Meet and Confer Notes

December 16, 2004

Faculty Association present:  Annette Schoenberger, P. Subbanarasimha, Bill Langen, Judy Kilborn, Susan Motin, Theresia Fisher, Steve Hornstein, Tracy Ore, JoAnn Gasparino, Fred Hill, Frankie Condon

Administration present:  Roy Saigo, Michael Spitzer, Nathan Church, Roland Specht-Jarvis, John Burgeson, Anne Zemek de Dominguez, Diana Burlison, Dennis Nunes, Steve Ludwig, Lin Holder, note taker Sue Prout

Meeting began at 3:10 p.m.

Admin:  Nov 4 and 18 Meet and Confer notes have not been approved yet. 

FA: Donna will take care of it when she returns.

1. Partnership Agreements (FA) (2/26)

FA:  Written policy was requested. 

Admin:  I will have it for you at the next Meet and Confer.

2. Internal Audit (FA) (4/22)

FA:  We had talked about having a third-party review.  We had discussion with Asmussen about this and about the surplus funds.  We had discussed this last spring at Meet and Confer.  Where are you with this? 

Admin:  There was a meeting a week or so ago and you were going to provide a list of questions. 

FA:  We weren’t sure we were on the same page and since it was on the Meet and Confer agenda, we wanted to find out where we are all with it.  There were questions at the meeting we had with Michael, President, Diana. 

Admin:  We didn’t have any particular questions.  We don’t have a list of questions. 

FA:  What we are doing then is that we will get our list together and will discuss it in this forum. 

Admin:  At the MnSCU presidents meeting, it was said that our audit report went well.  Chancellor’s Chief of Staff said we are an example and gave commendations for our audit report and for turning a vicarious financial situation into a stable one.  There were no audit findings as there have been in the past.  The audit reports from the other four-year institutions had findings.  We were recognized as an outstanding example of turning things around.  Our audit was clean, no findings at all.  That is unusual for any institution. 

FA: That’s great news.  I remember previous ones, that’s a good step in the right direction to have budget in transparent form. 

Admin: Diana Burlison will share with FA the audit findings from MnSCU four-year campuses. 

Admin:  Audit will be out on the web page with all the other audits performed by MnSCU.  They will send us hard copies of our audit and FA will receive a copy, we’re just waiting to receive.  One will be archived at library as well. 

Admin:  We’ve come a long way.  This is a legal, professional auditing company that has been contracted by the state to evaluate all the colleges and universities and we came up clean. 

FA:  Still we want to keep this item on agenda.  We want to share the complete information.  We still have questions and will be providing a list.  Need to get information to faculty and staff so they have trust and faith as to what is going on.

FA:  Our questions and concerns have been different than from the audit.

3. Search Committees for Administrative Positions (Admin) (9/9)

Admin: Committee memberships have been filled. 

FA:  Can you give us the name of the administrator that can provide a copy of the position description for Vice President for Administrative Affairs? 

Admin:  The job description reporting structure has not been finalized. 

Admin:  I will chair the search and am trying to find a time for the committee to meet and expect that the job description will be finished by the time we begin.  We would like to meet yet this semester, if not we will begin early next semester. 

FA: Our concern is to get this in a timely fashion so we can comment.  Bear it in mind that this is a courtesy.  Our concern is that we receive it so we have time to comment before the concrete starts to set. 

FA: Since this is the only job description we haven’t gotten and for awhile it isn’t ready and there is discussion not involving the FA – we’re concerned about that. 

Admin:  This is largely a function of me.  I work for the President and am also the interim acting Affirmative Action Officer and have been asked to oversee.  The VP position has actually got a couple of iterations that exist.  There have not been any recent discussions.  We have to decide which way certain positions that report to the VP change depending on which position description we use.  In addition, Larry Chambers wants to look at it and update the budget.  It is just a question of which way we want to go. 

FA:  Duties are going to change? 

Admin: There are two position descriptions that exist. 

Admin:  I’ve been out and there have been no discussions, we’re moving along as best we can. 

Admin: There are position structure questions.  If I take a position description and I unilaterally change it, later on when it gets to the search committee there is a lot of discussion about it and it just hasn’t reached consensus of which part of which position description will stay the same. 

FA:  Who is we?  That clearly doesn’t involve us.

Caucus.

FA:  There is a problem with the search committee.  The committee cannot meet until the Faculty Senate has had an opportunity to meet.  What can they do? 

Admin:  They can set a timeline, schedule the work of the committee, clear their calendars. 

FA:  The committee should elect a chair. 

Admin:  The administrative hiring manual allows appointment for administrative search committee chairs. 

