Final Approved 12/3/09

Meet and Confer

November 12, 2009

Administration:  Devinder Malhotra, Earl Potter, David DeGroote, Judith Siminoe, Steve Ludwig, Mitchell Rubinstein,  Dennis Nunes, John Palmer, Kristi Tornquist, Larry Chambers

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

Approval of Minutes

1. October 15, 2009

Admin: Thank you for coming today. Mark have you had a chance to review the minutes?

FA: Yes, I had a chance to review the minutes also.

Admin: They’ve been reviewed by us and by Mark, and everything seems to be okay with them. So, they will be available to you in the usual format for posting.

 FA: Okay.

Unfinished Business

1. College of Education Climate Task Force (FA)

FA: We spoke in EC, and I’ve spoken to President Potter on Monday, and we spoke about it at our last Meet and Confer. We got, Tuesday, in our EC meeting, to the point of kind of a framework sort of suggestion in a way to approach this. We’re not ready to present formally because I haven’t made contact with anyone from the climate task force and I don’t think it’s appropriate for us to leap to a decision without giving them a chance to say what they think about it. But, the general idea we came to on Tuesday was that it might be a good idea to instruct the task force to proceed with developing recommendations, and to treat the report as something to be released in the form of an attachment to, or portions of the report, as recommendations for action. The rationale for this was… there were a couple of pieces to it. One, to place the emphasis not on the report itself but rather on positive action being proposed in order to accomplish something. To time them as happening together so that it isn’t perceived as being, now we got the report and this tells us what’s what, and also that it would allow the portions of the text of the report to be something like an appendix without the report being perceived as a university declaration but rather several sources of information to reach recommendations for moving forward. Again, this is at the point of what we were talking about Tuesday. We’d be interested in hearing your views about it because it’s not something that we’ve reached certainty on.

NOTE: President Potter was unable to speak above a whisper so Provost Malhotra relayed what he had to say throughout the meeting.

Admin: If the task force is willing to accept their charge then that will be okay with the President.

FA: We’ll proceed talking with them about it. That might necessitate a broader meeting with the EC and the task force or maybe something handled with the deans but we’ll pursue that conversation. And we’ll see where that goes.

Admin: Okay?

FA: Okay.

2. Follow up on Strategic Program Appraisal Process (FA)

FA: You received copies of the motions that were passed in Senate a week ago Tuesday. I have discussed them with both the President and the Provost. I don’t think it is necessary to repeat the text of those motions. We had some follow up that we wanted to pursue on this. One point is that in our conversations it appeared to me and some of the other EC members who have spoken with one or both of you, that you see some room for some flexibility of the way that departments and programs respond to the questions that are asked in the Phase II questionnaire. We’re not trying to put words in your mouth. If you don’t see this is as something flexible then tell us that. But I was under the impression that you saw it as a case where depending on the circumstances in their given department or program they might need to write more or less in some area. We’re wondering where and if at all you see flexibility?

Admin: The way I look at it is that what we provided in that questionnaire is an elaboration of what we had indicated on our September 24 document. Now, we’ve also said that we’re really not asking departments to go look for additional data or information. We’re asking them to make sense of the data we provided them. That is the intent of those questions. But if the departments have additional information they want us to consider they can make that available when they make their appraisal and their case and that would become part and parcel of the appraisal that occurs at the departmental level. And they may be in some instances, in fact, the questions themselves, if I’m not mistaken, suggest that if departments have additional information they can provide that information along with other questions they are to answer.

FA: Okay. So, I think what I’m hearing you say is that people are approved to provide more but there is no flexibility in terms of answering all four points, five points, I should say…

Admin: Yeah. Because we think that those are really the elaboration of what was there in the initial process that we presented to you. Subsequently, after we took the input from Meet and Confer, we then updated another version of that process on September 24, which we shared with you. And, so, to us that what we list there is essential to understand the whole profile, the programmatic and fiscal profile of the programs and in some instances the fiscal profile of the department.

Admin: John [Palmer], by the way, now represents Administration. That’s our disclaimer.

Admin: I’ve had conversation with several program and department chairs. Lisa and I are available to meet with to interact with those that might be writing their reports. There are circumstances in which the answer to one of those questions may be very brief because the circumstances of the programs it would be found to be most appropriate. We believe that the best information exists at the program or department level to provide an answer to the questions. Where information doesn’t exist, it doesn’t exist and it can be acknowledged. Lisa and I are working on a follow up of correspondence that would include some hot links to places where people could get information readily and to try to further clarify what the actions are. There seems to be floating around campus an impression that some people are getting a free pass from being involved in academic or strategic program appraisal and the reality is that this process will be ongoing. In fact all departments are going to be asked by April 15 to respond and modify to their academic plan, and that the deans then will be responding to those and putting together revised plans for the college. So, I’m lonely up there in AS 209, and I’d be happy to get invitations to come out and visit with faculty in this process.

FA: Forgive me, but I just heard two different things. And I’m not clear on quite what to make of it. From [the Provost] I heard, I believe, that there is no flexibility to write less, there is flexibility to write more. And from you, I heard that there might be some cases where the answer to some questions would be very brief. You also suggested that there would be some additional guidance and there would be some links provided. I’m left a little confused about the degree of flexibility.

Admin: Let me try to answer that question. I don’t see my answer inconsistent with John’s. The question you asked was whether you had to address all these issues. And the answer is yes, you have to address the issues, but in cases where you have no information available to answer a particular question or the information is forth coming then that is the response. I don’t see any inconsistency. And all through this process, right from the beginning, we have been responsive. When you asked me to join focus groups and come, I’ve been more than willing, and I still am. I’ve asked John and Lisa to respond to departmental questions, both in clarification of data or questions about interpretation.

FA: You have been very forthcoming in your time and I appreciate your having participated in the past. I’m going to give you a chance to do that again, and to relieve John’s loneliness. It tugs at my heartstrings to think of John not having enough to do.

Admin: No, no.

Admin: Here you go again. (Laughter)

FA: Another question I was going to ask was whether you could put in writing any further clarifications you might have. And it sounds to me that that is going to occur in the form of a communication that John and Lisa are working to provide some more specific guidance to departments as they prepare their responses?

Admin: Yes.

FA: Is that correct?

Admin: Yes.

Admin: That’s correct.

FA: That would be very helpful.

Admin: I talked to John and Lisa and they are working on it. As soon as I get the draft we’re going to finalize it and I’ll send it out.

FA: Okay.

Admin: And that should be happening pretty soon.

