Approved December 4, 2008
Meet and Confer
November 6, 2008
Admin: Earl Potter, Mitch Rubinstein, Steve Ludwig, Diana Lawson, Dennis Nunes, Judith Siminoe, Kristi Tornquist, Larry Chambers, and Wanda Overland
Faculty: John Palmer, Judy Kilborn, Michael Connaughton, Michael Tripp, JoAnn Gasparino, Frances Kayona, Bill Hudson, Debra Leigh, Mark Jaede, Balsy Kasi, and Polly Chappell – Note taker
FA: The President and I made a quick switch. Michael told me on Monday that it was my turn to chair the meeting. Some of you were in a meeting with me where I opened my mouth to say something and nothing came out. I thought I’d have a better voice today but the President graciously agreed to guide the meeting through for us today. Thank you. And, no it’s not from cheering Tuesday night.
Admin: In your case, I know that’s true.
Admin: Before we start let me introduce Mr. Gary Paul. He’s an HR Director for Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University. He and some of his colleagues are visiting St. Cloud State this week. Today they’ve been condemned to spend the day with me.
Faculty introduced themselves.
Admin: Debra and I were there with some other folks four or five years ago. We met his staff, similar to what he’s doing here. At that time it was called University of Port Elizabeth. They changed the name.
Admin: As a result of a merger with two other institutions.
Admin: Thank you, all.
Approval of Minutes
1. October 16, 2008
Admin: I am standing in for the voice of the Association President. (Laughter) The minutes have been distributed. Are there any additions or corrections?
FA: Our side has none.
Admin: The minutes are approved as you read them.
Unfinished Business
1. Email as a Means of Disseminating Information to Employees (ADM) (03/13/08) Latest draft
Admin: The Provost and President Palmer have reviewed this, I understand.
FA: My folks have reviewed it and we’re prepared to take it back to Senate.
FA: We are going to recommend that you take the “H” out of the third bulleted item, which has an extra one. I’m sorry I needed to say that.
Admin: Oh, no.
FA: She’s from English.
Admin: Let’s caucus. (Laughter) There’s a typo to be corrected, and you’ll take this back to Senate. Any particular recommendation…?
FA: I’m pleased with the progress. The document says what we needed to have said. It’s taken a very long time to get it to this point. It’s a better document for it.
FA: I think the third bulleted item, despite of the extra “H,” the mentioning of the bargaining agreement is very helpful. Thank you.
2. Status of 1.B.1. Task Force (FA) (05/01/08)
Admin: We’re prepared to bring this to closure. We’re setting up a meeting now with the task force to review my response to the adjustments. We’re going to bring to that meeting, which the task force group will see in advance, an amended job description for the Director of Affirmative Action. I suspect that there may be some suggestions from that conversation for further amendments. The current version of the AAO’s job description is the result of input by the Color Caucus in its previous instruction with the recommendations of the 1.B.1 task force. That job description needed amendment and it will be shared with the task force prior to the meeting.
FA: Thank you.
New Business
1. Star Alert (FA) (11/6/08)
FA: Obviously we had this come out in our mailbox. We had quite a few discussions last year about emergency notification systems. But this is the first that we knew that we’re part of the pilot. I’ve had a lot questions from faculty who have guidelines in their syllabus that prevent people from having cell phones on and active in the classroom. And we’re wondering how this affects or doesn’t affect faculty who have such criteria or requirements in classroom.
Admin: It would not affect those guidelines. We’ve chosen many methods to inform people of emergencies on campus. This is among them. Just like some are to be on our homepage, some are to use email, some are make announcements via speakers. We place information on radio or television of an emergency nature. Among those many methods one is the Star Alert. This is not intended to change anyone’s policy. It’s just another method for those times when your cell phone is available. People may voluntarily sign up for this. We aren’t going to change policy just like when you should or should not listen to the radio or be on the Internet. It is just another method to get information out to campus to people with an interest.
FA: Surrounding the conversation about this was questions relating to what people had heard about phones in the smart classrooms. Will those be part of the system too? Will emergency messages go out automatically? You know the phones set up for Help Desk connection.
Admin: Not through the Star Alert system. This is a text message system that is specifically directed at cell phones that can receive text messages. There is a separate method to send broadcast voicemail to any phone on campus that has voicemail capability, including your office or those classrooms that may have voicemail capability. So there is a separate system in place since last year that can send broadcast voicemail and broadcast email that go to the various IP addresses. But it is unrelated to Star Alert.
FA: Are there any plans to do anything more official in terms of training regarding these new initiatives?
Admin: We’re talking about doing some training again at Convocation, and the start of the spring term as we bring more things in line. This program, Star Alert, is fairly self explanatory. We’ve sent test messages to people to make sure they work. It’s simply to receive, limited to 120 characters, a message on your cell phone that you have text message capability on. We’ve asked people to sign up voluntarily. We were interested in doing it last year. We were asked by the Office of the Chancellor to delay it for a system-wide program. When they offered that program, we immediately volunteered. So we have this additional option for warning students and faculty and staff.
