Final Approved 3/18/10
Faculty Association
Meet and Confer Notes
March 4, 2010
Administration: John Palmer, Mitchell Rubinstein, Diana Lawson, David DeGroote, Steve Ludwig, Larry Chambers, Judith Siminoe, Earl Potter, Devinder Malhotra
Faculty: Mark Jaede, JoAnn Gasparino, Balsy Kasi, Tracy Ore, Tom Hergert, Judy Kilborn, Susan Motin, David Warne, Frances Kayona, Polly Chappell (note-taker)
Guests: Co-chairs of Faculty Association General Education Committee Paula Tompkins and Maureen Tubbiola, and Lisa Foss
Approval of Minutes
1. Inform approval of two sets of minutes: January 14, 2010 and February 11, 2010
FA: Welcome everyone to this lovely spring day, on the eve of spring break; a break which cannot come too soon. Actually the last two sets of our minutes we need to formally announce approval. We had agreed on the approval of the notes two meetings ago, but it never quite got announced while we were here. So, just for the record we’ve reviewed the last two rounds of notes and they are now blessed, and we’ll be posting them on the FA website.
Admin: Just a procedural item.
FA: Yes.
Admin: Could we move the Senate Motion on SPA, item number one, to 4:00 when Lisa is here?
FA: I don’t see any problem at all. We can hold that until then.
Admin: Yes. Just in case any questions arise. Then we can handle it appropriately.
FA: No problem. As I mentioned before we got started, we asked the co-chairs of the General Education Committee to join us about 3:30. So, at the point they arrive my plan is that we would be going to new business item two at that point. So if we get passed that we’ll go back to it. Whatever. So we don’t need to keep them captive.
Admin: Sure.
Unfinished Business
1. Use of Adjuncts (FA)
FA: Devinder and I have spoken. I have promised to draft a message to Devinder laying out our proposal for the next step on that. I think we have an agreement in principle, but I have not yet put that in writing. So, I need to send that to you. I’m hoping that we can have that next step, at least, resolved by our next Meet and Confer, which is after spring break.
Admin: Sure.
2. Program Review (ADM)
FA: You presented to us a request for comment on a new program review procedure. We have submitted it to our Academic Affairs Committee. We have not yet gotten a recommendation back from them. I believe I shared with you, I don’t think it was in Meet and Confer, I think it was elsewhere, that there is a degree of difficulty is addressing this at the same moment as addressing Strategic Program Appraisal. Also, in light of the fact that we don’t entirely know which programs will be reviewed in the future, and while we’re not saying that is not something that shouldn’t be discussed. We’re wondering if perhaps this might be something that we ought not to try to be rewriting this term.
Admin: Say the last part again?
FA: Perhaps this is not a policy that we ought to be rewriting this term.
Admin: Oh, I see. The Program Review itself?
FA: Yes.
Admin: From what I remember last time…
FA: Yes.
Admin: … there were some concerns expressed with regard to the structuring itself.
FA: Yes.
Admin: Like the necessity of an external reviewer and the frequency of these issues. But those are the kinds of things we can, you know, once your Academic Affairs Committee has completed all the … they’ve provided their input…
FA: Yes.
Admin: … and at that point it makes more sense to discuss this.
FA: That sounds fine with me.
Admin: Yes.
FA: All right.
3. Office of Clinical Experience Policy Manual (FA)
FA: The first request is for a date in which this policy manual can be completed, and a reminder that it was attached as a resolution to one or more grievances in the COE. So, the request is may we have a date, some kind of timeline, when this manual will be done? And to ensure that the committee or group is broadly represented using the FA process for representation.
Admin: I spoke with Mark about it at our regular weekly meetings. What I suggested to him at that time and I’ll state again here, is that I do want to work with you to get a handle on what needs to be done and how it should be done and what the timeline ought to be. And so what I suggested to him was that in order to gather all the relevant information and develop some approaches that I would be willing to meet with him along with the Dean of the COE. He could bring anybody else from the FA side and this small group would look at the facts and develop some of the approaches and we’d come to some common grounds and bring it back here. That way will be a quicker way to resolve this issue.
FA: I will be happy to participate in such a meeting. And another thing we discussed beforehand was attempting to approach this in a forward looking way and I think all parties agree that the object of this is to create a working document and working relationships that will serve us better in the future rather than to blame anyone for what happened or didn’t happen in the past. We do feel some urgency about it because there have been several grievances on it in the past and it has been an ongoing problem that is reemerging.
Admin: I agree. And clinging to some facts or some events that may or may not have occurred in the past is probably not fruitful. That’s why I want to bring the Dean of the COE at an informal level into the conversation.
FA: Sure.
Admin: That we understand the process and what the process entails, where it goes, whom it impacts. Then we can approach it in a reasonable manner and come to some understanding.
FA: I guess I’m speaking on behalf of individuals who are not part of our Association, but may I request that this group include the Director of OCE?
Admin: Sure.
FA: This person needs to be part of this conversation even though they are not FA/IFO.
Admin: Yes. I think initially I was just thinking of initially just developing an approach in this group. But I have no objection.
FA: I would highly encourage inviting the Director of this office.
Admin: I will include them too.
FA: But let me clarify that it is not an official FA request as regards to members of another bargaining unit.
FA: I know. I know.
FA: But I have no objection to broader participation. At some point obviously we do need the staff of OCE to be involved in the process. This isn’t something to be imposed on the OCE by the FA anymore than the opposite. We want that to be a mutual working relationship.
Admin: Mark, your caution is duly noted.
FA: I kind of have to do that sometimes.
Admin: I understand.
FA: You guys do it too.
Admin: Yes. (Laughter) I appreciate it.
FA: Okay. We agreed to set aside New Business items one and two until relevant other parties arrive. So, we will move onto New Business item three.
New Business
3. Performance Review of Deans (FA)
FA: We had requested last spring that we establish a process of 360-degree performance reviews of deans. It was at the end of the term. And we’d like to revisit that request and see if you have an answer for us at this point of whether or not you believe you’ll go forward with that.
Admin: I’ll be very honest with you. This came up on Monday when Mark brought it to my attention in developing the agenda. I haven’t had an opportunity to fully look through as to what the request was and why it came into existence but as a general matter I think as an institution I would like to have a broader discussion of the overall performance and accountability benchmarks of everybody involved in academic enterprises and in that context as to how our accountability frames with respect to even the faculty evaluation processes. And I have no objection to continue on this discussion but I’ll need some more time to go back and look at it and then we can discuss it in the appropriate fashion.
FA: Okay. Obviously we recognize that what happened last spring was before you were with us. I did only just bring this to your attention on Monday. I respect the fact that one needs time to process this. It is something that we think would be a positive thing overall. As I said in regard to other things it is something that we can approach it in a positive spirit of development and progress and I hope that we are able to do that.
Admin: Sure. No, no. As I’ve said, developing appropriate frames of responsibility and accountability at all levels should be part and parcel of this discussion in this institution.
FA: Okay. Anything further from our side on this?
FA: No.
4. Dropping Students for Non Attendance (FA)
FA: At our last meeting we passed a motion directing us to come to Meet and Confer asking for the creation of a policy for dropping students for non-attendance. Because our minutes are not yet approved, I don’t have a final copy of the specific request in regard to that although we have a couple of words to say on the rough description of the text.
FA: Well, the concern really comes out of an issue that we brought to the table before, but it seems to have more urgency at this time. That’s when we have courses that are heavily enrolled and students don’t attend. Those slots are held on to until a student decides to drop. Often that’s very much past the time when anybody could be added to the class. We would like consider and begin discussing the possibility of dropping of students for non-attendance on the first day or second day some perhaps. We have example policies from various institutions including some in MnSCU: Winona, Mankato, U of M, and there are other comparable institutions that are in other states. This is especially important moving into the budgetary times we have where we’re actually losing money because students aren’t able to take slots they otherwise would take. We’re not asking that faculty be forced to drop students. We would like it to be a policy in which faculty have the option to drop students for non-attendance and we’re thinking that it would involve letting students know that they needed to be there for the first day of class or needed to let faculty know if there was some reason why they couldn’t be there. But some sort of policy would enable us to free up slots that actually end up being blocked by students not ever attending and not dropping. So, that’s a request we have. I could give you specific language although as Mark indicated we haven’t passed the minutes yet: The SCSU FA endorses a policy whereby faculty members may drop a student who has not attended the first day of class. So, we’re requesting conversation really about the possibility about putting together that sort of policy and of course the details could be worked out. I’m glad to share the example policies that were brought to Senate. They give a wide range of possibilities. We believe this would be very helpful.
