Final Approved 1-15-09
Meet and Confer
December 18, 2008
Admin: Michael Spitzer, Earl Potter, Mitch Rubinstein, Diana Lawson, Judith Siminoe, Kristi Tornquist, Larry Chambers, Diana Burlison, and Wanda Overland
Faculty: John Palmer, Judy Kilborn, Michael Connaughton, Michael Tripp, JoAnn Gasparino, Frances Kayona, Bill Hudson, Debra Leigh, Mark Jaede, Balsy Kasi, David Warne, and Polly Chappell – Note taker
Approval of Minutes
1. December 4, 2008
Admin: There was a change on page five of the minutes where it says “We have a CAL meeting next week,” and it should be “CIO meeting next week.”
FA: At least it is not CIA.
Admin: That’s the only addition beyond what we already proposed. If there are no other changes I would move that we approve the minutes.
FA: We do.
Admin: We have a couple different versions of the agenda.
FA: I think we do.
Unfinished Business
1. Email as a Means of Disseminating Information to Employees (ADM) (03/13/08) Latest draft to Senate
FA: Senate got tied up with debating constitutional change language for the FA Constitution and debating and discussing responses to the Professional Development Committee’s recommendations on sabbaticals. As a result we did not get to take up the matter of email as a means of disseminating information.
2. Broadcast Email Standards (FA) (12/18/08)
FA: Frequently we get email that is disseminated to faculty and staff that will say something like: “Please take time to open the attachment.” And it requires then that we open the attachment. There may be one sentence or two or three sentences. It may be in a docx format that some people can’t open. It may have nothing to do with anything that is in the interest of readers. We are requesting that instead of attaching things that don’t need to be attached that people use the body of email so we can more quickly go through our business. The example I’m looking at had text that would have been very easy to copy and paste in an email. There was also an item that would have needed to be attached. It would really help speed up everybody’s day not to have to open attachments for email. In the interest of setting good standards of common practice, maybe we could just simply have a request that people think of readers and think of the systems they may or may not have.
Admin: We will talk to the offices that send these out and request that the messages be in the body. Or if not, that there be some reference to a website.
FA: Or at least enough in the body to get the message so that we know it is relevant or not to us.
Admin: The one you’re talking about didn’t really demonstrate saying what it is about.
FA: I think it is particularly problematic if somebody doesn’t have the ability to open docx and they don’t even know if they’re supposed to be reading what they are getting and they go through all the effort of getting it translated and they find out that there is nothing relevant to them in it.
Admin: You’re right.
FA: So, we would appreciate that help.
Admin: We will do that.
Admin:
Who is the author of the one you’re talking about?
FA: The one I reacted to is not the best example of it. I can just give it to you and you can see my grumpy response. There have been better examples of it where you open the attachment and there is two sentences on the attachment and it took you half a minute to open the attachment. So there are really two different levels of concern. One is that we thought we had the docx issue taken care of and we don’t, and the other is thinking about the readers in terms of attachments and not attaching things that don’t need to be attached.
FA: Thank you for your response and assisting all of us in saving time.
New Business
1. Code of Conduct Training (FA) (12/18/08)
FA: We have a memo both in print and electronic format from Human Resources concerning the code of conduct. I’m speaking in my role as a business writing teacher now. I read this and I wasn’t sure whether or not it is required. It’s implied but it never says it’s required. The closest it says is in the end sentence: “the deadline for completion is…” If I had a mandatory program, and I’m assuming reading into this that it is mandatory, I would begin with something like “as an employee of the MN State Colleges and Universities you are required to take training on employee code of conduct by March 20th. Then I’d know up front what my requirement was. I talked to a bunch of people who were really puzzled by this. They didn’t know what it means. I would just simply say that the main message needs to be in the opening paragraph so that people who are reading a hundred emails understand what their obligations are.
Admin: We receive communications from the system office about this on the code of conduct requirement. I’m just going to read this because I only have one copy. This is the third paragraph and it came out in September. The closest thing that I could come to whether this is a requirement or expectation or both: “Each of our colleges and universities as well as the Office of the Chancellor is responsible for ensuring compliance by its employees with the Code of Conduct. In this effort we will be rolling out two learning modules in late October 2008 and making them available in D2L format for each college and university.” In a conference call with my peers, other HR directors, we talked about this and they talked about as far as it being a requirement. They didn’t use the word “mandatory” so that’s the closest that I can come to communication I got from them and what their expectations would be. I think our expectations would be for us to know what is in the code of conduct in terms of ethics and so forth. If someone were to run into a problem where there would be an ethical situation, to me it seems to take this training is about as clear as I can get from the powers that be.
FA: Did I understand you making a distinction between mandatory and required?