FA: Thank you. It’s helpful to have on the record to point faculty to.
Admin: About 3% of students have signed up, and about 13% of the faculty and staff. The number of faculty and staff is a good number considering the soft start. The students we need to catch as they enroll and encourage them to sign up.
Admin: I would encourage further discussion among the faculty about cell phone policy with the consideration of safety. It’s totally up to them, but whether they want to modify.
2. Advanced Notice of Early Shut Down of Shuttle Service (FA) (11/6/08)
FA: There is a shuttle from the lower parking lots to the main campus that allows people to have safe transit between parking and classes. I’m told that on the Tuesday before our fall break there was an announcement that went out in some email form that indicated that the shuttle was shutting down at an earlier time than normal. It did shut down before the night classes on Wednesday ended. So students who parked before class and took the shuttle, they went to class, got out of class, and there was no shuttle.
Admin: That was a mistake. We run the shuttle generally consistent with our academic calendar. For some reason there was some confusion in different corners of campus whether or not there were night classes that evening. There certainly were. The link had some incorrect information. I believe that may have been the source, but I don’t know. It was a mistake and it should have run later. It might have been some of the growing pains of the new calendar. That should not be the case in the future.
3. Use of W after student fully participated in a class and received a grade (FA) (11/6/08)
FA: It was brought to our attention that a student who had fully participated in a course and received a grade was able to go directly to the office of Academic Affairs. They stated their case and had their grade changed from whatever it was that was not desirable by the student into a “W” and they did not go through the grade appeals process. They were given a form to fill out and they were able to bypass the normal process for grade appeals. The question we have is: what would be the criteria in which this would be allowed to occur without giving away details of specific cases regarding those circumstances when a student has fully participated in the course?
Admin: Thank you. Well framed.
Admin: “W” is not a grade. It is an administrative designation determination in a student’s registration. So it is not changing one grade to another grade. It’s a determination of registration. At that point, the student’s expectation and the instructor’s obligation to provide a grade ends. The student is no longer in the course. In this case or in any case where a request for withdrawal occurs at the end of a semester the student will use the standard withdrawal form. The form has a specific provision for a request for withdrawal after the end of the term. The student is required on the form to provide documentation of extenuating circumstances such as medical, military service which is handled through another set of procedures really, and then there is a category for other. Other is open-ended. I’m amazed at how many extenuating circumstances there are. One can be family emergency for example. Whatever it is the student can bring evidence and then if that evidence is adequate and founded, Academic Affairs will grant a withdrawal.
Admin: Frequency of those other categories?
Admin: A few per year.
Admin: Percentage of the requests granted?
Admin: Probably more than half because usually students know that they need to have extenuating circumstances, so they are not going to come in on a frivolous basis. We do have students coming in unable to provide documentation and we say, no; but a good percentage are successful in their requests.
Admin: Of course medical conditions would not be shared with anyone outside your office.
Admin: No information is shared. This is student information that is private without the consent of the student.
Admin: Thank you.
FA: Are the faculty informed or do they have to find out themselves?
Admin: It hasn’t been our practice. We just inform the registrar to enter “W” for the student.
FA: I looked at that form recently and I noticed that there was a place for a faculty member to support a request. I’m assuming it doesn’t require a faculty signature and that the student can bring in something that he or she wants to remain private.
Admin: Yes. We use the same form for when students withdraw during the term as well as after the term. Generally, not in all, we need to know the last date of attendance and we do want to know generally whether or not a faculty member supports, does not support, or is neutral about the request. But it is ultimately left to the judgment of the Administrator, the dean’s office, or Academic Affairs to make that call.
FA: I think we’d like to distinguish, if we can, things that are about the class or the teaching of the class from the things that are totally personal. For example, if somebody goes through a divorce at the end of the term, maybe they still take the exam but they realize they were in a state of deep trauma because of personal crisis. That is not the faculty member’s business, it isn’t a complaint about the teaching or that they disagree with the faculty member’s judgment. I’m not speaking in the official way for my colleagues, but I think that’s the sort of thing we would say we understand and that’s not the sort of thing we think is taking something away from the faculty member about making an academic judgment. But then there’s also a possible scenario where it is in some way a statement that, “I didn’t like the way this faculty member was teaching for that reason I want a ‘W’ instead of a grade that the faculty has given me.” Can you assure us that that type of scenario isn’t being covered by this situation?
Admin: We do require documentation. We are subject to audit by MnSCU, the Higher Learning Commission, and the Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Education. They have access to all our records. So, we do need to be able to demonstrate why we made a certain decision. People might disagree with it. At least we can demonstrate it is based on documentation. So, whatever the decision was we do have documentation. So if a student came in and said I didn’t like this. We would say, show me why. The student would have the burden of providing evidence.
Admin: Do you get instances of requests that are based on that kind of case?
