Final Approved 1/14/09

Meet and Confer

December 17, 2009

 

Administration:  Devinder Malhotra, Wanda Overland, David DeGroote, Judith Siminoe, Mitchell Rubinstein,  Dennis Nunes, John Palmer, Dan Gregory, Kristi Tornquist

Faculty:  Mark Jaede, JoAnn Gasparino, Balsy Kasi, Tracy Ore, Michael Tripp, Tom Hergert, Debra Leigh, Michael Connaughton, Polly Chappell—note taker

 

Approval of Minutes
1.  December 3, 2009
Admin: Welcome everybody. The President won’t be here today, he’s in another meeting. So, we can get started. If you notice this nametag around my neck, I’ve had an identity crisis. (Laughter) I need to be reminded who I am. No. There’s another MnSCU conference going on, so we are back and forth, so that explains the nametag.

FA: The Labor Conference or labor forecast?

Admin: Not labor forecast. There is a leadership committee, which is Human Resources and they meet once a year. The first item, approval of minutes; you took a look at them and so everything is okay. We will make the edits that you sent us.

Unfinished Business
1.  University Commencement (ADM)
Admin: That is from the last time. We had given you a proposal we want to implement, and we’re wondering what the status was because we haven’t heard anything.

FA: We have a couple of questions.

FA: When you raised University Commencement, was it at the last Meet and Confer?

Admin: No, two meetings ago. A month ago.

FA: If I remember correctly, the proposal was that there would be two separate graduations, and that you used the word “reception.” The Masters graduate students would go through a graduate commencement without being hooded, and the hooding would happen at a separate reception. We have questions about other universities, how do we know this is a trend? What are the motivations for doing this? How are we going to avoid the students who are getting the Masters degrees feeling like they are getting a second class graduation? The question we had amongst ourselves, the Masters graduation particularly is a very special part of the university. The proposal as we heard it sounded, frankly, tacky mainly because of the use of the word “reception.” So, we’re wondering motivation, evidence, and how are we going to avoid making students feel like this is something second class?

Admin: The motivation came from several sources. One, the President asked us to re-look at the hooding of the Masters. His view was that after being at a number of institutions that what we were doing here has not evolved with what other institutions were doing. We were also going to move to having some Doctoral graduates in the near future. That was one of the motivating forces, when the President said to look at some other models out there, to see what other institutions were doing, our peer institutions. Secondly, the evaluations that we have from the graduation following the graduate hooding and commencement in the spring have been less satisfactory as we have grown as we have now pushed to two hours. What we had wanted initially was something that would bring faculty and students together, and it was no longer doing that with the size of 200 students in two hours, and our student evaluations of their experiences were not as positive as they once were. What we did was look at 19 peer institutions, those I believe listed by Lisa Foss for other purposes, but institutions similar to ourselves and the type of institution and regional comprehensives. In fact we were the only one engaging in the kind of hooding ceremony, a separate ceremony, of those 19. We pursued that, and what we’ve suggested is a model that the students are brought together with the faculty at the college level. I think it can be done very well. And the colleges, both administration and faculty, will work out a means by which these students will be recognized and hooded by their advisors in the college. And then those students would go through an all-university commencement. It wouldn’t be an undergraduate commencement. It would essentially reach across all levels of this university’s education endeavors from Bachelors to Masters to Doctorate. It would meet some of the goals of our President, I believe, to bring the community more to the forefront and not having separate commencements. We would have those individuals from our region that would be appropriate to attend commencements that would show the breadth of the work at this university. I think what we’re doing is essentially what a number of universities like ourselves have been doing for quite some time. I’m very proud of what we’ve done. I proposed the separate commencement hooding ceremony about 15 years ago, but we were graduating 40 or 50 students at that time. It was a marvelous opportunity for our students and faculty to interact. We’ve now lost much of what that brought us a decade and a half ago. It’s time to rethink it. And that’s essentially my motivation. I think this could be done very well. It’s not second rate, it’s not tacky. It is done in the colleges with the full participation of our students, the faculty, and their guests. And they will be hooded in an appropriate manner that the colleges and faculty will participate in designing.

Admin: The only thing I can add, this is casual imperialism. I haven’t myself looked at all the other institutions. Both my previous institutions, the model is very similar to those for the Masters level. The Doctorate level graduate students got hooded on stage with everybody.

FA: In making any proposal to faculty to go this route, I think it’s very important to think about the rhetoric that is used. I’m sure the model you proposed is not going to be tacky at all. But that’s how it sounded.

Admin: That’s a good point. We have to be careful what we say.

Admin: We need to craft this well so it demonstrates our continued commitment to the students and the faculty who advise them.

FA: The word “reception” a lot of people got hung up on. I assume what we’re really talking about is a ceremony not unlike what we do now.

Admin: Exactly.

FA: And I assume it would also be done the same day?

Admin: Yes, proceeding.

Admin: I think those are good suggestions. We’ll incorporate that as we craft the message.

Admin: Yes.

Admin: We need to say a ceremony with a reception.

Admin: Yes.

Admin: That way it sounds like a ceremony and a reception.

Admin: That’s right.

FA: So the actual design of the ceremonies would be done at the college level?

