Meet and Confer Notes – Final
3/19/2009
Administration: President Potter, Provost Spitzer, Mitchell Rubinstein, Kristi Tornquist, Judith Siminoe, Diana Lawson, Larry Chambers, Steve Ludwig, Patty Dyslin – note taker
Faculty: John W. Palmer, Judy Kilborn, JoAnn Gasparino, Frances Kayona, Michael Connaughton, Robert Johnson, Mark Jaede, Debra Leigh, Balsy Kasi, Michael Tripp
Approval of Minutes: 2/19/2009 - approved
Unfinished Business:
1. E-mail as a Means of Disseminating Information to Employees:
FA: I have good news to report. The committee that has been sent the document is meeting this week. That will be the first time this semester. They’re meeting and they’re going to be meeting twice a week for the next two weeks. I would expect that they’re going to get back to Senate with their thoughts about this document. We actually have progress.
AD: Good. Is there anything else anyone wanted to say about that? Are there other things that the committee needs to address?
AD: I sent them a few different things and I copied you on those, John, as well and we would love to get some feedback on those items as soon as possible.
FA: Kristi and I worked together on this to encourage that committee to meet. They did get the meetings scheduled and they do have the items that were mentioned for consideration. I believe that it’s their intention to get that work done in the next two weeks.
FA: What are the topics besides e-mail?
AD: Vista conversion , dialogue, an encryption software package that we’d like to apply. That’s what I can think of off the top of my head. I think it’s just those three.
FA: They were all items that had been at TLTR that had previously been discussed and then it begins the process of giving us input. There was a concern. TPR had trouble finding a common meeting time and in fact the reason they’re meeting twice a week is to make sure that all of the members of the committee can attend.
AD: Okay.
2. Cell Phone Dead Zones (Task Force)
AD: We agreed at our last Meet and Confer that we would establish a task force…
FA: Yes.
AD: and I believe we’re still waiting for the names of the faculty members for that for it to get going.
FA: Right. That’s correct. I did receive information about the numbers of people that are signed up and the categories that they represent. That is: faculty, staff, students and interested parties. I received information about the test of the system with about 1,800 people that were signed up for it and that there was something like eighty people that…
AD: There was about a 97% success rate.
FA: Yes. And you’re correct about identifying the task force.
AD: Okay. So when we get those names, Steve will convene the group. We’re going to move items 3 and 4 of unfinished business to the progress report section of the agenda.
5. General Education
AD: We’ve talked about establishing a group that would review the courses in the St. Cloud State University General Education program that have not been assigned goal areas in the Minnesota Transfer Curriculum. We talked about having a group of about eight individuals; four administrators and four faculty and four others so that we can complete that task in about a month. Have you had a chance to identify….
FA: What I was pleasantly surprised by was that the General Education Committee had met and had completed this task. That is, they took a look at the document that you had provided us that was the beginning of this task…
AD: The crosswalk?
FA: Right. And we have a report from a member of the committee that they completed having all of the General Education classes placed in a Minnesota Transfer Curriculum category. I have corresponded with the chair of that committee that is meeting Friday, to get to me, as soon as possible, their approved minutes of the meeting where they did the work with the intention of bringing it to Senate on Tuesday. Now my colleagues from our side have advised me to realize that Senate is an unpredictable entity. We don’t know how they will respond to that. But if they were to respond in a favorable way we might be able to have to you our recommendations relative to that document mid-week of next week.
AD: That would be absolutely wonderful for which I will be very grateful.
FA: I want to underscore that these affect colleges and departments very specifically and if a faculty member should ask that they be able to bring it back to the department – I mean, it could not be a quick discussion. It’s also, I think, very threatening for some because as you know, we’ve had this weird left and right column and these have been moved very quickly into categories and I’m simply reminding folks sitting at this table that it’s a lot of students/a lot of classes and we can’t predict that Senate will say “Fine. Go for it.”
FA: Some might refer to this as the third rail of university politics. We seem to have caught, when we brought this subject up to Senate the last time where we needed to have correspondence sent, we began to see the sparks fly – forty-five minutes of debate and actually the word “its” was proposed to be removed from a draft document. So there’s a great deal of interest; a great deal of anticipation. I may be wrong so please correct me. But it’s my understanding that what we’re doing now is simply making it possible to assure students that if they take a class to fulfill our general education requirements and they subsequently choose to transfer, that that transfer will be smooth. That is, there will be a way for the receiving institution to know which of the categories the class fits into and that’s in the short term what we’re trying to do. In the long term, we are engaged a revision of our general education program that will, in a much broader way, address relationships to the transfer curriculum.
AD: That’s correct. We’re talking about a provisional assignment for those courses until we can review everything and come up with a single general education curriculum.
FA: A few things. We’re saying that we really don’t feel like we need this special task force at this point; that the faculty are prepared to try to move things forward. I do want to point out that Senate acted very quickly last time to provide the approval to go forward with the message that we needed to send to MnSCU. The other thing I wanted to raise though is we’ve had some reports that some advising training sessions have been cancelled because we don’t know yet what to tell students regarding general ed. Do you know anything about that?
AD: Let me hold somewhat of an open-air caucus between Michael and me. What’s on the table now takes us a step towards compliance with the Board’s direction.
AD: Correct.
AD: But it is provisional and we have to complete the next step. So let me put my position on the table. We are currently out of compliance with Board policy. We have been directed to get in compliance with Board policy. The general education deliberations have gone on for at least three years. They were going on when I got here and they’re still going on now. We have not acted in a timely fashion and we’ve put our credibility with the Board in peril and risk unilateral intervention from the system because they have the right to tell us that we can only have one general education program. So what’s on the table now, we sort of sparred with the system to give us more room for the faculty to deliberate, but faculty have done their work and have made a reasonable recommendation. Let me be really objectionable. If there is stonewalling on the part of the Senate and people fold their arms and try to block things, it’s going to come to the system saying “you will” and direction by FIAT over which the faculty will have no control. So we have the opportunity to work with some haste in our relative world to take the next step to then allow us to continue deliberation, led by the faculty, to a conclusion. I just have to be clear. In this matter, the Faculty Senate advises me and I am under specific direction to comply with direction from the system. So should the Senate say “We want another six months or year to do this and we won’t support this” I will have to act unilaterally.
FA: My sense is that the faculty is fully aware of the severity of the situation and the urgency of the situation and the need to be in compliance so we’re working with all >>>> speed on this. I don’t think there’s a question of stonewalling or dragging our feet. It’s a matter of giving departments an opportunity to review what is being proposed at this stage and give feedback. It might not even go back to the departments but there’s a possibility. A motion can be made that there will be a time definite so that we can have these back in short order, a reasonable amount of time, and bring it back to this body. I don’t think your concerns are well-founded given the discussions and the tenor of faculty at recent meetings.