Admin: Thank you. Anything that ties into the delivery of a curriculum which increases the flexibility for choice of students, I’m willing to listen to. I haven’t really looked at the dimension of the problem.
FA: Yes.
Admin: You know, how many students are there? And how many students don’t come on the first day will come on the second day. So, those kinds of scale issues one has to look at. Should the drop policy be on the first day or at the end of first week? What are the different implications? As we get the exact text of your motion we will do diligence and look at some of the information and we’ll be engaging in that conversation.
FA: There are obviously a number of logistical details to be sorted out.
Admin: Yes.
FA: And there are some system details like is it possible to create a waiting list and that sort of thing.
Admin: Yes. Exactly.
FA: I think it’s a matter of rising concern because as we agree one of the things that we need to do is try to get our classes, basically as much as we can, full to the pedagogical appropriate number of students. Not more students than it makes for a good class, but as efficient schedule as we can construct. When students, either through poor planning or sometimes through a deliberate hedging of bets strategy, register for classes that they really are not going to take and hold slots from students who would really like to take those, and then it becomes a more urgent matter.
Admin: I couldn’t agree with you more. If we can get more students who cannot get into classes get into the classes I’m all for it.
FA: I’d like to bring up two points related to this: if students don’t drop until a little more than a week into it and other students add, those students are disadvantaged because they have missed the classes. Oftentimes I’ve found that there are students who are trying to get into a high demand course sometimes they are students who have come later perhaps because they are an International student and the schedules are pretty full already. I personally would like the message to go to students that that first night is really important. I think that one of the reasons this comes out is because faculty are frustrated because too many students they see that initial night… I’m thinking nights because I’m thinking about a night class in which I have. Four students didn’t show up the first week. None of those four intended to take the class. It’s a high demand class. When I look at those numbers it is kind of spooky to me. But I think faculty do restart classes a few times as the enrollment is getting settled and I don’t think that’s very effective in terms of quality learning. So, I would add that remark.
Admin: Thank you. From my previous remarks I don’t want to suggest to you that I’ve already made up my mind.
FA: No, I didn’t hear that.
Admin: And your sharing with me this information of what other institutions are doing in this regard that allows us to draw on their experiences. That will help us in our conversations.
FA: There was a second motion also that came forward on the same discussion. That students who have an LDA submitted, a Last Date of Attendance, that there be a consistent and transparent procedure for them being left on or removed from the grade roster. Some times they just disappear and it doesn’t appear to be through a drop. But it’s like they never were there. Sometimes they remain on the roster and I think in terms of long-term record keeping and keeping track of the number of students in our courses it is important that we treat those consistently in our procedures.
FA: This I believe ties in actually to our last item on the agenda in regard to drops and withdrawals and those decisions. But, again, there’s a connection here that insofar as the ability to drop a class later than the deadline is perceived as an easy and cost-free option. That’s something we can afford less in the current environment than we could previously. Not that it was ever a good idea. Because it blocks out somebody else who really would be taking the class and we wouldn’t get that tuition. Anything else on that point?
5. Reorganizing Academic Affairs (ADM)
Admin: Okay. Here are some handouts.
FA: I just have a very simple question. It appears that the Dean of Continuing Studies, and Enrollment Management and International Studies VPs were left out of this mix? I’m just wondering why? Was it by accident?
Admin: Yes. No, actually that’s actually a very good question. Right now what I was doing was looking at my office. So, there were certain reorganizations which I could undertake immediately which affected these units. So, I was just looking at that. It doesn’t mean that this is the end of the reorganization of Academic Affairs. Because this reorganization is very closely connected with the rethinking and reimagining of the university as part of our Strategic Program Appraisal and it is to create an organizational structure within the Provost’s office and Academic Affairs, which will be responsive to those challenges. And, so, this to me is not really the end of the reorganization. It’s really the start of the reorganization of Academic Affairs. And even in these units we are talking about after this first reconfiguration we will go into each of the units and look at them also a lot more carefully. So, there may be more coming on. But, again, the best way I can describe it is that I’m approaching it in a step-wise fashion by first looking at some areas which are directly related to student support and also directly related to some areas which are direct support for delivery of graduate curriculum and faculty and infrastructure to support faculty scholarship activities and development. So, that’s where this comes from.
FA: I appreciate the 24 size font. (Laughter)
Admin: John Palmer is responsible for that.
FA: Really?
FA: Now we know.
Admin: I don’t know whether it is his eyesight or…
Admin: Remember we’re in transit and it was easier. This was just the easiest way.
Admin: And so what we’ve given you is really a very rough conceptual frame of the changes which I’m proposing immediately. And as I said this is a start and then we will look in a lot more detail at other units, which are not part of this here. And also we’ll go to the next level of the units, which are involved in this reorganization. And just in summary, basically two things I want to mention. One is really the objective of the reorganization of Academic Affairs and what prompted this. And then second just a brief summary of what I’m proposing. What prompted this was that I think about eight or ten years ago at some point this institution made a very conscious decision, a deliberate decision to go from a vice presidency model to a provost model. I think what happened was the title of the individual, the Vice President of Academic Affairs, that title changed and incorporated an additional title of Provost, but the underlying structure of that unit was to my knowledge left unaffected. And so, in my mind the question arose: what was the intent and whether that process of transformation of going from a vice presidency to a provost model had been completed? And, so, as I started thinking about this, I also realized that this is more structural than the individuals themselves involved in the positions. I found that I wanted a greater organizational connectedness between Academic Affairs and for example academic deans and colleges. I found that to be lacking and so as I thought more and more about it, it made sense to me to move toward much more of an associate provost model, and then that would partly complete that transformation of going from the vice presidency model to the provost model. Hopefully in that process it would do three things where I think the associate provost’s model in my estimation would be helpful: it would increase a level of organizational connectedness between Academic Affairs and academic deans and colleges. Because right now what I find is that that is mostly on one-on-one conversations between the Provost and the Deans all through all the collective work we do in the Academic Affairs Council. But functionally that’s why it’s a structural issue, it’s not an issue of individuals, but functionally the connective-ness is not there as the office is organized. And, so, we want to move towards an area where there will be a very specific function directly coming out of the Provost’s office with regard to curricular issues and student support issues which will directly engage with the academic colleges and also in the area of graduate education and research and faculty development. The second objective is essentially to think through some of… from a functional perspective, align the strategic work which is related to institutional outcomes much more directly with this. So, essentially if there would be a lot more focus in this model on developing strategic thrusts and moving more once we develop this strategic thrust and broad policy perimeters to empower the academic colleges in a lot more decentralized fashion, which would recognize the specific needs of certain types of academic activities. And, lastly, it was to make it a lot more responsive to both student needs and faculty needs as we move forward. So, those were the objectives, and essentially the basic summary is we took six existing positions, which are listed there in the current structure: Dean of Graduate Studies, Dean of Undergraduate Studies, and those six positions were morphed into four new positions. So, there are budgetary implications for this too. So, what it does is, is it not only provides us with a more effective way of accomplishing work but it also does it in a manner where there’ll be two less senior positions at the administrative level in Academic Affairs. That is basically the summary of the conceptual frame of what each of these Associate Provosts does. And then the other item is that, and that goes back to my objective of alignment of overall institutional outcomes and strategic goals through the work of Academic Affairs, in my seven months I think I have one area where I’ve engaged about the same or sometimes even more than some of academic colleges is the area of Institutional Effectiveness. And so essentially I think we start thinking about and it’s Strategic Program Appraisal and strategic alignment is going to be embedded in an institutional frame on an ongoing basis that also needed an organization structure which was well connected to Academic Affairs. So, there is also as part of this proposal, we are also proposing to re-conceptualize the role of Institutional Effectiveness and re-conceptualize the structure which supports the Strategic Planning role into one position, which would be an Associate Provost level position, but which would have a dual rank as Associate Provost for Academic Strategic Planning and Associate Vice President for Institutional Effectiveness. The individual would still report to the President as under the current structure, but there will be a dotted line to the Academic Affairs to create a much more cohesive structure in order to accomplish some of the strategic alignment. I spoke too long. You have a question.