Admin: I don’t know about that. I’ve had students come in during the semester and ask for a late withdrawal. They have to come up with reasons and I say, “You need to work that out with the instructor.” Now this is during the semester. Afterward I always ask the student to get documentation in some form or other.
Admin: So the kinds of things that might be going around the grade appeal and the conflict resolution process you drive back to the regular processes?
Admin: No. No. If the student provides documentation then I would consider it. But remember we’re not circumventing the grade appeal process because the student is not appealing the grade by withdrawing from the course.
Admin: I understand. What’s the percentage that there are conflicts with the professor or matters of a way a course is taught?
Admin: Minuscule.
Admin: One out of ten? Twenty? Thirty? Forty? Fifty?
Admin: Somewhere in that magnitude, yes.
FA: Is there any reason why those sorts of situations wouldn’t be sent to the department for a grade appeal? Because I do think this comes out of the student was in the class the whole time, the student performed all the work. It didn’t look as if anything was going on that would be considered documentable. The student earned maybe a lower grade than he or she wanted, the next thing I knew the student was withdrawn. I think there is a concern that wouldn’t those go back through the grade appeals process?
Admin: Again, if a student were appealing the grade, yes. It does go to the grade appeal process. But if the student can demonstrate that the student did not have an opportunity to complete the course then that would be considered grounds for withdrawal.
FA: So, if it is not a change of grade but instead a withdrawal from the registration of the course then it would not need to go back to the faculty processes?
Admin: That’s correct.
Admin: Just keep in mind as we talk we’re mixing several different kinds of things.
FA: We are?
Admin: One is a request for late withdrawal before the end of the course. The second is the situation that is described here: a request for withdrawal after the course. By your report, the number of times when that kind of request was made based on the things other than medical and personal circumstances that might be related to the way the course was taught and the relationship between the student and faculty member, those times are very rare.
Admin: Very rare.
Admin: As we said we’re subject to audit. Undocumented, unsubstantiated requests are not approved.
Admin: Correct.
Admin: So it sounds like the territory around which we might have questions is very small.
FA: Is there a way that the process can be more transparent? So that if a request comes into your office that the faculty is notified that such and such a request has come and then if that “W” is granted they would be notified also that the student in their class is getting a “W”? And also a kind of explanation to go along with that under which circumstances that might happen without disclosing the particulars in the case?
Admin: During the semester it’s standard procedure to notify the faculty member. Afterward, at the end of the semester that’s left up to the Academic Affairs office. If upon hearing the circumstances and documentation we determine that it would be helpful to go back to the faculty member for additional information we’d do so. Otherwise we’d make a decision on the evidence. I understand, you’re saying can this be more transparent. I would have to defer to the law that says we cannot share student information if there is no need to know.
FA: I guess I’m not asking you to share student information as much as I’m asking you to help faculty to know that rather than giving a grade to this student, what the student received was something else than they thought that they assigned to the student. So everybody knows what’s going on. Not necessarily to know any of the particulars or anything like that. I do understand the data privacy that you’re talking about.
Admin: It’s my understanding that faculty members can and do go back to the grading list and they can see when a reported grade change has occurred in the grade reports.
FA: And they don’t know why.
Admin: Yes.
Admin: There are arguments on both sides.
FA: Sure.
Admin: When a student is given a withdrawal for personal reasons I can well see that in the circumstance they might want to be done with it. And they might not want to be exposed to questions from a faculty member: “Why did you withdraw?” My own judgment, and I think this is going to be our position, is that we have sufficient protections. The instance where this occurs is very rare. Even telling people so and so has a medical condition that required a withdrawal is borderline in terms of sharing information. I don’t want to go in that direction. So, it feels to me that a great deal of energy is spent over a rare case where there are audit and control provisions that safeguard the power and the integrity. My position would be that that’s the way it is.
FA: We’ve had a very clear explanation. Thank you.
4. Language on new 9 month appointments on notice of vacancy (FA) (11/6/08)
FA: What we would like to know is if there is direction that is being given. Our concern is that emphasis in the system are taking different approaches to informing potential new hires of the status of our new 9-month appointment, which isn’t grounded in a typical academic year. We don’t know what you’ve been asked or what your involvement is. We have an interest that we are not going to end up being overly alarmist nor do we want to not be fully disclosing the facts of the new contract.
Admin: I’m not aware of any other direction from the system other than all appointments are 9-month appointments. That fact needs to be identified in position announcements and contracts.
FA: That sounds very much like what we’ve heard with one addition and that is a statement and a reference to the collective bargaining agreement. Labor Relations Director Dale has indicated that that language will be there to send people to the bargaining agreement, that is what he’s said.
Admin: I haven’t heard that specifically. The Provost and staff may have. I’ll check that.
FA: Thank you.
5. Guest Parking Refunds/Effective date of policy (FA) (11/6/08)
FA: I believe we’ve had an effective date.
Admin: Do you recall what that was?
