Meet and Confer Notes Approved
12-04-2008
Administration: President Potter, Provost Spitzer, Wanda Overland, Larry Chambers, Mitch Rubinstein, Kate Steffens, Judith Siminoe, Kristi Tornquist, Steve Ludwig, Patty Dyslin – note taker
Faculty: John Palmer, JoAnn Gasparino, Mark Jaede, David Warne, Bill Hudson, Michael Connaughton, Frances Kayona, Judy Kilborn, Balsy Kasi, Debra Leigh, Michael Tripp
Guests: Rich Josephson, Wade Nelson
Approval of 11/6/2008 Notes: approved
Unfinished Business:
UB1: E-mail as a Means of Disseminating Information to Employees (AD – 3/13/2008) Latest draft to Senate – November 25, 2008
FA: I goofed on this and didn’t get it into the Senate packets on the 25th of November so the Senators have not had an opportunity to act on it. I don’t expect there’s going to be a problem but I can be surprised. In a democracy, strange things occur. Michael’s reminding me… on the November 6th minutes, do we have any dispute about those minutes?
AD: No.
FA: Then they can stand as approved and made available to the campus community.
UB2: Conflict Scheduling (FA – 11-6-2008
FA: At the last meeting Bill Hudson raised an issue from several senates ago that talked about conflict scheduling or conflict avoidance scheduling and we’re simply waiting for questions and clarity or a response.
AD: Can you repeat the question?
FA: Can you repeat the question, Bill? The Provost was not at the last meeting.
FA: A couple years ago at Faculty Senate we approved a declaration that we would support conflict avoidance scheduling for people, kind of along the same lines as the absence policy for individuals representing the university at various events. Obviously that would include athletes, debate team, dance, and what have you, and they would simply be allowed to perhaps register, have the option to register, after disability students and honor students which go earlier and it would be only for the first two years of a student’s career here, thinking that in years 3 and 4 they would be senior enough in credits that they would get into the courses they needed. The idea of this policy, for example, would be a first year student 18 sections of Communications Studies that they could get in to could have the seniority to select one that met in the morning and could generate a schedule that would be less likely to conflict with their practice schedule.
AD: After the Faculty recommended that we do this, we brought that issue to the Student Government and the Student Government voted not to support preferential registration for any of the groups on campus and we indicated that to the president and he decided to leave things the way they were. The prior president.
AD: This president would support such a request.
FA: I don’t believe we ever heard that response.
AD: It is something that we can revisit.
FA: I’m seeing Bill nod his head. Bill brought this up to our organization’s attention and we renew our request for an examination of a means by which students that are representing the university have an ability to select classes that do not conflict with the preparatory activities associated with representing the university at a performance, an event, contest, etc.
FA: I would also point out that in doing my research when I first brought this proposal forward, Minnesota State University Mankato and University of Minnesota Duluth have, and I assume still have, policies addressing this.
AD: We’ll revisit that and come back to you on it.
FA: Thank you.
New Business:
1. Task Force on Summer Session Structure (AD – 12/4/2008)
FA: Dean Nunes talked to us about this at the last Meet and Confer. Do you have a proposal for us?
AD: I have a proposal to create a task force composed of 6 faculty, one from each of the colleges and one from a non-college unit, the five college associate deans, a representative from records and registration, another from human resources and the administrative director and director of summer sessions, to review the current summer session schedule and make recommendations for a schedule which will maximize effective instruction and meet the needs of those seeking course work in the summer so that we can do a more effective summer schedule now that the calendar has been changed. This would be, not for this summer, but the following summer – Summer 2010.
FA: We’ll get back to you as quickly as we can with names for each of the college representatives and a sixth name for what we refer to as special services.
AD: Thank you.
FA: You’re welcome.
FA: The time frame under which that would operate would be Spring semester? That is, this task force. Since any recommendations would have to come forward before the end of this academic year.
AD: Yes. That’s correct.
2. D2L Purge (FA – 12/6/2008)
FA: I suspect that our member and colleague, Rich Josephson, isn’t here just for the fun of it.
GST: Last time I was here everything went okay so I’m hoping that the same thing goes today. I just wanted to take this opportunity to share some of the information on D2L. D2L, the system, is planning on purging courses that would be older than 2 years. That would be deleting the courses from Spring 2006 going to Fall 2005 and before. I’m going to pass around a handout that has the notification that came from the system office and a notification that we followed up. I’ll just give you a little bit of background on where we are with sharing of this information. Last year, when we were here last time, we were talking about the deletion of some older student data. When we sent out the notification on that on August 21st, we did have some information included that we thought that there would be some forced purging going in the future. On November 13th we had a notification from MnSCU that a purge was iminent and Wade Nelson, who is in Learning Resources and also works with the D2L system, pulled together a communications plan to share information with the Faculty to help prepare, as best we could, for this event. On the 18th of November, MnSCU came out with the handout that I gave you saying that the purge had been recommended and would be occurring in the middle of December. We waited about six hours hoping that people would read the first e-mail and then did a follow-up e-mail from Learning Resources with a reminder on it and then some detailed information about how to go about backing up the information themselves. We followed that up again, about a week later, with again a reminder and an offer for workshops and an offer to assist Faculty if they needed information or help backing up their courses. We also have that information up on the sign-in page. It’s the top item. It states: “Purge News – Important Notice for Faculty,” and it is on the TLTR agenda for this Friday. We are planning on, next week, sending out a reminder to chairs and copying the deans to remind them that this is occurring in case somebody missed that. And then a week before the purge actually occurs we would send out one last reminder to Faculty saying: we really, really mean it – this is imminent – no change in plans. We would hope that under those circumstances we would be set. There would be no backup unless the Faculty go and choose to backup their information. Most Faculty are teaching courses on a regular basis and would be copying material from one semester to the other and it would not effect them. But there are some courses that are held infrequently so if perhaps somebody is on sabbatical and hadn’t taught a class for a couple of years and then wanted to go back say three years to pull course information, those are the people it would effect and those are the people we’re trying, with this communications plan, to make sure that they’re aware of it. Any suggestions, comments on our communications plan or technical questions for Wade?
FA: We recognize that the decision to do this was not made on this campus, was not made with counsel from this campus – that it happened. There are ideas that I know Judy wishes to express. When she has done that, I will tell you what the statewide IFO is doing in response to this so that we have the same set of information. I trust if you have information that you don’t have we’d end up having that exchanged.
FA: Senate passed a motion last time that essentially requested that we have the ability to have an opt out so that if you have courses that are not offered as frequently as every two years or are keeping assessment information through the use of D2L or are doing research on teaching on-line, that you would have the ability to opt out of the purge. So that’s what Senate voted on. I would like to make just a few additional comments. It seems to me, that I’ve heard, and this is just rumor, that the purge that we underwent before didn’t actually purge – that the files are still there and they just can’t be seen. Is that true?
