Final Approved by M&C Team
Faculty Association
Meet and Confer Agenda
April 7, 2011
Administration: Kristi Tornquist, Tracy Ore, DeeAnn Snaza, Ellyn Bartges, Judith Siminoe, Steve Ludwig, Frank Harrold, Craig Wruck, Provost Malhotra, John Palmer, Mary Bongers, Greta Abel (note-taker)
Faculty: Roland Specht-Jarvis, Judy Kilborn, JoAnn Gasparino, Debra Leigh, Bill Hudson, Frances Kayona, Jeanne Lacourt, Susan Motin, Mark Jaede, Balsy Kasi,Tom Hergert
Approval of Minutes
1. March 3, 2011
FA: We will start by noting the President is not present today. I confess to not having reviewed the notes but I say we let them go. If no one objects we will call them approved and suggest adjustments if I feel they’re necessary but I don’t think there are any.
Unfinished Business
1. Book Orders and Book Store Hours (FA)
Admin: John has to distribute a copy of the bookstore hours which by casual inspection indicates they are open to accommodate classes in the evening and on Saturdays. In addition they also have extended hours at the beginning of the term in the fall and books are available to be ordered online that can be delivered to your home or office or picked up at the store during the business hours. If there are concerns about the hours as displayed I would like to hear about that. Also I took back that there was a general concern about the book order process and about book availability, right now we are in the midst of the RFP process for the bookstore contract, it’s been ten years so that was folded into the considerations of the group. I didn’t receive specific instances of this book, this class, this term from anyone. I would be interested in that also to be able to use as examples as we consider the bookstore operation. So the comments were timely, I am open to additional information.
FA: I think part of the concern was that there is a perception that only a percentage of the books are ordered and we were given one instance, I can’t tell you the class, in which after repeated calls or repeated orders the class which is an upper division class still did not have enough texts for all students to purchase them. That’s not uncommon.
Admin: What was the class, what was the book, or classes so that I can have examples to pursue the grounds.
FA: It was in Gerontology, it would be Rona Karasik.
Admin: Can you provide to me as requested this is the term, this is the class, if you could provide that it would be helpful.
FA: It was more than one person who reported the same thing.
FA: Perhaps we could ask at senate Tuesday if people have had issues to email that information to Steve so you can get a sense of how expansive the problem is.
FA: So you want the name of the class, the term, book, year, the issue.
Admin: Yes, what the issue was. Since there are three bookstores that serve the campus and also many order books online or from other sources they try to pattern, I understand, their orders based on past use. But if it’s a single course or something like that limited I understand that could be an issue as you describe but that would be helpful to have specifics and soon would be good so we can incorporate it into our discussions as we consider the future contract.
Admin: On item #2, Lisa should be joining us soon so we can come back to that. So we can go to #3. Rostering.
#3. Rostering (FA)
FA: I believe the only question we have at this point is if we discover things that are not necessarily individual issues which we believe we have dealt with for the most part but other problems in the public roster, how do we address those issues. Do we just contact DeeAnn directly or is there some process you’d like us to go through with your office?
Admin: I would pursue the existing process which is to contact DeeAnn and then depending upon what the issue is internal administration conversations can occur for an appropriate response.
FA: One of the things that I became aware of as I looked at it very quickly is that the abbreviation of department names will, at least in one case, will cause consternation for that particular department. That might be taken care of when we deal with the naming conventions but in one place it’s sure in one case where the departments not going to like it.
2. International Visioning (FA)
Admin: So where we are with the process right now is there have been meetings requested from a series of departments/groups on campus that have some relationship to international work. We sent them a copy of the draft and requested if they’re interested in a meeting with members of the workgroup that developed that draft, that would be arranged. Requests went out to Latin American Studies, African Studies, East Asian Studies, the Foreign Languages department, the British Studies committee, and the International Studies committee. Ann is asking for any faculty who have participated or led a short term study abroad if they want to have a meeting. The department that have rubrics as part of the Goal 8 area of the Liberal Education program, Student Life and Development unit, the college DACs, the International Student Services committee, working with Matt Trombly to identify student organizations that have an international focus to those students, the International Student Association and then at the Strategic Planning Committee meeting one of the student representatives recommended the Cultural Diversity Task Force of the Student Government Association, we will be reaching out to those as well.
FA: Did I hear you say either Global Studies or Foreign Languages?
Admin: Foreign Languages department and sorry, Global Studies.
FA: Would it be possible if we could get that list?
Admin: Sure.
FA: Was that already sent out?
Admin: It was sent to whoever was identified, if it’s a group it’s the director, if it’s a department it would have been the chair.