FA:  Please provide me a copy of that. 

FA:  If there are issues about what is in that job description now, you should be asking for our input now instead of deciding what the job description will be and then asking for our input because then there would be no opportunity for our input.  So who is we? 

Admin:  We’ll put the job description together as soon as possible and we’ll share it when we put it together and you’ll have input. 

FA:  So what’s the point of having a search committee before you have the job description? 

FA:  We’ve talked about workloads before.  If there isn’t some sense of what the job description is, then the committee should not be convened. 

Admin:  On a related matter.  We’ve had a breakdown of communication with directors in Residence Life.  We’ve had a domino effect of changes and somewhere in the midst of that there has been a breakdown in requesting a faculty representative for the search committee.  But since it is a support position for the first-year program, I would hate to hold up the process to allow Sneh Kalia to work on the committee so we have some faculty input in the search process. 

FA:  I asked you about this more than a month ago.  Nothing in writing was received from your office. 

Admin:  I thought it was coming from Residential Life. 

FA:  Can I get a job description and something in writing from you.  FAEC meets next week so we will try to get it looked at right away. 

Admin:  I will provide you with it tomorrow.

4. Article 22/25 process and explanations (Both) (9/9)

Admin:  I thought we agreed at the last meeting that we would have Nook and Tornquist work on this and faculty to work with them.  

FA:  We need to have some more discussion on the charge before it moves forward.

Caucus.

Admin:  We may have to go about it different, we talked about working together to bring something to each side for inclusion in the contract the next time around.  Something that would provide greater clarity. 

FA:  We have names for an ad-hoc committee so it can be convened. 

5. NCA Committees (Admin) (9/9)

FA:  We’ve filled the steering committee and I’m getting more names to fill other committees.  After the first senate meeting of spring semester we will have more names.  The steering committee can get started. 

6. Process used to decide which department a faculty member is rostered in. (FA) (9/9)

Admin:  I’ll have a written statement to on this topic next week. 

FA:  I am waiting for a response from IFO on their position as well.

7. Committee Workload and it’s value in promotion and tenure considerations (FA) (11/4)

FA:  We would like a letter sent to the community that would tell both the faculty and deans that there would be value in committee work.  When I was recruiting for NCA committees they laughed at me.  Committee work hasn’t been valued in the past and isn’t valued right now.  A statement that the administration, and the deans, understand the value would help. 

FA: We think it is important that the deans be referenced in this letter.  When we know that they have been asked to do or not do something they don’t always follow.  An example: faculty workshop days in January was to have nothing else scheduled, although when I scheduled rooms the COSS has booked Atwood Little Theatre and COFAH is planning college events on those days.  A letter is needed to recognize the value of service, and the letter needs to reference the deans understanding of that recognition so we can be assured that they know. 

Admin: We have also had conversation about identifying ways to support and recognize faculty for work other than scholarship on campus.  In SCSU Today and Outlook we’re going to request the University Communications office to highlight faculty who do committee work, we’re considering providing awards for service.  We want to promote the idea that we value committee work.  There is no reason we can’t send out a letter like you described.

8. Summer School Low Enrollment classes (FA) (11/4)

FA:  In my college, there is inequity in individual faculty members and departments.  (Hornstein presented specific proposal here.)  Instead of it being an individual faculty member, that benchmark should be set for 500 and 600 level courses and low-enrollment if average falls below benchmarks.  Penalty assessed appropriately.  We would like a response by the next meet and confer.

Admin:  If we set a class average, it would be a problem. 

FA:  We need to set a benchmark, not sure what it should be. 

FA:  Now we allow a faculty member to teach two classes if one or the other is low enrollment. 

Admin:  Mini-meet and confers discussed contingent and non-contingent faculty during summer.  We’re in the minority of institutions nationally that have non-contingent faculty contracts.  If a certain number of students are not registered, classes are cancelled.  What the numbers should be for low-enrollment, assuming individual faculty members have responsibility.  The issue is simply a larger issue than the number for the departments.  It isn’t just department vs. individual and a certain number.  We need to discuss policy on summer session. 

Caucus.

FA:  We’ll take a request for a task force to the first senate meeting of spring semester.  How many people do you want? 

Admin:  I’m willing and presume other administrators will engage in conversation about this issue and discuss how we deal with low enrollment in summer session.  A task force or another mini-meet and confer?

FA:  Ad-hoc committee or task force with two faculty and two administrators. 

Admin:  Yes.

9. Draft Policy on Evaluation of prior experience (Admin) (11/4)

FA:  Senate is waiting for a response from departments.