FA: I’m wondering if we shouldn’t defer our questions until later since our two members of General Education Committee are here.
FA: Just three seconds. This fourth position here, is this then a typo?
Admin: No, no. That is correct. It will be an Assistant Provost level position.
FA: So, it says Assistant Provost of Student Support Services?
Admin: Yes.
FA: But the one above it says….
Admin: Yes, but…
FA: … so that’s not a mistake then?
Admin: No, that’s not a mistake because Associate Provost of Undergraduate Education would look after curricular affairs and would also be an oversight for student support services. But in order to focus much more extensively on the student support area, we created that role because what I expect of Assistant Provost of Student Support Services is that that individual would be much more directly involved with dealing with the students, and will have sufficient time to look at the operational frames.
FA: Oh, that’s why. I just thought maybe there was a… I see three Associates and one Assistant.
Admin: Yes.
FA: But then four Associates described on the back.
Admin: Yes.
FA: It was just a technical thing.
Admin: Okay.
FA: We will have some additional questions about this but in deference to the co-chairs of General Education, who joined us at the appointed hour, we will move the agenda to New Business, item two: The Status of General Education and Approval by MnSCU.
Admin: Okay.
2. Status of General Education and Approval by MnSCU (FA)
FA: I’m not sure who has news to share first?
Admin: Let me ask, because this is breaking news (Laughter) so if you’ve had a chance to talk to the co-chairs?
Admin: I have not. I sent them a quick message last night.
Admin: Yes.
Admin: We’re getting mixed signals now.
Admin: Okay. No, actually these are good signals we are getting. I will say that. Subsequent as you very well know, Faculty Senate had sent a document to us, which they had passed which had come out of the General Education Committee and then what we had done is with your help we created the document where we had linked what the Faculty Senate had decided to the Minnesota Transfer Curriculum, and had indicated as to how we met both the transferability requirements imbedded in the Minnesota Transfer Curriculum as well as we met the all the requirements of the Minnesota Transfer Curriculum. And back in December I had met with Senior Vice Chancellor Linda Baer and conveyed to her our position on the General Education. We got a response back from the Office of the Chancellor a couple weeks ago, which we shared with both of you and also with you Mark. And needless to say I was some what disappointed with that response. It was a very literal interpretation of the Minnesota Transfer Curriculum. Subsequent to that I also had a conversation with the President. The President had a conversation with Linda Baer. I met Linda Baer yesterday, Wednesday, and we talked a little bit and she suggested that I write up a background brief for her about our position and send it to her along with the attachments of both of what we had presented to her in December and what her office had sent as a response. So, essentially there is a little bit of opening and I want to go out there. I’m working on that draft and I’ll be glad to share it with both of you as co-chairs of General Education Committee before I send it out, for factual accuracy if nothing else. So, hopefully early next week by Monday or Tuesday; I want to send it to the Senior Vice Chancellor and follow it up… I was already in the process of scheduling a meeting with her regarding another issue. So if I send this out I’ll follow up at that meeting. Hopefully this time we will get a little better response from them.
FA: Especially because of the time constraints I think it’s appropriate for you to communicate directly with the co-chairs of General Education and it’s also why we invited them to be here today. I would appreciate a copy to me as well that I can share with the Executive Committee.
Admin: Sure. That would be fine.
Guest: And we will continue to approve the courses?
Admin: That’s right. Yes. Yes. Because I think… and that’s an appropriate activity partly because as I see it, what we are doing is consistent with Minnesota Transfer Curriculum. Every course we approve will meet 51% competencies as laid in that. So, the question of credits coming into St. Cloud State from other institutions or credits taken at St. Cloud State going to other institutions I don’t see a problem as to where there would be an issue of transferability.
FA: It was certainly the understanding of the Senate at that time that we passed the curriculum that the requirements of those defined by the Minnesota Transfer Curriculum had to be met at the same time as meeting the requirements we’re setting on our campus.
Admin: Yes.
FA: Are there questions or comments?
Admin: I’d like to make a comment. The heat on this area is going to go up greatly very soon for two reasons. One, the office of the Legislative Auditor has filed their report, and the Chancellor has heard from that, whether he should have or not, that the transfer is an issue of concern in legislature. And so he will put a great deal of pressure on resolving transfer issues faster. The second, Senator Clark’s proposed legislation to mandate seamless transfer in MnSCU, which the Chancellor also has feelings about, and that will turn up the temperature also. What has been a long conversation with this simmering discontent is likely to get very hot very quickly so it would be really good if we can get to agreement with the system on our framework and then pursue a course which will make it happen. If we get caught in a position where the university is deemed by the Board of the Chancellor to be out of compliance with direction from the Board, which is now a number of years old, it will be very difficult for us.
FA: We are aware of the legislation proposed by Senator Clark and Representative Haws—our very own Senator Clark and Representative Haws.
Admin: Our very own, which I have been asked why I can’t control them. (Laughter)
FA: And the Government Relations people in the IFO including here at St. Cloud State will be conversing with our representatives. In all honesty, I do not as I read the legislation—its practical effect is not clear to me. The ideals of transferability seem commendable. What precisely the impact of passing such legislation is not entirely clear to me, but we will be conferring with our legislatures about that.
FA: I wanted to just make a couple of statements regarding that I think you were very generous in calling it a literal interpretation. I’m really pretty astonished in reading this that certain connections weren’t made. Maybe just making a few clarifications in the document for people who couldn’t read very carefully to indicate that students will be able to, is the same thing as Student Learning Outcomes. Those sorts of things, and I would personally, I don’t know that I can call this an FA position, share maybe the perspective of this could have been said more directly and more briefly and in a less badgering tone. Instead of saying it over and over and over again. I don’t know. Our students would be quite upset if documents were corrected in the way that this one was. I don’t believe it encourages very healthy communication.
Admin: You’re referring to the response?
FA: Right, the response.
Guest: My co-chair was quite pleased that she got to use the word Kafkaesque correctly. (Laughter)
FA: This really creates an odd circumstance because we on this campus do not have a direct Meet and Confer with the Chancellor or the Chancellor’s staff. We talk with you. But you didn’t write this document. But this is a lamentable document; the kind of tone that is taken. There are just so many better ways to make a point, so many opportunities to have chosen better language, and a better way of dealing with one another. And so I have to tell you that because I don’t have a Meet and Confer directly with the Chancellor in our capacity here as the Faculty Association of St. Cloud State.
FA: I think too that we all know how much work people have been putting in on this and it seems to treat it with less seriousness than I think we have treated the process. The other thing is I think it raises the level of anxiety. People know we’re bringing in transfer students, new freshmen are entering, and we have to have a General Ed program to offer them. After waiting so long for a response it’s disappointing to be berated so heavily.
FA: The faculty, especially including the two co-chairs who are with us, put in a tremendous amount of effort to reconcile our sense of a liberal education program with integrity with the legal and policy requirements of the Minnesota Transfer Curriculum. And it’s tough to encounter this kind of a response when we’ve already felt we had gone a long way and worked really hard to accommodate things we often did not agree with but understood were part of what we were obliged to do.
Admin: On one part I’m going to stay quiet. (Laughter) But on the other part, I have to agree with you and that I personally am very appreciative of the co-chairs and the General Education Committee. I think all through the later part of fall semester they were very cognoscente of it and they were very responsive and even in our conversations the other day I thought that you know it was a very, very productive and responsive conversation. So, I’m very appreciative.
