Approved
Faculty Association
Meet and Confer Notes
May 6, 2010
Administration: John Palmer, Mitchell Rubinstein, David DeGroote, Larry Chambers, Judith Siminoe, Earl Potter, Devinder Malhotra, Wanda Overland, Steve Ludwig, John Burgeson (Guest: Lisa Foss)
Faculty: Mark Jaede, JoAnn Gasparino, Balsy Kasi, Tom Hergert, Judy Kilborn, Susan Motin, David Warne, Frances Kayona, Michael Connaughton, Michael Tripp, Bill Hudson, Tracy Ore
Approval of Minutes
1. May 6, 2010
Admin: Good afternoon everyone. Let’s get started. I think it’s my turn to chair today. About the approval of minutes…
FA: I’ve blessed my side.
Admin: O.K. and we did ours so I think the minutes are approved.
Unfinished Business
1. Academic Year Calendar 2011-2012, 2012-2013 (ADM)
Admin: We had shared with you the academic calendar for 11-12 and 12-13 and we’re waiting for your input.
FA: Well we have two comments. One is we wish to reiterate our concerns about the way that the common start date, that has been imposed upon us by MnSCU has led to moving the spring term and the fall term as well to starting ever earlier and that has impacts on a number of things including also creating a staffing problems in some cases in summer school. In regard to summer school that’s not a decision that was fully made and as of these schedules and so that is still something being considered by the task force on summer school and we’re hoping that the task force on summer school sessions will consider the possibilities of rather than having two six weeks sessions consider doing a single session for 2012.
FA: Especially with the new academic calendar we’re asking that the library be taken into consideration and that perhaps as some people talk about one summer session in terms of the library, in terms of instructional staffing.
Admin: I think I understand the point.
FA: What we’ve been able to do with the intersession is be shorter staffed into the first few days of intersession. By making the start date of the summer session so much earlier as it is in the 2012 calendar that forces us to have a much higher staffing level and have the library open more hours at the beginning of the summer term.
FA: So it’s not just faculty we’re talking about but also staff and student workers.
Admin: I understand.
New Business
1. PDP/PDR/Promotion Tenure Schedule (ADM)
Admin: We shared with you the timeline and we’re just waiting for your input.
FA: We have reviewed it and we have no objections.
FA: Can we ask that it be posted as soon as possible because the sooner the better for EPT committees.
Admin: Sure.
FA: Thank you.
FA: Actually I would also ask for a double check on the web sites because once again I managed to find, sometimes I get steered to a year old schedule that says this is still subject to change and sometimes I make it to, I think the link off of the Provost’s page is right, but the link off of faculty resources is not right. Anyway, making sure that we have the website correct so one and only one schedule is accessible.
Admin: Mitch, would you check on that? Thank you.
2. Teacher Preparation Initiative (FA)
FA: I shared with you a copy of a motion that was passed by senate expressing some concerns that we have.
FA: What I have to say is rather difficult and sensitive so I prepared a script to keep me focused so if you can bear with me. The TPI Bush Grant Leadership Team has been very diligent in meeting with groups across campus to share the progress they have made this year in developing a plan and a process for moving the grant initiative forward and their efforts are to be commended. There are however some concerns of the nature of these meetings. They are largely one-way communication processes. The team comes in presents, asks for questions or clarifications then departs. Few ask questions as the team is very clear and articulate in their presentation. There is no attempt on part of the leadership team to seek input or advice, no attempt to engage in meaningful two-way dialogue or a frank exchange of ideas or alternative plans are processed. This has resulted in some faculty, those who feel they should be more involved, feeling they are in a periphery of grant activities, even to the extent that groups such as CETL perceive that their involvement is being secured via directive from this team as opposed to being invited to participate and engage in collaborative planning. In some way meaningful collaboration is absent this process. Now I will cut to the chase and this is what’s difficult because I don’t mean to offend folks- President and Provost you guys are rock stars this doesn’t apply to you guys- (laughter) I don’t want to get fired (laughter). I have more to say… Few of us have grasps of the nuances related to agreeable collaborative leadership processes. How to impart significant mutual communication collaborative processes, some of us just don’t get it. What’s “it”, “it”-developing trust, open relationships, overcoming emotional baggage, professional pride and a reluctance in sharing accolades in those you disagree with and reflecting on our own practice for professional growth and renewal. So what is it that we want, the desired outcome? Frequent and routine forums for meaningful collaboration where open and frank exchange of ideas can occur, flexibility in the process for proposing alternative plans, plans that integrate not only the Bush grant requirements but also addresses closing the achievement gap, meets race to the top in teacher preparation reform initiatives. Ultimately a four million dollar grant that expands a decade should permeate the adult psyche and shape the culture and inform the practice of not only the College of Ed but this campus and community partners.
Admin: Thank you. There is very little in what you said that I don’t agree with. Thank you. I think the very last thing you said perhaps in my mind is the most fundamental. That Teacher Preparation Initiative or the Bush Grant, which is referred to variously, could become awakened not only in the college of education but also across this University to shape the culture as you said and influence the practice. That indeed is the objective of the grant and I also agree with you that we need to be diligent and mindful that we have communication structures in place with are open and transparent, which give opportunities for people who want to get involved in this grant activity to get involved. Also that process itself should have an unintended beneficial consequence namely to improve practices within the College of Education as they relate to as what you refer to as mutual communication and developing practices. So I agree with all of that. However, here is where I see this and which sort of fits in with what you say, that arbitration either by the administration or a vehicle of communication through resolutions of faculty senate are very inadequate and inappropriate modes to develop the kinds of communication and vibrancy of discussion you are alluding to. It is an intra-faculty matter which is best resolved through intra-faculty discussions within the College. Now having said that if there are two things I have in mind, if some faculty have some concerns within the College of Education I would welcome to find out as to if they did try to engage either the dean or the coordinating committee in their attempts to get across to them what their views were or what their input is or what their thoughts are of what is being proposed to in these various forums which the grant leadership team has been holding which you alluded to. I’m open to the discussion if the forums are not serving appropriate purposes. But I think rather than that communication coming through faculty senate resolutions or through email blogs if it’s sort of folded into those conversations where the coordinating team is contacted or the dean is contacted or still better discussion occurs at department levels or groups of faculty and then groups of faculty make a representation either through the coordination team or to the dean. I’m willing to facilitate such a dialogue if I’m contacted with a faculty member and within the existing processes and procedures of the College of Education and need be. We can develop and make sure that the communication structure is improved. I’m willing to engage in that conversation but I would have those faculty members contact me and then I can sit down with them and with the other appropriate individuals either from the coordinating team and or the dean and then we can talk out as to which structures and which areas we need some tweaking where communication can improve and be more effective.
