Faculty Association: Annette Schoenberger, Theresia Fisher, Judy Kilborn, Tony Akubue, Frankie Condon, Fred Hill, Steve Hornstein, Bill Langen, Susan Motin, Tracy Ore, P. N. Subbanarasimha,
Donna West, Notetaker
Administration: Roy Saigo, Michael Spitzer, John Burgeson, Diana Burlison, Larry Chambers, Nathan Church, Lin Holder, Roland Specht-Jarvis, Steve Ludwig, Rex Veeder
Admin: This is the first Meet and Confer of the academic year – it’s an exciting time. The best thing to do for the new folks who are with us is to go around the room and introduce ourselves. (Introductions were made).
Admin: The Chancellor wants to meet with all of the university presidents; therefore, I will need to leave at 4:00 PM.
When the students come back to school, it’s exciting. People are taking tremendous leadership with regard to the students, and many of you helped on move-in day -- I get so many good comments from parents. When I was in Florida, it was a “free for all” with 50,000 students coming in at one time, and it was very difficult, leaving people with a bad feeling. Things went very, very well on move-in day. I want to thank everybody – I’d like to recognize the many people around the table.
When I walked into the new stadium, I had the same breathtaking feeling I had when I first walked into the new library. We saw 4,000 people there (at the home opener), and I’m sure there will be more. This could be a problem for Steve!
I’d like to thank Theresia…… I tried to convey the feeling at Convocation -- this is a time to celebrate. Thank you very much. It’s a great way to start the new year.
Admin: Anne Zemek de Dominguez joined us.
Meet and Confer Notes of April 29, 2004 – Accepted.
1. Student Credit Hour Generation Report (Admin) (9/25)
Admin: I don’t know why this is still on the agenda -- we can take this off.
2. Proposed Policy for On-Line Courses (Admin) (11/20)
Admin: We had put this on the agenda.
FA: We approved this policy last year for a single year (this came through the Senate). Our concern and reason for the one-year sunset was when the UCC began to discuss this issue, we had questions with regard to what is an on-line course. In wanting to move forward, we approved the proposed policy, but we’d like some definition on what is an on-line course.
Admin: I’m glad and very pleased that FA approved the policy and would like to see it stay in effect. I think we should have some meetings to deal with these issues. I’m not comfortable with having a sunset. I want to have the policy stay in place until it is revised, and we’ll make revisions if need be.
FA: I think we could have definitions of on-line courses within a year.
FA: I think, conversely, if we were working and got the work finished, you wouldn’t hear a peep from Senate. It was meant to push the work to get the work done. I don’t think extending it would be a problem.
Admin: I agree with that; but I don’t understand the need to sunset.
FA: We’re talking about the same thing – if we begin discussions regarding on-line classes, we will be making recommendations to changes, and sunsetting isn’t any real difference.
Do you want us to take back the word sunset?
Admin: I want the policy to remain in effect with the understanding we’ll work to modify it -- I hope within a year.
FA: I don’t recall what the Senate minutes said.
Admin: The word sunset was in there.
FA: We’re all agreed we want to work on this, and the Executive Committee does not have the power to change anything without Senate’s approval.
Admin: Setting up a group to address this would be the next step. Do you want to do this among yourselves and decide who the faculty representatives should be?
FA: Okay.
Admin: You can get the names to us, and we’ll identify the number of people.
FA: Okay -- we’ll ask for the taskforce to do this.
Admin: I think it’s important because we are in the preliminary stages. There has been discussion regarding a draft for expenditures -- something like $19 million for learning initiatives, so on-line education will get much more attention from the board than in the past.
Admin: There is approximately $875,000, not $19 million, for on-line learning initiatives.
Admin: I don’t think there is any issue for courses identified as on-line. The issue is after a faculty member decides to put a course on-line, students should know this when they sign up.
FA: There was a definition, and I don’t know how official it was, that came through when Ruth was over in Academic Affairs that stated if more than one meeting was required, it was not an on-line course.
Admin: If you had an international issue (i.e., Spanish) and you got together once a month to meet for an ethnic dinner, you would say it is not an on-line course, so this is why it needs to go further.
Admin: There are courses and programs where some face-to-face interactions are necessary, but you can have distance students.
FA: The issue is not so much having students who never see the professor, since they know they’re taking an on-line class; it is, students should have a choice whether they want to opt into the course.
Admin: I think we’re on the same page.
FA: We’ll get you names of people for a taskforce.