10. Revision of Curriculum Process (Admin) (11/4)

FA:  This was sent back to UCC.

11. Program Review Procedures (Admin) (11/4)

FA:  Senate is waiting for a response from departments.  There are concerns about extra work that might be required. 

Admin:  Assessment is work. 

FA:  We’ll get back to you on this.  

Admin:  Curriculum forms are not updated, that’s why they aren’t on the web site.  Any progress would be appreciated.

12. Math 196 and the Curriculum Process (FA) (11/18)

Discussion off the record.

13. Zmora Agreement (FA) (11/18)

Spitzer, Schoenberger and Fisher will discuss this item following this meeting.

14. Search Committees and ranking of candidates (FA) (11/18)

FA:  We understand that you have a problem with a ranking sheet that has numbers and addition of those numbers.  If that is the case, then it is a misunderstanding.  Need to clarify what we mean by ranking.  We want to say this is the top, second and third candidate.  The way of arriving at that is a separate matter.  We place great importance of being able to signal the order which we found the candidate to meet the qualifications of the position.  The second point is that arriving at a hiring manual was a lengthy process and collaborative.  A natural process that all of these things need to be looked at as policy changes, and until we can recollaborate, we can only follow the current hiring manual.  If your opinion is that you think revisions are needed, we are ready to collaborate with you on the revisions of the hiring manual in an orderly way. 

Admin:  When there are changes in federal law or court orders they are going to supercede the hiring manual regardless of the collaborative process.  In those regards, such as the Zmora court order, they are not in the hiring manual, but we must follow them.  About the issue with the ranking sheets, I consider two issues:  ranking of candidates and the screening form.  The hiring manual doesn’t address this, but federal law does.  The Affirmative Action Officer approves the screening form.  Right now because of EEOC regulations, we won’t use numeric screening forms. 

FA:  We need to separate the two questions.  It’s the right of the search committee to say this is our first choice when the committee brings it to the dean.  We don’t want a search failed if the committee identifies their first choice. 

FA:  We do recognize Zmora has modified the hiring manual, but we need a hiring manual we can trust and we have been acting as much as possible to the Zmora findings.  Can we have a copy of the EEOC materials? 

Admin:  I can give you the citation I review, it’s about 60 pages.  I will provide you with the on-line citation. 

FA:  We heard as recently as 1:45 today that we cannot rank, only list strengths and weaknesses and that’s not what the hiring manual says we can do.  We want a response to that and we want to see it in Meet and Confer minutes.  We continue to have this problem with the deans. 

Admin:  I know this has been an issue for many years.  I think it is very possible to provide a list of strengths and weaknesses of candidates to make it clear who is the first choice.  Preference can be suggested without saying this is a ranking.  Prefer candidates not be ranked. 

FA:  Explain why that is and why we couldn't start to revise the hiring manual. 

Admin:  I think there are lots of inconsistencies in the hiring manual and once we hire an Affirmative Action Officer that would be done.  But that search was failed and we haven’t accomplished that.  It’s quite possible to appoint the second candidate, if the first person doesn’t get the job and decides to sue the university.  That’s a real danger.  There was one in COB with age discrimination because of ranking.  When we make offers, occasionally we get second or third choice and it doesn’t sit well. 

Admin:  Yes, a search committee said to a candidate we are recommending you first, but when hiring authority chose someone else they took us to court.  I think if the hiring authority had good reason to pick the second choice, but search committee broke confidentiality by telling first candidate that they were top choice. 

FA:  You’re talking about two things, ethics of the search committee.  Leaking information is not appropriate for a committee.  When I am on a committee I feel I am there because of my expertise.  We should be following the hiring manual, affirmative action guidelines, we should keep that in mind when we are doing the search.  When the dean takes away decision from us that is demeaning.  Non-select codes are on the flow chart for that.  First choice already had an offer, then you have to go to number two or three.  That’s why we use select codes and non-select codes.  Hiring manual says committee can put forward first choice. 

Admin:  When you put a name forward with first choice and the dean says hire another, what do you do? 

FA:  I am very worried about the legal repercussions of picking our guidelines to follow or not.  We either follow or we don’t.  We want the hiring authority to give us valid reasons why the first choice isn’t selected, and then legal repercussions are valid.  Everyone is protected when there is a good reason for not selecting the first choice –

a legally viable reason for selecting other than top choice of search committee. 

Admin:  Search committees are privy to references before making recommendations.  In most situations in higher education, candidates are not ranked, but are listed with strengths and weaknesses. 

