Final Approved October 15, 2009

Meet and Confer

September 17, 2009

Administration:  Devinder Malhotra, Earl Potter, Wanda Overland , David DeGroote, Diana Lawson, Judith Siminoe, Steve Ludwig, Mitchell Rubinstein,  Dennis Nunes

Faculty:  Mark Jaede, JoAnn Gasparino, Judy Kilborn, David Warne, Frances Kayona, Balsy Kasi, Tracy Ore, Michael Connaughton, John Palmer, Michael Tripp, Tom Hergert, Polly Chappell—note taker

Approval of Minutes

1. August 27, 2009

Admin: Welcome everybody. Good afternoon. This is the start of Meet and Confer. The minutes got a little delayed because Greta was out. But both Mark and I, according to practice, have looked at it. It looked okay to us. We are making the necessary readjustments, and as soon as all the editorial adjustments are made we will disseminate it to you all electronically. Otherwise they didn’t seem, to either Mark or me, that there was anything out of the ordinary.

FA: No. There were just a few changes.

Unfinished Business

1. Online Council  (FA) (04/09/09)

Admin: In the packet you’ll find a request, and we have indicated what the charge of that council will be and what the composition of the council is, and the representation we need from the Faculty Association. Essentially we want from the Faculty Association representatives from the five colleges and LR&TS. And one of these representatives would be designated as co-chair.

FA: We have a few responses to this. One is the question about whether or not that designated co-chair would have reassigned time?

Admin: Again, with regard to the reassignment of time, it will depend upon once the council is formulated. I’ll have a conversation and make a determination of what is the extent of the activity during the course of the year in terms of actual time and effort. We’ll know what to focus on, and at that point we can address that question.

FA: Our second response is more in relationship to where this fits in the Strategic Planning process and with also the Technology Plan. Last spring the Online Task Force brought forward a document to Strategic Planning: one item, which included a recommendation for an Online Council. And Strategic Planning said we should go ahead with that. We, of course, brought that request forward. But we’re wondering in terms of process if it would be more appropriate for this to go first to Strategic Planning, so that they can consider how this fits in with prior work of the committee and also with the Strategic Planning process in general.

Admin: My understanding was that this was an outgrowth of the conversation surrounding Strategic Planning, and that this council would work with the task force, looking at the online program and the Strategic Plan and that this is really the organizational and implementation frame for the plan itself.

FA: Okay. Let me try and reframe that a little bit. Strategic Planning did make this recommendation, since this is actually a proposal for establishing an Online Council, part of the concern of Strategic Planning had to do with representation and making sure everybody was included who needed to be in this conversation. Our request really has to do with Strategic Planning looking at this since they were the ones that made the initial recommendation.

Admin: So, are you suggesting that we should—

FA: Take this to Strategic Planning.

Admin: —take this to Strategic Planning while you are all figuring out who will represent the Online Council from the Faculty Association?

FA: I’m suggesting that that would be the first step, and then they would bring their response here, and then it would be a more appropriate time, I think, to have that conversation. I’m not, obviously, on Strategic Planning. I heard the conversation relating to this. I think they had really specific reasons for asking that this be a stage one thing.

Admin: Yes. My concern is really that we can share this as information to the Strategic Planning Committee. I have no problem with it. But my concern is that if we’re really acting on a conversation, which came out of there informally, and so I’m not too sure, at this stage, what they would look at.

FA: As a member of Strategic Planning and as the person who brought this and fast-tracked it from Strategic Planning and raised the subject at Meet and Confer, it was my understanding that the document that we now have would have been reviewed by a wider audience before it came to us. I believe what we’re suggesting is as a means to get it reviewed by a wider audience, have the Strategic Planning Committee take one more look at it. There were serious concerns raised about the overall report that we examined from the Online Working Group that came to Strategic Planning. I think what you said relative to the composition, it gives us some idea of what that composition would look like, and of course we’re pleased that a council is being formed. But we do think it needs to have another set of eyes than the small set that have looked at it, and then have it presented to us. I don’t think it would slow the process, and we could move forward on this. I think Strategic Planning meets next Thursday. I would think Lisa would accommodate by placing this on the agenda as a priority item.

Admin: Okay. Let me understand then if we seek the input of the Online Task Force on Thursday, we get that input, then we finalize, and we can go ahead. Is that your suggestion? Because I have no objection to that.

FA: I’m particularly concerned that Strategic Planning look at the activities here especially in light of all the planning activities that are going on. I’m still personally asking the question what’s the relationship between this and the Technology Plan, which hasn’t come forward yet.

Admin: Yes.

FA: If Strategic Planning has looked at both of those plans in draft form, I think they are uniquely situated to give us a quick response. This is not that long of a document. I’m assuming that the committee would be willing to move this into the agenda for next Thursday and we then we could bring it back the week after that.

FA: Yes. I’m concerned that there would be some delay in terms of our choosing our representatives.

FA: I don’t think there would be.

FA: Well, if we take this to Strategic Planning on Thursday, and you’re envisioning we would then get their comments and come back to Meet and Confer, or would we be prepared if Strategic Planning is happy with it to proceed to finding representatives?

FA: There are two parts to what we’re talking about. Part number one is what the charge and mission are. Part number two is the composition of the council. I can’t speak for the FA, but I can reflect on what I’ve heard in conversation and I didn’t hear in conversation at Pre-Meet and Confer a concern about the composition. I did hear concerns about the charge and those are the things that I’m thinking if this is an important enough thing to have it happen, I’m speaking tentatively, I’m trying to catch the eyes of our members. Because if we knew going away from Meet and Confer that we were going to select six, we can begin that process.

FA: Let’s, as President Potter once or twice has done, just have a caucus without leaving the room.

CAUCUS (without leaving the room)

FA: We would be in the position to proceed in terms of choosing the members but we would like to have Strategic Planning look at this.

Admin: We will make it available to the Strategic Planning Committee.

FA: Thank you.

2. Article 22 & 25 (FA)

Admin: This is more in the nature of an update than anything else right now. In a memo… there were two concerns that were brought to us, and one was relating to whether deans can ask for departmental comments and EPT committee comments on PDRs. And, second, as to whether the input provided by department members to the probationary candidate has to go to the dean or not. I think subsequent to last Meet and Confer, there were conversations between Mark Jaede and I, there were conversations between Mark Jaede and the President, and then we sent, to that effect, communication to the deans that deans can neither ask or accept department committee comments and EPT committee comments. And, secondly, we would adhere to the language to the timeline document, which we looked at the last Meet and Confer. In that context, the input which probationary candidates receive from individual faculty members will go to deans only if the probationary candidate chooses to respond to a letter received from the department.

FA: Or an individual faculty member?

Admin: Or an individual faculty member.

FA: I wanted to clarify that in this case, “respond” means: respond to the dean to the record, as opposed to, let’s suppose that Judy writes a comment. I respond to a note from Judy about her comment. Is that something you see as going into the record? No. I thought we were in agreement on that.

Admin: Take that back. Say that again?

FA: Okay.

Admin: I was shaking my head “no” for the record.

FA: Yes. Right. So, when one responds… there’s one possible way a faculty member who is under review could respond and that is simply send a note back to that individual or talk to them or whatever?

Admin: Right.