3. Financial Aid—Verification of Attendance (Admin) (12/11)
FA: We sent you a note that this issue still needs to go to Senate.
Admin: Yes, but MnSCU is also doing something, regardless. We’ll proceed and see what we’ve got.
4. Partnership Agreements (FA) (2/26)
FA: We discussed this topic last year. The particular instance we spoke of is North Branch. Our concerns were in regard to faculty not being consulted in the courses being offered off site. In addition to this, we find it is still not happening, and we do not feel faculty have input into the process, and we have further concerns of entire programs being offered off site. I don’t think we got too far along on this issue last year.
Admin: We talked about this subject. My understanding was this was a second cohort of a program, and all the issues had been worked through. I don’t remember hearing issues about the first version of this.
FA: Our concerns start from the first version before the program -- faculty recommended against it at the DAC level and the Department level. When faculty came back in the fall, the program was going; and so the last time we talked in the spring, various members of the faculty in Meet and Confer were saying this is continuing. In other departments, they’re finding out courses are being offered with no faculty input. We’d like to find a way to begin conversations between the administration and faculty.
Admin: Are there other components you’re expressing concerns about?
FA: One thing is people who taught at North Branch didn’t get 25 cents per mile in addition to the mileage. When you teach an off-site course, this is what you receive. We want proof that faculty have received this money. We’ve been told these programs make money for the university, and we’d like to see a spreadsheet to show how it makes money and the process of how these programs get implemented. There should be something that says this is what happens when you teach one of these courses.
FA: Funding is an issue since we have not gotten a clear sense of whether a program will be funded; i.e., if a program is coming through Continuing Studies, there is a clear financial line than if it comes out of the college.
FA: There is a new cohort starting in the spring – I don’t think there are any students in it. Can we defer this until we get talks started so we can get the faculty’s voice?
Admin: Starting in the spring?
FA: It is spring 2005. I received information from Pamm Minden.
Admin: Let’s get some conversations started on this subject.
FA: Can we get a taskforce started?
Admin: I just want to get conversations started….
FA: I like the idea of a taskforce, since seems it’s not just the COE -- there are other departments who are teaching without being consulted ahead of time, and they need a voice in this also.
Admin: This is one of the things we’ve been looking to do. I know we’ve had two programs at the graduate level off site. In both cases, it seems to me, given the demographics of higher education and these kinds of programs, there are more of them rather than fewer of them.
FA: That’s why we need something in writing on the process.
Admin: Okay.
FA: In closing, for me, one of the key things stakeholders need is some sort of input on what a distance program would look like; i.e., if there would be a blended component, if students would be on campus, etc, rather than it just being done and decided and, as a result, faculty have some concerns. The best way is to have people onboard.
Admin: Let me get back to you on this.
Admin: As Michael is saying, this is an initiative, and I talked about this issue and had a heck of a time fighting off the University of North Dakota. I agree faculty should be involved. Some of these issues we can’t sit back on for a year. They’re putting $16 million in a facility. I took some heat for it because they should not have been negotiating with the University of North Dakota. I was told North Dakota is planning on being 20,000 (it’s now 14,000). The concern I have is I want to make sure we are in a process where we have plenty of input but move quickly since it’s imminent for them to start this fall. I was so angry and upset. It’s an issue that affects our survival.
FA: I think my department is willing to do this. Understand, this is the fifth year this has gone on, and we’ve been asking about this for many years. The first North Branch cohort started then. We should have been moving by now.
Admin: In regard to the Aviation Program -- if they bring a campus to Anoka, Michael and I agree they won’t just do an Aviation Program, they’ll pick up more students. I hope that’s taken into consideration.
FA: Another piece is I certainly don’t disagree when what we’re doing is trying to get enough seats for students here; and if they’re pulling five people out for off-site classes, the students here shouldn’t suffer. Also, working conditions are involved -- if I’m told I need to be doing distance courses, then it changes my Conditions of Employment.
FA: Those other programs-- graduate programs -- that have faculty involvement got on board fast. Having faculty involvement won’t slow things down. This could have been done, but it wasn’t and that’s the real issue.
5. Technology Committees (Admin) (4/1)
FA: We put out a request for volunteers, and we don’t have any responses yet; but when we do, we will let you know – we will encourage faculty to volunteer.
6. Internal Audit (FA) (4/22)
FA: I will request feedback on what people would like to see.
7. VP for Admin. Search Discussion (FA/Admin) (4/29)
Admin: This is a topic you originally put on the agenda. We had quite a bit of discussion. I would like to combine #10 under New Business with this topic, and I can distribute to you a listing of positions we want to search for this academic year starting very soon (handouts distributed).
