Final copy approved by EC and Senate 11-8-05

Executive Committee Meeting Minutes

October 18, 2005

 

Attendance:   (Those present indicated by an underline)

Officers:  President Judy Kilborn, Past President/President-Elect Annette Schoenberger, Secretary JoAnn Gasparino, Treasurer Robert Johnson

IFO Board Members: Andrew Larkin, Jayantha Herath

Unit Representatives:  COB P. N. SubbaNarasimha, COE Steve Hornstein, COFAH Frankie Condon, COSE Balsy Kasi, COSS Mary Clifford, SPEC Susan Motin

Negotiator:   Bill Langen

 

  1. Call to order at 3:23 PM.

 

  1. Approval of EC Minutes of October 4, 2005

 

Motion to approve EC Minutes of October 4, 2005—(Johnson/Gasparino).  Passed.

 

  1. Treasurer’s Report—To be given at the first meeting of the month.

 

  1. Negotiations/Action Reports—Langen said that there were a series of extremely intense sessions; both sides were ready.  The IFO negotiating team concluded late Friday and early Saturday that they understood the other side’s position and realized that it wasn’t going to change substantially, so it was time for a decision.  The IFO was offered two options, and they selected one that will go before the IFO Board, and the IFO negotiating team will answer questions for the Board on October 29.  Langen expressed that he hopes to discuss immediately thereafter with faculty the contents of contracts.  Kilborn added that the IFO negotiating team worked hard for the best deal.  She stated that it was an honor for her to work with them.  Langen was appreciative of Kilborn’s remarks and thanked her.  Neither could reveal any details of the tentative settlement at this time.  Langen added that he voted with the majority, and he agreed with the settlement that the IFO Board will consider; now it’s the Board and the faculty’s responsibility to decide if interests have been fulfilled.  Kilborn added that as and ex officio member and she would have voted in favor of the settlement that the IFO negotiating team accepted.   

 

  1. Announcements

a.       Requests for representation on Statewide Committees—Kilborn has put out one request.  She’s been asked to bring names for next Thursday’s Board meeting.  She said that workload issues are still there.  She said that she received some requests really late, and she asked EC what procedure they would like.  It was agreed that she would put out a call tomorrow that would end on Monday in order to get names for Thursday.  Kilborn asked if the Constitution Committee should look at voting on the consent agenda in Senate, since the terms were only for that year.  Schoenberger said this procedure was changed to make sure FA Presidents didn’t staff the committees.  Kilborn briefly discussed doing elections electronically as a possible future option, and Schoenberger said that her class could work on electronic FA elections as a project next semester.

Motion to have Annette Schoenberger’s spring class look at the possibility of having electronic elections on the SCSU campus—(Motin/Kasi).  Passed

  

b.       University Council Meeting—Kilborn discussed the University Council Meeting, and said, according to Steve Ludwig, the audit for the University is Thursday.  There was a MnSCU audit of the computer security, and it was determined that there was good network security at SCSU, which has been noted as one of the best wireless campuses nationally. 

 

There was discussion about the fact that no SCSU proposals were approved for Centers for Excellence. 

 

The committee discussed giving a report of the University Council Meeting to Senate.  Kilborn said she usually brings those reports forward in Senate and will continue to do so.   

 

Kilborn said that on the Meet and Confer agenda, she added Lisa Foss’s analysis of a survey on SCSU’s performance, which she included copies of in the packet for the committee’s review.  She wanted EC to have this ahead of time.  It was noted that this data has come to Strategic Planning.  There was discussion about satisfaction surveys and how they do not test the students’ knowledge.  Larkin requested that the FA purchase The Atlantic at Barnes and Noble, because it contained some relevant articles.  Motin said she will try to get it electronically and will send an email if possible; if not, the FA office will purchase a copy.  Johnson asked that we ask Administration what purpose the survey achieves and what their aim is in sharing the results with faculty.  Secondly he questioned the conclusions of the studies and emphasized the need to make sure the data is sound.  EC discussed the analysis of the data and how to interpret it. 

 

Kilborn added two more announcements to the agenda regarding the IFO update that came up yesterday:

 

c.   Restructuring of the Pension Plan—Kilborn pointed out that there is a possibility that faculty could lose TIAA-CREF, and so she encouraged members to contact the people listed in the IFO Update if they have questions or concerns.  There was some discussion about this item. 

 

d.   Health Assessment Survey—Kilborn said that this was agreed upon by all State bargaining unions.  The survey is voluntary; however, participation affects the cost of your copay by $5.  It was noted that the copay is $20 if you do not take the survey, or $15 if you do take the survey.  There was some discussion about the survey, for and against the idea, and also about the issues that people are concerned about.  It was noted that the survey is from DOER, and they will be sending out information as well as the survey.  Kilborn will send out a reminder to faculty at that time about the survey. 

 

  1. Call for new agenda items—none.

 

  1. Unfinished Business

a.       Faculty “responsibility:” Kilborn explained that this item was related to the Fox 9 News investigation.  There was a consensus to remove this item from the agenda. 