FA: I’m chair of Ethnic Studies and I would image we would have gotten that because we do quite a number of study abroad.
Admin: That would be part of the Global Studies and that group is identifying those faculty and so that email did not go out yet and departments that have the rubrics in the goal area, we’re still working on those two groups.
FA: O.K.
FA: And in Foreign Languages you would be sending to Maria Mikolchak because the current chair is abroad?
Admin: Yes, that’s correct.
FA: Perfect.
3. Rostering (FA)
a) Procedure for addressing remaining questions
SEE #3 above
New Business
1. Renaming of Carol Hall & Alumni House (ADM)
Admin: Do you have the handout?
Admin: I do.
Admin: We are formulating a proposal to rename two buildings on campus. These are two buildings that were private residences before they became part of campus. It is the buildings that we currently know as the Alumni House and the building we currently know as Carol Hall. Alumni House was built by Claude Lewis back in the 20’s. He was the older brother of Sinclair Lewis. There’s pretty good evidence that Sinclair Lewis when he felt constrained by Sauk Centre would come down here and spend time with his older brother and may as well have done some of his writing in that building. The house was sold to the Atwood Family in the 60’s. Mrs. Atwood lived there for about 10 years, then in the early 70’s the University acquired the building by eminent domain. The plan was to tear it down, to demolish it but it was saved and it became temporary housing for visitors to campus. I haven’t been able to find a formal action naming it Alumni House; it seems it just became known as Alumni House because that’s where alumni would stay when they came back to campus. So we think it appropriate that it be renamed the family name, that it be called the Lewis House. Carol Hall is a more interesting story, Mrs. Urban built that house after she was widowed and lived there for some number of years until during the depression when she got into some financial difficulty. The house was in danger of going into foreclosure. The University used some student funds to buy the building out from under her, essentially. The Whitney family lived there for a period of time. It was converted into the first student union on campus. It was used as a barracks during WWII for a period of time and then was a woman’s dormitory and now is where residential life is headquartered. So we think it would be most appropriate to rename that building Urban House. Interestingly enough Carol Hall, the name comes from the first name of the wife of the president of the University, Carol Selke, when we acquired the building. If you turn this sheet over we are in the consultation phase and have talked to most of these groups at this point. Families are in favor of this renaming, the neighborhood groups are very much in favor of it, and the University advancement staff had some concerns about losing the alumni name. We talked about perhaps naming it Lewis Alumni House and decided that probably didn’t make sense because alumni relations might not always be in that building and then we’d have to rename it again. So for consistency sake I think Lewis House is most appropriate. We will do some signage or something to make it clear that the alumni center is at Lewis House. Cost wise it shouldn’t be an expensive operation at all. The signage change, that cost will be fairly minimal. Steve tells me that’s all within our ordinary budget. We’ll need to change mailing addresses, make sure the fire department knows where Urban House is when they get the call. We’ll use up the existing credit supplies and we will do some sort of celebration but we’ll do it in conjunction with fall convocation so I don’t think there’s much cost involved. It’s an administrative decision, a choice that can be made by the chancellor so once we finish the consultation I think we’ll proceed with the chancellor stuff. I’m pretty confident we can get this done relatively quickly. The purpose of this today is to get your feedback, get your suggestions and questions and any comments you might have. I can take questions right now or if you have concerns later on just let me know.
FA: We obviously don’t have an FA position on this because we are just getting this information. I personally would like the idea of having it named Lewis House; a lot of people don’t realize that historical background.
FA: As it was said, we don’t have an FA position. It’s probably not the sort of issue that’s on the top of our list of our gravest concerns but what’s the advantage? What does the University get out of doing this?
Admin: Some intangibles, we get good relationships with the neighbors which is helpful. I think it’s respectful of the families of the origins of the buildings. Concrete advantages probably not very many.
FA: I would point out as often as you can that Chuck Raine saved it. Because we were also very close to losing Lawrence Hall and every time we somehow did not but we should point out the people who saved it.
FA: That was going to be my question, is there going to be some sort of plaque. It seems like you want to describe these places with this information somewhere.
Admin: We want to capture some of that history now, probably as part of the revisiting.
Admin: We do have a description in the catalog about each building that gives a little history and that’s available. You should revise that of course to reflect this and at least for a time I think it will reflect its previous names so that people say “well what happened to the Alumni House or what happened to Carol Hall”
FA: The house formerly known as Alumni House.