Admin: Well, in this system, I’m not going there. I’ve been here almost 10 years and their system is more difficult to make that delineation whether it is diversity training, university training, or security training. Like for the security training we were told that it is mandatory, quote-unquote. What I’m trying to do is follow through what we understood they wanted us to do at the Office of the Chancellor.
FA: So from your perspective do we need to do this or not?
Admin: I think you need to do it. Now whether it is mandatory or required… I think there is a need to do it to be aware of what these policies are. Many of our employees are not aware.
Admin: Employees are responsible for knowing the contents of the code of conduct and abiding by it. Taking the training is a way of becoming familiar with those contents and therefore being able to meet the requirements.
FA: It appears that from the correspondence that I’ve received from the presidents from other faculty associations that different approaches have been taken on each of the seven campuses. At Metro the administration brought it to Meet and Confer and asked the executive committee to test it. So, the EC at Metro then went out and engaged with the modules and provided feedback. At Southwest, they haven’t heard anything about this.
Admin: Is that right?
FA: Not a thing. At the other campuses, at about the same time we did, they received a similar email and everyone asked the question at the statewide Meet and Confer and the answer was: no. I suspect the question as to what the Office of the Chancellor means by the communication will be clarified at state Meet and Confer. Whether it is mandatory or required or what that status is. We do know at least one EC member has gone through the modules. Maybe others have. It looks like we have at least two or three. Four.
FA: The data security training struck me as real training. There were things I didn’t know about that. Frankly, I have no idea who is responsible for Code of Conduct module. It’s a waste of time. There is absolutely nothing there that a sensible human being wouldn’t have known from the day they finished 5th grade. It’s really, really bad. If somebody asked me if I had to do it and it was worth doing, I would say absolutely not as much as I would say that the training module that came out on data security was just the opposite. So, it’s not that they can’t do it, it’s just really kind of silly. I had other people tell the same thing. In fact they came to my office and said, “can you believe this?!”
FA: And in the code of conduct you’re forced to watch a female professor coming on to a student in a hotel room. It was terrible to watch. I couldn’t take my eyes off it. (Laughter)
FA: So, I’ll try to bring information back from our statewide Meet and Confer.
Admin: Okay.
2. Sabbatical Awards (FA) (12/18/08)
FA: I corresponded with you today about the document that lists our recommendations that has three tables in it. One table identifies all the faculty who were newly tenured in August of 2008, there are seven of those. The next table has a list of all the faculty who are least 10 years of service since they had last been on sabbatical. A third list includes all of the remaining applicants for sabbatical. That list had four people on it who were tenured in August of 2007. The IFO position is that those fall into the same category as those granted tenure in 2008. So they’ve been identified as bold on the sheet. There was one person who withdrew from asking for a sabbatical.
Admin: I got the list you sent. A preliminary review of it showed one or two discrepancies in the number of years and therefore the eligibility versus what was listed. For the other applications, those who completed applications that meet eligibility requirements, as the Office of the Chancellor defines it “shall be awarded,” will be awarded. I think we will not be able to award more than those.
FA: Was the discrepancy in the years of service?
Admin: Yes.
FA: I do think that in the future we need to work together to be sure that we don’t simply rely on the applicant.
Admin: We don’t rely on the applicant. When I get those requests they are reviewed by HR. The number of years of service is verified by HR before we make any final determinations. We’ve done that for each of the last several years and there have been some cases in which a person appeared qualified, but turned out not to have been.
FA: You’re going to let me know? Does it have bearing on your action?
Admin: It will have some bearing on some cases whether or not the person meets the criteria or not. I think there are two cases. But, as you know I got that late this afternoon and I only did a quick look. I need to go over it and make sure what I just said is accurate.
FA: Thank you.
FA: The Chancellor’s definition of who qualifies as shall be granted?
Admin: I think it is those who were tenured in 2008. Not 2007, not the prior year.
FA: I am not in play because I did not apply for sabbatical. But I was tenured in 2007. The contract was not finally negotiated until after the deadline for filing for sabbaticals already passed. It was therefore impossible for anyone tenured in 2007 to meet the requirement of applying for sabbatical the year after receiving tenure.
Admin: I understand that.
FA: And it is hard to imagine what the motivation would be for interpreting it in such a way that it would only apply to a person who is applying in precisely the year immediately after tenure, especially under the circumstances where someone in that position couldn’t have even though the contract was effective, retroactively.
Admin: It didn’t exist.
FA: That’s right. It didn’t exist at the time you had to apply but it was retroactively effective so that you could have done except that you couldn’t. (Laughter)
Admin: Incentive to finishing on time. In this case it was negotiated centrally and we will comply with whatever way we are directed to interpret it.
FA: That is the reason we submitted the information the way we did, so that it is clear who fell into which category.
FA: Do you have any sense of when people who are granted sabbatical will be notified? I’ll give my reason for asking after you answer that.
