Approved 7/29/10
Faculty Association
Meet and Confer Minutes
May 20, 2010
Administration: President Potter, Provost Malhotra, Frank Harrold John Palmer, Judith Siminoe, Kristi Tornquist, Wanda Overland, Mitchell Rubinstein, Steve Ludwig, Larry Chambers, (Guest) Lisa Foss
Faculty: Mark Jaede, Tom Hergert, Judy Kilborn, JoAnn Gasparino, Bill Hudson, Francis Kayona, Michael Connaughton, Debra Leigh, Michael Tripp, Balsy Kasi
Approval of Minutes
1. May 6, 2010
FA: I just received the minutes on Monday and so I have not had a chance to review them yet. So as not to delay them any further I would like to declare them approved when Devinder and I agree. Does anyone have any objections to that?
Unfinished Business
1. Foreign Language Requirements (FA)
FA: We had talked at the last meeting about having a task force to take a look at the requirements.
Admin: We can have a conversation.
Admin: We need to keep open about this because there may be other related issues. I don’t think we should treat it as a stand-alone issue. There may be other considerations, it may be closely related to other requirements. We need to reserve our judgment and not just judge the requirements of foreign language we need to consider other requirements as well.
FA: We don’t have a problem with that, that’s fine.
New Business
1. Reorganization Progress/Prospects (FA)
Guest: We spent the last week or so getting communication structures updated. On Tuesday we sent a hard copy to employee’s homes because some faculty and others don’t check their SCSU email over the summer so we sent a hard copy with instructions on accessing the Sharepoint site. We put together an electronic version of the survey that was available at cluster open forums so those who were not able to attend the forums still have an opportunity to complete the survey. The steering groups split into two groups one to take a look at the information that came out of open forums to look at, in response to the original 14 clusters and talk about at retreats that will be scheduled at end of June, the other group is looking at other models of restructuring that has been done at other universities and looking at other organizational models or units, etcetera.
FA: Well I can tell you that faculty have begun receiving the hard copies from the provost, is there a stamp you can use to say “this is not a layoff notice:”(laughter). We appreciate the information. We do have a couple of questions. We have been actively working on the reorganization of academic departments but there are some areas where conversations have not developed, maybe they are being developed but my colleagues asked at university council about the creation of non-academic departments and as the advisor I told them I would check on that, if faculty will take part in that.
Admin: Yes an advisory group will be used and we will want faculty representation but my expectation is that it will be somewhat more staff-based than the academic review. I looked at a preliminary outline and the format is similar although the majors are not as common. It will be quite divergent in that I am seeking input from the vice presidents and the principles that will be used, as begin I will use my directors to develop indicators of effective service trends across campus and others, to prepare the information it will be similar but it will be more like compared to apples to cherries.
FA: It’s not something that I think we need a majority of faculty representation on but we want to be part of the process.
FA: Do you have any idea when this process will begin?
Admin: There’s not a precise timeline. I have an idea that we will come together late summer or fall.
FA: I am speaking just speaking for myself when I say I think earlier better than later. We are getting push back from faculty who want participation. Other units are nervous about the reorganization. There is discussion and people are getting side tracked because of concerns emerging from this. I think it would help us move the reorganization forward if people felt they could talk about academic support units. These units have a lot to do with what faculty do. It doesn’t need to have a majority of faculty but we need to begin soon.
FA: I concur as a member of the Strategic Planning Committee. There are discussions coming out of anxiety about ways that decisions effect faculty/staff and a lack of focus on perspective. I think it would be helpful to have a place where these conversations can occur. So not to get entangled it would be helpful to have these conversations sooner than later.
Admin: I feel urgency as well and we are working as quickly as possible.
FA: There are a number of areas academic units are not in part of the discussions. They are not receiving attention Counseling and Psychological Services, LR&TS, Advising Center, Math Skills Center, that need to include IFO people or at least have them mixed in the discussion process.
FA: There is an intermingling of students.
Admin: Sure, as we do this work on non-academic units there will be some degrees of distance in the function. In the delivery of design and develop of curriculum I am hopeful that as we go through I will be participating not as part of a college but as part of the support structure. We will need to develop and fold this into the discussion.
FA: When do you think this will happen in relationship to the strategic program appraisal?
Admin: We have started the conversations and I agree with the general sentiment that sooner than later is better.
Admin: It’s my goal that by the 14th we will have a general organizational proposal and list of units to go to President’s Council and then go on from there.
