Final Approved December 17, 2009
Meet and Confer
December 3, 2009
Administration: Provost Malhotra, President Potter, David DeGroote, Judith Siminoe, Steve Ludwig, Mitchell Rubinstein, Diana Lawson, John Palmer, Kristi Tornquist, Larry Chambers, Greta Abel – note-taker
Faculty: Mark Jaede, JoAnn Gasparino, Judy Kilborn, Frances Kayona, Balsy Kasi, Tracy Ore, Michael Tripp, Tom Hergert
Approval of Minutes
1. November 12, 2009
FA: I’ve had a chance to look through them. There was an abbreviation where it wasn’t clear what that referred to and there was some question marks on it. Were you able to resolve that?
ADM: Yes I think we did contact Kristi for it and so everything was taken care of.
FA: O.k. Then we’re in agreement that the record is appropriate so those will be approved.
Unfinished Business
1. University Commencement (ADM)
FA: The first item under unfinished business is University Commencement. We are taking that through our academic affairs committee. We don’t have an answer for you yet on that.
ADM: O.k.
ADM: Mark do you know when that might happen? I’m speaking for Dennis because Dennis isn’t here today. Because it’s for May commencement and so the changes would have to be made fairly quickly.
FA: I understand and we will move with such expedition as we can muster. You have a specific sense of when decisions need to be made for May?
ADM: No. I don’t know. He was just hoping that they could move forward on that for May.
FA: I understand. I will do my best to get an answer by two weeks from now which is when our next meet and confer is.
2. Define Committees per Article 6 Proposal (FA)
FA: Perhaps I should also refer to item three, those are two items that we brought forward at the last meet & confer. We agreed that President Potter and I and Provost Spitzer..
FA: Provost Spitzer?
FA: I,I,I,. No we will not be meeting with Provost Spitzer. I am very sorry about that. We will be meeting with the Provost Devider here. (laughter)
ADM: I’m gonna just let it slide. (laughter)
FA: Actually we have an appointment tomorrow morning to begin a conversation about how to approach these two questions. So by next meet & confer, while we will not have answers to those questions, we should be able to provide some sense of how we had come to an agreement about how to approach those. So we won’t be taking any action on these today but they are remaining on the agenda. Any questions about either of those items?
3. Use of Adjuncts (FA)
(See above)
New Business
1. Program Review (ADM)
FA: I understand Mitch you have..
ADM: Yes. I think we’ve already distributed a proposed draft for our program review handbook and also you’ve seen this handbook as well as two other related items. Those two items are a list of programs and units that would be subject to program review. The third item is a draft schedule of program reviews. These items will replace the existing program review handbook and I have copies of those and I apologize for not including those in the materials. I will hand out the current program review policy procedures right now. What we are asking for is the faculty association to look at these materials and to provide feedback on them.
ADM: Essentially we are passing out the current policies because what we sent to you are the new policies and we thought if we gave you the copy of the current policy…
FA: That would be very helpful.
ADM: And if I could make a few comments concerning the proposal that we have with the new policy handbook; there are several changes from the existing one. One, is a clear expectation of linkages between program model assessment of student learning outcomes and student learning outcomes informing the program review process. We expect to see assessment results correlated in program review. On the other end of the program review process we expect that the program review is a self study as well as the external reviewers report to inform various planning processes at department, college and university level. The new set of materials that I presented to you tries to have a complete account of all academic programs. The current one, if you look at it closely is really incomplete, in some cases it deals with departments, other cases programs and it doesn’t really cover all the departments and programs that we have at the university. This is an attempt to be comprehensive of not only the programs and departments that we have but also in terms of instructional activities. It puts provisions to review, academic support units as well as academic departments periodically. This is off of the six year cycle as the current program review policy is. It also takes into account programs and departments that are subject to specialized accreditation and those are not on the same six year program review cycle, those have their cycle dictated by their specialized accrediting bodies and those cycles are in this proposal. I have separated the materials into three items, policies and procedures handbook, the list of programs and units that are subject to review and the anticipated program review cycle, the schedule of program reviews. In the original document all of those documents are incorporated into one handbook. I am proposing to separate them because the programs and departments subject to review are subject to change. New programs are started, old programs are discontinued and those should be updated on a much more regular basis than would update the handbook itself so I felt it appropriate to separate those from the handbook and have a separate posting of those. And similarly with the schedule of program review, those also might be subject to change, changes in accrediting bodies, cycles as well as from time to time might lead to either a formulated program review.
FA: Are there any questions?
FA: Yes, I am wondering if you could clarify when and where this current document was approved. It says October 2005 and that’s revised, and effective December 2002 and I just don’t remember seeing this before. The current process, maybe remember that I was startled for example that our department was scheduled last year when I had thought we were on a ten year cycle and I am trying to reconstruct how I could have missed this.
ADM: I can’t address that I started in January 2006 so this was here. I just don’t know, it was here.
ADM: Your question is when was it approved?
FA: It’s got a date on here. It’s got two dates in fact, an original and a revised but I don’t remember seeing this document before. I am glad to see it now because it explains why my department was asked last year to do a six year review and we had normally been on ten year review. I’m not saying we shouldn’t do the reviews I’m just trying to reconstruct how the current policy and procedure was disseminated or approved and I also wanted clarification on the new one, you said it’s been distributed, how?
ADM: By email.
FA: That went?
ADM: We sent it to…
FA: I thought we had shared that but if I have failed to copy that for you we’ll get it.
FA: O.K.