FA: In my college they had similar questions also. Deans have their own interpretations and I’m asking them, maybe, if they have questions the appropriate thing is to contact you or Lisa Foss? Am I correct in saying that? Should I ask them to talk to John or Lisa?

Admin: No. Actually in my original communication it stated that if you have questions related to data that you should contact Lisa, and I gave that email address. If I remember correctly. With regard to the interpretation that was one of the intent why we elaborated on the September 24 document. Because that lays the guiding principles, not only for the departments but also for deans and for us who would be involved in decision making.

FA: I have one more question. In some cases departments have raised questions that are not about whether the data are accurate or not, but rather whether they are being interpreted in an appropriate way or not in terms of making the decision to direct a department into Phase II.

Admin: Yes.

FA: And in some of these cases they had to do with numbers that were a fraction of a percent and in some cases they had to do with cases what looked like might be two different programs on paper but they involved the same classrooms and they involved students in both of the programs taking the same classes together while considered separately they looked small but together they looked large. And reviewing them separately is questionable. And there are other reasons, too, perhaps. My question is some people have already begun to communicate with you in regard to that but I want to clarify if there is an appropriate channel of communication to raise a question of that type? Are you the person to whom such a communication should be directed?

Admin: Sure. Sure.

FA: Okay. Were there any other concerns from faculty?

FA: I feel obligated to bring this up even though we’ve talked about it. I just want to emphasize this piece here about the data. Our department missed it by .99, so .01. Seemingly these points, one through five, under part four, questions one through five appear to be a lot of work for .01. I think that’s the flexibility we’re asking for. Yes, we have to address one through five, but can we have flexibility in the amount of detail information. For example we’re just going to drop a program. We’ve not used this program. It’s not useful. We’re going to drop a degree program in response. That might push us over the 1.00 figure and put us in a safe zone. That’s the kind of flexibility I think we’re asking is if we respond and say we’re going to do this, could that throw us over? Because for .01 it’s a lot of work. It’s just my chair right now is on the threshold of, she’s just about reached that…

Admin: I really think that we need to go through this process. If you start drawing these lines, where do you ultimately draw the lines? And if you come to number four or five that you’re talking about, about the fiscal efficiency, there again I really think it’s important for those departments to look at it from a reflective standpoint, from a long term perspective because it’s not so much we were so close or we would have gotten a pass. I hope people don’t look at it that way and that you get engaged in this process.

FA: It’s more of a desire to address those programs that are problematic than having to revisit the entire ELCP, almost 600 students, 20 faculty, 17 departments, I mean, you know, majors…

Admin: I know I visited you.

FA: Can we just focus on those areas that are problematic and really address that and be very specific rather than have to do the entire department. I think that’s the big question I have: can’t we just focus on Chemical Dependency, just that program and not the entire department?

Admin: Then I misunderstood your question and response. I thought you were referring to a program. You’re referring to the departmental…?

FA: In our department—

Admin: Yes.

FA: —we have two programs, a minor and a major, that were problematic and a Community Ed program. Well, I’m not going to give all the details, but we want as a department to focus on just those problem areas, those two or three programs that were red and deal with that and not have to do the entire department review. That’s what I meant in terms of flexibility and addressing these one through five. Can we just focus like a laser beam on just those problem areas?

Admin: Was your department flagged also?

FA: Yes.

FA: But we missed it by .01.

FA: It comes up with three flags.

Admin: Okay.

FA: With a 0.99 rating.

Admin: Okay.

FA: There are some programs in red. There are mostly programs in the green. So the question is do we have to look at the whole department?

Admin: Yes, the whole department. It’s not just one characteristic we were looking at, there were four characteristics and departments were flagged only if they didn’t make three of the four categories. Your department, as I am seeing here, you were flagged on three of the four characteristics. There was one you were not flagged in. I think it is important for the department to answer that question and if it so happens that once you answer that question you find that adjusting one program or two programs within the department ultimately provides with the kind of fiscal sustainability we are looking at, but that is the answer. But that answer can come only after you’ve taken a comprehensive look. That’s why it is important for you to do that.

Admin: What the President is saying is that perhaps a representative from your department could sit down with us and we could go over this in much more detail with them.

FA: Thank you.

FA: I have one other question that may apply to a number of cases. There are cases where a department has a program that is flagged red, but the department’s overall statistics on the cost factors are favorable. In item number four the text reads: “If your department is below one or both of these averages,” and that’s the tuition expense and 21 FYE ratios, “to what do you attribute this and how can it be improved?” Does that mean that for a department which is reviewing a program, but has not been sent into department review on item four, that an acceptable answer is, “we are not below 21, or 1.0, therefore we’re not below.”

Admin: The operative clause is that you answer this question only if this qualifies and satisfies.

FA: So the answer to that is, “no we’re not below those lines on section five.”

Admin: Yes.

FA: Okay. Thank you. I just wanted to be sure. I think we are done on our side with that item.

Admin: Okay. Thank you.

3. FYE Policies (FA)

Admin: We had a request for information. We made that information available to you.

FA: Yes. We have just gotten it this week. We haven’t had a chance to spend more time looking at it.

Admin: Okay.

FA: I think we have other, more important business to deal with today so for the moment I request that we set that aside.

Admin: Okay. Thank you.

New Business

1. University Commencement (ADM)

Admin: You should have in your packets information for all university commencements. The proposal is to the university to combine its undergraduate and graduate commencements. Fifteen years ago we separated the two into a graduate hooding commencement and an undergraduate commencement. The proposal is to merge the two and have the master students be hooded during a college hooding reception preceding the all-university commencement. Faculty would participate. Colleges would orchestrate; their manner consistent with the culture of the college. Those master students would participate in the commencement with their hoods already granted and would move through as we recognize, currently, our undergraduate students. Each being recognized but not being hooded on the stage. Essentially this proposal is made after a long period of separation. I visited a number of the issues. In the second paragraph we look at as many as 15 comprehensive universities, and certainly what we do now with the focus of hooding master students, keeping in mind, that our first doctoral graduates will come through this spring, we’re simply not considered aligned with any other university. Hooding is almost exclusively reserved for doctoral students, rather than master students. What we have done is with the substantial expansion of our master’s programs, our master’s graduates, we have now produced a hooding and commencement exercise that now exceeds what both the faculty and the public would consider acceptable. We’ll move to two hours in the spring. It’s becoming very long, and that kind of recognition is probably not aligned with institutions like ourselves. Recognizing both in a single commencement will provide us with the opportunity to provide the full range of the educational experiences at this university within a single commencement, as we expand the role of potentially others participating, other outside representatives. It reduces the number of commencements if we really wish to have additional individuals participating, whether it be community leaders or political leaders or others who we interact with at this university. What I’m asking for is your consideration and feedback on this proposal. I quite frankly don’t expect it at this moment given you probably haven’t had time to review. We will have our first doctorate students in the spring; I would like this implemented in the spring semester.

