Approved 4/6/2010

Faculty Association

Meet and Confer Notes

March 18, 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, Michael Connaughton, Debra Leigh, Michael Tripp, Polly Chappell (note-taker)

Guest: Lisa Foss

Approval of Minutes

1. March 4, 2010

Admin: Welcome everybody. Welcome. My apologies for the delay; something came up. The President is still involved, but he will try to get here as soon as he can. Hopefully he should be here soon. But as I was suggesting to Mark, what I say is let’s go through some of the other items quickly as the President makes his way here. Once he comes, we can start on New Business item three, and then go to New Business number one, and then try to get to the other ones we may not have covered. Essentially if that’s okay with everybody, we can follow that process.

FA: We should announce that we are in agreement in the approval of the March 4^th minutes.

Admin: Oh yes. Yes, thank you. We’ve reviewed the minutes, and both Mark and I are in agreement about the minutes for March 4^th.

FA: Yes.

Admin: So, those are the official and approved minutes as of now.

FA: Thank you.

Unfinished Business

1. Use of Adjuncts (FA)

FA: I sent you a document with the suggestion for which departments that we should be collecting more information about and what questions we should be asking.

Admin: Yes. We did receive it. I can confirm that. We have laid out some guiding principles from what I remember.

FA: Yes.

Admin: From what I remember, as to where we should first concentrate and analyze the use of adjuncts. And then look at it and all the implications. I’ve had one conversation with Institutional Effectiveness. I want to have a few more detailed sets of conversations with them. After that I’ll bring Mark into the conversation and narrow down the list of area or areas where we initially want to go and we can than keep you posted and updated on what is happening.

FA: Okay. Well, we look forward to hearing from you.

Admin: Yes.  

2. Status of General Education and Approval by MnSCU (FA)

Admin: Last time when we were here as you all remember we talked about… I informed you that I received a written response from the Office of the Chancellor, which was a very literal interpretation of what we had submitted. And so, essentially after that I also informed you last time that there was a side line conversation between Linda Baer and the President, between the President and I, and in response to that, I prepared a communication, which laid out essentially the reasons as to why we would like them to reconsider the response of the Office of the Chancellor that was sent by Linda Baer, the Senior Vice Chancellor of Academic Affairs. I’ve also asked Greta to, and I know she’s in the process, too, of setting up a meeting. She was already in the process of setting up a meeting because I also had certain other areas which I need to discuss with Linda Baer, and I’ll follow up on that. And as soon as any additional information becomes available, I will, as quickly as possible, make it available to you, Mark, initially, and then to report back to this body.

FA: As you know we are going to be having people beginning to register as incoming students soon. Real soon. April.

Admin: I know. I know. Nothing would please me more if I could say we had everything taken care. But right now, what is happening here is some work is going on in populating the goal areas. The irony is that whatever document we and MnSCU agree to that will change very little in terms of the courses under these goal areas. And currently there is a provisional policy. So, I’m hoping that very soon we’ll have a resolution to this. If not, we will seek their authorization to continue the existing provisional until the issue is resolved. So, one way or another, you know, as these goal areas are populated, the goal areas will stay the same because the goal areas in our liberal education are exactly the same as those in the Minnesota Transfer Curriculum.

FA: You had asked in our last individual meeting about the status of working courses through UCC, General Education, and Senate. Brenda Wentworth advises me that there are some already coming to Senate for our Tuesday meeting.

Admin: Okay.

FA: And that there will be two large additional blocks of courses that have been approved that will be arriving probably to our next Senate meeting after that.

Admin: And I appreciate that. I appreciate you following up on that. I’m also in the process of scheduling a meeting betweens the directors of Advising and my office to basically clarify as to how we deal with this situation as it unfolds.

FA: Okay.

3. Performance Review of Deans (FA)

Admin: This again was brought to our attention last time that this matter was discussed last spring BD: Before Devinder. You were absolutely correct. We went back and we checked and at that point we said we were taking the matter under advisement. But, we haven’t yet had our full conversations within the Administration. But, now that you brought it to my attention I will follow it up with our own internal processes and once we come to a decision I’ll be more than glad to let you know.

PRESIDENT POTTER JOINED THE MEETING

FA: Okay. The request that we gave you was not prescribed in the manner in which the review should be undertaken.

Admin: Sure.

FA: Obviously there will need to be some conversation about it if it is implemented and in what form it would be implemented. Can you tell us anything about whether the concept seems acceptable? I don’t want to pin you down beyond what you’re prepared to say, but if you are able to…

Admin: You’re going to try?

FA: Yes. I’m going to try, you know, that’s the kind of thing we do. (Laughter)

Admin: Actually I’ll be very honest with you, beyond just reading what was in the minutes I haven’t had a chance to really dig through it. And at this stage, I think it would be premature to just engage in some very premature speculation.

FA: Okay. I did my best.

Admin: But thank you. So, now the President is here so we can proceed with New Business. I would prefer that we take up item number one at 3:45 when Lisa is here.

FA: We would prefer to discuss retrenchment first also.

New Business

3.  Consideration of Retrenchment (ADM)

Admin: Steve Ludwig is not here. He will be here also. And he has some information on the budget. Essentially, when we looked through the contract we want to inform you that we are considering retrenchment as a possibility for budgetary adjustments in FY12. The contract requires us to provide three sets of information. One is budgetary information, which you should get soon as Vice President Ludwig makes his way here. And the other is information about the attrition data, and that’s what this document here is. We went the last five years and picked the attrition under the different categories. And generally the average seems to be somewhere between 25 and 27 in terms of that. So essentially that’s where we are.

FA: Okay, well…

Admin: In Steve’s absence, we need to say that the budget hole in 2011 is about six million dollars. Well, great uncertainty remains in terms of the performance of the economy, the next election cycle, the approach of the Governor and the legislature will take. The projections are that we have a budget hole of 14, 15 million dollars in 2012. Considerably more than twice what we’re going to experience in 2011. Professor Kalia in a message on “Announce” yesterday alleged that we were going through the Strategic Planning Appraisal as an excuse for declaring retrenchment. I can’t tell you how annoying that is. The Strategic Program Appraisal is truly a strategic effort to identify our strengths and weaknesses, and it will help us trim our budgets in the next couple years with the total number of FTE identified through that process is nine associated with programs that are being eliminated or suspended.