FA: And my understanding is that from one individual to another, those are private conversations that don’t go into the record. But, if a faculty member under review wants to put into the record a response to something received from another faculty member then that person must also put into the record the original comment. So I can’t write, “Judy said something bad about me,” but not enter what Judy said. “Judy’s lying,” but not saying what she’s lying about. I can’t do that. But I can, if I wish to, forward Judy’s comment and forward my own response to that comment.

Admin: That’s good.

FA: Okay. The memo that you sent out to deans that I saw has a number of people that I’ve spoken with confused about this question with the individual comments. I don’t think that we have a substantive disagreement, but I’d appreciate it if we could have communication that would be very explicit about status of those individual comments. Because if I recall the language of your memo you articulated the exception about it goes into the record if there’s a response but it didn’t articulate the overall rule that individual comments remain with the individual that receives them.

Admin: Well, I think the document itself was clear. But, here is what we agreed on that will settle two issues with communication with the deans. One was pertaining to the fact that since we made this understanding while the process was going on, that if the deans had already received some departmental comments and EPT comments, they will return those.

FA: Yes.

Admin: So, I will send communication clarifying that.

FA: That was one piece.

Admin: That’s implicit. The second part was that I will also make sure that the timeline and the procedures were on the Provost’s website in a prominent and easily accessible place where if any faculty member wants to access it, they can.

FA: But there’s still a piece that I don’t hear you confirming that’s going to be communicated. And that is specifically that when an individual faculty member writes a comment to an individual faculty member, that that comment does not go to the dean. It goes only to the faculty member, except in that one case.

Admin: Yes, but Mark, that is clear in the document. That is why we agreed upon this. If you want to amplify further as to how my memo ought to be interpreted by the members of the bargaining unit, please go ahead and do that. But, I think that the timeline and the schedule is very clear that the only event in which the comments will go to the Dean is if the faculty member chooses to respond and wants it in written form as part of the letter.

FA: I agree with you on that. It is not clear to me whether everybody else understands that that’s where we stand.

Admin: I hear you but what I’m saying… In some sense, this is really more a guide to a document. I don’t want to write a guide to my own memo. I would much rather have you write it.

Admin: Let me just comment. What the memo says is the only way that it will go to the dean is if the faculty member chooses to comment. It is not necessary to turn it around and say it the other way that the comments go to the individual and stay with the individual. The Provost… we have bent over backwards, to take a document that I had not seen, work through the issues on our side, and the deans communicated. He told you what he’s going to do. I agree there may be confusion. I don’t see that as being generated by the character of the memo. In the spirit of Meet and Confer, thank you very much. I trust that we can resolve it in the future.

FA: Should I assume when my college asks me what should I do, I remember Judith sent a summary statement, right? A faculty perspective and a management perspective. Should I just share what the faculty perspective is?

FA: I don’t think that Judith’s memo is very helpful at this point since that was kind of a few steps back in an attempt to articulate the beginning of the conversation. I will be providing a statement from the Faculty Association.

FA: Which I can share?

FA: You can certainly do that. I have asked and received concurrence that if I wish to quote from statements that have been in writing from the Administration, that I may include that in the memo I send. And I intend to do that. I believe we have said what we can say and I don’t think there’s anything to be accomplished on this topic at this meeting.

FA: I’m not going to go after President One first stopped, and President Two put a stop sign up.

Admin: Okay. Thank you.

3. Follow up on Strategic Program Appraisal Process (ADM)

Admin: I want to thank Mark Jaede for working with us. I also want to thank him that subsequent to the last Meet and Confer he gave me the opportunity to go and talk to the faculty, which he had organized at an open session. He has, subsequent to that, also invited Lisa and me to one of the Faculty Senate meetings. And he’s also trying to put together a process for another open session. He’s invited us there and we’ll be glad to go and interact as long as you want us to provide any clarification you may need in regard to the process of the data, which has been put out there. Subsequent to last Meet and Confer, Mark has pointed out that there were a couple of places where the document we had shared with you needed some clarity/amplification and one was in the area of assessment and what we meant by it, and the other was in the fact that when we talk about in phase two, the bottom third, that that doesn’t mean that we will eliminate the bottom third programs. At that stage intensive review will occur, and we will think in terms of strengthening the programs, consolidated them, and even elimination if it makes sense. We will make both of those editorial adjustments in the document to reflect the spirit of the document better. And beyond that, Lisa has been receiving comments from the department with regard to some instructions of the data and clarification in nature. We have also clarified the process by which we will consolidate and incorporate the input we get on data back from the department back into our work. And Lisa will be essentially meeting as departmental work finishes with the colleges and at that point the chairs will have ample opportunity to provide us with input. We’ll listen to that input carefully with regard to interpreting the data. It’s important. If possible, we will make the appropriate adjustments. At that point, we will produce a database and share it with everyone else. Beyond that if questions arise we have provided the best possible answer we can in terms of clarification.

FA: First of all, thank you. It has been an open process with frequent communication, and I’m grateful to you and Lisa for the work you’ve done in terms of making that possible, and answering questions as they’ve arisen. So that is a good thing. I appreciate the fact that you’ve also agreed to another open forum with faculty, and attending the Faculty Senate meeting. So, those are all good things. I think we are in agreement, but I just wanted to make sure that I understand a few things correctly that when departments have concerns we will have them routed through the chair or at least the department level, comments about the data, so we don’t get 700 faculty member comments in emails or whatever. And that those concerns may be transmitted simultaneously to the dean and to Lisa’s office as they come forward so the dean will be familiar with them also.

Admin: That’s correct. That’s why I’m going to see if my schedule permits and if ever it does I will be there also at the DACs just to listen directly. And that is more from an interest, because data interests me. The deans are there too because we view this as a collaborative exercise. It will be a difficult conversation and we want to do it as well as we can.

FA: Has there been any additional direction to the deans about process within their college other than the documents that we have seen? The charge?

Admin: Yes. Deans are aware of what I just explained to you that we want the department chairs to be the point person to reconcile interdepartmental discussions around the data so we get a departmental response from the chairs, and obviously we will work with the deans to make sure that Lisa is there in DACs, in those meetings.

FA: I think the question goes a step beyond that. There’s a step of making sure you got the best data.

Admin: Yes.

FA: But then there’s another step of using those data in order to get to the phase one decision. And while we understand that this is a quantitative process and that it is not intended to have the deep qualitative analysis that’s going to happen in phase two; nevertheless, there are some judgment calls that have to be made about how one makes use of the quantitative data and we are interested in knowing about what form of consultation will occur between deans and faculty about that decision-making in indentifying which programs are indentified for phase two or not.

Admin: Let me just check here. We’re going to do that centrally?

Admin: Yes.

Admin: The deans are going to have a decision-making role in terms of the upper half, lower half?

Admin: Yes. Basically, what will happen is once we get the data, the deans will look at the data in phase one, make a prioritization, and at that stage after they do that, they’ll share that with the faculty and seek their input at the college level, take that input back in, then finalize it, and then send it on further.

Admin: So, it could very well be the case… It’s very unlikely that the case will result in half of the programs in each of the five colleges identified as up or below.

Admin: At the institutional level.

FA: But there is going to be a consultation with the faculty between the point where the dean comes to a prioritization and the point where that gets passed on to the central Administration?

Admin: Wrong. Wrong.

FA: Okay.

Admin: The dean is not prioritizing.

FA: Okay. I thought that you said rank ordering. If I’m mistaken in hearing what the dean is doing.