Admin: Yes. Pending the outcome of our discussion here, I have scheduled meetings with the Deans or Associate Deans of each of the colleges. I believe these meetings are scheduled for approximately January 4th to begin discussions so we have adequate time to do it, and do it well. Yes.

FA: Do my colleagues have any objections with proceeding to that level of conversations at the college level? (Silence) It sounds as though we’ll be talking with you further at the college level.

Admin: Absolutely. Thank you.

2.   Define Committees per Article 6 Proposal (FA)

FA: On this one I’ve been speaking with President Potter. We agreed that we want to pursue this conversation by beginning with constructing a range, perhaps a graphic representation of a range of different kinds of meeting bodies ranging from those where everybody’s sure that it falls under Article 6 of the contract to ones where we may have some disagreements about through any that we may all agree that are not types of gatherings. At one end, there are clearly a number of entities such as for example search committees where we haven’t had any disagreement on this campus but that’s something where faculty choose representatives to search committees. That’s something we agree upon. At the other end an informal gathering by invitation to having a formal conversation where everyone who wishes to come is invited that’s not something the FA needs to decide which faculty members should come to. The middle point is, well, that’s what we don’t know. It’s an ongoing conversation that we’ll be keeping the Meet and Confer Team informed about.

Admin: Essentially, we have a process in place.

FA: Yes.

Admin: The process is going on. It was put on as unfinished business because those conversations have not been completed.

FA: That’s right.

Admin: Okay. Any other comments?

3.  Use of Adjuncts (FA)

FA: President Potter has suggested that you and I talk about that, and brought Lisa Foss and John Palmer into that conversation. We’ve agreed that Lisa is going to be assembling a set of data at department levels with statistics on numbers of adjuncts being used over a period of years in department by department that we’ll also be including in that Continuing Studies. We’ll be trying to capture a full range of adjunct uses. So, before coming to any conclusions about it we’re going to be gathering the data at system level and early next term we’ll be looking at a couple of different ways that Lisa’s going to be laying out the data so we can look at it come to a better understanding of it. And presumably shortly after that we’ll be in a position to share what those numbers are. There’s no reason why those would be secret numbers. We’ll see what they indicate. Maybe they’ll indicate a need to focus on a few particular departments, it may indicate that we need to look very broadly. We don’t know exactly what those numbers are going to be. But, again, this is an ongoing conversation. That’s where we are. At this point we’re working together on gathering informing and putting it in a format that we can agree is useful in understanding the scope and nature of our use of adjuncts.

 

Admin: Yes. That’s my understanding too. We are in a stage where we’re developing information around which we can frame some of the issues of concern that have been raised by the Faculty Association.

 

Admin: We have modified the expectation of the filling out of the appointment forms and change forms that result in adjunct hiring, that will identify the reason for the hire because there are categories within the bargaining agreement that are specifically indicated could be used for the hiring of adjuncts. Right now our data doesn’t clearly show the purpose for that other than the assignment they receive.

 

FA: That sounds very helpful. One of the things that we’ve discussed is that at the point where we have the aggregate data, we may very well want to move on especially in departments where there is a very high use of adjuncts to asking the departments to examine them and report to us about what is the rational, what were the reasons that adjuncts were being hired. We didn’t necessarily want to move immediately to asking every department to explain every adjunct that they are currently using or used in the last two years. We have enough things that we’re asking departments to be working on right at this moment and the request for that broad of information seemed inappropriate when it wasn’t even clear to us that every department had sufficient numbers that it was a matter of concern. Those questions may indeed be asked, they probably will be asked down the road, retrospectively, but having the information prospectively will make it a lot easier to understand what’s going on in the future.

 

FA: Is there any conversations on hiring faculty in these positions?

 

Admin: I think hiring of the faculty process is a lot more complex.

 

FA: I understand.

 

Admin: As we discussed it initially in Meet and Confer when this issue was raised, that when we hire we also have to understand what the resource base is available and also what kinds of programmatic needs are there and when those needs occur and so that’s why I think we are at a stage where we really need to first understand the scale and dimension of the problem where some of those questions can be framed in that appropriate manner. And frankly as I read the contract it’s not very clear to me if there is a clear cut interpretation of the contract. I know that the Faculty Association is very clear about their interpretation, but when I look at it there is some question of interpretation also. I think those again could be dealt with in the context of the conversation once we have the information.

 

FA: Could you share with us some areas in which you think that there are doubts about the contract?

 

Admin: Well, I’d much rather wait until the information is there and then appropriately frame those questions.

 

FA: Okay.

 

Admin: In the light of that information.

 

Admin: In a general sense, I believe faculty think that the use of adjuncts should never occur. And the general reaction---

 

FA: No. No.

 

FA: No.

 

FA: No. That’s not what the contract says and it’s not an IFO position.

 

Admin: When you ask the question about faculty lines and faculty positions not being hired, it’s implied that there’s an overuse of adjuncts.