FA: We were told that. That yes, it’s true, that the statement was made to get rid of the records discussed but that the version of D2L that we’re currently operating on is incapable of purging it so what they did is they archived it in a way in which the original user cannot see it. We were also told that the mechanics of being able to do the purge will not be available under D2L until January – that they have to convert to the newer version to be able to do the purge. We’ve not had a chance to meet and confer on this subject. We will on the 12th of December, but the reality is that this is the end of the semester on all of the campuses due to the unified calendar and we’ve added another piece of work that doesn’t appear to need to be done when it’s being asked to be done.
FA: That was a related question – why is this happening in December when people are scurrying to close out the end of this semester. The third question has to do with – and I know these decisions have not been made here – but you’ve all heard the governor quoted in the Chronicle of Higher Education saying that we should have 25% on-line. I’m wondering how we’re possibly going to do that if we don’t have a system that’s robust. And right now D2L is far from that if we’re not being able to archive effectively things that we need to pull. I actually tried just deleting some of my older stuff and I had to go in and delete it piece by piece. I couldn’t actually just delete the course. I had to go through and delete it piece by piece which seems to be pretty dysfunctional. I do need to finally say that I’m a believer in on-line education so I’m not saying this in a way that is arguing against it. I just like reasonable tools to use that have some flexibility.
FA: There is some good news. Part of the good news is that the IMS
Advisory Council has been expanded. What that means is that we now, from the Faculty Association, have a representative from St. Cloud State on the IMS Council – that’s Tom Hergert. At least in that respect we can expect to have a voice that knows what it’s like to deliver instruction on campus. The other good news is that the IFO was convinced of the necessity of forming its own instructional management system taskforce. So there will be a group that’s meeting from all of our campuses to try to coordinate providing wise counsel to those who make decisions about instructional management systems. I’m optimistic that the Office of the Chancellor is going to listen at Meet and Confer on the 12th, and if it is true that the discussions that we thought were purged haven’t been purged, and that the work can’t be done until January, that we can get a reprieve from this December deadline and schedule the work in a way that doesn’t conflict with the end or the start of a semester. I know that you’ve got to prepare for the worst. We’re hoping for the best.
AD: We might just check to see if Wade is familiar with either of those rumors. We have a CIO meeting next week and I will certainly ask at that meeting. Are you aware of any….
GST: I can’t say with certainty regarding the original purge. I thought the files were gone and I can’t answer that. Regarding the other question, my understanding is: yes, it’s true that the actual purge tool itself is not available currently and won’t be until we take an upgrade to D2L. But what’s being discussed for December is working in conjunction with a vendor to run a process outside of the purge tool. So what was being discussed and what was announced was running a process that will purge information but it’s being run outside of the purge tool. So perhaps that subtlety could certainly cause some confusion.
FA: Given that we’re kind of bumping up against something that was anticipated, what’s the turn-around time to have a developmental course added? I assume we still have to go through the request.
GST: A very short amount of time. If there are issues with courses where we run into a problem where we need to keep it, we can certainly work with you on looking at backing up. There are several different options. One is to show you how to back up, help you back up, do the back up for you, or go and look at some other options if none of those are acceptable. There are some other possibilities that we have. They’re not very elegant but we do have ways. That’s one of the reasons we were looking at sending out the information to the chairs, so that if we run into something that would be an issue for accreditation or courses infrequently taught, if there’s not any other way that looks like a good way to help the faculty out we would see if there were some other options available.
FA: At this point, is there any limit on the number of developmental courses, within reason, that I might have sitting on the shelf? These are questions that have come to me as well my own.
GST: I don’t know the answer to that. If all of a sudden they become large enough and become an issue that as they’re scanning a saying “where is the space being taken” then I’m sure it will become an issue. Smaller numbers, at the moment I have not had any indication that we’re approaching a problem in that area.
FA: And a small number would be six?
GST: If every faculty on campus that’s making use of D2L made six developmental courses and tried not to have them purged, I suspect that that would be a flag that would come up and might be an issue of not gaining enough space. Part of the problem that I think we’ve got is the success of D2L and about a 20% semester increase in its use. I continue to be surprised that it continues to grow every semester and the students tend to like it and the faculty are making better use of the tool, using more sophisticated parts of it and all of that adds to the crunch that we’re in right now. I would like to have seen a little bit longer time, but I also understand the growth of it and some of the issues that they’re having with it. I’m sort of prepared for the worst and hoping for the best myself.
AD: You mentioned that the purge is going to take place in mid-December but the Meet and Confer is December 12th. So you’ve got a couple of days, maybe, in which to respond, yet you seem to be assuming that if that happens you’ll have until mid-January or later to makes these...
FA: Yes. If what we have been told by people who are reliable sources, the date that was picked was arbitrary. It wasn’t one that was picked out of a plan of any sort. If it is true that there are some difficulties in executing what needs to be done – one of the things that gets suspicious is when you’re told that the cost of a terabyte of memory is a factor of 1000% higher than what you can buy a terabyte of memory for in the commercial market and that was the reason we had to purge. That was included in the argument that said memory is really expensive, storage space is really expensive and they quoted a price for a terabyte of memory and one of our executive committee members said “Well I got a 3 terabyte hard drive right here on my desk in my office and that only cost me 50 bucks” and they said something like $35,000 was what it would cost. So there are some credibility issues when someone oversells the case. I heard David talk about ways in which the impact could be lessened. The reality is in an efficient system. It should be easy to dispose of that which is obsolete so that you don’t just carry that obsolete system, that material. Unfortunately, as many of us know, the design of how internally D2L works is very inefficient. I think that I’ve been told that every keystroke that has ever been entered into D2L is stored in memory – from the day it started being used to today. If you think about that it’s like, holy mackerel, how did that ever get built? Well we bought – that’s the way the engineers, the software people, built it. We’re also told that we could expect to see a change to the instructional management system away from D2L within 2 years. Let’s hope that we don’t have that happen where we have to scramble at the last minute and our folks have to do that. The optimistic side is we as a campus will have a voice from the faculty side at the IMS Council and the faculty state-wide are getting organized to be able speak with a stronger voice than one that’s fragmented from across the state. Let’s hope for the best. You folks have done a good job for us under worst-case scenarios in the past.
GST: If we find out anything new we will certainly be sharing it as we have with our other communications.
AD: Thank you.
FA: Thank you.
3. Plans for Undergraduate Deanship (FA – 12/4/2008)
AD: This is an item that’s come up before. As you know and we will be discussing this a little later on the Foundations of Excellence. One of the things that the taskforce and various dimensional groups of the Foundations of Excellence is doing is looking at some of the ways in which we’re organized. As a consequence of that we want to wait until we get further information from the taskforce to determine what kind of structure makes the most sense in terms of how we organize our first year programming and that will determine the decisions that get made about the Dean for Undergraduate Studies.
FA: Does that mean that in the interim we’re going to continue with an interim?
AD: Yes.
FA: Thank you.
