Final Approved 10-2-08
Meet and Confer
September 4, 2008
Admin: Michael Spitzer, Earl Potter, Larry Chambers, Mitch Rubinstein, Steve Ludwig, Diana Lawson, Wanda Overland, Kristi Tornquist, Dennis Nunes, and Judith Siminoe
Faculty: John Palmer, Judy Kilborn, Michael Connaughton, Michael Tripp, Robert Johnson, JoAnn Gasparino, Frances Kayona, Bill Hudson, Debra Leigh, Mark Jaede, Polly Chappell – Note taker
Approval of Minutes
1. August 21, 2008
Admin: We’re not quite ready to approve the minutes. We just got some corrections back about an hour before the meeting, and so we need to review those. I hope we can approve these minutes at our next meeting.
FA: We did have a question about protocol of the use of names in the text. It’s not an objection to the use of names. It’s a question of whether or not we just started to do that. Should we, in fact, capture the names of the people who are referred to by other speakers?
Admin: In my recollection we’ve always included them when someone has named someone. We quoted the statement as it was made. If someone refers to, “Dennis,” it says “Dennis” in the notes. I don’t remember it not being that way.
FA: I don’t remember it not being that way, but my service on this Meet and Confer is relatively a short time. I do think in deference to Polly, welcome back Polly, the ease of recording is to take what somebody says and record it. And then not having to go back and have some editing where it would become just “FA.”
Admin: The only time is when the name is mentioned is when the speaker says the name.
FA: Yes.
Admin: Because the only time the name is mentioned is when the speaker mentions the name. So, you’re asking to have that not included?
FA: No. What we wanted to was raise it, have the conversation that if we’re both comfortable with the practice that, in my recollection, has occurred in the last couple of years, that we continue with that practice. We have had a chance to examine the contents of the minutes. The substance of the minutes is accurate. The kinds of edits that are there are not substantive. Our recorders are very good at what they do.
Admin: I do agree with that. But people wanted to have a chance to read them over before we approve them.
Unfinished Business
Admin: So, let’s go through the agenda and start with unfinished business.
Announcement:
Admin: We will not have Meet and Confer on the 18th of September. I’d like to put that into the official record.
1. Follow ups
a. Email as Official Communication, Redux (ADM) (03/13/08)
Admin: This is what is listed on the agenda. But we’ve been calling the document this refers to as “Email as a Means of Communication.” This is how it was originally placed on the agenda longer ago than 03/13/08. But Kristi and Judith have been working on making some textual changes. We will bring those back next meeting after giving the document to you in advance of the next Meet and Confer.
FA: Thank you.
2. Overhead on Grants (FA) (02/28/08)
Admin: I suppose Sponsored Programs and this we can talk about together.
Admin: The part on the overhead of the grants we agreed to get together and report back this fall. I wanted Diana, Dennis, and I, or another person in Dennis’s spot, to get together this fall. So, we have not done that yet with the start of school. We intend to do that. We’ll come back and review the issue of overhead on the small grants, which is one thing that you particularly sighted.
FA: The internal grants, the charge backs that were happening to the grant account that reduce the ability to do what the grant was intended when the money came from sources inside the system.
Admin: Yes. And I also wanted to review the overall rate, the charge back rate on grants at the same time. So, we’ll cover the entire issue. I would hope before the next Meet and Confer we should have a report.
3. Sponsored Programs (FA) (04/03/08)
Admin: Thank you. Do you want to raise a point, so that Dennis can respond to that?
FA: We do know that you’re going to ask for a request for participation in searches for the search for the Assistant Vice President for Research and Faculty Development. We continue to have concerns about the multiple assignments that the supervisor of that office has. We’ve had some near misses of problems that have come up that due to your good work and Dennis’s good work they didn’t become a problem. Perhaps that is a symptom of a situation that for at least for the time period between now and when the new hire comes, maybe there’s a way we can explore improving that situation for Dennis and for those people who interact with that office.
Admin: I think your statement is wisely very general. Perhaps if you, and I, and Dennis have a conversation where we can get more particular on those issues we can address some of the concerns.
FA: That sounds good.
Admin: We’ve discussed some things. You’re right, near misses. We’ve managed to head off some things in the nick of time. You’re right. There are probably other issues and I’d be happy to discuss those with you and Michael.
FA: Judy pointed out one of them I think we have contained, and that is the changes of operation of the IRB.
Admin: Yes.
FA: You and I visited about that and I believe things are in the works to bring the IRB into sharing their minutes with FA and Senate.
FA: Also, that would include any changes in forms that may have substantive impact. I don’t have any specifics but I heard that some forms have been changed that faculty are concerned about. It would be useful if we had a chance to see those and respond to them before they are put into use.
Admin: I had made some assumptions about the sharing of information from faculty who are appointed on the committee to the FA. And apparently it simply hasn’t occurred. We want to increase that communication on that committee in which faculty play a key role, and it has not been fully shared apparently. I’ll work to accomplish that so there will be certainly no surprises or nothing being produced out of Sponsored Programs that the FA hasn’t seen. I think that has been the case. Again, I made the assumption about the committee and the communication that apparently wasn’t occurring.
Admin: Anything else on this topic? Let’s move on then.
4. Policy on Religious Observances (ADM) (04/03/08)
Admin: We have provided you a document and we’re awaiting the response from the FA on that.
FA: I thought we were going to come back to that and talk about a way to constitute some sort of committee that maybe had community participation that could look at that from a broader kind of perspective and propose.
Admin: We talked about returning to that topic this semester to do that. And so, yes, we can establish a task force to accomplish that purpose.
FA: I thought, too, that the President had some ideas on how to do that and he wasn’t ready last spring to address that. Obviously he just stepped out of the room and he can’t speak at this point about that.
Admin: Right.
FA: Thank you for reminding us about the document. We’ll take a look at the document. We know that there are sustentative issues associated with it. Between now and the next Meet and Confer we can work together to craft a response so the matter will start to be worked on rapidly.
Admin: That’s agreeable.
CAUCUS
FA: We were talking and the President was out of the room. It seems reasonable to ask and talk about where we were when he stepped out. We talked last spring about the possibility of setting up some sort of group that would craft something. A group comprised of various constituencies including the community, and we’re wondering where you are on that, President Potter, on that policy on religious observances?
Admin: An answer on what our policy should be is exactly what the group should do. I think my position is that I’m aware there is a conversation and the institution has backed away from saying anything because it was a difficult issue. If I have a position, the position is that I don’t think we should back away. I think we should address it explicitly. But whether we create a guiding principle or policy I think remains the question. I do think we need guidance or community consensus around how we provide space for or if we provide space for the expression. And I think we do have issues around the calendar. The issue is in our face often and without guidelines or approach we’re constantly going to be talking about it on an ad hoc basis. So, I’m in favor of addressing it systemically.