 

FA: Our questions and this conversation arose out of concern that there may be overuse of adjuncts and beyond what is permissible under the contract, as well as beyond what is appropriate in terms of delivering quality education services. It is not our position that adjuncts are never appropriate. The contract lays out some specific cases where they’re appropriate and we agree they are appropriate for temporary replacement of people on other assignment, for special expertise not available in the existing faculty, and for cases of unexpected increases in enrollment. Those are all specifically cases where it’s appropriate. And it’s hard to imagine how a university would work without some degree of flexibility to do that. Our chief concern is that adjuncts should not become either a money-saving device or a permanent solution to permanent needs.

 

Admin: Yes. I think my position is that we have a process for conversation in place. Let that process unfold and see where it takes us. And at that point we’ll be able to hopefully come to a shared understanding of these issues.

 

FA: I’m content to proceed in that way. We may need to have a difficult conversation in the future. But I’m content in the moment for us to proceed on the data collection and looking for our points of agreement or looking for our points of disagreement.

 

Admin: Thank you. I think that’s a good way to proceed. If there are no other comments on this then we can go on.

 

4.  Program Review (ADM)
Admin: We gave you some documentation last time and we’re just wondering if you have some response to that.

 

FA: We do not yet have a response to that. This is a pretty important and far-reaching document that we would appreciate some more time to review it and get back to you.

 

Admin: Do you have some timeline in mind when you will get back to us?

 

FA: I would hope we could do that very early in the next term.

 

Admin: Does that pose a problem in terms of implementation of the process?

 

Admin: Time is always of the essence but we understand the importance of this, early next semester will be reasonable given the circumstances.

 

Admin: Thank you.

 

5.  Red Flag Guidelines (ADM)

Admin: Here again we’ve given you some documents and we’re looking for your response.

 

FA: Indeed. Our initial understanding is that it was being presented to us and that this is something that your sense is that you are obliged to implement something promptly in order to comply with statute. Is that correct?

 

Admin: The deadline changed to I think June 1st now.

 

FA: So, the degree of urgency has been reduced?

 

Admin: Other than it would be the right thing to do.

 

FA: Understood.

 

Admin: It was supposed to be last May.

 

FA: We don’t have a full answer to it at this point. I was going to say if you have to comply with the law, you should comply with the law at the time you need to comply with the law. That’s generally a good idea. If the deadline is not as urgent as it appeared based on my understanding in the last conversation, again this is something we’d like to give a fuller answer in January.

 

Admin: Great.

 

6.  Senate Recommendations for LR&TS To Be A Department (FA)

FA: Well, we submitted a resolution to you from the Senate. As of our last understanding there were some conversations going on between Dean Tornquist and members of the LR&TS faculty. What is the status of those? Our position remains, this is still a recommendation and we’re eager to see it move forward.

 

FA: We had one conversation and the faculty still hold to the recommendation that the faculty become a single department.

 

Admin: I think we probably should clarify that we’ve met once since the last Meet and Confer. We met on Monday on it. But we have been having conversations prior to that.

 

Admin: It’s very clear from the resolution what the faculty want. I think from my perspective I would like a more deliberate process to occur within the LR&TS and at that point once those recommendations are formulated and brought to me, then I’ll act accordingly.

 

FA: We understand.

 

Admin: Yes.

 

FA: Is there any sense of the time that this would require?

 

FA: We’re meeting in January and we’ll move as quickly as we can.

 

Admin: I agree. I think this is important enough for LR&TS that this process should be in a manner where there is sufficient time to deliberate and come to some sort of shared understanding.

 

FA: (Indiscernible)

 

Admin: While the conversations are going on, it’s not very appropriate for me to be tuned into every nuance of that conversation in process. I’d much rather wait and when they’ve completed the conversation and as a unit they presented something to me that is complete and comprehensive.

 

FA: I don’t want to nail you down to an exact date. But do you have a sense of if there are a large number of issues that need to be resolved? Is this something that you see is going to require a very long period of conversation or some conversation that can be resolved relatively quickly?

 

Admin: What I suggested when we met on Monday was that they provided me with a list of a variety of things that we need to have resolved and I thought that we should work from the faculty list. I think there was a dozen items on there? I can’t remember what your list was.

 

FA: Yes.

 

Admin: Some of them are easy. Some of them will be longer.

 

FA: We have addressed them. We’re comfortable with our resolution.

 

FA: Okay. Thank you.

 

FA: I should point out, as I look around the room, I’ve been on this campus longer than everyone except perhaps one or two people in the room, there is history, I realize the President has the responsibility to write the designate the departments and so forth, but there is a history of these sorts of requests coming from faculty and being initiated from faculty of some long standing. So, it isn’t always simply been a question of administrative reorganization or designation. There have been a number of instances which this has happened in the past. I wasn’t sure if you were aware of that. I know John’s aware of that.

 

Admin: Okay. No other comment?

 

7.  Software Proposal/ Co-Chair TLTR (ADM)

Admin: This is also a request we had given you sometime back, about a month back. We’re wondering the status.