FA: An initial reaction that I have, and I’m glad that you aren’t expecting an answer right now because we did just get this. I hate to be a nit-picker, but I do want to note that this is an unsigned document that we received on the date of Meet and Confer, and we had raised that as a concern in the past. We can do our side in this better when we have documents where we know where they came from and we get them earlier.

Admin: I guess I sent it to you electronically, and it was a late addition. I sent it to you electronically and that is why it wasn’t signed. It’s really coming from me because the email came from my office.

FA: Indeed. Having said that that doesn’t mean that we’re not going to consider the issue and I don’t want the fair consideration of the idea to be affected by that little protest. Some faculty had some questions that I believe that they wanted to ask about this. We’re not going to take a position at this point. But it might be helpful to ask a couple of questions depending on if anyone has any. One issue is I understand one of the rationales for doing this has to do with how long the hooding ceremonies is getting to be for graduate students, but there would have been an increase in the length of the undergraduate ceremony if we incorporate that. I know that at least some faculty members and other members of the university community find that the undergraduate ceremony is also rather long. I’m just wondering what your thoughts are.

Admin: The estimate that I used here was 10-15 minutes when we looked at the duration of the time it takes to move through the undergraduate commencement. It would probably be more like 10-12 minutes increasing the duration for these students moving through at the same rate to which we recognize our undergraduate students. The hooding is what takes time. The process that we have used has been a student-centered, faculty-centered, I think that’s terrific. But the amount of time for hooding is an extensive amount of time compared to the kind of recognition that is typically provided to master graduates.

FA: So the time savings would be in the fact that the hooding could be done simultaneously in several different colleges and therefore no individual would have to sit through and watch as many hoods get put on…

Admin: Well, the hooding would be done at the college level preceding the commencement. The colleges would orchestrate the faculty of the colleges and administration would develop a hooding practice that reflects the culture of the college and would recognize the students, their guests, and the faculty.

Admin: With a clarification that it is up to the college to decide whether they want to set up such a ceremony or not.

Admin: Yes. Yes. I don’t think it would be opposed. We have discussed this with the deans, and the deans agree it would be possible and potentially desirable.

Admin: But it’s up to the college to decide.

Admin: And I guess that I would just add that that we think, we have no facts of this, that we might get more students going through graduate ceremonies. Science and Engineering is notorious for low participation in ceremonies.

FA: A real quick question. I don’t really have an opinion on this but have you thought about interdisciplinary programs. I’m often on thesis committees or sometimes chairing thesis committees for different colleges.

Admin: Yes.

FA: So, if we had simultaneous hoodings how would that work?

Admin: We discussed that. I don’t think we reached closure. It’s the kind of issue that needs to be discussed further with the faculty. One solution would be that the student would follow major advisors. That doesn’t mean that is what will be the final outcome. It’s a point we need to discuss.

FA: Does it not seem like we’re relegating master and specialists to a subliminal state of existence, that they are neither a graduate nor undergraduate. They’re clumped with the undergraduates but they’re not quite with the graduate students. It seems to me a relegating of masters students and specialist students to a neither here nor there. It’s something to think about.

Admin: That’s certainly not the intent that somehow they become second class citizens. The completion of the masters’ degree is a significant accomplishment that we recognize. Typically commencements recognize all levels of educational achievement and we’re not doing that right now. They’re not being recognized essentially with our undergraduate students nor have we made a decision about how we could recognize our doctoral graduates. I certainly don’t want to marginalize our graduate students.

FA: Perhaps you should think about using the word reception.

Admin: Okay.

FA: Two questions, and one goes off of what she was just saying. Am I understanding essentially that this would be part of, the hooding would be part of, what’s already done in terms of receptions?

Admin: No.

FA: It would be a separate thing on Sunday morning or Saturday morning or whatever the day graduation is?

Admin: It would precede their commencement; approximately an hour and half it would be. It would be for graduate students, their guests, and faculty involved.

Admin: Again, the President just stated it correctly that the answer to that question is it would depend on the college to determine how it would be done and when it would be done.

FA: Okay. And the second question is just what about the timing? I’m assuming that that 10-15 minutes you were taking into consideration the time it would take to hood doctoral students? Because all doctoral students would be hooded? Or they would be hooded for the first time in the spring?

Admin: Yes. No, this would be increased duration with master students moving through. It wouldn’t be even across all commencements because there are not an even amount of master degrees earned across each college. But, no, this was not taken into consideration of the doctoral...

FA: So this 10-15 minutes doesn’t take the hooding of doctoral students into consideration?

Admin: No.

FA: Okay.

FA: We will get back to you with a response on it.

Admin: Okay. Thank you.

2. Students First Initiatives (FA)

FA: We had a number of conversations about proposed, bundled together under the rubric, Students First. I won’t spend the time in this meeting to do the usual speech I give about Students First, but I will say that Senate has asked that we approach the administration asking you to share with us whatever information you have received thus far about what is proposed under the Students First Initiative so that we can be aware of how far, if at all, consultation or planning or whatever has been going on, on this campus. I do understand that, and Kristi has been in touch with me about scheduling a visit by the MnSCU person who has been coordinating that visit to our campus and we certainly will work with you on that. I’m trying to figure out the day of infamy or my birthday is the better day to invite. (Laughter) Those being the two available dates, apparently. Yes, nothing I’m looking forward to more to celebrate my birthday than a little discussion with Students First. But one way or another we will certainly work with you on having those conversations with MnSCU. But we’re asking for whatever information you can provide us.

Admin: Since Kristi serves on the Central Committee of the System as the…to the Committee of Students First Initiatives because I didn’t want to evoke any images of Soviet era. (Laughter) Kristi, please get me out of this. (Laughter)

Admin: The initials are SFMC, which is the Students First Management Committee, but that’s the umbrella committee I’ve been asked to serve on. I think I was asked because I was very vocal about the project and I think the strategy is to have people who speak up on the group. They haven’t met yet. The first meeting is scheduled for tomorrow. There are six initiatives and each of those initiatives have committees attached to them. I don’t know how they’re populating those committees. In response to what you are saying if we have faculty on those committees it would be wonderful. If we could know who those people are too and keep the communication open. Other than having a really informal sort of charge that was sent to us I don’t have much else except for descriptions of the areas. We’re being urged to point people to the website that is apparently being updated very regularly and that’s probably the best source of information. My understanding is that they are not going to be putting things out separately other than what’s going on the website. If they do, I’ll let you guys know.