AD: You said you don’t think my concerns are well-founded?
FA: No. Because I think we understand the nature of the issue. We saw the letter from Linda Baer, had it on the screen. We deliberated over the matter before preparing a response. I think we understand full well what the situation is and what the needs are at this point in time.
AD: Help me understand then. Because what Judy is saying is that the Senate may decide to delay.
FA: I didn’t mean to imply that it would be railroaded or trying to derail the process. I do agree with what Robert said. I think he’s representing perfectly, accurately what has happened. What I was reacting to was what John was saying – that we could possibly, by middle of next week, have an answer. I don’t know how realistic that is. I can see one possibility that someone would make a motion that it go back to departments because literally, what Gen Ed did was take courses and try and place them as reasonably as they could and I can see where departments might want to have the opportunity to check those placements. So I guess I’m wondering if a delay of a week or two would be seen as problematic.
AD: Going back to Robert’s comment; not if there’s a time certain that would allow the Provost to fulfill his responsibilities to the system – I don’t have any problem with that. Indefinite extension is what can’t happen.
FA: I appreciate frankness. It helps make matters clear. But I think it would be unfortunate if we were to look at this as a case of deliberate stonewalling or something like that. I think that we do need to keep in mind that Senators, including those of us who are in this room, will not have seen that document until, perhaps, 24 hours before the meeting at which they will be asked to vote on it. The potential impacts of a mistake in assignment can actually be quite substantial for some departments. Guessing at comfort level and politics I would say that approval at our upcoming meeting is maybe a fifty-fifty shot. The only reason I can give it that much is because it is a temporary thing and everybody understands that. I think the impact will be relatively modest in the coming year. However, probably a good guess is that people will say “Give us time to take it back to our departments and discuss it at our very next meeting.”
AD: As long as it’s give us time, we’ll discuss it at our very next meeting, we will all have answers within “x” period of time – that’s okay.
FA: I think that’s the attitude we can expect from the vast majority of the Senators. Now I can’t swear that there’s not going to be some faculty member who would wish to use whatever methods available to delay a decision out of perverseness or something else, but I really don’t think that’s the climate of the Faculty Senate or the faculty in general.
AD: I’m not asking that you make a commitment for everybody, just that people understand that we have a window in which we can act. I would rather the faculty be comfortable and after deliberation express their direction. But I want everybody to understand that if the faculty doesn’t do that I will have to.
FA: When I made my statement my understanding of what the patch or the fix in the short-term does is that it is focused in our students to assure our students that as they make their choices for the fall semester that the choice they make, later will not preclude the class transferring to another institution. That is what we’re trying to do at this point – to assure that if a student takes a general ed class and subsequently transfers, that the transferring institution will have information that says what we believe to be the category or categories that that fulfilled in the Minnesota Transfer Curriculum. I’m of the opinion that this should have a negligible effect on the choices that students make for the classes they take in the fall. And I think it’s in all of our interests to make sure those students feel comfortable in registering for general education classes early in April. That’s a benefit to both. I ask when I say those things because I want to make sure that as this matter comes to Senate I can as clearly as possible express what’s happening. There is a great deal of fear about what’s coming next. What’s going on now is not a precedent for what comes next. That’s what I’m trying to manage with. My colleagues are correct to advise me that Senate is a body that chooses to do that which it chooses of its own volition although each member here today can play a role in the discussions at Senate.
FA: I think there’s something we ought not to miss here though. That is that in the process of making the decision of assigning our courses to the Minnesota Transfer Curriculum, even if our assignment is for a temporary one year period. Any student who takes a class under those terms is going to be able to count that class towards that requirement for the remainder of their college career. There is a potential impact on the market for classes because a student might contemplate that – I can choose to follow the Minnesota Transfer Curriculum, I already have that choice, I don’t have to transfer out to claim the right to use the Minnesota Transfer Curriculum. I can design my SCSU experience around the Minnesota Transfer Curriculum. – The fact that that option is available means that an astute and informed student may make decisions that would be different decisions about what classes they would take based on the fact that they now essentially have two much fuller options to work with than they used to. I’m not saying that’s a bad thing. I’m just saying it may have surprising and larger than we’re thinking of, impacts on choices of classes more or less depending on how familiar students become with what the impact of this is.
AD: And the nature of the advising they receive.
FA: Having said that, we’ve still got to do it – right?
AD: Right.
AD: Your assessment is correct. And the other element and pressure on us from some surprising angles is to make sure that our students are increasingly aware and are educated in those options and choices. It’s not just – we create the systems and let them figure it out – we have defined active responsibilities to make sure that they’re aware of them.
FA: Right.
FA: Relating to that, a few points. I’m assuming that the objectionable material is gone or will be gone.
AD: It’s gone from the Web.
FA: Okay. Also, if we’re supposed to be informing students about those choices, I would like to kind of see if we can get our hands around where these reports are coming from about advising sessions being changed. The other piece that I kind of want to dovetail on what Mark was saying; I think for many areas of the university this won’t have a whole lot of impact. In my college it’s probably not going to have a whole lot of impact because most of our gen ed courses are already placed on the Minnesota Transfer Curriculum. But for some colleges, some of the moves to the next step are going to be pretty controversial because it changes pretty radically the way that they conceive of people taking their courses. So I think the second set will be more difficult.
FA: Coming back to the question of moving forward on advising. When I came into this building today a faculty member approached me and indicated that a training session for peer advisors in anticipation of registration had been cancelled. The reason it had been cancelled is reported to me that they couldn’t do training because they won’t know what to advise students to do.
AD: Clearly, if we’re going to have these courses identified in the way that we said, it would be important for those advisors to have that information as early as possible so that they can communicate that to students. So I can see that being an issue for advisors not knowing how to advise students until we have this in place. That speaks again to the urgency for getting this done as quickly as possible.
FA: I’d just also like to add that summer advising and registration – I have been talking to folks over there and I haven’t told them what to do but I have been telling them that we are talking about this process and that it seems to me that it’s likely to have – what happens in advising and registration for the summer ought to be done mindful of the status of the general ed changes.
AD: Those folks have been informed that this is coming.
FA: I believe you and it is my understanding that basically their training materials were printed and so on. I’m just urging that there be full communication about all this in the interest of serving our students and avoiding…
AD: One of our commitments is that we would communicate this information as broadly as we can to our students as well once we have that crosswalk in place. I would ask while were having this conversation that when this material comes to the Senate that it be sent to Academic Affairs so that we can look at it as well. Even if it’s not completely adopted immediately, we may have some information that might be relevant to which goal area a given course fits it as well.