 

FA: Right. The Technology and Pedagogy Resources Committee has reviewed this, and made some recommendations. The Executive Committee has endorsed those recommendations. They have not gone to Senate yet, but we recognize that there are some things that are time sensitive so we’re going to give you a copy of the minutes of the TPR Committee with the statement that this is endorsed by the Meet and Confer Team. The answers to your specific question, is that Doug Polley will serve as our representative and co-convener to TLTR. On the Internet 8 proposal there’s a resolution but the short version is that the one reservation we’ve got is that we would prefer if possible that the change over not begin until after the grade deadline of December 24th so that if any problems would arise it wouldn’t interfere with getting students’ grades entered properly. If that’s just not possible because of the time that you need in order to do the job, well ultimately the decision has been made. But our recommendation is that it wait until after the 24th. In regard to Snow Leopard and Windows 7, similarly looking at the schedules for those, we’d recommend that the computer change be again after the final exam week is over, so that we don’t have a situation of any chaos emerging during the final exams or entering of grades. We indicated implementation of May, but since final exams are in the beginning of May, we encourage you to just wait until after the grades are in on that.

 

FA: TPR did understand that the plan was after final exams. We just wanted to articulate it clearly.

 

Admin: That’s good though. So, one of the concerns we have is that we always try when we’re going to do these things communicate well enough in advance that faculty have time to think about… in this case right now I’m worried about the IE8, so they have time to think about their syllabus and their assignments well advance if they need to make changes. So, we’re a little nervous because we’ve been waiting to hear from you if we send a communication out tomorrow saying we’re going to make the IE8 change, how disruptive is that going to be for people preparing for the start of spring semester? We’re going to miss some people right now. They’re not going to get it until January. We know that.

 

FA: The TPR interpretation was that it will not be terribly disruptive. The issue is that people buying new computers have IE8 already. As long as faculty are opt in on their personal machines TPR didn’t see a problem.

 

Admin: We’ll send out communication. It will just be the classrooms. We just want to make sure people are comfortable when they walk in the classroom next spring that it’s not causing them concern.

 

FA: Thank you.

 

Admin: We’ll communicate now and then we’ll communicate again right at the beginning of the semester, and pay attention to those dates.

 

FA: Thank you.

 

Admin: Thank you.

 

8.  Information Assurance/Bio Sciences (ADM)

Admin: We brought the proposal. You raised some questions. We provided you with some response. And we want to bring this to closure.

FA: Sure. On the Information Assurance issue, we have reviewed the information provided to us and we are satisfied about the appropriateness of the process that went into the development of the recommendations, so we have no further questions in regard to that.  

FA: Some of the questions I have, it’s been a while and I don’t have the document, I remember in one place it says cost center, and I was wondering if it is a cost center or is it going to be like marketing and some other departments? Also, is it tagged along STEM initiative, but also I know there’s an Associate Dean, Carolyn Williams. STEM initiative, is it going to be mixed together with the Bio Sciences? The trends in Minnesota that Bio Sciences are changing…

Admin: Sure, sure.

FA: …I know some companies closed. I was wondering is there going to be a spending limit? Cost center or…?

Admin: I think you’re asking two questions. One is the organizational structure and where it fits in and the other one is how does it fold into the overall STEM strategy for the institution? Let’s take them one by one.

Admin: The cost center is a subcomponent cost center in the COSE. Its office has been in existence for the last three years as a cost center, Bio Sciences, so this would be a change in the title of the cost center.

Admin: So, it’s an organizational frame around an existing activity.

Admin: Yes.

FA: So the director funding would come from the cost center or department?

Admin: Actually, that’s already in…

Admin: The funding comes from the funds in the COSE, and have been for the last three years.

Admin: So, that’s imbedded in this cost center.

Admin: Yes.

FA: And the relationship with whatever work is being done by Carolyn Williams?

Admin: When you look at STEM, there are different aspects to it. My understanding is that Carolyn Williams’s focus is on more of recruitment and also within that, recruitment of students of color, and to make sure there are appropriate support services for the success of those students in those areas. And, so, what exactly would be the focus and context of Bio Sciences, that will help us see where there are overlaps and how they are different.

Admin: This is primarily an outreach activity to engage Central Minnesota or the regional Bio Science businesses in connection with academic programs that are related to Biology, Chemistry, Engineering, and so on, and so forth, opportunities for faculty and students to engage in work that would be related to commercialization, intellectual property expansion, in other words tying our students and faculty to existing intellectual property that is out there in the private sector and us being able to provide what they call translational activities around those kinds of entities that exist out there.

Admin: So, to answer your question, there might be some overlaps.

FA: Yes.

Admin: And that is to be expected because when we undertake a particular activity then we use all the existing resources that are available to the institution to strengthen those activities. So, in the context of including and supporting students, there would need to be some conversation as to how that would be done.

FA: I’m just wondering if you consulted with Dr. Williams? It may be a surprise to her,  I don’t know.

Admin: Yes.

FA: The reason I’m asking is because before we said Bio Sciences now Bio Sciences and STEM, so it’s kind of added later.

Admin: Yes.

Admin: This is referred to as Bio Sciences Education and Research, they’ve been saying STEM, talking about STEM as a component of Bio Sciences. Additional, if we recall back in the spring of 2008, there was a proposal for one time money that might have been available there for a STEM Coordinator on campus and that was approved but it’s been on hold because of budgetary concerns. And that STEM Coordinator was envisioned as someone who could look at all of the kinds of STEM activities from recruiting, admitting, in the department, with OSP, a number of activities. Someone who would have a better handle on the different kinds of activities that are related to STEM, unfortunately we have not been able to fund that position, which I think would help coalesce a lot of these activities around the central organization structure.