FA: What process do we use? We could take that policy, which is an example policy from a different school and get response. My sense is that would be a divisive way to approach this. I’m wondering if there’s a process we can instead build in some consensus and have conversation that would build into our own policy, taking into consideration some of the things in that example.
Admin: A reasonable sort of interfaced framework for conversation is what we are trying to accomplish in creating a policy or guiding issues. I think we could probably agree prettily easily on what the character is of the environment we want to create. Then we could talk about what’s the mostly likely path to the definition of guiding principles that would be to agreement and ownership and support of the position at which we arrive. I hesitate to decide the process, to say what the process should be, because I think we should be sensitive to how we evolve. So, I guess what I would favor is the creation of a working group to talk about our intent and then to describe the approach to even that intent, and then to do that work. It is really straight forward. I would hope to get ideas of how to frame that policy or guiding principles that a working group would look at ideas from other campuses. I think one example is probably not a good process. You caucused on the issues, what were your concerns?
FA: My concern was that if we took that policy back without any contact that it would be a divisive conversation. We would get caught up in some of the same kinds of conversations we had earlier. We’re dealing with a different set of circumstances now. And I had thought that I had remembered talking about some sort of group that would start it going.
Admin: And I think we can do that. We’ll set up a task force or working group to look at some other topics using some other institutions and we can address the questions that the President identified. What are we trying to accomplish? Something abstract to something that could be vetted throughout the university.
FA: Could we expect that, at the next Meet and Confer, we would have a structure for this working group? With numbers we could populate, and they would be given a charge?
Admin: I think we could do that. I think we can identify now the number of people.
Admin: Can we tip toe a little less? Do you think this is something we’re going to take on and something that would be helpful to our community or not?
FA: I do. Something that has always puzzled me I go back to my Alma matter in North Texas and I walk into their student union and there’s a humongous Christmas tree in their student union. It’s always puzzled me why it is okay with one public school and it’s not for others.
Admin: I think that issue is separate from what we are talking about. But it can be considered at the same time.
FA: I think that this is important, and doable. I think that disagreements over observances of holidays are something that creates a lot of angst within the campus and I think it creates discord within the campus and broader community. I think it is constantly misperceived in the press whether you can have a religion on campus and that sort of thing. I think we can do better than we’re doing and there is a path forward. I don’t think in reality there is that wide dispute over concepts like freedom of religion and toleration and allowing people to have or not have whatever religious perspective they have. But then we get down to questions like, can we have a Christmas tree or not, and that’s when without a broader framework we agree on, on how to resolve that question, then we get into a stupid argument of whether we hate Christmas or not.
Admin: I think we’re missing the point this particular policy addresses. It wasn’t whether or not the university would celebrate certain things or not. The policy addresses the issue of students not being required to participate in certain events like taking exams during a time they were celebrating particular religious observances of their own that might be different than the religion of the main stream religion.
Admin: I agree. That was the starting point.
Admin: I think there are two: what you just said and also what Mark just said. I think there is a piece about students and how they interface with academics, but there’s also a lot confusion around November through January, and lots of questions about can we have these events and presents. There are a lot of uncertainties. I hear that from students and staff.
Admin: We did have the incident last year where the faculty member refused to let two students leave class for prayer. That’s another example.
Admin: That was one issue that prompted the presentation of this concept.
FA: We started Ramadan this week so we’re faced with this issue last year, this year. I was standing in the hallway a few minutes ago, and there are people of many faiths passing through these corridors and it is going to only increase. The more we establish the policy perspectives the better served we all will be. The question before us now is: do we start the taskforce this week or wait three, four weeks. It seems to me we can agree to principles and establish a group this week and take it to Senate for approval to consider these matters.
Admin: It is very difficult because at essence our policy is that we will do what the constitution requires us to do and that means that you have to do a case-by-case analysis. If you have a faculty member who refuses to respect a student’s religious beliefs, that’s an individual situation that has to be dealt with. We have a legal obligation to follow the constitution. To me, rather than having a policy that tries to address everything maybe it would be more useful to have some education. Wouldn’t it be helpful to have some discussions about what does it mean when we say that we’re going to follow the constitution or that we’re going to respect religious freedom or that we’re going to provide equal access or all these things that we know that we’re obligated to do. I’d enjoy doing that. That’s one kind of my areas of interest.
FA: What would be wrong with having a statement or policy that we will follow the constitution?
Admin: We don’t have to. (Laughter)
FA: You say we don’t have to, but we’re having this discussion.
Admin: We don’t have to have a policy because we’re legally required and can be held accountable.
FA: This doesn’t seem to be an ad hoc matter and that’s what we’ve done. That hasn’t been satisfactory.
Admin: What our intent is is that it might be instructive to have a document with some scenarios, examples of the kind of questions that arise and how we should respond. The education I think is essential. The conversation is essential. That’s why with a task force, I prefer to start with what’s our intent? What will we accomplish and how might we do that? Starting with the discussion of our intent by looking at the tools we have, our options.
FA: You asked the question about not tip toeing. Our group certainly sees a need to begin the conversation and the way to begin the conversation is to frame the question, and if the question is framed by a group that’s going to be better than if de facto by some other institution’s document. Two weeks ago we agreed to taskforces of three and three. Can we agree on that, and that this group is to come back with a statement we would review at Meet and Confer. We will have done what we can today.
Admin: I agree with that.
Admin: I’m just wondering there is a Diversity Task Force. We were doing diversity training on some of these subjects, sort of as part of our training. I don’t think that something like this could be resolved in a period of just a few weeks. That’s a large task force and there are a lot of issues. I’m wondering if this might be a spin off of that larger group.
Admin: I think if we got this thing started we certainly could ask the Diversity Task Force for comments on the responses and recommendations. But I think we should get it started.
FA: Have we captured what the intent of the proposed working group would be so that we can go back to Senate? We can then end up with three representatives who know what they’re being asked to do. I’m comfortable in what I’ve heard. And I trust that Polly has recorded what I’ve heard that we can do that.
Admin: I would hope so. There are table translations. (Laughter)
FA: Can you describe what it is that you’ve captured? (Laughter) Can we have a coherent statement of what it is? We’ve heard several different expressions of need here or no need and I’m not sure if it’s been succinctly stated in terms of a point of a body to examine is…
FA: Polly, can you go back to what you’ve recorded from what President Potter said?
Note Taker: It will be verbatim of what you’ve said but about 30% is typed right now and the other 70% is recorded and transcribed.
Admin: I can restate.
Note Taker: That might be the best route.
FA: Why don’t you restate.
Admin: Then you can tell me if that’s what you heard.
FA: I can tell you if that’s what I heard.
Admin: Our intent is to create a framework that will help us address issues of religious observance that arise on our campus. They range from making room for students, faculty, and staff to observe holidays and other events in their traditions to the display of symbols associated with holidays to the way we present events in our calendar. There are a number of questions that arise. Currently we’re dealing with an ad hoc basis. We have talked about this before. I think we’re in agreement that we would be well served by a statement that might be guiding principles or an educational effort, which would have to be driven by some agreement or obligation or philosophy or policy, which we could use to address these questions as they arise. This would never produce a sort of mechanical to every scenario.
