Executive Committee Meeting Minutes
November 30, 2004
Attendance: (Those present indicated by an underline)
Officers: President Schoenberger, President-Elect Kilborn, Past President Fisher, Secretary: Gasparino, Treasurer Motin
IFO Board Members: Hill, Kilborn
Unit Representatives: COB SubbaNarasimha, COE Hornstein, FAH Condon COSE Akubue, COSS Ore, SPEC Vacant
Negotiator: Langen
Guest: Michael Spitzer, Provost and V.P. for Academic Affairs
1. Call to Order at 3:17 PM.
2. Approval of Minutes - none
3. Treasurer’s Report
Treasurer Motin distributed a copy of the Treasurer’s Report.
4. Call for New Agenda Items
- Clickers (under New Business)
- OCE position (under New Business)
5. a. Internal Audit – Report from Annette, Theresia
Sue Prout will call the FA Office to schedule this meeting.
It was suggested in the event someone should sign off on a hire in someone else’s absence, a brief note should be written giving the reason.
It was stated there should be a Hiring Manual everyone agrees on (The system approach to hiring argument is a problem.). Past FA President Fisher suggested FA President Schoenberger speak with Pat Arseneault with the IFO to ask her advice regarding this violation.
It was suggested the following points be emphasized to the Administration:
1. The Hiring manual is something we agreed to, you published the manual, and we all agreed to it and we suggest “today, from this day forward, we will follow the hiring manual….”). The Administration should remind all of the Deans and faculty chairs of this.
2. There should be discipline for faculty and administration who don’t follow the manual.
3. A public statement needs to be made regarding what happened with the Zmora violation.
FA President Schoenberger will call Pat Arseneault to say the College of Ed admitted this violation happened and ask what her advice is; we will give her all of the materials (including the Provost’s letter).
d. Update on Homecoming Court. Provost Spitzer may come to the meeting at 4 PM to talk about what the Administration is doing to address the issues. I still don’t have information on what motions Student Senate passed.(EC 113004 5.d.1, 5.d.2)
Provost: There were a number of questions raised regarding what the university Administration has done in response to the issues of the Homecoming Court backlash. I understand the Support the Court students have presented to students that the Administration hasn’t responded; although I think there are ways we’ve responded they haven’t been satisfied with. Let me distribute some material to you that reflects some of those responses. There are a number of issues that came up when the Homecoming Court was selected. When we found out about threats and e-mails, we immediately offered Public Safety escorts to students on campus -- both at the Homecoming football game and on campus as well. Some of the GLBT students weren’t comfortable with Public Safety. Student Life and Development offered to accompany students if they felt the need. In regard to the rally that took place in the Atwood area (the day of Meet and Confer when students came in after the rally), the Support the Court students asked Public Safety to attend but not in uniform. A student indicated somebody in uniform be there, so we had a person in uniform and out of uniform present at the rally. We took off students’ names and contact information from the website so students couldn’t receive threatening e-mail. We put caller ID on the phones in the Student Government office so any hateful calls could be tracked, traced, and reported. One of the concerns had to do with the blue light system. We had a meeting with the Public Safety Director, and we invited students to come and we addressed a number of student safety concerns. Blue lights were immediately repaired; so, they’re all operational and are being checked on a twice-a-day basis to make sure they’re working. Students who sent e-mail messages that were hateful to GLBT Services, if we were able to identify those students, were contacted and disciplined through the Student Conduct System. Students were concerned about an editorial and a cartoon in the Chronicle – it was referred to the Student Conduct System to see if any action should be taken. Students wanted us to control the editorial content of the Chronicle; however, MnSCU does not permit us to do this, in the same way that if the Chronicle were to publish articles critical of university Administration, we could not censor those articles. The free speech and freedom of press issue and policy prohibits the university from attempting to influence editorial content. Letters were sent to city officials to advise students were receiving threats and to enlist their support in ensuring their safety. We made statements supportive of the Homecoming Court at Student Government. Nathan and I met at least twice with Support the Court – one meeting was two or three hours long, and very pleasant; and the other was shorter, and also pleasant, trying to explain some of the issues from our perspective. In response to our statement presented at Student Government, I provided a document to Support the Court -- they choose not to read it at the rally -- and disseminated that information. You can see the first statement read by President Saigo (referring to the handout). The next document is a statement dated 11/04, one I provided to students they chose not to read; and part of the reason was in response to a specific question they posed to those particular issues. The last document is a draft of a response of a Your Turn article that President Saigo wrote and intends to submit to The St. Cloud Times.