Admin: As a member of the neighborhood university and community council as well as a resident of the Southside neighborhood, I think Craig’s first point about the symbolic meaning is really important. Nook used to be a meeting were we just got yelled at by the residents of the neighborhood, the University wasn’t seen as an asset in the neighborhood. Doing things like this we are being seen as more of an asset so I think recognizing historic homes and their history and the big historical tour that goes on, I think that’s real important.
2. New Mission and Vision (ADM)
Admin: The document which is going around is our new mission and vision for the University. Essentially what happens is that according to board policy, every five years we have to either reaffirm our existing mission or provide them with a new mission and it is that time for St. Cloud State University. I think the President sent a proposed mission and vision to the Strategic Planning Committee, they looked at it, they provided a feedback and input to the President, President then reviewed that input, had some other internal conversation and then he finalized the mission and vision statements and sent it back to the Strategic Planning Committee. It’s my understanding that the Strategic Planning Committee had their meeting today, endorsed or supported it and I bring to you as an information item and this is now still in a draft form because we will have to present it to the board and it will need board action for approval. So now it is under submission to the Office of the Chancellor to be on the agenda for the next board meeting.
FA: Thank you for sharing it and taking feedback from the Strategic Planning Committee.
FA: Is it still in the process or?
Admin: This is now under submission to the board, it is draft because until the board has acted, it is not final as yet.
FA: Is it just pie in the sky?
Admin: I think we can at least give you a rationale of where we are coming from. For us the vision is what you can conjure up is possibly where we are going to be and I don’t know what exactly you mean by “pie in the sky” but pie in the sky is very hard to operationalize because neither pie nor sky defies an explanation.
FA: I’ve looked at a lot of mission statements.
Admin: Thank you for your comment.
FA: Is this going to be shared with faculty/staff all?
Admin: Yes and it will also go to the other bargaining units for informational purposes.
FA: I just thought, then everyone will see it.
3. Request for FA representation Athletics Gender Equity Advisory Committee (ADM)
Guest: This is a new committee and it’s designed to be advisory to the athletics department. There are a number of different roles that have impact on student athlete’s lives, financial aid, admissions, counseling services, student life and development so it’s a pretty broad spectrum committee. We want four faculty, IFO members to be on the committee that brings some relevant interest and/or athletic background to the committee because the committee will ultimately be responsible for looking at compliance issues and if you haven’t ever had any dealings in athletics there is potential for a large learning curve. This is not including coaches, coaches will also be involved and the breakdown with coaches, we look at obviously gender because it is a gender equity committee, and also who they coach. So we have two different divisions of athletics so we need representation from division I and division II and then we would like coaches that come from sports that have male and female so golf, swimming and diving, those types of sports that you have a broader representation of. Obviously we would like a representative from hockey as division I reps.
Admin: Just as a clarification, correct me if I am wrong, these four are from non athletics IFO members?
Admin: Correct.
Admin: Now what about IFO athletics members is there a representation which is needed from them?
Admin: The coaches and I’m kind of specific with that because of the distribution of coaches within, and Bill and I have talked about this, within the department. Again we want to make sure that we have a gender distribution that keeps the committee pretty even but also is representative of the student athletes.
FA: Ellyn and I discussed four faculty members that we think would be good, those names came to you on Tuesday and I think we can take all four of those.
Caucus?
FA: Thank you for your patience. We have decided the way we need to handle this is that we have four volunteers for these four positions, to be fair to the rest of the faculty that have not heard about this yet we’re going to put out a call and we will make the final selection at our meeting on Tuesday. Bill will be helping to vet folks if there are more volunteers than these four to determine if they are qualified under the terms that you’ve given us. In order to stay in process we’re going to have to go through senate.
Admin: O.K.
4. Request for FA representation for University College and Communications Committee Work Groups(ADM)
Admin: This is an outgrowth of a conversation which occurred between the FA President and the President of the University initially and then there was a broader group where we talked about it and it was decided that we will broaden the University College work group, which is working on our initial draft which will then be vetted by the campus. So with that in view we will need six faculty representatives, one from each of the newly configured units for the University College committee and then we will need two faculty representatives on the Communications Committee work groups. Since its Communications Committee work group is there any advice we can provide them?
Admin: What that group is doing is they are planning convocation week, non CETL related activities for convocation week. They’re working on the communications plan for this summer and next fall so that’s the kind of activity that group is doing so if there’s faculty with particular communications background; mass communications, communications relations, communication studies, anything like that would be great. But it wouldn’t just be limited to that expertise.
FA: I have already put out the call to faculty for the University College group but I wanted to wait until we had this meeting to put out the Communication but I think given what you are saying now I can just put out a general call and we can make the assumption the two people will not come both from the same new unit. Beyond that I don’t know what else to do.