FA: Can you repeat that? I can’t hear you.

Admin: I’ll look at you too. The total number of positions identified as associated with the programs to be eliminated or suspended through this first phase of Strategic Program Appraisal is nine. And those reductions would largely be achieved by reassignment of tenured track faculty from the courses that are not being taught to more productive enterprises and not hiring adjuncts and fixed term appointments. And as we looked at the challenge we faced in 2011 it appeared to us that we could meet that. It ain’t easy, believe me, to meet that challenge without retrenchment. So we entered the Strategic Program Appraisal process to build an understanding of enrollments and trends, to have departments think about their strategic strengths, and we talk about those absolutely without the intent to drive retention off the work we had just completed. Anybody who understands the contract knows that we have to get certain deadlines where we inform the union before we even think about retrenchment. We didn’t hit those deadlines and it is impossible for us to use retrenchment in 2011 even if we had wanted to. We determined that we would not consider that. So, to allege some various intent is annoying and there is a bunch of other things wrong with that in terms of the statement of the facts, etcetera. I have no idea whether we will exercise the retrenchment authority in 2012. The size of the challenge suggests to me that it is one of the tools that we have to consider. Mankato has roughly the same size, their budget hole is roughly the same size and they cut 82 positions of faculty and staff. We are behind them. We have taken other approaches in managing. It’s really important to me that we have a solid strategic foundation in the choices that we make. They cannot be targets of opportunity. They really need to be based on our understanding of what our strengths are and where we want to go in the future. Hence, our conclusion of quantitative and qualitative information in the first round, and we’re going to have absolutely go forward. So, we are bringing this to the table at Meet and Confer because we know we have to consider it as one of the ways we might address the budget shortfall. We have not done any planning or thinking. There are no models that have been developed. There’s no hit list. We are telling you as we begin to think about it.

FA: Well, we have some questions that we’ve been discussing and my colleagues may be asking some additional questions.

Admin: Steve, will you distribute the budget information?

Admin: If that would be appropriate?

Admin: Yes. Because we already distributed the attrition information; go ahead.

FA: The big question is why now? What’s new? This is obviously a decision that needs to be made at some time. What led to the decision to begin considering retrenchment at this time?

Admin: Well, anybody who has been listening should know that we have a cliff going into 2012. We have the stimulus money coming to us this biennium, but it goes away at the end of that year. We have dealt first with the challenge in front of us, which is the budget for 2011. I think we’re getting our hands around that challenge. And now we have to deal with the next biennium. The information comes out of the legislature, the Governor’s office, and MnSCU office much later than we would like to have it. But the shape and height of the cliff that faces us in 2012 is going to be higher than 2011. There has been no relief. The early warning signals were out. The legislature has not taken a different approach, the Governor has not, MnSCU has not; so it looks like the earlier predictions are going to come in at the worst. If we were to notify probationary faculty that their positions were being eliminated in 2012, we would have to tell them in August. For tenured faculty in October, September…

FA: Twentieth class date.

Admin: Twentieth class date.

Admin: Twentieth class date. So as we tackled 2011, the projections for 2012 and 2013 continue as the decision timeline is earlier, we have to signal consideration of retrenchment if we’re going to maintain the possibility of using that tool.

FA: Before I ask this I want to mention that I am not Ravi, and I don’t think that I’m on Ravi’s list of favorite participants in this process either. But, so I’m not asking this question with a sense of looking for blame or to accuse anybody.

Admin: I understand.

FA: All of the things you have mentioned are things that we knew much earlier, the general picture of the size of the budget shortfall, is what has changed what has not happened? That is that there hasn’t been a different shift from the legislature? Or a different change in budgetary projections? I’m trying to get a handle on what is it that… you reached a decision at this moment, not two weeks ago or two months ago, and I’m trying to get a handle what led to this time being the point at which in the same ugly picture it became necessary to consider retrenchment?

Admin: Well, I think that’s a fair characterization. It is what has not happened. Those preliminary numbers were out there a while ago. There has been no relief in funding. It continues. Remember last year there was ridiculous speculation about the shape of what the recovery would be: would it be a double-dip? Would it be a bathtub? Early predictions predicting a slow recovery and thus a slow recovery, that’s been worn out. If there is any blame, I’ll accept some blame for wanting our initial Strategic Program Appraisal to be conducted with our eyes on the questions in front of us, not with a lot of speculation about what the implications of retention might be. The work we’ve done has been strategic; it has been good and thoughtful work. You might take a different approach to the whole process if we said our purpose was to eliminate positions. What Mankato did with their Aviation program, what Dick Davenport told me was they were losing $400,000 a year and there was no question it had to go. There was no strategic discussion of the importance of that program. It was strictly a numbers decision. I want a strategic decision. So, I may have played chicken with the campus longer than I should have in terms of suspending consideration of retrenchment. But we did that earlier work thoughtfully and strategically, I will accept the blame for that.

Admin: In any case I think going back to your point, these are the numbers that with a much wider range there was a greater likelihood attached to it. But as the Program Appraisal process completed and as we started coming towards the end as to how FY11 was being handled, then the factors associated with FY12 started looming much larger, and therefore at that point our attention is now gradually shifting toward FY12. That is what is being proposed in 2012. Because if you remember even in this body, you’ve asked the President in the past a couple times are you considering, and at that point we gave you the answer we were not considering because that was what the situation was at that point. And now as we deal with FY12, we’d like to have that tool. That’s why we’re coming to you at this time.

Admin: One other note, you remember when we began to plan 2011, the span of possibility was 5 to 14 million. It was only in January, or February…

Admin: March.

Admin: March.

Admin: We heard from the Governor on the…

Admin: Yes, about three weeks ago.

Admin: This was when we got information that told us that the six was the appropriate figure. So, one might ask how in the world could you think things were going to get that much better? Why would you wait? We had reason to doubt the numbers we were hearing, and in fact a much lower number came in.  I don’t doubt the range of the number we’re looking at for 2012 now. There’s enough stuff that’s clear to me that that’s what we’re going to have to live with.