Admin: These are new searches to be initiated this fall. You have before you a proposal for the composition of each search committee with the number of members needed from each bargaining unit. We want your feedback on those numbers and concurrence if it’s possible so we may get started on these searches.
FA: There will be a Lead Investigator position?
Admin: Yes.
FA: Why is a Lead Investigator on there?
Admin: She was appointed without the benefit of a search.
FA: Okay. That explains it.
FA: Are these all the interim positions we have?
Admin: Not all, but most.
FA: So, does this go to Senate?
FA: Yes.
FA: I had a conversation with someone regarding the organizational chart being changed to show Diana’s position reporting directly to the President instead of to Steve. We understood if this happens, you need permission from MnSCU.
Admin: That was done when Gilchrist was here.
Admin: The change was made, and it went through MnSCU.
FA: Okay.
FA: Do you have current job descriptions for these (positions)?
Admin: Yes, they’re being revised and updated and will go to search committees.
FA: Can we see these first?
Admin: Yes.
FA: Before you send them to MnSCU?
Admin: I don’t think any will need to go to MnSCU.
Admin: If there are changes, then the position description will have to go to MnSCU.
Admin: We can share these with you without all of the existing descriptions on here if you’d like.
FA: Thank you!
FA: If this is a partial list, why did we stop at this?
Admin: These are a lot of positions to search for at one time. Some of these positions date back from 1993 – the job descriptions have been the same since then.
FA: We want to look at the job descriptions for this year’s searches, and we want to see them before they’re passed on to MnSCU.
Admin: Will it suffice at the time the search committees look at them?
FA: One that might have changed is the VP for Administrative Affairs – did it change when Steve became the interim VP?
Admin: It remained the same.
FA: Then, we’d be searching for the same description?
Admin: All of these positions except for two descriptions for Records and Registration. Some of the position descriptions are 10 or 12 years old. It isn’t a very up-to-date position description. This is an opportunity for the Provost to look at how they may like the position and how it relates to other positions. There is a position description for each except for Records and Registration, and they’ll be revised. Essentially, it is at the President’s and Provost’s discretion as to how they’d like to handle this.
Admin: Larry Chambers reviews revisions; and he addresses any concerns he may have.
FA: At some point, the revised descriptions would go to MnSCU. Can we see them before they go to MnSCU so we’d have some input if questions are raised?
Admin: Sure.
FA: We may not have search committees before this needs to happen.
Admin: You can’t advertise a job until we have search committees -- if we want a strong pool with good candidates, the earlier we start, the better.
FA: When you made your statement, Larry, “they should come to me” – will they come to you?
Admin: Yes, they must come through me.
1. Diversity Education Taskforce Proposal (9/9)
FA: This Diversity Education Taskforce proposal was approved in Senate last March. I mistakenly did not forward this to Michael; and so my apologies go to the Administration and also to the CODE Committee and to Senate for not sending you a memo at that time. I hope my error does not keep us from moving ahead in a timely manner.
FA: What we want to do is give this (the proposal) to you, and we’d like you to look at it and respond at the next Meet and Confer. I’d be happy to answer any questions. We’d like to get it moving quickly.
Admin: We’ll look it over and have a response at our next meeting. We’ll keep this topic on the agenda.
FA: Just to let the Administration know, CODAS has submitted a proposal that is going to Senate, and so we will let you know ASAP what Senate decides with that proposal.
Admin: I did receive a copy, but I didn’t know it had not gone to Senate, and I assumed it had.
FA: Annette will give you a memo.
FA: Even some of us were confused because we have both CODE and CODAS. CODAS works on mandatory training issues.
FA: Please discard page 3 of this proposal, since it is obsolete (an error).
2. Focus Group on “What will the University Student Look like in 2010” (Admin) (9/9)
Admin: This is a really exciting time with our new IFO leadership. Annette, Judy, and I had dinner with Nancy Black back in July. This was a wonderful dinner where, after discussion, we agreed on a number of issues. As we talked, we thought a focus group would be a wonderful way of learning about the institution. I didn’t want to be a part of this; however, Linda Baer and Nancy Black got together and said if you’re going to have a meeting, it will be at St. Cloud State. They want to have a focus group on 10/26 from 10 until noon. We’ll get out an agenda ahead of time. The IFO is trying to change, and things are getting done in their office. This is a great and exciting time for all of us.