FA: Would this also subsume the original core of what brought this to our table; that is, policies regarding students, classes, attendance, grading, exams…?
Admin: Yes.
FA: Okay.
FA: I think you’ve captured more than what you said initially. You captured the conversation. Thank you.
Admin: One character I’ve appreciated isn’t a guiding statement but it would be reinforced by some examples was one of the characteristics. I thought that would be helpful.
FA: Just thinking in the future as this process goes forward, in certain instances documented, it could evolve into something like a best practices.
FA: So, we’ve agreed we have a task force; we have a narrative about that task force. I will take that narrative and work to have it so that people will understand what they are volunteering for. As soon as we have our three selected, I’ll let you know.
Admin: Okay. So, we’ll have a group of six individuals, three faculty and three administrators.
Admin: Let me just take a second to consult with my special advisor in public here. Your preference in general I’m guessing would be that the law should suffice and that the more we put in writing the more we risk wrapping ourselves around the axel.
Admin: Well, that is my second preference after I get to decide everything. (Laughter) I do think there are principles that could be articulated. And there are specific examples.
5. Foundations of Excellence (ADM) (04/17/08)
Admin: This remains on here because we haven’t yet established the committees and task forces, but that’s moving forward.
FA: The call went out today.
6. Alnwick Summer Program Recommendation (FA) (04/17/08)
Admin: There were some recommendations that the FA put forward in the spring. I think what we said we would do was to have a meeting with the International Studies Committee. I would like that person to contact the ISC and set up that meeting to start having this discussion about: how do we improve the way in which the program in Alnwick is operating? How do we strengthen it? And make it a stronger program than it currently is. If it is okay with you, I will invite the AVP for International Studies to the meeting with the ISC.
FA: Yes. We discussed this at Senate. The members of that committee are aware of the concern and are anticipating a meeting to take place.
Admin: Thank you.
FA: I think we originally talked, too, about inviting the folks who serve on the Alnwick Committee?
FA: Yes.
FA: Because that’s a sub-committee.
Admin: It’s a sub-committee of the ISC. Yes.
FA: But it includes members who are not on the ISC. So, if you could include both that would be good.
Admin: Sure.
Admin: That’s the British Studies.
FA: Yes.
7. Status of 1.B.1. Task Force (FA) (05/01/08)
Admin: We’re not quite ready to report on this. There will be a meeting of the task force members to discuss some changes prior to bringing a formal document back to Meet and Confer.
FA: I believe there were some recommendations that that task force made that were going to be implemented. Obviously, we now have a new advisor, and so there have been some shifts in terms of staff. I’m wondering if you can describe what the current structure is so that faculty understand.
Admin: Some have been announced. One of the recommendations was that the special investigator not report to the President. They now report to the Affirmative Action Officer. There needs to be a designated officer, that designation there’s a consequence or shift in the designated person… what’s the language?
Admin: I think, Designated Official.
Admin: The Designated Official, who is the lead person on campus for 1.B.1.-related issues, will be the Affirmative Action Officer. So, that the structural things have been accomplished. In fact when Administrative Services building is re-done in the coming year, the space allocated for that office will be sufficient to house those folks. Right now it is awkward because the existing space isn’t sufficient to house all those folks. There’s a little confusion there. But that will be resolved. When is that to happen? Over next summer?
Admin: Yes. We have to work out the details. We have to meet.
Admin: Let me see if there are any other changes. One of the recommendations was for a plain language document that is a guide to how to use the policy. The document was created. It’s not what we wanted. And we stepped back to do that in a way that will work. The suggestion that there needs to be a plain language document, I support that.
FA: Question of clarification. The lead investigator reports to the Affirmative Action Officer and also that the Designated Official reports to the Affirmative Action Officer. And so the Affirmative Action Officer is playing two roles or just until after a determination is made?
Admin: To my way of thinking the investigation needed to be separated from the person who reviews the investigation and refers the investigation to a decision maker, should the facts of the investigation warrant assignment of the complaint to a decision maker.
FA: The supervisor of the lead investigator is also in charge of the person who receives the complaint?
Admin: Yes.
FA: That’s what I thought. Is that problematic?
Admin: It would be problematic if the Affirmative Action Officer receives the complaint, supervises the investigation, and then makes the decision, but that’s not what will happen. The decision will be made by somebody else.
FA: Is that the current make up?
Admin: Yes. Because there’s a pool of decision makers.
FA: So, the answer to my question is yes, it would be problematic in the current terms.
Admin: What you want to avoid is having a person performing dual roles. So the recipient of the complaint, the Affirmative Action Officer, is overseeing the investigation. Those are consistent roles. What you can’t have then is that same person as the decision maker.
FA: What’s the difference between the decision maker and the Designated Official?
Admin: Oh, okay. Not the same.
FA: Not the same?
Admin: No.
Admin: They’re not the same person.
Admin: Not the same role either.
FA: Since some faculty do read these minutes when they get out, let me see if I understand what would happen: if a person has a complaint, which is a 1.B.1. complaint, the person that they will go to, to file that complaint, is the Designated Official.
Admin: Right.
FA: So, at that point the Designated Official could chose to involve the lead investigator to do a preliminary examination?
Admin: Right.
FA: It comes back to the Designated Official with the preliminary examination. A determination is made by that official to proceed with an investigation, or to say it didn’t rise to that level.
Admin: Not to proceed with the investigation; to refer the investigation to a decision maker for a determination.
Admin: I believe he made a little distinction between the first review to see if it has merit, which where it is now rather than the full investigation. He kind of parsed it out a bit.
FA: There’s a step at which the Designated Official has discretion. And if the discretion, the matter rises to the level having a full investigation, an investigator will do that. That investigative product will go to the Designated Official who will then make a determination whether it goes to a decision maker.
Admin: Doesn’t the President decide who the decision maker is?
Admin: I appoint the decision maker.
Admin: But that’s right. It would come back to the Designated Official who makes a recommendation to me that the investigation shows that the complaint has merit and should be referred to a decision maker.
Admin: For the decision maker to decide if it has merit.
Admin: Yes. But there is a decision that the Designated Official makes, which is there’s is judgment applied there.
FA: And that judgment is now being made by the Affirmative Action Officer.
Admin: That’s correct.
FA: Thank you.
FA: The disposition of the materials associated with that investigation particularly if it doesn’t rise to the level of action, where does it go? What happens to it?
Admin: That’s a valid and important question. So I don’t want my response to seem hostile or snide. I’d rather not go back to the past too much because there were some sloppy and inappropriate practices. It violated the way things should be done. So, help me with this. If the Designated Official determines that it should not go to the decision maker, what is our obligation to share any information?