FA: I appreciate that.

Admin: In preparation of today’s meeting I did exactly that; I went to the website and I got this print out. You can have this.

FA: Thank you so much on behalf of the Faculty Association I accept this print out. (Laughter)

Admin: It’s going to be interesting conversations over the course of the next six months for sure and then after that. I think it would be great if we keep communication open.

FA: My understanding is that there will be faculty representation but to exactly what extent it will be I’m not certain. Those faculty members would be chosen by the IFO on a statewide basis so of course that could include people from our campus.

FA: In the past we’ve had people come out who are working on initiatives like this, the portal is the one I’m thinking about, and I would like your help in helping them to understand that coming out and talking to faculty on individual campuses is not the same thing as consultation. And I know you know that’s different. But I think it’s very typical when that sort of thing has happened in the past for them to… people working on these initiatives say, “well, I talked with faculty on the St. Cloud State campus…” and they confuse that with the IFO/MnSCU Meet and Confer process. And so I would just ask you to help them understand the difference.

Admin: I don’t know who the representatives are to the various groups. John has not been to the statewide IFO meeting yet but he’s scheduled to if he hasn’t been already.

FA: John has met with the IFO Executive Committee and we have been making that point at the statewide level but I don’t think it hurts one bit for people to be reminded. I’ve got no quarrel with John. I think he’s been very forthcoming and has listened in a lot of different places. He does seem to get that there is a difference between meetings around the campus and the mandated statewide Meet and Confer.

Admin: It’s my understanding that he went to Meet and Confer before coming to campuses.

FA: He met with us over the summer. He did do that before any campus visits that I know of.

Admin: One question the President heard from you was, is there any planning going on, on this project on this campus? And the answer is no.

FA: Thank you. That was one of the things we wanted to know and I appreciate that. I think that’s all that we have.

Admin: Okay. Thank you.

3. IT Proposals (ADM)

Admin: I believe you were forwarded copy of the three different proposals. I realize that we didn’t put a name on the bottom but the copies came from me. What we’re recommending from a technology perspective the implementations of two operating systems and then the Internet Explorer. We would welcome your feedback on that. The two of them we’re recommending for next May. One is a little more immediate because we’d like to make the switch over this coming break and that one, unless you see a reason not to, we’d like to pursue that. We have a few weeks here so if you could get us your feedback.

FA: That’s the Windows 7?

Admin: No, that’s the IE8.

FA: Okay.

FA: That one would have been nice if we’d done it earlier but because of the issues with Desire to Learn we waited until those patches were in place. Our understanding is that it does work with Desire to Learn and Desire to Learn works with it, and at this point we are not aware of problems. Tom, is that your understanding?

FA: My understanding is yes.

Admin: Yes. So, that’s a switch we’d like to make fairly rapidly.

FA: We will get an answer back to you as soon as we can recognizing that the time sensitivity especially of the IE8 and with considerable advance notice on the others.

Admin: Thank you.

4.  Define Committees per Article 6 Proposal (FA)

FA: This, we see as a beginning of a conversation, not something that we expect to reach any answer on today. A conversation that we hope will enable us to reach a mutual understanding that will make it unnecessary to have this conversation every time that some kind of a college or university level body involving faculty comes in to existence. As you know Article 3 of the agreement specifies that the IFO is the sole representative for the faculty in the state. And Article 6 specifies that the administration and faculty Meet and Confer about the need for the creation of college and university level committees after which the FA appoints members. What is not so clear is what precisely meets the definition of a college or university level committee for the purposes of that article. And there are a number of quite different entities that have been coming into existence or are about to come into existence that may or may not meet the requirement. And there are doubts that there are other things we are not yet thinking. So, I will mention some specific entities that have come into existence or contemplated right now. One is the so-called Circles of Interest in the COB, another are the Lean Bodies task groups or working groups. I don’t remember exactly what. Another is the whatever will be the Leadership Team or Coordinating Committee or something for the Bush Foundation Grant, which I understand it is not finalized but is may become a very large, far-reaching entity with considerable impact on the university. And sometimes the question has been raised also about whether a search committee for a dean, this is before this administration, but in the past there were questions about whether a search committee for a college dean was a college committee for the purpose of the contract. Generally that one has not been too controversial and the particular details in that case. I’m hoping that’s not one that has to be reopened, but we agree that one falls in the category. There are a number of times and a number cases and contexts where we need to organize bodies of some kind that involve faculty and I think we agree that some of them meet this criteria and some of them don’t but we’d like to do what we can to start a conversation that might lead us to some kind of a statement that we could both agree about which kinds of things did and which kinds of things didn’t so we have something we could work with thereafter.

Admin: Are you then suggesting we have a further conversation at another time about this?

FA: Yes. I’m suggesting that either it could be something that each side would draft some kind of language and come back or we could in some way designate some other process at which we would begin this conversation. It could be something that I begin drafting something. Or legal drafting something. I really want to hear your response about whether you accept this as an appropriate project and second, any thoughts you have about the way we could go about doing it.

Admin: Certainly it’s important that we understand each other’s perspectives. And the cases you have cited we have talked about it comfortably in terms of what are perspectives are. Just on the surface, the President is a little concerned about the course of action you suggest because it gets awfully close to bargaining, which we cannot do on this campus. We are certainly willing to check that from the Administration’s perspective. But that doesn’t preclude us in talking about individual cases to develop shared understanding on each other’s perspectives on those specific cases. For those have been on the bargaining table, do you agree with the President’s sense?

Admin: I’ve only negotiated the MSUAASF contract, but the general sense that we can’t negotiate, we are certainly prudent to touch base before we talk about these things.

Admin: You correctly cite Article 3 for exclusive representation, but I’d encourage all of us to look at the PELRA law. It is cited in Article 3, but when you look at the PELRA law there is language in subd. 4 of that statute that is relevant to this conversation, and specifically it indicates circumstances in which professional employees would directly communicate with the employer and it indicates that nothing in PELRA prevents that kind of communication from occurring when it is part of the employee’s work assignment. I just simply indicate that when I was asked, I read the language again in the agreement and it seemed critical that PELRA be included because it is the citation to find out what that relationship should be and how in each specific case it would be applied.

FA: I agree that we cannot negotiate the contract here. It isn’t my intention to cross that line but I recognize that that’s a valid concern and I will also seek council on our side about how far can we go on this. I expect we will be limited to some extent in how far we can clarify these things but to the extent that we can and to the extent that we find we share common understandings about things. And I do think we share some common understandings about things. What I’m trying to do is minimize the need for a crisis every time we have some new entity to populate.