FA: We need to stress the distinction of functions in the report to Steve and the concerns of bargaining units like AFSCME and MAPE in non academic units but we don’t want organizational units like Counseling and Psychology handled by that body if it is not represented by individuals from IFO.
Admin: Of course.
Admin: As I see it the structure emerging as Steve alluded to will have a similar frame and as this develops there will a steering group and sub groups that will specialize in those areas and they can show up for that work and then those kinds of discussions can occur.
FA: Are you saying there should be advice from the steering body formed out of the Strategic Program Committee?
Guest: Yes.
FA: Hmm.
Admin: We are referring to the work which Steve alluded to, there will be a frame of IFO representation, they will be less represented, on that group looking at the mix of units and the sub groups responding.
FA: I see things like CAPS, LR&TS and support services subordinate to Steve’s groups.
Admin: I think we will have to discuss the continuum with math on one end as an academic unit and maybe Atwood which is clearly not an academic area, in the middle of academic and then take academic informed by this discussion as it moved closer to middle or one end.
Admin: I don’t want to separate at any point interdisciplinary activity; I would expect two groups, one at this pole, one at other and the assigned units would do the primary review at one or another and there will be certain functions where both discussions happen. I would expect both groups look at the whole. I think it will look more like two overlapping circles, you stay in communication. And keep taking a look at the whole.
FA: I would like to suggest that we put this not primarily instruction but academic units in on the next steering committee discussion. I think it does fit under what we are discussing currently. We need to think about it.
Admin: There is danger in slowing down the process. It is not black and white even Atwood does educational learning. It is dangerous to look at this separately.
Admin: We need to analytical chart the work, not that conversations won’t be simultaneously going on.
Admin: I heard something different in the request, what I heard is not what is being said. There are IFO members assigned and rostered in units that are not being looked at and I wonder how they will participate in the discussion in academic reorganization when they have not been identified for strategic program appraisal.
FA: They have a substantial part in the process, units like CAP and the Write Place.
FA: Will the Write place be included?
Admin: The process will form as a vehicle by which guidance will be given to try to communicate, to include a subset of faculty membership and how they envision their involvement. They will not have all the preparation of SPA. The information and concerns brought forward by IFO should be included in the conversations to imagine the University in different ways.
FA: I just want to remind everyone that part of the conversations folks are having outside the IFO are expressing concerns that they do not feel included. It is important that we are not siloing but empowering others to get connected.
FA: Several of us attended the cluster meeting and are wondering where LR&TS. No one was bold enough to stand up and go write it on the board. How do these units fit into the strategic plan?
FA: I would like to pick up on the language of siloing. Do we push for a different direction by not having non-academic departments included in the conversations it seems we are encouraging people to be oppositional and reaffirm silos of bargaining units. This is a concern.
2. Interim Honors Director Search (FA)
FA: David asked to be dismissed for this discussion. It won’t take long. He was concerned about a conflict of interest because he is a candidate.
Admin: When I originally proposed the search to Meet & Confer the advisory group approached me and said they would like to serve as a unit of the search committee and I said yes so the search committee was to be the advisory board. The search was proceeding fine until last week, there was an oversight in my office and a member of the advisory board was left out. The dean contacted the member and they had a conversation and the person was updated on the process and she created time to review where the search was at and get up to speed to the point where she could participate in the interviews and I have been told that has occurred and next week there will be a meeting to narrow down the list to the candidates to interview and we will go from there.
FA: We had some concerns in connection with taking a look at the approach and how we can do things better. I want to dispense with finger wagging, obviously the timing, it is a busy time of year and we all bear responsibility but want to get this sorted out sooner so people can get started on working and the campus can be advised of who the interim honors director will be. They are to start August 1?
Admin: I don’t understand the question.
FA: Because summer advising and registration is closely involved and we want someone on board as soon as possible to plan and set up the work for the coming year. It is also important for transparency of membership for campus communication so it is known and announced in terms of who is the interim director and who is on the advisory board for faculty communications. Just so everyone knows who is making decisions. I know it was not deliberate but membership needs to be communicated about who is on search committees.
Admin: We had a conversation in this group about the interim search and agreed the advisory board would serve as the search committee.
FA: We did agree.
Admin: For interim director, an elaborate process was not needed we just used the advisory board because the advisory committee wanted to be the search committee, they were involved in the work on the vision and strategic plan for the Honors’ Program and I said since they were the ones working on it they would like a say and I agreed to it. I would have preferred if the oversight had not occurred, if the individual could have been involved in the committee they would have accessed the applicants last week and we they could brought forward two or three finalists.