Admin: I would imagine it will be pretty soon. We just got the list from the faculty so I couldn’t do anything until receiving those recommendations in the first place, but I would image that it would be before the beginning of spring semester.
FA: That is helpful to know.
Admin: It has an impact on next year’s schedules. So the sooner we can get that out the better it will be for the entire campus.
FA: The reason I asked that question is that there continues to be confusion. As you know a list went out earlier than it should have. I’ve been told by faculty that people in their departments have sabbatical for next year. I’ve told them that it is impossible for them to know because you couldn’t have acted on that yet.
Admin: That’s right.
FA: I’m wondering if you could help clarify that from your end. Perhaps ask the deans to get the word down somehow.
Admin: Yes.
FA: If I could be granted the leeway to do what I think Meet and Confer is supposed to do, which is to exchange views on subjects of importance. I was sitting on your side of the table in 1990 when it was agreed to limit sabbaticals to those which were required or mandated by the contract. It was an unusual step at that time because by and large the university had granted sabbaticals in quite a different way prior to that. That was done because of financial reasons. I certainly understand that. I understood it then and I would have understood it if I would have been sitting here on this side. And I certainly understand it now. The concern I would express, as one who has been here longer than I should have been probably, is of the growing perception that sabbatical is not quite what the agreement says it is. It indicates that sabbaticals are granted for projects which are both professional development to the faculty member and for projects that are for the benefit of the university. Frankly, if it were to come the permanent policy and it certainly looked that way for some years after that financial situation disappeared. The perception of a lot people was that there is really very little purpose in applying for sabbatical when the agreement says you are eligible for it because you’re not going to get it until your 10th year anyway. The Chancellor’s Office has heard from other sources and it needs to hear from this one that we don’t take very kindly for that gotcha notion of oh well, gee I’m sorry there’s a Catch-22 here, we negotiated this in good faith, but we really didn’t. And that’s the perception that exists among faculty who were caught in that time warp, so to speak, between the actual beginning of the contract and when it was in fact agreed to. I understand that we’re in serious financial issues and are likely to have them for some time but I would certainly hope that wouldn’t again then become some sort of… Again, I have no idea of how you turn this around, by the way. It is more perceptual than anything else. My sense is that it becomes policy for five years, ten years, 17 years that it’s not doing anything for the faculty’s perception that this is indeed a shared enterprise.
Admin: Let me comment. Last year, in my first year of reviewing requests, I communicated to Michael and Steve Ludwig that as far as I was concerned sabbaticals were in the best interest of the university and we would grant all sabbaticals requested as soon as the person was eligible.
FA: Yes.
Admin: Because it was good for us. That we would not try to delay those to the mandatory time. That is my perspective. That has always been my perspective and that will always be my perspective. Unfortunately, this year we have 66 requests for sabbatical and budget deficit of seven to ten million dollars and I can’t do what I’d like to do. So, if we, just taking those folks who are in the position where we agreed that they are eligible but not mandatory, my direction has been that we will not grant those this year. As soon as we can turn to funding them, as early as possible, that is my intent to do that. With respect to the gotcha piece that is something where I have to work with the legal… what I’ve been told to do within the system’s understanding of the implications of the contract. I will not express my own opinion on that at this point. I can appreciate why that may feel like a gotcha, particularly in the context of uncertainty of the institution’s commitment to providing sabbatical opportunities to faculty in the earliest point in their career.
Admin: Over the past several years we have increased the number of non-mandatory sabbaticals; in each of those years, as the budget permitted. If that perception exists we need to work to correct it because it is not a valid perspective.
FA: That’s why I brought it up.
FA: In that spirit. I believe you. The experience of the past few years has been exactly as you describe it. The budget situation is the situation. I think this is an opportunity, and we’re going to face a lot of these, to articulate that, to make this a public statement to the community as a whole. And there are going to be a lot of these decisions that we’re not doing this because we think it is good idea or this is the ideal way to do things. We really don’t want to do this but this is one of things we have to do, not because you don’t deserve a sabbatical and not because this job isn’t worth searching for and not because this function isn’t important. If we can do that consistently, I think that is something we have a mutual role in doing and that is something that as long as we are scrupulously honest that it is something that can at least mitigate the negative effects of a budget crisis and to some extent, build future relationships. Of course this depends on there being that kind of scrupulous openness and good faith.
FA: Is it even conceivable that in recognition of the importance of providing for sabbaticals that some modest number of non-mandatory sabbaticals will be granted on the basis of the merit of those? Almost a symbolic number? A finite number smaller than five?
FA: Michael, you know we struggled with what to present to the administration as our recommendation. I believe Senate wisely listened to your voice and left on the document the results of a process of indentifying rank. The list does in fact include the rank. It’s in rank order. We talked about this earlier, Michael, that merit would be a factor. So we have presented to you something that would let you act on what I think Michael is asking. We’ve given you a document that would allow a wise choice. Finance is of course one variable. Perception is another. I just want to make it clear. This isn’t gotcha. We’re trying to give you information that lets you make the best decisions.