Admin: I agree. We definitely need to take this under advisement.

FA: I think there’s a lot of confusion surrounding how there is groups coming to being and it would be nice if we had some clarity around those processes amongst ourselves.

FA: It might be that even one of the things that could come out of this conversation if not a rigorous resolution of what qualifies as a committee under Article 6, some consideration of the timing and process for which we decide whether or not some kind of governing needs or not needs to go through the process that is laid out in Article 6. For example, the case of the Bush Foundation Committee, this is something where we would all wish for it, assuming we get the grant and it all moves forward, we all wish to get started quickly and not to impede the prompt beginning of the process with a discussion about how we populate the steering committee now, although it appears that we’ve gotten there. So, that also I hope would be among the things we could talk about. Not really how we decide but also when we decide.

FA: I do think that one of the things we frequently see as impeding our progress to get things done is trying to figure out every time how it should go unless there are clear cases that we’ve done things one way for a long time. So, if we could get these processes set up with some sort of understanding of what needed to happen in what way that would help us get work done in a way that would be more direct and I think in a way that people would understand and buy into.

Admin: With regard with the Bush Initiative, I think one has to be a little bit clear about the fact that it’s an institutional initiative. And institution wanted to write up this grant therefore we sought the help of a group of the experts, we assigned people… as the President says we identified a group and we assigned the task of looking at the grant opportunity and helping us work through a grant proposal. As this work progresses and move forward, hopefully after we get the grant and it moves forward, then in the course of that work if there are activities that are undertaken that require to go through the shared governance process, like if there’s a curricular change, it will obviously go through the established process. It’s not our intent to compromise or violate any of those processes.

FA: Thank you. I think that a concern that we have in this context is that faculty are being… it has already happened in the context of the working group that was created to prepare the grant that the decision about which faculty have the expertise and which faculty are best suited to work on this was made essentially by one administrator, that the appointments were made out of the COE.

Admin: Recommended by the administrator, but approved by the President as a work assignment.

FA: Thank you. We understand that there is a legitimate role for work assignments and I certainly don’t want to take the position that any time any faculty member talks to any other faculty member about any project that constitutes a committee. There’s room for some consideration of exactly at what point. But as the grant moves into implementation, assuming that it does, it would appear that the role of this central body will have a considerable amount of decision or at least recommending authority as regards to assignment of work to other faculty in terms of who gets reassigned to do work on various aspects of the contract and that this is going to be very far reaching throughout the institution even at the level of the grant not merely at the level of the curricular changes it might produce. But these are things with quite far reaching implications for the university. If the faculty has a chance for a voice and we cannot chose who it is that represents us in that context, then we do not have a voice. The faculty members are chosen at the discretion of the administration as a work assignment within that context. And that is problematic to us.

Admin: The President says he will be signing on the line for a multimillion dollar commitment on the grant and that would imply our commitment. And those people will essentially work for the president on his appointment. It’s no different than Robert Johnson being the PI access and opportunity grant for a two-million-dollar grant. The changes in this work with regard to curriculum and admission requirements, etc., will all go through the appropriate processes. It’s not correct to say that faculty will not have a voice. And the management of the grant, for which the President is responsible for, he appoints the team, which is essential to undertake the grant. This is a very different conversation than one with regard to Circle of Interest or Lean Groups. Each is a different part and needs a specific conversation.

FA: I do agree with that, but they are structured in different ways.

FA: The growing number of names of things. It gets really confusing to have the Leader, Circles of Interest, and task forces, subcommittees. I’m concerned that by naming something other than a committee you can sort of dodge the issue we’re talking about, and that worries me. The other one, specifically talking about the Bush Grant when something has so much across campus and people are being recruited as volunteers in service that recruitment is happening outside of the process and not even necessarily by presidential appointment but by folks who happen to be available to go to a particular meeting. Oh, so you’re available, so we’ll make you part of the team. That sort of haphazardness worries me a bit.

Admin: I disagree with that characterization because I think here again when the President was explaining our intent, he referred to the nature and the type of the work rather than the name of the committee itself. Also, as we move forward what we intend in terms of appointing certain individuals in certain capacities. What kind of employment structure it is it will also vary from individual to individual depending on the type of assignment. But, I hear your concern.

FA: I’m happy for the people who are being appointed. I’m not jealous of them. If they do a good job, wonderful. A lot of times when people recommend certain people, some people may be left out for different reasons. For example I like being on a committee that has a different opinion than me. That kind of helps me. So, having said that people are recommended for different positions by different people and some people may be left out for different reasons, like I said.

FA: I do think that a subtext in this conversation is that there have been concerns that such appointments have been made based on various forms of personal favoritism rather than based upon a broad consideration of merit or competence. That is not an accusation, it’s a statement about a concern that has been raised in a number of contexts by such appointments when faculty are appointed by administrators to tasks of this type that carry either some advantage or some degree of power of the future of the institution. One of the advantages of an appointment through the faculty process is that it is a public process that is with a broad number of faculty voting on it and not one of personal preference by a single individual.

Admin: If you’re still referring to the Bush Initiative another way of looking at it is that teacher preparation right now and it will be teacher preparation even after the Bush Grant. And a real different way of looking at teacher preparation but in that process it is emphasized a lot of the work would be imbedded in the existing structures where we need new structures and all we need changes in terms of the curriculum or admission requirements and such, we’ll be following all the laid out processes and all cannons of the contract and shared governance will be followed.

FA: I appreciate that, and I accept and believe that it is your intention when it comes to, for example, making a curricular change that you intend for it to go through the curricular process and that’s a point in which we’re in agreement. I’m pleased with that. I respectfully disagree with your understanding of the meaning of the university committee if something like this which involves the management of a university-wide project does not fall into the category of a university committee. And I do acknowledge the fact that the President is making appointments and making the work assignments. It’s not clear to me how that constitutes the thing that makes a distinction given that we are all essentially on work assignments from the President in the sense that it is the President who appoints all faculty members and also makes decisions such as rostering in departments and so on. So, I don’t share your judgment on that. This will be perhaps an area where we will continue to work together in the midst of disagreement. I do want to state that our opinion is different on this.

Admin: Any other comments or questions? If not, we can move on to the next item.

FA: I’m wondering what the status of this item is going to be? Is it going to stay on as unfinished business that we’ll come back to and revisit?

Admin: Essentially what I heard from the President was that he suggested a process that we will check.

FA: Okay.

Admin: And I heard from Mark that he will also check. So, I guess that is the status right now.