FA: The questions mentioned was one person didn’t participate, others participated and the other question was the timeline, for CETL a director was hired and Honors was interim so was one permanent and Honors interim and then permanent?
Admin: A CETL director was hired interim to work for a year to develop a strategic vision and plan and then a search was conducted per procedure and I am doing the same for Honors. I have some concerns regarding the structure and wanted to engage the committee. Now we are thinking how to reconceptualize the honors position. My expectation is next year to do a permanent search.
FA: I just want to communicate the work is outside the academic year and we expect they will get compensated outside of regular duty days.
Progress Reports on Long-term Concerns
1. Strategic Program Appraisal (FA)
FA: We were hoping for an update.
Admin: The reports are being submitted through SPA and being posted to the site and are organized by college. The deadline for deans to submit is June 1 and then we will move on to the next stage.
FA: It occurred there is a glitch in the sequence of the first appraisal in that we had a process for which it was possible for departments to give feedback to deans prior to them transmitting the final report to the Provost. I recognize the agreement in principle of the work not being made until next year, next academic year. I have a couple of requests one is the ability for faculty to respond is limited over the summer and they would be around in the fall and it would be helpful if the deans report could be run by the departments to respond to concerns and have an opportunity for feedback. I am not suggesting the Provosts not analyze the reports but that it might be labeled draft or wait for subsequent communications until fall as we ask for feedback on the deans’ report.
Admin: As I do my work, I always recommend after that work it goes to the strategic planning committee, it’s not an independent process. Information is sought from the department and faculty in general, it’s the same in this case. Once the plan is done it comes back to me and gets folded into the process.
FA: It’s not different in relationship to the first process?
Admin: In the context of timing deans had scheduled meetings last week in some departments it was not as comprehensive because of the timeline but if there is input by the chair or faculty I will listen to that input.
Guest: We will add the deans’ report to Sharepoint so faculty can see that.
FA: The piece that we are missing is the back and forth conversations of programs and the dean have not heard that feedback so the ability to give deans comments is missing.
FA: In part there may be something the department could give deans as an opportunity that then they might reconsider their recommendation if feedback is given. They may have misunderstood or something was missing that was accomplished with the back and forth dialogue. We don’t want to lose the opportunity for the deans to give their best recommendation on information. Some deans might change their minds others might not.
FA: A point of impetus for the request or suggestions, for a variety of colleges faculty had to cancel their meetings with the dean during finals week and so participation was not as well and could not be rescheduled that’s what prompted this conversation.
Admin: I don’t know about other colleges but in COSS I asked reports to be submitted one week early and sat down individually with the chairs to ask for input and suggestions. I just want to clarify it was not like last time but at least for one college there was opportunity for feedback.
Admin: I think in some of other colleges it was the same.
FA: We are not criticizing anyone but the timeline was different and thanks Frank for your effort to make it happen. I think our concerns are still there, we are responsible of the fact to do the best.
2. Report on Budget (ADM) (10/18/07)
Admin: I was on a conference call with the Vice Chancellor of Finance, tuition has been set as we requested. We should know the allocation in two weeks with the close of the legislative session and board action. It may be influenced, by the late change in law that decreased the Office of the Chancellor changing the allocation of the 50 million reduction budget. We are also uncertain, as Management Budget has a three million dollar loan from MnSCU. We don’t know if they will pay that back or if it will show up as reconciled. We finished the calculation for FY12 and FY13 and I think actions of legislature may create a greater deficit in the next biennium but MnSCU may have a higher base, we will wait for the base when the legislative session ends. We are putting together the budget for FY 11 so departments can start business on July 1. There’s some relief to have tuition set and allocation. We still have some uncertainty as we go into the year on cash flow within MnSCU. We intend to maintain the request to moderate spending as we close the year; it’s not a freeze but prudence - don’t stock pile.
FA: So I have a question, it isn’t a budget freeze it is a freeze for prudence?
Admin: It is essential purchases only.
FA: I have received a couple of inquiries about department concerns who made a decision over the year to postpone resources to be used for larger purchases planned, purchases only afforded if they were careful with their spending over the year, they are concerned that their good behavior over the year that now they might be punished and a concern that some purchases may be delayed past the point of this FY? Will those funds be carried forward?