FA: I don’t know what it is. I don’t know that we ever announced what the effective date for the policy would be or is. The Provost assured me that if any departments ended up having financial difficulty meeting their obligations at the end of the budget cycle as a result of having paid parking for guests he would take care of it. I don’t know if it is out of his personal account or out of a checking account. (Laughter)
Admin: I heard today of the Provost’s guarantee. What I’m going to do is verify that day and go back. I think there are records of how many were purchased. We won’t know exactly whether or not they were for guests or visitors. But we’ll go back and I will get him the figure of his potential liability.
FA: So if departments were proactive and knew ahead of time of the guest speakers they were having and went over with the understanding that we had a policy going last year that enabled them to get guest parking free and had to pay, and did it ahead of time, and that was before the day that you announced that, does that mean that those people won’t be able to get help if their department budget is short?
Admin: Yes.
FA: Thank you.
6. MOAs on Stipends/Honoria (FA) (11/6/08)
FA: This is simply a statement of what we’ve been told from our parent organization and that is that from this point forward if there is contemplation to use stipends or honoria we need to then enter into a MOA with regard to that, such as a one-time exception to the language of the agreement.
Admin: My response to that is that while I understand the intent of why we might create this agreement locally that there is a task force created by the system in response to the direction of the agreement to discuss this, and there is a management position that is currently in place and I can’t take local action to abridge that activity. So, until the action of that task force, that I think will come to some sort of resolution more inline to this, I can’t preempt that action with an early agreement.
FA: That task force meets across the table tomorrow for the first time. Also, through local Meet and Confer to bring this issue up. There are some other campuses in the system that have been a good deal more diligent about this than others. As it happens we have a rather lengthy list of exceptions and a relatively sparse list of Memorandum of Agreements. I think it is important to say, too, that this in no way represents an effort on our part to prevent people from doing things that we all agree are for the good of the institution. We just have to find the appropriate way to do it given the language of the contract doesn’t mention stipend or honoria as two ways to pay faculty outside of their normal duties.
Admin: I think we share the same objective. I hope the task force can complete its work. But I won’t agree to a local solution.
FA: If I understand correctly the resolution that we passed in our Executive Committee and our goal in this it was not to call for an agreement locally, and I understand your concerns about not wanting to preempt what’s going on at the system level, but rather something that’s in the negative. It’s the local FA’s preference that there not be any more arrangements as from here forward that lie outside of the contractually acceptable ways of paying people. We’re not trying to stop work, but neither are we supportive of continuing to do things that lie outside of appropriate contractual procedures.
Admin: I understand that that’s the FA’s position. Management does not accept that position and that’s the reason for commissioning the task force and resolving it and finding a mutually satisfactory way to do this.
FA: Then it’s possible we could find ourselves at a moment of disagreement about a particular case in the near future.
Admin: That’s correct.
FA: However, I genuinely hope that that that’s not the case. Because really our purpose here… ultimately I think our interests are quite similar but we’re not trying to make it impossible to do.
FA: I did share with Judith today not our resolution, Executive Committee passed a resolution, but I turned it into a statement of our beliefs or principles. You got a copy of it?
Admin: I got it.
FA: I think we’re doing what we can in the circumstances that we have a conversation.
Admin: I’m sorry. I didn’t have the context to be able to realize what I had. So, I can’t really contribute.
FA: We’ve done what we intended.
7. Orientation Task Force (FA) (11/6/08)
FA: I’ve been in conversation with a variety of people that are concerned about the timeliness of planning activities at the start of the next school year. I had a very constructive email that came from the system director of First Year Experience and Transition today that captured the history of what has happened over the last two years. At our Pre Meet and Confer it came to my attention that there are no participating carryover members of last year’s task force engaged. They have decided to proceed without an ad hoc activity, waiting for the report on the Foundations of Excellence. We want to be a participant and provide assistance, but we feel that we need to go through a process that we select those folks. So, we will move as quickly as we can to abide by the charge, which was last year’s charge and structure in indentifying our participants.
FA: The structure for the last two years involved, if I recall correctly, three faculty members, one whom served as a faculty co-chair along with an Administrator appointed as an Administrative co-chair of that task force.
Admin: Well, that’s not exactly what I understood from our earlier conversations. But, the task force now, who are the members?
Admin: They formed an ad hoc or a group to work on orientation. They’re soliciting representatives. So it is timely for you to identify faculty to serve on that. I think they want to get started meeting much like you just said, John. I think it is ad hoc certainly waiting for the Foundations of Excellence report to be done to see what the future is. The recommendation that had come from… I don’t know if you were at the last meeting, Mark?
FA: Yes, I was.
Admin: … I saw those minutes today. But, I believe they had recommended for this year because of Husky Kick Off where Matt Trombley had spearheaded that unit, it would be good for him to also serve as co-chair. But there could certainly be several co-chairs. I don’t know. I wasn’t at that meeting. You were…
FA: I was at that meeting. I don’t remember any discussion about changing the chairing of that task force. I have a personal view on this as somebody who has served on this task force instead of speaking of the Faculty Association as a whole. I don’t think that for the next year it is absolutely critical that there be a faculty co-chair. But I do think that it is critical that there be faculty representation appointed by the faculty.