FA: I’m nodding my head…
AD: Not to adopt anything unilaterally, but just to have an opportunity to review it so that we have some time as well.
FA: A wise and skillful person could find that information at the FA website.
AD: So wise and skillful persons will look there.
FA: Because we do post the attachments and the supplemental attachments for Senate and they’re not password protected.
AD: That was a very gentle, but not subtle shot. (laughter) I do want to take your advice, Mark, seriously that we look at the materials that are being prepared to educate advisors and there may well be trains on the track that we will need to interrupt. I think that’s important.
AD: Any other comments on this topic? Thank you.
6. Faculty Member for Study Abroad Search Committee
FA: Is this a MSUUASF Position?
AD: Yes, it is.
FA: If we have not put the call out, we will. If we have put the call out and we have candidates, the election will be Tuesday.
AD: Okay.
7. Request Three Faculty Members for Affirmative Action Search
AD: We also would like to request three faculty members to serve on the search committee for the Affirmative Action Officer.
FA: I did get some information about the composition of the search committee from a member of our Executive Committee who had it in another sense. Debra had a copy of it and brought it to me. So I’m going to give you what my understanding of what that committee composition would be. There would three faculty members, IFO. There would be one person from each of the other bargaining groups. Now we also understand that there’s a desire for representation from other significant interest groups to serve on that committee. We are uncomfortable going forward to do an election for our three without having named which other groups are going to have representation. We would prefer that they be identified and let them make a determination of who their representative would be at the same time we do our process as such.
AD: Since I’m the hiring officer in this case let me just check some understandings. One way to do this is to have the bargaining units select who they will and then look at the composition of the committee and if it lacks other voices, for expertise, appoint additional members. Judith, check me on this in terms of the logic here. I would be perfectly happy to appoint representatives of selected groups – largely those groups who are most frequently served by Affirmative Action/Diversity resources on campus. My concern was that some of those folks would be faculty members and some would be staff members and that I would be stepping on the toes of the bargaining units if I went first. Either way, we need to have a committee which is broadly representative, and particularly includes those communities who have been most engaged in using the services with the shared understanding that one of the things we’re changing about the Affirmative Action Officer is that the Affirmative Action Officer will be the designated officer for 1.B.1 complaints and will be the first step in 1.B.1 issues. So discrimination for protected groups will be under the purview of that office. It’s really important that the committee represent the communities who have drawn on those services. If you tell me to select from the groups first, I don’t have any trouble doing that. I just was trying to be respectful of the bargaining units’ prerogatives in appointments to committees.
FA: Defining the composition of the committee doesn’t undermine the prerogative of the bargaining units. In other words, if you think that there are groups whose representation would be beneficial to the search, it does not inhibit or prohibit us from identifying representatives from our unit to serve on that committee.
FA: That’s a long way of saying we prefer that you move first to define composition and that we’re comfortable with it.
FA: It’s not an either/or thing. We can do both – have broad representation – have members selected by those groups – and we will also engage in our process. Its less complicated for our process if that happens. It’s preferable from our perspective.
FA: A related factor here is that we would prefer to make appointments of faculty based on expertise, something that’s done…. I believe the wording we discussed was judicious and infrequent, and we wouldn’t want to get into a discussion if a faculty member, for example, was to be somebody recommended as a representative of the CARE team or some other group, a discussion of whether or not that person had special expertise that was not already possessed on the committee. We don’t really care to have that kind of debate about what constitutes special expertise. But we’ve got no problem with the group being represented. We’ve got a philosophical difference about the breadth of representation for the campus. It would be cleaner if the IFO names people to serve as faculty representatives and if other organizations name people to be their representatives and it could take that form.
AD: I’m perfectly happy to work with your understanding. When I’m working with five different bargaining units to compel me to get everybody on the same page before I do anything is a little unreasonable.
FA: I wish I had looked at this earlier but we have had other, probably quite a few other instances with search committees where we’ve had bargaining representation plus representation from particular constituencies on campus so that would not be unusual; particularly in this case when you’re looking at affirmative action. There are going to be particular constituencies that have stronger vested interests than others.
FA: I did hear you ask for Judith to make sure you weren’t doing something that you shouldn’t do in your commentary. If you were to do what you suggested, which is make appointments for selected groups to have a spot, we could move forward by filling our three spots.
AD: This is fine with me, but let’s say… It still comes down to the same thing. I’m going to say: GLBT Advisory Group, ADA Advisory Group; Color Caucus, CARE and probably a couple others that are present and you’ve got three slots. If your three slots don’t cover those and the other bargaining units don’t cover those I’m still going to come back. I understand the reason for your position. I don’t have any trouble with it. It’s not as clean as you suggest, but I’ll be happy to move in that direction.
FA: From our perspective it is cleaner.
AD: It is cleaner from your perspective.
AD: And you’re sitting on both sides of the table, Robert, (laughter) because you belong to one advisory group and another and this one too, advising me in three different directions.
FA: Now if you identify and include those groups up front, you’re recognizing their significance and importance on the campus and you define them as important contributors – up front – not as an afterthought because they didn’t get in through some other process.
AD: It was only an effort to respect the process. If you’d rather have it done this way I will do that.
FA: From my standpoint, that’s a better way of going about it. From the bargaining unit standpoint it’s a lot cleaner for us because then we’re not trying to meet a mandate that does not necessarily fulfill our position.
AD: I certainly understand your position.
FA: Computer scientists will say that tying two things together is easy, three can be done and anything more than three will be very difficult. I’m not sure of the approach you want to take. I don’t know if you are thinking of something like a task force or something similar to that.
AD: Yes. Judith, I think the thing to do is we will list the groups from which we want to make appointments. But then do I make those appointments and let you pick around them?
FA: Why not let the groups, those groups that you identify, select their own representative?
AD: Either way. Say the Color Caucus picks a faculty member, will you then pick two faculty members or do you pick three additional faculty members?
FA: The Color Caucus will have selected a representative of the Color Caucus.
AD: Yes. But if that person’s a faculty member…
FA: Then that person will be a faculty member representing the Color Caucus. We’re supposed to have three members that are representing the IFO.
AD: So if that person’s a MSUUASF member?
FA: Then that person is representing the Color Caucus and MSUUASF will select its representative.
AD: I hear that. So, you’re telling me that IFO is comfortable if because of the way the picking and the assigning works, we end up with three MSUUASF members and three IFO members on the committee – that’s okay.
FA: Uh-huh.
FA: People’s identities aren’t bargaining units.
AD: Well, people don’t also set aside their many hats when they participate personally.