Admin: I would just point out one thing, if we just go with those mandatory sabbaticals, it would be more awarded than were awarded last year from mandatory and non-mandatory. And we’re facing a much different economic environment.
Admin: I would not be willing to do that at this point. The size of the budget is not clear. We know now that we’re going to have cut in excess of a million dollars this year, which we three months ago thought we didn’t have to do. We have no read whatsoever what the Board will allow us with respect to tuition. We know that they won’t let us cushion the cuts the way they did it last time when the tuition increased. The downside of this is really huge. Approving a sabbatical we don’t have to approve is equal to the cost of salaries and benefits of some positions. Not a layoff. So, I wouldn’t want to make the statement that if it was any way possible to provide for that we would include it in our thinking, but I certainly wouldn’t want to make a commitment at this point with so many uncertainties. We don’t know the consequences of doing that.
3. Evening Class meeting dates for 2009-2010 (ADM)(12/18/08)
Admin: We’ve adopted the calendar for 2009-2010. This is kind of an addendum to that relating to the scheduling of evening classes during those semesters.
Admin: Every year at about this time, recently it’s been at the beginning of winter semester. This year because we’re receiving a number of requests from departments and individual faculty members to come out with an evening class schedule, we’d like to distribute this. So this is something that has come out that is an updated version for the coming year. It puts the meeting dates and the holidays and the non-meeting dates for the year, and the number of class sessions for each evening of the week on the extreme right, followed by footnotes. Where we have fewer class meetings we’ve permitted increased class length for the session. So that there will be approximately the equivalent of 15x50 minutes per credit hour. The one uncertainty that we have is for precinct caucuses during spring term. That comes out on a Tuesday. At this time, by state law, caucuses are scheduled for February 2nd. The state law also provides for rescheduling them if party leadership for both parties agrees on a different date. We will know whether or not there will be a different date this coming March, March 1, 2009. So, there is some uncertainty about the number of Tuesday meetings there will be.
FA: Precinct caucuses occur in election years.
Admin: 2010 is an election year.
FA: Oh, this is 2010?
Admin: Yes.
FA: Thank you.
FA: Why do we not see Friday evening classes? This doesn’t have them. We teach Friday nights and Saturday 8:00-5:00. Why is that?
Admin: I think the university does not traditionally schedule classes on Friday nights or weekends. That might be something that we should do… As you mentioned that is the subject that we ought to have wide discussions about, whether we should recognize Friday night and weekend classes.
Admin: Tell me where the language, since we are doing it and students are getting an education in that way; somebody tell me what it means to “recognize” that.
Admin: We’re catching up with the 20th century in our recognition of class schedules.
Admin: Are there practical implications of failing to recognize that we do that?
Admin: No.
Admin: Are there practical implications of recognizing that we do that?
Admin: I think we have to change some mind sets.
Admin: Then change the mind sets. Let’s recognize them. (Laughter)
FA: Is the implication that this would be what shows up on the academic calendar and that there would be a start date for evening classes as well as day classes? Did you clarify that? I remember at one point we didn’t have evening classes on one and we did have on the other and people didn’t widely know.
Admin: I think we do recognize that on the current calendar, the one for 2009-2010.
FA: We have, yes. So, we would proceed in the same way then?
Admin: Yes.
FA: Okay.
Admin: So if we look at the academic calendar on the web it would be under undergraduate/ graduate catalog; it should indicate the start date for evening classes and the start date for regular classes.
FA: And the Wednesday night before the start of the fall semester break classes will run until 8:45 p.m. on this proposed schedule, is that correct?
Admin: If that is what it works out to, yes.
FA: The reason I mention that is it was acknowledged at a previous Meet and Confer that the shuttle buses had shut down before classes ended. So this would mean the buses would run then until the classes have ended?
Admin: That’s correct. We said we’d address that in the future.
FA: I’m wondering if that should appear in the notes because our standard practice is that the Wednesday night before a break classes don’t meet and if that break is an exception maybe you should have that as a note. You say evening classes will not meet fall break and you give a date, but there’s enough potential confusion there that I think it would be helpful to have that down.
Admin: I’ll make a note and get back to you.
FA: My understanding is that we need to take a look at this anyway, right, to make sure we’re not forgetting something?
Admin: Yes.
FA: And then come back with it. Is that right?
Admin: Yes.
Admin: Would you send me an email about your comment?
FA: What is the last date on which this document has to be final?
Admin: I don’t know that there is a last date. For the convenience of the university the sooner we get it out, the better.
FA: We’ll do our best.