FA: I think Nancy and Linda Baer and I are meeting next Thursday, and I’ll get a better idea on what this is about, since it’s not clear yet.
Admin: Our understanding is there will be a focus group meeting with faculty on campus to talk about what the future student will look like.
Admin: Linda has been working on this for about two years. This is a good move.
3. Article 22/25 process and explanations. (Both) (9/9)
FA: One issue that has come up is whether all comments get forwarded to the dean. On this one issue, the IFO Executive Committee and the IFO Board both voted that the sentence in Article 22 that states specific department members are encouraged to provide written comments on a faculty member’s PDP and forward these to the faculty, those comments do not go to the dean in this instance. We understand where the dean may consult with the department chair and the department members and that those comments have to be shared with the faculty and we understand the dean receives those comments; however, we still have some disagreement regarding whether a department, as a collective, can comment on the faculty member’s PDP and these comments get forwarded to the dean.
FA: I have a concern after hearing discussions regarding the comments going from the evaluating committee to the faculty member; but since it does not say they may not go to the dean, can the Administration simply assert management rights in the absence of a clear statement, asserting the right to require they go to the dean? I really think this is dangerous.
Admin: It is certainly not the way I would read the contract. I’d look at it in conjunction with the Article 20 rights of departments and committees in such matters as this.
FA: Article 22 says chairpersons may make comments.
Admin: Article 22 refers to written comments. It seems to me if I were a faculty member (and I once was), I would want to have the comments of my department in support of the work I had done, and it would strengthen whatever case I’d have to make for promotion. Having this kind of endorsement would strengthen any case I’d have.
FA: Article 25 does allow for department recommendations.
Admin: A department recommendation can only be based on what is in the personnel file; and if it doesn’t go in, you can’t use it.
FA: If the contract states those comments go to faculty members and faculty really want this, let’s work on an LOU.
Admin: I think we should do it, and I think it’s in the Faculty Association members’ best interest to have this available.
FA: Maybe it can go to the Senate for a recommendation.
FA: I think you put a spin on this stating it’s in the faculty member’s best interest they get support from his or her colleagues. What are the chances this system could be abused?
Admin: In the sense that…..?
FA: You’re only saying it’s bringing about positive feedback – what about negative?
Admin: It is possible for negative feedback, and it is the responsibility of the faculty in a department. This is what self-governance is all about. If faculty can’t make judgements to say they’re not meeting the standards, the whole process is a waste of time.
FA: In an ideal world, I would agree.
Admin: There are safeguards I can point to examples on. There are checks and balances, but it’s the primary responsibility of faculty at a university to make judgments on the qualifications of colleagues. We do this when we hire people, when we do appointments, select candidates from a pool…. There are universities where the large majority is not recommended for tenure – we’re not that kind of a university.
FA: I think another piece should be included -- there is a great deal of confusion regarding what range of activities are appropriate in a department. Should we be doing something in a systematic way?
Admin: I think the answer to this question is also in the contract -- departments will establish policies for the department. It’s up to the department to make the decision; and contractually, the responsibility is given to the department.
FA: It sounds like what you’re saying is Article 22 should have department recommendations.
Admin: I think department comments on a person’s PDP – not recommendations.
FA: The contract is even more restrictive on the PDR – the sentence regarding the dean being able to consult with the chair and department members is not there; so we’re really talking about significant deviations from Article 22 and are not saying it shouldn’t be the case but there should be significant conversation between faculty and faculty and faculty and administration. Some of what you’re talking about is Article 25 (nonrenewal, promotion, tenure).
Admin: I do think we need to have further discussion – I don’t know if this is the appropriate venue or if we should have a committee to work on this. It has taken me a good two years to understand these two articles. I don’t have much faith in the fact that I fully understand. The counter play between the two articles is the reason we’re having this conversation. I think we should have a group to discuss this. That’s what I’d suggest to get moving ASAP. We have these issues on the calendar now. I think people in their second year have PDR’s for review now.
FA: Yes.
FA: In a profoundly distressing short time, we’ll be back at the negotiating table. It would be really good if you have ideas you could send with your representative. Everybody has an interest in being very clear. It’s dangerous if we leave the table with clear language but someone says something different.
Admin: I don’t think that’s the case; although, we had discussion and communication, and the administration and faculty agreed to procedures you’re saying you don’t want to follow because the IFO says they’re wrong.
FA: But we switch from processing non-renewal Article 25 to Article 22, and what we agreed on yes, we’ll change; but it didn’t mean all the kinks were resolved. It has taken me 20 years to understand this.