FA: I understand that. But where is their responsibility. If they are selected to represent the Color Caucus, then they represent the Color Caucus. If they are selected to represent the IFO, then they are responsible to represent the IFO perspective.
AD: As long as we’re in agreement as to how this is going to work, I’m just fine with it. Judith is nodding her head so I haven’t spoken out of turn yet.
FA: I think we have agreement that we’ll go through our process and give you three names.
AD: Okay. And we will, with dispatch, next day, list those groups that we think are appropriate for membership on the committee and go ahead and ask them to designate members understanding that the final composition with respect to MSUUASF, faculty, and other categories will sort themselves out through independent selection processes. As long as we have a shared understanding I’m just fine.
AD: I don’t want to be contrary. It seems like you have it all worked out. My recollection based on the last process I was involved with, I think Debra and others were also involved, as I recall, the process followed the typical recommendations by the various collective bargaining agreements and then the previous president would add to that and people would know what was added to. It’s not written in stone. If you want to do it differently here you can do it differently. But usually we go through the regular process and look at that and then the president added to that.
AD: It sounds like we have agreement on a process so we can just move forward.
AD: I think we are in agreement. I think Larry’s point is that in the past, after the fact, if we don’t see composition….
AD: You missed the discussion so I think we’re okay.
FA: This is FA Meet and Confer. Based on the discussion we had, we’re going to go forward with our process and identify three names.
FA: I think it will be difficult to determine what hat they’re wearing – are they representing all faculty on campus? Are the representatives from CARE representing what CARE stands for along with the campus also? It’s very difficult sometimes to….
FA: That’s why I said that this is FA Meet and Confer. We’ve been asked to provide three names. We’ve had a conversation that is recorded. And we’re going to provide you with three names.
AD: I’ve got it.
Progress Reports:
1. Report on Budget
AD: We moved items pertaining to Course Scheduling and Class Size, and Reassign Time from Unfinished Business to Progress Reports after we hear a report on the budget. Is there a report on the budget?
FA: Before we get into all of that I wanted to thank the President for his message just before spring break which was helpful in coming to a better understanding of how we can achieve efficiency by increasing average class size. That’s a different way of examining a problem that might be addressed by universally increasing class size. When we talk about averages that allows for flexibility. I wanted to thank the president on behalf of the FA for that message.
AD: Steve, do you have any information to share?
AD: We’ve been getting additional information. We have enrollment pretty much fixed for this year and we revised our projections for the coming six years – actually – based on the best information we had at hand so we can use that to plug it in. Today, following yesterday’s board meeting there was a request on a conference call for the board office to provide us with their expectation of percentage of allocation based on the latest cost study and the other information that they had. It wouldn’t be the allocation per se, but it would be the percentage. That way, if we began to hear of what allocations were coming, it would give us a better guide to judge how much might come to this campus. Of course the governor had released his budget. The reporting has been interesting. The governor actually increased the cut to higher ed although the headline in the St. Cloud paper said that there were reduced reductions – smaller reductions. Smaller reductions were the net of increasing the cut and the effects of the stimulus package which are temporary funds. Today on the conference call there was also some conjecture that those stimulus funds need to be spent by the end of September, 2011, which would be only a few months into the second year of our biennium.
AD: By September, 2011.
AD: Yes, which is a month into the term of the second year of the biennium. If spent is spent, that will change our way of considering our use of those funds. The Senate and House budgets should come out soon.
FA: The Senate is out.
AD: Did it come out today?
FA: The Senate is out. It’s the House that we’re waiting for.
AD: Yes. We’re also calling a meeting of a subgroup of the Budget Advisory Group to review what our projections or our assessment. We have more limits set as to where we think things might fall. There’s a lot of uncertainty yet. I also heard just yesterday, and I don’t know exactly what all it indicates, but our applications for financial aid year-to-date are up 50 percent. They’re in the area of 3,500 rather than the area of 2,000 at this point in time. I don’t think that’s entirely an indicator of increased enrollment. I think that’s economic struggles and lots of other things. In any case, that’s pretty much the latest. There is also discussion of a tuition increase in the range of 4-5 percent or perhaps a little more, and there’s also discussion of buying down tuition, if you will, with the stimulus money so that the impact of the tuition is not seen by the students until a future period – a year or two out.
AD: Let’s do another mini caucus – we did this earlier. The financial aid application information is brand new to me. Did you just get that?
AD: Yes. I just got that from Mike.
AD: Do you know anything about the curve of that increase? We just passed a deadline that recognized this. Has this been building slowly?
AD: It’s just getting a good start and I think he went back and looked at a number and it was very large. We might have 8,000-9,000 applications for fall on that scale. They come in heavily when people finish their income tax. So they’re just beginning to come in and this is the season. You can’t tell if it’s just people getting in early or what it might be.
FA: Steve, to what degree might that be an influence by the on-line unified application?
AD: The unified application’s been in place for a little while.
FA: The sense that I’ve gotten was that the process of getting an application to the campus and having the campus being able react to that was delayed by on-line unified application. If that’s been delayed it could be delayed further. I think it’s difficult to try and judge the real impact of what that number means for us.
AD: Yes.
FA: There is some other information that is relevant to the budget. The largest bargaining group in the system settled – has a tentative settlement of their agreement.
AD: Would that be the faculty?
FA: It’s the faculty at the two-year schools.
AD: Yes. Okay.
FA: They’re larger than we are. The settled and they settled for no increase.
AD: Yes.
FA: What that means is there isn’t the competition for dollars for salary compensation between the two parts of it. That would be a good thing for us that they’ve settled.
AD: MSUUASF negotiations are going to be the 1st and 2nd of April and there is a publically mentioned expectation that that may result in a settlement after those couple of days.
AD: Administrator salaries have just been frozen.
AD: Yes, for the biennium.
FA: Can you elaborate on the part that the paper mis-reported….
AD: The headline in the Times said, I don’t remember the exact quote, but something like the cuts to higher education reduced.
AD: Reversed.
AD: Reversed – a day or two ago. In fact, the governor increased the cut to the base budget to MnSCU by about $15 million but it was offset, at least in part of the biennium, by the stimulus package which is earmarked for higher ed.
FA: The night the governor’s revised budget was announced I went to the governor’s web page…
AD: Okay.
FA: … and I watched the governor’s news conference and the governor said that he had restored that which was cut. Then I went to the PDF files that showed the revision, the fiscal impact, and it showed that they were revised in gross sense. Then I did receive information that you shared that talked about, well yes, there was an increase in the base cut and then there was the filling in behind that for our system which was less than the amount of the base cut. So the governor could be completely accurate if he kept the money amount the same and he re-jiggered which categories the monies were spent in. But our system, as I understood it, is taking a budget reduction – an absolute dollar amount budget reduction under the governor’s proposal in this biennium; and would take an absolute reduction in the base in the next biennium.
