Faculty Association: Theresia Fisher, Dale Buske, Fred Hill, Steve Hornstein, Chris Inskter, Robert Johnson, Judy Kilborn, Bill Langen, Andrew Larkin,
Annette Schoenberger, P. N. Subbanarasimha, Tracy Ore, Sandra Williams
Donna West, Notetaker
Administration: Roy Saigo, Michael Spitzer, Diana Burlison, Larry Chambers,
Lin Holder, Steve Ludwig, Dennis Nunes
FA: Because President Saigo needs to leave at 3:30 PM for an event, I thought we could jump to #2 under New Business.
2. VP Admin Search Discussion (FA)
FA: If you recall at the last Meet and Confer, we had a discussion on the VP for Administration. The other unions were concerned with the way we presented this information, and we’re wondering who asked whom?
Admin: Provost Spitzer gave me a letter – I’m just teasing (laughter)! I think I misused the word “search” – I should have used the word “process” where the AFSCME people approached me and asked about the procedure and process that would be a more permanent situation for the Administrative VP, and that’s when I called HR and MnSCU and that’s when I started talking with folks to canvass the unions and that’s where the misunderstanding came from.
FA: You asked them whether it would be okay to appoint and not do a search.
FA: You could not approve an appointment without a search.
FA: I said I did not believe Senate would approve an appointment because of process issues, not because we didn’t like any particular person (because of course, we do!). The issue is the VP level – it is an important level for the organization; and to hire this level, the Hiring Manual makes it pretty clear, a national search is needed, and that ‘s what I was communicating.
Admin: I think part of the issue was, Andy, you published those notes and they’re your personal notes and they’re not subject to the same process as the official minutes – reviewing, etc., to determine if there is a mistake. If we had a process like we do with the minutes to review your notes to make sure they accurately reflected the conversation…I appreciate the immediacy of your notes, but I think it’s part of the issue.
FA: These notes were accurate – the other members of the faculty and the administration confirmed they were accurate.
Admin: The president said he used the term improperly – I didn’t take issue whether your verbatim was accurate – it is the fact they were published without review, as in the case of the notes.
FA: They were accurate, and that’s what matters.
FA: The point is that they’re personal notes, and we cannot do or say anything about them. An individual is using his freedom of expression to share what happened in the meeting. People may have read them one way, and it states clearly that they are not official notes.
Admin: If we took another step -- what if we started writing unofficial notes?
FA: It’s not the same.
FA: On the issue of the Administrative VP search discussion, I think we’ve clarified the discussion between the administration and the bargaining units. Does anybody want to add anything?
Admin: No
FA: Thank you. Then we’ll go to the acceptance of the notes.
Acceptance of Meet and Confer Notes of February 26, 2004 - Accepted
Acceptance of Meet and Confer Notes of March 11, 2004 - Accepted
Acceptance of Meet and Confer Notes of April 1, 2004 - Accepted
Acceptance of Meet and Confer Notes of April 15, 2004 - Accepted
Unfinished Business:
1. Student Credit Hour Generation Report (Admin) (9/25)
FA: This subject is on the Senate agenda, and we hope to get to it on Tuesday
Admin: If you can get to this subject, that’s fine; however, if you’re unable to, we’ll just distribute the report on the basis of university, college, and department data and will put this information on the Web. If you have some recommendations from Faculty Senate, we’ll certainly consider them.
FA: So, you’re making public the Student Credit Hour Generation Report at all levels except for individual data. What is happening with the individual-level data?
Admin: Nothing other than we have it.
FA: Then, you’ll decide whether it will be made public or not?
Admin: Yes.
2. Proposed Policy for On-Line Courses (Admin) (11/20)
FA: This topic has been through the UCC and will be back at Senate, and we’ll guarantee it will be taken care of on Tuesday.
Admin: If we can’t get a response, we may need to put an interim policy in place.
FA: Some issues in Senate were not about the policy itself but related issues of ownership of copyright issues and ownership of professional materials; and progress slowed down because people saw an intersection of those two issues.
Admin: I think we can work with MnSCU in keeping us informed about how the whole process has gone. There have been some clarifications – primarily that a course belongs to the university. You have no authority over your own version -- assignments and text books are your contribution to the course outline; but it belongs to the university.
Admin: I think we ought to limit this to policy.
FA: If you could send us something…..
Admin: The policy has to do with the offering of courses – what the format should be and how we are to handle them. It doesn’t address the ownership of intellectual property at all.