FA:  Not at other MnSCU state universities.  I think we should look at different ways to get this resolved.  There are a lot of problems with search committees, but not just about ranking.  The hiring manual needs to be revised.  The administration has not acted on revisions provided by the Faculty Association.  We need to resolve this issue.  Maybe it’s by getting other state universities’ hiring manuals and looking at federal laws.  Let’s bring all applicable parties into this.  This is a point of disagreement.  Do we want to do mediation?  Hiring manual is over 5 years old, how long will we let this go? 

FA:  We all know that the hiring manual needs to be revised and we can do this work together and there are multiple means to work through this.  Let’s also agree that the Zmora agreement supersedes the hiring manual with regard to special hiring issues.  Search committees should be able to put together ranked candidates, the hiring authority should fully explain why the first choice is not selected. 

Admin:  We need to stick to the letter of hiring manual.  When you go to a court, the court looks at context.  Last time at Meet and Confer the offending language was passed around.  We don’t have it here today.  The language does not say ranking in the way Steve said.  Challenged or contested in a case.  The next paragraph renders it inconsequential. 

FA:  This is a disagreement, no need to keep talking today.

15. Special Assistant to the President/Lead investigator replacement, MnSCU 1.B.1. intake person (FA) (11/18)

FA:  At the last Meet and Confer we were told about Tracy’s last day and were told there would be an announcement. 

Admin:  Decision was impacted by MnSCU and at present we have only one intake person and it has been designated as Sharon Cogdill, located in AS 210.  She will handle intake of all MnSCU 1.B.1. complaints.  MnSCU said it was inappropriate for her to intake complaints re COFAH so Anne Zemek will intake those.  In addition, Sharon will not be investigating nor Anne.  Intake officers take information, then offer alternatives such as mediation, etc., once it becomes an official complaint, it must be in the system and will be referred to investigators who are trained in MnSCU investigations. 

FA:  A designated officer is required for MnSCU institutions.  We have found no mention of a job under title of intake.  We believe this is a violation of MnSCU’s policy.  We have concerns about Sharon’s case.  Half-time in COFAH, half time in Academic Affairs, and now this.  The administration is not valuing the tasks of the lead investigator.  Anne typically handles appeals in 1.B.1. and that is a conflict.  This is contrary to the EEOC recommendation to split AAO and lead investigator.  The past lead investigators absence was known and why administration didn’t move on this sooner is questioned.  We were expecting an interim investigator that doesn’t already have a full-time job.  Although you and Sharon are highly qualified people, I don’t believe this is good practice. 

Admin:  Sharon will not be working for COFAH next semester.  She will be 100 percent assigned to Academic Affairs. 

Admin:  I’m flabbergasted by your concerns because Sharon’s name was offered by Annette when we discussed who we might have as interim.  The President has authority to designate administrators as he sees fit.  He can appoint other people if there is a large number of complaints coming in.  Our conversations with MnSCU have been clear that they don’t want more than one person designated. 

FA:  I did express the concern about the amount of work. 

Admin:  This is a temporary solution to intake 1.B.1. until the position is filled.  Hopefully Sharon will not be doing this long. 

Admin:  We had other recommendations, and we will try to have Berna trained to intake student complaints.  We are aggressively working to fill the position.  This is only temporary. 

FA:  We had no opportunity for input.  We are unhappy with the intake people. 

Admin:  Sharon will temporarily be the designated officer.  But no one will do investigations without MnSCU training in conducting investigations.  The EEOC recommendations led to separation of the two functions.  We’ve kept up with the spirit and recommendations of EEOC and Zmora order, and satisfying MnSCU legal counsel. 

Admin:  You have a concern about consulting.  Anne’s call to Annette wasn’t sufficient? 

FA:  With the IFO this is a big problem for us.  One of the other issues is that we knew about this sooner and waited to discuss it. 

Admin:  A lot of considerations went into who would qualify and who wouldn’t.  We followed direction from MnSCU. 

FA:  Who will do investigations? 

Admin: We have to use a MnSCU trained investigator.  We will have to hire a person to do that. 

FA:  It’s too late now, you have decided so our only option is to react.  We wanted to provide input while you were discussing.  What we are concerned about is this announcement. 

Admin:  We’ve heard you. 

FA:  There was no time for rational discussion about this.  When you knew Tracy was leaving, we could have possibly had someone trained to do investigations.  After the fact, of course, there aren’t enough people trained.  We should have been thinking about this when we knew she would be leaving. 

Admin:  Everything being perfect.  We’ve heard you.  No need to beat a dead horse.  We try our best.  That’s with sincerity.  The world being a perfect place, and with all the time in the world. 

Meeting concluded at 5:04 p.m.