4. Number of Post Deadline Use of “W” each year (FA – 12/4/2008)
FA: In general terms we can that we’re interested in this. This is one of my oopses. The exact wording of the Senate motion and intent was hotly debated at our pre Meet and Confer. So rather than confuse you with the wrong question at this time, we’re just saying that we’re eventually going to want to know the actual number of times a “W” has been entered. We believe what our Senate wants to know is when its been entered over the objection of a faculty member. Beyond that we can’t and don’t expect an answer today.
AD: Actually, we did come with an answer to part of that today, but not the part that you just mentioned. I don’t know about objections of faculty members. Mitch has done some analysis of some of the numbers.
FA: We might as well hear it.
AD: We’re looking at the number of post-semester requests for withdrawals. We looked at Fall of 2008, Spring 2008, and Fall 2007. In Fall 2008, we had 26 requests for late withdrawals from previous semesters. This does not include withdrawals during the current semester even though the deadline is past, we’re not counting those. We talked about late withdrawals after the end of the semester. During this current semester, we have 26 requests so far and we’ve given 23 approvals and that amounts to 45 different classes where a “W” was entered. In Spring 2008, we had 83 requests and granted 76 approvals amounting to 152 classes where a “W” was entered. During Fall 2007, there were 29 requests, 26 approvals and 44 classes where a “W” was entered. Now a couple of things first. Most of these requests are based on health-related issues, medical emergencies, and other matters. The other thing is that we have upwards of 2700-3000 class sections every semester. So when we talk about 45 classes, that’s 45 classes out of 2700-3000.
FA: The second number for Spring 2008 was?
AD: 152.
FA: Thank you.
FA: I’m trying to understand what these numbers mean. When you give us, for example, 83 applications, 76 approved, 152 classes, does that mean 83 students made requests but they may have made requests for multiple classes?
AD: That’s correct.
FA: Okay.
AD: The other thing is that the timelines can vary. Most frequently, I wouldn’t even say that, requests tend to be for a recent semester. In Fall 2008, we had 26 requests. Eight of those were for Summer Session classes, 8 were for Spring 2008 classes. But we also had one going back to Spring 2007, Fall 2005 and Summer Session 2004. Some of the others go back even further. There is a wide variety of situations and circumstances that students face and we take all of that into account.
FA: I’m just wondering, these are rather higher numbers than you seemed to be guesstimating at our last meeting. Not a huge number in the total context of classes. Do they include, or do you have any way of knowing that these are all cases where a faculty member had given a grade to the student? Did some of these people have an incomplete that turned into a withdrawal?
AD: It depends. I would have to guess that in most cases the final grade was that it was an incomplete that turned into an “F” – and we have three flavors of “F.”
FA: Mitch, knowing that our questions are not precise. You’ve done some additional analysis and you’ve shed some additional light on the use of “W” that perhaps the best thing to do is to get our heads together and make sure we’ve got the same question being asked and answered. It’s my sense that the faculty want to know that the integrity of the teaching/learning process is being preserved. Their concern is to be assured that students are not being allowed to enter into a game where they avoid their academic responsibilities. I think that’s where the energy comes from on the faculty side.
FA: Just scanning quickly and not being very precise, it appears that it’s about an average of two classes per approval. It would be accurate to say, in many cases that it’s not the student’s entire course load for the semester but the withdrawals are from some classes but not all. I know that’s not something you have right in front of you, but that’s what it appears to be.
AD: Based on experience, I know that in some cases, we have students who have taken only one or two classes during a semester. Occasionally I’ve seen where a student had partially withdrawn and then completed the withdrawal process. So there might have been 5 classes, 3 of them already with “W” and then they later apply for withdrawal from the other 2. That’s just an impression.
FA: It wouldn’t be safe to say that students are just withdrawing from 1 or 2 classes that gave them trouble, there may be other things going on that we don’t see in these numbers that suggest it was a withdrawal from the entire semester but it just isn’t reflected here right now.
AD: Right.
FA: And there is no hard way to know that today – I understand.
AD: I would ask that that kind of question, which is complicated, be framed precisely so that it can be answered correctly.
FA: This was just an impression, but I was curious based on the almost two to one ratio. If it is germane to the motion from the Senate, we will include it next time.
FA: Thank you, Mitch.
Progress Reports
1. Intellectual Property and Releases from PR (FA – 8/30/2007) – Latest Draft
FA: There was an exchange of e-mail with the latest draft as modified based on the counsel that the FA received and sent to Judith. If that one is being accepted, we’re done with this process relative to PR. If not, then we’ll continue our discussion.
AD: Can I tell you what worries me about it?
FA: Sure:
AD: The sentence that concerns me in this “Faculty Authorization for Use of Data” and the release – the person is giving permission for their image and information to be used. It authorizes SCSU, employees, agents and personnel to use my information for publicity, marketing, and promotion of SCSU and then we added a proposed run-on sentence – and for other educational purposes in support of SCSU’s mission not to include uncompensated instruction – hoping that would resolve the concern faculty would have an image captured that could be used for instruction without their permission. So the proposal is to strike “and for other educational purposes in support of SCSU’s mission not to include uncompensated instruction.” The concern I have is that it limits this document for use for publicity, marketing and promotion and I think we routinely use recorded public forums in search processes occasionally, I don’t know for sure I’m just assuming that’s something we probably do, or if we have somebody who makes some sort of presentation and other people can’t be there and they want to be able to see later. It seems that those kind of purposes are educational purposes consistent with mission. They’re not instruction and they’re also not publicity, marketing and promotion. It concerns me to constrict it that narrowly by bringing that restriction.
FA: What was the original purpose of the form?
AD: That’s a good question. Unfortunately, I didn’t ask that question when I got started to modify it. I believe this form was originally being used in an effort to have one form that would serve many purposes and I philosophically disagree with that approach. You really can’t have one form for visitors to the university, university faculty for PR purposes, sponsored lectures and presentations and I think that was the original goal. I think what we found is that it’s not very workable.
FA: So if the intent is for faculty members to give permission and information to be used for marketing purposes, then this satisfies that purpose.
AD: Yes.
FA: So we’re done with this part. If someone wants it for some other purpose that you identified in your remarks or that may come up later, then the thing is to bring the form to us with that request.
AD: Let me just say that while I think having one form is not practical and realistic I think having as small a number of forms as you can have is easier to deal with so I’m not sure we’d want to have it this narrow. I don’t know that it’s really my decision.
FA: What Robert is saying is logical in that it does fulfill the PR function. That’s what it’s most often used for. Could we say we’re done with this form for that purpose? I think it’s too complicated to include all these other cases and I think it makes it more difficult to use the form also. It seems to me that if you want something that can be used for these other concerns that you’re talking about, that’s really a different kind of form and I think you complicate things by giving that information to a person to sign and there’s a chance that functions could get mixed up. I would think that this would be a good PR form.