Admin: Well, because it is sensitive, private personnel data, it has to be restricted as far as who gets it. The person who filed the complaint is entitled to know what happened to it. And if that decision is that it is not enough to proceed comes early enough, you might not tell the person who is accused because you might have already determined that you weren’t going to do an investigation. It reached a level and they may have never known, and neither would anyone else because that’s the way it ought to be done. The procedure does permit the Designated Official to say this is not a 1.B.1. issue, but it should be referred to some other process or some other person for disposition. So the process, as it is written, does say you can decide it is not 1.B.1., but it is still something that needs to be addressed and refer it elsewhere. And we’ve actually had some discussion about whether we need to be more explicit elsewhere in the institution about how that referral is made. We’re not finished with that.
FA: Where does the record go?
Admin: Where does the record go?
FA: Yes.
Admin: The policy requires that the record is retained in the Affirmative Action office, but who does it get shared with? It really shouldn’t be shared.
FA: Our concern has to do with contractual language about the personnel file and so forth. If there is no decision to be made based on the information, and it’s not part of that process.
FA: Could a file from such a hypothetical complaint that was found not to rise to the level of being worthy of an investigation, could itself become evidence or something referred to in a subsequent 1.B.1. complaint in the same office?
Admin: Yes. The historic file is going to be in the possession of the director of Affirmative Action, which is the Designated Official. On the other hand, the fact that you have that file and reached a determination that you didn’t have enough to go on, the character of that won’t change by the fact that there was a subsequent complaint. I have to say one of the classic situations you run into is with a discrimination or a harassment claim, when you determine there wasn’t evidence or the complainant says, “I want someone to know about this but I will not testify. I will not participate.” The institution is caught because we legal obligation to protect people but we don’t have a willing complainant. Because the institution has this legal obligation, we must retain all those files. But they have to be secure. You don’t change the character of the determination subsequent to that. So, what I want to say is, simply, if you reach determination, you didn’t have enough to investigate, it’s not always the final outcome. It may mean you had nothing, you obviously can’t take it into account in the future. Or it may mean there was a questionable circumstance, but we didn’t have the quantum of evidence necessary to go forward, then it might be relevant. I know that’s not the answer that was easy.
FA: I’m not sure I wanted an easy answer.
Admin: Then we’re right where we want to be. (Laughter)
FA: Heck, I’m an academic. I don’t like easy answers. (Laughter)
Admin: Are you feeling more comfortable with this or less? If I’m allowed to ask.
FA: Well…
FA: I’m not going to address how Michael feels because how Michael feels is his own private personal, confidential information. (Laughter) But I do think that the conversation we’ve just had makes it clear that the task force that we formed still has work to be done.
Admin: Yes.
FA: And that there are important questions of practice and process that best can be handled in that setting. And then come back to us. I found the conversation to be very helpful.
Admin: I’m very comfortable with that. I would agree. That’s been my experience with the recommendations from the task force. That we’ve been asking the kinds of questions that Robert’s asking. Who is the person who is going to do this? Is the person to whom these duties are going to be assigned accurately trained to accept responsibility for them? We’re working through all those details. Let me give you one more example that is troublesome. One of the recommendations from the task force was to establish some deadlines, which would improve timeliness. In the guidelines that were created those deadlines were specified. As it turns out legally I can’t do that because it’s a policy owned by the system and I can’t add a legal commitment to the set of guidelines that obligates the university to respond within this time. What I can do is say as the President I understand the thinking behind the recommendation, agree with the objective, and I intend to direct my staff to respond within these timelines. That is my responsibility for the way I’m managing. I have not created another legal obligation. There are some very fine points. We’ve had to go through a number of iterations to think this through. I think more conversations with the task force would be appropriate.
FA: Thank you.
Admin: Are we done with this issue?
FA: I believe so.
8. FA: Representation on Academic Affairs Working Group (AD – 8/21/2008)
FA: I have not yet had a chance to connect with the chair of the Academic Affairs Committee to seek his advice about how to populate the Academic Affairs Working Group. Once I have that, we’ll move quickly to fill those slots.
Admin: Will you forward those names to Mitch as you have them?
FA: Yes.
Admin: Thank you. Can we take these off the agenda?
FA: I think so.
9. FA: Representation on Task Force on Academic Calendars (AD – 8/21/2008)
FA: We have agreed to have as our members of the Task Force on Academic Calendars the Committee on the Institution.
New Business
1. Request for participation in Searches
Admin: As you eluded to John, there is another position for which we would like to establish a search committee and that’s the Assistant Vice President of Research and Faculty Development and the Director of Sponsored Programs since Richard Rothhaus has resigned from that position.
FA: We will be conducting a collection of elections for the search committees in anticipation of what was going to happen today, we’re putting a call out for all of those. The date at which the ballots will be returned is the 26th of September. As soon as our Elections Committee has a result, and it’s reported to Senate, we’ll let you know.
Admin: Thank you. While we’re on that topic, there was a request made in the spring for two faculty representatives to serve on the Comprehensive Facilities Plan. I’d appreciate it if you could do what needs to be done to identify those two folks. Preferably people who have an interest in and expertise in facility related matters.
FA: So noted.
FA: A question from faculty, will students be officially represented on that Comprehensive Facilities Plan?
Admin: As far as I understand, yes, but I’d like to wait to respond.
FA: Okay.
Admin: Let’s skip over the following two items until Steve returns.
4. Summer Session (09/04/08—added to agenda at meeting)
Admin: This is one item not on the agenda that we need to spend some talking about.
Admin: As mentioned earlier, Meet and Confer will not meet on September 18th. That was the date that I was hoping to bring Summer Session to this body. My intent is to bring it as quickly as possibly after we have the data to analyze Summer Session 2008, which we have now. The process will be done next week and we were coming to this group on the 18th. There’s a pinch on the other end. I believe that materials are due in early November. The 18th would have provided the six or seven weeks necessary as we engage into discussion about the courses for 2009. Not meeting on the 18th condenses the work of the faculty, which is my concern, in departments. I’m seeking your advice here.
FA: It would seem to me, Dennis, if you’ve provided the information which you historically provided and it’s been prepared in a manner similarly prepared in the past that our interest is your interest to have people know how the allocations are being made so the planning can go forward for the summer. So, if your intention is to promptly share that information with the FA, we will then share it with our folks, and make sure that we don’t have any issues. Okay? And hope that all goes well and the planning can go forward without formally having conferred on the document.
FA: Can we get that information and then have a final discussion about it at Meet and Confer?
Admin: Okay.
FA: Would that be enough time? Then we would have met the requirements for meet and conferring on it.
Admin: I can have it to you on or before the 18th. At that point it has gone out to departments. We can have framed as tentative, if there are some issues that we need to resolve or changes need to be made. Now they are planning to begin, and I’m concerned that there will be enough time to do the thoughtful planning we need to do, to provide the kind of array of courses we need for summer, and to not do it in a fashion that doesn’t allow full consideration.
FA: How many years have you done summer school?
Admin: 22.
FA: So the predictability of the outcome of the product is quite high?
Admin: I believe so. (Laughter) But I do want to honor the process because it is important that we engage in this.