FA: And faculty in the departments have been working very hard also to get documents into the curricular process so they could get approved for General Ed also.
Admin: Sure.
FA: I’d like to acknowledge their work also.
Admin: Sure. And I as somebody who is doing this for the second time, a re-design of a General Education program in the last five years in two different institutions, I totally recognize how much work it is because I think partly General Education is the only part of the curriculum that is jointly owned by the all faculty no matter which college they are in. So it is a very special bond in the academic community. And that is why the conversations have been pervasive and also the design of the curriculum has to be a lot more complex than a design of a particular program. I couldn’t agree with you more. We need to resolve this. That’s what the President is saying and that’s what he’s told me before I said yes to this job, it was one of the issues that needed to be resolved.
FA: Before we leave this topic, do you have anything else you wish to ask or offer?
Guest: We would just like to make sure that you are in support of our original document. We feel that you are and you have been. But we’d like to know that. We also need an answer quickly. The advising office is very nervous right now. The transfer students are already looking at curriculum and they don’t know which one to sign up for.
Admin: No, actually, the answer to this first question is easy. Obviously if I didn’t think that what came out of General Education Committee and Faculty Senate did not meet the goals of the Minnesota Transfer Curriculum, we’d be having a different conversation. I also understand and I agree with you on the timing and that we need to bring this conversation to a logical correlation quickly. That’s what we’ll attempt to do.
Admin: I support him.
Admin: Thank you.
Guest: The General Education Committee will continue its work of assigning courses to goal areas according to our present understanding?
Admin: Okay. Because our present understanding takes into account the Minnesota Transfer Curriculum. So that is why in some sense that the work we are doing currently we’ll still be doing it probably in the same way independent of the shape this document takes.
Guest: That’s true. Even the differences that they pointed out are arbitrary. The substantive differences are minimal, which is how we designed this in the first place. We made sure that we’d be in compliance.
Admin: The President runs in where an angelic Provost fears to tread. (Laughter)
Admin: You’re not talking about our Provost. (Laughter)
Admin: Just so it makes more sense to you, so you can understand why this response, and what in the world is going on. The Provost had a conversation with the Senior Vice Chancellor Linda Baer, which seemed to be reasonable and supportive of our position. The letter was written by a staff person several layers down, I can assure you without review by the Vice Chancellor, and not in response to direction by the Vice Chancellor, but with sort of that person’s understanding given the light she had available to her, which was not much. There wasn’t much supervision going on. And that is characteristic, and if Linda Baer was sitting here I’d say the same thing because I said it yesterday to her directly on the phone that is characteristic of the way that division runs. Linda is smart, understands higher education, and reasonable, but she’s not supervising her staff closely enough. Her staff is free-wheeling and frequently runs in directions that are not good for anybody. And that has to change. That is my message, a nearly direct quote to her yesterday, to which she responded: I understand, thank you. So, this is not a situation where we’re standing complaining among ourselves and not communicating clearly with the Chancellor’s office. We are. The communication breakdown is in that office and we are trying to address that directly. The Provost is working on that problem. That’s the next step. My remarks are for the record. It was not an angry conversation. It was an attempt to be honest and direct for the purpose of helping get this straightened out.
FA: Thank you very much.
FA: Yes. Thank you. It is very reassuring to know that that kind of conversation is going on and that the communication does not stop at the borders of this campus. It’s a tremendous help.
Guest: I do have one question. I have no idea what MnSCU is doing with our sister institutions. Is this a consistent pattern?
Admin: Actually on this issue I asked Mitch, and he went to the website of each of the six other universities. Four of the six universities are out of compliance with the response that we got from the Office of the Chancellor.
Admin: At least four.
FA: Wow.
FA: If there is nothing more on General Education, we will thank the General Ed co-chairs for joining us and return to the Reorganization of Academic Affairs.
5. Reorganizing Academic Affairs (ADM) CONTINUED
FA: I’ll start one with a simple one. The first question is regarding the reporting line for the Institutional Effectiveness position. I just want to check to see if I’m reading this correctly, right now the position is currently described as reports directly to the President?
Admin: Yes.
FA: And this would shift the reporting so that the person would also serve as a member of the Provost’s office?
Admin: Also, yes. It is a dotted-line connection.
FA: That’s what I was going to ask; a dotted line to the Provost’s office.
Admin: A dotted line to the Provost but the position would still report to the President.
FA: Okay. That’s what I assumed. My second question is really asking for more information, when you mention student support services, I thought I heard you say that you were thinking about academic support services. Are you thinking advising, tutoring, what do you include under student support services?
Admin: What happened in the haste of producing the document is that the actual title for the Associate Provost does not have the word “service” in it.
FA: Oh.
Admin: So when you raised your question there’s a hierarchy here to direct student support services activities are what the Assistant Provost with oversight from the Associate Provost of Undergraduate Education and Student Support.
FA: So, services is off… ?
Admin: Right. In fact, when the cut and paste happens in the actual document. To your question, the activities that fall within student support are the activities which are oriented to academics, as an example the Math Skills Center, the Advisement Center, the Division of General Studies, things that we do specifically to support the students that fall into having unique needs. There’s a line here that has been attempted to be drawn between Student Life and Development Vice President staff and activities there with the activities here, which are designed to encourage and foster student success in academics.
Admin: And the idea is also, when I talk about organizational connectedness it not just goes with academic colleges on one side but also on the other side with Student Life and Development.
FA: So what would be the connection? I missed a beat there. Student Life and Development… ?
Admin: Again, we have to develop communication structures so they know what we are doing and what they’re doing, because that is part and parcel of the overall concept of integrated student experience. The same student who is being dealt with by different units within the institution and those units ought to be talking to each other about the same student they are dealing with.
FA: Of course.
Admin: That’s what I mean about organizational connectedness.
FA: So, this would not mean that there would be a reporting relationship?
Admin: No.
FA: But there would be a communication…
Admin: Structure.
FA: Okay.
Admin: For example one area that it happens in right now is Associate Deans meet as a group and the Directors of the Academic Support Services they meet as a group, but they don’t meet together. But now the Associate Deans and the Directors of these Academic Support Services will meet at the same time.
FA: Now there’s another question in relationship to this shift to the associate provost model that came up and we didn’t’ exactly have an answer to it. The question is what’s the difference between an Associate Vice President and an Associate Provost? One answer was about $20,000, but that is probably not the best answer to the question. Part of what we’re trying to get at is what in terms of job responsibilities and the perspective of what the title entails, what’s the difference? But also, we’re hoping of course that the reduction of six to four also brings with it a reduction in the total personnel costs.
Admin: That’s true. There will definitely be personnel costs. Even though I’m going from the vice presidency to the provost and the associate provost model, there is no dirt of developing variance of the associate provost model, which can be populated very differently.
FA: Yes.
Admin: So, the objective of meeting some budgetary goals is part and parcel of this work. In fact that might explain the immediacy and diligence of this work. Ideally, I would have wanted a little more time to think through this. But the changing budget environment did not afford me that luxury. But, to your other question how are they different? I think the best way to do it is the way these new positions are conceptualized. I don’t see any existing positions which are conceptualized in that matter.
FA: Yes.
Admin: I don’t see any existing positions which are sort of related in that fashion or job descriptions. And, so that is where the fundamental difference is. Because what I’m trying to introduce here is a much more deliberate strategic function rather than just an oversight function. In a vice presidency model there is a lot more emphasis on the oversight function.
FA: So the difference between a Vice President or an Associate Vice President and an Associate Provost is a difference between oversight and strategy?
Admin: Yes.
FA: I’m not trying to be unreasonably picky about this. I’m really trying to understand.
Admin: Yes.
FA: I can tell that there is a significant philosophical difference.
Admin: Yes.
FA: But I would admit I’m not getting it.