Admin: I’m fine talking about this openly.

Admin: Sure. Essentially what we’re doing is at the college level in the first phase.

Admin: Yes.

Admin: There will be a conversation after we have the data.

Admin: Right.

Admin: Using the data, deans will come up with a set of prioritization because we won’t identify the top half at the college level.

Admin: Why? Because if it’s the top half of the institution, it doesn’t matter what the top half the college is.

Admin: That’s right. Because once that information comes from the colleges to us, we will pull it into one and take that information and then at the institutional level there will be a top half and bottom half, which may or may not be what is at the college level.

Admin: It’s very unlikely that it will.

Admin: Yes.

Admin: Why even bother doing at the college level?

FA: That was the purpose for my question to get to this point.

Admin: Yes.

FA: Because there are implications for at what level they’re reviewed. It seems to me that a review that occurs at the university level is best because then we’re not pitting internally department against department in a college. We’re looking at the overall picture of the institution. And that’s why when I asked, I was trying to find out how in the world would the deans take all these programs and do this sorting.

Admin: Yes.

FA: They are essentially they are going to make sure that when the data goes to the central point it is the best available information that have about these program.

Admin: Right. Correct. I think that’s true. But it seems like an unnecessary step to sort them in the college because it’s irrelevant.

FA: What I thought I heard in a previous conversation and maybe I’m mistaken or maybe you changed the plan, but was that because we have a set of data to use.

Admin: Right.

FA: But we don’t have the mechanical formula to use those data, and say you get so many points for the number of students and you get so many points for…, that on a college-by-college level there might be reason one would evaluate those same numbers in a different way in one college than in another, and that that was a reason why there would be some consideration at the college level.

Admin: Sure.

FA: I’m not necessarily asking you why you do that…

Admin: I hear the question. I think we need to have more conversations. What I have in mind is different that what you have in mind.

Admin: Yes. Actually, again, I think I understand what your concerns are. What we want to get is an input on the sense of priority around a program at the college level.

Admin: I don’t want to do that. We have to talk.

Admin: Okay.

Admin: I don’t want to do that in the first phase.

Admin: Okay.

Admin: I think that is a second phase discussion.

Admin: Okay. So, in the first phase we look at the data and then we can work with the deans to draw an institutional list.

Admin: Yes.

Admin: Just data.

Admin: So…

Admin: Yes. If we can agree now, we can tell them that.

Admin: Sure.

Admin: But I don’t want to…

Admin: I’d much rather think it through, because this is a question of process.

Admin: Right.

Admin: As to what is the best way of getting the information, as to what is the sense of prioritization associated with a specific program.

Admin: We’ll talk about it. It’s very helpful to have had the conversation.

FA: Likewise. We’re glad to be part of it.

Admin: That’s my thinking.

FA: I just wanted to add that some faculty had suggested that it might be desirable to allow more time for phase two if the understanding is that what’s happening at the college level in phase one is basically just a data cleaning up rather than any decision-making making about the data. It might be good to consider whether that would allow that to happen more quickly, that it would happen if there had to be more decision-making.  

Admin: We’ll take that question under advisement.

Admin: Yes.

FA: Thank you.

FA: I believe we had a question during our Pre-Meet and Confer about how often the data is being updated and uploaded, or if it is, so that we know if it’s being updated so we know the changes.

Admin: Help me understand the question because Lisa couldn’t be here today, but if I understand your question you’re saying that the source we draw from the data, if we draw the data from, how often is it updated, is that what you want?

FA: Well, whether it’s been updated?

Admin: Oh, since we sent the data?

FA: Right. And how we know if it’s been updated to go check it if there’s some system for that or not.

Admin: Yes. That’s a technical question. I don’t know off hand.

FA: Yes.

Admin: Whether that update occurred that frequently. My guess is that it doesn’t. But I’ll have to check.

Admin: There have been some adjustments in response to the questions.

Admin: Yes.

Admin: But they’ve been pretty much in dialog with those departments that are asked questions.

FA: We appreciate that. That’s a good thing. I think the nature of our concern here is that at some time an individual may look at the data, and then they may look at it later, and they may see something different and want to know: how do I know that I’m looking at the most recent and accurate data?

Admin: I see. I see. Actually what happens as we make adjustments, the data is shared in a common, particularly the input that we get from that. We can track that. I misunderstood your question. I was thinking that the source that we draw from that data whether you were asking how often that is updated.

FA: Is there an update tag on the site that is posted that says: last updated at a certain time?

Admin: Yes. We can work on that. We can do that.

FA: I asked my dean what’s with our college. What are you planning to do? I look at the College of Business and it seems like they have a strong division. Whether it’s right or wrong we have some issues with it. What’s the position of each one? As departments, what we can do to try to survive? We are all human beings, and we want to protect our own interests. What we want to do. How do I know when you do ranking and other stuff, do you have a clear indication of us and the best interest of me?

Admin: Good question. Let me respond quickly about it. The maturity of vision and plans for the colleges varies. The vision for the university is not finalized. Business is probably the most mature, in that sense, because they have actually gone through a formula process and they’ve made choices. Fine Arts and Humanities is the least developed and we need to bring that vision into some exposure and clarity. That’s just a fact of life. Its challenge is hitting us at a time our visions are, to one degree or another, a work in progress. It does introduce some rare subjectivity and throws us a particular challenge to make those judgments. We are sensitive about that. That’s a phase-two issue more than a phase-one issue. That’s one of the reasons I will avoid making subjective judgments at phase one.

FA: In actuality that will favor central decision-making in that they would tend to be less directly connection or have preferential decision making.

Admin: We’ll talk about that.

Admin: Thank you.

New Business

4. Summer Session (ADM)

Admin: Dennis Nunes has to leave so I’m going to go to item four first, and then we’ll go down the list.

Admin: Thank you. Do any of you not have the information I provided about summer sessions? This is a statement of the analysis of summer session 2009, and then a proposed allocation for summer session 2010. The faculty provided over 1,100 of sections of courses this last summer. We served almost 6,000 students. And the total tuition income generated was about 4.9 million dollars, which is placed in the university’s general fund and budget. This summer our increase in the number of credits is 4% over the previous year. As of today we have an increase of 46 FYE over last summer, which will have a positive effect on our budget. Online course generation increased 18%. What we’re seeing happening across years is online continues to be a delivery model of choice for our students in the summer. We’re seeing modest decreases of on-campus classes in the summer. That’s a brief statement about what’s happened. You’ll see that there are three sheets. The first one is essentially a sheet that summarizes by college the income and cost. The income is tuition income. The cost is simply faculty salaries. The far right column on that first page is a ratio of income divided by cost. It tells us, in a very narrow sense just in terms of faculty salaries and tuition income, how much money was generated by one dollar invested in instruction for each college. For example, the Herberger College of Business has a ratio of 1.42. For every instructional dollar spent in the college, $1.42 in tuition income was generated.  Overall, we are very close to where we have been in the last two years, about 1.50. The next sheet moves into budget recommendations for summer of 2010. Part of the recommendation is for allocation of colleges. There is a decrease of $100,000 from summer 2009. The enrollment demand item remains the same; these are dollars available to add extra classes for courses that fill. We monitor daily and if the course looks as if we can add another section, we’re back in touch immediately seeing if another is able to be added. We only used about $40,000 of that money last year.  The special projects or innovative awards are $30,000 this year. It had been set at $60,000 for the last several of years. The faculty fringe is simply 25% of total salary dollars, and summer session administration cost is roughly $103,000. I will note in that there are decreases in two categories: one was the allocation of colleges and the second was to innovative awards. The total is a decrease of 4.0%. That mirrors the decrease in the on-campus credit generation over the last two years. Summer Session has grown but the growth is in online course enrollment. To help cushion the decrease in college allocations, we have a safety net of enrollment demands funds that we did not fully expend last year. We have set aside almost $90,000 that will be available if we find the courses filling and we need to add additional sections. The budget projects tuition income assuming no change in credit generation of about $5,000,000 returning $2,000,000 to the university’s general fund, monies that we spend during that fiscal year. The next page is the one that you’ll probably have the greatest interest in. I won’t go through this in detail; however, I certainly will with anyone individually. I don’t think we have time at this moment to step through the entire spreadsheet. And by the way, it is exactly the same as it has been for quite some time; there have been no changes in the way these are computed. The final column to your right indicates the allocation to the colleges for summer 2010. So, for example, I’ll use the HCOB. The amount in the first row indicates $544,084 for on-campus summer instruction 2010. The amount that had been allocated in 2009 was $579,946. The total amount allocated to the colleges is $100,000 less than in summer 2009.  All the colleges except COSE have a decreased amount in 2010. The COSE has had a sizeable increase in credit production in the college in the last couple of years in the summer and that increase in summer enrollment has produced a small increase in the college’s allocation for 2010.