FA: Will it remain on the agenda as unfinished business while we go check with our various…? I’m just wondering what the next step is here.

Admin: The President said that he will meet when the administration determines a position on this question. More for reference points are the Moorhead arbitration and the step three grievance resolution relating to the COB question. Prominent in our thinking, if it is an ongoing general task or if it is a task specific and time limited will be our position, and that position is a matter of record in the step three position on the grievance cited by the President earlier. There is a lot of documentation on this issue in order to understand each other we have to refer to those documentations. And the President will not take a position that is at odds with the documentation.

FA: Would it be fair to say then that we can leave this on the agenda as unfinished business and that our next conversation will be informed by both of our consultations and research in order to see what our respective organizations’ positions are and what the common positions are as established by those arbitration and grievance issues and that may inform us as to whether or not how much or what type of further conversation is appropriate.

Admin: It all pertains to that conversation and he wants to understand both where we agree and where we disagree, and we have to continue to talk so it can be on the unfinished business.

FA: Just a clarification: it’s all influenced by the step three grievance in the COB? Is there a specific time limit?

Admin: Each of the cases are different so each of the cases and the specific tasks involve a different role. And he will not take any position on any of these cases which is at odds and inconsistent with the position taken in that step three grievance.

FA: Thank you.

FA: I think for our side we’re done with that.

Admin: Okay.

5. Use of Adjuncts (FA)

FA: This is a concern that has been brought to my attention by the leadership of the statewide IFO in regard to something that is a system-wide concern but it is a question that has to be asked on a campus-by-campus basis. On page 86 of the newest version of the contract in Article 21, Section E, Subd. 3: Adjunct Appointments. The contract specifies first that adjunct faculty, I’m not reading word for word, but they may be appointed in cases where permanent faculty including overload cannot fulfill the teaching duties of the university. So, that means that before adjuncts are hired that regular faculty should be offered the opportunity of overload before adjunct are hired. Then there are three criteria…

Admin: [The President whispered]

FA: Okay.

Admin: [The President whispered]

FA: Yes, that’s right. They would have to be qualified. There is elsewhere a provision that it ought not be more than five credits of overload per faculty member. Yes, there are reasons why that even a faculty member who wanted to teach an overload, might not appropriately teach a particular class. We would agree on that. But the general pattern is that where qualified regular faculty members are available and willing, and not otherwise prohibited by lack of qualification or going over the overload credit load. The existing procedure is that the existing faculty member should be offered overload before adjuncts are hired to teach. I have to say first, I’m not sure that that has been the practice at all times and in all places. So, that’s one of the questions that we wish to pursue: are we in fact complying with that requirement? And then there are three criteria under which are specified as conditions under which the President may authorize the appointment of adjuncts. One is to meet temporary staffing needs due to enrollment increases for which normal full funding is not provided. The second is to meet temporary staffing needs when faculty are reassigned to other duties. And the third is to teach courses that require special expertise. One, a criterion that is not present is to save money. That is hiring of adjuncts is not to be done as way of meeting ongoing permanent needs as way of doing it less expensively than having regular full-time faculty. And the questions that I am raising is, are we in fact complying with those regulations in terms of our actual practices of appointing adjunct faculty members in this university? You have provided us with lists of adjunct faculty members who are teaching which is in the agreement. Thank you. The question that I am asking is… I’m going to ask it in the broadest possible way, but I’m open to a conversation about how it could be answered in other than the most burdensome way. But the broadest way of asking the question is can you please provide us with a justification for the hiring of each adjunct member. I’m not saying that that is necessary. For example one of the ways to start is to look, for example, at those cases where there are faculty members who have been adjunct faculty who have been teaching for a large number of years or otherwise try to approach this in some sort of reasonable fashion. But we’re essentially asking the question, why are adjuncts being hired?

Admin: My reference is on page 88 of the old contract. But I’m surprised that you haven’t referenced E, in subd. 3. Because E says: “Hiring Procedure. The President or designee shall consult with the department concerning the need for hiring adjuncts.”

FA: Yes, that’s true.

Admin: So, it would seem to me that it would be the departments that would know. They would have been consulted. And the departments are party to the decision relative to offering an adjunct position. That phrase clearly gives the faculty an opportunity to interpret which of the three criteria are being met each time an adjunct appointment is made.

FA: I would disagree with you on that last sentence because the department is being consulted concerning the need for hiring adjuncts. Departments shall be responsible for evaluating the academic credentials of the candidate. Clearly the department’s responsibility is to ascertain that a given adjunct is professionally qualified to teach the courses and to make a recommendation with regard to that. But the decision as to whether adjuncts shall be hired or not, and also in the context of who shall be hired and whether full-time positions will be authorized, is an administrative position. And the decision to authorize adjuncts rather than full time lines is a decision that occurs above the level of the department.

Admin: What I’m suggesting is there is an interplay between the hiring procedure and the adjunct appointment. That the need for the adjunct is included in the hiring procedures, so if a department didn’t believe they needed an adjunct faculty member they would then have a record of that discussion and they would have expressed their opinion. Now, I’m not suggesting that we’re doing of these things. I think that’s a valid question to ask, but it appears that the language of this section of the agreement allows for a check and a balance where both faculty and management consider the matter. And that’s why I was surprised that you didn’t cite the hiring procedure, which does say shall consult. It’s not may consult, it says shall consult with the department concerning the need for hiring adjuncts.

Admin: The President is reading the same line and is emphasizing the word “need.”

FA: One of the issues that comes in to play is where a department has been told by their dean: we shall grant no overload to fulltime faculty. If the deans says this and you’re going to teach this many sections the need for adjuncts becomes very clear but the description of overload is in violation and that’s what we’re talking about here. That’s where problems start.

Admin: The President says that we will need some concrete examples and it is hard to accept general propositions.

FA: By concrete examples, what… there are departments for example, it would be easy to identify specific departments, where adjuncts have been teaching on a regular basis eight, 16 sections a year of courses that are offered on a regular basis that are General Education courses that are ongoing needs of the university. They are not the result of enrollment increases. They are not the result of faculty members being reassigned. They are simply ongoing needs of the university that are being met by adjunct teachers because there are not enough fulltime lines to teach all of those courses.

Admin: You’d have to indicate the departments and that will give us an opportunity to examine the data.

FA: Okay. I can do that on a partial basis. And if you would prefer that this be something that we undertake on our side alone as a matter of hunting this down, we’re prepared to do that. I would prefer if it’s possible that it be a search that we undertake jointly, but I’m willing to undertake it on our side alone.

Admin: The President says, don’t go there and posture with him. You made some general statements and it is reasonable to say give us some concrete examples.