Admin: Departments have been contacting Academic Affairs to have that information because they are starting to work on their schedules. They want to know.
FA: Keep in mind my people only saw this today. Thank you.
Progress Reports on Long-term Concerns
1. PR release form (FA) (08/30/07)
Admin: We’re going to accept the one we looked at last time. So, we can cross that off our list for the purpose that it states.
FA: Thank you.
2. Report on Budget (ADM) (10/18/07) Status of Plans for use of Carry over from FY 08 to FY 09 & Response to State Revenue Shortfall
FA: Mark has graciously agreed to lead us through this section.
FA: I have a couple of specific questions but I don’t know if there is anything new in terms of status of plans for carry forward. We have been working on that through the Budget Advisory Group. One thing that came up at the last Meet and Confer, as I recall, was that we had a brief discussion about the financial performance of a couple particular programs, the ones at the satellite campus in the metro area and it led to a suggestion that perhaps it would be appropriate for the Budget Advisory Group to be conducting a fuller review of the financials on other programs. We haven’t heard anymore about that. I just wondered what the status of that was, and if it was going to be referred to Budget Advisory Group?
Admin: We’re going to look at the Art and Nursing programs. It’s on the agenda.
FA: Okay.
Admin: The market-based tuitions. I’m speaking for Steve here today.
FA: Okay.
Admin: He had a family crisis.
FA: I’m sorry to hear that.
Admin: I’m joining the group for Steve Ludwig. The Budget Advisory Group is going to review the Art and Nursing programs with the program based tuition. At this time those were the only ones I was made aware of, but if there are others that we should be reviewing, I would suggest you put forward a suggestion to review to Dan Gregory and we’ll figure out how to get it on the agenda.
FA: Thank you.
Admin: Diana, having not been here, and Steve was here, there was a reference made that the perhaps there could be a more systematic way in which we would look at performance of programs from a financial standpoint. Really the simple question is has the request gone to the makers of the Budget Advisory agenda? And from what I heard you say, it sounds like it hasn’t happened.
Admin: Not that I’m aware of. So we will bring that forth. We’ll get that on the agenda.
Admin: A couple comments on that; the work to do that and the context that that work is done. We have talked about a process for reviewing the viability of programs and I mentioned and asked that it be put to the Strategic Planning and Budget Advisory Group process for some time. The urgency in doing that is now significantly greater. One of my concerns is that we not look at programs strictly through a financial lens. If we’re going to make judgments about the programs that we have a balance to some management thinkers, a scorecard kind of assessment of the viability of the programs. What is the growth projection? What do the financials look like? What are we projecting in terms of enrollment? Is that significant trend in terms of a portfolio? As we assess this program would we strengthen the program or is it a program that we tried and did all the marketing stuff that we can and it no longer serves the market need? That kind of context. I have asked for the work for some time. Steve knows it’s on the list, and Lisa and you and I have talked about it. A completely different perspective is that we’re also, in talking about the notion of responsibility, which means giving deans and program managers all the tools they need to fit in their budgets. Some people don’t fully understand what this means. They think it is a great idea and we should do this right away. The University of MN it does in fact budget and manage in this way. In order to do that in a college you need a level of financial analysis and management staffing that we don’t have in place now that would constitute a whole new layer of staffing. It certainly is not affordable at this point. So, one of the things that we need to do in assessing that approach is to look of the cost of moving. Having said that and thinking in that way and taking steps toward thinking in that way, you make different decisions if you understand the cost of an enterprise. People should understand that at the University of MN colleges pay for their space and their utilities.
FA: Charge back.
Admin: And the budgets are fully inclusive of all the costs of operating that program, which is a perspective we have never had. The evidence is that managers who operate in that environment make different decisions based on a more comprehensive understanding of the program. While I think that is a good thing, to have that perspective and to think in that way, one must recognize that it would be a tremendous cultural change for us. It would also change the cost of doing business for us. We’re going to take a look at lessons to be learned from that approach in planning and budgeting. I don’t see us moving quickly there, but doing the best we can and make sure that we take advantage of other’s experience in managing our enterprise. So back to the cost of the program; when we say the cost of the program it’s the cost we’re going to be counting now.
FA: At the University of MN has that led them to differential tuition?
Admin: They have a large range of different tuitions.
FA: The University of MN for at least 35 years has had differential tuition across the colleges. In some form we just started an experiment on differential tuition. So, in terms of comparison they are at a different place. We also need to remember the University of MN gets $2 for every student that we get $1 for. So, they do get more state resources, which allows them to do some things on the staffing side that we simply can’t do.
FA: Are we doing differential tuition anywhere besides Art and Nursing and Regulatory Affairs?
Admin: We have some market-based tuition programs that are primarily off campus.
FA: Maple Grove MBA is one of them.