Admin: Yes. That’s precisely why I’m saying there is an oversight function which is much more related to the way the current job descriptions are different. And so that’s what I’m saying. In order to see the fundamental differences it is to look at job descriptions of these positions and that will tell you really the difference. It is true at some point, I don’t want to say that some how the other change will create within and of itself certain new ways of doing things. But what I’m saying is that you will conceptualize it a lot more differently. And these positions are conceptualized differently that what they currently exist.
FA: Okay.
Admin: I do want to dispel the myth, I learned today from the HR Director that the amount of particular positions pay independent of what the title is. It doesn’t really matter what the title is. What matters is what goes into the job description and then how that job description is plugged into the salary ranges that the Board office says this job fits into. So, it may or may not have a difference in terms of the economics. I’m old enough on campus to know we once called Associate Deans: Assistant Deans. When we changed from Assistant Deans to Associate Deans there was not a change in salary. The idea was that it might convince somebody the levels of higher status position than Assistant Dean, and if you look at the work Assistants were doing and Associates were doing, you’ll see there was no difference. And there’s another myth that’s out there and that is that administrator positions pay more than faculty positions. That’s a myth. Both times that I’ve gone from faculty to administrative positions, I’ve taken a pay cut.
Admin: I know this time he did because we had a conversation about it. (Laughter)
Admin: I like to deal with factual information and sometimes there are these myths.
FA: Thanks for taking one for the team. (Laughter)
Admin: I’m trying to preserve instructional capacity.
Admin: To answer that question much more directly there would be substantial savings by moving to this model. You know, what exactly they are I’ll have to re-conceptualize and see where they fall in. But it would be substantial savings because I don’t see major differences between current compensation structures.
Admin: I don’t think I’ve told you about the job of the Provost: It’s the President’s job to talk and the faculty’s job to think. It’s the Provost’s job to make sure that the President doesn’t think and the faculty don’t talk. (Laughter)
FA: One could go on from there. (Laughter)
FA: I don’t have a question so much as a word of encouragement or something. I assume there are procedures that need to be followed from the MnSCU office and a variety of things to finalize the plans for this. I don’t anticipate frankly that there will be a lot of roadblocks. So, this is likely to be happening. But, in any transition, and in this case particularly, there are or there may be transitions to an interim associate and then to a permanent associate that may be two, three years in the process. There are some programs in student services or academic programs that have an advisory council to kind of help continue to keep those things at the forefront of our minds during that transition. But there are also pieces from work groups or other planning groups over the last couple of years that because of circumstances we didn’t foresee are kind of in a land of waiting, if you will--specifically because of my involvement in First Year Experiences is what I’m thinking--they don’t have those advocates and so I’m encouraging that in the plan for the transition that a caretaking of those ideas be considered so that over time they don’t get dropped, because I don’t see that those particular pieces of information losing value in the next three to five to seven years.
Admin: Sure.
FA: But that over time those pieces of information continue to be part of our decision making processes.
Admin: Yes. That’s very thoughtful. Thank you.
Admin: Yes. That’s actually very good, and we’ll be mindful of that.
FA: If there are no additional questions or comments, we will move on, actually back to New Business item one.
1. Senate Motion on SPA (FA)
FA: The faculty have all read that. I’ve shared it with the President’s Council and with you folks. We’ve said what we’ve said and we’re interested in your response.
Admin: Since it’s a recommendation for the President’s action, I will respond. No. We’ve gone through a very open and transparent process to work with the Strategic Planning Committee. That committee, I think, has done excellent work. Lisa has just come from the second of two student feedback sessions. From the point of initial announcement to today, I’m aware that Lisa has had innumerable, countless conversations with departments about what this means, what are the criteria, what will we do. So, allegations that we didn’t understand what this is all about or the criteria were not clear, which is translatable to we didn’t think you were really going to do this. I feel that the process has been open and fair. I’m not inclined to agree with the arguments that are advanced and supported in the motion, first of all. Secondly, even if the process were flawed as they suggest, which I, again, don’t think it was the urgency is not diminished. Nobody can look at our situation and say that we can afford to wait. Thirdly, I think it reflects some misunderstanding because yes, there are programs we’re going to eliminate, but the complicated questions that really do relate to “we need more time to think about this,” are in fact in the middle column where an additional year of thinking is necessary to get it right. And we are making a commitment in doing that work and we’ll take the next couple of months again to work with the newly constituted committees of the Association, those committees that we share to frame an approach to having those conversations so they are also open and transparent, etcetera, etcetera. The most tangled and harnessed questions are in that middle group. I do understand that this motion was made before the Strategic Planning Committee published its recommendations to me, which are well thought out and will be taken into account. Without saying exactly what I’ll likely do because I haven’t received the Provost’s comments on the Strategic Planning Committee, it’s absolutely certain that the original proposal will not look like the final decision. There will be modifications as a consequence of our campus-based processes. There have been heated conversations with people who asserted that the answers were already determined and that there was a done deal. The evidence will clearly show that that was not the case, and never has been the case. I think it’s been a quality process. The urgency, the need is there. I’m not going to delay. I don’t in any way resent the thinking that went in here, the position that advanced, that is what our consultative, shared governance is all about. I did not dismiss this out of hand, I read it, thought about it, talked with my staff, and decided that the best thing was to continue as we had planned to. Next year, which we will also talk about in the spring, we’ll do the other half of the programs that have not yet been reviewed and the consequence about thinking about reorganization will then have included all our programs, and that we’ve taken a look at and thought about in order to increase strength and improve with our mission to prepare our graduates for working life in the twenty-first century in front of us. That’s the response.
FA: As the designated messenger I need to ask one question and perhaps this will clarify the process. That is there’s this often expressed concern by faculty that the definitive decisions this year will shape in possible unintended ways the possible decisions for the second half that is reviewed next year. That particular worry could probably be dealt with. I think that’s one of the concerns is that if you drop things now and that means next year you can’t make a decision and say those things would be useful. You’re shaping the path in ways that may make a mistake.
Admin: I appreciate that thought. And remember half of the programs on the drop list are programs recommended, or a significant number, maybe not half, were programs that departments said they wanted to do away with. There’s another group as you saw in the Strategic Planning Committee’s recommendation of programs recommended for closure for which the departments had no comment and presented no counter argument. Then there were programs that were discussed in the open conversations and the Strategic Planning Committee said some of these should be moved to the middle column where interdependency would suggest that we needed more time. And others should base the evidence presented and continue on the closure list. So, it’s my judgment that the Strategic Planning Committee in their work gave attention to that concern about interdependency and complications that we shouldn’t decide now but should wait until we could look at a larger picture. I think they did good work.
FA: I think that additional point that came out of the discussion that went into the passed motion was that there is a balance between the economic value of acting this year opposed to next year as against the permanence of a decision to stop admissions into a program where that could have the effect of, and probably would have the effect of making that program permanently nonviable or at least nonviable for a very substantial period of time. Probably about the same thing given that we’re not going to be able… it’s going to be worse in two years than it is now.
Admin: Yes.
FA: In terms of making decisions about what we’re going to keep and what we’re not going to keep. And that we would ask that the Administration weigh those things carefully and thoughtfully that is there a sufficient savings not just in one year but considering down the road savings in making decisions now as opposed to later. Is it really worth it? Do we really come out as an institution ahead? Is the dollar value of making the decision now sufficient to justify the permanence of the impact of that decision?
Admin: I understand the question. The question is distracting because the decision is a strategic decision not simply a dollar decision and that is how we differ from Mankato. Mankato made their decision strictly based on the numbers. There were not qualitative and strategic issues considered in their decision. It was a numbers based decision. We on the other hand considered a great deal of strategic and qualitative information. There aren’t a lot of dollars in the programs we’re closing, frankly, because there’s not a lot of enrollment and not a lot of faculty. There are no faculty who will lose jobs because of these closures. This is about strategic focus and strengthening the institution and where the loss is that we will stop teaching a number of under-enrolled courses that are very costly in benefitting a few students. So, I would challenge the question because it suggests that the decision is totally based on cost savings, which it is not. It is still an important issue to address and think about in evaluated this recommendation. I have thought about it, and I think it is urgent that we make the steps we’re planning to take.