 

b.       Higher Education Research Institute: 2004-2005 SCSU Faculty Survey Report (EC 062105 5.i.)—Kilborn will reissue the handouts for this item and put it on unfinished business for next time.

 

  1. New Business

a.       Consensual-relationships Policy (EC 062105 8.e.)—Kilborn said that there is no policy and no guidelines on this item.  Kilborn will reissue the handouts for this item and put it on unfinished business for next time.

 

b.       Committee for communications policies/processes for Office of Clinical Experiences (OCE) (Hornstein)—Not discussed.

 

c.       Short-Term Study Abroad Programs: Application Form and request for Budget (EC 100405 8.c)—Kilborn would like to hold off on this item until the International Studies committee has their meeting on October 20th.  It was noted that budget information is now available, but the budget is not adequate because additional fees are not in the budget report, so EC and/or International Studies will need a more detailed budget.  She asked for the EC’s preference on how to move forward on this item.  There was discussion about whether requesting more and better budget information needed to come from the International Studies committee or EC.  Some of the information needed that is not available is:

                       

                        What happens to the fees (student fees and tuition)?

                        What positions are being supported by the fees? 

                        What activities are being supported by the fees?

           

It was discussed that some issues warrant more investigation by the EC.  It was noted that Julie Baugnet is the chair of the International Studies committee.  The need for a revised form for short-term study abroad programs was discussed. 

 

Motion to instruct the International Studies committee to lay out what additional information they need regarding the budget and any other questions they have about the program, and to give EC a recommendation, so EC can go to Senate, and then take it to Meet and Confer—(Motin/Langen). Passed.

 

There was discussion against the motion because it should go to the International Studies committee.  It was discussed that the committee and people in the program came to Schoenberger last year for the FA’s help.  There was discussion about last year’s problems.

 

d.       Template on Teaching Schedule/Office Hours  (EC101805 8.d.1 and 8.d.2)—Kilborn said that she emailed the Provost to discuss office hours at Meet and Confer since the draft template went out hastily.  She noted that she spoke about office hours the first day of Senate.  There was discussion about the language in the template, namely “approved location,” which could mean your office, email, phone, answering machine, and “times,” which could be a moment in the work day or a range in moments in the work day.  There was discussion about advising versus being in the office, and how this is not really covered the contract since it’s not about office hours.  The issues of the advising and retention were discussed.  Motin asked faculty not to use the term “office hours,” but to use “contact hours,” as it was discussed recently in Senate.  The issue of meetings and canceling of office hours to attend meetings was discussed. It was noted that faculty are expected to cancel office hours, even classes in some situations, for meetings. MSUAASF employees are not required to have contact hours, which may be a retention issue.  It was discussed that there needs to be an agreed upon notion for contact hours, and there needs to be some clear guidelines for approval since some deans are very strict about what they are saying qualify as “contact hours.”  Several members expressed the need for the President to stand behind the faculty in public as well as not making policy based on one bad experience.  It was noted that the FA needs to avoid falling in the trap of the language in the contract, and they need to understand what the contract says and means so they can go on the offensive and tell members exactly what the contract says. 

 

It was noted that faculty must insist that the times they are available for email, phone calls, and time with students all satisfy the contract.  If this cannot be agreed on with Administration, and clarified during Meet and Confer, faculty should not list phone numbers and email addresses on their syllabus.  Also, at Meet and Confer, there needs to be clarification about who is approving the locations and times; for example, email and phone have already approved so there should be no need to be listed.  Language for approvals should be clear.  It was discussed that Administration, as well as the FA, needs to back up the faculty, and the faculty need to educate Administration of what all they do around here. 

 

Langen discussed the travel funds section of the contract, and said that the funds are there for faculty to purchase an email account at home.  This is permitted because faculty answer student questions while at home because students need prompt replies.  The home email accounts were agreed upon as appropriate at the last contract negotiations (not this year but the last negotiations).  It was noted that at Meet and Confer, the Provost has said that email is acceptable.  It was also noted that, at Meet and Confer, it was discussed that faculty have the practice on this campus of scheduling some hours in the office and some by appointment for flexibility, and a dean has said this is not appropriate, but he is wrong.  Kilborn offered to make a list of what the EC has discussed today, and the concerns she has received from faculty, for pre Meet and Confer on Thursday.  It was discussed that the attendance policy and the issue of what to do about office hours were enforced at Meet and Confer retreats a couple years ago.  The need for the President to stand up for faculty was discussed, along with the EC insisting on a literal interpretation of the contract.

 

e.       Early Notification System for Students ((EC101805 8.e)—This will be on the agenda for Meet and Confer for Thursday.  A draft and some examples have gone out from Mark Nook to several groups, and it is being widely distributed.  Kilborn wanted EC to have this ahead of time.

 

f.        Contract Negotiations and Work Speed Up—Not discussed.

 

  1. Adjournment at 5:19 PM.