Admin: Let me just say a few words about the grant. I think I can boil it down so its purposes are clear. We’ve accepted four and a half million dollars from the Bush Foundation to help us in our work. The Bush Foundation as a requirement to receiving those monies requires that we do four things; that we address recruitment, preparation, placement and support of our respective students and graduates. We are required to do that in an environment that is evidence based so we can’t simply say we do a good job, our graduate placed passed the test. The expectation that the measure of our success, the evidence based, is a very difficult political question which involves school districts, unions, legislature of Minnesota, it’s a state-wide conversation so it’s a bigger conversation than we would have internally. It requires an approach to relating K-12 student success directly to the names of teachers who have taught them, that’s a big state-wide issue. With respect to recruitment and preparation in particular, those are internal things. Bush expects us to address those issues, it doesn’t tell us how to address them, how we address those two issues are faculty matters and will be decided upon by faculty conversation broadly across the University. Some things we know, already we have never recruited for the College of Education so establishing an approach to recruiting, we do nothing so that’s a from zero to something. Preparation of course we do and have done some great research around new approaches to preparation. That’s a faculty territory. The only thing different is we are going to be expected to evaluate our own success in preparation through looking at the success of teachers in the classroom and we’ve never done that before. So if the faculty were to say we don’t want to do this then we give back the four and a half million but I don’t believe the faculty would ever say that. Faculty would say how we did that an it’s legitimate, etc. So I’m not worried that we will spend the money running in circles and not making change because of the requirement that it be evidence based and because I believe the general model of recruitment, preparation, placement and support is a reasonable model Bush is enabling us to focus on recruitment and support which we never have done and tune up our preparation and placement in an evidence based context. So the degree which a commitment to accept Bush’s money moves faculty prerogative, I don’t think it does that and the work plan that we submitted to Bush attached to the MOU is a set of process steps that will occur on our campus to address the “what’s in those boxes” so step one is determine these things about our approach, it is not achieved a curriculum milestone by a bunch of idiots, how is it we think about the curriculum, what is it that we intend to do with curriculum, that’s the first step. So the work plan is very generic and the work that will be done this summer is to do foundation work that will allow the faculty to move forward with the faculty driven processes in the fall. I understand the concerns. We hear those concerns and have no intent of making decisions about curriculum, goals, placement strategies, recruitment strategies in a small group that is not fully informed by faculty deliberation.
FA: I have been asked by the Center for Teaching and Learning advisory committee to share a resolution about this matter. The resolution, whereas collaboration across disciplines and throughout the University the Center for Teaching and Learning approached a faculty development whereas collaboration should involve multidirectional communication including responsiveness to ideas of all involved; whereas CETL is committed to inclusive collaboration in all our activities; whereas the TPI leadership group requested that CETL co-sponsor a summer faculty development opportunity with them; whereas there is only a one-way communication from the TPI leadership team with no substance of collaboration; and whereas there are too many unknowns regarding TPI sponsored faculty development event the CETL advisory committee strongly recommends that CETL not co-sponsor activities with the TPI unless and until it will result in collaboration of their planning process. Our discussion about that was that the TPI director contacted the director of CETL and said “we’d like you to co-sponsor an event with us” and she said “yes, let’s talk about it”. The next thing she heard was a printed, colored postcard size thing that was the announcement of the thing as co-sponsored by CETL with no other information given to her. The content of that postcard in being disputed in terms of whether it’s a wise choice or not, what you know and said is absolutely spot-on about the way this needs to proceed. The problem is that it seems to many of us that the TPI leadership is functioning in a very top-down manner and only likely to understand directive delivered in a top-down manner in that they need to open up the process which is why we come to you and say please talk to them so that when you say it should happen it can happen. Without your input I don’t think it’s going to happen.
Admin: This particular action by the advisory committee, with all due respect is systematic of the problems I see. This is the first time I am hearing of this resolution and this is being brought to me in the context of Meet & Confer. CETL is a unit that directly reports to me. The advisory committee should directly advise me. And it chose never to engage me and then bring this to Meet & Confer and to me, that is not modeling the kind of behavior we were talking about earlier. So I would have hoped if that was their concern at the very earliest they would have engaged me in that conversation. I have said right from the beginning that when it comes to curricular matters or hiring processes or any other matters in which faculty driven processes are important and shared governance important, all those processes will be adhered to as we move forward. I wish I’d been engaged in that conversation.
FA: This is an absent in timing. Lalita actually got this card the end of last week, we met on Tuesday, we were discussing electronically until about 11:30 this morning whether this was to go forward.
FA: This was the first opportunity.
FA: We apologize.
Admin: I could have also gotten an email then, the advisory committee could have said that they want to meet with me, it’s an emergency and believe me I would have made time and I would have come and talked to them.
FA: When I say this was the first opportunity, in my opinion when I heard about it on Tuesday and we debated as a committee until 11:30 this morning, I see this as a first opportunity. So I apologize if that’s not your interpretation, that is mine and I don’t appreciate being told it’s not true.
Admin: Excuse me. Meet and Confer is a specific contractual requirement. It is not the place for collaborative discussion of developing issues, etc. This is, to place it in this context as a resolution is a very different thing from, at this meeting, before this meeting or after this meeting saying to the Provost “we have this concern we would like to talk to you”. Putting a first hearing, challenging the Provost with a resolution at this meeting, is not a helpful way to pursue these conversations.
FA: I guess I am confused then because I don’t see the resolution as a challenge to the Provost. I apologize if that’s how it’s being interpreted. I as a member of the committee, and as the conversations we had as a committee was not let’s challenge the Provost on this but was exasperation of how do we have a conversation how to change this relationship and so I understand the contractual obligations of Meet & Confer. I also understand the culture and the environment of Meet & Confer that we’ve established over the last couple of years which is where we do have conversations. So I see this not as a challenge to anyone’s authority but as there’s a significant problem, how do we move forward. The resolution doesn’t say no more collaboration, it says we’d like collaboration and so how do we make it happen?
FA: I interpret it also as a request to the Provost but I’m seeing a shift happening here in the way we work with Meet & Confer and I think maybe we need to have a conversation about this because this is a very typical thing for us to have brought to Meet & Confer in the past. If the administration would like us to do things differently I don’t see… you know we haven’t talked about this. I don’t have any objection to talking about that. I think that part of this response is to a long term frustration about what doesn’t happen in terms of collaboration in that College. It’s very much a unit directional kind of process that’s been precedent in that College for a long time. In fact a few years ago when I was FA president, the FA was asked to talk to work with the dean on just that issue and I think that we need help in moving what’s more of a kind of a one-way informational kind of mode of processing with multiple people to something that’s a little bit more interactive and open. I don’t just see that as just for this particular thing, I see this as more broad based. So this to me is a symptom of a long-term kind of way of functioning, not just one isolated instance.
Admin: I recognize that this is, even when I look at the faculty senate resolution, the resolution doesn’t question the existence of the summer workshop, it questions really some of the language in the agenda and the intent of the agenda. That to me is really a need for clarification which can occur or should occur at the College level. Faculty senate resolutions are very awkward ways of developing more clarification. I hear because essentially that the CETL advisory committee has some concerns about the way the communication occurs. All I’m trying to say is that those are some of the discussions which could initially have occurred between me and the advisory committee and then that would help me; a. better understand the concerns of the advisory committee and secondly it could help me provide an opportunity to help them understand as to what are some of the existing processes and then see we could all talk about the effectiveness of existing processes and if they are generating the kind of communication which needs to happen.