Admin: The date for purchases greater than $5,000 was May 13 so that has past, that hasn’t changed. The issue of carry forward is different. That’s why it’s not a freeze but just for essential items. We are not changing the carry forward process we will consider other carry forwards, two years ago most requests were approved. Last year 1.6 million was unallotted which forced us to exercise greater discretion of carry forward. Carry forward should be less for FY10 than last year. There are no guarantees
FA: So if larger purchasing was postponed and by essential purchasing deadline not being extended, if the department applies, has carry forward to do so will then be considered?
Admin: As in the past, if the issue around essential purchases bumping up to the last days of purchasing, for equipment in excess of $5,000, people should request carry forward. For me and my colleagues, if it’s a compelling case we may approve carry forward.
FA: I expect we will be having conversations.
FA: I am confused about the 2% standard. If there is money left we can apply for a carry forward.
Admin: Yes.
FA: Is that by college?
Admin: Yes.
FA: Are there exceptions?
Admin: You need to request it.
FA: So it’s not impossible.
Admin: The process has been the same for three years. It is published on the budget website.
Admin: You can’t have 2% and an exception. If you have an item and you receive the exception then you won’t have the 2% in addition.
FA: So you could get the 2%?
Admin: If you want 2% and $100 you cannot get both.
FA: So if we have an exception…
Admin: If you get carry forward of 2% you can’t also additional funds in excess of the balance.
FA: Enlightened other?
FA: The other question I believe we had at the last Meet & Confer was the plan to shut down Eastman Hall which led to conversations of plans, is there any further news?
Admin: I mentioned prior as part of a discussion and a visit with the Provost we closed down a portion and will close more with a plan to close entirely at the end of next year. It was planned to keep some offices and a Communication Studies class for FY11.
Admin: That would buy us some time to find other space.
Admin: There will still be a reduction in maintenance staff and there will be marginal utility cost.
FA: Marginal utilities?
Admin: Different utilities.
FA: How will you save utilities in a room or classroom? Will you save on utilities by not heating the building?
Admin: We will close off areas. We closed the pool the pool area.
FA: Beyond the pool what other areas are you talking about?
Admin: Some areas are not being used. Possibility to move offices and with less people there will be less of an area.
Admin: As appropriate space is found we can move those people, we can find space. We will keep the CoFAH dean’s office in the conversation.
FA: As you are starting to answer these questions we ask you to keep in conversation with departments with students so they are not spread all over campus. We don’t want lost connection with faculty so make sure cohorts are not split up that’s not community building.
Admin: Todd, Steve and I met and we will give assurance that there will be no evictions without a plan. A commitment was made to find a way to work this out so students are not impacted. Todd is in conversation with chairs.
FA: So you shut down a part of the building with limitations to save the same?
Admin: No we will not save the same. We will reduce staff as suggested.
FA: Do you know what the difference will be
Admin: No
FA: Will we hear?
Admin: No. (laughter) I am not going back to figure out and try to figure the difference in square feet. It is kind of an essential to save money, it will be estimated at what will be saved, I am not going back and calculating the difference. The underlying issue is that it is a tired old building. There is trouble with the sewer, the water lines and over time it will be impossible to keep it open unless we spend a lot of money and plan to renovate in the future.
FA: If it is for cost cutting assuming the cost cut, what are the goals? I am wondering how will those be account for, percentage wise?
Admin: It’s about $60,000.
Admin: We will still cut staff and save certainly some on Eastman and still expect some utilities.
FA: How historic of a building is it? Will people want to save it, will they want the building fixed and what is the variable in accounting to shift academic affairs people, moving out but not saving?
Admin: It is not on the historic register. It was built in 1929 and has had limited renovation. The pool would need to be brought up to code, the windows replaced and it is structurally sound however it’s mechanically unsound. It’s obsolete in most respects to building codes. It is far outside of access codes, fire codes & energy codes. The gym is out of service. The primary expense is cleaning and some maintenance expense like plumbers.
Admin: There will be a question of transitional cost if people move there will be some cost with moving. It’s possible for some classes we may have to renovate, you have to balance that cost against shutting down the whole building. It’s an ongoing process.
FA: Let me express our gratitude for not laying off faculty members and instead saving on buildings. There is some concern from faculty working in that building I heard through some people they were surprised classrooms were not available. As we work through this I just ask that you stay in touch with academic implications.
Admin: Yes
FA: Is the hiring pause still in effect?
Admin: Yes.