AD: I believe you’re correct that we are taking a reduction this biennium by anybody’s calculus of what the governor said. I have only heard, and absent the federal stimulus money it looks like we would certainly see a reduction next biennium and there is a projection of a continuing structural deficit for the state. I have not heard a specific about a reduction to higher education except conjecture in the future biennium – the one two-and-one-half-years away. That is the expectation because the deficit is supposed to be $5 billion
FA: We’re pleased to hear that the subgroup of the Budget Advisory group has gotten together because we’re concerned that we need to have the best available information about the outcome of this fiscal year. That’s a variable that we need to begin to nail down – to know our status as we exit this fiscal year. Because that becomes the base for projecting into the next two fiscal years. We’re anxious then to see decisions made that are linked to the teaching of classes next year. The fixed term positions which are in high demand areas that the requests to search are still on hold. Students start registering in early April and part of what’s in that schedule that they’re going to register in to is fiction. We’re concerned about that.
AD: There are courses that are not assigned. I wouldn’t call them fiction.
FA: They’re courses for which there are not instructors hired and searches underway to hire them. Then there are courses that were not included in the schedule because some departments literally said that if they didn’t have a staff person and we don’t have a search, we’re not putting the schedule out there. We think that the sooner we’re able to help provide information that results in a decision to move forward in this uncertain time, it’s going to be uncertain between now and probably August for the next biennium, that we can at least begin to move forward where we can. I’m pleased to hear about the allocation percent which would greatly help us, the information about tuition – we were hearing other information. The governor called for a cap, there are bills in the legislature being heard today that would freeze tuition. We think that tuition has to be part of the package of dealing with these financial difficulties.
AD: We believe so too and I was just reporting on what came from the conference call this morning. In spite of those initiatives, we were still planning on tuition increase
FA: I do want to report that we’re very pleased with the frequency and the nature of the meetings of both the advisory group and the open meetings. At some time in the future it might be helpful to get a summary. Some of us have attended most of the meetings. Some have attended all – I think – those open meetings, not the advisory group meetings because we have minutes for that but the ad hoc open meetings to get a sense of how those have been going on, if there’s a difference in the issues that are being brought up – it would be helpful to have a summary.
AD: I’m making a note of that. I keep track of who’s in attendance and take a few informal notes but I don’t have those with me.
AD: It was our intent that the questions that were raised in those meetings be reflected in my periodic messages to the campus. If information is publicly available, direct me to where that is.
AD: Yes.
Unfinished Business 4: Reassign Time
FA: A couple of weeks ago, maybe longer, we got a document that identified possible reductions of what had been reassigned time for this year to what would be reassigned time for next year. The word few – there might be a few adjustments made. We simply would like to be updated.
AD: There have been a few adjustments made based on rationales provided either by the departments or individuals based upon contractual elements – that is, certain positions in which the notice of vacancy specified a certain amount of reassigned time. Those have been restored as I learn about them. I don’t remember what the total amount of reassigned time reduction was in the document I gave you a couple of weeks ago.
FA: I think it was 35.
AD: I think it was 36.
FA: 36 FTE.
AD: Yes. It’s now about 34.5. I can give you a copy of this as of today. We’re continuing to examine and make some changes to this. I can give you one copy of this and I can send it to you electronically.
FA: Thank you.
AD: I’m continuing to make adjustments as information comes in. I hope to be able to be done with that process.
FA: Thank you.
FA: As the budget scenarios unfold how do we look at staffing. Do we go back and create alternative scenarios and plans given different funding scenarios?
AD: Yes. If I understand your question correctly.
FA: In other words, for example, with the freezes on hires, reassignments, etc., is it possible to put out another potential plan or projection if the budget picture appears to be better than what was in place.
AD: Let me answer that. The direction we have sent across the campus at this point is for units with budgets to identify cuts that could be made to equal a 7.5 percent reduction. I continue to say that we’re not making across the board cuts. We need the information to evaluate the options we have and make choices. There are a large number of factors that could cause us to cut less than 7.5 percent. I think our best judgment now is that 7.5 percent is a prudent number and probably covers the waterfront for now. If we list a 7.5 percent cut, just how far into that will we be going? That’s what is going to be adjusted over the next few weeks. People do the thinking now and say: we can make these cuts to achieve 7.5. The Provost is looking at reassigned time as an Academic Affairs-wide enterprise and of course it falls differently in different places depending on where reassigned time has been located. But he’s got a figure associated with those 34.5 positions that comes off the top of his budget. He’s got a line item budget with various sources of savings that could be achieved and that is being varied as these negotiations/communications are on-going. At some point we’ll set a bar and say: we all have to go this far. And the stuff that’s between 6 percent and 7.5 percent we won’t have to do anything with that stuff. But given all the things that are uncertain, we’re not developing separate scenarios for several different levels. The assumptions that we started with earlier were broad assumptions and we determined that 7.5 percent is the best planning target for the campus right now.
AD: Current assumptions would say about 5 percent, but we need to look at the impact in two and four years, not just one year – which is important to us. The 7.5 would get us close to home had the stimulus package not reduced the expected deficit for one year. It’s a good time to go back and review our projection and to try and to consider for the long-term also.
AD: The stimulus package is one-time money. It’s very clear that if the governor’s budget cuts the system $161 million that that resets the base for the next biennium and we must cut to that budget level. We can use one-time monies in several different ways. The system has proposed using part of that money to hold students harmless for tuition increase so that we would get the benefit of base levels to increase tuition but the students wouldn’t pay that, and using another portion of the stimulus money for one-time activities. For example, the stimulus monies might be used to carry the up-front costs of an early retirement program which we don’t have money to support otherwise right now. Or it might be used to acquire hardware to fix a roof – truly one-time costs. It is not to be used to plug holes in the operating budget. That is the specific direction of the Chancellor.
FA: But it could be used for, what are by definition, fixed-term expenditures.
AD: Yes and no. If our staffing model includes a certain percentage of fixed-term appointments, to use the one-time money to pay for all those fixed-term appointments would be a bad idea. We’re going to go through a review process together intended to down-size the number of programs we offer at the university by 10 percent after a thorough review process and achieve savings of 10% in staffing costs. We could use one-time monies in the first year to cover that anticipated savings but in the second year we’d have to achieve those cuts to base.