FA: And we do appreciate that.
Admin: Thank you.
2. Guest Parking (FA) (08/21/08)—discussed below.
3. Vehicle Use Authorization and Prohibition of Driving by Under 21 year olds (FA) (08/21/08)—discussed below.
Progress Reports on Long-term Concerns
1. D2L Status and Plans
Admin: A quick update on the status on D2L. Did you have some information to share?
Admin: Things went really well last week. I would ask you to keep in mind that the first week of classes is not the busiest time for D2L, so we expect it to come in the next couple weeks. I’ll let you know if anything happens. I would also like to mention that we had five members of the Officer of the Chancellor’s IT staff here today debriefing with us on the first week of classes and how it went. So our request for them to be paying attention, they were paying attention. They did a lot of preparatory work and they’re also coming to the campus to see how things went, which I’m appreciative of. It’s a good sign of change. But you might have things you know about that I don’t know about.
FA: I’m very grateful D2L didn’t tank. I will report my experience shared by other faculty who would try open D2L and it wouldn’t open.
Admin: Okay.
FA: So, fortunately many of us were suspicious about how well D2L would perform and we had back up plans so when D2L didn’t open we could show our students we could still get the material other ways. I did have reports that people were blown out of it when they were trying to upload.
Admin: Did any of those get reported to us?
FA: I don’t know.
Admin: Is it alright if I have somebody call you so we can get these on the record?
FA: Sure.
Admin: The first day we were getting some reports that people were having trouble that your talking about but they weren’t sure if it was D2L or just kind of a hiccup. I wasn’t hearing anymore about it the rest of the week.
FA: I’d be happy to provide documentation. And our concerns about not being able to copy parts from other courses.
Admin: Yes.
FA: That’s obviously something faculty would use in preparation for course start dates. It would be useful in the future. I know you’ve been arguing as hard as we have been if they could plan it so faculty could actually upload before their courses.
Admin: Yes.
FA: Thank you, Kristi.
2. Academic Plan (ADM) (10/18/07)
Admin: There really isn’t anything new to report on the Academic Plan since the last Meet and Confer meeting.
FA: Senate will take up the initiative proposal that came up through the Academic Planning process. The flowchart for how application and approval of initiative would happen. They’ll also review the document that came from that same working group that deals with planning with the budget for FY10.
Admin: You’ll report to us on the outcome?
FA: Yes.
Admin: I met earlier with Lisa Foss and Dan Gregory to talk about the agenda for the Strategic Planning Committee. I look forward to their committee’s work with us this year. I’m very encouraged.
3. Diversity Plan (ADM) (11/01/07)
Admin: With regard to this item, we’re awaiting the names.
FA: We have three names: Debra Leigh, Michael Tripp, and Tracy Ore. It was a hotly contested election. The last position was decided by 10 votes out of something like 500 or 600 voters. So there was a great deal of interest and we have an outcome we can report.
Admin: Congratulations to the victors who now have more work to do. (Laughter)
4. COE Climate Task Force (FA) (9/22/05)
Admin: I just want to report that the contract for that is being completed. We have a vendor number that was approved on a purchase order that was sent out to be issued. So the contract can go out and the process can be underway. Mark, you’re aware of that.
FA: Yes. I’m very encouraged by the progress we’ve been making in the past couple of weeks. We still have to sort out some details on exact dates that the vendor is going to be on campus to do the on-campus work. But these are all things that should be easily resolved once we have the signed contract. That appears to be moving along in a timely manner.
5. Intellectual property and releases from PR (FA) (08/30/07)
Admin: We were going to ask Judith to look at that document and come back with something that we hope to have you folks look at. We’ll get that taken care of.
FA: Thank you.
Admin: There are larger questions with regard to intellectual property that we’re not addressing of that particular piece, which we need to look at down the road.
FA: Is she going to look at the two separate documents?
Admin: Yes.
FA: Thank you for the clarification.
6. Report on Budget (ADM) (10/18/07)—discussed further below.
Admin: Steve still isn’t here so we’ll have to come back for some sort of update on the budget.
FA: That’s fine.
Admin: We have a couple items to return to.
7. Article 22 Task Force (FA) (02/01/07)
Admin: That group is meeting on Tuesday.
FA: Oh, we are?
Admin: Yes.
FA: I haven’t read email today.
Admin: 11:00 on Tuesday morning, it’s a time you approved. So, that will be our first meeting. We’ll schedule a series of meetings at least through October to try to get through.
Admin: They are already scheduled, every Tuesday until we’re done.
FA: There seems to be confusion about the dates that are on the document that is up in Academic Affairs. I was under the assumption we agreed on moving forward and I heard---
Admin: I’m going to have to leave out of the room now. So, do you just want to allow that as a caucus or continue the conversation? If it’s okay, I’ll just leave if it doesn’t disrupt the business.
FA: So what I was saying is I thought we had agreed in Meet and Confer last spring on those dates. I’m hearing confusion about whether or not those dates are actually the real dates or not. I’m wondering if you could go on the record as affirming we agreed to those dates.
Admin: We did agree to those dates. There were some issues regarding some of the dates that we wanted to revisit. I talked a little bit with John about it. We need to talk to the other administrators in the group. There was just some confusion about whether or not some of the dates selected would work contractually. They mostly have to do with first-year faculty issues. There’s a statement in the contract about the review having to take place in the year in which an action occurs. And it looks like we have it set up so that the action occurs in November after the review took place in the prior year, so that’s what we need to clarify. Did I get it right?
Admin: Close.
Admin: It’s complicated.
FA: There are at least two complications that occur. One is the document that is on the web with the timeframe for tenure and promotion as a format issue. It’s landscape, and my colleague Mark told me how to make it so I can see it, but he found out by chance. We had some communication issues because of the format of the actual document. The dates that are of concern are dates for a small sub-set of the faculty.
Admin: Right.
FA: The primary dates that deal with the majority of faculty are accurate. Sometimes that message doesn’t get clearly communicated. There is concern about that. Our position is that the dates for the preparation and plans and the reports leading into tenure and promotion are consistent with what we agreed to.
Admin: Yes, and are correct, I think.
FA: We recognize that there are some subtle issues of interpretation of the agreement about this evaluation and what a year means and how that happens. There are issues tied to the new faculty who have always had a different timeframe. So, I trust that on Tuesday that will be the first order of business that this group takes a look at.
Admin: That is my expectation.
Admin: There are a couple clarifications, too, that need to be made on Tuesday, too.
Admin: They will be looked by the group.
Admin: Right.
Admin: But I didn’t bring them here. But with the exception, and I can’t remember the last time this became an issue where a first-year faculty was not renewed, but if that were to be the case that’s where the complication would arise. So, it’s really in my view almost a theoretical issue.
Admin: I think it is for any non-renewal, but it has to occur in the same year.
Admin: It does in every other instance I thought.
Admin: Any non-renewal would be. And I think possibly tenure. But that’s what you need to look at.