FA: He told me yesterday he sent it.
Provost: As far as I know, he hasn’t sent it yet. In addition, several administrators appeared on the air and on radio and held TV interviews -- I was interviewed by KARE 11 when I specifically talked about the issue of hateful messages students received and how we were concerned for their safety, and we found the response from members of the community upsetting and would combat this as best as we could. Letters written by alumni and other community members who submitted negative comments regarding the Homecoming Court selection process were responded to individually. There was a meeting held with the parent of the student who competed for Homecoming Queen but didn’t win. The university would not respond to her and has no intention of asking the crown be given to the runner up. One concern of students is they were not adequately recognized as compared to the Homecoming Court in prior years. The issue is with the alumni banquet when students were not invited to dinner; and students believe it was because of who they were; when, in fact, they were notified before the election that the dinner was sold out and there was not enough room. We talked about honoring the students at the first home hockey game after Homecoming weekend, making an announcement to celebrate the election; but the students chose not to do this. We invited them to sit in the President’s box during the game; but for a variety of reasons (fear for their safety), they chose not to attend. In recognition of the last Homecoming Court, an announcement was made at the hockey game because it took place during Homecoming weekend. This game was not during Homecoming weekend; however, we announced the members of the Homecoming Court in order to give them recognition. The College Republicans were circulating a petition just as the mother of the student who didn’t win had developed a petition and made a reference to a student’s sexual orientation. We asked that the petition not be circulated. It has been taken from the kiosk and referred for disciplinary consideration. Public Safety is monitoring the compliance and safety concerns regarding the Homecoming issues within different groups. We had a discussion regarding other outside agitators making potentially threatening statements.
Provost: The police interviewed students and outside visitors and will continue to do this to the extent it is possible.
FA: Anyone can come onto state property – this is freedom of speech.
FA: We need to continually make the point we exist, in part, precisely to provide a venue for agitators where we have a vital and robust exchange of opinions, ranging from fundamentalists who come to many social activists, and so forth, and we must struggle to preserve this environment -- to the extent the St. Cloud Times is confused (we need to educate them).
Provost: We requested the St. Cloud Times remove a student’s photo from their online materials; however, they declined. We talked with them regarding their chat room policies, and they indicated they’re satisfied with them and don’t want to change.
FA: So, Michael, besides the last item here, the Your Turn article, these other statements have come out before the November 23 Student Government meeting and, nonetheless, these motions were made with a vote of No Confidence.
Provost: I don’t know what happened, since I wasn’t there.
FA: The last motion on the page.
FA: Could you, then, talk to us about this. Was it a surprise to you?
Provost: It was a surprise. I do understand they haven’t been satisfied with the responses made. I think some have been inhibited by Support the Court not distributing the statement I gave them (it spoke very specifically to the university’s opposition to homophobia, xenophobia, transphobia …and I would have given that statement as I did to KARE 11 as I would have given to any media. It was available for distribution, and I would have said it in different contexts, but that opportunity didn’t occur. I think the university has been prepared and did speak out against those elements we think are improper. Our primary consideration is the safety of the students who received the threats, and we’re very concerned about further publicity. The name of the student was released and, in some cases, a photograph was reproduced – in one newspaper citing the town where he lives. We found that to be upsetting and wanted to limit the publicity because of the potential danger. One of the reasons the students didn’t come to the hockey game was concern for their safety, and we were afraid there would be a negative reaction. We were pleased there wasn’t a negative reaction at all.
FA: I really thank you for your effort to honestly address our concerns. A long time ago, I wrote in the St. Cloud Times that the effort to rid our community of racism and all the other “isms” should be continuous and not intermittent. We should be consistent and make it a process instead of something we react to when it happens, since it then becomes difficult – and that’s why we’re in this position. Again, when I look at this issue, it has come down to trying to save the institution from donors who might not like what happened from alumni who might not like what happened. The point is when you begin to address this issue consistently and on a continuous basis, when something like this happens again, people will look back and refer to what happened and they’ll know we don’t support acts of racism. I would advise the consequences be great; but we need to do the right thing, and I hope we’ll summon the courage to do the right thing and maybe call our donors and alumni to explain things to them things they might not understand.