ADM: And also I think, correct me if I am wrong, isn’t this existing document on the website?
ADM: Yes, it is. It’s on one of the Provost’s website, I don’t think it’s on the faculty page and I think we need to do a better job of making sure it’s displayed more prominently.
FA: I guess what I would simply say is that, this is the first time that I’ve seen it. I tried to watch for these sorts of things and I’m hoping there will be more communication about any new ones that might come forward.
ADM: Sure.
FA: Because I just don’t even know the process that happened where this came into being and that’s what I was asking for clarification about and obviously if you weren’t here you don’t know.
ADM: That’s one reason, I mean going forward since we’ve brought the revisions to you, and once we get your input and once we finalize it then we will inform you and provide you a copy of the finalized version.
FA: So we won’t know how we got to where we are now then?
FA: I am not sure I understand your question.
FA: I was just looking backward for process trying to figure it out and I guess I’m going to have to live with forward process instead.
FA: O.k. When you say you won’t know how we got to where we are, we won’t ascertain the origins of the October 2005 document?
FA: Right that’s what I am saying, it’s just confusing to me. I will try as we go forward.
FA: It’s a good thing having this conversation about the correct now version. Anything else related to that?
2. Printed Course Schedules (ADM)
FA: Item two under new business is the announcement you sent us about discontinuation of printed course schedules. Do you have anything to add?
ADM: No, not any more than what is already there.
FA: Our reaction was thank you for informing us.
ADM: Thank you.
3. Red Flag Guidelines (ADM)
FA: The next item on the agenda is Red Flag Guidelines.
ADM: Yes, Kristi will lead the discussion.
ADM: I believe you were copied on this document.
FA: Yes we have it.
ADM: It’s in response to a new federal legislation and this is the language that requires financial institutions in developing identity theft prevention programs where any cap sated by large definition trying some credit kinds of things that happened at other universities as well. So we have put together this document to comply with that directive as well as because it’s a good thing to do. We would welcome your comments on it but it is something that we are being required to do. Other pieces of this of course is actually acting types of activities that if the record says so it’s a good reminder about being careful about identification information that have to do with students and or employee information. There is also a piece that talks about having to do training or instruction for employees in particular on this. We’re moving more slowly with that in part to see what happens at the system office. They are supposed to be developing some training.
FA: So is this likely to be a training video online of the sort that we saw regarding sexual harassment for example?
ADM: That would be my guess but we haven’t been told of that. We are asking various offices though to pay attention to have employees think about this. We’ve often discussed it as a piece of what LEAN announces that may be going on at campus that they keep in mind practices that would help keep data secure that would be really important.
FA: Other questions or comments? We received this this week and we will be reviewing it more carefully but at this point thank you for you for informing us.
ADM: Thank you.
4. Voting Rights on FYE Advising Committee (FA)
FA: We in senate passed a motion recommending that all members of the FYE advisory committee excluding administration have voting rights on the committee. That would basically be MSUAAF people. I don’t believe there are people from other units although if there are from other bargaining units they’d be added as well. At this current point it’s only faculty members who are voting members and our own members tell us that’s not the best way to do things and that our colleagues from other units have important stakes, people like in residential life and in other aspects of advising and students services and so on, have a stake in this and that they should also be voting members. So we hope you will find that acceptable. The entity was created in meet & confer so we bring it back into meet & confer to request that change.
ADM: Thank you. Actually I think it’s a good idea and I’ll pass this recommendation on and we will implement it.
FA: Thank you.
5. Add Faculty to the Technology Plan Work Group (FA)
FA: I am going to ask Judy to take the lead on that.
FA: A recommendation came through senate, TPR, Technological, Pedagogical Research committee, a Faculty committee, to add six faculty to their Technology Planning Work Group with the notion that that would increase faculty input on issues that were central to the Teaching and Learning mission of the University. So that’s a request that’s coming forward from senate.
ADM: Actually in terms of the Technology Plan Work Group we have included Judy as a member and she is currently the co-chair of that group. If my understanding is correct that this group is working with CETL and TPR committee working in conducting faculty focus groups and faculty input is being sought actively and that input is being taken back and being incorporated.
FA: Is that a yes or a no?
ADM: What I’m suggesting is that I think the intent that the faculty voice ought to be there and faculty input should be there, the process already includes that. So at this point I don’t see the need for adding any additional faculty members.
FA: We do acknowledge it and thank you for having named Judy as the co-convener of the group. I hear you saying no to our request.
ADM: O.k
FA: Am I mistaken?
ADM: No. I said at this time I don’t feel the need for any additional members but the basic intent was I guess to add faculty voice and to have faculty input and I just described to you the process by which we are seeking that input.
FA: And thank you for that information and for that consultation.
FA: Are you suggesting the TPR are already faculty going to the meeting?
ADM: No but they’re organizing focus groups.
FA: They have occurred in fact. TPR and CETL cosponsored with the Technology Work Group faculty forums for the various colleges. And that input will be incorporated in the plan. This is really addressing a different level of input I believe but I’m kind of in an odd position here because I’m on that committee. I don’t really feel I can speak anymore to that.
FA: Are there further questions or discussion on that point?
6. Senate Recommendations for LR&TS To Be A Department (FA)
FA: There’s a copy of an email, it adds rather little to the request that LRTS become a department.
ADM: I thank you for letting us know and passing on this information from faculty senate and it’s my understanding that conversations are going on within LR&TS and the dean is involved with some conversations with the faculty around this subject. We will take what has come out of the recommendation of the faculty senate under advisement and then as discussions are completed and as those recommendations come to my table from LR&TS through their dean after all the completion of the discussions then we will take this recommendation under advisement and it will be part and parcel of that consideration.