FA: We did ask someone to attend Senate from the UCC since there seems to be curricular questions.
Admin: MnSCU is on the Web, and we’d hope there would be campus-level training at some time.
3. Financial Aid – Verification of Attendance (Admin) (12/11)
Admin: There was a committee established, and that committee has met a couple of times, I believe. I was at the last meeting, and the committee discussed the direction of financial aid and recommended additions to the policy. My understanding is the committee will bring this to Faculty Senate.
FA: It is with the Admission and Retention Committee, and we’ll follow up with them since we haven’t heard.
Admin: This is another area where we need to adopt a policy or MnSCU will.
Admin: A procedure will be put in place no matter what, so whatever we can do – our chance is now to influence that. The policy came back after discussions, and it was good – one amendment was in regard to the concept of earned vs. honored. We’re meeting with MnSCU to make sure what they do doesn’t preclude what we do. We still will be able to perhaps make some adjustments depending on your recommendations.
Admin: I think we should share drafts with the FA.
Admin: A draft came from the FA committee, and we made a slight adjustment, and they’ll take it to Senate. Whatever we’re doing, MnSCU is also moving forward.
Admin: When you say “we are meeting,” would the faculty like to have someone there?
FA: This is still in conjunction with business practices isn’t it?
Admin: No. It is not part of that process.
FA: That’s different than what we were told by the Chancellor when we were talking about business practice issues. He brought up financial aid issues at three different universities -- is this a different group?
Admin: The return to Title 4 is particularly acute to SCSU -- the issues in the business practice group focused on financial aid dates (people starting at different times, etc.), and that came up in the discussion before the return to Title 4 presented itself. I don’t think they’re unrelated, and I won’t disagree with the Chancellor.
FA: With the list of recommendations, the specific FA issue with the audit that led to the rise in the business practices issue were brought up as the same issue.
Admin: The financial aid issue primarily focused on satisfactory progress calculation recognition and states when you return and pay funds. It was later in the process to return to Title 4 after the term calculation. So I would not be surprised by your statement MnSCU has folded the return to Title 4 issue into the broader issue (concept of satisfactory progress). I also believe the FA issue has more immediacy than some of the others because they need to respond to audit findings. It is my understanding they’re changing the fall reporting mechanisms (grade, report and class listings), and that’s in response to return to Title 4.
FA: I’ll be upfront with my concerns. My concern is there are two separate groups addressing this issue, and there will be two different sets of recommendations and things happening. There is another Statewide Meet and Confer this month, and the business practices issue will be coming up again, and I’ll see what happens.
4. NSSE (Admin) (1/22)
FA: This issue is also still on the Senate agenda. We ran out of a quorum as we were discussing this issue, and have not had a chance to finish discussions.
Admin: Would it be worthwhile for the Strategic Planning Committee to make some recommendations?
FA: We could, but it wouldn’t happen before Tuesday.
Admin: Do you think Senate would have something by Tuesday?
FA: They’ll have KPI’s, but I don’t know if it will accomplish what is necessary.
FA: It’s not clear in my mind what you want.
Admin: I can understand that we would like Senate to address key items from the NSSE report – institutionally, we could focus on improving the quality of services to students.
FA: I think it could be accomplished.
5. Endowed Chairs and Professorships (Admin) (2/26)
FA: It is my pleasure to report we have an agreement. This was approved at Faculty Senate.
Admin: Thank you very much.
FA: Thank you.
FA: We are recommending the policy for implementation for your consideration.
Admin: Is it the policy we submitted to you?
FA: No, the one we made up! (Laughter!)
6. Partnerships Agreements (FA) (2/26)
FA: This involved agreements SCSU made to deliver programs off site, and the question still remains as to the consultation that took place with departments (and associated departments) on offering these programs; and there is also a lingering question about any kind of formal cost review.
Admin: Are you referring to any specific programs?
FA: In any specific college?
Admin: Yes.
FA: In particular, one offered off-site in North Branch.
Admin: I think it would be helpful to identify particular questions and issues regarding the program so we may address the specificity of the issue. In a broad sense, there should be consultation with faculty if faculty are teaching the courses. Now, I don’t know the case you’re referencing and how much, if any, consultation took place and at what level and with whom – it’s hard to respond.
FA: It would also be useful to have some oversight regarding the cost issue.