FA: I think a lot of the concerns come out of misunderstanding on what you just said. I don’t think people have heard clearly enough the distinction that you just made. I also think it is very difficult to understand what the reorganization piece means. People have a lot of questions about that. When they look at the third category, they say well, that’s not many classes; we’re not going to save much money. They don’t have any notion of what that center category might look like.
Admin: Yes.
FA: I think it would be very helpful for those reasons to really try and clarify as much as we can in as many ways as we can the thinking about that. I think the budget is dominating a lot of people’s thoughts and making them think that it is just the one when that wasn’t the intention in the beginning.
Admin: Yes. Actually the two are related, you know. Going back to what the President was suggesting, the middle category also has a strategic component. It might bring some savings too but it also has a strategic purpose and that is that ultimately as we were looking at this structure, we wanted to retain as far as possible the flexibility available to us in terms of the programs. And we knew that we could not sustain all the programs we currently have. So, essentially we started grouping them in a manner: does there exist an organization, another way of undertaking these activities which would sustain a lot more programs than otherwise would be the case? That is really the strategic work in the middle category. To ask that question and go through that over a year, and also, going back to the other point, that it is true if you look at any single program in the dormant state, because the programs are dormant. In fact that is why we first looked at those programs in Phase I where that in some ways provided us with a way we should analyze it first. But if you look at all the 30 programs from the list, and Lisa, correct me if I’m wrong, those 30 programs graduate 110 students a year. And I’m asking myself if somebody is trying to tell me 30 programs in aggregate do not take up faculty time in delivering those programs. And so, that is where the long term shift which ties in, and again I’m not looking at it only from the standpoint of the current budgetary situation. I’m looking at it from the standpoint that the President has emphasized internally to me and to others who are involved in it, that this is much a question of strategic alignment as it is a question of budgetary savings because basically where the strategic alignment from a fiscal standpoint comes in is that if we’re going to undertake new programs—which will be needed, due to student interest or changing circumstances—if we are going to commit ourselves to new ways of doing our existing activities which would also need certain investments, some in transition, some over time, then that would need a reallocated mechanism. When the resource base is constant or declining there is currently no reallocated mechanism. Strategic Program Appraisal will be the first time where there will clearly be a reallocation mechanism for faculty time in a strategic, thoughtful way. And there if you see 80% of the budget of this university is tied into personnel lines at the aggregate. In Academic Affairs, if I go to colleges 90% of the academic college budgets are tied into it, and sometimes even more than 90%. So, therefore, the issue of reallocating faculty time and the issue and refocusing of faculty attention on programmatic structure is tied with our budgetary long-term sustainability because that is where most of our dollars are tied in.
Admin: The question of delaying and timing… anybody every see the movie “Hunt for Red October”?
FA: Yes.
FA: Yes.
Admin: Yes.
Admin: Yes.
Admin: There’s a point where Sean Connery is the captain, the Russian submarine is navigating through an underwater canyon…
FA: The Twin Tower.
Admin: …the Twin Tower, yes. (Laughter). There’s a turn that he has to make.
FA: Crazy Ivan! (Laughter)
Admin: Yes. He knows… She’s knows “The Hunt for Red October.” Anybody ever see the “Wizard of Oz”? (Laughter) That’s relevant, too, but in a different way. Anyway, there’s a point at which he has to turn and he knows where he wants to turn, and I feel very much like that. There’s truly a cliff out there in 2012. And I feel that we are being much more prudent and deliberative and delaying the turn as long as we possibly can. This is step one, and there are steps behind it that have to be taken. We have to be in a position to take that turn by the spring of 2011 in order to get through 2012 in one piece. I want to be in that position having thought as a community about our priorities because we will have to get that right. And we can’t make a mistake, because the challenge there is severe. People say let’s take more time to do this, and I feel like I’m taking much more time. I have to compare where we are in our process and where Mankato is, we have valued deliberation and transparency as a higher value to the community, because my interest is coming through this with a community that is proud and committed to our future. It’s nerve wracking, but that’s my commitment.
Admin: There is a fundamental difference in the story you tell and the story you live.
Admin: What?
Admin: In the story you tell there is a take two. There is no take two here.
Admin: That’s true.
FA: Can I suggest when you make your decision and you publish something the last two or three sentences you say that again to the community that you want this to come out.
Admin: Thank you.
FA: That it was deliberative, it was carefully thought out, and that you want us to come out as a community proud of what we did. Spot on!
Admin: Thank you.
FA: I asked the question about whether or not there is financial urgency that justifies certain decisions.
Admin: Yes.
FA: And you responded to that by talking about the strategic nature of the decisions. I think that something that has not been conveyed with full success to the faculty is what I hear as a concept of strategic urgency. We understand, and it is very easy to understand financial urgency. If money is about to run out or costs are about to rise, we can understand the idea that one must make certain financial decisions within a timeframe. You are presenting an idea of strategic urgency of a need to make decisions not exclusively for financial reasons but for strategic reasons within a certain timeframe. I do not believe that that has been as well understood or is as easy to understand or communicate as the notion of financial urgency. And whatever you can do to clarify your vision on that could be helpful.
Admin: Thank you.
FA: The other piece that I don’t think is communicated as fully as it might be is that notion of reallocating faculty time and attention. I think that is something that people don’t really understand and how that can be helpful to us.
Admin: You’re right.
FA: Are there further questions or comments? Our time is running down.
Admin: I’m going to need to leave at quarter of because I need to do a welcome at the winter institute at the Kelly Inn.
FA: In that case, why don’t we move immediately, if there is no objection, to the report on the budget because that might be an area where your comments will be especially important. I think that most of the other things are less urgent. So without objection we will move to item one under Progress Reports and Long-term Concerns, and we will ask our administrators to tell us more about where the budget is.
Progress Reports on Long-term Concerns
1. Report on Budget (ADM) (10/18/07)
Admin: As you probably are aware, a week ago Monday the Governor came out with the proposal for how to manage the expected deficit in the current biennium of 1.2 billion dollars. That amount of money was an increase in the reduction to the Minnesota State Colleges and Universities of about 10 million dollars, or slightly over. And that translated to an additional million dollars compared to our lowest projection that we shared in January at our town hall meetings. So, in January we were showing about five million dollars was the cut that we needed based on those projections, not based on other changes we may choose to make on campus. And with the Governor’s announcement that places that number at about six million dollars, and if you recall in January our range was much broader. It could have been a 25 million reduction or there could have been threats to the stimulus funds or the ARRA funds, which would have made it even worse. That range in January was in the five to 12 million dollar as the cut we could possibly see for next year. So, now that seems to settle pretty closely to six. There’s additional relief on that based on this week: the revenue forecast was published. That was a slight improvement for finishing this biennium going from the 1.2 billion down to 900 and some million dollars as the projected deficit. That still has to work its way through the legislature, but I’m encouraged by what the Governor suggested should be the worst case that we should expect during the current biennium. Unfortunately that announcement ticked up the deficit in the coming biennium from 5.4 billion to I believe 5.6, and so that was increased by 200: take 200 million here, take 200 million away there, and Everett Dirksen would probably classify that as real money. (Laughter) So, in any case at least, there is not a dramatic change in the coming biennium. We have not received any additional input from MnSCU other than just do the best you can with these figures. So, that’s what we’re working through. The Vice Presidential units and areas reporting to the President’s office are working through plans around that six million dollar number or a shade more if we can as a contingency to bring to campus for discussion. We will be doing that over the course of spring, as we did last year. By May, I think, we will declare what is our intention. The legislature will not be out of session, so we will be a little bit uncertain but we will proceed on that basis and our last opportunity to share widely with campus before people depart following commencement. So, I think that’s kind of the timeline. The four Vice Presidents have made presentations to the Budget Advisory Group about general perimeters and where there units are heading. Dan Peterson did fill in for Wanda Overland who was ill that particular day. And we will have a presentation, I haven’t met with my co-chair about this, we will expect a presentation from Athletics about their plan around their operations, which are a significant endeavor at the university both in student participation, community engagement, and some cost and revenue. So, we’ll be talking about that. The one thing that I’m additionally working on now is a proposal of the indirect cost rate if we used it for charges internal to the university, not talking about the federal grant rate and those other rates. We would, at this point, keep it at the 5% rate, but I’m convening a group that will involve students in particularly those revenue fund areas that have a particular interest in that, and others with interest, to talk about the indirect cost rate in the future. Because as the university is forced to become different in its nicks of financial resources we’re going to have to take a serious look at exactly what those costs are and how they are considered in the other units across the university, other units that are based on revenue and operate outside tuition.
