestion.
I have been told that there was a great deal of dissatisfaction with
data needs as handled in the past.
MnSCU agreed to hire someone and assign that person to our tasks. MnSCU is subsidizing this for us. They are putting up part of the money. They are using us as a pilot. There are issues with regard to data—the
accuracy of data has to do with what definitions we use to generate the data. We have not been defining data variables
accurately. Hopefully, we can use
people on campus to do customized reports and MnSCU to do standardized
requests. We want to see how it works.
FA: When we have had a request before – for
example, program review—a report would come to us from Institutional Research
in 2 to 3 days. Who do I contact on
this campus if I have a request?
Adm: Guihua Li.
We need to be careful in setting up how this process will work so that
the person is not overwhelmed but you have access. We have tried to maintain a website for you to pull data.
FA: We will need to have an assessment of the
service. We also need to know
anecdotally how this is working.
Adm: We will have a pipeline set up and monitor
satisfaction. MnSCU is anxious to do
this. We can help define reports like
workload so we don’t look like the technical colleges.
FA: This came up at IFO. We are the only state university to use
MnSCU. Is it appropriate for us to
recommend that other state universities consider this?
Adm: If every university rushes in, our good deal
goes away.
Affirmative
Action Compliance and Support Officer:
FA: Is this a temporary position?
Adm: Yes.
FA: Why was there no faculty involvement in the
search?
Adm: We discussed this at a previous meet and
confer.
FA: You said that you would tell us when you
were ready to search for this position.
Adm: We will do a full-blown search in the spring
for the affirmative action officer.
The temporary position is a technical kind of job. This person will not make professional
judgments but will maintain records and databases.
Adjournment:
FA: Let the record show that we were not able to
complete the agenda.