FA: The difficulty is we are at the end of the semester, the end of the year and we learned about this late. The director learned about this late. We know the TPI question was already on the agenda based on the senate resolution and based on what was read to you. This was simply CETL’s way of saying when something is delivered to us as complete, printed on expensive cards, passed out wholesale saying this thing is happening and it’s the first thing we hear about it when we were supposed to be part of the planning for it and it’s at the very end of the year, the last week that faculty are even here, the things they’re asking for are not even possible, we wish they were, those all would have been much better ways to deal with this. On this timeframe, this thing is scheduled for June and CETL needs to be able to pull out of it if that’s the appropriate thing. This is our first opportunity and our only real opportunity.
FA: As President Potter mentioned a couple of Meet & Confers ago we need to develop a process for communication. I think we keep coming up against this wall so I think it would behoove us at some point maybe at a Meet & Confer have the President and Provost and sit down and do a process how do you want us to communicate these things so we have a process so we know how to do this in the future and go back and forth and the other. We have to respectfully on the faculty side too we also have some times when our fellow faculty feel we are not always being, as Meet & Confer people, as open and honest as we should be even though my colleagues and myself we try very, very hard to make sure our faculty, that’s why things get taken to the senate and resolutions get made too. So now on our side we report to our membership too and we have to be open and honest and transparent with them. But I think it would really be… so this isn’t helping the situation but you mentioned President Potter the last few times ago and I think it’s a must, we have to sit down and have the process spelled out how we deal with these things in the future in terms of communication.
Admin: At the risk of being argumentative we’re talking about a summer workshop. That workshop itself is part and partial of a communication process. When you go to a workshop, the workshop doesn’t preclude you from challenging the agenda, from challenging the inherent rationale of the agenda, that is part and partial of it. To me what is happening here is there is a mode of communication, there is a communication structure but we’ve already made up our minds as to what is the intent. I don’t want to go to the extent of saying that we’re trying to ascribe motives but at least we’re speculating about the intent. What I’m saying is that why not go to the workshop and have that free and frank discussion on the agenda itself, on each and everybody.
FA: To answer that question, as a participant that’s what I would anticipate doing at a workshop, absolutely. If my name was on it as a sponsor I would like to have knowledge and information about the workshop structure, the workshop agenda, speakers etc so that when I do get challenged as a sponsor, why was it like this way then I would be able to give that information. The was the first piece I wanted to say and then the second piece I wanted to say was and there are three of us that are on the CETL advisory board that are here, since we just learned about it, again I saw this as an opportunity to bring it to you and anticipated every response let’s talk about it and let’s do something right now rather than why did you bring it now, we brought it now because of as was said the last duty day is next week. CETL advisory board is still going to be around because we’re interviewing candidates for the CETL director so we’re here so can we move from why did we bring it now to o.k. let’s figure out when we can talk a out this. I see that as a possibility.
Admin: Taking me back through the timeline, when did Lalita or anybody first know that the Center was listed as a sponsor?
FA: When she received the card sometime last week.
Admin: Last week. That’s your problem to start with because that immediately should have gone to her supervisor. It is obviously incorrect to ask somebody to sponsor to say let’s talk about it and then run through to a card. That’s obviously inappropriate. I get ripped when somebody puts the President’s Office on as a sponsor and I don’t know what they’re going to do. The first mistake is Lalita should have showed it to the Provost. That’s your issue. When one person on the advisory committee became aware it should have gone to the Provost. It doesn’t need a great deal of discussion, it’s the wrong thing to do, it should be corrected. Whether CETL should withdraw from sponsoring the workshop now has to be the matter of subsequent conversations between the advisory committee, Lalita and the TPI folks. It’s a faculty matter. Of course they should talk about it. Should the President and the Provost come hold a meeting and force people to…? I don’t think so. I think it’s just a matter of you put our name on this without our permission, we want to talk about this, that’s what should happen. My concern is that we have been pretty careful about putting stuff on the agenda; this is not the same issue as the faculty senate stuff. I understand it refers to the same issue but the motion from CETL to be considered at Meet & Confer is not the same thing as to consider the faculty motion so the context in which the agenda was set did not include this information, I understand that you just decided to do this and this is the first occasion you were presented. It’s presented in the context of some contractual implications because there are some due process issues raised in the faculty senate motion. This to my mind is not a due process issue, this is not are we abiding by the contract, this is TPI folks did something stupid and included CETL as sponsor without ever talking to CETL about it. That’s not a contract issue, that’s a screw up on part of one faculty group misrepresenting the intent of another faculty group. So it’s the context, which is why I say it’s inappropriate, if it had been discussed as a matter of the agenda because these are truly different things, one thing is the administration has the responsibility for consultation, we don’t think this is consultative. The other thing is a different matter, although it refers to the same core topic.
Admin: I would like to respond to the faculty comments, having worked as President of the FA to try to have clear sets of expectations of what would occur at Meet & Confer, it does help to have a clear understandings of what occurs. I can’t speak for any administration of FA accept the one when I was present and we tried very hard, both sides then, to make sure the matters that came to Meet & Confer had previously been discussed so that we could in fact use Meet & Confer as a way, it’s spelled out in the contract, for the purpose of discussing matters of mutual concern, that’s right out the contract, matters of mutual concern are to be discussed. Also right out of the contract it talks about five duty days in advance of the scheduled meeting items would be on the agenda, that’s right out of the contract. I know there was a meeting, had been traditionally meetings on Monday that set the agenda for the Thursday meeting. Now my good friend and colleague to my right said do we really want to end Meet & Confer for this academic year with a kind of tone that I hope is being changed. These were sensitive matters and I think that we need to listen to what Susan’s counsel is to preference the President, perhaps some formality which we have not followed as asiguasly as in the past might help so that people are not surprised when items come up. I do know that at least in some people’s minds the Provost was going to receive this document sometime today. In fact I talked to the Provost this morning; I said have you received this information. He didn’t so there were intentions to try to avoid the kind of thing that happened, the road to perdition is paved with good intentions. So I hope that what we can do is recognize that there is a mutual interest in what’s been talked about and that mutual interest transcends the specifics of the triggering episode. That we can start to take that and move forward in a way that I think both sides agree is a better way to conduct our business in collaborative, open and transparent way.
FA: Although I understand that perhaps this item is coming from CETL as in contractually bound I think it does spill out of people concern that in things affecting their work life they are consulted in an open ongoing way and I do think that one thing that would be helpful is if we could come up with processes that would encourage the openness of multi-directional communication so that people whose work and professional identities are affected by this work on the Bush Grant have every opportunity to provide input and be consulted in a technical sense not just informally. I would think we still do it as we should and that is what I would like to have happen. I think that’s possibly one reason why this frustration bubbles up so harshly is because it’s been something we haven’t felt as if we haven’t made much progress on even though both sides have been trying to work in that direction.