Admin: Yes. I think in 2012 the stimulus goes away. Is that correct?

Admin: Yes.

Admin: And since that itself is about 4.3 million… So, in FY11 we started at zero and went to six. Now we are starting from 4.3 and still dealing with that structural deficit, and that is why those aspects also became very clear. The likelihood associated with these numbers definitely changed over the last three months.

FA: Do you anticipate offering BESI as a way of avoiding doing layoffs?

Admin: We have about a million dollars that we could use to pay the cost of BESI. That would support… how many faculty positions could we buy out if we used BESI just for faculty?

Admin: It is only used for salaries. You don’t have to consider benefits. So, it depends on if you are a little bit more toward the senior faculty because of age and sometimes service. I would guess $75,000 a faculty member if you offered one year’s full salary. There’s discretion, you don’t have to offer one full year of salary. But if that were the case, that is a reasonable number and that puts you at about 16, no, excuse me, less than 15. Ten would be $750,000, so it would be 13, 14.

Admin: So, if you’re running an average of 27 for attrition. If you buy 15 or so out with BESI, and if you just look at Mankato’s experience, that’s half. But we are also doing a lot of other things. There are efforts on the revenue side. The Provost’s thinking about reorganization in the Academic division would save some money through more efficient posturing and support systems. So all that stuff is what’s going on as well. So, if the number is 15, well, I want to know up front how many positions we would have to eliminate of different types to accomplish that. We’re not starting at the onset planning to make the cuts to hit that target. We’re looking, again, at the whole enterprise and looking at all the possible ways we can reduce expenses and increase revenues which will eventually get us to where we need to come. And we hope through all the conversations we have over the next six months, we will know where we might limit the pain should we have go that route.

Admin: We have to be careful because if we use all the money for faculty we’d have a problem. We have different bargaining units and if we do not give others the opportunity, we have to be careful when we look at that.

Admin: I understand.

Admin: There is also the downside of just because someone retires with BESI doesn’t mean they wouldn’t have retired anyway.

Admin: That’s true.

Admin: So, you can’t assume that every BESI retirement would be a net gain of one less. The attrition might be less.

Admin: And our cash position is not so strong that using a million for that purpose is without cost. We don’t have a great excess of cash to do that. That would weaken the university’s financial situation by taking that step. So, there are a lot of things to talk about. I haven’t consulted with the rest of my leadership team, but my inclination is to have a conversation about the pros and cons of different ways of integrating BESI into the solution. It’s a small tack hammer, BESI is not a sledge hammer for us. It has limited utility. It’s a challenge.

FA: Of course we all know that the contract sets rules surrounding retrenchment and the timeline of order within a department itself. Of course we expect that those contractual rules be followed. I know you are following a contractual rule by telling us that you are considering it. There are some things that are not contractually mandated but which we would like to express an opinion about. The contract says that within a department or roster that is undergoing retrenchment, that all adjunct and all fixed term and non-tenure track positions must be eliminated before the first tenure track position is eliminated. To the extent that it is possible we hope that the Administration will look for ways to achieve savings in adjuncts even in other departments before moving in the direction of laying off full-time faculty. That’s a distinction from what is required within the department. We hope that you will be looking for ways to save on contingent faculty before moving to eliminate permanent faculty.

Admin: I would agree with that.

Admin: Some of that work has already started in the sense, not in the context of retrenchment, but in the context of budgetary savings, which are currently being expended on adjuncts and overloads. Because we have started taking a look at scheduling a little more carefully, and just in spring from the discussions with the Deans, the courses we eliminated that were under-enrolled; the estimate was that we saved about $125,000. And so as we move forward, we want to be a lot more strategic and deliberate in the delivery of our curriculum. I think there is some savings there. So, in that context, the principle you are referring to, even though that was in the context of FY11…  

FA: Thank you. Also, within departments the contract says that layoff among the contingent faculty may take place in any order depending on programmatic needs. That should, of course we expect, be followed. Additionally, again, we would suggest that wherever possible that even within a department if there are cuts moving in the direction of possible layoff of permanent faculty that adjuncts should be targeted before contingent full-time faculty, such as non-tenure track faculty.

Admin: Yes.

FA: Those are the points that I have that we wanted to ask about. My colleagues may have other questions. I can’t bring myself to say thank you, but I acknowledge that you have provided us with information.

Admin: Just a closing comment. Despite the occasional hotspots, I’m still very proud of the way our community has made the conversations thus far. I hope to continue to be proud of the way we’re working together. It’s going to be hard. I firmly believe that the best good for our university will be achieved by our doing this together. I have no intention of doing things behind closed doors. I need the insights and the advice of faculty and the other bargaining units to get through this challenge. Thank you for all that you do. Even when it’s hard, you still do good work. Thank you.

FA: Thank you.