FA: Our bargaining agreement creates a faculty status that would allow that to occur. Fixed-terms are for temporary circumstances and what I heard you describe would be a temporary situation where the use of a fixed term appointment would be appropriate. They would be truly fixed-term. They would be here and then they would be gone because the need would have disappeared for them to be here.
AD: If you can make that argument, then it’s likely we can use the stimulus money. But if you look over the last five years and every year we have 15 percent of our faculty who are on fixed-term appointments, we couldn’t use the stimulus money to carry 10 percent of those fixed-term appointments because it is actually a base expense that’s anticipated in the way we run the university.
FA: One would expect that there would be, over time, a certain percentage of the appointments being fixed-term, but it is a long-standing position of the IFO that if there is on-going work to be done by a faculty member, that position should become probationary leading to tenure. We would hope for a smaller number of fixed-term rather than a larger number of fixed-term. And definition becomes part of the problem here if the interpretation of one-time money is one-time expenditure in a time specific. As we all know, money is fungible.
AD: To a certain degree.
FA: To the degree in which the accounting can satisfy the standard established by the reviewer.
AD: They are fungible within boundaries set by accounting practices.
AD: They also mentioned today that they think we may separately have to account for the expense of the stimulus money.
AD: But you’re right. Definitions and past practice – it’s going to be messy. I think the best thing we can do is to be as transparent as possible, share the information, think about it together. I have never been through something like this in my career. Has anyone else at the table been through anything like this? This is a novel experience and the only way through this is to do it together, in the open, listening carefully to each other. We’re going to have to do something none of us has ever done before.
AD: The uniqueness is based on an incredibly high level of uncertainty about so many of the elements.
AD: And the size of the economic crisis that we face globally. It is unique in our lifetimes.
FA: I would agree.
FA: I’ve been enlightened by the conversation. I think, however, a lot of our colleagues would like to know about their assignments in the near future. And as we get these reports about budgets, economic forecasts, and what is going to happen, I think it would be helpful to have some plan, or at least have a message, to let people know that as soon as we can let them know whether or not they will be able to take on certain duties, offer certain classes, students can expect certain services, I think we’ll be better served. If we have some contingency plans that take into account all of these global, national, state, system contingencies, then we can at least let people know that we are thinking about them.
AD: We were working toward a March deadline for telling the system what we’re going to do. That deadline has now been moved to May. That does not serve us well. We will have answers to the questions that you posed, Robert, within the next week-and-one-half or two. I recognize that need and he’s going to do it.
AD: I’ve been trying to push for that as hard as I can.
FA: We appreciate that and we’ll keep pushing you too.
AD: Push in all directions too because we’re in a situation where you have to consult and have conversations and we’ve not done that before. We just need to keep the cycle of communications going so we get the best solutions.
AD: There was a similar conversation among the CFOs and the Office of the Chancellor staff today that we have to make these decisions. Students are going to register, classes need to be offered and that’s t where we got to – well, we’ll get a percentage.
FA: Are you saying that the plans to tell the system what we’re going to do was moved from March to May? What all does that involve? When you say plans do you talk about percentages, do you talk about overall budget? What are you talking about?
AD: Maybe I can….
AD: I’d like to hear how you’re going to answer that. (laughter)
AD: What they originally said for March was they would tell us about the first part of March what they wanted to know by the 13th of March and that it would presumably be reported at the Board meeting that was this week. We figured that was their intent. They told us they didn’t really want numbers, but they wanted what kinds of things we’re doing and what scale of things we’re doing – that would be the kind of information they would request. Subsequently – last week – they sent a note, maybe it was the week before last, it was the Friday before last week – they sent a note that said, we won’t be asking for anything in March, we will tell you about May 15th and you have to tell us by the end of May what you’re going to do so that we can report it to the Board – and make sure you include in that your student consultation letters. (laughter) People have been asking for information about the budget for planning purposes – they are saying that they don’t have enough information to advise us of what the allocations might be. But they did agree to tell us what the percentage might be so that’s where we are.
FA: Forgive me if I missed this while I was out of the room. What does that mean, for example, about making decisions for faculty searches and whether there will be any additional ones.
AD: I would like to be able to make some decisions within the next week and a half or two before we move ahead with any additional searches. I do need to consult with some folks to do that. Based on what we know we can make some incremental decisions.
AD: What Michael has to do to make it possible for me to authorize searches is give me a picture of how he’s going to achieve that 7.5 percent and that includes a number of different things, some of those contentious, such as class size, etc. Some of those things have to go through a process of review and consultation so I’m going to have to take his best guess at where those line items in his plan are going to settle and say: okay, go ahead, you can authorize twenty more searches. I’ll have to do that with the best information available at some risk over the next ten days.
AD: I’m getting those reports from the units that report to Academic Affairs with their proposals and we’ll see where we are with that.
FA: Do you anticipate that there might be further decisions made after ten days.
AD: Very possibly.
FA: Okay.
AD: That would depend on getting more clarity about some of these other issues.
FA: Okay.
FA: I want to thank the other side for the transparent conversation. One who tracked the last fifteen minutes might wonder who is administration and who is faculty. To me that’s a positive thing because we’re carrying on a collaborative discussion about circumstances that most of us have little or no control over. But we do all have a stake in how the decisions, will ultimately be made.
UB3. Course Scheduling, Class Size
FA: I’ll just bring in a point where the rubber hits the road so to speak. We received, obviously, your e-mail before spring break. I’m sure that many departments, like ours, are looking at this issue. When you talk about modifying course schedules or class size – and I want to focus on class size for a minute – we are limited in terms of resources. So, for example, we could, and I’m talking in the general sense, arbitrarily decide we’re going to raise class sizes by five or ten, but then we have to have secretaries enter each of those changes in course size in the Records and Registration system and before they can do that they have to find rooms. I’m concerned, from my perspective – and I’m only speaking from my own perspective here, about having available rooms should we move in that direction at all. We were looking at this in our department today. We have six rooms that would enable us to change some class sizes that are a little bit larger than what we currently have. I’m wondering how all of this might play out into the course scheduling and class size issues.
AD: There are some instances in which both faculty and administrators have worked together to increase class size substantially. Then there are other cases in which we’re fairly certain that class sizes either shouldn’t or can’t be increased. We’re not looking for an across the board increase in every course that we offer. But we’re looking to see if we can achieve a sort of average increase, or an increase that would average a certain number, across the university, but not by increasing every single class. There are pedagogical reasons, there are space reasons, there are room size reasons that some courses just cannot be changed given where they are and how they’re being taught. Those should stay the way they are. But where it’s possible to increase the class size, and where it makes sense to increase the class size, we’re asking people to think about ways that can be done in those contexts.