Admin: I said that very early on in the context of faculty senate resolution that I’m willing to work on that facilitation.
FA: I think there’s always the possibility for not getting to you until 1:30 this afternoon which was my earliest opportunity to get it to you today. I should have done that. I recognize that it should have been done.
Admin: I don’t want to dwell on the timing of it. I think there are two issues here; there’s a process issue and then there is the content issue. I don’t want the content to be undermined by the process also because that also doesn’t lend to good communication. I don’t view this as setting a different tone for the rest of the year for Meet & Confer. We should have the degree of comfort to have this kind of a conversation where we feel comfortable enough to say that I’m surprised. That’s not a matter of tone, that’s a matter of degree of comfort and that doesn’t mean that whether I was happy or not when I got the information that what the faculty is ultimately going to say won’t matter to me. There is just in terms of… I’ve often said that I actually firmly believe in shared governance. I think shared governance is a very good structure to do the University work. I don’t know any other way in which University work ought to be done. But I also think that the communication structures which are in place have to be utilized. We can’t summarily say they haven’t worked in the past and therefore I will not utilize that I will utilize something else, that is all I am trying to say. Let’s focus on what the issues are and let’s chip away at those issues. We will not agree 100% of the time. But if we are batting 800 we will be hall of fame. (laughter)
FA: The reason that we and the CETL advisory committee thought it was relevant and belonged in this part of the conversation is because had this planning taken place in a more collaborative atmosphere the reasons for the faculty senate resolution may not have happened because the problem with what came out of TPI seemed to be off balance to some people. Had CETL been involved in the planning of this workshop causes the problem the balance might have fallen, that’s why we thought it was to remain. That’s all I want to say.
Admin: In the interest of full disclosure let me tell you I knew there was some tension between the coordinating group and CETL because I was copied on an email from CETL to the coordinating committee which alluded to some faculty resolution. I didn’t know what that was. As soon as I saw that I sent an email to Mark, I said Mark can you share with me, so I think with regard to the CETL advisory committee there was a strong sense that I need to be engaged. I wish I was part of the same meeting in which you are talking about but that’s neither here nor there. I don’t want to lose the content of what you’re saying to me because of the process itself.
FA: I want to note for the record so there isn’t a misapprehension here although the CETL board drafted the resolution that you heard read, it was read to the executive committee on Tuesday and approved by the executive committee. So the decision to present that here under this item is one for which we are all responsible for good or ill, it is not only the CETL board. Frankly I did not anticipate that it would receive the reaction it just has. On a second thought I at least partly agree that it would have been better for this to be communicated more fully and earlier and that is consistent with the spirit of not surprising one another at Meet & Confer which is something that we’d spoken about in the past. Certainly the timing of this particular case is unusual because being at the end of the term, because of being about something that’s going to happen in June coming up shortly because also the internal deliberations of the CETL advisory board were somewhat complicated and took a while to become fully clear. So there’s an element here that I might have recommended differently had I considered more fully all the things. At the same time I think there is something that is very much about our Meet & Confer relationship and has been about a contractual issue that we’ve discussed in the past that we need to recognize as being connected with this. When the steering committee was formed, we had a conversation about whether this should be a faculty committee or if this was a committee that was appointed by the administration and the administration concluded that this was appropriately something to be appointed by the administration. This kind of issue relates to that kind of question of to whom then are the faculty who serve on this board responsible and what is their relationship to the faculty as a whole. So President Potter I respectfully disagree with you when you describe this as a disagreement between two faculty bodies because one body is a body made up of faculty but not chosen by faculty and who are not therefore accountable to faculty and over whom we as an executive committee, we as a faculty association have no real control. They don’t report to us, they do not represent us and hence it being seen as an administration/faculty issue. Now I am not expecting that decision to be remade differently, but this is connected with our fundamental relationship and with the kind of ways then that faculty who find themselves in the position of being administrative appointees to carry out certain tasks, the University-wide implications are going to relate with the rest of the faculty. That does become something that needs to be directed by the administrators who are appointing them. I wish a lot of us would have done a lot of this better and I’m certainly interested in having conversations in less formal settings about how we can do this kind of thing better in the future. But it is part of a complicated issue about which the faculty feel very strongly and do see this related to our contractual interests.
Admin: I think that’s a thoughtful framework for the issues that underlie the conversation and I respect your way of seeing that. We never had a model quite like this one where in fact the President is the PI. I am on the hook for a four and a half million commitment to the Bush Foundation. In that sense this is not the result of committee work of the faculty. I think we will probably still differ on the nature of the appointment of people to work on, you’re correct, on behalf of the administration to set up processes the University would use to do this work. The Provost determined that we would not set up independent groups to populate a parallel working structure but it would work through the consultative bodies that exist to do what is appropriately faculty work related to this grant. We do have other multi-million dollar grants. Robert Johnson is the PI for the Access Accessibility grant and has authority and responsibility for delivering to the commitments made under that grant. We signed agreements that Robert is charged for. We didn’t have an election to see who was going to do that, Robert is the PI. This is really peculiar and I think angry and difficult conversations which the chancellor and the board and Peter Hutchinson, Bush Foundation leader, these were major state-wide issues with presentations to the legislature and I’m on the hook for all of that. We might come to a point where we could look at the whole process and say we understand that this is different we think faculty rights are being respected and we believe that this will be done correctly. If we sort of sat down to review where we are now and where we go forward, how to go forward. That is a conversation that I think doesn’t take place at this table, the agreement to have that conversation can happen at this table and they’re parties on both sides not in this room who’ve already made their mind up about how this should be done and some of them don’t acknowledge the fact that this is an agreement the President has made with Bush Foundation to accept four and a half million dollars and to make certain promises. I actually am much closer to your understanding than you might have thought. The only thing we disagree on I think is should we have approached the initial framing of the work to be done under this grant and the way that we did it and I think that’s a legitimate question to ask. What I take from the CETL’s resolution is simple, TPI folks made a mistake, it should be corrected to a degree where it reflects a way, a habit in a way of working that’s a matter for the Provost and dean to consider in their performance of what they’ve been asked to do. TPI group does not have decision making authority on any core faculty issues relating to the grant, those are faculty matters for faculty to assign. I agree trust has not yet been developed, positions have been taken and we are both certainly open to focused conversation with the executive committee outside of the Meet & Confer context to get this right.
FA: What do you think would be a good way to proceed to make that conversation happen in a way that would lead us to a positive result?
Admin: I don’t know the answer to that, as alternatives one could sort of invite interested parties to the table just to talk. One would be you could have a conversation between the executive committee, the dean, the Provost, myself and the TPI group about where we’re headed. I’m open to suggestions.