Admin: I just want to clarify here what you said, because I’ve heard people say oh, the cut is only 10 million so the university only has to pay one million. I think what you were saying was that initially the system cut was 50 million, now it is 60 million.
Admin: Yes.
Admin: So it has gone from 50 to 60.
Admin: The marginal change is one million.
Admin: Yes. The marginal change is 10 million. It doesn’t mean the total cut for the system is 10 million. The system will be cutting 60 million.
Admin: Yes. That’s what the governor did was increase the cut. The same time he increased the cut to the University of Minnesota just over 30 million, approaching 40, so he went back to the original maintenance of effort prior to the un-allotments and such individually for the two systems rather than just taking us collectively and splitting it down the middle, which has often been the case. That advantaged us a little bit. It still could have been as high as 25 million or so. But, that’s absolutely right and an important distinction.
Admin: I’m sitting on a committee that the Chancellor convened to look the structure of the Chancellor’s office in response to the OLA state auditor’s report, and to provide an assessment of core functions and non-core functions to support the budget decisions for 2011. The target the Chancellor asked them to take a look at was 5%, three million dollars, in the sort of first cut. Interesting conversations. There are, on the other hand, conversations in the Chancellor’s office of increasing charge backs to campuses for services they currently provide for free. The presidents as a body are concerned and watching. There are many uncertainties there. So, that as one factor, and with the fact of uncertainties that continue, we’re not going to do our planning trying to shave to the minimum. We’re going to give ourselves some room on the upside in terms of the target we set. The initial planning that Steve gave to folks was to identify reductions in the neighborhood of 10% that would give us room. I’ve asked that we reduce that figure. I don’t think it’s necessary for us to create a window or margin that is that wide. So, we will target between 4-5%, and 5% would be seven million. So, when Steve says six million we might shave that up a little bit above six. But the Vice Presidents have done good work thinking about what they can do. Student Affairs and Administrative Affairs they’ve identified approximately 10% that could be cut. I’m in conversations with the Vice Presidents looking at the situation in Academic Affairs without giving them a number that I expect we’re going to have to overcut above the 5% number in those divisions in order to protect instructional capacity. Within Academic Affairs, Devinder is directing the Deans to identify significantly higher than 10% that’s in non-personnel costs in order to, again, protect instructional capacity. At this moment I’m cautiously optimistic that we have strategies available to us that will allow us to balance the budget for 2011, not easily, but to balance it without damage to our core mission. The next biennium is fraught with different challenges but the information is so screwy now it’s not even worth thinking about that other than recognizing our challenge. The legislature and the Governor’s office in conversations with the Chancellor’s office have had conversations about whether our budget scenario as a system for 2012-2013 is a mechanical glitch between their number and our number or whether there are some strategic policy decisions that might reduce the pass through to us, but those are so preliminary and so uncertain and so political it’s not worth putting much thinking into those scenarios at this point. So, I’m comfortable that people are doing good work, and hard work. My greatest concern in terms of figuring this all out is in Academic Affairs where the complexities go past imagination, and just getting a clear picture of what is, is very difficult. I appreciate the hard work that’s going on there.
FA: We have been receiving, and I can tell you that I have personally been receiving and I know my colleagues on the Executive Committee have also been receiving, quite a number of inquiries from faculty members who have come to a variety of understandings about what the current budget planning process is and what instructions have been given to the Deans. The figure of 10% across the board has been bandied about and that has sometimes been reported as a 10% reduction in personnel lines. And sometimes been discussed as being a hard and fast rule that there will be absolutely no fixed term or adjunct faculty next year, although reports come individually in colleges rather than across the board. It’s a little hard to keep track of this, and obviously it is to some extent because your instructions have changed as available data have changed. But I’m trying to get a handle on what this all adds up to, and maybe I’m also asking that it would be helpful to the community to have perhaps some announcement or something that would make this clearer. We’re looking at your estimate is that the total university cut needs to be in the neighborhood of 4-5% for next year, and that the 10% number was initially requested that some particular non-instructional places will need to go to 10% or above.
Admin: Let me answer the 10% question.
FA: Yes.
Admin: Because that came out of my direction if you’re talking about college Deans. I’ve always emphasized and I know the Deans have been clear because I’ve had those conversations with them that that was a planning number. That was not a fixed number because we were talking, and I’d also ask the Deans that as they identify from a planning perspective where the 10% will come, if needed, that they prioritize those cuts from the standpoint of instructional capacity and the delivery of the curriculum. So, that if and when certain certainty on the numbers arises we can move quickly rather than then starting the process.
Admin: The 10% was published as a guide in January when we had a range of five to 12 million. And the President has always used it in talks among the Vice Presidents as a guide and this is not across the board we are going to look. It wasn’t across the board of what we did last year. And so we’ve been acting on that in that way, but now that we can take off a substantial portion, that number is reduced. It is still not a hard and fast number. And but that’s what we’re… just trying to give it a matter of scale, and the scale has changed to a smaller scale, and more like that 5% range that we see now for the coming year.
Admin: See, now we have an absolute dollar number around six million.
FA: Absolute? (Laughter)
Admin: I was concerned about Mark’s remark about university-wide and we’re talking about this difference in revenue on the state side of things.
Admin: Okay.
Admin: The Chancellor’s office is still playing with charge backs for 2011, and was going through budget decision making. Just a concrete example: we got an announcement in January—was it January on the interest rate?
Admin: Just after Christmas.
Admin: We got notice from the Chancellor’s office that we were going to be charged $350,000 because the system was receiving less interest than what was projected in the budget. No comment. So, that landed in the middle of the year and we’ve now dealt with it. But, at this point they’re trying to figure out their own budget so they can give us charge back numbers for the services that they bill us for. I gave you one example, but there are a number of others that need to be negotiated and gone through. There is nothing absolute. But clearly 10% is far higher than we’re going to have to go; between 6-7% I think is now safe.
FA: Because of the many focuses in the central office on the concept of merit pay, I’m wondering whether perhaps that that notion can be tied in for the charge backs for data processing services for example or related functions? (Laughter)
Admin: Privatize.
FA: Thank you for your update on the budget. We have less than 15 minutes left. We are back at New Business item six.
PRESIDENT LEFT THE MEETING
New Business
6. Charge for University Archives Committee (ADM)
FA: I’m going to try to expedite this because time is running out. We’re reviewed the Archives Committee and one request we have is that there is a designated faculty position coming out of LR&TS, which we think is appropriate, but given the nature of Archives work we think that there should also a designated faculty member from the History department.
Admin: History?
FA: Yes, imagine a connection between History and archives? (Laughter)
Admin: I want to make sure I get what Mark is saying, I want to move away from this little fun stuff going on in here about History. So, LR&TS faculty member is already there in the proposal?
FA: Right. There’s an at-large faculty rep in the proposal, and we think that is appropriate too.
Admin: Yes. And you want another specific one for History?
FA: Yes.
Admin: Specifically. Okay.
FA: Weren’t there two at-large positions?
Admin: No.
FA: No? There’s only one at-large?
Admin: Yes.
Admin: Okay. Here, unfortunately the Dean of LR&TS is not here, but I’ll take it under advisement, I’ll discuss it with her, and I’ll get back to you.
FA: Okay. Was there anything else that anyone wanted to say in regard to the charge to the Archives Committee?