FA: I certainly understand and we’re looking for averages because we understand that, for example, we’re not going to be adding to 191, for instance. But even so, if we should choose to raise class sizes there are going to be issues in certain classes, not all of them. We still need to have time and places to put these classes. I guess I’m concerned that movement could come at the end and we could be trying to change all these codes in the system trying to locate rooms for these classes. I guess I’m wondering, university-wide, if we’re looking at certain timelines or if there’s going to be coordination of that?
AD: Let me try to address that and again, let me try to be as transparent as I can. Everybody around this table knows that there has been controversy about the way the conversation about class sizes has moved forward. Most people around the table should be aware that there are grievances either in process or being considered by faculty who don’t like the way the conversations have gone. All of us understand exactly what you’ve described. We have a physical environment which constrains our choices. We have a particular sort of pattern of use and requirements and in many ways our degrees of freedom are limited. Some deans have looked at the choices they think are available in their colleges and said: I want you to increase class sizes by this much. They directed department heads to do that. And don’t choke, I’ll get around to a politically correct answer to this in a moment. (laughter) It started a set of considerations about how do we do this and is this possible. My own view is that class size is a matter related to curriculum with respect to which the faculty has a right to be consulted and advise. Administration has to make the final determination based on what we can afford and a whole bunch of other things. Some of the conversations have been awkward because the order of things has been a little kitty-wampus perhaps. The problem is, collectively, as I think your point describes, we have to think our way through this because there are so many interdependent variables. My intent in specifying an average was to allow the faculty to say: Well, I see a way in which we can do this. I understand the objective, we could if we did this. It’s a messy conversation, again, prompted by the extraordinary times. I’m willing to deal with the grievances if we got the timing wrong, but the outcome has to be the same; we have to figure out a way to do this and make major changes in some areas where we can and it is appropriate, and no changes in other areas where we shouldn’t and it’s not appropriate. The determination of where we do it and where we don’t is going to be the result of complicated interactive conversations across the campus. I don’t think that anybody doubts the necessity to change. There are some faculty who just flat out don’t want change, they want it the way it is. There are others who would be willing to be part of a process to do it differently and there are lots of folks in the middle.
FA: And there are some excluded managers who wish to do it their way. We need to have the conversation so we end up doing it our way – that is, the shared way.
AD: Yes. I think that what I’ve asked Michael and the deans to make sure we’re on the same page about is that anything that’s on the table at this point is proposal, is a request to do the planning and thinking to give us something to work with. The decision remains with administration, but if we don’t consult properly, that’s our mistake. And having said that, we’re not in the General Education situation where we can take three years. We have to answer this question now for course scheduling in the fall. We’re not going to get to a comfortable point where everybody’s happy and I know that’s the case. But I really do want as full consultation as we can and I want the work we’ve done in shaping… We’ve done the thinking and modeling of how we can do this. You have to be able to do that work. A dean has to be able to say to department heads: I want you to do this. Give me a plan to tell me how it might work. We all have to understand that that’s not the final step, but the first step. Maybe it could have been framed differently, but the first step in a decision-making process which says: we could do this with these acceptable consequences. We can save this money so that we can fold it into Michael’s broad spreadsheet and say we can do certain things and still come in within budget. It’s very complicated and I guarantee that we have made some mistakes. That’s okay. We’ve not done this before. We’ve certainly never done this on a timeline like we’re trying to do it now. It’s about as transparent as I can get.
FA: There is a great deal, at least from my isolated corner of what’s called the South Office Center, there are a lot folks who are not engaged in this conversation. We have not caught their attention enough to engage them. I say that from our side as an FA. I don’t think there’s the same degree of non-engagement from your side.
AD: Another element of transparency and has nothing to do with the conversation now other than by example. I’m sure that Steve was crawling through his skin yesterday as we sat down with the group thinking about how we’re going to use the space in the Welcome Center on Fifth Avenue.
FA: I’m not sure I’m going to venture a guess at that. (laughter)
AD: We have senior leaders around the table and one of them says: “Well I’m not sure what my role in this is supposed to be.” We’ve been talking about this for six months, asking for detailed input. I think that was the first day that I feel we got that person’s attention and they finally started thinking about it and weighing in on the questions we’ve been asking. In some ways we don’t think it’s going to happen to us – we’re like an immortal adolescent – danger happens to everybody else but not to me.
FA: I’m going to venture a guess that this may not be the last year that we are going to have some struggles about scheduling and efficiency and savings.
AD: I suspect that President Jaede will have to deal with this as well. (laughter)
FA: I want to look forward to that glorious new era that will be ushered in…
FA: June 1st.
FA: We’re going to have change, and believe me, you can believe in that change. (more laughter) One thing that I would like to ask now looking forward is that in fact the language of the contract gives us some useful guidance about how to deal with scheduling questions when it says that the administration may provide guidance – may provide guidelines, I believe is the exact wording. If there is a guideline such as: we would like to achieve an average increase of x number seats, a guideline like that, emerging in September would be a very useful thing to have at the very beginning of the scheduling process. If it isn’t possible to have it be that specific because of shortage of information, a guideline, however specific it can be would then inform the departmental process and could be processed with the pedagogical wisdom of the departments. There could be choices made about alternative offerings of courses, for example, not offering it one term because enrollment is expected to be low and offering a class where enrollment is expected to be high so that we achieve increases in the form of getting the maximum good number of students into each class without trying to shoehorn above that into classes beyond what’s good pedagogy. That would facilitate this back and forth process and the consultative nature of the process.
AD: That would be a good thing to do.
AD: I think you’re right. It’s not going to be a one year shot. We’re going to have to continue to adjust. This year the unfolding crisis shaped the timeliness of communication, but I think that we’re all on notice now that this is an on going thing.
FA: And I don’t want to say shame on anybody next year.
AD: I would like to be in that position myself.
FA: We have the same thing in the College of Science and Engineering. Some faculty came and asked me what was being done in my department and about class sizes and things. I think the main reason is the process of consultation and collaboration and how clear it is is that people will not be so confused and worrying about choices. So I think if we have bottom up to top down to the change you can believe in, we can do that. It’s not going to be easy. It’s not about who has the most power, it’s about the students here and how we can best serve them.
AD: I agree. I’d be remiss if I didn’t say this. There are some departments that work very effectively. And there is a small number, truly a small number of departments that can’t find their way out of a paper bag. They can’t agree on anything. In those cases, they need more top down direction.