FA: My impression was that Dr. Williams was coordinating all of those activities.

Admin: No.

Admin: She’s coordinating different activities.

Admin: I think what is happening here is when we look at STEM there are two primary objectives, one is to increase the number of graduates and the other is to increase the number of students who are prepared to teach these in high schools. Bio Science Research may have some overlap, but it’s much more broad based in terms of its focus.

FA: Any other questions from our side? If not, I’ll thank you for bringing this to Meet and Confer.

Admin: Thank you.

New Business
1.  Pictures on Class List (FA)
FA: The Senate passed a resolution, I believe I forwarded it to you. If I didn’t, I will do so. I will summarize it quickly. We’d like to have pictures on our class lists. That is the pictures of students provided to faculty members along with the class lists to help faculty members identify and get to know students better. We passed this on to Student Government, and they passed a resolution generally endorsing it, although in language of a continued conversation. Their President expressed some concerns that students should be able to have an opt-out option and that there should be some guarantee that the pictures not be used for any other purposes other than for the faculty use in on the list. Faculty members shouldn’t post them on D2L or otherwise share them. We think that this is something that would be a service to faculty and students in terms of facilitating getting to know one another, faculty members learning the names, and being able to match them with faces. We’re hopeful that it’s not an excessively burdensome thing given that student photos are taken as part of their student IDs. We hope that those would be available. So, we’re asking the administration to consider this. We are, of course, willing to work with you in terms of formulating what the details would be like, if the next step is to also involve students in some sort of a task force. We’re open to different approaches, but we’d like to move ahead on this if that is possible.

Admin: We’ll take it under advisement because I’ll need to go back and see what the implications are, what the existing processes are, but I also have to check if it raises some other privacy issues. So, we will take it under advisement and we’ll get back to you.

FA: I can tell you that it is something that is done on other campuses for example at UMD it’s something that’s been a reality for some time. I can also tell you, and I don’t know whether this is a problem or not, many individual faculty members take photos of students to create their own internal list, obviously with the consent of the students. No one is being forced to do it if they don’t wish to. So it is to some extent something that is already happening. But if possible, we’d like something official.

Admin: Sure. Actually, at this stage I’m not suggesting it’s not possible. All I’m saying is we need to do our due diligence from resource implications, logistical issues, and also if there are any legal/privacy implications.

FA: Understood.

Admin: So, once we look at those then we’ll get back to you.

FA: Okay. Another thing faculty wish for is to be able to toggle the feature on and off so all of the class lists wouldn’t always show the pictures. That’s a fairly easy thing to implement.

Admin: As we go further, those kinds of issues, depending on which way the conversation is going, can be easily accommodated. But it would be helpful if we could get a copy of the exact resolution and also if you have some documentation from the students in terms of your conversations because that will accelerate the process of our due diligence.

FA: Will do.

Admin: Thank you.

2.  Climate Task Force in COE (FA)
FA: Here, I don’t think we have anything new other than what I emailed to you and I brought copies for you. There is a motion that was passed in Executive Committee and this was subsequently endorsed in Senate. I think that this embodies the understanding that we reached in a more informal conversation two Meet and Confers ago with President Potter. I can tell you that the task force itself has approached me for some more specific language giving them guidance on what their next charge is, so I thought that would be appropriate to bring this language to Meet and Confer, so that all parties can agree that this appropriately embodies the understanding of what we are asking the task force to do.

Admin: Since this is the first time I’m taking a look at it, and I know that this is part and parcel of an ongoing conversation, and so, again, I’ll take it under advisement. I know that you and the President are having conversations.

FA: Right.

Admin: And this can be part and parcel of that.

FA: Sure.

Admin: And imbedded in that conversation.

FA: I understand and since it is some thing that President Potter has been directly and actively involved in it was my expectation that he would like to make a final determination about whether or not to endorse that language.

Admin: Yes.

3.  Search for New Honors Director (FA)—combined with item below:
4.  CETL Director Position (FA)
Admin: You sent me this. I don’t have it here, but I remember seeing this.

FA: We have a recommendation from our Honors Advisory Committee requesting that a search proceed for a new director of Honors. That language was in the email that I sent you. If I may, the next item is similar. Also the CETL Advisory Committee submitted a request to proceed with the search. In both cases what the recommendation is and it has been endorsed through the Senate, that these be internal searches rather than external searches.

Admin: Okay. You know, again, I appreciate the input. I’ll take it under advisement. As conversations around these searches begin I will definitely take into consideration the information you provided me.

FA: Okay.

Admin: Point of clarification. On what we got, the first motion about the Honors Director, it doesn’t say that that’s an internal search. Is this language incorrect?

FA: No, the language is correct. That’s the correct language, if that’s not specifically in the motion then I have to apologize, but I may have misspoken on that. Although I don’t believe that we have ever…

Admin: On the CETL Director, I remember the internal search.

FA: I apologize. I don’t think that there ever really was an issue with regards to Honors, because to my knowledge that has always been an internal partial reassignment. I may have been making an assumption but it’s not part of the language of the motion. With regard to CETL, it definitely was explicitly stated as a recommendation of the Advisory Committee and through the FA. The text you have there is what the Senate approved.