Admin: It would not be a very smart thing to do to offer programs off campus that drain resources from university programs. I’ve looked at programs offered off campus as generating revenue for the university; we don’t want to lose revenue.
FA: In fact, even today, you used the word “consultation” applying to faculty -- I guess our issue is we need a little bit more clarification. What does that mean?
Admin: I’d like to find out what consultations took place and what the responses were since that’s critical to responding to your question.
FA: We were told the program would take place. We’ve simply been told we’re doing the program, and the question remains is this consultation?
Admin: Let me consult with the dean.
FA: We’re being told certain things – people can’t be hired because there is not enough money, so it would seem to me a consultation with a department would include the complete cost analysis, so when you go to the department, the department would be given the opportunity to look at the expected costs, and they could respond with what they think it would cost before that offer is made (agreement signed). I would be willing to state the departments are not being told what the expected costs will be; and if there is extra revenue, does some come back to the department as a reward for driving to North Branch? What is the department going to get in return? Have you seen any cost benefit analysis on this? No. We’re being told “don’t worry, we’re making money.” When we need another permanent position, we’re being told “no – there isn’t enough money.”
Admin: You’re talking about programs at North Branch -- this is not the first cohort being offered there. I don’t know when the other one started, and I don’t know what kind of consultation took place.
FA: I would think it is accurate to say I was not there at the time – I have this second-hand. When this came up at the Deans’ Advisory Council, the Deans’ Advisory Council recommended against it; and when we came back in the fall, there was a program in North Branch. So, there was no consultation the first time; and I know that at least in a number of departments, people have been less than happy to go there and teach courses, or they’re hiring adjuncts. The request is there be a structure established so we can have genuine discussion to make this work for everyone.
FA: There is some concern it will affect faculty here on campus and switch resources to North Branch.
FA: The consultation issue is important; and I know in Math, a faculty member taught in North Branch and presented a bill to the department and the faculty member did not get reimbursed.
FA: How could it have made money if the department wasn’t able to reimburse the faculty member?
FA: There are five courses planned for the current semester.
FA: So is that consultation?
FA: If these are regular department courses and they’re being taught at a different location, department discussions would be the same, wouldn’t you agree?
Admin: I think there should be some dialogue and that should occur.
Admin: The deans had a discussion at Academic Advisory Council and agreed there needs to be consultation. We certainly have followed through on being sure we do consult with departments.
FA: So, to have clarity -- discussion should occur, and we have clarification it is not happening; so what should the next step be?
Admin: Let me look into this and see what we can do about having some further discussions with the individual groups involved. I’m familiar with two different programs – one off-campus, and another is a program out of the College of Science and Engineering being developed closely with faculty in Engineering with a Masters offered in the Twin Cities, but these are being done closely with the faculty involved.
I’m not sure about this, but perhaps one of the differences is this is not the first offering of a program at North Branch, so I need to find out what consultation may or may not have occurred when the original program was offered.
FA: Personally, what we’re proposing at North Branch delivers a full four-year program where people don’t have to step foot on campus -- delivered in their school and their hometown. As a model for higher education, I find this disturbing. I’m not speaking for people in my department; but I think as an institution, this doesn’t sound like an appropriate model.
FA: They’re going to get all their General Ed electives?
FA: Everything.
FA: General Ed is all being done through Cambridge.
FA: And they’re getting a SCSU degree?
FA: That’s fine, they’ll get a Minnesota Transfer Curriculum.
FA: Can you get back to me before June 1 or to Annette afterwards?
Admin: Absolutely.
7. Technology Committees (Admin) (4/1)
FA: Actually, I just found out at Pre-Meet and Confer I misunderstood what committees we were referring to – the slots in committees that TPR referred to in Faculty Senate on 3/23.
Admin: I can’t speak to what was discussed in the 3/23 Senate.
Admin: I have to get my exact list, and this is close enough.
FA: I didn’t realize we were talking about this today, and I’ll send out a call.
Admin: I would want to make sure that’s the same.
FA: We got this from Doug Polland.
FA: That would be fine – you can call or e-mail.
FA: Kristi, if you will please give me a copy of this and will confirm and let me know, I’ll send out a call for next year.
Admin: For next year -- that would be great.
FA: Were there a certain number of faculty who were part of the membership as well as non faculty?
Admin: Yes. With variations of the same committee specified, TLTR with the input from TPR members suggested those we should focus on, and we came up with a sub-list. I’d be thrilled to get any of these committees started. Judy’s recommendation was to pull faculty “off the street” and encourage them to join.