Admin: I would totally agree with that. I can’t imagine anyone wouldn’t agree with that.
FA: I will also say that certainly Mr. Trombley played an important role in terms of the functions of kick off and so on. And there is important work to be done from that angle. So, everybody on campus has a stake in this.
Admin: Yes.
Admin: The broader context is we’ve had an ad hoc group to do time focused work. That we have the Foundations of Excellence work going on that will certainly make recommendations for advisory groups and structures that will be permanent. And one of those groups will certainly be an appropriate venue for the discussion of the orientation program. So we don’t want to create a permanent group now, but extend the ad hoc task force character of this group. In the spirit of working together, I don’t have any trouble with the view point of the faculty members. Of course there is no one in their right mind that would argue that faculty don’t need to be part of this task force. I do want to stipulate for the record that our agreement to have the FA appoint these members is not the agreement that the Faculty Association has the right to appoint faculty to task forces, which is specifically excepted in the ad hoc time-limited project for the purpose of doing this, which in character is ongoing.
FA: If I may. I think the understanding of the task force in those last minutes that you were referring to was that we recognized as a task force that there was ongoing work. But we also recognized that with the Foundations of Excellence process that the nature of that work might change. It might be linked in with other projects. Therefore this ought not to be a permanent committee at this time because we don’t want to prejudice the best structure of how to handle the process of orientation broadly considered as part of the first year experience, and so on.
Admin: I think we’re on ground that’s okay with me. Because we’ve recognized the nature of this work is of the kind of work that is ongoing. But the focus is time limited. I just don’t want the use of the word task force to be taken as tacit agreement that the Administration agrees that the Association has the right to the appointment of faculty to all task forces, which is specifically not done.
Admin: How many do you need?
FA: Three was the past number and I think that is an appropriate number.
Admin: I think it would be important as you talk to faculty that they understand this is action oriented. They are actually going to be asked to carry forward tasks. It’s not advisory. It is action oriented. So there will be work to be done. So, that may influence.
FA: That certainly is an accurate description.
8. Task Force on Summer Session Structure (ADM)
Admin: I spoke with our President and Provost about the possibility of bringing a concept to you about a task force or some group that would look at our structure of summer session. In the last round of collective bargaining much of the language associated with summer had been deleted from the bargaining agreement. For example, defining summer sessions as two five-week sessions and such, that’s no longer there. We have an opportunity here to potentially redesign the summer to meet the needs of the faculty and effective instruction and at the same time meet the needs of those who would pursue educational experiences in the summer. We are really free to relook at the structure of summer. Should we have two five-week sessions or is there a better way of doing it? It would allow us an opportunity to do this. 2009 the train is on the track. We’re looking at 2010 basically because we’re essentially just wrapping up next summer. It seems as if this would be a timely period for us to consider jointly sharing ideas to potentially redesign summer to better serve ourselves and our students. Simple as that.
FA: Do you have a structure for the task force?
Admin: I haven’t fully confirmed with my Administrative colleagues. I’m hesitant to suggest, to define a structure here without having that conversation. But, I would assume it would include faculty members from each college and perhaps those representing some groups outside the colleges; and the summer session Administrators in colleges, which are the Associate Deans. I would assume they would be on the task force because they work with the departments, and myself and Annette Day, and perhaps someone from Records and Registration and perhaps HR. They are all players in this, and there may be others. Again, I haven’t had a chance to fully confirm and define the structure. But those groups seem to be the players.
FA: So the message to Senate and our membership is “stay tuned for more recent developments”?
Admin: I believe we’ll have a chance to discuss this and if that’s the case we’ll reach some agreement. I’ll email you and be in contact with you soon. I don’t think we have to wait two weeks. But I’d feel more comfortable if we engaged in the discussion that we haven’t had yet, the Administration.
FA: Currently there seems to be, which I do favor, a great deal of flexibility in our current structure. Our courses in Educational Administration, for example, do not run weekly for five weeks.
Admin: Right.
FA: We go Monday through Friday, 8:00-5:00. And that agrees with our students and it allows a lot of flexibility in how we can have this course in the summer.
Admin: That’s right.
FA: And that is our heavy enrollment. It’s summer.
Admin: For many departments, it is part of what they do. This certainly is true for your department.
FA: Yes.
Admin: This would allow us to hopefully take advantage of the opportunities that we have, and relook at it. That’s essentially it. John, after speaking to my colleagues, I’ll get back to you.
FA: Thank you.
9. Request for Participation in VP for University Advancement Search
Admin: Both this search and the Provost search are going to employ search firms. The RFP to select the first search firm has gone out. These meetings will be scheduled in early December. They’ll be posted in December. Applications will be received in January. And the review will begin immediately.