FA: I’m concerned that this confusion or this situation that affects a very small number is creating a lot of confusion to EPT committees in general. So, if that could be clarified as much as possible that would be helpful.
Admin: As John indicated that will be the first thing we talk about on Tuesday. And we’ll try to get some agreement and get the word out as soon as possible thereafter.
FA: One of the things we didn’t do last year was embrace the whole business of what non-renew and how to do non-renew the contractually appropriate way. We just didn’t have time to take a look at it. And as you’ve said looking at history it may be more theoretical than actual. So I’m glad to hear that we have a meeting at 11:00 a.m. Tuesdays.
8. Data Security and Privacy (was Senate Motion Concerning Email Monitoring) (FA) (12/13/07)
FA: I think this item is an artifact because of the way the agenda got put together.
Admin: I was looking back at my notes and I can tell you what I have for that if you want.
FA: I announced to Senate the reality of the absence of privacy. (Laughter)
Admin: I love it.
FA: The reality is that there is the concern that when you use the state property which includes the Ether, the state owns it. And if the state owns it, it is not private. So we just have to remind people of that. That does not say that because it is not private information that we’re going to willy-nilly give access to that information to others. From my vantage point we have dealt with this. I announced it at Senate. Because Patty did the actual production of the document today, if I had done it I would have taken it off.
Admin: Okay. So, we can take it off in the future?
FA: Yes. But we keep reminding people. There’s very little private anymore in our society. Michael got asked today about his feelings. (Laughter)
Admin: But, he chose not to disclose them. Some of the data is private but under certain circumstances even that could be made available to certain parties under certain circumstance.
Admin: Legal circumstances.
FA: Yes.
9. Formation of Ad Hoc Faculty Committee on Interim, Temporary, Emergency and other such appointments (FA) (05/15/08)
FA: This last item will remain here because we do have an ad hoc faculty committee that has a time certain to provide us a report, which is in the spring. What we need to do is just keep this here as a reminder. It’s also a reminder perhaps that someone on your side might want interact with our committee.
Admin: Okay.
FA: The committee is there and they expect to get charged and give us a report in April.
New Business
2. Guest Parking (FA) (08/21/08)
Admin: Steve said nothing is more important that parking. So we’re looking at guest parking as an issue here.
Admin: We’re in some transition about parking over the last few years. Where parking has a cost and we’ve been trying to recognize the cost to be paid by those who are using the service or the facility. We had some difficulty accounting for that, but parking is not free. Parking has a cost. We presently opened the ramp and we’re finding some ways to use the ramp in different ways that would accommodate the different types of parking. But, generally for parking the accommodations that we have had traditionally was that pay lots were for guests. They could go to the pay lot and pay at the pay lot if they were short-term guests. And that would be the way they could be on campus during typical business hours or the hours that parking was enforced. That same provision is available in the parking ramp and we would like to encourage the parking ramp because it is an obvious location and it’s easy to identify on the map. You can find it as you approach campus. It’s the easiest to pay for because you can use a credit card, you can use cash, you can use a debit card, you can pay when you enter, and you can pay when you exit. We’ve tried to make it as accommodating as we can for people to use the ramp. In addition to that we found just in the past week that we can purchase cards that you could mail to a person for example that would have a $5 credit for the parking ramp, and they could swipe the card on the way in and swipe the card on the way out and that would allow them to park in the ramp and we would sell those cards to groups on campus that were to sponsor guests that were benefiting by the guest presence on campus. We also, because of the way our parking is enforced after 7:00 p.m. Monday through Thursday and after 3:00 p.m. on Fridays through Sunday evening the lots on campus are open for some. There are some until 7:00 p.m. that require either student or staff permits. But after 7:00 p.m. the permitted lots are open on campus during the week and after 3:00 p.m. on Fridays. In any case, that’s another accommodation for guests who might attend events. The events that generate the largest number of guests are athletic events and athletics pays for the use of the parking about $100,000 to the parking funds to accommodate that. We changed a couple years ago, our guests in the resident halls or the guests who are staying in the resident halls over the summer buy permits to park overnight through the course of the summer rather than just using available space and not contributing to the cost. I am reviewing the practices and the policies around guest parking and I’m going to bring that to the President’s Council especially with the advent of the ramp, it changes the approach and availability of parking and the type of parking. We then would expect to vet that on campus if there were to be any changes to our present policy on guests. It will still remain that in special circumstances when we will just have to talk about how accommodate very large groups that might come during typical class hours because we perhaps can’t even accommodate them in the ramp. We need to work with that, which we’ve done over the years. We worked with K lot and shuttle busses I recall when criminal justice had many people on campus for conferences to work through that and pay those costs and have that work. We still have things that occur outside the regular policy we’ll have to deal with on an event by event basis. But we will be able to handle 95-99% of the issues with our policy. We also have a provision for deans and vice presidents that they can purchase what’s termed a vendor permit that guests may use. They pay for those so that we recognize some revenue to help offset the costs of operating our parking program.
FA: You said traditionally. I’m not sure how far back traditionally goes. But in my years here we used to have what was called guest passes and those would available in the buildings. And you could get those passes and put them in the car. And then you said guests in the sense people coming to attend football games. Some guests are invited to campus by a department to give a presentation or to provide a service to the university. In those cases we should provide guests with parking. Guests coming to talk to a club shouldn’t be bothered with paying for parking. Do we know what the cost of parking is on a micro-unit basis? Do we need to generate dollars all the time out of the existing budget by taking money from my left pocket and putting it into my right pocket in name of paying or providing revenue when we’re really taking it from the same budget and putting it in the other coffer. It’s not like you’re getting new money from an outside source for some of these costs. What I’m getting at is if I invite someone here to speak and it may be a very prominent person then we’re going to hassle them with parking situation or I’m going to have to run get a car or something. It seems kind of tacky to nickel and dime someone who is providing us a service. I’m not talking about a conference we have here and we have people come and yes they have to find parking and then the parking ramp is available and when they pay it’s another stream of revenue. But we’re talking about a budget that has no money in the first place and we have to now put $20 aside or $50 aside for guest speakers. Aren’t we really burdening people with something as a university we should broad and bigger than that?
Admin: First of all, we are burdening someone if we are providing parking. Parking has a cost. Whether we can parse it to what exactly it costs in that stall this afternoon for an hour it’s a pretty difficult cost to identify. But we try to look at what we charge generally for the parking as a guide for what it would cost, and parking has a cost. The revenue from parking pays for parking and shuttle buses and it may have this one pocket to the other view of that it is very important what pocket we put the money in on campus as people are very aware of. Absent paying for the parking it is someone else who is paying for it. I think that’s part of the discussion, who pays? The other nuance of the discussion is any person that comes to campus because of the nature of the economy and the demand for the stalls and the rights for use of those stalls for people who have permits we will have to make some accommodation that is somewhat less than convenient for the guest than just come on over and park wherever you like. We can give them a card so they can pass the ramp, asking them to park in the ramp and pay the few dollars it would cost or giving them a permit that maybe the dean’s office has for use on that date that they need to return because of the nature of the fact that we have lots that don’t have an unlimited capacity that have great demands on them, we do need to have a way to manage our guests. I think the worse case would be a guest coming to campus and facing a ticket and wondering about that or being frustrated by that. They only way to overcome that is with a process to assist the guest traversing our parking program.