Admin: I’m saying that what we are, we are.
FA: It sounded like you said we reneged.
Admin: No – not reneged – just changed your minds.
FA: We’re in the ballpark, and we’ll work out what we said in Senate.
Admin: I think we’re still working it out, but I want to get this worked out so there won’t be a negative impact on faculty.
Admin: It would appear we have two deadlines. Departments will be uncertain – whether it should be faculty members alone, the chair or dean, or be silent. We’ll get different packages in the dean’s office and different implementations if not fully understood, and there could be legal troubles. We need to come to an understanding before the 17th of September or else.
FA: From my background as a school administrator, there is an underlying tension between professional development and evaluation; and some of the best professional development folks after being hired said they will have no role in evaluation because the two get crossed. The question is what is really development and what is evaluation? Our contract does this.
Admin: If you look at the section, Schedule of Evaluation – the contract is conflating those two issues.
FA: If we have a September 17 deadline, then we can get two groups together – a representative from FA (at Tuesday’s Senate), and you can give us an administrative team for the purpose of an MOA. Annette will have to contact Nancy Black and Chris Dale or else it will be what Roland said -- our departments will be doing these differently.
Admin: We’ll try to get this done in about a week.
Admin: As we develop policy and expectations of the department, it needs to enter the chair’s realm of responsibility (of shared Development).
Admin: I can say having looked at a number of Article 25 recommendations, some departments do a wonderful job supporting what they put on paper, and some do very minimal; i.e., “we support candidates,” and there is no substance, and this does not serve the faculty.
FA: I agree with what Roland is saying for the sake of consistency it is important there is a sense of continuity. So yes, we need to make sure we maintain consistency.
Admin: Did we list out three or four questions?
Admin: Can we take those down?
FA: 1. Can a department form a committee to respond to the PDP and PDR?
2. Do all comments get forwarded to the dean?
3. Do the department members’ comments go into the personnel file? Which comments get pulled?
FA: When I listen to the discussion, those are the questions that should go to the top of the list.
Admin: If you could notify us as soon as you identify folks who will be involved in this conversation…..
(A brief caucus was held.)
FA: I’m going to ask for volunteers from the Executive Committee to begin working on this immediately.
Admin: Okay -- are you doing this now?
FA: Yes. I’d like a response from the Executive Committee – I’m looking for just two people.
By 9/17, we will give departments the answer to those questions for this fall. Bill Langen and Theresia Fisher from the Executive Committee will begin working on this.
Admin: In order to respond to departments by 9/17 for their second-year faculty who will be turning in their PDR’s on their first year, we will need to state here who will work on this issue.
I’ll nominate Kristi Tornquist and Mark Nook who were involved in this last year.
Admin: They need to agree on a procedure -- they don’t have to write an MOA, but they need to draft a procedure.
FA: Okay.
Admin: Something we can post.
Admin: I appreciate the way we reached this point.
4. NCA Committees (Admin) (9/9)
Admin: I gave Annette, some time last week, a draft plan of how we’re to prepare for NCA accreditation.
FA: That went out to the Executive Committee and is going to Senate on 9/14.
Admin: The second document is an abbreviated version of accreditation standards with adaptations, with criteria divided into core components. Most of the committees are requiring a minimum of three faculty members, and in some cases more. Some committee members will be by virtue of the positions they hold. In most cases, there is a strong majority of faculty representation on those committees. All together, there are five committee assignments I hope you can fill in a week or so.
I don’t think we can get this done in a week or so (laughter). We can get this established in the fall semester; and if we can organize people on committees and orient them to their assignments, this will be a good first step.
FA: I will put this on the Senate agenda.
Admin: These are critical to the life of the university.
FA: It may not be on the 9/14 Senate agenda, but it will be on the next.
Admin: As soon as you can get it on the agenda would be preferable -- I would say after the issue of Article 22 and Article 25, this is the most important.
FA: We’re doing something new this year where we’ll have three Senate meetings in a row, so we can try to get through all of the agenda items.
5. Zero Tolerance for violence in the Workplace June 25, 2003 memo. (FA) (9/9)
FA: This is in follow up to the memo I wrote.
Admin: There are three questions – the first one is vague. The question is how this will be enforced, and the answer is through the regular processes in place.
FA: We’re referring to firearms.
Admin: We have a firearms policy on this campus.
FA: There is a new Minnesota law that allows someone to carry and conceal a weapon.
Admin: This includes assault weapons.