FA: We know that you made a similar call on the Provost. We do have a list of nine and the tenth from the Executive Committee for the Provost search since we previously discussed that search at Meet and Confer. The VP for University Advancement, when the document arrived earlier this week we just haven’t had an opportunity to get back to you and be assured that we’ll act as quickly as we can because we know the importance of judicious speed to get the best people to be candidates and make the best selection of the candidates.
Admin: In case anyone wants to have, for their own information, the request to appoint people to the Provost Search, there’s a copy of that message as well.
10.Conflict Resolution (FA) (11/7/08)—not discussed; added to agenda today.
Progress Reports on Long-term Concerns
1. Intellectual property and releases from PR (FA) (08/30/07) Latest draft
FA: I believe we’re one step away from being able to agree to the draft that is in front of us. Mysteriously arriving with the Special Advisor to the President was a document that made three points about the previous draft. Judith, you responded to those as best you could. What we’ll have to do is take this to the IFO and I’m hopeful that what they’re going to say is “agreed.” But, we have to go through that formality and that step. I thank you for your good work.
Admin: You’re welcome.
FA: I was one of the faculty members—there were a couple of us—who raised concerns about this, starting a couple years ago. This certainly goes a very long way toward responding to the kinds of concerns that I had. I see this as an example of productively working together, once again, for things where we have common interests.
Admin: Thank you.
2. Report on Budget (ADM) (10/18/07) Status of Plans for use of Carry over from FY 08 to FY 09 & Status of Ed.D. Higher Education and M.S. Regulator Affairs investments (FA) (11/06/08)
FA: The two items we’ve listed I’ve discussed with the Provost fully expecting that there wouldn’t be a response today, but that we are concerned about having you come back to us. There are some substantial amounts of money that were carried forward under specific lines. There was an effort to try and change the means by which that happened so there would be an accompanied plan for those carry forwards. That didn’t work as expected. So, I identified some targeted areas. I believe the Provost asked the Deans Monday or Tuesday this week about that in the specific colleges with regard to the status of the Ed.D. and M.S. programs. There was budgeting information that showed a projection at which time they would be self sufficient or revenue producing. That is excess revenue to expense. We’re just asking for a status report or where the finances are for those two initiatives. I’m not trying to preempt Steve in making a report about the budget but those are just two questions that came to the Provost through this meeting.
Admin: Can I get a copy of the marked up list. That would be helpful, John, because there may be some questions that come through my office.
FA: I’ll get you a copy.
FA: I have a question relating to the new budget processes that we’re following regarding departments and units. I’ve been told at my department meeting today that we’ve been asked for our budget requests for November 28, I think. But during that meeting we have a unit within our department that reports to other places in terms of finances, specially the Writing Center. And they haven’t been asked for a budget proposal and we’re wondering if units that are not departments are supposed to some how report in with their budget requests as our department?
Admin: There are many units that aren’t departments. We expect budgets for each. I jotted down the Write Place just to make sure that is coming back and through the Provost’s office. We need to roll up all the budgets across campus. The Write Place is a good example that’s a little different than some. There’s an expectation that all would prepare budgets and come up through their appropriate dean or directly to a Vice President or the President. I’ll talk to the Provost about it.
Admin: If it helps on Tuesday this week Michael did ask for some clarification of the carry forwards.
Admin: As you noted the figures on the EDD and Masters of Regulatory Affairs are not finalized yet. I’ve seen the drafts. Regulatory Affairs looks to be solid and into the black. EDD, it’s not clear where it is.
FA: Thank you.
3. Article 22 Task Force (FA) (02/01/07) Draft Memo on PDP and PDR Comments
FA: We’re very close to having a philosophical statement that the Provost and I would sign that would go out to all the folks that deal with Article 22. The exchange between several people on the task force today was whether the words “would be able to” were appropriate. We had some fun with that. There is a serious comment that someone on our side raised and there continues to be some confusion about the language concerning where the comments about the PDP goes.
FA: I was hopeful that this memo would have clarification about that because it is one of the most commonly asked questions that we get. I think there is confusion about that. I had understood that the committee was in agreement that the comments go to the faculty member, and that it is a mentoring function. The deans are certainly able to ask departments or department members if the PDPs and PDRs match the department goals. I think that part is really clear here. I do think that faculty and deans need to hear the same message about the comments. Without that piece in here, it’s not complete.
FA: Specifically in my department, History, and interaction with Dean Harold we’ve had apparently a different understanding because he specifically asked our department to provide comments on the PDPs to him. My understanding, consistent with the schedule that appeared on the website earlier was that comments are to go to the faculty member who had written the PDP and that the comments that the dean could solicit from the departments had to do with whether or not the PDP was responsive to the goals and objectives of the department. So, we definitely need to have that clarified for all parties so we’re all doing the same thing. Additionally, I’m not sure to the extend which this is related, but when I went to the university website under administrative documents in an effort to find the list of schedules and procedures for articles 22 and 25, the document was not available online. That was as of yesterday. Well, that’s just for your information that it wasn’t there.