FA: What, I’m sorry?

Admin: Credit generation. The formula is essentially our dollars follow our students. When you work through this spreadsheet, where our students are, and what percentage our budget should be allocated to various units, follows. Essentially our credit generation follows our students.

FA: Where would I find the costs of online instruction?

Admin: That is not funded through summer session. We have an unusual situation in a sense that online is funded on a 12-month basis through the Center for Continuing Studies, and those decisions are made through that center.

FA: But the tuition paid for online instruction is recorded as tuition income?

Admin: Yes. Right. The data generation is a total credit generation, but we have two separate units responsible for two pieces during the summer session.

FA: I’m concerned about that, and also about the percentage of online on front of the sheet going with the analysis because this would require that a course be sponsored by Sponsored Programs. This wouldn’t capture courses that are departmental courses that the department or the faculty decide to offer online. It may be what Continuing Studies garners through credits, it may be the money that they spend, but I know that there are other courses that departments offer that have nothing to do with Continuing Studies that are online. So, I’m worried that we might be misrepresenting the amount of money spent online or the credits generated to online by only considering the ones through Continuing Studies. If you look at any of my classes, I don’t offer them through Continuing Studies so they aren’t even in the online offerings that they list. That’s just one instance. I understand the distinction is hard to make.

Admin: One of the concerns that I have, and a conversation that I was engaged with the Provost, was: how do we better coordinate our two separate and to some extent summer session administrative units providing essentially compensation to our faculty for instruction to our students in some ways in relative isolation? It’s a concern for me, and it has become a much larger issue in the last few years.

Admin: Your point is well taken, what is happening at one level is this is one activity with two different designs. But it has two separate budget structures. And so basically what we’re doing is we’re dove-tailing. One is linked just to the summer so it becomes harder to cross. We recognize the problem. We had a conversation on much longer terms so we get a little better handle so that we can actually represent the actual activity and dove-tailing the budget better.

Admin: It is unmanageable at this conclave together. Changes need to occur.

FA: I think I can capture the concern expressed quite simply. If the summer school budget has traditionally paid the salary of the faculty member, that money that is generated ought to be credited to the traditional summer school budget. The happenstance whether or not the class is totally online should be disregarded. I think that’s what you’re saying, if a college and department in summer school pay for it, the revenue generated ought to be…

Admin: And it is.

FA: But the other piece of it is that if you’re talking about online credit generated, it’s not just through Continuing Studies. There’s a piece of it you’re missing outside of that. I’m concerned that we have a full understanding of what that is. I understand it’s a complicated problem and we’ll have to look at it long term.

Admin: Yes. The point is well taken. What you’re referring to is accuracy of online activity itself.

FA: Right.

Admin: Not necessarily the question about the budget.

FA: Right.

FA: The other thing that I didn’t understand is the reason that the budget is being cut is online went up and everything else went down? Everything here looks like it all rises. I think that aggregating all of it here makes it very confusing. I’m trying to understand why standard summer session is being cut. We’re making money.

Admin: The rationale is that the summer session is not being cut. What is happening is we are estimating: how much money will we need in our traditional summer session? And, it so happens that our best estimate is that we need 4% less than what we used this year. 

Admin: That’s right. It’s an alignment issue as opposed to a budget cutting issue. This is not a budget cutting exercise. It’s an alignment issue about where our students are, and with two separate funding models for summer, summer session portion of this is not increasing. The total is, but it’s falling in the hands of Continuing Studies at this point.

FA: The affect on departments is that departments don’t have as much money allocated?

Admin: Yes.

FA: Is it possible departments may end up shrinking the budget for the college?

Admin: Yes. In essence, those classes funded by Continuing Studies for the summer are not included in the analysis for the allocation, departments and colleges.

FA: So it’s possible?

Admin: Yes.

FA: I’ve been under the impression one of the pieces of this item had to do with the calendar change to the three-five-four schedule?

Admin: There’s a task force on summer sessions. The more immediate issue is the analysis of 2009-2010. That task force submitted an interim report last spring for a three intersession, a five for this coming year 2010. The task force is reconvening now and I expect a longer term recommendation to come out of that task force in the fall.

FA: So, we’ll be hearing that calendar discussion at Meet and Confer later?

Admin: Oh, absolutely.

FA: Okay.

Admin: I don’t know what the timeline is but that’s the expectation.

FA: Okay.

FA: What instructions relative to that calendar are the departments and colleges being given in terms of setting up and delivering instruction?

Admin: There’s an extensive handbook we’ve produced that outlines a variety of summer session issues. That’s done and now it’s at press, and I expect it would be less than two weeks, maybe earlier like mid next week. It will be available to all faculty in all units. It will lay out the information you requested.

FA: Thank you.

Admin: Thank you.

1. H1N1 Status (ADM)

Admin: We brought a document to you that we shared.

Admin: The background was in the advent of H1N1 flu during the summer as it came apparent then that we might have to be prepared to react to the outbreak sooner than we had anticipated. An ad hoc committee formed on campus representing various units that might be at frontline responsibilities for dealing with flu. This committee started to meet in August. The various units have folks sitting at the table and started to develop plans and policies and practices in anticipation of the flu. One area that has received little attention nationally but deserves more attention at the campus level is academic issues. And as a consequence I’ve prepared a document that addresses various issues. This has not yet been incorporated in the planning documents because we felt it was necessary to bring it to Meet and Confer before we formally adopted that. This is a three-page document. It looks at academic issues such as instructional and non-instructional. The general tone of this is advisory rather than prescriptive. So, the other thing to comment on this, this is a matter that is later on in the agenda and is representation on this ad hoc body. We are coming to you with a proposal to have FA representation on this body. Meanwhile Mark Jaede and Rich Josephson have been attending the last couple meetings.

FA: An additional faculty member has expressed interest. We’ll talk about populating the committee when we get there.