FA: I’ll send out a call.
Admin: If you can get committees to start meeting in the fall…..
FA: I think the timing might be good since we’ll have new faculty coming on campus who will need to hook up with some kind of service; but it was a miscommunication for sure. We saw a call, but it wasn’t the right call.
FA: I have a list of committees here, but nothing says what they’re supposed to do.
Admin: I sent this to you.
FA: Can you re send it?
Admin: Yes.
8. Summer Contracts (Admin) (4/1)
Admin: We have the minutes from 4/1, so I can have Dennis review them. This was an issue faculty brought up. If someone can summarize for this for Dennis….
FA: First, this is a concern – the potential for canceling contracts. Faculty are asked to plan their summers in January and are faced with the possibility of not having that income and it being revoked, essentially the first of June. The first issue is how can we resolve that issue if you say you’re doing a summer session and then don’t. The related issue is the way courses for cancellation get counted. We’re told if you have two courses, you can average your numbers. We don’t have that many classes for someone to get two.
Admin: Is that in North Branch?
FA: Yes it is!
FA: We need to try to find some more equitable ways when people commit to work in the summer, the work will be there.
FA: One of the serial questions was the policy of averaging out two -- I’ve never heard that. Is there some university-wide policy about that?
Admin: First of all, in regard to canceling contracts a number of years ago, we met over a variety of summer issues. We had contingent contracts; and if there were “x number” on the first day, we agreed we would not do that when there was a sign-off on a department -- we would grant a contract to that faculty member. The only time contracts will not be honored is if they are returned by the faculty member. The commitment is to our students and faculty. The trade off is enrollment. We need to have a certain number in classes. Deans do make work assignments; and if the faculty members’ efforts would be better used, then the dean can make another arrangement. However, it does not mean canceling their contract. If there is any misinterpretation, let me know. Faculty members return them and can do so, and there are always a half-dozen returned.
FA: What happens with summer school allocations? The following year is based on what happened this year and how many people we paid and costs. One of the problems is that when a class moves below the enrollment level, it gets cancelled, and we don’t have any income from those students. It harms the department by how much they’ve earned. Salary is still there, but income is gone. It seems to me a much more equitable way to do this is to set an average class size; and if they meet, fine and if they don’t, they get cut. The money is still the same, and there is an average number of people in every class.
Admin: We can engage in that conversation, but summer session does not penalize departments’ programs or individuals. If I might mention about averaging summer session to determine if enrollment contingency is applied, we add up all credits faculty members are teaching (some teach on a range basis) and those are added to that faculty member’s classes. I thought it was equitable for faculty members teaching students -- we should give them credit.
FA: We project classes that we could have adequate enrollment.
Admin: Each college, except for the College of Education, has the opportunity to indicate approximately five classes that will be exempted from the enrollment penalty. If you know a program, the colleges are offered the opportunity to submit classes they’d like exempted from the policy. The College of Education is twice the size of the colleges in the summer and is allowed twice the number to be exempted (usually 8-10 classes).
FA: So Dennis, as you said, it is not individual faculty who are being penalized by contracts being withdrawn. Planning needs to take place at the college and department level together.
FA: You’re going over the question of low enrollment -- regarding whether averaging applies?
Admin: What is done for one is done for all – no selection is done. If a faculty member teaches a class and there is no averaging and if a faculty member teaches a second class and it benefits over the minimum, I’ll apply it to the first class -- hopefully to the benefit of the individuals. I wish everyone had two classes, but our budget doesn’t always allow for this.
FA: So, this is addressed to individual classes assigned to a faculty member?
Admin: Yes.
FA: As opposed to averaging something to departments or colleges?
Admin: Yes.
FA: You mentioned you do this after summer session.
Admin: This is part of the allocation to next year, and that’s why I provide this to this body.
FA: This last piece of information makes this confusing. Within our college, we’re told the dean is to continually monitor summer enrollment; so if they don’t meet the structural requirements, they’ll be scheduled for canceling.
Admin: Deans in colleges make workload assignments. I don’t deal with that in the summer. No contracts will be cancelled. They can be returned but not cancelled by the dean.
Admin: A course can be canceled, but faculty can be assigned to something else. A course can be canceled because of low enrollment, but the contract will be maintained.
Admin: Were you told something different?
FA: Is that message going out loud and clear so all faculty have the same understanding? I want to make this clear.