FA: So the next step would be conversation between the LRTS faculty and Dean Tornquist.
ADM: I think those conversations are already going on. Is that…?
ADM: We’ve started that.
FA: Alright, well we look forward to learning the outcome of those conversations.
Progress Reports on Long-term Concerns
1. Report on Budget (ADM) (10/18/07)
FA: We’re eager to hear..
ADM: I think, not to make light of this but it’s appropriately titled a long term concern because we’re faced with long term issues. We were awaiting the budget forecast of yesterday, if you recall previously with the un-allotment by the governor and some changes in the appropriation for the current year. We’ve made some adjustments as we announced in the fall and then we were given guidance which placed us into a deficit situation as we looked forward into 2011. We were given guidance a few weeks ago from MnSCU to plan for approximately a 25 million dollar additional reduction up to that amount in 2011 for the system that would translate to about two and half million dollars for the University and that put us up in the range of a seven million dollars deficit as we would face next year. The 1.2 billion dollar that was announced as a deficit for the balance of the biennium would represent if it was proportionately distributed by un-allotment which is a huge assumption. There are other alternatives available to the governor, would be on the scale of 50 million rather than the 25 million and that would equate to about 5 million to the University. One reason that MnSCU expected that perhaps there would be nothing greater than the 25 million was because going beyond that level of reduction would have the state no longer meet the criteria of maintenance of effort which was required in order to have the stimulus funds included in the budget. And in our budget this year and next the stimulus funds were used to help bring down tuition and also to assist us with operations. There is a possibility that the state could re-negotiate that condition and if they would theoretically there could be an additional two and a half million dollars next year which would put us to the neighborhood of nine million or a little more to the deficit in our operating budget next year. So we will expect soon and maybe on my email today there’s been some guidance from MnSCU, we will now use that to prepare our scenarios around expected revenue from the state, expected appropriation. We have firm guidance in legislation on what we would expect for tuition which is five percent increase which we’ve had for some time and next year is the second year of the contract so we have information on the contracts to use to make those estimates and we have additional information about the benefits, specifically health insurance for the next year from the state and unfortunately health insurance has renewed its persistent increase as a cost for us. The projection, which of course is a less certain projection for the next biennium is even more troubling because it’s projecting to be a five billion deficit for the state in that biennium and the calculus comes out that eventually these percentages will change but that MnSCU is about four percent of the state budget so four percent of five billion is about two hundred million, we’re about ten percent of MnSCU so that makes our share of that reduction would be on the scale of 20 million for the biennium if it were evenly distributed over the two years that would amount to an additional cut beyond what we would do to balance next year of ten million dollars. With no account as I’ve read about it , there is no account for inflation to kind of increase that level of deficit or whatever so whatever we had for increases perhaps in salary, our compensation would make that number even larger. It would be offset to a certain extent by our enrollment increases but our enrollment increases have been on the scale of one to two percent rather on this scale. We have a serious problem to face in 2011 and if things continue at this pace would suggest a problem of that scale again in 2012. So these are going to be very difficult times, requiring us to make difficult decisions is my expectation. We’ve completed the carry forward process also. We’ll be publishing that on the website, it’s now available to the vice president’s and such to share with folks so we’ve completed that process and in that process we did identify the 1.9 million dollars that we wanted to assist us with balancing the budget during the current year. We still may have some issues to manage this year. There is the possibility, I suppose, although of an un-allotment during the current year which would also be difficult but I guess everything is difficult so we’ll just work through it. I’m appreciative of over the last few years the ability to discuss these issues openly on campus and that we have a method through our website, through meet & confer, through other groups to have open discussions about our budget and to work together in difficult times. I’ve sensed over that period a change in our ability to do that and we’re going to rely on that ability to talk about it heavily in the near term.
FA: I would concur with you about the level of openness in our conversations. I think there has been improvement and I absolutely agree with you that it’s a necessity that we maintain that and that’s something we appreciate being included in decision making process. I have a couple of questions; one, I’m hearing different things from different people about the extent to which this maintenance of effort rule really constrains the state from un-alloting further to higher education. One version I hear is there is almost no room for MnSCU to be cut further without running into the maintenance of effort on the stimulus money. I believe I heard you say in our last meet & confer that there might be enough room for as much as another fifty percent as large un-allotment over and above the un-allotment that had already occurred, is that correct?
ADM: Yes and that number is this 25 million that I spoke of. We had about in round numbers it was about 5 million of un-allotment so far to St. Cloud State and that would be that additional 25 million which would come down to about two and a half million for us.
FA: So in your judgment there might be the equivalent of two and a half million dollars in further un-allotments, not to say that you’re predicting that that will happen but that that much would not violate the rules for the federal stimulus money.
ADM: Yes, that’s what I’ve been told by Office of the Chancellor.
FA: O.k.
ADM: With some uncertainty it’s not a guarantee.
FA: I happened to be told by a state legislator yesterday that that person’s understanding was that there was less slack before running into but yet I heard a third story (laughter) from the IFO leadership claiming that some other states had already begun to ask for waivers from the federal government on these limits and there was a serious possibility that those limits might be loosened so as to allow further budget cuts by states.
ADM: I have heard that other states have asked for loosening of those limits. I haven’t heard any comments on the result.
FA: Neither did I, only that the request had been made and that raised the question about whether in fact the feds would stand by the limits that they had earlier set.