1. Strategic Program Appraisal (ADM)

Admin: Let me just start off by making a few remarks then Lisa can help you understand where we are going from here in terms of timelines. Again, I think, over the last few weeks it became more and more evident that we needed to accelerate and adjust the timeline for the Strategic Program Appraisal of the other 50%. This was a very hard decision. We looked through all the relevant information and thought through it very carefully. It was hard for the reason I detect a certain element of displeasure on this decision. I understand that completely. Because it is coming at the end of the academic year and having been an academic and a faculty member for 30 years I know what this time is like. I know asking to do this at this time is really asking a lot from the departments to rise above and beyond on what they already need to focus on. I want to give you a little bit of Genesis as to why, at least, it was important to accelerate even though we understood this would be really putting departments in a much bigger challenge than they already face. As we went through the Strategic Program Appraisal Phase II, and as that information came through it became obvious, and if you see, that our goal was also to protect the flexibility and choice and yet deal with the long-term fiscal sustainability issues; flexibility and choice for students in terms of curricular offer. So if you see the consolidation reorganization list in the second category is a lot larger than the first or the third categories. As we started thinking about the consolidation reorganization it became obvious that we wanted to move to a programmatic and organizational structure, which was A) cohesive and B) such that it would allow for centralization of support services and for some other savings in areas—non-instructional areas—in order to do that it also became clear that as we reconfigure departments and colleges, and as we reconfigure the collection of programs as organizational entities that it may entail a re-rostering. And the re-rostering deadline is March 1^st. So, if we wanted to be ready for re-rostering by March 1^st of 2011 than that means we needed to complete all of the consolidation reorganization work by at least the beginning of February or the middle of January. And so as we started working that and if we really truly wanted to have a broad, inclusive, transparent discussion where there is a lot of give and take and a lot of thought given to the input which we provide to each other that if we started the Strategic Program Appraisal in fall we will not be able to that, and so that was initially why we started thinking that perhaps we need to start that process right away, as soon as we finish that first 50%. Let’s start the process for the next 50%. And then that decision was further accelerated over the last couple weeks in the context of the budgetary and the contractual deadlines which also came into play. So, it was wrestling with that that in order to do that work which ultimately will give us the best chance to minimize the impact on instructional capacity that we had to take this decision. And so what we did was we went back in the November 4^th communication to the campus we said that once we get through the Phase II of the first half of the programs we looked at that all departments also by April 15 will update their action plans. So, essentially what we are doing is now what we are saying that we will not ask departments to do that work. We will suspend that work and then rather than updating your action plans we would work with the Strategic Planning Committee and we will make all the information available to you that if you could do the other 50% of the programs we could finish their Strategic Program Appraisal documents by April 30^th. That is the kind of the context and Genesis in which this decision was made. In that context we recognize that we also knew that we had to make some very serious decisions coming on, and so we had two choices: to make those decisions with incomplete information with not all the work completed or we could accelerate the timeline, adjust the timeline, and adjust if possible some of the work we were asking the departments to do, and hopefully have that information in time to make the kinds of decisions which need to be made with full information both with our discussions with regard to consolidation and reorganization as well as our decisions as they relate to our budgetary adjustments. So, that’s the bit of Genesis as to why we accelerated the timeline. Lisa, you want to add anything to that?

Guest: You had just mentioned the timeline. We had a brief discussion at Academic Affairs Council on Tuesday. We talked about it briefly at Strategic Planning Committee today about the possible timeline, and with the April 30^th due date one of the recommendations out of Academic Affairs was that we actually have departments submit the reports on April 30^th and that there be a week or so in which the Deans have the opportunity to review them and provide feedback to the departments. And they can do updates to those documents and have the final date be May 8^th. During the summer there will be a deadline for the Deans to submit their recommendations to the Provost. When the campus returns in the fall the Provost will provide his recommendations to the campus during Convocation. This will move into the fall semester and that will be the time for the consultation process around these programs that were with the first set of programs.

Admin: Also, we’ve had conversation within the Administration, I recognize that if we’re going to do work well, informed, and next spring, we need to do a lot of work in summer, and we may ask the Strategic Planning Committee to stay engaged with us on certain parts of this work during the summer. In that context I am in the process of garnering some resources which then can be utilized to compensate the faculty who are doing the work.

FA: We have some questions. The first one is pretty much the same question with regard to retrenchment; you’ve partially answered it, it’s: what’s new? What has changed? What is the new information that led you to make this decision at this time and to make rather suddenly, at least from our perspective; that is we did not expect this to happen, and there was no consultation with us about revising the due dates. I personally found out about it on Friday, and it went out on Monday, and it wasn’t taken to Meet and Confer. That’s pretty fast. What happened that caused that to be necessary?

Admin: I think that part of it is that as I said earlier, as the information came through we were evaluating the information for Program Appraisal Phase II and we were being responsive. I really think that to stick to some deadline independent of whatever happens and not to be responsive to new information as it becomes available and be readjusted would not be prudent. But the new information as mentioned earlier was basically the fact that as we recognize that there would be a large scale discussion on consolidation reorganization and what that entailed. Then we started working on the details of that and then tied to it was the budgetary and the contractual components. And we started working here to adjust the timeline in order to meet those deadlines that were clear to us that in order to get that information we need to readjust the timeline.

Admin: Let me give you a complimentary scenario. We have cut our budget, Steve check me on this too, every year since I’ve been here. I’ve been here three years and we’ve made budget reductions—two of them as a result of un-allotments—we’ve been cutting since I got here. As I’ve gotten to know the institution I saw opportunities in savings and changing ways. The Provost has been here since last July, and he’s taken an approach to understanding the operation of the Academic division that nobody at this university has ever done before. As systemically and systematically he’s worked his way through it. Some of both opportunity and needs have become clear. They only become clear as the analysis is done and things become evident. So how do I say this kindly, it was clear to me when Devinder was hired that there were some organizational structural issues in his office that needed attention. He has been wrestling with that and now come to the conclusion on how he will address that, which is the result in the elimination of two Dean positions. He couldn’t have done that walking in the door and I wouldn’t have forced him to do that walking in. I think what we have here is the same kind of discovery process that on the one hand we see opportunity for savings and improvement and on the other hand as he’s gotten to know his budget , and where we have room and where we don’t, what practices we have in place to drive costs; the full measure of the challenge has become evident. It was not evident when he walked in the door. It has become evident through this study we’ve done together with the whole campus. And I said to him and others often I wish we were able to do this work in a different budget climate. We would still do all the work we’re doing but we wouldn’t have to deal with super-imposed upon us this budget challenge we face now. It changes the character. What we’re going to do is maintain the character of thoughtful, strategic decision-making and cope with the budget challenge that nobody’s making money except the guys on Wall Street with their junk-house bonds. It’s a lousy situation. I think the quality of the work that we’re doing, to deal with the situation, is prudent for our campus. We’ll make the university stronger. It’s just a damn shame we have to do it now in this way.

Admin: Nothing would please me more if I had more time and we could stretch this out. Again I go back we are facing very tough choices. Very soon we will come to a point we’re forced to make decisions and we wanted to make those decisions with as much of the relevant information in our hand as we possibly can.

FA: Well, one of those decisions of course is whether or not to send out retrenchment notices on August 1^st. Is the information gathered in this accelerated SPA process going to be used in the process of making those retrenchment decisions?

Admin: You know, obviously it will shape our decision. If we have the information, obviously it will shape our decision. But what is needed of August 1^st, we’ve wrestled with it, we’ve already asked John and others to start seeing what our options are on August 1^st. What is needed is really a notification on August 1^st, not a decision. And so we are working through some ways in which we can cover the contractual notification obligations without making any final decisions. But we also wanted to put ourselves in a place that we have all the relevant information by the beginning of September so that once we start getting into that decision phase, all of the work will have been completed. That is how we are trying to build this timeline on the program appraisal.