Admin: Yes. Engineering Management and Regulatory Affairs and Higher Ed EdD have differential tuition.
FA: I’m not sure whether there is anything more that administration wants to say as regards to state revenue shortages? It’s an observation I wanted to make. But is there any news or anything? I don’t want to preempt anything.
Admin: Tomorrow the governor is going to put forward his message for solving the budget crisis for the rest of this year. A preliminary thought on that as far as St. Cloud State is concerned is that we’re looking for something around a million and half dollars. I’ve already started combing through the budget saying where can we find that? We should have some savings in utilities. The cost has decreased. We’re looking at legal expenses and other kinds of memberships and things like that. Michael is working on the adjunct faculty from spring and any other salary savings we might incur, whether it be faculty or staff or wherever. We’re looking at vacancies kept open for six weeks on the staff side. It’s not going to be a perfect solution and it’s not going to be a long-term fix. It will get us through the year. We are hopeful and fully anticipate that it comes in at that range we should be able to make the adjustment without any impact on the equipment budgets that belong to the departments. It’s a volatile situation and that number certainly… I’ll caveat that as I always do we’re kind of in unchartered waters with this whole budget crisis. Anything can change. That’s what we’re anticipating.
FA: We’re grateful for the message that President Potter sent out a couple days ago. Communication about this is always welcome and it is good for the community. It would be helpful to faculty to have whatever guidance we can have and if departments wish to make academic decisions we’re doing scheduling right now, but we also know that there are financial realities that are going to be part of the story. It would inform the process of our drafting schedules to have guidance on such things as if there is going to be some vision about class sizes or some vision about reassigned time and various other factors. We know there are going to have to be some adjustments as we’re rolling along here but the more we can get it right the first time and have that plan in process happen in an informed way the better it will work, I think, and the better our working relationship will be. We are eager to receive that.
Admin: You, John, and I spoke Monday. Since then Michael and I have spoken about framing a response to the concerns of those questions and we will be doing that. We just need some more conversation before we can frame that.
Admin: I was going to say, yes, we are looking at reducing reassigned time and increasing class size. We’re looking at rotating classes, particularly small enrollment classes so that we can offer a broad selection courses that our students will take and fill because we’re going to have a hard time meeting student demand given the resources we have available. So, whatever we can do to provide more seats for students we need to look at in a variety of different ways.
FA: We recognize that this is a necessary reality.
Admin: Right.
FA: Of course our perspective is that we like wherever possible for it to be faculty who are making decisions about scheduling and which courses are necessary for the major and so on. We recognize that this has to happen. Thank you.
Admin: We’ll do the thinking and after the first of the year we’ll have some principles of that framework about reassigned time.
FA: The framework of thinking is exactly the sort of helpful thing that administration can provide.
Admin: And that‘s what Michael and I talked about earlier today. In each of these areas where we can make changes that will allow us to use resources to meet the demands.
FA: I understand we haven’t faced this sort of deficit before. I recall last time we had budget tightening one thing we did was offer classes that would fill and looked at the schedule that way. The thing we overdid was the number of classes and seats for lower classes. Upper division students were having trouble getting classes to complete their majors. I know we lost enrollment during that time. I’m asking that be part of the equation.
Admin: I think the departments have to work with the deans in what we offer and how we offer. There isn’t a sense that this is going to be imposed on people without talking about it. In my view it shouldn’t happen unless that consultation occurs.
FA: If I could come back just to clarify something. The basis for determining the 1.5 possible budgetary reduction is a result of 426 million projected shortfall in the current biennium. I believe the assumption is proportionality of sharing the pain as it were. So if tomorrow the governor identifies an approach, which spares the direct proportionality we may find ourselves being able to use some of the savings to carry forward. Because we all know the next year is going to be difficult. It is possible that the governor would do something that we would be disproportionately impacted. It’s an estimate based on the best information we have today. We hope it is the worst case scenario. We recognize it may not be. And we’ll take a look after the governor speaks on how the 426 million shortfall be handled.
Admin: The governor will speak and some of the information is regarding statewide issues, and sometimes when it gets to MnSCU issues it changes. The state might talk about doing things that as a MnSCU institution we may not have to do or we will do differently. Keep that in the back of your mind. When you hear them talk about employees they are not referencing particularly faculty, they are referencing the broad spectrum of state employees.
Admin: Footnote: our estimate comes as a consequence of Bernie’s conversation with the governor’s staff and legislators and the Chancellor’s staff. So it’s a little more than just taking the numbers.
FA: Thank you.
Admin: We have updated the budget web page to include the suggestion piece. You can offer suggestions if you have some ideas. Having your name on them is optional. We put a piece out on the budget web page that was shared with the FA Budget Committee about how the allocation model works.
3. Article 22 & 25 Task Force (FA) (02/01/07)
Admin: We had a meeting this morning and we want Academic Affairs to review that for the deans before we can move on.