FA: I was one of a number of faculty members who brought up some concerns about the form about 2 years ago when I was doing a filmed talk as part of the Queen Elizabeth Exhibit and I was giving an historical presentation about the connection between Elizabeth and the Americas. I saw this blanket form that said this could be used for ever and ever for anything and I wasn’t too comfortable with that. As I contemplate the kind of situation that your describing here, I certainly had no problem then and would have no problem now if some fragment of that or a picture, a still of me talking was worth something in terms of attracting new students to the campus or something like that. Great – use it – I’m delighted. I’m not sure I am delighted about leaving open the door that it might be rebroadcast at any time at the discretion of the administration, under any circumstances, a piece edited out of it. Then we’re getting beyond… that was service, that was something that I didn’t have to do, but I was happy to do it as a service to the university. I think we may discourage people from doing that kind of service if we can’t give a reasonable guarantee that and let them know that there isn’t going to be multiple and repeated uses of it in an educational sense.
FA: My sense is that we’ve made great progress, that we’re at a point where we have to answer some fundamental questions and that this is not a place to debate what the answers to those fundamental questions are, but to identify them. Judith, I’d be happy to talk with you and involve our counsel and I have the input of my group, and proceed. But the form that we have, as drafted, clearly does deal with the public relations side of the dilemma. The form that we started with was for everything. Between now and the next Meet and Confer we’ll see what we can get done.
AD: Okay.
2. Report on Budget (AD – 10/18/2007) Status of Plans for use of Carry Over from FY 2008 to FY 2009 and Status of Ed.D. Higher Education and M.S. Regulatory Affairs Investments (FA – 11/06/2008)
AD: I missed pre-meet but I assumed that would be me. The first thing on the list is – John, you’d sent a list of five carry forward items that you wondered about and I’ll report on those relative to administrative affairs. There’s also one that relates to university advancement that I will try to speak to also. The first one was a university scholarship account that had about $315,000 in it. Those are funds that we identify for scholarships, mostly used through admissions and I believe that there was, generally as we started this there was some concern about if they made awards how high the subscription would actually be of students attending and subsequently renewing them a second semester or whatever. Also there was some interest in having the funds continue and that concern was redoubled as we recognized that some of the sources of our scholarships through return on investments in the foundation were not as strong. Anyway, that still intends to be spent on scholarships for students to help manage enrollment. That was Vice President Rudnitski’s intent and is Michael’s intent also.
FA: Just to get a sense… If my memory was right, the number was higher as a carry forward in the prior fiscal year.
AD: Yes.
FA: So there were some dollars that have been spent out of this category.
AD: Yes.
FA: What I’m hearing you say is that you’re holding some of these in reserve to cover an uncertainty and that that might be an ongoing function.
AD: Yes. They did last year and we maybe have come to that uncertain time so I expect it to decline this year again or be extinguished, perhaps.
FA: So we may or may not look at this being a carry forward in a future year.
AD: Right. I think it’s likely there will be some because of the care in not over-awarding and some students not attending or declining or whatever. But I would not expect it to be this large.
AD: Some of it will carry multi-year offerings for students so that not all of the money can be expended in the first year.
FA: Thank you.
AD: The capital campaign was a sum we set aside as a one time expense a few years ago. During that time we didn’t immediately proceed with the capital campaign. Now there is more discussion around that and we’re still carrying it forward for that purpose – to plan and initiate a capital campaign. I’ll leave that to the president and fund raisers and the incoming vice president for university advancement to plan around that. But that’s certainly the expectation – and that’s $503,000.
AD: Just a little more background on that. A feasibility study that was done found that we really weren’t ready for a capital campaign and that further preparatory work needed to be done. Some monies in that fund are being spent on preparatory activities, for example, the feasibility study we’re doing for the National Hockey Center and that work is coming out of that fund. But because they’re for small chunks and not for the original purpose they are being used at a slower rate but it’s still devoted to getting us ready to initiate a capital campaign.
FA: On several of the campuses in the system there is a more direct link between the Faculty Association and the foundation and fundraising than here. Part of what might be occurring is because there aren’t any faculty members linked in the loop as it were relative to fund raising, we see the big number and we don’t have other information. I don’t have any idea of why we’ve had that tradition.
AD: It’s something we can certainly talk about. The foundation is a separate 501(c)(3) so that the structure of its board and committees, while there’s conversation with the university, is separately decided by that board. We now have development officers in most colleges and it could be very helpful to have colleges have conversations with development officers around fund raising strategies for the colleges. There’s room for greater engagement and perhaps we should talk about that.
FA: Thank you.
AD: The next one was the parking ramp which we set aside as one time funds. As of June 30th the parking ramp was not complete. There were still payments to contractors and engineers and for equipment. So that will be extinguished and whatever would not be as we get to the end of the project, we wouldn’t carry forward for that purpose in the future.
FA: Thank you.
AD: The last one is kind of peculiarly named, I thought, as a business building foundation. What it is, is we identified about $1 million a few years ago for furnishings and equipment that was to help with Centennial Hall, also the former Business Building renovation for which we only received funds for mechanical and electrical work, and also to help with Riverview. It’s also assisted with cash flow because the foundation had a substantial responsibility for fund raising for Centennial. By the time we got to the end of the project the foundation had fulfilled its responsibility to Centennial but we had spent some of that money to get the furniture ordered in a timely fashion so these are funds that were transferred. We’ve spent some funds on Building 51 and we also anticipate using the balance of these funds when that’s complete to assist furnishing and equipment for Riverview – then that should bring this all to an end. If there were sums left, we have needs for furnishings and equipment around campus. I think that barring some other decision we would likely pursue that and continue to improve furnishings and equipment.
FA: Thank you.
AD: The last one was the Advance Preparation Program which is in Dr. Overland’s area and I think she’s prepared to speak to that.
AD: The Advance Preparation Program, commonly known as APP, resides in the Center for Multicultural Student Services. You probably know that that program covers over two fiscal years because it happens in the summer. So many of the expenses that are incurred don’t happen and costs aren’t accumulated until August or September. The other piece of that is the plan to move into the Richard Green House after it was renovated. We had anticipated that would happen last spring – it didn’t – so we moved in this fall. That required us to spend the funds this fall for additional furnishings, computers, etc. so much of that money has already been spent. There will always be kind of that because of the summer program.
FA: Thank you. I think those were all the ones…
AD: Those were all the ones you asked after – yes.
AD: The other item that you were looking for was budget information about the Ed. D. in Higher Education and the MS in Regulatory Affairs. I don’t know if you had an opportunity to distribute…
FA: Yes. My committee did get a copy of them when they arrived today.
AD: One thing that I didn’t e-mail you, because I couldn’t, I only have a hard copy version of it, was the proposal that was made for the Ed.D. in Higher Ed when it was originally approved. I have copies to pass around.
FA: We’re going to restrict our questions to clarify what is presented because we’ve not had much time to look at it.
AD: I understand.
FA: But it would be helpful if the simple questions get answered about those two programs and their finances. It will be helpful to have the original document to compare to the actual experience.