FA: Now it seems to be an odd time not to have it available since we’re in the midst of that process.
FA: I was going through Administrative documents going through the front page. I went to faculty and staff and then to Administrative documents, there is a link for calendar and procedures for Article 22 and 25 and that lead no where. You’re going through the office of the Provost. That’s a different sequence.
Note Taker: Go through the Faculty Association.
FA: If I went through the Faculty Association I could have found it.
FA: But if there’s a link, the link shouldn’t be dead.
FA: I’m not suggesting that anyone is concealing anything.
FA: And the document does address the question. The document says where the comments go. They go to the faculty member. And if a dean wishes to ask the department chair or members of the department how the plan fits for the goals and objectives of the department, then those comments would go to the dean and to the faculty member. I’m seeing my colleague on the working group nodding her head.
Admin: That’s right.
FA: So, there’s agreement on it, it just isn’t in the memo?
Admin: It’s the process, and for Dr. Harold he’s pretty new.
FA: Yes, he’s just coming on board. And in fairness there were a lot of faculty who were confused about this too, so again I’m not accusing anyone of trying to violate rules or deceive anyone, I’m just saying there was confusion in my department and in our interaction with our dean.
FA: I think we’re done.
Admin: Okay.
4. Status of Administrative Searches: Provost, AVP for Faculty Relations (FA) (05/15/08), AVP Research & Faculty Development, Dean COFAH, Associate Dean COSE (renewed by FA) (10/2/08) Associate Dean COSS, LR&TS Associate Dean
FA: I talked to a college of Science and Engineering faculty about COSE Associate Dean Search. Also, I talked to the chair of the committee and he said he doesn’t know anything about the search process. That’s kind of perplexing for me. Another faculty asked two weeks ago and he didn’t know about it. I was kind of surprised. If I was mentioned as a search committee chair by others inquiring, I would go and find out myself what is going on.
Admin: That would make sense. I’ll track it down.
FA: There is an addition here. We are prepared to move forward to populate a search committee for the LR&TS Associate Dean position and we need to have it on the record that in so doing we do not in any way believe our moving forward changes the merits of our argument on the grievance, which is waiting in arbitration. So, I’ve met with the IFO faculty in the LR&TS and they provided a suggestion of the composition of the search committee. They believe that 60% of the search committee should be IFO faculty. They’ve got a formula by which it would be a portion within LR&TS and then across the whole university. I can certainly share with the Provost as I share it with Senate.
Admin: You’ll give me names?
FA: Technically, we’d have to agree to the nature of the composition before we would populate it. It’s not much different. It’s a larger group than last time, but it is a similar composition of what occurred a year ago.
Admin: Michael came to me with five faculty and one at-large and I said that would be great. He asked to have one administrator on the search.
FA: If he can communicate that with me, that’s something that’s consistent with what we’re hearing from the LR&TS IFO members.
Admin: Maybe we should caucus.
CAUCUS
Admin: Okay. Kristi, you have not requested the members yet?
Admin: I did request back in September. I asked if they wanted to repopulate the committee and I’ve been waiting to hear from them.
Admin: As with task forces, I can appoint the committee I want and the structure I want for an Administrative Search. I believe there should be faculty representation and I invite the Faculty Association to identify the members. But we’re not suggesting that we’re offering the structure of the committee for your approval
FA: I understand what you’re saying. Our past practice has been to try to come to agreement on the structure and to populate based on that agreement. In this case we had reason not to go forward and we wanted to consult with the folks that were involved. We came back with something that says it presents a problem to us. If we get wrapped up in an issue, not of our making, that is a fine point of determining composition at the expense of moving forward on searches, we’ve got to look at practice. That surprises us.
Admin: I don’t think it should be a surprise. This is a position that we asserted all along that we have the right to define the structure for Administrative positions.
FA: We will await your proposal of the structure of this search committee.
Admin: It’s not a proposal. You may call it a proposal but it’s a definition of the structure of the search committee.
FA: And we will respond when we receive it.
Admin: And we will move ahead with the search when we have your response.
FA: Thank you.
5. Foundations of Excellence (ADM) (04/17/08)
Admin: I was expecting Dave to be here because he’s co-leader of that. As far as I can see he’s moving ahead on track. The committees are populated and working.
FA: When I visited with Dave yesterday, I have the same impression. Bill, you had done some investigative work. The product of that may be helpful to this group.
FA: This predates my service on EC. I was a lowly Senator. This is a proposal that was brought to Faculty Senate and voted on January 24, 2006. It was subsequently brought to Meet and Confer on February 2, 2006. Again, this was when I was a Senator.
Admin: Help me understand what this is.
FA: It is an information item and we’re hoping to get back to the people working on this. This is a motion, a resolution that passed a number of years ago at Senate that no action ever got taken to respond to the substance of it.