Admin: As I said earlier I want to know how the conversation was initially approached by the concerned faculty and why it did not work at the College level. It is a broader issue as alluded to in this discussion. Things sort of spill over at the institutional level which ought to be discussed and resolved at the College and department level and so if we get into this habit of consisting only reacting at the institutional level to inherit processes which are not working at the College and department level, first I have to understand how representative this sense is, how many people were involved in this discussion, what kind of processes within the Colleges were utilized and I think so it’s a matter of also developing a better understanding of the concerns themselves before we can come up with some appropriate responses. That’s precisely what I meant, I’m willing to facilitate in that conversation if faculty directly approach me. In fact I knew about the faculty senate resolution, I’ve had one conversation with the dean already and I told him we’ll have a follow-up conversation he and I after the conversation here. Because I want to listen to what you all have to say, where you’re coming from, give you my feedback and I still want to engage in that.
FA: I would like to suggest that maybe this is not the best moment to decide on what’s the next step then in terms of a conversation but that there ought to be a conversation soon and perhaps Tom and I have an appointment with the President next week or sometime in the coming week. It might be appropriate for the out-going and in-coming FA President’s and the Provost and the President to talk about this and talk about how to construct the next step in a conversation. Despite the complications of having the President as the principle investigator of an enormous grant I do want to say we do want this to succeed. We really don’t want, nobody wants for this to be sabotaged. It’s very much in our interest as well for this to succeed and it could be something tremendously helpful for the College of Education and maybe we shouldn’t be surprised that it’s not just the College of Education but the College of Education has its own particular history that just saying go collaborate, you know that may not be a sufficient strategy for causing a new collaborative, open conversation.
Admin: How about locking the building and throwing the key away (laughter). And not coming back unless the smoke comes out. (laughter)
FA: I agree with you, we have two conversations going, one about the grant and one about the conversation. As I point out because I think if you’re a faculty member especially if you haven’t been here for a number of years Meet & Confer is this mysterious thing for people on campus. Most people don’t even know where we meet and so I’ve always told people that as faculty they are always welcome to contact Devinder and President Potter directly (laughter) and generously give out that you are… so I think maybe as faculty we will continue to educate that they can come to you and give you all this information.
Admin: Informal modes are important and formal ways of talking to each other are important. It’s as simple as that. Again I’m not trying to be argumentative but let’s say faculty member x, y and z come to you and say a, b, c have not acted in an appropriate manner, is there a process by which you contact faculty members a, b and c and ask them ahead to get their sense of view, their perspective. I think because what happens is that as you talk you will have a little more informed perspective because what happens is I do hear from those, I have that advantage because I hear from you and then as soon as the other party comes to know who is being challenged their not far behind in sending an equally agitated email and equally as long.
Admin: I think your suggestion is a good one.
FA: And we could pursue some, I think your question is a valuable question that deserves an answer that might take longer than we want to spend on it right now today.
Admin: O.K.
3. Bargaining Unit for Counseling Position (FA)
FA: We sent you a resolution in regard to this, this relates to the proposal to leave vacant an IFO counselor position and to hire a MAPE psychologist. We believe this is not an appropriate action and we are giving you notice of the action, the resolution of the senate. I have spoken about this with President Potter and have been in contact with the legal counsel at the IFO and at this point we are presenting the statement that the senate passed. Of course if you should chose to simply to do what we ask that would solve it from our perspective (laughter) if you chose not to do what we ask the next step probably involves consultation with folks from the IFO because this is something that involved, if it rises to the level of a being a formal dispute over an assignment of a person to a bargaining unit than that’s something that goes to the Bureau of Mediation Services if I recall.
Admin: Let me speak to the issue. This is the kind of disagreement about contract and roles in the University about which I do not get angry, I do not have an emotional investment in this so I disagree and it’s not an issue of control. These are state-wide issues, I understand the IFO’s state-wide position on these questions. Management takes a different position on these questions and we expect this will go through a state-wide process that involves arbitration or legal action is what I expect is going to happen. The University will proceed as we have said we intended to proceed so without any grandeur I am expected to be challenged and that’s the way it’s going to be.
FA: O.K. I will be back in touch with the.. It’s not clear to me whether a meeting on the campus level is a requirement or merely a recommendation of this procedure so I will be back in touch with you as regards that.
Admin: Yes, of course. As I said when we met privately, I’m perfectly happy to talk but there is an established position and that’s the position I’m bringing. The administrations’ position is that the counselor role is an appropriate role for MAPE psychologies, a senior appointment. The reasons are availability of counseling services on a twelve month basis and a person performing those services who is not also tasked with satisfying the requirements of a faculty appointment which in essence means that they are only part time counselors because they have faculty duties that are different and require investment of effort and that position has been taken by Moorhead and they hired a person at Moorhead. Other institutions have indicated their intent to take the same action. I expect this is contrary to the wishes of the state-wide union, the IFO. I understand this and this is not just an arbitrary, we can do it anyway we want decision, there are clear business objectives, mission related objectives that cannot be accomplished through faculty employment which is the reason for making this choice. That’s the position I am taking, that is the position I will take if we meet with the IFO lawyers. That’s the position the system will defend as we go through arbitration if it goes to that.
FA: Is the attempt to hire a psychologist two or psychologist three?
Admin: I don’t know the answer to that question. Have you determined that yet?
Admin: No.
FA: Let we mentioned here that as regards to twelve month coverage, albeit deeply flawed provisions in the IFO MnSCU contract for nine month appointments on other than the standard academic year actually making it work might require some sort of MOA, that would be a conversation that I believe we would be willing to have on this campus if the objective must include the hiring of a person who does not have any faculty responsibilities, that’s not something we could work around with a MOA.
Admin: I understand that and I agree the tools we have now are uniquely flawed. The further difference is nine months versus twelve months and that requirement for twelve month coverage is not available through faculty appointment. I know there are additional days and the cost is not acceptable.
Admin: Just so we make sure we understand the provisions in the agreement that govern in this matter, it’s Article 3 recognition that defines in Section C Unit Disputes, which I believe this is and it says the parties will attempt to resolve disputes over bargaining unit inclusion or exclusion of a new or revised positions. In the event the parties fail to reach agreement within thirty days as to the inclusion or exclusion of such positions either party may refer the matter to the bureau of mediation services for determination. So it would not be something that’s through the grievance process. Unless someone chose not to follow this provision of the agreement. So if there is an agreement one or both parties could take the matter to the Bureau of Mediation Services. I believe the Bureau of Mediation services determination is final.
Admin: And I’ve consulted with general counsel and the vice chancellor for Human Resources and the position I’m taking is in accordance with their advice. We’re fully aware of the path it takes.
FA: Well it is likewise it is not a matter for a grievance but that disputes are to be resolved in the manner of the agreement as just read. I expect it will be proceeding to the state level with appropriate speed.
FA: Is a nine month position still a part of this?