FA: I believe we should be more noble than that. When we invite people to do a service for us that we do not burden them with a matter like dealing with parking, of course they have to find a parking spot, and then we’re going to nickel and dime to cover parking for person who is coming here from the community. If we have to have a parking fund on the university than so be it. I understand microeconomics, I’ve been there. I pay my $250 a year for parking and when I come on campus I can find a spot. I understand all that. But I have people coming on campus weekly and other people have people coming on campus to talk or whatever and we really need a better system.
FA: My concerns have to do with both planning and process. We had this conversation last fall and I think it’s one thing to have people know ahead of time that they need to plan these sorts of expenses and it’s another for them not really to be aware that these are coming up. And so the ability to plan is one thing. I’m not sure what process people would use. Are you saying that if I were going to have a speaker now coming in I would need to talk with my dean and get a pass that she has or I would need to get one of these $5 swipe cards for the parking ramp. I don’t know how I would even do that. To me it’s important to treat guests who are performing some sort of service for us with some sort of graciousness and some consideration.
Admin: The swipe card is new, like I said we just found out last week that we can do this and I think they will be a convenient mechanism because the ramp is so prominent and easy to locate and direct people to who would be guests. But the other possibility is using the pass or two that a dean may have which may be available through the dean’s office, which has been the case in the past.
FA: So am I hearing you say now that departments really have two options they can pay for parking in the ramp now or they can ask the deans for guest passes and there aren’t really any guest passes, which was what we were using last year?
Admin: Yes, there is also the option that Robert calls nickel and diming the guest. They can pay at any of the pay lots or ramp without purchasing the card ahead of time and such. And we had some guest passes last year. That was in deference to the discussion about making a transition as we moved toward the completion of the ramp and that was the case last year. In fact we changed to that. And yes, we would prefer they use the passes through the dean’s office or if we can get these cards in place or pay lots or parking ramp and pay the cash.
FA: Just a sense of numbers. Do you know how many permits deans have?
Admin: They can have up to two.
FA: And they are charged for that?
Admin: Yes.
FA: So, if there are more than two visitors from the college at the same time right now the only way we’re prepared to assist guests is by having cards purchased that we don’t know if they work yet.
Admin: The hang tags are still available which can be purchased in lots, which we had last year. They can be used for the lots besides the parking ramp. In addition to that we’re trying to have these cards to work in the parking ramp. That is new. They are not present yet and we’re trying to accommodate that.
Admin: What is the status of the hang passes you mentioned? Can you just clarify that a little bit?
Admin: I can’t remember where the cost is off the top of my head.
Admin: Daily passes?
Admin: Yes.
Admin: But you could use it in a particular lot that could be provided to a guest?
Admin: Yes.
Admin: In addition to the passes that the dean might have?
Admin: Yes. And depending on the number guests the very small lots are always very limited because of the immediate conflict of a single car being in the lots. And depending on the number of guests sometimes it was further limited to accommodate people.
FA: I think we should report that in Faculty Senate when this came there was great deal of concern and stress about providing limited parking for people we invite to campus. I think we should take this back to Faculty Senate for their consideration and we can come back with some other comments and concerns.
FA: Just to give an example, I was approached by a colleague who has a contact with an indigenous person from Mexico who’s an activist in indigenous rights issues who might be available to come speak to some Latin American Studies classes on campus in the coming week on short term notice. I just learned about this and I hadn’t planned in advance. Latin American Studies has no budget. It seems to me my options are I make him pay for the parking, I pay for his parking, or I hope that out of the two seats that COSS has one of them is available on that particular day and I beat Robert to the dean’s office. I’m not trying to be flippant about this. What I’m trying to say is that I think there are actually serious ways that this can impact our ability to be the best university that we can. I don’t dispute the fact that it costs money. Parking does cost money and it is absolutely appropriate to find a way acknowledge that if we are giving away some of that revenue in order to subsidize people coming on to campus, having a way to keep track of that that’s appropriate. I don’t think any faculty have an objection to that. But I’m saying please do find a way to do that subsidizing at a reasonable and convenient way so that we can open our doors to people who we really do want to bring onto campus and we can have the flexibility so that we can do that on fairly short notice, which is commonly the case. And I know you aren’t trying to prevent my speaker from coming in. I know that’s not why you’re doing this.
Admin: It would be wonderful for your speaker to come in. I would value if there are suggestions about how to do what you described from the faculty, I sure would like to consider that. We’ve tried to accommodate our guests over the years. Parking is an issue which I found out on every campus. The only people who like our parking program seem to be those who have attended the U of M. (Laughter) In any case I would be interested if there were other suggestions. The good thing is that through the ramp we have more parking stalls closer in to campus that are convenient and many of them are covered, at a location where we can direct a person to find it for a visitor who is new to campus. I think you said it well about the issues that surround this. You recognize the cost, you still want to be gracious and find a way that works with the way the university operates.
FA: So, let’s do that then.
FA: Perhaps we could require all faculty to take a one-semester sabbatical at the U of M. (Laughter)
FA: For the record I made it a year at the U without a parking ticket as a student in my doctoral study. The hardest thing I did was find parking and I made it without getting ticketed once.
Admin: Can we move on to a much less controversial topic? (Laughter)
3. Vehicle Use Authorization and Prohibition of Driving by Under 21 Year olds (FA) (08/21/08)
Admin: I know you had some questions about that.
FA: You have some new information?
Admin: I read the notes from last time. I believe it was Judith who put it herself well in explaining some of the issues. I believe we’re past the out of state, over 21 issues?
FA: Yes.
Admin: The issue we have here first is about our student safety. And second, after the safety, is to provide insurance for our operation, and third is to limit the liability of the state and university. Those are the three, particular student safety is the first issue that we have at hand. To that we’ve been directed that there shall be this check of driver license background. And we’ve set up a system ourselves with the DMV so that motor vehicle driving records are shared with the university or any people on campus. The result of a request for approval to be a driver comes to the university but it also comes directly to the individual who made the request. So the individuals are aware of their status. And if they believe the status is in error for some reason, they can go back and engage DMV just like you may over credit rating or whatever it might be. So the only information we have on campus is a list of at this point students and whether or not they’re approved to drive or disapproved to drive. The disapproval doesn’t necessarily reflect that they have a bad driving record, it can reflect that, it may be that they haven’t held a driver license for two years, they could be under 18, they could not have held a driver license in the US or Canada for two years, which is also a requirement. There are several issues that may result in a student not being approved. I have copies if you’d like of what the web page is like for the students when go to register. It says that it takes seven to 10 business days. We’ve found that three to four business days is the approximate turn around time for the DMV to tell campus the status of the students. It’s worked well for us to this point. So, if you’d like that I’m distributing these from the website. It has my name on it because you have to enter an ID in order to access the site because it is only for our students, it’s not for others. It doesn’t have any of my sordid driving record included. (Laughter) But in any case it has the information and the agreement the students accept when they send it in. Of course they can decline to send it in or to participate. But that’s what they send it. This covers use of state vehicles but doing things on university business. If they go student teach it’s just as if they’re coming to class, that’s not covered by this requirement. It is just for when they are on university business in their vehicle or a state vehicle. But it covers use of a state vehicle in all cases. We expected as your notes said that it would be initiated for staff about January 1 and for faculty next July. It’s an item of statewide discussion, particularly among the faculty. Something similar has been in place for state employees and other units of state government for some time, so I don’t expect as many issues around staff because they are in a similar as other state agencies.