FA: Just as an aside, today I received two emails within one minute of each other from students that know how to spell “flu” informing me that they wouldn’t be in class today. The word is out. The magic word when you’re not going to make it to class is to say “flu.” It’s happening. I don’t know that there is flu. I’m certainly not going to conduct an investigation to figure out if it’s true. Although each of us should remember that if you touch a doorknob that’s one of the primary means by which the flu is transmitted.

FA: I’ve been hearing from my colleagues about students using this is an excuse. I think that we should not engage in that bashing kind of behavior. I teach a class of 200, and 190 were present today. I think that’s pretty good. Students who aren’t taking college serious will find an excuse whether it’s flu or grandparents dying several times in a semester.

Admin: The question is whether they died of flu or not. (Laughing)

FA: There’s nothing that the Administration can do to prevent it. I think it’s important that we be educated.

Admin: We are really trying to respond to a public health emergency. And there’s no clear, clean way to respond to that emergency, and so what we want to do is through diligence we have sufficient flexibility built in that we do not inadvertently be punitive toward students who are caught in that public health emergency. That’s where we’re coming from.

FA: I don’t know when the appropriate time is. I hope it’s okay to say this now, I just want people who are communicating with students to know that there’s a wide range of responses. The other day I went into my 3:00 class, which is upper division and it’s in a computer lab. They know they can do email, facebook, whatever, ahead of time and there’s a roar of laughter from about four or five people that had opened up an H1N1 email at the same time. I think people who communicate with students need to keep in mind some sort of balance so that it doesn’t become a joke, and that people take this seriously, but on the other hand don’t act as if the plague is breaking out and you need to stay away from all other humans. If this would have been freshmen, I wouldn’t have been surprised but since it was upper classmen it took me by surprise a little bit.

FA: I do appreciate the advisory tone of this. There is no hard and fast rule that will be the right thing for every single person in every single circumstance, but I have sent email to the faculty advising them of the CDC recommendations and the position of the student health center. My perspective is that we need to accept the fact there’s a public health issue and there’s no way we’re going to be able to document if they actually have the flu or not because we don’t want to drive sick people into the classroom. We’ll just keep working on it.

FA: I just sat through the webinar and one of the things that the director talked about was that students have developed not a mistrust but they know that mass email is part of the game, and are finding that to be a less than effective way of getting to students. I don’t know what other choices we have. But it does echo that experience. And that was something I just heard this morning. They were talking about marketing and getting information to students.

Admin: Sure. Thank you. Anything else?

Admin: There are a number of other items up on that list there. I encourage folks to look at it. And probably anticipate and be flexible for internships, internship sites, clinical sites, and teaching sites that might be affected and have a bearing on how long the student goes in that experience and how to prepare for that.

FA: Would MnSCU guidelines that we had to look at last year, would they apply to this case as well? Like if a public school were stopped at a certain point and so much time has been done in student teaching or other types of experiences. Do we have similar options they would have, if for example Moorhead they had to go down to their student population? Do we know?  

Admin: I think in instances like this one place to turn to would be the licensing body, as for example in teaching. Nursing would be the same thing. Where it’s not a regulated profession, we might have to use our best judgment as to how far along a student gets credit for.

FA: Internships in some departments aren’t necessarily for licensure, like business or our department.

Admin: That’s something to explore over time.

Admin: I think something to anticipate given the extent that you have in your own minds for guidelines. If it is less than 40%: no; if it is more than 60%: yes; that leaves that middle 20% where you have to do some soul searching.

Admin: Two small points. In Moorhead it was a declaration of emergency.

FA: Right.

Admin: It allowed some more traction in special cases and we did have a guideline for the other flu, the Bird Flu, with planning relative to completion of things like credit. Part of that is influenced by financial aid. They have a certain level of completion for financial aid. So that might be a guide that we could base something on.

Admin: Thank you.

2. Center for Information Assurance Studies Proposal (ADM)
AND

3. Center for BioScience Research and Education Proposal (ADM)

Admin: I’m going to provide you a little, brief rationale as to why we’re bringing these to Meet and Confer at this point in time for these two centers. And then I’ll let the Dean of the College of Business and the Dean of the College of Science and Engineering give you a little bit of sense on the proposals themselves. You already have the brief rationale attached to the documents. A quick recap: these two proposals have been in the work for a long time but were delayed because of changes in leadership and that. Both of these proposals argue for a center organizational structure to provide focus to the existing work that is already being done. So, it is really a rearrangement of work activities which are ongoing. And essentially what this organizational structure does is enables these units to showcase their work externally and deal with external agencies in a lot more effective manner. And it also helps us to position ourselves to garner some external, substantial funding. That’s why there’s some immediacy and urgency to bring these conversations to a conclusion. There is no significant additional investment or expenses that are currently needed for these centers. As mentioned earlier, it is really a reorganization of these existing activities. And then both of these centers will align with the strategic priorities. Center for Information Assurance Studies will be a component for the Center of Academic Excellence and Information Assurance certification, awarded to the university by NSA and the Department of Homeland Security. And so it gives a niche program to provide us national visibility so we can recruit students nationally for this program. Center for Bioscience Research and Education again addresses critical needs right away and dovetails as well with the regional needs. It aligns well with P-16 partnership. And so, in that sense, that is the background as to why we are bringing this and why it is needed.

FA: So if I’m hearing correctly, this is a reorganization of work that is already taken place so that’s the reason why these wouldn’t have come forward through the new initiative process that we agreed upon?

Admin: That’s correct.

FA: Okay.

Admin: They were well on their way.

FA: Okay.

Admin: Exactly. As I said they were already there. They were already in the process, and they lend themselves to reorganization in a manner that we can absorb them with the existing budgetary structures. It is in that sense.

FA: I appreciate that these proposals, unlike the one that came late last spring, are incorporated into the process for establishing an academic center. It is helpful to know what the process is and reviewing what it is and how to respond. Since these have been in development for some time, I assume that there is documentation consistent with the proposals, section A, that says governance must incorporate consultation with all participating departments? The deans could produce department minutes that indicate that the matter was discussed at departments and that there are in fact sign offs of the various affected departments? That I don’t have those documents here today, which makes discussion of the interior of the proposals premature.

Admin: The departments brought the proposals and developed the proposals through their process.

FA: So, you do have the documentation that the departments did that? It should be an easy thing to produce?

FA: Was there consultation among departments? A department might bring a proposal, was there consultation with other departments that might either have been interested in joining in or might have concerns?

Admin: The Center for Information Assurance Studies was a joint effort between CAN and the College of Science and Engineering. Those faculty from those two departments are the faculty are involved. As a result they were all involved in the proposal, which is a component of CAN.

FA: But particularly in curricular decisions we would identify other departments that might possibly have an interest and ask for their sign off. For example was Computer Science consulted?

Admin: Computer Science began as part of the process but at some point they chose not to continue because they felt that their program did not align well enough with that.

FA: I’m not presuming that they have to be part of it.

Admin: Right.

FA: My only question is to process is to whether we have been following the agreed upon procedures for creating a center and having that conversation. And I would presume that there was some document somewhere from Computer Science, which indicated they no longer wish to participate?

Admin: I would have to check my email. I’m not sure.