Admin: As I said, again, I appreciate the input and I’ll definitely give it full consideration as we proceed on the search.

5.  Ethics Training (ADM)
Admin: I just drew a blank here.

Admin: I can help you.

Admin: Okay. (Laughter) There’s a reason Dan Gregory is here. I was looking around and saying where did this come from.

Admin: It’s from me. The first thing I apologize for the last minute addition. That was my fault. I thought that you met next week and I found out yesterday that it was today. I’ll give you a little bit of background. We found out in September that NSF was going to require Ethics Training for all students that are involved with NSF and the programs. They didn’t give any specifics at that point. At the end of November we watched a webinar from NSF and they gave us specifics on what the training needed to entail. It’s for all undergraduates, graduate students, and post docs that are involved in any kind of NSF funding. The policy or the training needs to be in place January 4th. Any proposal that is submitted January 4th or after, that includes students, once it is funded, those students will need to be trained. So we’re not actually going to be doing the training or no one will probably do the training for this reason until mid-year because it usually takes NSF about six months to recommend funding. So what we did was look at the recommendations from the NSF and what the training should include and we decided that we were going to use our online modules that we use currently for the IRB training and certification. Then we talked with the faculty that have received or are currently receiving NSF funding and they recommended to us which of these modules should be required and which of them could be elective. So the way the policy reads now anything with the “R” so the first three blocks that have “Rs” next to them will be required of all the students. Then the other ones, the electives, are really up to the faculty mentor if they believe it would be useful for their students to take or not. They’re color-coded by module, and each module is between 15 and 20 minutes long. So, as it stands right now all of the training will be between 45 minutes and an hour that is required. And then faculty can have them do all of the modules. Two of the faculty members who we asked in terms of which modules would be usable have completed all of them. And so, they had a fairly good idea of what the image was of those modules and it was not just based on the titles. So, that’s where we’re at.

Admin: At this stage, before we let it be known widely we wanted to share this information with you as it is coming down from NSF. Even though it to be in a required mode, given the broader trends in terms of experiential learning of students on projects this is probably a good hour well spent in terms of understanding as they work on these research projects the ethical implications.

FA: How do you perceive these training modules being developed and who will develop them? How will that work?

Admin: That’s a piece I forgot. So, the modules, we currently use this company it’s Collaborative Institutional Training Initiative. We use that for the IRB training now. So the office of Sponsored Programs and the university has a cite license so we don’t pay by individual users, we pay by just the modules, so it’s really a matter of taking the modules and activating them. Then we can tell who they expect and they log on individually as them, and when they are done with the training they print out a certificate of completion. We’ll keep those certificates of completion for audit purposes for the NSF and we’ll also send one to the faculty members so they know as well that the student has completed it.

FA: Is this the same vendor who gave us the “don’t fondle the tech support’s head” video that we were all required to view. (Laughter)

Admin: Nope. That’s a different one. If you have gone through the IRB training, it’s part of that one. Another thing I’ll say is that the policy really is the minimum requirement by NSF. Their hope was that we can offer online modules, but that we also offer face-to-face and mentoring training. We didn’t feel in Sponsored Programs that we had the expertise to do that at this point. We would hope that eventually as it grows, we could maybe go in that direction. But we’re not there.

FA: Do you foresee any faculty participation in designing or reviewing in any way of the creation of these training modules?

Admin: The training modules that we’re going to use on the front end are already developed and in fact they are being used at other universities as well. I’m not at all opposed to getting faculty involved. My personal stance on this is that if it is required training, let’s make it useful. I’m not big on let’s do the training to cover ourselves. On the front end, we’re implanting this really because of the timeline. But I’m not at all opposed to moving the training on to where it makes sense for us.

FA: My comments are not merely for the glee of being able to mention that colorful video we were shown, but frankly the quality of that training struck many of us as not very high and not very useful. We understand the C-Y-A (???) value of having such a video, but when it’s giving instructions like don’t shake down your roofer by threatening his son’s grade, I’m not sure that this is the kind of advice that really we need to be hearing.

Admin: Right.

FA: I think we know that.

Admin: Right. And the level of this is better, I would say higher than those, because I also had to do those. What it doesn’t address though are maybe particular examples that we would have at an institution like ours. So we have some area to move in there. We’ve talked with a lot of faculty as we’re looking at these modules and there have been faculty who want to use it for classes as well. And that is certainly an option. They can also print out a certificate of completion, if it is part of the course or something. It doesn’t cost us any more.

FA: I have a comment and a question. Having done the IRB training the online modules are nothing like what you’re talking about.

FA: That’s comforting. Thank you.

FA: All faculty are being encouraged to do the IRB online module. That would be really important. Related to that, are you thinking of having faculty required to do this ethics training? You talked about students, but why aren’t faculty included?

Admin: The conversation at the national level is that the assumption by NSF is that if we train the students eventually the faculty, they will become faculty. I am not at all opposed to it if that’s where the conversation needs to go. Right now the policy speaks only to students. I’m open to, particularly if it is useful training, that conversation. I don’t see us pushing that.

FA: I don’t want to speak out of turn, but I don’t think it would hurt. If we’re going to have our students do it for us to be familiar with it.