FA: Of the agreement? It’s in there, but it’s in there with language that is confused and in some cases internally contradictory and never reconciles what a nine-month, other than a nine-month academic year appointment how that would sink with things like the article 22 and 25 calendars and insurance and governance, there’s just all kinds of questions that are not resolved. So it would be challenging to use the existing document even if all parties really wanted to use the existing document to appoint someone for something other than an academic year appointment. It would probably I think take an MOA in order to resolve some of those paradoxes. I’m not suggesting that … it’s fraught with a bunch of issues that would make it challenging to undertake. So I can’t promise that’s something that could be sorted out. I was merely putting on the record that if depending on what the concerns were we would be open to working with you towards trying to find a solution to have an IFO person do what you think needs to be done. If your position is that an IFO person can’t do it… did I see a request for a caucus?
FA: Yes
(CAUCUS)
FA: In the words of Forest Gump “That’s all I have to say about that”. (laughter)
4. Foreign Language Requirements (FA)
FA: You have received a petition and I believe you have also received confirmation that the senate approved that petition so it represents a faculty request. I note that President Potter publicly responded and that response was certainly appreciated by the Foreign Language department who proposed the resolution and I thought a thoughtful and serious response about the issue. We received some additional requests from Foreign Languages about some additional information that they were interested in asking about and I will ask a portion of that and we may be back in touch on some other things that we just got. One question that we’ve got, and this is something that we’re actually trying to get an answer from Foreign Languages best estimate but we’re also interested in an administrative estimate of how many people would we be talking about. We don’t the answer to that with certainty at the moment and I was wondering whether you had done any inquiry into the admissions data?
Admin: Lisa’s done some work and the number you gave me was 300 and which entering class?
Guest: This years.
Admin: This year’s entering class the number was 370 roughly.
FA: Did not have two years of high school..
Guest: Did not meet the requirements.
Admin: And I would not… such a change would involve more than one department ought to be the subject of a faculty conversation, ought to consider the consequences but a more difficult issue is a number of the students who enter have one year of language and the question is with the one year they took wherever they took it, whenever they took it can they be successful in a second year here. So counting up all the student need is not simply a matter of counting heads there needs to be some study.
FA: When you say a year are you talking about a year that they would be transferring in from another university?
Admin: Well that’s another question. If they’ve taken a year of high school..
FA: I’m curious what happened to the student who has taken one year in high school and that is in a language that is not offered here? Would they then have to take two years here?
Admin: That’s another question. That’s why I say this is a faculty matter to explore.
Guest: And another complicating factor is we looked into new entering freshmen and we have a number of students who transfer in with a small set of credits from somewhere else and we did not do any analysis on those students who if they hadn’t completed the two years in high school but now transfer into us and what those requirements would be.
Admin: The questions I’m raising are not arguments that we shouldn’t do this. They are questions I think we have to answer in figuring out what does this mean.
FA: When you looked at it they had to be the same language because that goes along with that if they have French and Spanish or whatever?
Guest: We didn’t do French it was just the two year requirement.
FA: O.K. that’s good to know.
FA: First I wanted to say in terms of advising, having worked at summer advising and registration the general advice about language is that we give to students that one year of high school is approximately equal to one term of college level work. I don’t believe that bringing people into compliance would involve making them take two years of college work but the question would be if somebody’s done one year of Spanish are they ready for Spanish 102 as opposed are they ready for Spanish 201 and 202. In any case it’s still a relevant question even if the numbers are different. There’s another question that was brought forward and I want to try to find a way to frame this in a way that is serious and collegial rather than confrontative. This is something that we understand to be a MnSCU requirement but it’s one we have not in practice enforced. I genuinely don’t know how is it that we make a distinction between a MnSCU requirement that we have to enforce and a MnSCU requirement that we don’t have to enforce and while one could carry this off into confontative directions that I don’t want to take, I’m actually serious about resolving this. What is our relationship with MnSCU on that?
Admin: What is the nature of the policy, can you speak to that?
Admin: I would have to bum up on that but I think there’s high school graduation requirements and these go back to the 1990’s and I think that all state university systems, then MnSCU calibrated it’s admissions requirements to high school graduation requirements, they are essentially one in the same. There was a high school graduation requirement from the State Department of Education that students have two years of a foreign language in order to receive a high school diploma. Well that one is, shall we say, is intermittently implemented so we have high school students who are allowed to graduate without two years of a foreign language.
Admin: State University admission requirements subpart A, First year students is what we’re talking about..to be considered for admission the university of a first year student shall have completed courses that determine the college arbitory in the following pattern or which provide mastery of equivalent competencies in grades nine through 12, 1. Required academic core consisting of four years of English, three of mathematics, three years of the science, three years of social studies, two years of a single world language including non-English, native language and American Sign Language, one year of Arts and then it talks about academic performance and talks about transfer students and out of state students and part B is exemptions.
FA: And it’s in the exemptions that it says if before reaching sophomore status they have to…
Admin: First year students who are admitted with deficiency shall be required to make up those deficiencies prior to classification as a sophomore, number 2. Other students with deficiencies shall be required to make up their deficiencies within the first year of enrollment, standard practicing equates to two years of high school world language instruction with one year of college level world language instruction, number 3. University shall document the reasons for granting the exemptions and maintain adequate records to determine that academic success of students admitted under these exceptions.
Admin: That’s the critical piece the last one because I think it goes to the rationale seems to be about college readiness and the sense is that if students don’t have that kind of a background how well will they succeed.
Admin: As to the how could the University for its recent history, have ignored that board policy. We’re not the only one in the system that does this, I had no idea. It has obviously been practiced here for quite some time not to require students have adequate…
Admin: The other thing if we’re required to bring students up to this level by sophomore status what happens to the students who are transferring between colleges after two years they might have this preparation so it’s really a systemic issue not just through universities.
Admin: So practically speaking my feelings about this are that to enforce the policy as written we would have to make changes and I don’t believe a change to our expectations of our curriculum and teaching resources should be something I just wave a wand over. If I add faculty lines to language I’m taking them away from another department.
Admin: It would seem that if we were to apply it at such a standard we would apply the standard of all the requirements not just the one. That would include mathematics and science it would include the arts so there would have to be an assessment for all entering freshmen’s to find where the deficiencies were and bring them up to standard for all the requirements. Although I suppose we could selectively chose which of the standards we wished to enforce. It would seem to be if it were going to come into compliance with the board policy and not have some alternative way of responding to it, that we would have to have a comprehensive plan.
Admin: I have no trouble in cooperation with faculty association in commissioning a task force to look into the issue but it has to be a comprehensive review and it has to address issues of staffing and curriculum, we would have to make sure we fully understand the implications has to address the transfer from two year schools, the Minnesota Transfer Curriculum and what we’d be doing. There’s just no way am I going to sit in my office and wave a wand over this and say do it.
FA: Actually I don’t think we want you to do that either. Because you are right that this is a complicated thing that has a variety of curricular impacts and a variety of effects that are of importance to faculty and we would not want merely a decree to be dealt with that but the formation of some sort of a task force would be appropriate and I’d like to suggest one way to do that would be for us to confer about designing what the charge for such a group would look like and bring it back to Meet & Confer for agreement.