ADM: Yes, they’re relaying some uncertainty around that yes.
FA: I am not asking you to have the answer, I’m mostly asking you to confirm the range of uncertainty that we have about what we can expect.
ADM: I think there seems to be general agreement about the 25 million number as being…
FA: I can’t rule out the possibility that a state legislator was not as well informed as you were on particular budgetary matter.
ADM: I wouldn’t say that, particularly through a state legislator. (laughter)
FA: Neither did I.
ADM: But in any case there does remain uncertainty and at this point our planning estimate will be around MnSCU’s additional two and a half million, 25 million, which is their represented and then I suspect we will perhaps get additional guidance from them in the next several days. I hope for them to offer some guidance about their expectation in 12 and 13 because we’re also supposed to give some projection at least in aggregate what we would expect and how/what the impact might be in the future years to the legislature by March 15 and I knew that when the legislators were here that they were going to ask after our familiarity with that requirement, and we were for certain, which we do know about that to answer that we did know about it and we would be planning around that and I offered that there had been a letter from Laura King to the legislator requesting some clarity on what that exact allocation number as a target would be and I got a surprising amount of push back. It was very clear and that it was puzzling to them that why that letter had been sent and there was some talk afterwards about that the letter was indeed appropriate and there could be some help with clarity from the chair of the committee.
ADM: So the only thing certain that it will be a few weeks before we know what the realistic scenarios are likely to be, in terms of numbers.
ADM: I don’t think we will know the numbers until May or something like that, after the legislative session. I think we will have numbers that we will be planning around in the next several days, is how I think that will be and we will just remain in an uncertain status for a long time.
FA: I also want to ask and maybe this is a question more appropriately directed to President Potter but we’re curious as to have any decisions, even preliminary decisions been made or any guidance begun to be circulated in regards to planning for next year. We know that things are going to be tighter next year than this year, we don’t know exactly how much, I know that there are a number of decisions that have not yet been made, is there any…
ADM: I need to see the numbers that he’s working with and we can have that conversation.
ADM: This is new information and raw information that we have. I will say we have, given the scale we knew of a week ago, or two weeks ago, we did go to the other bargaining units that we are obliged by their contracts to advise them that in our discussion they will need to broad enough to consider the idea of layoff as defined in those, somewhat different in some of contracts as a possibility as we go forward. That is included in, now is able to be on the table and discussed. We did that with several bargaining units and that’s a significant step for us to take but given the scale of what we’re looking at, at least the discussions need to include that as a possibility, given the situation and that necessity is doubled by what we’ve heard most recently.
FA: However I note that the word retrenchment has not been uttered in this meeting.
ADM: Right.
ADM: That’s correct.
FA: I understand. And I understand that that’s a statement for the present having the conversation.
ADM: There is good news on the enrollment front, which is a revenue generator. As I understand it we are ahead of the projected number we used in the original planning document in the current semester. That is if we continue to have the same pattern of summer and fall we will have more revenue generated through tuition.
ADM: The summer is in the books for this year and summer was up about 43 FYE. The current semester is up about 160 FYE compared to last year not compared to budget and if we hold typical the number would be up a little less in the spring because we’re a little bit smaller in the spring, and I should remember the number off the top of my head that we’ve projected for enrollment to increase this year…
ADM: 15,700
ADM: But I don’t remember..
ADM: It’s about 100, in the management meeting it was about 100 that the projection and we were coming in about 100 students above what 100 before.
ADM: So that 100 students represents the tuition for those students and that is a positive. We did revise our enrollment projections for the future years based on that. That is helpful. We also want to look closely at the salaries, the greatest variables on salaries right now as we go forward into the spring, typically fixed term and other appointments on the faculty side to see how that plays out. We’re looking carefully at tuition remission also as an area of concern as we go into the spring, in terms of on the expense side.
ADM: At the graduate level.
ADM: At the graduate level, yes.
FA: Last year when we looked at planning ahead for this year we actually went through in terms of hiring kind of a rolling process where requests went in, certain amount of critical needs were approved and then money was withheld until we got a clearer budget picture. Obviously we’re looking at a much worse situation for this year. Can you say anything about plans for making or schedules for making decisions regarding hiring?
ADM: Actually I am in conversation with the deans and they’re putting together information for me after taking a look at their situation and we’re also in the process of establishing some base budgets so that we can, given the uncertainties, try to determine what is available. But there are two sets of those processes. One is that we will go through a process of prioritization in that conversations I will have with the deans. Then once the budgetary situation becomes clear it will become more evident as to how many of those we can actually move forward. So the two are really linked, the budget certainty and the hiring timeline, they are really linked because right now we really don’t have a good idea as to how much will or will not be available for hiring next year.
FA: Do you have any target dates in mind for when you might have a better clearer picture?
ADM: As Steve has mentioned that some scenarios would be developed in the next few days in terms of the overall budget…
ADM: Next week.
ADM: My preference is that we would do this fairly early in spring.
FA: You mean to say we start the conversation talking to the deans and vice presidents about the budget numbers?
ADM: We’ve been talking about the budget numbers in partly in difference to our relationship that we just talk about things even when there is uncertainty to talk about them and rather than let just kind of speculate about what might happen and recognize that we’re trying to estimate too. We will set some targets as best we can and with some guidance from MnSCU based on numbers like these in the next couple of weeks. We will publish, I’m certain as we return in the spring the budget guidance that is the kind of material for the present, there was some material that we shared this fall but this uncertainty has kind of made us wonder exactly where should go. That I expect we’ll have guidance on supplies and equipment as one issue that is of concern particularly within departments and works out through the process and certainly will have impact on faculty hiring in particular because that’s where a lot of our money is certainly and that’s where there is some turnover each year that we would look at. But we’ll look. We will have that guidance as people return in the spring, for the spring term in January.