FA: We share the desire to take one more look at it. I do believe the committee thinks they finished their work.
Admin: I think so too.
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, VP University Advancement
Admin: Most of these listed are moving forward.
FA: We wish to make an observation that the LR&TS Associate Dean of these searches is the only one being a totally new position that would not be replacing either an existing interim or previously existed. And as we know you are looking carefully at all the administrative searches we like to draw your attention to that one on that basis. In general, from a communication standpoint I think it is going to be helpful to faculty and the university community as a whole for Administration to communicate broadly about the range of administrative positions that are vacant, decisions about which ones to search and not to search. You told us in Meet and Confer about some positions you decided not to be searching for. We welcome openness and more conversation about that so it is clear to the whole community that this is something that is shared among all of us.
Admin: We’re in the process of preparing to do that. HR is keeping a record of all my decisions about these searches. We’re looking at the faculty and staff make up through ’99. I don’t have figures back to ’99 in my brain, but figures back to 2003 from that point, which you remember after cuts. The faculty have grown about 50 positions. The staff are about 90 positions in that time period. I asked Diana and Steve to frame the context for the changes for example in that time period for adding Miller Center, which has significant implications for staff. We added a lot of technology. It’s the context. Another example is at that time there were no professional officers in Public Safety. We now have five professional officers. That’s not true. There were no shift supervisors. We’ve added five positions because following Virginia Tech and other examples our concern for safety on campus warranted professional leadership across campus 24-7, which we didn’t have. That’s to give us the picture not just in terms of numbers. There have been several things that have changed about the university that are behind those kinds of changes. To have the conversation about where we have the opportunity to trim by not filling positions and where we will choose to fill vacancies because of their centrality to the mission. So, the conversation will be in the open. We will have the results easily available.
FA: Related to that. Approximately 35 faculty positions are being searched. I do not have the number. It might be useful to make public what those positions are as well. We know that the number of positions exist. We know some are being searched. We know that some have not been filled. Having a sense of where this all fits together I think would be helpful in the overall process of transparency.
Admin: I agree. After the first of the year as we frame staffing we’ll share the list of authorized positions and the process of decisions made. Recognize at this point that was a very conservative approach.
Admin: For the VP for Institutional Effectiveness we are about to begin the process to search that position on a permanent basis.
FA: The request for that came to us today.
Admin: Let me say that regarding the LR&TS Associate Dean, I had a meeting with Kristi, and we specifically discussed those positions. A question was posed by a member of faculty which was a reasonable question but the facts supporting the question were not accurate. I want to clear the assessment of those searches before I approve that we go forward.
FA: Thank you for sharing that.
FA: Larry, you said the search for AVP Institutional Effectiveness was about to go forward. Do you have some sense of a timeline on that? You’re trying to fill that position permanently at the end of the year?
Admin: Not by the end of the year. I think it’s about six or seven weeks. We want to see that position filled so we requested faculty representation on the search committee to move forward with it. So overall six or seven weeks.
FA: Did you say six weeks?
Admin: Six or seven weeks.
FA: Okay. I’m kind of astonished. I’m not used to those numbers being given out with the speed of our searches.
Admin: I volunteered to assist the search committee to help them move the process along.
Admin: Judith Siminoe will chair the search. The position will be open for three weeks. We will then have the top guns assisting the committee.
FA: We have received the request for our participation. It just wasn’t on Meet and Confer today because our practice is if we don’t agree to what is on the Meet and Confer preliminary meeting, we don’t add things at the last minute.