FA: I have the same structure questions. From the College of Science and Engineering, I compared the two documents and the COSE had .67 as a cost center. It’s not my problem. How many departments really… there were a lot of issues going on and... Technology, Mathmatics…

Admin: There’s a current cost center in the COSE that this than puts a new title on that cost center. So rather that be called Bioscience--

FA: …cost center rostered in that department?

Admin: Yes. Dr. Jacobson was hired in 2006. He brought this proposal to me and we had a conversation with all of these people who might be interested. Most of them as you point out are from Chemistry, Biology, and Mechanical Engineering. So, they brought this proposal to me and it represents basically changing his title from Director of Biophysics Outreach to Director to the Academic Center for Biosciences Education, and coordinating with the various groups.

FA: Is STEM part of it now?

Admin: Well, additionally the center will support the efforts of P-16 and STEM coordinators. STEM is a large thing onto itself of which the “S” part, the science part, would be incorporated and Biology, Chemistry...

Admin: Do you want to add anything specific about the center proposals?

Admin: They should be self explanatory.

Admin: Yes.

FA: One question that did come up in our Pre-Meet and Confer discussion, the draft is dated September 15, and the timeline there is some historic events and then typically future events use this. What’s the current thinking about, where is this proposal and when will the center actually be established?

Admin: The activities of the center are already in place.

FA: I saw that.

Admin: As a requirement.

FA: Okay.

Admin: The reason that proposal is dated September 15 is because it was taken to Academic Affairs Council and the President’s Council and there were a couple of editorial changes that needed to be made. So we made the changes. For example one of the faculty members has retired since we started this proposal three years ago.

FA: So the budget and curriculum are already in place?

Admin: Yes. What happened was we picked up the conversation between so we looked at those documents which we hadn’t looked at for some time and we wanted to make sure that all the information was still up to date.

FA: The document spells out the steps. If well documented if they occurred is very straight forward because the final approval process indicates that the immediate supervisors, and I assume we have the two immediate supervisors here, after the process has occurred will be forward to the Academic Affairs Council for an agenda for information and discussion. And then following that it goes to the VP of

Academic Affairs for a recommendation. And then the President decides. So, really what I’m saying is we have a process. That if the process is followed and documented, we have no problem. We had an issue last year with a center that tried to do something that was outside the process. I’m just simply saying, let’s get our processes in order and that the documentation is clear and that we followed what we said we do for establishing academic centers.

Admin: If we move to number four, where it says Faculty Senate. It says, “the President following appropriate conversation will forward the proposal to the FA President for recommendation. The FA President will refer the proposal to the appropriate faculty committee for review.” That’s the step we’re at right now.

FA: I would disagree with you because you’ve not provided us documentation that the departments participating were consulted and that they signed off. The grants I participated in frequently have signature lines. Almost every other process we have is a signature line that acknowledges that a step actually occurred. I’m not doubting that the matter didn’t occur at Academic Affairs Council and that the President has approved the desire to bring this forward. What I’m saying is I can not tell whether or not departments at department meetings discussed the matter. I can not tell if there’s a sign off from one of my colleagues that says they had that opportunity. I heard both of you say that shouldn’t be a problem, and that you have that documentation. Just as a matter of business, I for one would advise that we get the documentation. When is the next time you’ll be assembling Senate?

FA: Well, Senate meets on Tuesday.

FA: Well, so then we could take something to Senate in two weeks, assuming we could…

FA: Well, the procedure suggests we should take it to a committee before Senate.

FA: I know of committee that asked for work. (Laughter)

Admin: Let me comment here in terms of mission of the university. Frankly, do anything that you want to do to satisfy your sense of need for review. The two centers are different. The fact is that the Center for Information and Assurance is initiative of the faculty, it is the project of two collaborating departments for a period of three years that has been submitted for review with the Department of Homeland Security and the National Security Agency. The curriculum in the program was judged to be one of the top 100 programs in the United States. That effort has already generated tens of thousands of dollars in scholarship money. This is not an administrative proposal and was in fact a project of the faculty. So, if we now have to go back over a three-year course and present a record of documentation that satisfies processes, that’s fine. It was an organic process that occurred among the faculty. The Bioscience is a different animal in that programmatic decisions were made in hiring a faculty member and in bringing together a capacity to focus work in the biosciences. There was consultation across departments and a lot of work with industry, which resulted in the generation of, among other things, the plan for ISELF (Integrated Science and Engineering Laboratory Facility), global science lab, and a number of other activities. Clear interactions with government agencies said we would have a hard time garnering grant money unless we could point to an agency of the university that was designated as a center of this activity. So the decision to put forward the proposal for a center was a consequence of the need for a name, frankly, not the need for new faculty, programs, or curriculum, but the need for a name to anchor future proposals, all the work of the faculty. So, I think we should work together to assure the Association that the faculty were what we say to be true that this is the work of faculty and is true. I think it is very easy to lay out the evidence of that. We can drag the bodies in here to attest to the truth of documents. The fact is both these represent efforts that have been in the process for a number of years, so do what you need to do.

FA: I think, if I understand correctly, you’re coming to us at a stage where it has gone through the various processes and the President has recommended, and your understanding is that next step is a response from the faculty, which means we have a job to do in terms of considering what our response is going to be. I think that we need to have that conversation in a place other than this in terms of formulating our response. The concerns raised about documenting and past procedure are appropriate but I would prefer not create unnecessary delay. I don’t think that that should stop us from going to the next step in terms of formulating a response to this. This is ultimately going to have to go to Senate.

Admin: It’s perfectly reasonable to ask for documentation. The documents you have been given should have been framed so that they clearly correspond to the expectations of the old process because this is sort of coming forward on the old process. And we’re about to change to a new process. So the documents should be presented in accordance with the expectations of the old process. The degree that that evidence is not clear in what has been presented can be clarified for your purposes.

FA: I appreciate your attention to this detail. As you know, work goes on at the university that not everybody is aware of. Historically in the past we’ve had initiatives come forward that were not appropriately consulted upon. This predates those of you in leadership positions at this table. But I think that our responsibility is going to be when we take this to Senate they’ll ask us: have you seen the appropriate sign off? I’m simply interested in making sure we move forward with that documentation and we can say yes, the I’s have been dotted and the T’s have been crossed. We’ve seen the signatures on the lines. We appreciate your attention to that.

Admin: A couple more words in response to that. I’m very sensitive to your concern. I offer the Center for Holocaust Studies as a good example. A very important entity at the university, which was slammed together without funding and has been in peril of failure for a number of years. We have finally, I think, resolved its course for that. But it shouldn’t have been put together the way it was. The Multicultural Resource Center is another area that was compromised, they needed solutions so they had something happen, but it wasn’t appropriately funded and structured in the first place. So, I take your sensitivity and concern as a shared commitment of the quality of what we do together. I don’t see it as orneriness of the Association and as nit-picking about process. I have no trouble responding by framing the evidence. I think it is getting our practice in line with our appropriate commitment to shared governance for the purpose of doing the right thing well, and it is a good thing. My going through the history and saying make the case, and one of these is clearly faculty driven in a concentrated process that worked very well with true budget support from the university. The second case, different ideology, but also some solid budget commitment and appropriate consultation. This is not the same clarity and conviction, as the first where departmental initiatives and with no other parties relevant. The second one is more complicated. There might be detractors who would disagree but that would be my job to listen to all the parties and make the decision.