Admin: As a dean, I think that was not clear in the past to all of the deans. We met last Tuesday, and it’s now clear. As a dean, I was not under this understanding; but as a person who wasn’t, now I am.
FA: I want to make sure the communication lines are open to everyone – both faculty and administration. Our minutes will reflect this, and this is the university policy.
FA: Perhaps, I don’t think this has ever been clear; so perhaps beyond Meet and Confer, it would be helpful if we sent a memo to all deans, chairs, faculty, etc.
Admin: We do have a summer policy handbook – that may be a place to provide this clear information with the rest of the summer policies.
FA: Right now, summer school courses are being monitored. Even though these are being monitored and cancelled, there will still be a contract -- that’s a statement we need to have made to make it perfectly clear.
FA: Would it be possible for you to put something on e–mail?
Admin: I believe I could – I need to check with the Provost.
Admin: You can put something out without checking with me! (Laughter)
Admin: I’d be happy to.
FA: Thank you.
FA: I’d like to come back to averaging -- our dean presents what we made the previous year, broken down by department based on the previous year. If she gets to decide what gets cancelled, my revenue can go down. There’s an implicit problem there and inequity -- if I get a big class, I’m fine, but if I don’t…..Is there any way to make this more streamlined? That way, departments with deans get to make decisions about how their programs work.
Admin: An individual is held more accountable.
FA: It might not be individual. It seems to me, over time a more streamlined approach for departments would be these are the averages you need to have over the summer – this would be helpful for faculty planning their classes.
Admin: We can pursue this discussion about models – there are a number of models out there. I’m certainly willing to engage in a conversation about other models to use in the summer session and enrollment policies.
FA: I just want to verify something -- I heard that there would be decision making in the college level – 5 or 8 to 10 courses excepted, based on program needs.
Admin: Yes. I can’t tell you how each of the deans deal with this -- if they deal with this at advisory councils. Sometimes it’s through committees, but I’m not certain how it occurs. Each submits a list to me, and I’m assuming it’s produced by means of fair and honest communication.
FA: I need to get this straight -- suppose I have an undergraduate class with 7 students for the summer and it’s the only one I’m teaching; but you need 9 students, so it gets cancelled. I still get my salary, and that is spent on summer school; however, no student comes in. I have those 3 or so students who get upset (because the class got cancelled). On the other hand, if the class does not get cancelled, I don’t have upset students and I get my salary because I’ve taught the class, but I get penalized for it -- and we have the issue of low enrollment -- this makes no sense. I’m confused.
Admin: Here is what happens now: we have a low-enrollment class of 7 students. Should we keep this on the books because of student need if, on the other hand, I have a waiting list of 20 students? We would cancel the class of 7 students and move the instructor to the class with 20 students -- that’s ideally how it works. It doesn’t always happen that nicely. I had two low-enrollment classes similar to one another, and one instructor backed out -- so the instructor who was left taught both classes.
FA: Did somebody lose his/her contract?
Admin: Nobody lost his/her contract in that case.
Admin: I try hard to find the best thing for students so they don’t get opted out and the best thing so we don’t have low enrollment; and I’m lucky to have faculty who want to make this work.
FA: The other piece of this is we’ve had issues with how chairs don’t get reassigned for the summer and what the process is. There are also conflicting stories about chairs’ summer salaries getting charged.
Admin: The expectation is that chairs would teach a course in their additional duty days and do coordinating activities. Deans, after consulting with the chairs, may request an exemption be made from this requirement. I have the responsibility of record keeping and to be accountable; so I ask the dean if the chair isn’t teaching, to let me know. I‘m not in a position to make an approval of that appointment. If I’m informed about the chair and I find a chair is not assigned to teach a course, I ask the dean if there is a reason. I ask, sitting where I do, what happens with a dean and a chair occurring outside of my purview.
FA: I heard there is a requirement to have documentation of work for the summer. Is that a new requirement?
Admin: Not by summer session – this sounds like it emerged between a dean and a chair.
Admin: I want to go back to a topic discussed before when we talked about partnership agreements and the cost benefit analysis. We could apply the same principle to summer session. A 3-credit course would cost $450, and 7 students would generate $3,150. The lowest possible salary for an adjunct is $3,350. We cannot operate with an average class size of 7 without going bankrupt.
Admin: I don’t believe a faculty member was given a non-instructional assignment in the summer.
FA: There was one.