5. Foundations of Excellence (ADM) (04/17/08)
FA: I have a couple of things and perhaps a couple questions. First I appreciate the opportunity to provide my impressions and perceptions of how the process is going. I understand that that is my individual perspective than maybe a formal report from all the steering committee. I don’t think we would be in disagreement, but it is my opinion. First we need to report two additions. I don’t think we had these at the last Meet and Confer. Bill Hudson has been appointed to the steering committee. Whether he works with the dimension group or not is something we will talk about. We found we did not have much representation from the student athletes, faculty or the athletes themselves. It is difficult to get already busy people to be busier. So, Bill has graciously agreed to join us on the steering committee. And Dan Wildeson has been appointed to the Faculty Dimension work group. He’s been working with them and providing them information at their request and it just seemed logical to have him join that group. Those are two recommendations made at EC through Faculty Senate to add those people to the process. I think it was suggested last time and if it has it bears repeating, this will likely continue to be a fluid process for people moving in and out of the dimension groups. So, I don’t see that as being an anomaly in any way, shape, or form. It appears to me and to others I think we are still in a good place moving forward. Some of the dimension groups report to each other through a website that has this little bar graph on it when certain tasks are accomplished. We click the bar graph and it moves and the members can see what’s going on in terms of the progress. Some of the dimension groups are reticent to click on that because number one at some point it asks you to grade the university and they’re not really willing to put their grade out there for everyone to see it, apparently. And some just haven’t done that. So there’s a wide variety of check marks. There were two dimension groups that were asking for information, data, and resources they believed they needed to carry forward. Some of it was in how we define first year courses, what we use for that, and how developmental classes in math, for example, fit in that picture. That conversation was an important part of our work. On the surface of it, it appears to stall that committee. It did not. They had the information at hand. I think that that gives them a good start on the questions that they were asking. One of the other committees was also asking for something. We have decided to stagger the final reports from those dimension groups so the steering committee can work on them. We’re still hopeful to get the first series on those in February, and to complete that process six to eight weeks after that in April at the absolute latest. There is nothing that I see that suggests that that won’t be the case as far as the dimension groups doing their work. Where they all are in process I can’t give you separate reports at this time. I don’t hear any rumblings that people are not moving forward. We have asked the dimension groups to let the liaisons know if they find information unsatisfying to tasks they are doing or if some of the things that they’re finding don’t seem to mesh, to contact us immediately so that we can try and find information for them to sort through. And those requests have slowed. So we believe that we are finally getting the data they need. So, that’s hopeful. That’s the positive side of the report. I do have a question that may or may not be as comfortable. It’s my understanding that during the process of contracting with the policy center for the foundation, the contracts that we used have some discrepancies or anomalies between what MnSCU requires and our business office requires and there were some other kinds of issues with that particular piece of paper work, which slowed down our ability to cut a check for the first payment for the policy center. That, I understand, has been resolved. But there is a second payment that also needs to be made and I’m looking for some reassurance that the process used to get that first issue taken care of are in fact in place and will allow us to be a bit more expedient with the second check.
Admin: We will be very timely with it.
FA: That’s the only question I had at this point, then, unless there are other questions from you.
Admin: First of all, thank you. The work is going well. This is my second time through this process because I led it as provost at the last place. The Foundations of Excellence model is a prescriptive model, research based. When you’re asked to grade the institution there are objective criteria, either you do it or you don’t. Given that that’s the case I’m really comfortable with whatever the grades are. If we’re not doing the job we need to know that. So I would encourage, it’s safe to say that the university is not doing well. They’ll say is this accurate or not, but we really need that judgment to provide the basis for our future plan and action.
FA: We will continue to encourage folk to get to that part of the process. But it is a little counter cultural if you can guess that in our…
Admin: Most institutions that have gone through this process give themselves low grades.
FA: I would expect that is the case. I will echo that we do understand in the process the success from seeing the process in the past campus and we’re hopeful we’ll have the same successes, too.
Admin: Thanks, David.
6. Task Force on 9-month Appointments (ADM/FA) (04/17/08)
FA: The process continues. I’m not sure there is anything we really need to report at this point. We’ll report to the President well within the guidelines laid out in the contract.
7. University Scholars and Endowed Chairs (FA) (05/01/08)
Admin: In February we’ll present some ideas. Keep in mind we are not a decision making or a recommending task force. We’re outlining some of the issues to keep in mind when devising a process for University Scholars.
FA: My understand is that the University Scholars, the programs laid out in the contract, is essentially unfunded. It is something that the campuses may choose to fund. Is that correct? The reason that I raise the question is that this seems---
Admin: You mean money coming from some place else?
FA: Yes. This seems like a logical place to be asking ourselves is this the year to initiate this kind of an expense. It’s an entirely different situation if it is someone else’s money. That’s a different situation. But is this the time to be even writing these rules?
Admin: I don’t see why it wouldn’t be the time to write the rules. In fact it might be a better time to write the rules since there are no specific individuals who will be considered.
Admin: It gives us more time to write the rules. The task force doesn’t envision that we will be able to award these any time soon. This is a developmental process.
8. Policy on Religious Observances (ADM) (04/03/08)
FA: As with the email item, the Senate did not get to it.
9. Status of 1.B.1. Task Force (FA) (05/01/08)
FA: This is here to acknowledge that when the work is done it will come back on the agenda. So, that can be removed and come back when the report is ready.
10. Conflict Avoidance Scheduling (FA)(11/06/08)
Admin: This item you brought to our attention at our last Meet and Confer. We will put together a written statement that includes the various organizations or types of organizations that this would pertain to, and bring the matter to the student government for consultation, get feedback from them, and see what the next step will be.
FA: Thank you.
11. Number of post deadline use of W each year
FA: Mitch and I are meeting tomorrow so that we’re working on the same questions with regard to the use of “W.”
Admin: That is, on my agenda, the last item.
FA: That is also the last item on my agenda. Does that mean we can adjourn?
Admin: We can adjourn. Meeting adjourned at 4:24 p.m.