FA: So the guidance you’re referring to is in regards to things like departmental budgets and also in term of the beginnings of a schedule of… I am just trying to get whatever sense that we can about knowing that we don’t know now and we won’t know until May, how much there is to be spent or cut there will be news about when decisions will be made about opening positions in the beginning of the spring term that our intermission will start to take affect?
ADM: Yes. I think the reason I said there are two conversations linked is that given the dimensions which Steve is talking about in terms of the impending budget readjustments then those readjustments have to be made first and only then we can get a sense of what pool of money is or is not available. Now if you ask me on a broader expectation given what is coming down the pipe the expectation that we will be doing a lot of hiring is probably not realistic.
FA: I think we grasp that.
ADM: But at the same time that does not stop us from recognizing and establishing what our needs are in developing our priorities so that if and when in the early part of spring it is clear as to where we are budget wise then where needed we can start some of the searches.
FA: A concern I have about this and this is not something you control, right it’s not something any of us control, but we’re hearing from the governor that he intends for the most part not to take any action until the legislature reconvenes in February. He has said he might withhold local government aid payments. That of course doesn’t rule out that he’ll unallot something else between now and February. But what I’m hearing sounds as though he intends to delay action for a couple of months anyway and who knows how long it takes for to be satisfied with his conversations with the legislature or not. So, it strikes me that there’s a very significant chance that we’re still not going to know much about the possibility of further unallotments this year or about next year until past February and by that point it becomes impossible to conduct… there’s a point at which you just can’t do the searches anymore. And I’m not here to press you unreasonably about this because I know you don’t control that, I’m just trying to get a sense of how will we…
ADM: I see, now in fact the prioritization of the searches I’m talking about is for FY11.
FA: O.k.
ADM: In terms of FY10 basically what is happening is that the conversations are that we are taking a look at it again there, we’re establishing firm base budgets and there in some instances where there were a lot of stress points in once case for example, there was department where somebody left and there was just one faculty who was responsible for the program and so we needed to hire so there we have given a go ahead for hire. Similarly there may be other instances, so essentially in that context again it’s crucially demanded on the availability but I was referring to a better more comprehensive process in response to Judy’s question on an ongoing basis. Where in fall, in early spring we would have for the following year a set of priorities already set up in terms of hiring and so that as budget situations become clear for the following year and we know how much money is available we just go down those set of priorities and we do the hiring in a timely fashion. Because right now what is happening is we learned it the hard way but we were going from one set of uncertainties to another set of uncertainty and holding back so we’re trying to sort of develop an overarching long term process so I was referring to that. But in that context some of the conversations about hiring for the current year are already going on.
FA: Now I want to make sure that I understand when you say for the current year, I’m thinking in terms of…
ADM: People who would start in FY11.
FA: So the search might have occurred in this year but the hiring would be next year.
ADM: Yes.
FA: So we’re talking about the same thing.
ADM: Yes.
FA: I wasn’t expecting any significant number of hires to occur in this year.
ADM: Yeah, o.k. Now we got it.
ADM: And we are continuing to add subject to funding to our notices. So although we may start some processes we still have the possibility due to some financial urgency to pull the plug on those processes once there started. That is an option available to us depending on the contingencies that we face.
FA: Understood. Are there any other questions, concerns in regard to the budget? Of course we’ll be looking forward to learning more, I don’t know if looking forward is the right word but we will be learning more and talking more.
2. Status of Administrative Searches (ADM)
ADM: Mark I want one question in terms of clarification for the Dean of College of Education I know you were conducting lessons and so where we are, do we have that information?
FA: I am pleased to be able to say I have an answer for you.
ADM: I did set him up very well didn’t I? (laughter) Yes sir, go ahead.
FA: And I will just hand you a copy of this but we, the five members include four from the College of Education; Kay Worner, Gabriela Silvestre, Jan Frank and Kathy Ofstedal and the at large member Rebecca Krystyniak from Chemistry.
ADM: O.k. Thank you very much.
FA: Is it all women?
FA: Yes it is all women and there is nothing in our rules that forbids us to have a slate of all women.
ADM: You can’t do all men.
FA: There is something in our rules that forbids us that.
ADM: You’re supposed to have a balance I mean give me a break. I am acting Affirmative Action Officer in your conversation. You’re supposed to look at it both ways though really.
FA: Understood. I would say that we have a conversation about that. I don’t think that you will find that there is a pattern of discrimination against men in our naming of members of committees.
ADM: I really appreciate your providing with the names and this will help us have the process more forward and get that search under way quickly. Thank you.
FA: I don’t think that there’s any other news or anything else pending. We are looking forward to the arrival of a new Affirmative Action Director but that’s it and I don’t think there are no other searches that are…
ADM: No.
FA: O.k.
3. Students First Initiatives (FA)
FA: One thing I am curious about and maybe you have already sent this to me, do we have a firm commitment on a visit from John O’Brien?
ADM: He’s agreed to the 16th. We’re just waiting for you to let me know what time the faculty would prefer and we’ll schedule everyone else around that time. So we tentatively held ten to twelve in the morning, one to two-thirty in the afternoon, two-thirty to four.