AD: We find that it’s very different.
FA: I’m pretty good at reading over shoulders and I noticed that. Do we want to do the Ed.D. first?
AD: Whichever you’d prefer.
FA: Let’s do the Ed.D. because that’s coming around. On the spreadsheet, without the ability to see how the formulae are structured, let me with what I think is an easy question. On the bottom, under the annual net there are negative numbers.
AD: Right.
FA: I know what they mean. But what I don’t know is the relationship between the three numbers. One possible relationship is that they’re separate and discreet
AD: Correct.
FA: The other is that they’re cumulative.
AD: No. They’re separate and discreet.
FA: They’re separate and discreet… so the net in the first year of operation was negative $45,000
AD: Correct.
FA: The net in the second year, which is not yet completed is projected to be negative $164,000 and then in the projected third year, the differential would be a negative $32,000.
AD: Correct.
FA: Is there anyone else with any questions about the spreadsheet?
FA: I’m wondering if someone could speak to what projected means for Spring 2009 and whether or not that’s the same as projected for ’09-10.
AD: I think the projection for ’09 is probably a more comfortable number because those are the students who we’re expecting to register for the spring semester. Whereas for ’09 that would include the admission of another cohort of students into the program. So that number is a little less firm.
FA: So the number of enrollments projected, are those enrollments that have currently been made or expected?
AD: For Fall 2008 there are current enrollment numbers. For Spring 2009 we don’t know for certain what the final numbers will be. That’s why it’s listed as a projection.
FA: If I follow-up on Judy’s question, in Fall 2008 there are 44 students enrolled.
AD: No. There are 44 course enrollments.
FA: 44 course enrollments…
AD: Right.
FA: That’s generating 132 credits.
AD: Correct.
FA: So that could be 22 students taking 2 courses.
AD: Yes, and that’s likely what it is.
FA: Any other questions clarifying what’s on the spreadsheet?
FA: I’m just looking at the other one, the projected faculty FYE wondering how it will play out under the current budget conditions.
AD: Which are you looking at?
FA: (speaker held up a sheet to be viewed)
AD: That was the proposal when it first came to Meet and Confer about two years ago.
FA: Okay.
FA: If I read this, the line under expense, you’re projecting into the next fiscal year the same level of staffing that exists this fiscal year.
AD: Correct.
FA: Any other questions about the Higher Ed operating budget spreadsheet? Let’s move on to the Regulatory Affairs … what’s the S stand for?
AD: Services…
FA: and Services budget. Once again, the annual net revenue is discreet, not cumulative.
AD: Correct.
FA: So if one were to net out this one, it appears that we’re $70,000 to the good cumulative.
AD: As long as the spring projections hold.
FA: Can we go back? I lag a little… I understood from our discussion at pre meet and confer that we would have time to look at this and think about our questions and have an opportunity to come back so I don’t want to just say we’re done and let’s move. I want to come back to this once we have time to review it.
FA: You’re correct.
AD: That was my expectation as well.
FA: Thank you.
FA: Regulatory Affairs and Services. Obviously this is a lot more pleasant to look at.
AD: It’s certainly simpler and a little more straight-forward in that regard, yes.
FA: If there aren’t any questions, we’ll take this back and if we have follow-up questions we’ll do so. There were a number of items that were identified under the carry forward that fell in your office, Michael. I do know from a comment the dean made that there was some discussion about those items at an Academic Affairs Council. Are you prepared to respond?
AD: I think there was a question about the North Branch cohort?
FA: Yes, that’s one of them.
AD: I believe Dean Steffens is prepared to respond on that one.
AD: The carry forward?
AD: Yes.
AD: The North Branch project began about 10 years as a self-supporting project. So the carry forward funds that we have this year will be used to finish up our Bachelor of Science in Elementary Education with a Math cognate and then start-up projects are the Teacher Leader Certificate and the Autism Certificate that will begin in Summer 2009. So our funds will be used for those activities.
FA: If I heard correctly then, once those funds are expended, the continuation of those programs would be based on the same allocation process that we have for all of our academic programs.
AD: That project, and Steve you might know a little more from the history of 10 years ago, but the North Branch project is self-supporting so the tuition, I believe just the tuition goes into that account, not the fees.
FA: In order to determine if it’s self-supporting we would have to see not only the carry-forward but the actual expenditures just as we did with the other two programs. I think the interest is to say what is the status? How does this work? Is the amount of money there simply as an accounting activity to handle cash flow? How does it then interact with the larger budget? Programs that are ongoing, particularly successful programs that have lasted a number of years, it sometimes is forgotten how they got their start and what commitments and statements were made. We did not have a precise and scientific way to identify what to ask about. It was $100,000. It was a crude measure to say if it was this big, we’ll ask about it. Perhaps if we saw an accounting over time of how that program has worked out we’d understand why there’s the carry forward.
AD: Let me suggest an alternative approach. We don’t currently have a way of allocating revenues to programs like this that makes sense to me. There’s a significant number of places across the university where we start programs, they generate revenues and have some agreements where the program gets tuition and the allocation goes to the general budget. As the distribution between allocation and tuition changes the assumptions that were in place when the agreement was first set up are now out of date in terms of cost sharing so there’s a more fundamental question about how we fund new programs, how revenues are distributed. In Continuing Studies, in general we retain a lot of revenues. We may be retaining more revenue there than we’d like for the operation of the university. So there’s really a fundamental budget management question that I would suggest that the Budget Advisory Group work on as a larger topic. Because continuing to put you in the position of where you have to ferret around and say “Well, what about that one?” and we answer and then “What about that one?” It really doesn’t get to the fundamental issue of: are we using the revenues we generate appropriately? It also then extends to, if we’re going to do that, then I believe, particularly in these budget times, we ought to extend the question to all of our programs in terms of: how do we evaluate the sustainability of the programs that we’re offering? How do we deal with programs with very small enrollments that in fact, aren’t generating enough revenue to sustain them? Those things are hidden in the way we currently budget. We’ve begun to look at small enrollment questions because as you can appreciate, and Steve, pardon me for moving way ahead here, but most of you are aware, the forecasts were announced today, most of you know the figure is that there is a $5.2 billion deficit in the next biennium with a $426 million deficit in the current year.
AD: The $5.2 billion includes the $426 million in the current year.
AD: The $5.2 billion is what was announced. Does that include the $1 billion inflation figure that’s not in the budget?
AD: No. It doesn’t include inflation and the state economist discounted the inflation because we’ve got such problems with revenue and everything else – let’s not worry about that.