FA: I can give you a concrete example right now from my own department and that is that HIST 195, HIST 109, HIST 140, and HIST 141 are all General Education classes and are taught by adjuncts year after year and they are taught in numbers that would be sufficient to fill at least two full-time teaching loads.

Admin: [The President whispered]

FA: We have asked for additional lines year after year. And we have been told that those additional lines are not available. We’ve gotten some additional lines. We have also been urged to offer more classes because there was a tremendous demand for undergraduates to have General Education courses in Racial Issues, in Democratic Citizenship, and to a lesser extent in the survey courses such as the U.S. History Survey, which also meets majors. And I know that my department is not alone. I know that Racial Issues courses are being taught by adjuncts in many departments across the campus. There are a large number of adjuncts teaching Racial Issues. And I believe that that is also true for a number of other areas but before I blurt out any specifics I’m not sure of I will refrain from going farther.

Admin: He [the President] recognizes that there are serious problems with academic staffing and he has talked with me about it. If there is an approach to identify the problem short of justifying the hiring of each and every adjunct he is willing to work jointly on it.

FA: Which is exactly what I offered at the beginning, which is I said I’m asking in a broad sense but looking narrower sense to do this, recognizing that it would be quite burdensome to take on the question of justifying every single adjunct hired in the university. That really isn’t what I’m trying to accomplish. What I am trying to accomplish is a serious look at complying with the contract consistent with the rules of hiring adjuncts.

Admin: Of course, he agrees that we have to comply with the contract, but his two most important concerns are a balanced budget and quality in academic programming, and filling permanent needs with temporary staff does not support the quality long term. If we’re in a situation where structurally we cannot afford faculty to teach quality programs then we’ll have to close programs down and narrow enrollments. Yes, we need to do it right. But, we’re likely to run into some very difficult challenges. So, what he suggests is to identify a methodology where we can identify where the problems are and work on them jointly. Identification of methodology would also be done together in collaboration.

FA: That sounds exactly what I hoped we’d get to. And if anything I said sounded like I was looking for something different than that I regret because that’s exactly what I want.

Admin: Yeah, it’s okay with him. (Laughter)

FA: I also acknowledge that we have to balance the budget and that this is not an easy thing to undertake and we have to go in to this with our eyes open and recognizing that nothing in life is free and that there are consequences to asking these questions. I’m not trying to pretend that it is otherwise.

Admin: Just a footnote: I know we are doing something we can’t afford by cobbling together a solution and this requires that we un-cobble some of those things. (Laughter) I’m not vouching for the words. (Laughter) I think that the last point the President was making, and I was thinking about it too, because what is happening is that the enrollments do vary and there is some necessity in terms of that flexibility because as the demographics change the possibility exists that some of the needs which seem permanent now may suddenly become temporary. And so the kind of analysis required not only takes into account what the current situation is but also how we got to the current situation and the likelihood of it persisting with any reasonable degree of likelihood.

FA: I absolutely agree with that. The reason that adjuncts are in the contract is because there are circumstances where they are the appropriate solution, and I also agree that we need to be looking forward not backward in terms of assessing what constitutes a permanent need and what doesn’t. Those are realistic questions and concerns that should be part of our conversation. I think we have reached as much understanding as we’re going to on that one.

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

· Orientation Task Force (2-3 representatives)

· SEVIS Coordinator in International Student & Scholar Services Search (1 representative)

Admin: I know this request came rather late but it was an email exchange. It was addressed to both of us. When I asked them how many, I was told it was three representatives rather than two.

FA: Okay. I recall from having served on that body it was three in the past.

Admin: I just noticed that typo.

FA: Yes.

Admin: Three representatives. And then the Center for International Studies wants to search for SEVIS Coordinator which reports to the Director of the SEVIS, Student and Exchange Visitor Information System, and they would like two representatives.

FA: I just want to go sideways here if allowed. I just want to point that the Orientation Task Force, I think that is something that happens every year, isn’t it? That task force? Is that what you served on?

FA: Yes.

FA: It might be one of those things we might want to look at whether or not it is a task force now or if it’s a committee long term.

Admin: Good point.

FA: This is exactly a point where something was started without certainty of whether it would be an ongoing thing or not. It appears to be transitioning into an ongoing need and I agree then we need to use an elected committee. But in any case this is one that has consistently gone through the Meet and Confer process and I think it’s worked in a healthy way through the various phases it has moved through. Certainly we will have no problem with electing members. The SEVIS Coordinator, is that a MSUAASF position, is that correct?

Admin: Yes.

FA: Okay. We’ll be happy to provide a representative.

Admin: Thank you.