Admin: I want to make sure we use language precisely. Today the Administration fulfilled its obligations under Article 23, Subd. A. That section is Retrenchment, the Article is Retrenchment. The question that is raised is in Subd. 4 of that Article, and it is Advance Notice of Layoff. The layoff advance notice is to give people a period of time that they can make their individual decisions. And the advance notice of layoff is that it would be no earlier than end of the semester. The President is obliged to consult with the Provost before issuing any of those layoff notices. So there is a deliberative process that occurs and the process begins today with notification of considering retrenchment.

Admin: We will tighten up our budget in the next month for 2011. And our attention will turn immediately to 2012. As I noted before we’ve been cutting since I got here. We don’t have a lot of fat without shaving to the bone. There’s not a lot of slack in the system whether it is Administrative or faculty time. And so you can’t cut a lot of money without changing the way we do business. One of the traits we’re going to have to talk about is I could cut Counseling staff, Tutoring staff, and keep people in the classroom but if you cut services to students and continue to teach classes just think of the fewer students we would have each year because we wouldn’t be helping them be successful. And that is going to be a tough line. I don’t think we can get through 2012 without major changes to the way we provide student services and student supports. We have to do everything we can to protect instructional capacity. And we have to make sure that our faculty resources are the most effective means. As we think about the options I know we will want to talk about class sizes. We’ll want to talk about agreements about release time. When we have those conversations we’ll be doing the same thing with options on the table: if we have this savings target and this is one way of achieving the target and this is the other way. We’ll engage the faculty helping us to think through those options.

FA: I wanted to ask you to speak a little bit more specifically to the timeline for fall. So, with the timeline for the reports not right now, faculty would respond, Deans would respond within a week giving feedback to change the plans, and faculty would go away. The Deans would make the recommendation some time during summer. As of all then, after this notification, assuming that it happens which it may not, then you would make your recommendation.

Admin: Yes.

FA: The Provost would make a recommendation. Can you speak a little bit starting from that point on?

Admin: Sure. Sure. Once I get the recommendation from the Deans, my plan is work through it quickly, make my recommendations just like I did in the first case, and send it to the Strategic Planning Committee. Then that will provide an opportunity, I think the timeline we have opportunity built in the timeline for Strategic Planning Committee then to have, just like you did this, to engage the campus, get the campus input both from faculty and the student feedback. Then report back to the President, along with that I will look at that input too. And so we will have all the information available to the President early in September and so we can make those decisions along those lines.

Admin: The kind of options we face; what changes are we making in graduate student funding in the coming year?

Admin: In terms of the graduate student funding, when I looked at the graduate studies budget last year what was happening was there was tuition remission that overspends by about $900,000. And graduate stipends were overspent by $200,000. And obviously it would be clear to everyone around the table that in this kind of budgetary environment we have to stay within the budget. So, what we did was there also we didn’t just say, okay let’s just come back to $900,000, which was the original budget and we can’t overspend. We actually looked at it. I said: okay, why did this happen? Then we did a quick study of some sister institutions of similar sizes and saw their budgets. So, then we built into the FY11 budget a 1.5 million allocation for tuition remission. As I go through the FY11 budget I made it very clear within Academic Affairs that as we work through FY11 budget we will hold gradate stipends harmless. We will maintain this same amount of budget as last year on graduate stipends. However we will stay within that budget. So, again, the budget stayed the same for graduate stipends but the spending would decline slightly because we were spending about $200,000 more than the 1.5 million. Then I find out, I’ve been discovering a lot of things recently. (Laughter)

Admin: And that’s a good part of the line now.

Admin: Yes. Definitely. My obvious question was: why are we over by $200,000? And the answer came back that requests would come for graduate stipends, someone in Academic Affairs or somewhere will give the go ahead, and there was 69 such graduate assistantships on this campus. Some in Academic Affairs, some outside, and in different administrative units; and so essentially what was happening was that I understand that there may be a very good reason from experiential learning standpoint and from the curricular programmatic aspects that some of these students may be working in these other units, but there was no structural strategy in place which determined as to where it would go. And there, again, what we said was that as we cut back on this spending we want to make sure we protect the instructional capacity and the integrity of our graduate programs. That will be the highest priority. That is how we will manage this budget. Similarly I came to Sponsored Programs, I have told this to the Deans and the other members of my Academic Affairs Council, I also directed Dan Gregory, Interim Assistant Vice President for Research and Sponsored Programs, that all funds which are associated with faculty development activities will be held harmless for FY11. So, again, we are approaching it in a manner that we protect the investments which are needed to preserve our goal because good times will come around. When good times come around we will be programmatically and organizationally ready to take advantage of them, move forward, and become a stronger university. So, that’s what is happening in the graduate study budget.

Admin: So, we’re going to do the analysis and thinking and we will be able to, with the Strategic Planning Committee and the Budget Advisory Committee and this group, examine a number of choices. We want to invest in support for graduate students. We’re going to look at the way the institution is organized and in both those instances you can imagine there are faculty advocates to grow the number of graduate students and support. And there are faculty voices demanding more clerical support, a secretary, or more time for our department, or whatever. We’re going to have to make choices. And we’re going to be faced with choices that pit positions to be eliminated versus changes in the way we work, our support for graduate students and our other programs. We need your partnership in that.  

FA: Pursuant to that, I have another question. And that is the consultative process surrounding Strategic Program Appraisal has been focused and appropriately principally on academic questions on questions of targeting and consistency with mission, and so on. There are however major dollar decisions, some of which need to be made by August 1^st. Where and how will the consultative process in asking questions like if not perhaps the way Mankato did it with their Aviation program and yet something like that does have to happen as we look at programs and say they cost this much, and not just programs but other things that you mentioned like graduate stipends, and so on. Where and when, with whom is that consultative process going to take place?