FA: I haven’t looked at the schedule, I know when mine is scheduled but I would think it would be a good idea to have a time that was close to exam periods so that if a person had an exam scheduled that would not block him or her from participating. I want to acknowledge that it is going to be difficult that week to get faculty participation simply because their doing end of the semester duties and dealing with students.
ADM: If this isn’t good, John is willing to come in January. This is really flexible. He threw out two December dates and he’ll look at others so if you prefer something else, there’s nothing magic about this. He just is trying to get to campuses.
FA: Well I will say that my perspective is that things seem to be moving remarkably fast. I would be concerned about delaying our conversation. We will publicize this among faculty. I will get back to you with a timeframe and do our best to have a substantial turnout from across the campus on the 16th.
ADM: I think we tried to set aside a time for faculty but we’ll have another open time and if faculty can’t come to the faculty time they can come to the other time.
FA: That would be helpful.
ADM: Maybe I could just announce that there is a launch, a Students First Launch, a believe, next Wednesday, the 9th. I did send you a link to the list of all the participants that are on those committees in case FA wanted to meet with the chair of that one.
FA: Forgive me but I did not quite catch what precisely is being launched?
ADM: The project, the six work groups, I think they are calling them, will all come together. The Chancellor will give a little speech and others as well and then those groups will have their first meetings to start a set for framework and then they’re going to get together and all that stuff.
FA: So they already made up their mind and they are just consulting?
ADM: They already made up their mind on?
FA: The board of trustees, chancellor made up their minds on Students First Initiative?
ADM: They made up their mind to have discussions about it and now they’re going to bring these groups together that are going to talk about what each, they have these six areas, what they will mean. Nothing’s decided yet, that’s what I have heard John say.
FA: I have to say at the IFO, we have heard the statement “nothing is decided”.
ADM: I don’t think that is accurate.
ADM: O.K., then I will let the President speak to that because he was at those meetings.
ADM: I think it is very clearly decided that there will be a project and that systems will be built to provide an integrated on-line framework for student services across the system. The shape that there are five or six components to that and that’s decided. Leaders who are accountable to completing those projects have been appointed. Timelines have been ordered but the ability of completing the work within those timelines has not been verified. Costs have been assumed, budgets will be assigned to complete the work but the shape of the work has not been described yet therefore the costs have not been defined. So what it’s going to look like when it’s done, how is it going to be done, when will it actually happen, all that remains to be worked out.
FA: I would absolutely agree that my sources of information give me the same understanding that the board of trustees has made a very firm decision that they intend for there to be such a thing but it is not clear yet exactly what it will look like. There have been some easily misunderstood statements about how nothing has been decided. We have heard at the IFO that nothing has been decided and that’s sort of true if what you mean by decided is we know exactly what it’s going to look like, but my political interpretation is that there is still some doubt about whether what the trustees want to do really can be done or whether it can be paid for, but there doesn’t seem to be any doubt about their intention to do something.
ADM: And recognize that some of those six projects, at least two of them, are ongoing work that’s been going on for a long time that’s being folded into the project so the single pay, that’s one of those things that’ve been going on for awhile.
ADM: I will just read the six; my choice of words wasn’t good because these six projects actually have been decided on but the details of these have not been. So it’s; single search, single application, graduation planner, single registration, single billing slash (/) single payment and shared services. Those are the name of the six different projects.
FA: And what would go under that container of shared services?
ADM: Right now it’s currently defined as students will benefit from operational efficiencies and include services. The project will initially focus on uniform processes such as applying for financial aid regardless of where classes are hosted. So that’s a little brief descriptor. There are problems with all of these. There are issues that have to be worked out.
FA: For example, hypothetically ask this question if the student wants to take sustainable management technology that Bemidji Technical College is planning to offer so students can take simultaneous class in St. Cloud and one in Bemidji, technical college so they all can put together a package?
ADM: I’m not going to answer that because I don’t think that any of that has been defined yet.
ADM: It depends on who you ask that question of. If you ask it of most of the board members they would say, right that’s what we want. But none of them are in our business and none of them are familiar with the details of how we work as a business. Everyone will express an opinion but the fact is that some of the things that they say of course, let’s do that, you wouldn’t want to do. I think what the broad attempt is we need to make things easier for our students. There are unreasonable barriers to the business they have to do with us. The pattern of enrollments that have emerged over the last couple of decades are much more complicated. Their systems were not built to accommodate that kind of complexity. So it is desirable to simplify and provide tools that help our students achieve their educational agendas. One of the reasonable limits on how far we can go and when do we begin to sacrifice, if we were to do certain things when would we begin to negatively affect the tension, the achievement of learning outcomes, etc. Those are the kinds of mission driven and qualitative issues that the board has not considered and frankly would have hard time thinking about. Most of us who have concerns about the project feel that the things that concern us will rear their heads as they actually get into the process and we will not in the end do something that is harmful. It’s not going to be automatic. Attentive participation by all stakeholders is needed in the process.
ADM: The things that I have been hearing by the example you gave, the two year schools are interested in having that kind of thing occur so it is going to be really important to have a mix of people at the table to speak for us.
FA: There’s a major tension here between the two years and the four years on many of these issues. There are so many factors that play in this among them is the fact that tuition is often lower at the two years than at the four years and creating a home shopping network approach to registering for classes might lead to students making decisions based on the narrow criterion of where the tuition is lowest rather than a full understanding of what courses are offered, what learning will take place and whether they genuinely will get what they think they are looking for in an educational experience. That’s one of the many, many issues that are of concern to us. I absolutely agree with President Potter that is not guaranteed that the problems will all be identified and resolved unless all participants do their best to make sure that problems are identified and resolved and that’s a reason why I hope that faculty will play an active role in this conversation.