FA: So even in those departments that function least well. Appropriate guidelines at the beginning of the process can possibly, I can’t promise in every case, but can help move people in a more positive direction by depersonalizing it within the department and having it not… if there’s an instruction that applies to all, and it is perceived as a legitimate instruction, that can motivate people and direct people in the right direction. To the extent that there are some people who are unwilling to consider any sort of change, even if it’s truly necessary, it arms the more responsible members of the department in a way that just their own personal opinion may not. I want to frame this carefully. I’m not suggesting that guidelines go beyond guidelines to being very specific instructions up front. I think that undermines the whole process. Things that are genuinely guidelines and then leave the departments with the flexibility to really turn that into something that makes sense for the department, that just strikes me as the appropriate way.
AD: We’re happy to accept the glass is half full perspective.
FA: I do think it would be helpful if we could figure out some way of setting up some means of providing departments that take this challenge kind of reasonably and rethink what they’re doing and perhaps switch off different classes with different draws and perhaps move up enrollments in some classes and having some sort of central help in making those would be really important. Let me just give you two specific examples to show you it really is where we live. I was sitting in my department meeting today in a room with 40 chairs and literally, they’re so tight up to the front of the room that the faculty member can’t see the screen. If we’re talking about adding chairs to that room where would we put them. I remember teaching in a room, and this was some years ago, in a room which regularly had, and it wasn’t one of our rooms, regularly had eight to ten students sitting on the floor. I want to try and avoid that kind of scenario. I want to also give us the ability too, if we’re able to, maybe not for fall or next year, but maybe the year after that, think of ways to do some select larger classes. We have very few large class rooms as you know. Just thinking about the physical structures and how we might have people move within those. Because of course, departments own classrooms.
FA: They believe they own classrooms.
FA: I know. I was being a smart aleck there. I acknowledge that. (laughter)
AD: In terms of assistance, one of the things that could be done through the use of Resource 25 is to work with Mary in my office to find rooms that would accommodate additional students; even though they may not be departmentally owned spaces.
FA: Or in the building your office is in.
AD: Or down the hall. But the other thing about the large classes, I think for fall we have on the order of seventy plus classes offered in rooms that seat approximately 100 or more. It’s not a huge number, but it’s not a totally insignificant number either.
FA: I know we have to move on but I just have a quick comment. If we’re looking at cuts in the base for the next two bienniums then the types of restructuring that we’ve talked about – the faculty need to know that. Otherwise we’re going to be coming back each semester, each year, having the same discussion of how do we increase the class sizes or how do we do something else. If the assumption is that we’re going to have fewer resources with greater demand and greater need for efficiency, then those discussions need to take place up front so that the thinking is not just for one semester but perhaps for four or eight semesters.
AD: You’re right. It’s now clear that we have a four year problem.
2. Status of Administrative Searches
AD: All of the searches are moving forward. I do need to tell you that the AVP for Faculty Relations search has been failed. In any event, the others are moving forward.
FA: The search committee has forwarded the list of strengths and weaknesses for the AVP for Institutional Effectiveness to the President.
AD: I just received those today and will review them and make a commitment tomorrow.
3. Foundations of Excellence
Ad: We have received recommendations and the steering group is reviewing them.
FA: We’re asking that the executive committee be given read only access to that information.
AD: Okay.
AD: I should say a few things more. When I receive the report, I will not simply take action. I will disseminate the information contained in the report and engage the campus in conversation. There are structural recommendations. The work is good and the thinking is good. I would expect to receive a report close to the end of the year. I will then work on a consultation strategy with the new provost and move forward from there.
FA: Thank you for the response.
4. Task Force on 9-month Appointments
AD: The group met again and we have assigned folks to work on specific tasks. We will have a report for you by April 9th.
5. University Scholars and Endowed Chairs
AD: We have finished our work and just need to put it into a report.
6. Policy on Religious Observances
AD: This is something that the Senate has postponed discussion on indefinitely. We need to have something in place for our students next fall.
FA: I believe you’re not going to get any further response from us.
FA: My recollection is that we acknowledge that there is a ticking clock and that work needs to get underway.
AD: In that case, we will implement the policy.
FA: There were consequences for not acting.
7. Conflict Avoidance Scheduling
Ad: This policy gives priority registration to athletes and others who participate in activities representing the university that require them to miss class and allows them to schedule their classes around activity schedules. This was presented to Student Government and they did not support this proposal. I’m asking that we move ahead with this.
AD: I intend to move ahead with that. This policy does not give those students priority over other students. There will be a window of time for registration that is based on their roles in participation in activities on behalf of the university. After that window expires, they will have to register as usual.
Ad: I intend to move ahead with that.
8. Number of post deadline use of W each year
AD: At an earlier meeting I agreed to produce a report. We have not discussed what the timelines involved are, but I will have a report ready at the beginning of fall semester 2009.
AD: What are the issues preventing us from producing the report earlier?
AD: It takes a great deal of time to go through the documents. We have to go through the documents and tally them.
FA: What is the time period of the study?
AD: I would like to look at the most recent two semesters – fall semester 2008 and spring semester 2009 using the methodology that we discussed here.
FA: What has been the pattern in the past?
AD: This would be the first year that we would do it.
FA: I guess the question was: to what extent have faculty prerogatives been undermined or overridden by administration? It would be good to go back further.
AD: Is this a suggestion to have this done over a longer period of time?
FA: We understand that it can be laborious and time consuming, but it will be more informative. We’ll be able to see whether there has been an increase or decrease in such instances.
AD: Going forward we can address this matter because we now have a process in place that notifies faculty if a grade has been changed. We can also make sure that a copy goes to Academic Affairs so that they can keep a tally.
FA: It does make sense that you would collect this information. It would then be available to Senators who would like to review it.
9. College of Education Task Force
AD: There’s one item that didn’t get on the agenda – a report on the College of Education Task Force.
FA: We have contracted PML Associates for this project. Pamela Lassiter is the principal of that firm. An on-line survey is now in process and participants have been contacted and provided a link to the survey. Ms. Lassiter is going to be on campus and meet with anyone who is interested in participating in the process. She has contacted past employees and current employees to request their participation. Task force members are acting as publicists and are encouraging participation as well. We will be getting a report from the consultant with the results.
AD: One of the survey recipients was worried about confidentiality, which she had been promised. This information is subject to the Minnesota Data Practices Act. However, the survey was not marked in any way and there was no attempt to figure out who completed it. It will be genuinely anonymous. It is being done through Survey Monkey and again, the consultant will not have the ability to ascertain the identity of respondents. She won’t know, we won’t know. With regard to meeting with individuals, she came up with one or two strategies. There will be a sign-up sheet but there will be no identifying information on the paperwork she makes her notes on. There will be no names associated with the interviews because the intent of this project is to look for trends and themes.
FA: I’ve not tested this, but I’ve wondered about it.
AD: We need to adjourn.
Adjourned: 5:05 p.m.