Provost: I’m grateful for your comment. Alumni and donors have been responded to; but I also think it would be helpful, and this is the reason why I wanted to come today, to ask for the help of the faculty to work on a plan to address what Tony is talking about – an ongoing process addressing these issues on campus and in our community as well. What can we do as a university and what can faculty assist in helping to address these issues? We are an institution like many regional, comprehensive institutions located in a homogenous community (our community on campus is much more diverse), and there are issues that occur between campus and community, and we need to have an ongoing process to address these issues.
FA: Is this part of CARE? It may be that we’re already starting this.
Provost: I think we’ve begun to do this but need to expand and do more of this work to get the message to out to the community. Last year, Joseph Edelheit did a series of presentations regarding Judaism – we need to do this more often.
FA: First of all, thank you for asking for our help. I think faculty are a key player in this. Anytime students are threatened, faculty should be very concerned and active in making students feel safe again. It seems pretty evident despite all the things you’re doing; i.e.,meeting with students (the previous Administration would not meet with anyone, and we got into a horrendous situation), and meeting for three hours can’t be easy, if students are passing a vote of No Confidence, something is not going well. What is your perspective?
Provost: I’m not entirely sure how fully informed Student Government was about the things we did do.
FA: If we assume they do have everything and know all of this, what do you think may not be working?
Provost: I don’t know. I’d like to meet with Student Government and ask them.
FA: I think this is a deeper issue of the stance the university has taken for some time. The IRC was trying to deal with how we get the university to take a proactive stance. We still tend to be reactive rather than proactive, and the students are sensing this. When something horrible happens but we’re not out there in front in the community and beyond….it’s this kind of free speech we value. I think stance is a problem -- maybe it’s getting better. We’ve been hiding in the past; so I think we have to work on the stance and that’s a difficult long-term thing.
FA: I feel in an awkward position as a faculty member involved from the beginning, primarily because I see myself on Monday and Wednesday nights (from 9:00 until 11:30 PM) as strictly the note taker and sender of e-mail. I don’t want to speak for students; I think if there is going to be a long-range plan, they want to help. I think whatever plan we develop, they want to be a part of it. I think the reason Student Government made this vote is there are different languages. I know the intent has been to support them, but I can’t tell the students they should feel supported. When they read the statement you wrote, they stopped at the first sentence of the second paragraph. I think it’s language. One example is the reason given for why they did not attend the hockey game – it was said they did not attend for “personal reasons” instead of the statement they asked to have read. I think I’m trying to encourage us to move past the Homecoming issue, itself, and find a way to be proactive, to address issues on campus by not telling them what to do. If we’re going to plan this proactive plan, how do we include students?
Provost: I agree. Regarding your point, what students don’t fully understand is there are people who didn’t want an announcement made.
FA: The Homecoming Court wanted one thing stated. It was other folks who didn’t want that kind of statement.
Provost: Any statement would be problematic.
FA: Who are these people -- faculty, alumni, community, students….?
Provost: One of those! (laughter)
Provost: The particular crowd that comes to hockey games would not respond favorably to that kind of announcement (nor, possibly, any kind), but they did not disagree.
FA: It couldn’t be heard.
FA: In the little village I came from, the left hand has to know what the right hand is doing and vice versa; and here we’re talking about a concerted effort between constituencies. We need to find a better way to provide a concerted front. By the way, on December 9, we are going to have a Town Hall meeting at City Hall where the video of what happened in Lewistown, Maine will be shown. There was a change of meeting plan as a result of various things happening on campus and outside; so we decided we weren’t going to have a panel as we had decided but to show the video where the mayor of the town is telling Somali people to tell their friends and families to stop coming to Lewistown. When we’re in a meeting and I’m listening, I’m listening in order to bring information back to the Commission. The left hand needs to know what the right hand is doing; or otherwise, we’ll continue to project conflicting reactions to what we’re going through. Nobody likes any student to be in pain. Nobody lies down at night and says I wish this student would be hurt so badly they’ll go away from this university. People are striving to make our campus very welcome; but, unfortunately, it’s very difficult. Change is sometimes gradual; so with patience and persistence, we’ll get to change things. I know the reference to our community is “white” Cloud. I went to school in Huntington, WV, a place worse than St. Cloud, and I survived. I thank you for your efforts. I need to ask you when you say you attend meetings, which meetings are you talking about? Do you attend African Association student meetings? I want to understand.