FA: Noted as a statement of opinion.

Admin: She speaks for herself.

FA: Indeed.

Admin: She raises an important point. Again, what we bring to you today is just what the NSF is asking us to do. So, it’s limited to that. However, a broader issue about research and ethics, it’s a good conversation to have on this campus.

Admin: Sponsored Programs would be willing to engage on conversations.

FA: I don’t see why, if it is the NSF grant the faculty is getting, why don’t they watch the video along with the students? It makes sense to me. Also the program, the software has the seal of approval of NSF?

Admin: Yes.

FA: How much do they charge? Based on licensing fee?

Admin: Yes. We’re already paying that fee because of the IRB training, and it’s not overly expensive. We pay yearly.

Admin: NRB and IRB are on it as well.

Admin: Okay.

Admin: It’s different modules but it’s from the same source.

Admin: Is it hosted off site?

Admin: Yes.

Admin: I don’t have to worry about it?

Admin: We’re legal.

Admin: Thank you. When you say site license, I have to worry about every computer, but we’re good.

Admin: I used the wrong term.

Admin: We don’t have to block who can access it or not?

Admin: No.

Admin: Perfect.

FA: There were a couple of opinions expressed. I feel the need to offer a disclaimer as FA President that we are not making any statement in regard to any faculty member being compelled to watch the videos. But I certainly hear and certainly share the opinion that it is a desirable thing for faculty to be informed about such matters and also a positive thing in terms of student/faculty relations on a research project to have everyone know what that is.

FA: If you were to have faculty part of it, you would bring that conversation here first, right?

Admin: We’ll wait for an invitation.

FA: Okay. There we go. Did I redeem myself?

FA: You have no need to redeem yourself. I’m just doing my job here.

Admin: FA President, your disclaimer is duly noted.

Progress Reports on Long-term Concerns
1.  Report on Budget (ADM) (10/18/07)
Admin: We’ll have to defer this item because Vice President Ludwig is involved in that other meeting. But we’ll make sure that he’ll be here next time and we’ll give you a report on the budget.

FA: We received the update two weeks ago, and based on what I heard in University Council on Monday, it didn’t sound to me as though he had anything new to report as of Monday, that he had not already shared with us.

Admin: Yes.

FA: What may have happened since then I don’t know.

Admin: At this stage we can conjecture, we can scenario, but you’re right. That certainty of information hopefully will be clarified by the time we get back and we can have another update on that.

2.  Status of Administrative Searches (ADM)
Admin: The only one which comes to my mind is search for the Dean of the College of Education. You gave me the names; the committee has been formulated in accordance with the processes and procedures. It is being chaired by the Dean of the College of Social Sciences, Frank Harrold, and we are in the process of scheduling a meeting. It may have been scheduled, but I don’t know. But I know we’re working on scheduling the meeting and moving the process forward. I can’t think of any other administrative searches going on right now.

FA: I have a couple questions. We’re curious as to whether there have been any developments in terms of plans for the status of Undergraduate Studies Interim Dean position. Have there been any developments there?

Admin: Yes and no, in the sense that we will have to, as we move forward as we said the Strategic Planning process is wrestling with the student integrated experience operational structures, and as that work proceeds forward hopefully there will be some sense as to what kind of organizational structure would be appropriate. And at that point, we will either decide that we need to move to a different operational structure or if we decide to stay with the existing operational structure, then at that point, in spring, we’ll have to conduct a search and hire a permanent replacement. But that’s the best answer I can give you right now.

FA: Okay. The other question is in regard to the 5th Avenue Live project, which is approaching completion. The housing of course is going to be available in August for occupancy I understand. We’ve started getting mail about that. I understand that there is to be also a community engagement office, I may have the title wrong, but an office located there to focus on community engagement. We’re curious as to whether there are plans to create an administrative or perhaps a MSUAASF position to direct that? What’s the status of that?

Admin: Vice President Overland probably has better information on that and when she comes back, maybe we can come back to this item. If not, you’re questions are duly noted and I’ll try to get the information to you. You know having walked into the middle of this conversation in July, you’re looking at an individual with at best partial understanding, but this is not as opposed to impartial. It in partial in terms of incomplete understanding of all the issues and therefore I hesitate to say something with that base of knowledge.

FA: Okay.

Admin: But you raise legitimate questions and they are heard and I will try to get back to you.

FA: Same thing about administrative searches. One is Dan Gregory’s position, his position is interim?

Admin: Yes.

FA: John was part of the search committee for Associate Faculty Relations Coordinator, is that what it is called?

Admin: No, no. Assistant.

FA: Assistant.

Admin: Assistant Vice President for Faculty Relations.

FA: It’s interim?

Admin: You’re absolutely right. And at the time when I came to Meet and Confer and I informed you about these two interim positions, if I remember my own ascertains correctly, I also said that come spring we’ll do searches for permanent replacements.

FA: My recollection is that you said you were considering the possibility of some difference in responsibilities.

Admin: That’s right. And then do permanent replacements. So that is still the plan. You’re absolutely right.

FA: Okay.

FA: Vice President Overland is back.