FA: And that runs through June 30?
Admin: Yes and no. First, yes to the hiring pause and no to the second part. When we go into thinking about the FY 11 budget we will only fill essential vacancies, we need to cut in FY 11 with the biggest problem of the close margin as we come to end of year. We initially thought we had margin and it puts us on the edge on operating deficit. It would be an unhappy surprise if we have another year like that you’ll have someone else sitting in this chair. We have to be careful, it would be more inconvenient to find another president.
FA: One shudders at the thought. There is an ongoing concern regarding flexibility of instruction.
Admin: The Provost has made a commitment to instructional capacity.
FA: Given that fact when we hear some faculty are leaving the University, as it comes through we will have to do emergency hires for large sections to be covered and with this information for fall will you be able to say go ahead with searches so we know because it takes a year for searches.
Admin: I have a summary of numbers.
Admin: If I have seen it you can pass it out.
Admin: I have printed copies.
Admin: Not with names, the detail obscures the information. Keep that copy.
Admin: There’s only enough copies for every three people or so.
Admin: It’s positioned in red by bargaining unit. We are required to achieve 6 million the total number is 57.
Admin: There was a question at Meet & Confer of availability to cover classes. The deans have been given allocation to move forward to hire for fixed term, overload and adjunct as demand dictates. Schedules have staff appearing so you can assume to move forward if there are a large numbers of students enrolled. The budget for FY 11 planning on the academic side, resources have been deployed to offer classes if it is anticipated they will be in demand.
Admin: There are two activities going on we are building the FY11 budget and the other is planning for classes to be satisfied. In all, ideally sequential we don’t have the luxury without recognizing the final form of FY11 budget, it is not clear until July. What we did was looked at past years expense in categories of adjunct, overload and extra days and then said let’s take 80% of that and said to deans here is a number to start planning. Information that we get back of stress and strain, then we will be making allocation decisions of FY11 and make decisions of stress and strain.
FA: I have a question about numbers for MUSAAF and IFO, the numbers are not adding up.
Admin: For MUSAAF there are four positions each of four different types. It is hard to put a dollar figure because of vacation, retirement, transfer we used the term reduction in force because in some cases, the term layoff is different in each contract. Reduction in force means the person wants to work here but won’t work here next year. Of the seventeen only two are layoff and we are not certain of bumping rights, some contracts layoff means they can bump at this point we don’t know what it looks like, there are various definitions in contracts. Three constitute layoff all the rest are other than layoff but people wanted to work we said no so it is a reduction in force.
FA: What is other?
Admin: Probationary MUSAAF is not considered layoff, IFO probationary faculty is considered layoff.
Admin: If a fixed term probationary has worked for the last three years it is not a rehire and it is not a layoff, they hope for renewal.
FA: So if we are talking of IFO..
Admin: Everyone knows people will be bumping, it may take time.
FA: Regarding IFO, they are not identified as temp but retrenchment has not been evoked, so not eleven FTNPs?
Admin: The summary of the document shows the largest number was due to retirement, there were fourteen faculty that retired.
Admin: If a FTNP wanted to continue, classified would be considered temp, FTNP’s are a reduction in force. If others were vacant there is not an expectation they will be filled.
Fa: So all reduction in force are FTNP.
Admin: We started with retirements
FA: If it was not retirement.
Admin: We needed to get to 49.
Admin: There are 11.
Admin: If the FTNP wanted to come back and were not rehired those are counted.
FA: Why not call them temps?
Admin: That’s different.
Admin: The term temp has different meanings in classified contracts that would have been confusing.
Admin: So if anyone had to be confused it will be IFO (laughter).
FA: O.K. let me get a handle on these I am not sure if you are able to give us this yet, maybe not.
FA: So retirement became a vacancy.
Admin: Not under retirement. Vacancies would be if the position was empty there would be a position, a line with money in the line but no incumbent.
FA: When we asked for additional information we hoped for a summary of cuts for FY11, not just layoff though, including dollar values associated would be appreciated when it becomes available.
Admin: This information is not on the website.
Admin: These are preliminary numbers. We will present a summary of what happed after we have the final results and result of any severance.
FA: Do we have the dollar value of saving of these reductions?
Admin: This is not a precise number, it depends if someone bumps there may be a difference in salary or if there is a different salary or insurance and that will change the number, that is still about three weeks out.
Admin: Plus vacation, they may use vacation or annual sick we won’t know that right now.