Progress Reports on Long-term Concerns

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

Admin: A couple things, first of all, our audited financial statements have been presented through the staff in the Office of the Chancellor by the auditor and the university a week ago last Friday. The financial statements and our commentary on them, the trends and highlights, and all of our submission letters are on our budget website. So, that’s out there to be seen. It remains a draft, I guess, until it’s presented to the board. The College University Board needs to accept it before it is official. They collect all the universities and then roll it up into MnSCU’s financial statement. So, that I expect will happen at the board meeting. I don’t remember if there is a board meeting this month, I think there is and that’s when it will be official. But we published it out there and we expect no changes. It was an unqualified statement, which is what you desire, it did not make any qualifications of how we have stated our financial status. So, that was good. And there are no findings of issues that we have with things we need to resolve on our campus and the management of our finances. I would note that for the first time in about six years we had a negative operating margin. That means it was very small but that means that the money we took in from appropriations of fees and tuition was less than the amount we spent on the operation of the university last year. That’s not a sustainable activity. That was contributed to, I think, three ways, one, of course was the un-allotment we experienced in the middle of last fall, about a year ago now of 1.6 million. Additionally, we went over on our classified staff expenditures of about $400,000 and our scholarships increased which was basically in tuition remission to graduate students. So, if you look at the trends and highlights it shows that there was an increase in scholarship expenditure from our university fund. So, you can take a look at that. The financial statement is separate, it includes on the document, the university’s finances and also the foundation’s. You can see the financial statements for the foundation and it compares a year back so you can see a little bit of trend. But, that’s available. The second issue I wanted to comment on was we’re still working through the carry forward process. It’s been a difficult process partly because our relative condition means there is not as much money to carry forward that there was in the past. So, we’re working through that. The vice presidents are meeting this evening, and I believe we’ll come to a resolution on that. As you recall in our budget plan, we intended to use carry forward for this year to build a bridge to next year, and the President has asked that we should look seriously and find about a million dollars to plan to carry forward from this year into the next because we have structural issues with our budget deficits. The carry forwards are one time funds but there’s a difference in opportunity to have some time to work changes through our operation in order to accomplish successful instruction of students. When we get the material and the carry forward complete we will then take that along with our best information on enrollment that we have on this year and our projections into the future and the best information we have on our allocation for next year in order to do another projection, a revised projection of fiscal year ’11 that we will need to plan around. The particular unfortunate of fiscal year ’11 is that when we projected the budget in May, before everyone left for the summer, there was a positive balance for fiscal year ’11 and we were using the carry forward to build us a bridge where there was a negative issue in the current year to get to that year. As you recall in the summer there was an un-allotment by the governor. The un-allotment was in fiscal year ’11, the next fiscal year and not the current fiscal year. That change of about five million dollars brought us from about approximately a three million dollar surplus to about a two-and-a-half or three million dollar negative balance. And that we shared during convocation in the fall. Two weeks ago and following the state’s budget report, a revenue report for the first quarter of the fiscal year, we received information from MnSCU first in general terms at a conference and a few days later an allocation that represented a fifty percent increase in expected un-allotment proposed in order to bring the state budget into balance. And, so that means that the deficit that we will have in 2011 in broad terms is more like six or seven million dollars that we need to manage next year. Next week, we now have the allocation from MnSCU, we now have the information on enrollment, better information on enrollment this year, and information on carry forward we will then be able to project for next year. This certainly places the university at a disadvantage, which makes the look of the carry forward different should we not be in such serious financial conditions. But we will work through it. So, next week, I’ll share with the Faculty Association, we’re not trying to keep it under a basket, we calculated a summary and that estimate is where we believe we are headed in 2011. We should not plan on any relief, some view it as relief and some view it as an imposition, additional tuition increase beyond the five percent. In the past when we’ve had some financial distress with respect to our allocation we’ve looked to tuition as an alternative to that, but we were told we cannot expect an increase in tuition greater than the five percent. The second issue is that they believe that the governor, Higher Ed, will not go greater than his fifty percent increase in the un-allotment because should he go greater than that or the legislature for that matter when they come into session, should it be greater than that we would then have to forgo the stimulus funds from the federal government, so we would have the difficulty of the original un-allotment, greater than fifty percent of that, plus the removal of stimulus funds, which give a two percent discount, if you will, in tuition to students and actually the couple of million dollars would help us. So, they are hoping that the loss of that federal money will discourage greater than the increase that we talked about in the reduction of resources available to the state next fiscal year. And so, it’s not great news. But, we also identified when they sent us the our estimate of the allocation based on the budget we received as of July 1^st for next year, it was on forty-odd million dollars, within about ten thousand dollars of what MnSCU provided us. I looked at their formula and Dennis would appreciate they carried it out to fifteen decimal places. We will look at that. So, hopefully we’ll have those hard numbers. Also, note that the level of state support we would be expected to receive next, not considering inflation, is less than the level of state support we received in 1999, and our enrollment was just under 12,000 in 1999; and now we’re at something like 14,000. So, we’ve seen this trend but the relative amount of state support relative to other resources at the university over that period of time, and over a longer period of time, declined. But, this represents a pretty precipitate drop in the level of available resources. The other thing from our financial statements is, in terms of our financial condition, we still have our reserves and we’re in about the middle of the pack of the state universities in terms of the index of their financial condition. So, there are people worse off than we are, in any case we still have our own issues to resolve.

Admin: The President says we are drowning but there are people still further under water than us. (Laughter)

Admin: So, that’s the report for today.

FA:  I’m wondering if you’ve heard any rumblings about the status of keeping or not keeping our reserves? I mean, in the past, government has been known to tap reserves, right? And so, under these circumstances I’m just wondering?

Admin: I understand that some money has been borrowed from MnSCU to assist with cash flow at the state level. I don’t recall that happening in my experience here in twenty-some years but I have heard of such things. I have heard rumors of such things in the past, but I haven’t heard rumors of that happening here.

Admin: The number at the state level was large. The amount they borrowed from MnSCU was fairly large.

Admin: On a scale of $100,000,000, I guess.

Admin: Yes.

Admin: We have collected tuition and have it pay all the salaries.

Admin: They are paying us market rate? Don’t we wish? (Laughter)

Admin: Taken care of us and not charging us.

Admin: Any other questions?

FA: You know how political things are moving. So, next year the governor election next year, have you had any feelings of…?

Admin: I’m not running. (Laughter) Of course, today some might have read about the ten in gravest financial difficulty, Wisconsin is among those ten states. Minnesota was not. I have also read that the states are in most difficulty at the end of the recession when the number of people requiring services because of unemployment or indigents or whatever, it peaks and the revenue from sales and income tax lags. So, this, in that respect, if there’s not some remarkable structural change or strength of the dollar and our role in the world economy, should be the end and it should be improving. I do know locally that the bus company, New Flyer, and a couple of others are not hiring but they have mandatory overtime and so that’s often the first response of business to not hire in a recession but taking the employees you have and doing more overtime.

Admin: They use adjuncts. (Laughter)

FA: As long as they offer overload first. (Laughter)

Admin: Okay, finish your thoughts.

Admin: No, I’ve probably gone far enough. (Laughter)

Admin: We do know we’re going to have a new governor.

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

Admin: The Affirmative Action Director announcement has been made. Do you have anything else to add?

Admin: No. The new director starts January 5^th.

FA: And you hired someone trained as a historian so I’m… (Laughter)

Admin: That solves the adjunct problem too, at least in History. (Laughter) The adjunct problem is history. (Boos) That was bad. In the Academic Affairs vacant position, technically it wasn’t an administrative position I was informed today, but we have completed the hire of the director of CETL. That was announced also. It is Lalita Subrahmanyan in the College of Education. Other than that I think the only thing is as soon as we you complete your election and give me names of the representatives for the Dean of College of Education Search, then we will logistically start moving that process forward.

FA: The request for candidates has gone out and the election will take place next Tuesday.

Admin: Okay. Thank you.

3. Report on Late Withdrawals (ADM)

Admin: On Monday, Mark, Mitch, and I had a conversation and we nailed down what is still some information we need to provide to you. And we nailed down the format in which that information will be used. And we also nailed down a timeframe in which you will get that information. And we’re working on it. Anything else for the good of the order?

Admin: It’s been a strange meeting.

Admin: Duly noted. (Laughter)

Admin: You’ll recover.

Admin: Thank you everybody.

Meeting Adjourned at 5:00 p.m.

Submitted by Polly Chappell, SCSU FA Administrative Assistant (November 16, 2009)