Admin: That’s fine. To put it in context you know that next year we’re doing difficult planning for fiscal year 12. This conversation would not have any impact on questions about eliminating programs, it would have implication of the pattern of allocation of faculty resources. So it’s not driven by the hard time lines we’ve got around any program elimination for fiscal year 12 but it is settling final budget and the allocation of resources it would have an implication for that so it’s work that should be done in the fall and completed in the fall.
Admin: Just to add a little fuel to this, if we were to require additional course work, additional credits, foreign language credits of students we might also bump into the 120 credit cap.
Admin: I am aware of that. That was in my mind as well. That would be one of the issues we would have to look at, so a program by program assessment how would programs accommodate.
FA: For the notes can we also add what was addressed earlier that if the student would come in and that language they had taken in high school, because I am kind of hearing a task for a committee and the more we have in the notes it might help in forming this task.
Admin: Sure, of course.
FA: I would also say another piece that was mentioned would be what happens if a student has one year of a language and then that language is not offered at St. Cloud State, how would that task force address that.
FA: I am not sure I understand what your point is in terms of the 120 credits, I thought that 120 credits referred to the number of credits we require of a student if it starts at zero to get a bachelors degree and is not a practice of students in what they chose to take over time or change majors or any of those kinds of things and seemed to me making up deficiency is what would fall into that category of “out of our control”. Had they not had the deficiency at the beginning they would not need that 120.
Admin: That’s a good question. The reality is that students will be coming in and we will be demanding them or requiring them to take additional credits and then they’re going to be complaining to somebody that they can’t complete a degree in four years.
FA: But it’s not for our degree and I thought that 120 was based on what we required for graduation and a degree from our institution and I’m just speaking off the top of my head.
Admin: That’s a question that should be on the table as we think through this.
Admin: The language does not prevent the student from graduating, it only prevents them from being given a sophomore status. (laughter).
Admin: John you’ve been reading too much from the contract. (laughter).
Progress Reports on Long-term Concerns
1. Report on Late Withdrawals (FA)
FA: We’ve had that report for a little while now.
FA: There seems to be in the number in 2007 to 2009 it jumps from like fifteen to 285, those kinds of big jumps, big leaps in numbers and if you could just reiterate why those jumps in numbers…
Admin: I think there may be a couple of reasons why; we had some organizational changes in that time period, the appeals process moved from the Office of Academic Affairs to the Office of Undergraduate Studies and people were brought in, responsibilities were shifted from people who left service to those who came in so there are differences in practice and I think more flexibility now in how we are able to serve students, more sensitivity to student’s needs and situations perhaps was in the past. That may not explain everything but I think that was in fact part of the mix.
FA: Another question that I’ve got, do you have the report in front of you?
Admin: No.
FA: Well… let’s test your memory then (laughter). The number of cases where there was consultation with the instructor has risen and that seems like a good thing. The number of cases where you asked for a last date of attendance and opinion increased very dramatically from 16 in fall 2007, 50 in spring 2008 and then up in the next two semesters to 185 and 235. Now I think that’s a good thing, it’s a very dramatic change though and I’m wondering exactly what happened in order to implement that?
Admin: By looking at the earlier numbers we became sensitive to them and made a conscience effort to increase them.
Admin: To contact the instructor.
Admin: Contacting the instructors to make sure we got not only the last date of attendance but their opinion.
Guest: When did the requirement of last date of attendance for Financial Aid be implemented?
Admin: That’s a little bit prior to that. But that did place our focus on last date of attendance more intensely that was in six I believe.
FA: On the other hand when we look back at earlier, these were for people in the last two semesters, when we look back at cases where there were people asking for withdrawals from previous terms so this would be like a year or more previously the numbers were smaller but here in about two-thirds of the cases even in the most recent year 21 were asked for LDA only and 11 asked for LDA and an opinion. But in both of these cases, in both the more recent requests and the older requests the single most common claim reason for asking for a late withdrawal is medical and then there is a hodge-podge of others never attended is a minimal number. Why would you ever ask for last date of attendance only unless it was to confirm that the person never attended the class or attended the class the first couple of times? Why wouldn’t you ask for LDA and opinion in all cases?
Admin: Are those just for the late withdrawals or does that include…
FA: That’s just late withdrawals.
Admin: O.K., I guess I don’t quite understand the question.
FA: There are still a number of cases where you have requested last date of attendance only. Which means you do have to contact, your contacting the professor, that’s what these reports indicate that you contacted an instructor and in some cases you asked for LDA and opinion and that number is increasing and I am happy to see that, but there are still for example in spring 2009 115 cases out of 350 where you asked for LDA only and not an opinion. But when you look at the reasons for approval only one was for never attending, these are of the ones that were approved. So I didn’t attend the class or I barely attended, we don’t have an “I barely attended the class” category here (laughter) it’s not one of the answers that seems, that doesn’t explain why people are doing these late drops, it’s almost none of them.” So wouldn’t it be appropriate to be asking all of the professors or nearly all of the professors for their opinion about whether or not, now I’m not saying you need a professors agreement to grant a late withdrawal for medical reasons, but when a person late in presents a medical story, it never the less is relevant but the professor might be able to tell you that “O.K. I don’t know anything about that students medical condition, but I do know that the student was in class and was turning in the work and I was talking to the student about the quality of their work and then all of a sudden it seems they have a medical problem and I’m going to tell you that that’s, you know…”
Admin: What this particular set of data obscures is when we’re dealing with withdrawals more than a year, more than two years earlier than the request came in, we could be dealing with terms up to ten years ago and we often do not know, nor do we expect faculty members to either be here anymore or to have records that would go into that much detail that far back.
FA: But that would explain those cases where you were not able to consult with the instructor but the numbers I am asking you about are specifically from spring 2009 of those who were seeking a late withdrawal from the last two semesters, not from older, and where you did contact the instructor.
FA: Could it be the case that in large classes, thinking when I have 300 students and I’m contacted by this office about a student late withdrawal, I can give you information about their attendance but I can’t really tell you anything else about that student.
FA: The statistics aren’t about what the professor answered, the statistics are about what you asked, instructors asked for..
FA: I am wondering that’s why I am asking would the class size determine that.
Admin: Procedurally we make a point of asking the instructors opinion when the term of attendance within the past two years and that went into affect about a year or so ago so it would be 2009. We realized we hadn’t been asking that up until that point. So we’re making a more conscience effort to do that. Whether it’s a semester beyond that we’re less inclined to do that because we know that some instructors are no longer here, sometimes we have to go to a department chair to see if we can get that information because at some point we do have to include last date of attendance on the form for our reporting issues and sometimes by we the way we have to be arbitrary about that because we can’t get a hold of an instructor. So I guess I don’t have a clear answer to that, we’d almost have to go back on a case-by-case basis and try to examine that particular question. But it is something that does emerge from the dates.