FA: One of the reasons I live six blocks from campus is because I go to meetings – I go to any meeting when any student asks for support. If an African student said “would you support me,” then I would attend.
FA: I think it’s clear; but back to my concern regarding the stance. I understand the statement was changed at the hockey game, but that’s what people see as stance rather than coming out in front. I understand the nuances of why that happened; that’s what students are seeing and the IRC are seeing as inconsistent messages.
Provost: If you look at the Student Government statement Roy read, both were explicit about stating opposition to racism, and those statements were rejected.
FA: I can help you understand why.
Provost: The statement I wrote wasn’t a weak statement.
FA: No, it was not weak at all. I’m trying to understand and be sympathetic to students. They were very supportive statements and were three or four paragraphs in; and students felt they should have been in the first paragraph. I know you’re supportive; but I can’t tell them what to do. I think a lot of it is language and rhetoric.
FA: I know getting a vote of No Confidence from Student Government is a big thing. I know it doesn’t feel good, and I think if we can look at it and look at it as an indicator and strategize on how to move forward and talk --by the way, thank you for spending time with the students -- maybe it will help get over the next hurdle. How can the Executive Committee help?
Provost: Good question.
FA: I think just making sure, as Administration is, to come to us and ask us to help in creating a plan and include students as well, since anything that effects students should involve them.
Provost: I second this.
FA: This was a first-time experience, and I didn’t like that they barged into Meet and Confer; but then I began thinking if my son did this, it would mean something was really bothering him. So, I think we’re all agreed both as Administration and faculty this is an institution of learning, and students place their trust in us for four years. It appears we ought to set up a task force consisting of students, faculty, Administration, and probably one or two outsiders -- maybe we need one or two from the outside who could help mediate.
It’s a complex issue, and we are a small subset of the greater St Cloud area.
FA: We have a task force -- we have the Diversity Ed Task Force. It seems to me this might be the “bounce” to get this group going. In the proposal endorsed by Senate, there is a description of the composition of the task force that includes students. I guess one suggestion I have is let’s convene this task force in a fully fleshed-out way and include the Support the Court and Student Government.
Motion to convene the Diversity Ed Task Force with full representation including students from Support the Court and Student Government (Condon/Kilborn). Passed
(FA President Schoenberger will send this motion to Tracy Ore and to Student Government.)
FA: GLBT needs to be included.
Provost: They were included in the committee composition.
FA: They need to figure out whom to invite.
Provost: We identified various groups but not various individuals.
FA: Some already have their people set.
FA: It’s just not the people from Support the Court – it’s people from the African Association….
FA: I think it’s a great idea to have our students be part of some of the meetings. I also think it’s a great idea to have faculty and Administration who are available attend meetings of the students if possible; because we don’t know what is being planned. If we could sit in on some of the meetings and be aware from the beginning, things would go smoother than they are going right now.
FA: We need to be careful not to co-op students rights.
(The Provost left Executive Committee.)
The agenda was briefly returned to 5.c., Violation of Zmora Agreement in the College of Ed, to conclude discussion on this subject
It was asked if Pat Arseneault could find out for us what it would take to separate us from the Administration as defendants.
The agenda was returned to 5.d. Homecoming Court
Motion the Executive Committee invite members of Support the Court into Executive Committee to listen to their concerns and see if there is anything we can do to help (Fisher/Hornstein). Passed
Motion to close debate (Condon/Kilborn). Passed
Senate tabled the motion regarding anonymous postings on the St. Cloud Times website until Student Government has acted on this motion. Since Student Government have not acted on this motion, it will be delayed for another Senate meeting.
6. Unfinished Business
7. New Business
8. Adjournment at 5:15 PM.