FA: I don’t want to be cynical. I like to be skeptical. Conflict is in my college but we can be civil and talk to each other. In my college the bioscience is a wonderful idea but people will be skeptical if they are left out. I pick my own department. We are doing a lot of technology and there’s nothing about technology there. Lots of things like this come up. It’s a messy process but we like to have a healthy dose of skepticism, and ask the right questions to create transparency.

Admin: Creation of the organizational structures provides the sufficient focus, which is needed, which will enable other departments which may have not thought through initially they would be part and parcel of the thinking of this structure itself to participate. It doesn’t freeze who can participate in this or not by determining who proposed it or not. So if your department wants to participate, I’m sure the organizational structure would be very receptive as to what ways you want to contribute to those kinds of missions, which is imbedded in this effort. So it does not preclude any further conversation. As you said, we’ll move this process forward but in the meanwhile we’ll provide you with the clarification you need in terms of the participation as this proposal was developed.

FA: Just to give you a sense of time, I don’t think it’s going to be realistic to get an answer out of Senate on Tuesday, but perhaps in the subsequent meeting. There’s time to get together and get the documentation we requested and give it some consideration.

Admin: Okay.

FA: But I will try to move the process through Senate in an appropriate and timely manner.

Admin: We can get you the information very quickly for clarification. We would appreciate it if you could take it to the Senate as quickly as possible. Beyond that…

4. Summer Session (ADM)—discussed above.

5. Request for committee member(s)/representative(s) (ADM)

Admin: These items are clustered together. We are requesting committee membership from the Faculty Association or representatives.

· Director of International Admissions Search Committee member(s)

Admin: This is really a MSUAASF position. Essentially the incumbent resigned and we are in the process of hiring. So, it would be beneficial if a faculty member was also a member of this committee to provide their perspective.

FA: We need a number?

Admin: One. Sorry. I should have mentioned that first.

· Veterans Advisory Board (3 representatives)

Admin: Many of you probably remember in August of 2007, President Potter appointed a group of people that included faculty to examine the needs of programs and services for our veterans. That group worked over several months and produced a report. In that report was a recommendation to create a Veteran’s Advisory Board. I’m coming to you to request three representatives from the Faculty Association. Do you have any questions?

FA: I don’t think so. The work that has gone on so far in terms of trying to improve our services to veterans has been very positive and it’s been an example of something that we can all support enthusiastically.

Admin: I appreciate your support. Thank you very much.

· Academic Policy Working Group member (4 representatives)

Admin: This body emerged from Meet and Confer three years ago or so. It has representatives from various units on campus and its purpose is to meet and discuss informally ideas and proposals for new academic policies and existing academic policies with revisions. We are asking for four faculty representatives to this body. This is a time sensitive issue, in a sense that regularly schedule meetings by practice have been on alternate Wednesdays from 9:00-10:30 in the morning. So, as you consider appointments to this body, we ask that you take into consideration the schedule of faculty members who might be interested in this.

FA: In the past we’ve had representation from our Academic Affairs Committee.

Admin: That’s my next point. Since the inception, the chair of the FA Academic Affairs Committee has been a member. I ask you to consider that in making your selection. It helps in the process in formal proposals for Academic Affairs.

· Task Force on Academic Calendars (FA Committee on University)

Admin: Now that we have a calendar in place 2010-2011, we need to begin working on 2011-2012, and perhaps beyond. For the past few years, we’ve had a task force on Academic Calendars and we’d like to do that again this year. We have shared with you a charge to the task force with an indication of the membership of who we propose to have on it. Recent practice has been for the Faculty Association to name the members to its Committee on the Institution on this task force.

FA: Are you envisioning a specific number with a request that be drawn from the committee or are you specifically requesting that it be the Committee on the University?

Admin: We are requesting members. We are observing that in the past, the FA has named the committee and any or all the members who wished to participate.

FA: What I’m trying to get is the number of members on a committee fluctuate over time. This is my first time in encountering a request for representation that is framed in this way of a single committee.

FA: It’s actually the Committee on the Institution. To clarify, the proposal to charge the academic calendar to the Committee on the Institution happened years ago and they tried to have similar instructional days in fall and spring, and we brought it to Meet and Confer, and we were told it’s not going to work, we’ll take it under advisement. So, nothing ever happened. In part because the chancellor said we all have to be on the same calendar and we had to start before Labor Day. Then there was more willingness to work together. That’s where the initiation of the committee being involved came from. I don’t know if it should stay this way forever but it’s worked very well the last few years. It started as a faculty effort. How much work is it? Last year we didn’t have to do very much because we now have a template.

Admin: That’s going to depend on issues that members of this task force wish to raise. I’m not going to prejudge or pre-envision where this would go. One possibility would be to do what we have been doing. From some perspectives it seems to be a workable group. On the other hand other questions have arisen and this would be a group to explore some of those issues and should there be extended discussions from those issues we would fix that.

Admin: What is happening is we were looking past practice. We were also wrestling with the questions you’ve brought up. And we said okay, let’s continue the past practice and then have that group define itself with a lot more clarity.

FA: It makes sense that the committee members be working on this. I would prefer to respond that that might be who we appoint, but it might be someone else that we appoint. We’ll certainly consider your recommendation that that be the group of people it would be coming from.

Admin: Just some history. Several years ago when I first requested participation, we specified a number to the FA and the FA came back and said how about we appoint the entire Committee on the Institution?

FA: I believe it. Because of the general process of appointing faculty it may very well end up being exactly what you’re suggesting here. I’m just saying that this is something that we might want to look at.

Admin: It’s not a position to dictate who is on it.

FA: As long as we understand each other we’re okay.

Admin: We’re just trying to be sensitive to what we thought you wanted. (Laughter)

FA: Part of the consideration from my mind is depending on the nature of some of the work that task forces work on, numbers of representatives become important based on the balance of the task force and the things that are at hand. In some cases knowing a number and we may end up having the members of that committee, but if that’s not the case, we’re going to have more representatives and we’re going to have to go find them elsewhere. This is a very large group and I certainly don’t anticipate coming to you and saying no, we want more. But if it’s a 15 person group and the constituents are balanced it helps us to visualize that. So perhaps you and Mark could come up with a number because it makes what we all do easier.

Admin: What you say makes sense. We were just being sensitive to the existing practice. I will be glad to sit with Mark. We have the same issues.

FA: In the long run it will make our task and yours easier.

Admin: I couldn’t agree with you more.

· H1 N1 (3 representative)

Admin: We’re asking for three representatives.

Admin: As I indicated in the earlier discussion, there is this committee that’s meeting, a working group, I don’t know what the appropriate term is, but it’s an ad hoc group and we’d like to invite the FA to have three representatives to this.

FA: Okay.

· Director of Outreach Search Committee (1 representative)

Admin: It’s a MSUAASF position. A search is going on in Minnesota Highway Safety and Research Center. Earlier today I referred to it as Maine Highway Center and I was taken to task by VP Ludwig. So, I want to go on record this is Director of Outreach needed in the unit Minnesota Highway Safety and Research Center. We’re asking you for one representative.

FA: You answered my question, what is this.

FA: I have a follow up question. The man who had this position was IFO faculty member and he died. So I take it that this is a conversion of an IFO faculty position to a MSUAASF position? So, you’re asking us to give up an IFO position?

Admin: I knew the incumbent was in the Association. The HR director is not here. But I believe the position is somewhat reshaped and appropriately classified.