Admin: It’s a rare event, but it doesn’t happen often.
It is on the agenda for this fall.
9. Multi-cultural Resource Center Proposal (Admin) 4/22
Admin: We need to put something out tomorrow, and Michael and I talked some -- we would like to get this out and by next Senate if possible.
FA: This is one of the items that have been to Senate one time, and we’re now facing our last Senate meeting. Half of the last Senate is ceremonial in nature, and I don’t know if this proposal will go or not since it will compete with many others. Usually what happens is the issue doesn’t go to Meet and Confer before it goes to Senate. With this one, we probably won’t have enough time; so you may not get a recommendation on this one. We could possibly refer the item to Executive Committee, where items that are not getting addressed in Faculty Senate will get referred.
Admin: We would like very much to have the Multi-cultural Resource Center operating in some capacity beginning in the fall; so if we could get a response from the Executive Committee that would allow us to initially put out a call for faculty who might be interested to be the interim head of this center and could move forward with this…. Otherwise, given the fact that if we don’t do anything over the summer, we couldn’t give anyone reassigned time. We’d postpone this another semester, at least, and it has been on hold a long, long time. We can modify what we do based on the recommendations from the Executive Committee or from the full Senate in the fall semester.
FA: If you’re putting out a call and the director of the resource center is a faculty member, are you concerned faculty will be gone (during the summer)?
Admin: No – the call will be put out tomorrow.
FA: So, you would put out a call for a Multi-cultural Resource Center interim Director?
Admin: With a portion of reassigned time.
Admin: We can pull it back if the Executive Committee or Senate really have a strong objection.
FA: I do have some concerns. Perhaps there is something we can work out. I know this has been in the pipeline for a long time.
Admin: Nine years and counting…..
FA: Faculty have been working very hard. Many have approached me about the proposal coming very late, and I don’t want to blindside Senate or Executive Committee by putting out a call. We’re in a catch 22 – if you put out a call too late, you won’t get faculty; and if you put it out now, Senate and Executive Committee will not have had chance to discuss the proposal.
FA: We could put out a call with a statement at the bottom saying something “contingent with the approval of Faculty Senate.” I, myself, don’t envision any opposition at Senate -- I think it will go.
FA: I was going to suggest something similar.
Admin: I realize you have a ceremony; but as Robert was saying, it has taken 10 years and you may want to put it on top of the Senate agenda to get it off the burner.
FA: I would be comfortable going out pending Senate’s approval and why we’re doing it, since it’s quite unusual.
The FA held a 20-minute caucus.
FA: On the issue of the Multi-cultural Resource Center proposal, we have met as an Executive Committee, and we have passed a motion asking the administration to hold off sending the notice out for the Interim Director for the Multi-cultural Resource Center until Senate has a chance to consider the proposal on Tuesday in Faculty Senate. We are prepared to send a notice to Senate before they meet informing them of this issue as well as the importance. We’ll make this issue a top item – we’ll have guests at Senate, but we’ll ask them to wait. We’ll pass a motion to go to this item first, and then we can call the administration right after Senate does their consideration -- whatever they decide to do.
Admin: What time would that be?
FA: Let the minutes show that I was in error when I couldn’t imagine any dissent in Senate!
FA: In our deliberations, we were very mindful of the importance of the Multi-cultural Resource Center. Many of us were in the past negotiations with the administration, and we have the same passion for the center as the administration does. We’re mindful of our process, and we respect and feel we need to show this to Senate; and in this spirit, we’re making this recommendation.
Admin: We’ll accept this recommendation.
Admin: Again, not being able to influence Senate’s discussion, you may want to consider splitting the proposal in two – can we go ahead and proceed with the interim director and hold a broader discussion on the other part of the proposal – that might help.
FA: I’ll recommend this to Senate to focus on the interim director.
FA: I wanted to say we will be equally mindful of following the process of Senate.
Admin: Will somebody call me on Tuesday?
FA: Yes. Let me know what number to call.
FA: Sandra will call Kristi.
Admin: You know her number!
10. Internal Audit (FA) 4/22
FA: Give me a second. We are preparing the exact items and points we want to bring up for clarification for that audit.
FA: We are removing the Fine Arts and Humanities Dean Philosophy Request, but we are interested in some other related issues:
1. FTNP 4yr Extension – FAH Dean & Philosophy Dept Request (Admin/FA)
FA: We’ve been told that the Zmora Settlement changes everything with regard to the four-year FTNP extensions, and we’re wondering exactly what that phrase means.