AD: I would say this is an understatement of the size of the problem when you look at the inflation question and its potential resolution. Anyway, it’s a big number. We’ve only created scenarios up to a $3 billion deficit. So the size of the problem, as people are saying in the media and I’m sure you’ve heard said elsewhere, we can’t cut our way out of this and we can’t tax our way out of this and gimmicks don’t work. We’re going to need a comprehensive approach statewide that probably uses all of those three approaches. The university system and we will have to make cuts much larger than we have thought through yet. In that environment, it’s going to be really important that we keep our eyes focused on the mission and address inefficiencies in programs that aren’t generating revenues and are costing more – that have a negative impact on the bottom line. We’re going to talk about this. In the early budget planning we have acknowledged that need but the situation we’re facing makes that urgent. It’s related to this. It’s sort of the flip side of this in terms of the budget. And so because of the significance and the complexity, I would really suggest that we really take a fundamental look at these questions at the Budget Advisory Committee rather than just continue to poke at instances where there’s a balance that seems higher than it ought to be.
FA: I believe the Advisory Committee is ad hoc, so if whoever showed up did in fact try to make progress on having a more rational approach as to how funds are carried forward. What we envisioned a year ago and what happened were different things. I would agree with you that it is a systematic set of questions of how we as an institution examine the questions you’ve raised. We do it together. We do it in a transparent way so that we’re not surprised. That means that we at least then can focus in on what the problem is rather than debating what that problem is. We can focus on coming up with solutions.
AD: With respect to your comment. We thought we had an approach and we see some results that don’t seem like they should come from that approach. I would also suggest that as we enter each specific question, we look for patterns that could explain the variance from expectation and address the patterns in reframing or restating the expectations.
FA: Thank you. We figured that the multi-billion-dollar gorilla in the room would eventually speak. I grew up outside of the state, in Illinois, and I went to school in Illinois and if Everett Dirksen were alive today he’s say: a billion dollars here and a billion dollars there, pretty soon we’re talking about real money.
AD: That’s only true when you’re talking about the federal government.
FA: That’s right (laughter)
AD: When I was in high school I did get to hear Everett Dirksen speak in Iowa at the retirement of our senator that who was warmly know as Hick because his name was Hickenlouper. In any case, I recall Everett Dirksen. I can just give a little summary perhaps. The economist projected a $426 million dollar deficit in the current biennium that has six months left to run. There’s an expectation that that would be managed by the legislature or absent their management agreeable to the governor, the governor has the ability to deallocate. That’s the term that’s used. So if we use the formula that it’s all equally distributed between state agencies based on their use of funds, that would come out to about $16 million for MnSCU and $1.6 million for us between now and June 30th. But we don’t know that that’s the case. When the governor spoke he reiterated his belief that there should be no new taxes. It’s not that we have a deficit, it’s that we have $32 billion to spend in the next biennium to accomplish what we want to accomplish and we should spend it wisely. I also heard in one news report that he, and this was the reporters word, that the governor intended to protect vets, cops and schools. But I didn’t hear the governor say that in particular. There will be a lot of machinations about what to protect. The $4.8 billion, if you look at MnSCU’s share and you assume it’s all distributed evenly, which has not been the case in recent years, would equate to $9.4 million a year in the coming biennium. To give you a matter of scale, our budget is about $140 million a year. And to give you one more point for scale, in 2003 the issue was on the order of $4.1 billion when the state budget was somewhat smaller. So at this point, it’s not quite as bad as it might have been in 2003. The legislature may take action on the current year. Probably, I suspect it would not take action on the subsequent year until sometime after the forecast that comes out in early February. That’s the last forecast they have if they complete their work in a timely fashion – which we certainly hope that they will.
FA: Are you saying that there’s a potential $11 million reduction that the university would be looking at?
AD: No. I’m saying that if you assume that it’s all equally distributed among all state agencies, which in the last several years, including 2003, the higher education was not proportionately nicked. So based on past experience, that is beyond the ceiling that we would expect.
FA: Those were discreet fiscal years.
AD: Yes.
FA: The $1.6 would have been for the current fiscal year.
AD: Yes.
FA: And the $9.4 would be for each year of the coming two.
AD: Correct.
FA: So the cumulative is 19.2 in the next biennium
AD: It’s actually $18.7 plus the $1.6. If you made $9.4 million in cuts the first year, you wouldn’t have to make them the second year presumably. The biennial math gets kind of puzzling, but that’s just to give it a skim.
NOTE: during the last part of the discussion numerous individuals were speaking at the same time and not all of the conversation was picked up by the recorder.
FA: See, I told you it was a big gorilla. It’s a big number. We kind of expected that it would come up. We do appreciate the answers to the questions we had that assist us in understanding where money is being spent and being able to guesstimate and formulate opinion on if it’s being spent wisely. That is appreciated.
FA: Can I ask Steve for a clarification on one thing? You talked about deallocation. Does that mean that if the legislature passed a bill allocating money to XYZ Agency, the governor can go back and take that money away without legislative approval?
AD: Yes. In the case of a deficit, because the state can’t have deficit spending, then the governor is authorized in the constitution to deallocate to prevent there from being a deficit.
FA: Without the legislature’s consultation?
AD: Yes.
FA: Thank you.
FA: I trust what’s probably going to happen is that the informal group that’s met to take a look at budget assumptions will be called together again to look at the new numbers.
AD: Yes.
3. Article 22 Taskforce (FA – 02/01/2007) Draft Memo on PDP and PDR Comments
FA: Michael and I have signed the memo that will go out relative to the philosophy of interaction between faculty and administration regarding Article 22. We have one piece of business remaining for that taskforce and that’s to come to an agreement on a calendar of events associated with non-renewal. When do we expect that it might be finished?
AD: I think we might need one more meeting and that part can be resolved.
FA: Okay.
4. Status of Administrative Searches: Provost, AVP for Faculty Relations (FA 5/15/2008), AVP Research & Faculty Development, Dean COFAH, Associate Dean COSE (renewed by FA 10-2-2008) Associate Dean COSS, LR&TS Associate Dean, VP University Advancement)
FA: There was a meeting of two search committees this week.
AD: More than that.
FA: Two that had their first meeting.
AD: The Provost search committee had its first meeting, the committee has been formed. The RFP for a search firm has been issued and responses received so I guess we’re at the stage of selecting from among those proposals. I’m going to go according to the listing on the agenda. The AVP for Faculty Relations search, I believe finalists have been selected, identified anyway, and questions are being refined for those finalists and they’ll be invited to campus. The AVP for Research and Faculty Development: that committee has met. The Dean for Fine Arts and Humanities search committee has met twice and they’re moving forward. The Associate Dean for The College of Science and Engineering: the paperwork has been submitted to Affirmative Action so that search can move forward quickly. The Associate Dean for the College of Social Sciences: the paperwork for that has just been signed and that committee will start meeting shortly. The Associate Dean for Learning Resources and Technology Services: we need the names of those committee members from the Faculty Association so that search can move forward.