Admin: Part of that conversation that occurred as part and parcel of the consolidation reorganization conversation as those are ramped up. Because as I think of the university from an organizational behavioral standpoint there is no non-Academic side to the university; the university is one large academic enterprise. These are analytical organizational distinctions that this is the academic side of the university and this is the non-academic side of it. So I think you cannot but talk of the two things simultaneously and that is what will emerge. Because going earlier question as to why acceleration of the timeline or readjustment of the timeline, as I stared looking at the direct reports to my office I started looking at reorganization of my office. One could view that as that as primarily dealing with the “non-instructional” part of Academic Affairs as compared to the instructional part of Academic Affairs. So if there are any savings in eliminating two senior positions or if there are any savings in some of the other support units than to me that is part and parcel of the discussion on the Academic side also. So, as we go through this consolidation reorganization work, as we come to a new configuration of Academic Affairs, then that naturally leads to the question as to what kind of effective support structure we need to preserve the effective delivery of this particular programmatic structure. And that will take us to all areas of the university as we move forward.

Admin: I think the answer to Mark’s questions is embedded in something we said earlier about recognizing that all units and faculty are available. We’re going to have to put some money to having faculty available for consultation.

FA: It’s a good thing to pay faculty for time and it’s a good thing to have faculty involved in the process over the summer. It is problematic to make these large decisions when faculty representatives are available but the bulk of the faculty would not be available for any meaningful and effective consultation.

Admin: Let me sketch that. I think it’s likely to happen recognizing some of the rock and hard places that face us, that we will over notice in August and proceed with the conversations when faculty are back.

FA: If I understood you correctly your use of the word “over-notice” (Laughter). That’s one we’ll have to check in the minutes, right, to make sure we get that verb correct. What you are saying is that you are likely to be issuing notices of layoffs to a larger number of faculty than will actually ultimately be laid off. Is that what you are saying?

Admin: I don’t see a way of avoiding that if we are to provide more appropriate consultation before major decisions are made.

Admin: Once again it’s important to keep in mind that the August 1^st deadline effects only NTT probationary faculty.

Admin: Right.

Admin: By the best estimates I’ve made that is six people on this campus, and the probationary faculty. The tenured faculty notification date ends up being the 20^th of September. Now, while the conversation was going on I looked at our work schedule. We come back to work on August 17. Faculty are back to work on August 17^th. I would expect that we prioritize our work in such a way that we are compassionate to the people among us who are going to be in very uncomfortable professional circumstance. Having been in one of those circumstances for a very long time, I know what that’s like: to not know what your status is at the end of the academic year. I think the folks that are at this table realize that these are human beings, these are people that are in classrooms serving our students, and that we would hope that we could preserve their relationship with us. So, we’re going to put priority on that. It’s not as if the summer is as long as it once was.

Admin: I think that’s why the President alluded to garnering resources to back up the work precisely for that reason that we will be ready to do that on day one, August 17, and very quickly do the consultation as far as FY12 is concerned because whatever decision we make regarding FY12 those rosters are already set. The next set of rostering which will occur on March 1, 2011, that will be relevant down the road.

FA: I understand what you are saying. I’m not aware as I sit here of a contractual barrier to over-noticing though neither am I saying that… You understand the ritual disclaimer.

Admin: I understand.

FA: I really want to emphasize the profound impact that it will have not just on the individuals that receive that notice.

Admin: Yes.

FA: But everyone else that same department where that notice is given because they will know if the tenure track person got a letter, I may be getting a letter on September 20^th and they will be watching their mailbox for that letter. And the impact that this will have on the deliberations and planning and tone of our conversation as people are looking down the barrel of a layoff notice.

Admin: I understand that. The fact is that in a course of four years, we will have made cuts in our budget while growing enrollments of between 15-20%. Five this year, ten and twelve, and the cuts we’ve experiences in the last two years; so, 15% to start, and approaching somewhere between 15-20%. Steve, am I smoking something or is that right?

Admin: We are in that range considering increases too because we’ve seen increases in costs.

Admin: So costs have gone up, we’re making cuts at 15-20%, and enrollments have gone up.

Admin: Yes. The head count has gone up faster than enrollment.

Admin: Which mean more people to register, etcetera, etcetera. The situation is dire. I think we, as a community, fared well with all these challenges. I think we can get through this set as best as can be expected. But it is very, very serious.

FA: I think that IFO agreed to have a salary freeze for two years, right? I don’t know, is it fiscal year 2012…?

Admin: Next biennium 2012-2013. We’ll be renegotiated next year for whatever happens.

FA: The fiscal outlook I see salaries are adjusted at 2%. That’s assuming, because we agreed to that salary freeze…

Admin: It’s the steps that are still in there. So the salary budget for faculty is going up even though the base salaries were frozen as a consequence.

FA: That doesn’t start until 2012.

FA: Yes. That’s what I meant.

Admin: Are you referring to the budget? Steve, maybe you can help him.

Admin: The 2% number is based on the assumption that there will still be steps, basically, in the faculty contract and also for promotion, 10-year anniversary, steps that are afforded, and tenure status.

FA: That’s not assuming any raises, right?

Admin: That’s correct.

Admin: Those other increases in salary are the only increases considered.

Admin: Which is a consistent pattern that has existed. That is in the negotiations the labor side is looking for a number of increase and management does not want to tip its hand including in their budgets the amount of money they are ready to spend. This is a simple number that says if through the normal process of promotion and the normal process of seniority occurring, we will have to pay more for the faculty in 2012-2013 than we do today.

Admin: Just to be clear this is not a negotiating strategy or dictated by the Office of the Chancellor. The choice that we made on this campus to represent the increase is independent of what we may expect or project from settlements. We’ve been clear about this number. This number is just about the steps in the contract. Everybody knows that if people settle contracts for two steps a year for two years it will be a lot different than this number, but we weren’t directed by the Office of the Chancellor. We chose this number on campus as a place to start for informing our discussion.

Admin: We won’t take into account all possible factors which will have an impact on FY12 budget. Under the existing negotiated contract we’re not taking into account anything that is coming down in the biennium.

Admin: Right.

FA: And these numbers are for and aggregate estimate for all bargaining units, not just the IFO?

Admin: Yes. And other bargaining units have more rigid increases than the IFO. The other steps in the IFO contract some would argue are more generous than steps in all other contracts. All contracts are freely negotiated.