FA: We had the same question some time ago when an IFO faculty member went into phased retirement and there was a MSUAASF position that looked awfully similar to what the IFO faculty member had done. We completed a search under the assurance that we were not converting IFO positions to MSUAASF positions. Until the Provost spoke, I didn’t know we were doing that. And if we are, perhaps we ought to have a broader discussion. There are folks that have seniority in that unit that are IFO that are not working in that unit.

Admin: We will have to go back and look at whether there was a change or not. I believe there was in the position description. So, it may be that there was a position in the IFO and they changed this position to MSUAASF. But I believe the classification reflects the duties of the position. I don’t have that in front of me.

Admin: We can check and come back.

6.  Meet & Confer Meetings (FA)
FA: Yes, there were two days that had been tentative dates for Meet and Confer: October 1, 2009 and February 25, 2010. You had asked that they be dropped because they were not convenient for the Administration. We’re willing to do that. We just want it to be formalized within Meet and Confer.

Admin: Thank you.

Progress Reports on Long-term Concerns

1. Report on Budget (ADM) (10/18/07)

Admin: The President may have comments on this also. Enrollment looks slightly better than our projections. That’s a strong underpinning of our budget: assumptions. And what we’re looking for now is sophomore registration that’s coming in late, particularly with how late the school start is relative to our start. We’re reviewing the carry forward process. We’re behind a little bit based on the schedule to review carry forward, partly because we started the year with an aggressive schedule but we’re also taking it into very careful review and looking into preserve carry forward. First of all, the $2,000,000 to fill the budget deficit in the current year, and also following discussions with President Potter, we are looking at about 1.2 million to carry forward in FY11, just with the balancing of that budget. It will give us an opportunity to plan and to not move hastily in uncertain economic times but still keep our budget in balance. The FY11 directive that needs to come to the President, we’re hoping to have a draft to the President tomorrow so he has an opportunity to review it. We had some preliminary discussions Monday as to what our intent will be, and so we hope to be sharing that soon and to start on our process that we began last year. The third issue is, I sent out a notice for the Budget Advisory to meet next week, and there is a tentative agenda for that meeting with tentative meetings for the Budget Advisory group. Those will remain tentative until I can touch base with whoever you decide will be co-chair for that group. So, whenever I can be informed of that that would be great. The first meeting is next Tuesday, around 1:00. We will move forward with a little bit of tentativeness about the schedule. And we’re hopeful that the economy begins to turn and at least stabilizes. Our state is still facing dire conditions in the next biennium, FY12 and 13. And that is a concern of ours. President Potter did you have anything additional to add to that?

Admin: No.

FA: The schedule was sent out and that prompted me to correspond with the FA Budget Committee and we had a meeting.

Admin: Okay.

FA: Because historically we’ve used that committee as the means by which the co-chair emerges.

Admin: I certainly wouldn’t want to presume on the history of your appointment.  

FA: I have no idea. My future here is always suspect.

Admin: Not yours personally. (Laughter)

FA: Ohhh. So, we’re going to try and get you somebody to be a co-chair quickly.

Admin: That’s great.

FA: He went and stole the chair of the body who we would’ve chosen.

FA: No, no, no. It was stolen by the Provost.

Admin: On that note, I think I’ll move on.

2. Status of Administrative Searches: Affirmative Action Director, Academic Affairs vacant positions (ADM)

Admin: I think this may be the last time we have this on the agenda for a while. The committee delivered their document to the President yesterday, and I think he’s in the process of negotiating an offer.

Admin: That’s true.

FA: The committee had a list of strengths and weaknesses.

Admin: Yes. We gave that to the President.

Admin: Thank you. This is a follow up on the last Meet and Confer. As I said I was thinking of appointing two interim positions for which we’ll conduct searches starting next spring. One was a system wide VP for Faculty Relations and the other is Director for the Center of Excellence of Teaching and Learning. I sent out announcements for both of those. I’ve asked for applications and I’ve received them for both positions. I’m in the process of scheduling interviews of the candidates who have shown some interest. I will bring those decisions to some logical conclusions pretty soon.

FA: We had some questions related to Administrative Searches in general. One is that in the past it was quite common for there to be faculty co-chairs and sometimes even faculty chairs for search committees for Administrators. That’s not a rule that it must be so, it has been true and it has worked effectively for a number of times in the past. It hasn’t happened recently, and we’re not sure if that represents a change in policy or perspective or it just happened that way, but we simply are sort of raising this issue and suggesting that we think that in appropriate cases having faculty as co-chairs and chairs in Administrative searches can be a positive thing.

Admin: So noted.

Admin: Yes. Noted.

FA: There are also some associated deans in interim appointments and we’re curious about plans for searches in those?

Admin: Let me get sufficient information. I don’t want to talk over my head as to what the plans are. Once I get that information, I’ll get back to you.

FA: You rectified the situation in Sponsored Programs. It happened so fast but you did the right thing. People are asking me if you have more candidates for Faculty Relations, is that something you’re going to share with the campus, not that you have to?

Admin: Say that again.

FA: Do you have more candidates for the positions? How many people applied?

Admin: Here’s my response. I made the appointment for the Assistant VP for Research and Sponsored Programs in an appropriate manner, which was according to the contract. However, in last Meet and Confer, I think you all suggested it to me that perhaps it’s a good idea to seek nominations and/or applications and I did that. Right now, if you wanted a report after I’m done with the hiring process, I have no problem in coming back and telling you how many people applied and how many people I interviewed and whom I selected. I have no problem with that.

FA: You know that the CETL Advisory Board gave you some recommendations after the notice for volunteers. Did you use those in your plans for implementation of those recommendations?

Admin: When did you all meet?

FA: Last week? No, early this week.

Admin: I’ll have to go check because I don’t remember seeing the recommendations. Although Dan is on my calendar tomorrow so maybe that’s when he’s planning to talk to me about it.

FA: He sent those electronically.

Admin: Are you referring to the two motions?

FA: Yes.

Admin: I thought you were referring to specific names.

FA: No. No. The two motions in terms of process.

Admin: Yes. I did get them.

FA: Do you have a plan for those?

Admin: I’ll be very honest with. I got them. I know what you’re asking of me. I haven’t had a chance to think through and fully vet it and provide an appropriate answer.

FA: Okay.

3. College of Education Climate Task Force (FA)

Admin: This is more than six minutes.

FA: I’ve been waiting and waiting.

Admin: Let’s see.

FA: President Potter we only have three questions that we wish to ask. Those could be answered quickly.

FA: Or they could be asked and if you need to answer next time.

Admin: Would you go up to Student Government and tell them that I’ll be up shortly?

Admin: Sure.

Admin: I have a commitment to meet with Student Government and I want to be respectful. What are these questions that you have?

FA: First do you have any sense when the co-chair will be filled?

Admin: Co-facilitator.

FA: Co-facilitator?

Admin: That’s one. What’s the second question?

FA: The second is the task force currently meeting with any regularity? And then third, do you have any sense of a timeline about the consultant’s report?

Admin: We’re going to have to have some offline conversations about this.

TAPE TURNED OFF.

4. Star Alert Task Force (FA)—not discussed.

5. Report on Late Withdrawals (ADM)—not discussed.

Meeting Adjourned at 5:00 p.m.

Submitted by Polly Chappell, SCSU FA Administrative Assistant (9/20/09)