FA: I worry about the weight of the community and technical college voices that we’ve already seen result in a system that we’re currently using that we love so much, that’s a functional ISRS that doesn’t really understand or respond to the kind of complexities that a comprehensive university and so I am wondering if there is some way that we can, I don’t discredit their voices – they have their needs too, but I don’t want their sheer numbers to out-way the needs of the seven comprehensive universities and I’m wondering if there’s some way that we can partner in ensuring that doesn’t happen, if that’s really even possible. Given the sheer numbers and given the weight of students. Preference for moving in this direction when they don’t always understand some of the outcomes for themselves that might be negative, I don’t know if I said that very well.
ADM: I think you’re question and observation is clear. We will have to use every channel available to us to influence this process positively. There are some of our stake holders that can take a public confrontational position and that actually will be helpful. Some other of the stake holders would damage their ability to act in the system if they were to do that. While I agree with your assessment of the politics I have to be really careful and work back channels in more subtly than an open confrontation with the 25 two year schools. I agree with your sense of the voices and the balance.
ADM: Another cautionary note here based on experience and first hand observation there is a tendency at the system level to treat as technical matters some very profound academic issues and we need to make sure that those things don’t sneak in under the guides of a technical decision.
FA: I agree and I will also say that if we can establish the academic importance, the learning importance, the student impact importance of a concern that that draws a lot more attention, it seems to draw a lot more serious consideration than merely pointing out that something won’t work.
ADM: Right
FA: Although we also need to point out when things won’t work. There is an art to how one presents that. The faculty are among the groups that have relatively more freedom to make statements, unfiltered statements although thoughtful, unfiltered statements perhaps.
FA: It’s interesting that at the board meetings we hear that 1.9 million dollars was slated just for the planning and John O’Brien, when he gave us the presentation it reminded me of how smart migrating from MnHouse to Xleves and how difficult, and I said something to John O’Brien about this is a very complex technology, multiple modules trying with each other, the ISRS piece, I think you’re right when you say when they start going down the path and see some technology issues they’re going to have more problems than they realize. Hopefully we can get people on there who understand technology too.
ADM: Is IFO identifying faculty to serve on these because right now I didn’t see anybody on the list that’s faculty.
FA: Yes the IFO has been asked to name some people and is in the process of choosing them and they will be coming from multiple campuses. I hope there will be some from ours because there’s some people on our campus who I think would made a contribution.
ADM: It might be helpful for faculty association to work on crafting a set of principles that from a standpoint of faculty ought to be served by such a system. As they evaluate the approaches, what are the criteria, what are the requirements? I think that whole two year school thing, the requirements I think are defined by stakeholders other than the four year university faculty. They are in terms of we need a system which does not damage the relationship between those students and their advisor. We need to foster personal relationships, to assure in our approach that comes with one objective specifying the curriculum is served by the systems that are put in place. So those kinds of principles must be served in implementing any system.
FA: We have been at the IFO level raising those points but we have not yet done so in the form of a written document and I think that that’s a helpful suggestion as something that might be a useful thing to generate.
ADM: I believe that the board has approved some principles, I wasn’t sure, or the leadership council that the board had shared with us. I had a lot to be concerned about because it didn’t make sense, they were supposed to go back to the board so that the big areas on that one are “our students will encounter” which doesn’t match up very much with what President Potter was suggesting, “students will encounter understandable uniform procedures, or similar reoccurring administrative processes, that’s one of them. “We will capture data once and only once and we will communicate and access our process” so those are the kinds of things that are quite different than a student learning experience that they’re concentrating on.
ADM: One thing that I’ll ask the President, I think that it might be beneficial should I approach MSUAAF with a similar request because there’s a particular focus on academic side that is legitimate and appropriate and that this talks a lot about student service and they have a strong voice also and I took down the list and I intend to proceed with that. I would like to be able to invite them to touch base with you such that maybe or somehow…
FA: We have already begun such conversations and I think they are very, very important because I think as Judy was talking about the idea of a unified voice and one of the things that’s important is that none of us be isolated as complainers or something in this process when that really is not what’s going on here. It’s not like only teaching faculty have a concern about this and it has something to do with our economic interests. That isn’t the story here. Advising is a place where both we and MSUAAF have such overlapping concerns we need to work together on that and I absolutely, anything that we can do to work with our sister bargaining units on this is important.
ADM: Well and it’s something that seems is straight forward is we will only ask the information once and these can tend to drive to what’s the least common denominator of the information we request and then we will design a system around that. We have a broader range of financial aid programs then other schools do and some of those programs require different information to be requested than would be requested by others. And if the system doesn’t exist now we have a standard system, we’ve represented to the students a standard and now we say but except at St. Cloud State if you want to go in this program here fill out this separate thing which we have to do by hand. I think on the other student service sides there may be some important comments.
FA: I had three questions and if I could ask each of them and get feedback I would appreciate it. Now you mentioned Kristi the board had been developing principles, do you know if those are coming forward to the MnSCU IFO meet and confer. Because as principles we’ve got a long way of informing what happens and I would hope that they would consult with IFO on the state level.