FA: We brought it to Meet and Confer. And since we’re now looking at issues that are involved with this idea through Foundations of Excellence we thought it would be a good idea to bring this back and see if now there is reason to act on it.
Admin: Here?
FA: Not today. No. We brought it to Meet and Confer before and I believe, we got no response. So, we’re sharing it with you for the first time.
Admin: Okay.
FA: We certainly don’t expect a response today.
Admin: So, Dave and Mike are not taking this into the Foundations of Excellence program as part of their deliberations, but it’s being presented here as a consideration to the Administration?
FA: Correct.
FA: I would point out that at the time of putting this together, there was one other group: Dance was added as well.
Admin: Just for clarity then, I’m willing to accept this as an addition to the agenda, appropriately filed under new business. But it really doesn’t relate here. If we’re not commenting on it because of the Foundations of Excellence Task Force for consideration then it’s being presented to the Administration
FA: That’s fine. Okay. Thank you.
6. Task Force on 9-month Appointments (ADM/FA) (04/17/08)
Admin: Michael Connaughton, myself, Kristi, and Wanda, plus two additional faculty members have met one time a week-and-a-half ago. We’re scheduled to meet next Monday. We’re identifying issues. And trying to determine the number of appointments for fall and spring that may not mirror our academic calendar as well as identifying language that would be a part of notice of vacancies now with the effective bargaining language. Those are the tasks we’ve just begun. Michael, do you have anything?
FA: No. As you say, we’ve just begun.
7. University Scholars and Endowed Chairs (FA) (05/01/08)
Admin: We met.
FA: You did?
Admin: We did meet once, today actually. We talked about what we would do moving forward. We decided that the way we can best serve the process is to look at best practices at some of our peer schools in terms of how they define University Scholars and Endowed Chairs and how they go about the process of doing that to provide as much information as possible to the Administration in setting the process up.
8. Policy on Religious Observances (ADM) (04/03/08)
FA: There is a draft document. We have identified three faculty to work with whoever you wish to work to bring this to completion. I do have a faculty member eager to convene the group, saying that he would like to see this work done before the beginning of December to get this completed. Joseph Edelheit, from our side, is wanting to convene. He wrote the document to bring it back and hopefully have an agreement. This would then become policy.
Admin: May I offer an explanation. If you look at this document you see the full extent of my working thought on this. The top is my proposal. But it is drawn upon just a general understanding of the law in this area and two other policies. One that you’re revising: the excused absences policy that we talked about here previously. And the other one is workplace religious observances policy. So obviously we’re talking about students, it’s not work but the principles are similar. I just wanted you to know why those other two things were on there.
FA: I have a question. This could turn into a long discussion and I don’t want to take it out of appropriate place for it, but can you tell me whether it is your legal opinion that led to the sentence: “The student must not be forced to choose between behaving consistently with the student’s religious beliefs and completing course work”? Was that your wording or was that taken from…?
Admin: I would call that the educated layperson’s shorthand for a free exercise test.
FA: I really like the feel of it. Then it suddenly occurred to me suppose someone’s understanding of their religious beliefs included for example an academic position such as creationism, which the academic would disagree with.
FA: Some.
Admin: Yes. I have a great presentation on that. (Laughter)
FA: As regard to something like my religion requires wearing certain garments or observing certain holidays or things like that. That’s one kind of concern. And there are others that are a lot more difficult. Those could be difficult, too.
Admin: The reason that it ends with: “Questions will be referred to the dean” is because there are a large range of continual questions that do require legal analysis. And there are things that we as a university couldn’t agree to. There are things that probably would bother some of us that we would have to agree to. So, it’s not easy to have it set.
FA: Okay.
FA: So, that last sentence that points to the dean’s office, is there an assumption that the dean would work with you to figure out?
Admin: There is. Well, yes. I am the official liaison counsel for the university. Yes.
FA: Okay.
FA: I have a problem with “the faculty member must…”
Admin: Oh, yes. I borrowed that from this other one; the intention of making it within the faculty member’s discretion. The appropriate make up would be the faculty member is going to have control over the extenuating circumstances, just similar to the existing policy.
FA: “Must” sounds like I have to decide otherwise.
FA: We have three people ready to go work. I think you’ve got the three names: Joseph Edelheit, Bob Weisman, and Semya Hakim.
Admin: Okay. Thank you.
9. Vehicle Use Authorization (FA) (08/21/08)
FA: I did share with the Vice President of Administrative Affairs the last draft of the frequently asked questions that had been given to us. I could not find anything at the MnSCU website, so what I did is I sent you the document that we last received at statewide Meet and Confer from Keswick Joiner. We expect that whenever you’re comfortable in sharing that you’ll be sharing it with faculty as a way to explain the impact of the policy. I emailed it to you.
Admin: You emailed it to me? Thank you.
Admin: Anything else on this one?
FA: No.
Admin: Is this continuing?
Admin: Yes.
FA: Unfortunately, yes.
Admin: That concludes the planned agenda. We are done.
Meeting adjourned at 4:29 p.m.