Admin: In the interest of time could I suggest that if you have some more questions, on one of our Monday meetings we can have Mitch in there and we can talk a little more detail about this or if anyone else has any questions.
FA: Do any of my colleagues have an objection?
FA: No.
Admin: I would like to point out by agreement we are obligated to provide another report beginning fall semester but that would be on recent withdrawals, the same term. It’s not what we did here, this is in response to a special request but that again is something that we could have a thorough discussion about, about the nature of the reports.
2. Strategic Program Appraisal (FA)
Guest: The reports have been turned in for the Program Appraisal. The first deadline was Friday and then they have until tomorrow to submit revisions based on feed-back from the dean. They are being posted as we receive them in our office to the SharePoint site so the campus can review the program appraisal reports. It’s the same site that was used from the first round, there’s a link from the faculty-staff web page straight to that SharePoint site. The next step is the deans’ review and report and that will be completed June 1st or 15th.
Admin: The date is there in our initial communication.
Guest: So that’s the next steps on Program Appraisal specifically. Do you want to talk about reorganization update as well?
Admin: Yes, go ahead.
Guest: So there was a steering committee meeting this morning where we talked about processing the information that was collected during the open forums. We had good participation during the forums; we have about 110 completed individual surveys plus group information. We’ve created a subgroup, we’ll be working through that information and summarizing it for the steering group and then also we have a subgroup that’s doing some investigation of models of both our aspiration peer institutions, their organizational structures as well as some institutions that have gone through reorganization in the last few years and there’s a subgroup whose working on that as well and doing an analysis of things like when are school structures used, when are institution centers, etcetera so that we have the building blocks for having a conversation about structure.
FA: In terms of communication then there’s a plan I understand for a web site on reorganization and then email’s going to go out to the faculty and staff when that goes up, correct?
Guest: Yes, that’s correct. There’s a website that’s under development, someone from LR&TS is working on that right now with some content so we’ve got SharePoint site up as well. We also talked in the meeting about the importance of providing some form of notification for those people who don’t access email regularly. So we’ve talked about making sure we have ways by which those folks can get information as well. But there will be, once the sites are live we will be sending out information.
FA: And the time lines?
Guest: Yes.
FA: Thank you so much.
FA: Now I hope this doesn’t sound like I’m sneaking something onto the agenda here, I have a question but this doesn’t have to be dealt with today if it isn’t ready to proceed today. There has been talk about creating some kind of a planning body to deal with non academic restructuring and we just want to note that we’re fine with that concept if such a thing is going to be created of course we would want to be represented and we would want to talk with you about it but it’s something that we’re fine with. If you tell us what’s being formed we would like some representation on it and the number would depend on how large a body it was. And if it doesn’t get created then I guess we don’t get representation.
Guest: The steering group is going to be meeting four times this summer; the whole strategic planning committee is meeting two times this summer to continue work and then we would have more to speak to that.
3. Report on Budget (ADM) (10/18/07)
Admin: We conducted our town hall meeting last week, that’s up on the website along with a narrative that was presented on the material. While at the town hall meeting there was some information sent from some people in finance that painted us a somewhat rosier picture, a picture of what they would expect for 12 and 13. We’re doing some analysis of that. A couple of days after that there was some material sent from the Office of the Chancellor that indicated that what we had used for our projection was a fairly accurate representation of our best guess for 12 and 13. So there’s a lot of confusion around that and that was before the Supreme Court ruled and before the governor suggested that now the opportunity for the legislature was to agree with him. It’s still in flux perhaps for this year, perhaps for next year and certainly for 12 and 13. We’ll have to see how this plays out, I did hear the University of Minnesota finance vice president on public radio this morning suggested that as a result of the ruling of the Supreme Court that they expect to lobby to have the funds restored that were unalloted last July (laughter) and I thought an interesting strategy but unlikely to be successful. At this point I’m not planning that we would be getting any funds back as a result of that action.
FA: Our lobbyist Russ Stanton is of the opinion that this is unlikely to have much impact on MnSCU because, like you he doesn’t think we’re going to get more and also because we’re up against the limits for having to pay back falls if we were to cut deeper, that means it makes it unlikely that it would lead to further cuts. Do you see any possibility though that our dear brothers and sisters of the U might be able to reopen the distribution of the cuts such that they would gain some at our expense?
Admin: Well the distribution of the cuts was in the current year there not in the year that the unallotment is relative to so the Supreme Court ruling is about the money unallotted last July and there was another distribution and that was that 30-70 squared or whatever it was between MnSCU that was already one by the legislatures, by the governor as part of the resolution of the current, the coming year the one starting July 1st and they still have a part of a problem to solve and would sure hope they wouldn’t go back and decide things they’ve already resolved to redo them but we still have some risk because there’s a problem that they still find on the table. How they decide to treat the federal money that their talking about, whether they intend to rely on it or not is a significant variable right now. I just can’t predict very well but I do think the stimulus year lobby’s correct, the stimulus funds will offer some protection in fiscal year 11.
4. Status of Administrative Searches (ADM)
Admin: I have to report that we talked about the reorganization in my office, collapsing six positions into four. The call for nominations and self nominations went out last week, I think last Friday so that is proceeding. Beyond that there is a search for the CETL Director and also the search for the Interim Director of the Honors Program. The CETL director is coming to a head now I think the committee has recommended to me three names and we will go through those interviews and make that decision and then also in the case of the interim director I think the committee met the other day, they’ve narrowed it down the criteria and the questions they are going to ask and they will go through another meeting for screening and so those searches are moving along.
FA: A couple of thoughts and a couple of questions, one I just want to share with you the general concern that we have about interim positions and there is a history on our campus of interim positions going for an excessively long time that is not Devinder I won’t blame you for the history that happened before you arrived and I will only blame Earl for the history after he arrived (laughter). In an effort to move in a more positive direction for the next year we really would like to see the searches for the Dean of the College of Education and the search for permanently filling the administrative positions in your office begin as soon as possible so that the committee can be formed.
Admin: I agree with you that we need to put positions in permanenty for Dean of Education. The reason I am going with interim positions right now is that it help me reconseptualise the new units because they may change s substantially from the past. I plan to start the searches the middle of fall.
FA: So you’re saying there could be changes to the existing positions.
Admin: Yes, that is why I went with interim positions.
FA: Well we will be eager to be a part of the process.
Admin: I have intention of informing you of it.
FA: Will you be sharing the names of the candidates who are applying?
Admin: I would share with you the final selection and what happens. But the applicants may not want their name shared.
FA: I don’t think the search committee is allowed to share the names.
FA: What about the finalists?
FA: No.
FA: Well this is formally the end of the first year for me.
Admin: I am feeling good about the fine spirited discussions. They energized me. I do appreciate very much this body and the work of this body and I appreciate the partnership with Mark over this year; both one on one and by conversations that have occurred. It informs the work we do.
FA: Likewise I think that we didn’t entirely screw up. Thank you.
Admin: Thank you
Adjourned 4:58 p.m.