FA: These 11 FTNPs are these people who come up to their four year limit or are they based on SPA kind of information?
Admin: The deans were asked to review their budget, given a target figure to reduce and identified faculty positions that were not going to continue into next fiscal year, where they constituted with people, people finishing their fourth year so scattering some 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 11 that deans decided that would be one way they could bring their budget into target for next year.
Admin: It seems we can pass names around. I didn’t want names associated with this information just because it doesn’t help to have names floating around.
Admin: A person might still be here and we eliminated the position so the person may move elsewhere. For example Joe has right and it just happens that his name is mentioned. Having names out there is dangerous.
Admin: Even FTNPs there may be one or two instances where the position is eliminated but there is another vacancy in the same department and the dean has this individual in mind to be moved from this to that.
Admin: Either at next Meet & Confer or one that follows we will bring information of FTNP faculty where the department has requested continuation beyond 4 years. We will specify per bargaining unit, if you see the document Steve talked about, the bold positions wanted to come back but we cannot them bring back.
Admin: The bold should add up to 11.
Admin: identified by wk they do everyone prof coded
FA: While not practical are fixed term hired for replacement of study abroad, does this reflect that?
Admin: Indirectly it reflects it, then the replacement line goes away, sometimes vacant positions may be used to hire a FTNP, if the vacancy position is eliminated the person goes maybe on sabbatical but money in that line is not sufficient, if someone is on a semester sabbatical there are no savings but you can’t find adjunct so you may still hire FTNP with the funding.
FA: If these numbers even out, if not the answer could be no?
Admin: It’s hard with the current accounting practices but moving forward our intent is to track cost and savings of sabbatical, so we can’t do that now but want to.
FA: If I read this it looks like the vacancy has the name of last person.
Admin: Correct
FA: What about the other positions?
Admin: The positions are in bold to make it clear. The FTNP position implies there will not be continuing employment. Management chose to inform those not coming back, they made a conscience choice to talk with them so indirectly if a fixed term in a department was recommended by the department to return, indirectly we say we hope they can come back.
FA: Are these names part of August 1 deadline and will receive a separation notice?
Admin: These are for FY11 that will be for FY12.
Admin: These individuals will be gone this coming year
FA: So none of these people are getting involuntary layoff notices, no tenure faculty?
Admin: No.
FA: We had a specific request some time ago and are checking on if you have the information on the expenses and revenue of the doctoral program in the College of Education and Regulatory Affairs program?
FA: It would be nice to get it for the last two years.
FA: For the doctoral and regulatory affairs.
Admin: The revenue from the tuition?
FA: It might be other information as well, broader information. These programs were created with the understanding that they would be self sustaining, are they?
Admin: I have learned that faculty have some concerns about these program and I am dealing with it.
3. Status of Administrative Searches (ADM)
Admin: I told you about the search for the College of Education Dean last time and the only other administrative searches are internal searches related to the interim associate provosts, there are three positions and one assistant provost position. I now have a pool and we are trying to narrow down from the applications three or five finalist and will be talking to them. Just one position had two candidates and I have started those interviews, the other positions there are seven de-facto because a couple said they were interested and never forwarded applications so I am assuming they are not interested any longer. The third one was one I extended the deadline by a week so as of now there are seven or eight applicants for those. They will be narrowed down to about three to four and I will talk to them and make decision and move forward
FA: I just again want to say with the College of Education Dean and other searches in the future there is eagerness towards permanent positions and it will be helpful to have the names of the committee members, not interim positions but when you begin to search for permanent hires, who the committee members will be.
Admin: For the College of Education I can tell you I want to start as soon as faculty come back and we asked you to allow the same committee so we can start quickly because some there is some fierce competition and so the sooner the better. I was told five of seven MnSCU universities will be looking to hire new deans. My plan for the other four positions, it is my intention to start sometime in fall, by middle of fall, start the process. I want to conceptualize the positions, so I plan to redo or rethink them and move forward.
Admin: Search firm.
Admin: Yes, I talked to them and almost fell off my chair at the cost so I didn’t want to make a commitment until I had a conversation with you. My preference would be going with a search firm.
FA: At the same time we are eager to see the searches expedited and eager to be in conversation with you of rewriting the notice of vacancies and position descriptions, especially the assistant and associate positions. Do you plan to review and revise before the final hire?
Admin: I can tell you I would like to move quickly and will follow all processes needed and if you ask my thinking of today I prefer the sooner the better.
Adjourn 3:58