FA: Is there a plan to release this information to the campus now?

Admin: This is from the town hall meeting last January. It’s been Budget website.

FA: It is not clear for me 2%, nothing says it’s a step increase or…? Is it a general? Are salaries….?

Admin: I see. You would like more clarity?

FA: Yes.

Admin: Okay. We’ll take that under advisement. Maybe we can put an asterisk or put a footnote or something.

FA: Because the question… the reason… one bargaining unit? All of the bargaining units?

Admin: Yes. We can put an asterisk and put a note which would explain.

Admin: There is greater explanation in the body of the Powerpoint. It may not address that particular concern. This is the summary.

FA: I think that we have asked the questions that we had prepared in regard to Strategic Program Appraisal. Do faculty members have any additional questions? If not, I would like to ask for a brief caucus.

CAUCUS

FA: After due and grave deliberation the Meet and Confer team see the announcement of the speed up of the Strategic Program Appraisal as very significant, and we don’t want to make a response. There’s a Senate meeting on Tuesday and what we would like to do is invite the President and the Provost to come to Senate on Tuesday because we think it is best for Senate to be apprised of the decisions and of the reasons for making them by hearing it from you rather than for us to go back and try to answer questions on your behalf or explain our understanding of the reasoning. The Senate may, after hearing what you have to say, decide to pass a resolution or make some kind of an official response. But the best way to get to that point is for Senate to hear it from you.

Admin: What time is the Senate meeting?

FA: 3:15-5:15, and we can be flexible with you in terms of within that timeframe of what time would work.

Admin: I think I’d have to be out of there by 4:00 at the latest.

FA: We’d be happy to put you on first.

FA: Do you want them to be specific on what we want them to speak to?

FA: I’ll tell them my understanding and you please add if there are additional things. I think the specific questions that the Senate will want to have answered are why are the decisions being made now? What is to be accomplished specifically regarding the Strategic Program Appraisal in this term that could not be accomplished if it was delayed until later? What is the good that you see coming out making this decision? We are very aware of the challenges that are associated with scheduling this to happen before the end of the term. So, we’d like to hear from you why you think this is necessary and how it serves the university better.

Admin: Why now? Why it can’t be done in the fall? What is the significance of doing it now that will help us in our work?

FA: Yes. And I’m sure that part of the why now will be so why didn’t you tell us this back in…?

Admin: Good questions.

FA: So, essentially the rationale for moving the timeline up.

Admin: Yes. Good question.

FA: This probably goes without saying that we can’t count on Senate to only talk about this while you are there. There may be some other things, for example retrenchment.

Admin: That’s fine.

Admin: I’m supposed to be in the Twin Cities.

Admin: I’ll be here.

FA: Well, we would very much appreciate it if you were able to join us Mr. President.

Admin: It starts at 3:15?

FA: Yes.

Admin: Can I bring Steve with me? (Laughter)

FA: Yes. You can bring Steve with. I don’t see any reason why you could not bring with you any experts that you believe would help you answer the Senate’s questions better.

Admin: Thank you.

FA: I said experts. Not thugs.

Admin: Thank you. I think this is going in a different direction.

FA: There’s another question about Strategic Program Appraisal that is not about the schedule of it, but is about the question of students who are currently interested in or just about to be in programs that are being suspended or eliminated. I don’t expect a complete answer to this at this moment but we wanted to express our concern and urgency of making decisions.

Admin: Sure.

FA: About who gets in and who doesn’t and how we decide…

Admin: Sure. I think that’s a very valid question. In fact as soon as this decision was communicated to the campus I started conversations and formed a little group where Teach Out is being worked out on programs where admissions would be suspended. Adding that context, I asked to be very flexible when it comes to intended majors or also students who have gone through a lot of the course work and have not yet declared but it is very clear in their by their transcripts to what direction they were moving in. The difficulty with that work is that the data identifies those who are currently enrolled and in some instances there may indirect evidence about those who are intending to major, like pre-Business, you know, there are some areas where it might be possible. So, we intend to be flexible as possible for the students who are already here. But what we’ll do is we will suspend admissions of potential students.

FA: So, that means that students inquiring this week about majors and minors who are current students can’t take the majors and minors?

Admin: No. I didn’t say that.

FA: I know.

Admin: At Strategic Planning this morning I gave the advice that if I were a student who had interest in any of these programs I would run and not walk to the department office and make application to be admitted to the major or a minor. Students need to be motivated to get this process under way. There is a draft document which went out, it started with David, who is on this working group. I’ve tweaked it a bit, and it has gone out to the working group to work through this process and to make sure if a student who has the intention of graduating with one of those degrees has their needs responded to. But there are judgment calls that are going to have to be made as to what does it mean to have a substantial start in the program. Nobody has defined that. These are points that need to be talked about that there is a bias in the direction as Devinder has said of taking care of student needs.

FA: I know one faculty member who has a student coming to him tomorrow because he’s and advisor with interest in one of these programs. What does that faculty member say to that student?

Admin: If it is Mert, I told him.

FA: It’s not Mert.

Admin: Actually if you get such inquiries just point out to our office and we will handle those because we are trying to develop the idea that if the student is already declared than that is one thing. That’s the easy part. It’s a question if the student hasn’t declared. Technically we can say, since you’re not a major we’re not obligated. We don’t want to do that. We want to talk to the student and see what was the intention of the student and how far has the student progressed with the degree, and how easily the student can be folded in to the Teach Out. That’s what John is referring to about the judgment.

FA: So, the advisor should say to the student go talk to the Provost’s office?

Admin: Yes. Right now you can send them. I don’t expect a lot of students for these particular programs coming through. That’s why I’m not that concerned about the problem; because if there was, the programs would not be in the shape and place that they are.

Admin: I understand that perspective. But remember the longer it takes us to achieve the savings in eliminating these weak programs, they are weak by enrollment and revenue, and the longer it takes us the higher the risk of cutting a position through retrenchment. People can’t have my graduate assistants, my secretary, students in my program getting in, and not have consequences for the other larger problems we have to solve.

Admin: So, essentially what we are saying is we are responsive to the current students depending upon… because this problem came around that sometimes students may have gone through all of the requirements or very close to the requirements but just hasn’t gone around. That is a very different question than a student says, okay I want to but I haven’t started on it yet.