Admin: We wrote a policy consistent with the new law, but it clearly prohibits firearms.
Admin: I think this was brought about by the “conceal and carry” law. The Zero Tolerance Policy would mostly apply to employees and employees who felt victimized by other employees.
No student in a MnSCU institution can carry firearms but a non-MnSCU student may.
FA: MnSCU does not have any jurisdiction in a non-MnSCU institution.
FA: The law requires for a sign to be posted (in the location where it is to be enforced) stating we’re not an entity exempted; however, the daycare is.
FA: Let me understand this law. MnSCU students cannot carry firearms (they never could); but relatives who are not MnSCU students may carry firearms, and the law does not allow us to stop them?
Admin: The permit law is to carry a concealed weapon. The state law allows people to bring a weapon on campus.
Admin: The only aspect that changed in the law was a person’s ability to carry a concealed weapon -- it’s not a significant change. Before, people would have been in violation of not having a permit. Now a permit is easier to get. The law that was passed is only regarding concealed weapons -- it’s about firearms -- concealed firearms. The law made it easier to get a permit.
Admin: I think we should move on.
Admin: To answer the question what is the definition of violence? Our response is whatever a responsible person would feel is violence.
The answer to the third question regarding discipline is the contract provides for due process regarding discipline.
6. Student Photo Roster (Admin) (9/9)
FA: Let us know what the students say. We’re leaving it up to the students.
Admin: I plan to ask them. It was a faculty member who asked us this -- okay, we’ll ask.
Admin: If we would do this, an exception may be for classes over a certain size, since it just might not make sense.
FA: Until we know how the students feel (if they say no), then we don’t see the need to discuss this further.
Admin: Okay.
7. Process used to decide the department a faculty member is rostered in (FA) (9/9)
FA: This issue came from letters from faculty asking how it was determined. If a particular department hires a member, then it’s clear; but if you have joint appointments and they get rostered, we’re looking for something in writing in all situations -- what is the process you use.
Admin: We’ll draft a statement.
FA: It seems it’s happening more often.
Admin: There are several different ways in which different folks are appointed to various positions, and we’ll try to come up with a statement addressing those variations.
8. New Office space for FA when NOC is torn down (FA) (9/9)
FA: The North Office Center complex is going to be torn down eventually. We think we make a major contribution to campus life, and the accommodations we have contribute to the efficiency of our operation. Presently, our office space is handicap inaccessible, because you can’t get up the stairs; and the location is not exactly centrally located. We want to say when the time comes, we would like to have a conversation with different options and consideration given to space and location consistent with our role. I’m not talking about prestige, but a location where we can perform effectively.
Admin: One of the issues is accessibility (some locations are) but also energy efficiency and a move that makes sense. Your point is well taken -- these are not unreasonable requests.
FA: We would like to be considered in the planning -- proactively. We only had two choices last time, and it would be good to be thought of in the beginning. The accessibility issue is one we’ve received complaints about from faculty.
FA: The amount of space in those offices is great if they were on the ground floor of the building (NOC) – they would be perfect. We love the windows! There must be something like mold in the building, since I’m having trouble breathing.
Admin: It’s not a good building.
9. Faculty Forum Day and Opening Convocation (FA) (9/9)
FA: A question came up regarding who plans Faculty Forum day -- the director of what was the Faculty Center for Teaching Excellence has done the planning, and we want that to continue.
Admin: So moved.
FA: Priority has been given to faculty development this year and resources to the new center, and we want the deans in the offices on campus not to schedule other activities on that day – especially for faculty. The second piece is we would like to have faculty involved in the planning of Convocation, Commencement, and New faculty orientation by having a joint taskforce involved in the planning of those three events so the planning could be done earlier and more cooperatively, co-chaired by the Dean of Undergraduate Studies and the Dean of Continuing Studies
Admin: This is an interesting idea. Let’s get back in touch with you on this.
Admin: I’d like to compliment everyone by thinking ahead on this subject.
FA: When I talked with new faculty, they were grateful for the information, but they were overwhelmed; so, we think while what’s being done is good, there is more that can be done to help -- maybe a two-day event instead (of a half day). We think we can do better by faculty – not to criticize what is being done.
Admin: I really want to compliment faculty who were a part of the mandatory diversity training session – Tracy Ore, Frankie Condon, Luke Tripp, Margaret Villanueva, Beth Berila, Joseph Edelheit – the feedback was very positive, and everybody appreciated the hard work.
10. Search Committee Positions (9/9)
(See #7 under Unfinished Business)