Admin: Okay let’s go back to a question that arose about some plans for 5th Live and I thought you would be in a better position than me to respond to them because I didn’t’ want to deliberately give them incorrect information.

FA: I know there’s going to be an office of community engagement.

Admin: Okay.

FA: And are there any plans for a director, coordinator. And we’re wondering if it would be an administrator, faculty, or staff?

Admin: Okay. Within that welcome center there are a couple classrooms and then there are some offices for programs like Continuing Studies, and Small Business Development. Then there’s also a couple other offices. One is for if Admissions wants to come there and do Admissions. There is another office designated for, right now it says community engagement on there, but we haven’t made any decisions about hiring anybody. Actually the work group is still working through the plan. And that will need to go to Strategic Planning for consultation but there is no plan at this point.

FA: Sounds like the best answer we can have today.

Admin: Thank you. If there’s no other questions or comments on that issue, we’ll go on to the last item.

3.  Students First Initiatives (FA)
FA: We left that on the agenda as I recall in large part because John O’Brien was on campus yesterday. I want to extend my thanks to Kristi for her work arranging that and also attending and taking notes on the conversation. I was impressed with the number of people who turned out at both the open session and the faculty session. I don’t know about the student session, what was it like?

 

Admin: There were two students and two people that worked with students so just four.

 

FA: Okay. I think it would be fair to characterize the faculty session as marked with a high level of concern about the speed at which this seems to be moving forward. The intention to implement six different major projects across the entire system within a short period of time, and then also about a variety of details about how implementation will effect a whole list of things, I don’t want to go through, but like Advising and Faculty Relations and Institutional Connection, and so on. Another concern I heard raised in both meetings was that there are system shortcomings in ISRS now, which many people on campus, faculty and staff and administrators, have asked for improvements on, and those improvements do not seem to be part of what is contemplated under Students First, and many people were troubled that why would MnSCU be approaching things that have not been indentified as needs on the campus and making such sweeping decisions while not responding to things that are identified as needs on the campus. Having said that, I suppose that Dr. O’Brien will be taking that to MnSCU. He listened, and he took notes, and he paid attention, and he didn’t make any specific promises about how he was going to respond or how the system would be responding.

 

Admin: Do you want to add something?

 

Admin: I did take notes for the open session and the faculty session, which I sent to John right away. My understanding is that he’ll take the notes he took on the student session and compile those and send them to you.

 

FA: That’s my understanding.

 

Admin: So, he would send them directly to you and I’ll get a copy as well. And then that information will, I believe, continue to shape the work I hope. I mean if what he saying is true, it will help shape the work.

 

FA: I looked at a website, I’m not sure where, but there was all these positive comments about all this. I saw some student comments how easy it is to use, and so on. I don’t know, it’s just a pilot plan?

 

Admin: I believe when they did some brainstorming work on this several months ago they brought a lot of students together and talked to them and then they video taped the students talking about the things they’d like to see. I think he had some of those in the presentation he did in the morning. So, that is probably up on the website.

 

FA: Is there any opportunity in their process for a body such as this institution to weigh in. It seems like we as a campus could be saying something.

 

Admin: It doesn’t preclude Faculty Association to directly contact the system and let them know how you feel about this.

 

FA: And indeed the IFO has been giving John an earful, and will continue to do so. Let me say again to the faculty members here we need faculty volunteers to serve on the working groups that are contributing to designing the functions. I would certainly be open to working with you and President Potter and this group to craft a joint statement if it were possible to do so. It’s been my impression that that might be a difficult thing to arrange. That will not stop us from expressing our views as faculty of course.

 

Admin: At our last meeting there was some discussion about putting together some principles, were you guys going to still try…?

 

FA: Where that stands at the IFO level is that I raised this topic and floated some draft statements at our Executive Committee meeting in December, and some of my colleagues, Presidents of the other campuses, made some other suggestions and additions. I will be compiling those and putting them into a format for a resolution to take to our next board meeting in January. So, I hope that as of January, we will have a set of statements that are along the lines of positive outcomes for students that they would like to see be part of any such system. A student will be clearly informed about how courses on different campuses may have similar names but have different content. They may be accredited on one campus but not accredited elsewhere. You know, articulating services to students is what we would hope that this will contain. I continue to be open to receiving any suggestions from anyone, not limited to IFO members if there is a statement of some sort of principle you think ought to be in this, obviously we’ll consider it, and we will make our own decision, but I’m absolutely open to hearing suggestions from especially faculty but not limited to faculty.

 

FA: To what she said, the President eluded to we have more room to maneuver and say what they want. I guess he wanted us to do what we can.

 

FA: I’m reluctant to speak for President Potter but if you would have reviewed the notes from the last meeting you’ll see that he has spoken for himself there on that subject.

 

Admin: I think this was a discussion at the last Meet and Confer, and that discussion is reflected in the minutes. If there is no other observation or comment, we have come to the end of today’s Meet and Confer. I wish everybody, if our paths don’t cross, Happy Holidays, good rest and recreation, come back charged, and make this place a better place. Thank you!

 

FA: Congratulations on surviving your first term at SCSU! (Laughter)

 

Meeting Adjourned at 4:24 p.m.

Submitted by Polly Chappell, SCSU FA Administrative Assistant (December 21, 2009)