FA: Well speaking of that gorilla, we obviously recognize that these are positions that are important and there’s work that is to be done. At the same time, there is this little problem of this enormous deficit that looms before us. We are aware that already some administrators have begun to communicate with their faculty about issues like course sizes and so on. And we recognize that this is part of the reality of the situation and we would like to be part of a productive conversation for the whole university. That this is an opportunity we have, what could be a productive and good faith conversation about our future and our needs and so on and we hope that decisions about hiring of administrators will be considered in light of that. We also recognize that the positions that happen to be vacant at this moment are not necessarily the most dispensable. Merely because there is a vacancy right now doesn’t mean that is the best hole to leave open. But as we look at this picture overall it’s our hope that there will be a similar degree of rigorous scrutiny to administrative searches and decisions to hire, even if they’re underway, as has happened in some cases of faculty searches that have been underway and have been reconsidered because of the kind of situation that we face. How that ends up playing out is a substantive question and it’s also something that has implications in terms of the tone that we set in terms of our relationship with one another and our relationship with the university as a whole.
AD: The President is scrutinizing every one of the positions that is going to be filled and approving it. Within Academic Affairs at least, I can say that we’ve had a position for an Assistant VP for Planning. That position has been kept vacant and will not be filled.
AD: You also have two positions for which money was allocated to hire a P-16 Coordinator and a STEM Coordinator. I will not fill either one of those positions now. They are both urgently needed but we’ve coped without them. Having put those two aside it adds new things – we have to do some things to Faculty Relations Assistant VP and Mitch’s job too. So we’ll have to rethink both of those jobs to make sure that we take on some of the tasks that we would have hired the folks for. So there are, even now, decisions to not move ahead and hire positions that are funded. So yes, I completely agree with you. It’s sensible.
FA: Thank you for that agreement on a very sensitive and important topic where there are, at times, differing interests.
5. Foundations of Excellence (AD – 4/17/2008)
FA: I believe there is a request that you’re going to make for an appointment of a member with special expertise. We have a person that we recommended be added because a gap was identified in knowledge of the steering committee.
AD: Right. That’s Suzanne Erkens of Communication Studies to be appointed to the Dimensional Learning Group. David, you can give an update on this.
FA: Suzanne is the Director of the basic 192 course and so will have information concerning that course and how it relates to first year experience that comes with reassignment that she gains for doing that. There are some pieces of that puzzle there are some questions about so I think it’s a valuable insight. From the FA side we realize that we had a fairly large gap in any type of voice at all for student athletes in the first year/30 credits. First year, by the way has been identified as 30 credits or less so that means some of our students in their third semester would still meet the definition of first year based on the Foundations’ recommendations for defining that. We realized that we had no expertise sitting at the steering committee table specifically from student athletes. So we’ve asked Professor Hudson to join the steering committee and how much time he’s able to identify and filter out into one of the other dimension groups remains to be seen. But at least he’s an advocate for students in that process. A couple of things for you all. The faculty/staff survey is finished after receiving 562 notices about please do that (laughter). We received a response rate on that at last count that was somewhere around 47-48%. We’re told by Foundations that for a campus with a collective bargaining kind of agreement, although ours may be different than any place else in the nation in some ways, that is an extremely high return. So the faculty and staff, in terms of completing that survey, have really kind of stepped up for us. The student survey just hit the street. It will be completed during finals. The timing of that was kind of an interesting notion. My understanding is that there will be a raffle for an ipod donated by the Computer Store for anyone who completes the survey. Anyone who completes the survey will be given a 10% discount on items from the Husky Bookstore. There have been some incentives for students that have been included. Hopefully we can also do a return rate that is high. Last count there was, we sent it out the Tuesday before Thanksgiving and when we came back from the weekend, there were already 400 responses in the computer from the students, even though they were gone. So we’re hopeful that will also be good. We’ll be setting deadlines for dimension group reports – hopefully in a staggered fashion so that they’ll start trickling in on the 1st of February, that’s still our target and to be completed on the first of March and then the steering committee will compile the final report and we’re still hopeful to be completed by the 1st of April at the latest. It is moving along. The questions that are coming up are insightful and sometimes difficult and some are questions that in my 20 years have not been asked before. I think the consensus, if I can predict it, is that the money invested in this process is fruitful and hopefully will garner some of the kinds of results that were expected when this decision was made. It continues to be a very positive experience from my regard. We do appreciate that.
FA: We formally recognize your request for the appointment of a faculty member with special expertise.
AD: David, will you make note of that?
FA: I will let her know. She will likely be in my office in the morning.
AD: You said you formally recognize our request…
FA: And support it. David is the one that brought it. I think this is a good example of how we can work together in what some would call an adversarial environment. This is a real tribute to partnership of what’s going on and we need to recognize when things go well.
FA: We need some formal recognition of Bill.
FA: Bill’s a member. We don’t have a problem with that.
FA: We were bringing his name forward to the administration.
FA: The provost is shaking his head – you don’t like Bill?
AD: We love Bill. (laughter)
FA: To clarify this for the record, it is the intention and probably the practice that there will be some movement and fluidity in the members of the dimension groups over time. When we get to second semester, there may be people who have time to get involved in the process that did not initially volunteer and we would expect to have this kind of change over for the next several months. So we will be making that kind of reporting fairly regularly as we finalize those plans after Christmas.
FA: To clarify, Judy: we, the FA agreed to appoint Bill and we announced that. We were asked if a non-member with special expertise could be on the dimension task force and we acknowledged and supported that appointment.
6. Task Force on 9-month Appointments (AD/FA 4/17/2008)
FA: Is there a report from this task force?
AD: The committee is meeting weekly on Mondays. We’ve come to an agreement to focus on the five criteria and will begin looking at criteria one at our next meeting and look at issues related to the 9-month appointments and how that effects various areas.
FA: Thank you.
7. University Scholars and Endowed Chairs (FA – 5/1/2008)
AD: Is there anyone here from that task force? I don’t have a report.
AD: They are meeting as well.
FA: Thank you.
8. Policy on Religious Observances (AD – 4/3/2008)
FA: This is another oops. I thought it had been taken to the Senate and they had approved it but I was reminded that Senate had not taken up the matter.
AD: I thought, in fact, that it had and you had sent me something that said it had been taken up by the Senate and that it had been approved.
FA: Yes. That’s right, because that’s what I thought and I was wrong. (laughter) That’s why there’s a committee. They told me I was wrong.
AD: So your report that the Senate had approved was…
FA: Premature.
AD: Premature. Okay.
FA: I said I had multiple things to apologize for. (more laughter) That was the third one.
AD: Well I still have it in writing from the president of the Faculty Association that this was approved. (continued laughter)
FA: I know that. You’ll use it against me – often. (laughter)
FA: Until the Senate catches up with the approved document, will you wait until then?
AD: I’ll wait.
FA: You’ll wait. Thank you. Appreciate it – to avoid the embarrassment.
9. Vehicle Use Authorization (FA – 8/21/2008)
FA: We did see an announcement today but it wasn’t the one we’ve been waiting for. We thought a couple of Meet and Confers ago that there was going to be something put out that would help Faculty in making some decisions about who to send to get the vehicle use authorization form. And Steve, you and I, I thought I had sent you a copy of the frequently asked questions that Keswick had given the IFO.