FA: Part of the conversation this morning had to do with sending out a consistent message and being able to give specific information so that departments aren’t telling people one thing and the Advising Center another. And maybe when people go to enroll they are telling them another thing. So we have a consistent message that helps as many people who are already in the pipeline already get there.

Admin: That’s very good advice, and we will definitely heed to it. I think that is why I expect this group we talked about, which is working on studying the guidelines for Teach Out that that will come through very quickly. And we should have that in place quickly. And we will definitely update you at the next Meet and Confer.

FA: I was wondering about students who want to major where you have to be a junior to apply, where you can’t apply until you are a junior. What about them? I mean, how does that fit into this? When John was talking about I would tell people to go ahead and apply to majors. Some majors you have to be a junior to apply so there might be students who wanted to be in a certain major but they are not juniors yet. What happens with them?

Admin: The responsibility for admitting a student to an academic program resides in the department. The department has to be contacted. The question of whether or not there will be a Teach Out is being discussed, and how to make that decision. So, as I said if I were advising a student: enter into the process because if you don’t knock on the door you’re not going to get in the door. And the entry point for consideration is application. Now, that means faculty are going to have to make the judgment if they have rules that went through the curriculum that say you meet this standard before you’re admitted they have processes and I voted as faculty member on whether or not we would waive those rules. But the admission to an academic program occurs at the department level. All the student can do is apply. There is no assurance. What do we do with a student who doesn’t meet a grade point average requirement. I mean we can look at all these individual problems but in terms of a consistent message to students is if they have a desire to complete a program they need to make application to be admitted so that we’ll know about them and a file could be created and a decision can be made on a case-by-case basis because they will be made on a case-by-case basis.

Admin: There is a category called intended major that’s going directly to your question. I don’t know how accurate or reflective information we have on that.  

Admin: It’s only as accurate as the student tells us.

Admin: Exactly.

Admin: They can either be undeclared, intended, or admitted. So it’s up to the student.

Admin: So essentially those are the kinds of documentations we will look at and we’ll work with the student and advise the student appropriately.

FA: I think we’re done on Strategic Program Appraisal.

2. Official Email to All Faculty (FA)

FA: As we all may remember awhile ago it became a formal kind of policy that email was an official means of communication to all faculty. And around that time and even before that there was the discussion of “Announce” and we talked about the appropriate mechanisms for informing faculty of particular things. We would like to request that a few things happen. It seems to me that when we made the decision that it was to be a formal means of communication there was a discussion here about considering who should have authorization to send to the FAC/STAFF/ALL email list. There seems to be quite a bit of confusion about who has authorization on that. And it seems like there aren’t that many people who have authorization for that. So what’s happening as a result is that things that should be official like I got a few weeks ago from our COFAH Administrative person a forward from “Announce” that was talking about promotion of summer school courses that went to “Announce” and it should have gone to FAC/STAFF/ALL. Earlier we’ve had Human Resources information go to “Announce” and we’re requesting that there be a decision about which personnel have access to the Faculty/Staff/All list with the idea that those be selected based the kinds of common things that are sent out that all faculty need to have. And after the Administration determined that list of who had access that be publicized so people would know who had access to that so that it’s easier to get out official communications that really apply to all faculty.

Admin: Excellent suggestion. As soon as I got that motion I started looking into it and I talked to Kristi Tornquist. And Kristi provided me this information on what the policy actually was and who currently are the responsible persons. Look at the back page. But you’re absolutely right that we may know it but we want to make sure that everybody in the organization is aware of this. So, I will work with the other VPs and I’ll also work through the Deans so this information permeates all through the campus and particularly is available to everybody at the departmental level.

Admin: “Announce” is not an official means of communication.

Admin: Right. So when official information has to go out they know how they can proceed. We will follow up on that.

FA: I don’t however see here a reference to FAC/STAFF/ALL or to any other specific list or who one asks.

FA: It’s just broadcast rights.

Admin: Yes.

FA: Okay. The kind of situation…

Admin: It is the broadcast email. It depends…

FA: Oh, broadcast rights. So broadcast rights means access to…

Admin: Yes. Yes. That’s the person responsible.

FA: Okay, so if one is in Academic Affairs and wants to send out something out to the whole campus they contact Greta?

Admin: Yes. Greta, and then we’ll coordinate and send it out. This is the kind of information that is not available to everyone. So, we’ll make sure that everybody at the unit level has this information readily available.

FA: We would also appreciate it if this then be shared among Administrative staff, Human Resources staff, because there are quite a number of communications, as especially things relating to personnel matters, but not just personnel matters, there are also policy related things and other things that have gone out to “Announce” and that means that things that really are of importance to all faculty or all employees are going only to those who are on “Announce” and many choose not to be on “Announce” because of all of the problems associated with the unfettered access to “Announce” that exists.

Admin: Okay.

Admin: I just want to point out one of the persons on this list, Donna Croat, has recently passed away.

Admin: Yes. We need to update that.

Admin: Sorry about that. I should have caught that.

Admin: Human Resources now has access to this information. Maybe eight or nine months before that, pretty much the only way we had was to send out hard copies or “Announce” so we got this six, eight months ago, so we are beginning to send those things out that should go to all faculty through that source. It’s something we’ve been advocating for for a long time.

FA: I just want to note that it is 5:00. I am…

Note taker: There’s another meeting in here at 5:00.

Admin: So, I guess we have reached the end of the time. Maybe next time we should start with the progress reports.

FA: That’s fine with me.

Admin: Let’s start with the progress reports.

FA: I’ll be running the meeting next time and I know how to drive them through.

Admin: Okay. Thank you.

Progress Reports on Long-term Concerns

1. Report on Budget (ADM) (10/18/07)—not discussed.

2. Status of Administrative Searches (ADM)—not discussed.

3. Students First Initiatives (FA)—not discussed.

a. IFO Statement on Students First

b. SCSU SGA Resolution on Students First

4. Report on Late Withdrawals (FA)—not discussed.

Adjourned at 5:00 p.m.

Submitted by Polly Chappell, SCSU FA Administrative Assistant 3/23/10