ADM: As you heard, the only principles that were stated are processes. There is nothing about learning that has been stated anywhere in the principles and I think that is where the faculty needs to push very hard to protect a commitment to student learning and student success. Those values are not currently reflected in a way that either charges developed or principles of work value are developed. I think the faculty needs to speak to that.
FA: Well we will be talking at our state-wide meet and confer next week and this is on the top of the agenda so I will certainly be carrying forward the input from this conversation.
FA: I had two other questions. Did you say they would be assessing process or progress?
ADM: Progress
FA: Who’s progress?
ADM: That’s the part that wasn’t clear to me. They gave to me, to the task force, and we were supposed to react to it. When we got to the meeting, we had questions and they said, and this is what’s unclear to me it’s already sort of implemented. It was like given to us and they weren’t sure how much we could adjust it so John was going to go back and talk to them and see if we can work on this further.
ADM: What tends to happen is the board talks, and the chancellor staff listens and that creates a document that they think addresses what they think the board has said. You go back through iterations and that becomes the boards’ direction. A lot of what ends up in the document the board never would have said, they have read into what the board’s saying by the staff members. You’re not going to, the board isn’t giving any direction on the learning outcomes or student success.
FA: My third question had to do with advising. In that document under those lists some place, because it’s our understanding that advising would be a piece of that somehow.
ADM: It’s not called that but I believe the area that people have been seeing advising tied into is the graduation planner piece of it. They are not saying that’s advising but that would be a tool for advising is my understanding.
FA: They gave us a demo at the last IFO board meeting and it was a demo of a system that exists at the U of M and the system includes communication with an advisor but it’s a system that’s based basically on a single curriculum as opposed to a whole bunch of different institutions with different curricula and different course descriptions. It’s one thing for an advisor at the U to be consulted about courses at the U, it’s quite another thing to imagine how any advisor within MnSCU would be knowledgeable about all the offerings at all of the campuses and be able to give meaningful advice to a student about whether that thing that’s called accounting at this technical college is the same as that thing that’s called accounting at the Herberger College of Business.
FA: Just one more response to the advising and I just want to let Kristi and administrative side know this as well as have it feed into IFO, I think with a lot of programs in that lock step, we actually advise students for a reason because they have specific career goals and so on and so they have options within things so I am feeling personally students doing this kind of, “I can take this for this” and “how little can I do at St. Cloud State with talking to faculty there in order to get this degree.” When of course there is no sense of kind of a career, or what does this enable you to do or make choices for academic degrees, etc, etc, etc. Now some students you can engage in the conversation but increasingly I’m finding students saying “ok I need this one course, if I take for this will it work” and that to me is a recipe for lack of retention. It’s a recipe for lack of academic integrity and it makes students into little components within this kind of cog system I don’t know how to express it but it gives away what we’re best at in terms of working with students and it does damage to students and I just like to get that notion through to the people who don’t understand academics that it’s not just plan of study it’s something more complicated than that and involves a student with real needs and real learning styles and their backgrounds and you can’t just put that on a
ADM: Actually Judy you make a very important point because what happens is if you have a graduate planner and the student’s perception is that this is a substitute for advising than that minimizes what goes on in the faculty-student interaction because advising at its best is a mentorship. It’s not just about scheduling classes. It is much more than that. That is the place where students take ownership of their learning by following some of that dictates our consultation which emerges from their mentorship. What I see in this process is really two or three areas. It has an impact on both curriculum design and delivery. It has an impact on not only how student outcomes would be defined but also how they would be assessed and both of those go to the heart of preserving the integrity of the academic programs themselves and I think it’s not that everything in this program not worth doing but the point is if that is the prism by which we look at it, we’ll be able to evaluate what is being proposed in a lot more rational manner.
FA: You say enough information available at this time to suggest how the single search thing would be different than the current practice. We are now able to search, I can go and get Mankato and search Mankato’s catalog and course schedule. So I’m not sure is there a vision in this about what single search would entail.
ADM: These are the words, “Respective and current students to search more effectively for college universities program or courses and classes”. But in my understanding all they talk about is move away from having to go institution by institution by institution you should go on MnSCU site and see everything.
FA: Has there been any thought as to whose degree, is it St. Cloud State’s degree, Mankato’s degree, percentage of courses taken from which institution and so who’s degree, I don’t think we’ve answered that question. In terms of accreditation, we may offer a course here from an accredited program, Southwest State may offer the same course, it’s not accredited, we can’t accept courses from non accredited programs, degrees yes, but not courses, which is another layer for concern.
ADM: And that refers to my suggestion that you prepare a document otherwise every time you get together, they are all valid points but you rehearse the same points over and over again. It’s better to capture them in a document that becomes a position document from which options are evaluated and actions are taken so you’ve got your position document you’re constantly in touch with the emerging description of what they’re going to do and from assessment against the criteria you design your intervention strategy and you get things on the table that influence, in place otherwise what you tend to do is you immobilize yourself by just rehearsing concerns over and over again. I think what the faculty needs is sort of a directional strategy which moves, brings the value of the faculty to bare problem rather keeps them aside and offers random observations. I really think it’s important to get some order to the conversation.
FA: Thank you for sharing that. Is there further discussion on Students First? I do want to say and this is a serious concern that goes beyond the Students First Initiative that in a number of ways, yes the system is pushing in the direction of system degrees and system identity rather than campus identity. That’s a bigger issue than just the Students First Initiative but it is a piece of what’s going on in Students First and it’s something that we need to be mindful of. It’s also one of those issues of which different stake holders have different degrees of freedom to comment about. If there is nothing else we will adjourn.
Adjourned 4:28