Admin: I was hoping to balance the budget with this one. (Laughter)
FA: Yes, I’m sure that more efficient archiving is going…
Admin: The charge.
FA: The charge? Oh… (Laughter) Very good.
7. Request for committee member(s)/representative(s) (ADM)
Director of International Admissions (1)
FA: You provided us with a document and you’ve asked for one faculty member. That is consistent with our practice on MSUAASF positions. And we will be happy to, through our usual process, name a member to that search committee. Is there anything else we need to do in regard to that?
FA: We’ll have to have it after next Senate, right?
FA: Yes. The 23rd is our next Senate meeting.
Progress Reports on Long-term Concerns
2. Status of Administrative Searches (ADM)
Admin: Yes, the only Administrative Search that I know that is going on is the Dean for the COE. I think March 8th is the deadline. But, I know the committee is already working on evaluating the applications, which are already there so that as soon as March 8th arrives they can move quickly. So, as we speak, the committee is meeting and they are deliberating.
FA: Any other questions on that or comments? Okay.
3. Students First Initiatives (FA)
a. IFO Statement on Students First
b. SCSU SGA Resolution on Students First
FA: We mentioned two documents but essentially our question is the same in regard to both of them. We’ve provided you with copies of statements that the IFO passed in regard to the IFO’s expectations and requests for goals of achievements for the Students First Initiative that is to be implemented. And also our own Student Government here on campus has passed a resolution in connection with that. The FA thinks that that’s a very thoughtful and helpful set of recommendations. We ask whether the SCSU Administration would join us in affirming the merits of these two statements?
Admin: First of all, I appreciate the work both done by the IFO as well as the SCSU Student Government. Today we didn’t get a chance, you know after we talked about it on Monday.
FA: Yes.
Admin: And I haven’t had a chance and we as a group haven’t had a chance to sit down and deliberate while everyone was there as to what the Administrative position ought to be. You know, obviously there are some overarching considerations here being part of the system. And so I would just take your request under advisement and I’ll convey that to the President, and we’ll discuss it and get back to you.
FA: Okay.
FA: I think this would be an appropriate place also to tell how the Student Government has been treated by other student governments perhaps.
FA: They indicated the other day that their stance was challenged by other student groups in the system. And so, they really did a brave thing that is not being well received necessarily.
Admin: Students First is very well received by technical college student associations.
FA: Yes.
Admin: To a large extent it is driven by them, just like they are the majority of the institution. So, this institution gets one vote.
FA: Yes. Well, their response to them was obviously that this is something that the Student Government at St. Cloud State brought forward and it is our job to bring it forward. They were certainly not thrown by that. But it is obviously not a unified student position.
Admin: Yes.
FA: We have only seven minutes left. Is it urgent? Because I would like time to have at least a few questions in the report for late withdrawals?
FA: I just wanted to add one statement to that: all I wanted was that the Administration to realize that our students are taking heat for this so that they are then aware of it.
Admin: Thank you.
4. Report on Late Withdrawals (FA)
FA: I distributed copies of the report to our team. Assuming that nothing has changed from what you emailed me, we have already received it. We have a couple of specific questions because there are some things that are not clear to us as to the meaning of the report. Thank you for preparing it, and we know that it took some work to do that. We have some things that are a little bit difficult for us however to understand. One of the first questions is that it appears in your summary that in all of the late withdrawals you contacted the faculty. At least I can’t find any place where the number of cases where you didn’t contact faculty is accounted for. And maybe I’m not reading it correctly, but if you are saying that all the faculty have been contacted in those cases, that seems to contradict what we’re hearing from faculty members.
Admin: In looking at the data, what we say is the consultation with the instructors. We break that down between those where we saw LDAs versus those we saw LDAs only. And it’s possible that there are in the actual search through the records that there may have been instances where we did not contact faculty. And that might account for some of the discrepancies between the subtotals…
FA: What I’m saying is that it appears, for example, if we look at the count for fall 2007, and we look under the cases where the course withdrawal requests were approved, under the two previous semesters consultation with the instructor 244, and then all of that adds up to 244. So, we’re reading a case where only six times an instructor was not… No, that can’t be right. We got 250.
Admin: 273.
FA: Yes, but 23 of them are from earlier semesters.
Admin: Yes.
FA: So, of those you’re saying in early semester 23 of 23 you contacted the instructors and in of the two previous semester cases it looks as though 244 out of 250 you contacted the instructor.
Admin: Well…
FA: These numbers seem really high because we’re hearing reports that in fact instructors were not contacted in many cases. And in our previous conversations you said we were unable to contact in many cases.
Admin: What this says is that when we contacted of the 273…
FA: Yes.
Admin: Okay. 250 of those were within the year when the request was made.
FA: Yes.
Admin: And we contacted 244 of those instructors. And in 16 instances we asked for the LDA and their opinion. And in 28 instances we asked for the LDA only.
Admin: He says it’s only six that you didn’t talk to. That doesn’t seem like very many.
FA: Or is it 29 that you didn’t talk to? 244 from 273?
Admin: No. 23 are down below.
Admin: Of the 273, 250 in the previous two semesters 23 from earlier.
FA: 244 out of 273?
Admin: 244 out of 250.
FA: Okay. So, I’m sitting here at a few minutes before 5:00 and wondering where we’re getting at counting and adding? (Laughter) Maybe because it is Thursday afternoon before spring break?
Admin: The documents were entered electronically. They’ve been scanned. I think there are going to be some discrepancies here.
Admin: But the fundamental question is we say we’ve contacted them. We don’t have a record of how many faculty got back to us.
Admin: I think there is something more fundamental. There are two forms of contact Mitch is reporting. There is a form of contact that is associated with the withdrawal and there is a form a contact that follows the withdrawal. That’s the last date of attendance. He has aggregated the last date of attendance with where people were contacted and also the last day of attendance. So, in terms of a pure play where there was absolutely no contact with the faculty that’s very, very small. But the number that didn’t get contacted prior to the “W” is much larger.
Admin: Well, no. The process is that we get a request for a withdrawal. Either the student goes to the faculty member directly and asks them to sign off on a request. If the instructor is not available or if the student mails it in, sometime these things are done by students living in a different state or a different part of the state, they present their documentation and so forth. The don’t contact the faculty, our office will send out an email to the faculty member asking for this information.
FA: Okay. Well, our time has expired. I’m going to suggest that perhaps the faculty team should put together any additional questions that we’ve got. I can communicate with Mitch and we can get back to this next time.
FA: I just have a very quick question. When it says instructors asked for LDAs only, are they given the context that this is in regards to a potential withdrawal or are they just simply asked for an LDA? Because I’m thinking I’ve been asked that before and I might not have connected it with withdrawal when in fact that might be what is under consideration. That’s maybe part of where this is coming from.
Admin: What we learned in doing this, the practice in at least my office when a withdrawal pertains to a semester to more than a year earlier, there practice has simply been ask for an LDA and not ask for an opinion. When we realized this was happening I asked the staff to make sure they also ask for an opinion about the late withdrawal. That’s why some of those numbers are increasing.
Admin: So, the possibility exists that Judy is suggesting that initially we asked for an LDA but we didn’t say it was in connection with a “W”?
Admin: Right.
Admin: And that’s where all the perception is being created?
Admin: Yes. Another thing, within the past couple years at the request of the Faculty Association, we’ve been sending out notices to instructors when a “W” has been issued.
FA: But that’s after it’s been issued.
Admin: Right.
FA: We’ve certainly heard a number of reports of faculty members saying they told me they changed a grade to a “W” but this is the first time I’ve heard of it.
Admin: One thing that will happen is that we will send out notice and a request for information, we receive no response.
FA: Yes.
Admin: And so we have to list it arbitrarily.
FA: Okay. We have used our time and a little bit more. We will adjourn and we will be getting back together March 18th, I believe. Thank you.
Admin: Happy spring break!
FA: Yes. Enjoy your spring break!
Adjourned at 5:03 p.m.
Submitted by Polly Chappell, SCSU FA Administrative Assistant (March 9, 2010)