FA: This will be on the statewide Meet and Confer agenda. Other campus Faculty Associations have responded in different ways. We’ve been restrained in our response. We’re being urged to perhaps not be so restrained so the volume of people going forward to ask to participate on this campus, I believe, proportionately is the lowest in the system. Some campuses have had faculty advise every student to go in because we don’t know as faculty who might need the authorization. We will continue to be concerned about a policy we know is imposed on the campus. And we’ve been told it was imposed on the system. But this is coming from the highest levels of the administration as a mean and I will dispute that it is not about safety. This is about risk management, which is covering people’s assets. That’s what this is really about. But if it were about safety, it would take a different approach and tact. I understand that’s a good way to frame, but this is about who’s assets are at risk first and foremost. We know you can’t make decisions that need to be made to put some rationality to it. We appreciate the information you’ve provided. We’re going to do our best at the state level to give us something that can work in recognition of our instructional needs. And that will not place faculty in a position that their assets are at risk because of what they do relative to transportation for their students to curricular events.
Admin: There are two other issues on the horizon that are not present yet. One is either a requirement for a commercial driver license or additional training in order to operate vehicles with 10 passengers or more. It’s not yet a requirement. The second one is to use any vehicle for towing that there would be a requirement for a commercial driver license or additional instruction. At first the instruction was going to be at one distant location from campus. We’ve made a request that there be greater flexibility in how may be accomplish. Because it is a little bit onerous to get a commercial driver license.
FA: Will the training be at no cost?
Admin: I don’t think so.
Admin: We don’t know but there was an expectation that there would be a cost and that it would in person and behind the wheel. And we’re not certain right now what the terms of the training will be or what the cost will be or where it will be.
FA: We send out students drivers for large passenger vans.
Admin: We’ve done that on campus for some time and we’ve appreciated your work with us on that because we didn’t have injuries but we had loss issues because the vans were peculiar vehicles. So that’s been helpful. We’ve argued that our traffic safety center has the capability that requires behind the wheel to provide it for those on our campus and perhaps for others. But that is not yet defined. Recreational sports also has a program for towing and for vans but they use what we’ve offered as another example.
FA: The cost factor is going to be very important because departmental budgets are very slim. We do not anticipate these types of expenditures. And some departments involve student drivers quite a bit in their activities. There is a potential cost---
Admin: ---You’re right. The cost factor is important consideration; particularly when it’s first implemented when everyone is subject to it all at once. But we’ve in talking with the Office of the Chancellor personnel we made it clear that a single location, perhaps 100 miles away from here, requiring everyone to go there for some training at some cost behind the wheel, was not a very reasonable solution for us. They’ve been amenable to those comments. That’s one reason why this has been delayed. They are trying to find a reasonable way and I think they are also caught with some of the insurance and risk management folks to find an effective and appropriate way to do this.
FA: Some student workers require background checks.
Admin: Yes.
FA: Sometimes on the background checks there is some information about their driving records.
Admin: The existing program with background checks will continue to exist as they are. And the possibility that the supervisor responsible that there is something that gets on that background check that is to the level of criminal, which I believe is what is supposed to be a background check. I haven’t seen those. I’ve seen speeding tickets. Some of those people must have had speeding tickets. But in any case in this program all the person on campus knows is approved or not approved. And there are many reasons that they may be in the not approved class. We’ve tried and we’ve followed MnSCU’s advice, the office of the Chancellor’s advice, on trying to provide informed consent on the students to see what with this document to see what will happen with those results. But originally the Office of the Chancellor directed that the motor vehicle records would be sent to campus and that we would make a judgment based the list violations and put you in different classifications. St. Cloud State specifically objected to that. We didn’t want to make the judgments on this campus and we didn’t want that information here, and I think it’s worked out very well but the decisions are made at risk management or DMV electronically and overall we get back is the compliance and that is much better than what it was originally.
FA: The filters placed on students, now those will determine…
Admin: The filters?
FA: The two years of the driving records; the two years in the US and Canada.
Admin: There was a committee that met at MnSCU. There were some participants from St. Cloud State on the committee. The initial charge of what should be the requirements, a document was provided by risk management, and that draft was reviewed and changes were made because it created some problems for us. They were amendable to some of those changes. And, so the final document was the result of that committee’s work and the agreement of risk management as to what’s on the list of unqualified, conditional, and whatever the other term is, or not qualified. I don’t know why they took the United States and Canada but not look at other countries but that’s what they took.
FA: It’s going to be a problem with a number of graduate students from other countries. The international students come to work here on our campus.
Admin: Yes.
FA: So it will take two years to qualify?
Admin: If graduate students did not have a license and drive in this country previous to them coming to St. Cloud State it’s a problem, yes. We pointed that out also as an issue of concern for us but it was trumped by the issue of wanting some test for competence of drivers before they were allowed to participate.
FA: I noticed the time. We are not going to solve this issue here today. There is one item that remains. Right?
Admin: There is, but we could postpone that until next time. I don’t know if we have enough time unless Steve wanted to give a report quickly on a budget update.
Progress Reports on Long-term Concerns
6. Report on Budget (ADM) (10/18/07)
Admin: The budget advisory group has met. I would encourage any of you to attend that. We’re moving forward with our new budget process and we’re moving forward now with the carry forward process at this time as we get closer to the last payroll at the end of last week. There was some training done by the Faculty Association in consultation with us and the Administrative Affairs during that convocation week around the process and around budget. We’re developing a training now for similar one for budget managers and office managers during the break days in October, fall break, so, that we can do additional work around that. We will share at our meeting with the budget advisory group our first blush at our expectation for the aggregate budget for the university as we look forward in the next biennium. We’ve begun to get some information from MnSCU and the department of finance and the leadership counsel has begun to discuss it. And we will begin to share some information about as we begin to project. And that will give more guidance as to the character as we move into the next couple years. I think that’s the condensed version.
Admin: There is another group waiting to occupy this room. Meeting adjourned.
Meeting adjourned at 4:59 p.m.