Admin: With regard to the Zmora settlement, it’s complicated to have the Zmora Settlement overlaid on top of the contract. As I understand, if a fixed-term faculty member can be employed more than a fourth year and if that individual is occupying a position different than the one they were first appointed to, according to the settlement, if we want to put the individual in a new position, we need to have a search. So, if the faculty member has been in the same position for two years and you want to put them in another position, we need to search for that person -- we wouldn’t need to do this if we went according to the contract.
FA: So, reappointment in the contract is no longer possible as long as we have the Anti-Semitism lawsuit agreement.
Admin: The person could be reappointed again, but it would have to be as a result of a new search.
FA: Reappointment assumes no search?
FA: No – it’s silent on whether there needs to be a search.
Admin: A person could be reappointed in the same position; but for another position, there needs to be another search.
FA: Does it say what kind of search – national?
Admin: No, it doesn’t say, but in accordance with the usual procedures. With most FTNPs, we do local searches; so if there were not sufficient time, an emergency search would be done, but in accordance with the hiring manual.
FA: Faculty members in different positions – how do we track these?
Admin: We do this in my office; and based on that, we make a determination – it’s based on the position and not the person.
FA: Duties they have.
Admin: They can be teaching similar classes.
FA: You’ve been through fixed terms?
Admin: We’re in the process of those coming through. Only if they’ve come back to you with an approval have we been through them.
3. Article 22 – PDP/PDR Comments (FA)
FA: The IFO board recently made a decision that the comments from department members under Article 22 could not be forwarded automatically to the administration; so, department member comments can only be forwarded to faculty members, and then they can decide whom they want to forward them to. This is contrary to the procedure we have set up in Article 22. As far as the PDR, that issue is going to the IFO Executive Committee; and then, it will go to Statewide Meet and Confer regarding the PDP and the PDR -- that those comments are not forwarded to faculty members without their consent.
Admin: I think that particular issue, as you’ve indicated, is not what we’ve agreed to, so we need to study this. We don’t have a response, but we’ll need to develop one.
FA: The transition from retention to non-renewal is a pretty significant one. The basic scheme we had developed and agreed to in Meet and Confer was always subject to being modified as we discovered issues with the procedures. Even though we agreed, that didn’t mean it was “etched in stone”; and as soon as it became apparent, (I may have waited too late to bring it up publicly) I thought we were having discussions. I believe we do need to have discussions again.
Admin: I think PDPs and PDRs for this year have gone out; so what we’re talking about does not impact the current academic year -- so we have some time on how we perceive these processes for next year.
FA: So you’d be willing to engage in further discussion?
Admin: I think we need to talk about this further.
FA: Do you know if the administration will maintain a position that comments from department members relating to the PDR will be automatically forwarded to the dean?
Admin: We need to have our Senate discuss this. (laughter)
FA: Prior to this new set of procedures, there was no expectation departments would comment on reports.
Admin: I think if you’re suggesting you don’t want to follow what we agreed to, then we need to go back and review this to come up with what is mutually acceptable to both of us.
FA: What will happen, in the meantime, since at the last Meet and Confer, the timeline for the PDP and PDR went out and the same procedure of automatically forwarding comments was listed?
Admin: I don’t think that’s how the language was written. On the reporting side, the department comments regarding the PDP; and it is our understanding that before commenting, the dean may consult with the department chairperson.
FA: The IFO has told us that we cannot do that. The unions’ position is that it is non-contractual. The question is we have a dilemma.
Admin: My understanding was both the administration and faculty were in favor; so this is a change, and we’ll need to have discussions.
FA: The problem, then, is that the timeline and the procedure went out for next year; but since the IFO made the motion, I think we have to do something about the procedure for next year.
FA: The language is that the dean may ask departments to comment -- it doesn’t say that departments must respond.
Admin: It seems like the departments can say “we have no comment.”
FA: If comments are forwarded, then what happens to them? If there are no comments, there is nothing to be contained in the report.
FA: That language specifies that the dean may confer with the department and other faculty members by concurrence of plan and department goals. Does this fit with department goals?
Admin: These are the reasons for faculty members to limit their comments -- you could ask the dean; and if they sent the wrong comments, you could send them back.
FA: The department member comments are on the faculty member’s PDPs. The contract does not specify what they need to be restricted to.
Admin: We’ll need to have some discussion during the summer with the Executive Committee.