AD: Yes. The frequently asked questions are posted on the Buildings and Grounds website with the vehicle use stuff and there available they’re if people have questions. I didn’t send it out and I wasn’t sure it was the intent to send it to all Faculty and Staff. The vehicle use form is available on the web for anyone that would need to do it. We’ve had some fits and starts over the staff use of this form and we sent this out today trying to be ready for January 1st. MAPE generally expected that to happen. AFSCME has told us subsequently that they believe that in negotiations with the successor…
FA: MME
AD: What is it, Larry?
AD: MME.
AD: Okay. In any case it is on hold until the policy is revised which I understood the policy applied to other state agencies. So we will resolve that one tomorrow with respect to staff. The questions are posted on the Buildings and Grounds website with the vehicle information. We have heard repeatedly that it is easy to use for students or others to fill out the form and that the authorization comes back pretty quickly.
FA: I will send out a note to the Faculty that encourages them to look at the website with the frequently asked questions. I do need to tell you that the IFO’s position is that the policy on vehicle use is one that belongs at the negotiating table. Of course, we don’t have to worry until July 1.
AD: Right. I understand that and perhaps that’s AFSCME’s view. I’m not sure. So there may be a note tomorrow if AFSCME indeed has this side agreement that we’re somehow delayed on AFSCME. I know there’s a conference call with Keswick next week on Tuesday, so it’s an interesting nuance that we’re working through.
FA: We did have true confessions of the Chancellor at the last Meet and Confer. The Chancellor confessed to having been driving and talking on two cell phones. (laughter) Witnessed by Jerry Janakowski.
FA: Reported by Jerry and confirmed by the Chancellor.
FA: Yes. (more laughing and jesting)
FA: Any student who may be eligible to drive needs to put in their request by what date?
AD: July 1st it started for students generally and we gave some leave to get into the fall term.
FA: So they’re already in…
AD: Yes, they’re already in.
FA: We’ll have new students at the beginning of the semester so we will have them do the paperwork.
AD: Yes.
FA: Thank you.
AD: If you know who they are already I would encourage you to do it as soon as possible.
FA: I’ll talk to them about it.
FA: Any Faculty or staff who are eager beavers and submit their portfolio for this policy. If there’s something on there record they will not be allowed to reserve a vehicle if they’re not authorized. You said they’d be authorized right away – they’ll also be not authorized right away too.
AD: Yes. But since the policy is not yet in effect we won’t be denying people for a procedure that isn’t in place.
FA: It has happened.
AD: I’ll go back – for Faculty and staff?
FA: Yes.
FA: So I saw the message about putting my drivers license. Am I expected to do it?
AD: No. It says that Faculty are not required to do this until July 1st.
FA: If a person elects to do it early and something comes up that is not in compliance with what ever…
AD: The standards.
FA: practice they have, the person will be denied immediately.
AD: The only reason that a staff or Faculty member should be denied the use of a vehicle now is not having a license. That’s always been the case that you have to have a drivers license. They didn’t always verify it, but it was in the policies and procedures that if you’re going to drive you have to have a license.
FA: I think you mean valid drivers license.
AD: Yes.
FA: That person has submitted the materials and they have not been authorized to drive a state vehicle.
AD: Yes, I understand, and that should not be happening now and I will go back at that one.
AD: Steve, I’m not sure you can say that. I think we need to be careful with that because if we have knowledge that a staff member doesn’t meet the qualifications as agreed to, then I don’t think we can authorize them. The problem is, if they do it early, they’re putting themselves at risk of that judgment. I’d just be careful because you clarified what you said but there are two different things here. We don’t need to caucus… One is the policy that we won’t check anyone before July 1 or you don’t have to register before July 1. But if we go through and check somebody and find out information that they don’t meet the standards, then I think we’ve got a problem if we authorize them to drive in violation of the requirements.
FA: Yes.
AD: I believe that the requirements are one of the issues that’s at hand. The only requirement we have in place now for Faculty and staff is that you have a valid drivers license. These other requirements are part of implementing this – that’s been my understanding. But there is that possibility and I’m going to verify that too. I think that’s appropriate.
AD: So that response to Robert… I hear the description of the situation. It’s your belief that that shouldn’t be happening. But before we say to this group it shouldn’t be happening we need to check any legal obligations that might require us to behave in that way.
AD: Yes. I agree.
AD: Okay.
FA: So you’re saying any Faculty or staff who submit their materials before the date that’s set forth in these guidelines may be authorized immediately or not authorized immediately.
FA: Perhaps.
AD: We’ll check that out. (there were several people talking at the same time and notetaker was unable to decipher all conversation)
AD: Apparently that’s been the practice and whether or not the practice is appropriate needs to be assessed.
FA: If the employer has knowledge that an employee is doing something which is against rule or law, the employer has an obligation to act. If they have the knowledge, they have the obligation to act. That’s the caution, I believe, that was being said. I’ve tried to say, the IFO’s position on this is that this matter belongs at the bargaining table and I would hope that any IFO bargaining unit member will not, will not, register for the vehicle use authorization. That’s what my organization says. If they choose to, I think we’ve had a good exchange about what might occur.
FA: That is the confusion I have. I think I have a perfect record driving. (laughter and jesting)
FA: Thank you.
10. Status of 1.B.1 Task Force (FA 5/1/2008) – Susan Moss is organizing meeting
FA: The meeting of the task force – Susan is still organizing or has the date been set?
AD: The date has been set. The members of the taskforce have gotten a draft of my response and we will meet with the task force to discuss their response and make sure… I can’t say that. To hear any concerns with my response so that I can address any that I might be able to. There will be dissatisfaction with the response because the 1.B.1 really was set in the context of dissatisfaction with the whole climate and the way conflict and disputes were managed. The 1.B.1 process is based on a very narrow set of legal definitions such that if complaints don’t satisfy a certain set of specific legal requirements then they can’t be investigated and pursued through the 1.B.1 process. There may be a real problem – the problem with the climate and the need to address the conflict. So it’s perfectly reasonable for some of you to say: I’m in a situation that is upsetting. I feel it’s inappropriate, it’s wrong, it’s unfair. And yet, the 1.B.1 process can’t address that problem. So in my response, we have been narrowly legalistic but we’re having a larger conversation with the Diversity Taskforce about how we deal with larger issues of climate and conflict By parsing those two things into a narrowly focused policy and larger issues of climate and conflict, some folks are going to disagree with that approach. That’s why I’ve given my response to the task force and we’ll talk it through so that I fully understand where we agree and where we might not agree to make the determination that the next steps we’re going to take are appropriate. This task force has given good advice. After consultation with system lawyers and looking at the boundaries within which I’m free to operate, I’ve done the best job I could at responding to their good advice. I think there are other concerns that the members of the task force have that we’ll continue to have to work on and I hope we do that in the context of the Diversity Task Force’s work.
FA: Thank you. Have a good end of the semester.
Adjourned at 4:46 p.m.