Admin: When the small committee met, Mark did revisions for us and got the Article 22 schedule out immediately; and it went to Academic Affairs. The Tenure and Promotions revisions were minor. The deans did not see this until Tuesday after they went to Meet and Confer, and it appears there is a change that may be of interest, and the deans were concerned.
I’ve given you this year’s calendar and next year’s calendar. If you look at the February 21 and February 23 dates, you’ll see February 21 was the deadline for the dean/supervisor to deliver recommendations on tenure to the provost. The variation is the faculty member needs to have time to respond to the dean, so that deadline could be Feb. 23 and the dean have time for review of the response and forward his/her recommendation to the Provost, and that deadline could be moved to March 4. The recommendation from the deans was that we put that period back in for the faculty member to comment to the dean. We thought you may like that, and we asked for this to be an amendment.
FA: We can take this to Senate, but I’m not clear what you’re trying to say.
FA: I know what you’re talking about.
FA: It seemed we talked about having time for comments.
FA: I think Sandra has it; and we’ll confer with her, and we’ll take this to Senate.
Admin: On December 1, that’s the deadline to submit tenure materials, we’d like departments to notify deans of all people who have submitted their materials. We need some kind of tracking device. When the material is submitted to the department, the department will then notify the dean whose materials have been received. Then we’ll add in a Dec. 8th date for deans to notify faculty scheduled for tenure review if they have not submitted tenure materials to the department.
FA: The document received at the previous Meet and Confer from Mark and the one given today regarding the February 21 and the February 23 dates is exactly the same?
Admin: Yes. We’re just looking at making changes in the dates to allow for feedback.
4. Parking Fee Hike (FA)
FA: We consider parking fees to be a Meet and Confer issue. We were not notified of an imposition of a higher fee; and the predictable firestorm occurred on the Discuss list. The explanation, itself, was so detailed to leave little doubt the decision was already made; and in the eyes of faculty, it constitutes disrespect. We think it’s disrespectful. We think our part in university governance is a matter we are proud of and is, in any case, useful. Finally, parking is a hot-button issue on campus; and in our estimate, of all the times when this could occur, it’s an extremely bad time to play with buttons.
Admin: I accept the value of discussion, certainly, and in principle. I’m disappointed that detail would be interpreted as final and complete. We want to discuss the rates. It has been to Student Government – they pay 75 percent of the costs. We will make refunds if we need to for people who have paid before the final fee is set. The parking ramp drives this in cost. It hadn’t gotten to the last Meet and Confer agenda, and I planned to bring it today for some discussion. I had some discussion, and I didn’t see this as a firestorm on the Discuss list. I’m anxious for your discussion. I don’t know when there is a good time to do things anymore – there is never a good time. It has been two years since the parking rate changed – I would have wanted to present it sooner. I want to show what the intent is over the long term. We will certainly consider this as we make this work. Among the considerations will be leaving the rates where they are. But people are in overwhelming support of the construction of a parking ramp.
FA: We’re responding to confusion. I have no problems with raising the rate. I wonder if we couldn’t have had a “heads-up” so the communication didn’t create more confusion. I’m wondering if there is not a better way to roll it out.
Admin: I agree with you, I could have handled this better, and it’s good advice.
FA: I want to commend you for the Free Ride, because I look at the automobile as the scourge of the campus. They make the streets ugly – so anything other than the automobile is an improvement. The other thing is the annual dilemma of where are the bike racks? We don’t have enough bike racks, and too many are located where people are allowed to smoke, and bikes don’t fit the racks.
Admin: I ride a bike Andy! (Laughter)
FA: A faculty member who rides his bike all year told me in the winter his bike is covered with snow in the bike rack.
Admin: If someone has a suggestion on a bike rack that is good, please let Steve know.
FA: Personally, I would say it would be a good idea to subsidize people who don’t drive (there are subsidies going on all over the place.) The whole campus would benefit from reducing the number of automobiles.
Announcements:
Admin: I’d like to report that the Department of Nursing has been accredited with no recommendations for improvement, and we’re very excited.
Admin: Again, this is our last meeting, and I appreciate the time and effort put in by everybody. We’re all here in the best interest of the campus, and I appreciate the atmosphere and collegiality. It has been a good, positive year. Another thing is our Mediation Program has flourished. There were 39 grievances when I came, and last year there were 11, and this year 12. I hope everybody has a restful and fulfilling summer.