Admin: I appreciate you putting out a call for the University College folks and do you anticipate when you might be able to…
FA: Tuesday. We already have some volunteers and we began forming the consent agenda and there’s already one election necessary.
Admin: Great because I am planning a retreat yet this semester.
Admin: Let me mention that the University work group is being chaired by Tracy and the Communications group is being chaired by Loren Boone.
FA: I think the reason we’ve got a concern and that is if we have six reps, one from each of the autonomous units that leaves out a body of faculty who are not in any of those units including LRTS and people who are assigned within Academic Affairs, there are coaches, there are a number of faculty who are not included in any of those areas and some of them will be working very closely with University College. I wonder whether it would be possible for there to be a seventh rep for faculty not included in any of those units?
FA: Actually I put that in the call.
FA: I think we may have misunderstood one another in the process but our assumption was and is consistent with other appointments that we have made under the past structure that there was always a special services slot for those faculty who are not members of any college.
Admin: You’ve already put out a call for this?
FA: Yes and I included that because that was my understanding of our conversation.
Admin: That’s fine. We’ll take it.
FA: Thank you.
5. Policy on Use of Outdoor Areas (ADM)
Admin: Do we have copies?
Admin: No.
Admin: Well let me talk about it and then we will just have to distribute it because this really is here for a couple of reasons, one is we have a policy called “public expression areas” or something like that and it needed to be reviewed. There have been different attempts to talk about it, it became clear to me when we had an incident where we had a speaker using that free speech area and then students mounting on just a delightful counter demonstration and then some concern because under the old policy we would have had to intervene and potentially take disciplinary action against students who were exercising free speech rights and that’s not the way it’s supposed to work. So with that we said we’ll just make a revision so of course as it always happens several of us sat in this room and put the policy up on the screen and we started trying to dink around and then we suddenly started looking at what they have at the University of Minnesota and other places and Georgetown and so of course we ended up with a revised policy with a different name which is use of outdoor space. It preserves in it the section about the ability to use public spaces with no reservation but it says it’s nice if you make a reservation, we reserve the right to relocate a speech activity, it gives a preference for University activity and for scheduled activity and it identifies five instead of four specific areas. They’re the same four we use to have plus we added one which I think is either the plaza on the south side of the hockey center or the southwest plaza side of the husky stadium. It had been used but it had not been listed. So this was developed by a subcommittee and another subcommittee, it’s been to the President’s Council and we are in the process of getting the reaction of the bargaining units. Whoever I can send it to I will do that, send the link or the document so that you have a chance to react to it and let us know if you think… we are in a hurry because we would like to have the new one in place before we get to the open air free speech season.
FA: Just send it to me and I will make sure it’s on the agenda for Tuesday’s senate meeting.
Admin: O.K.
FA: I just have a question; one of my colleagues has frequently made use of space in the Atwood plaza in front of Stewart hall for instructional purposes as a place where people are reenacting historic scenes and so on. Is that discussed in the policy and/or is instruction activity given preference of some kind.
Admin: That’s a good question, I think we say a preference for student and University events, the University may from time to time at its discretion preserve University outdoor space exclusively for students or for University sponsored events. What I would take that to mean is if you or your colleague knew you were going to have an activity, you could actually reserve the area which would give you preference whether it’s in one of these spaces on the list that counts as a free speech area or not, if it’s a classroom event it’s going to be given more protection because we define in this policy that mission related activities shouldn’t be disrupted, that’s really the whole rationale for the ability to restrict speech when speech would disrupt University activities.
FA: I would also like to suggest that Selke Field might be an excellent spot for some of our more colorful visitors. (laughter)
Admin: So we will send it to you electronically.
FA: And we will put it on the agenda for next Tuesday, we will send it out to faculty so they can all see it before then, if that’s not a problem.
Admin: That’s O.K.
FA: And it’s called the Policy on use of Outdoor Space, really?
Admin: Yes, it is.
6. Travel Authorization Policies (FA)
FA: We don’t have the email but we do have the form.
Admin: This is really streamlining the process for existing policy.
Admin: It’s actually not a new policy; it’s a new form I think is the basic thing. First prompted by the fact that we had an audit finding that we were unable to provide documentation that travel, which would be reimbursed through University funds, had not been given approval in advance of that travel occurring. So when we get an audit finding that becomes a concern and somebody had to figure out how we could actually provide documentation that prior approval had been given for travel. Then a couple of less significant things came to our attention at the same time, one of those was that the board of trustees revised the travel policy and improved it, in my view, about international travel. They made it possible that faculty and staff could engage in international travel to countries with travel warnings which previously that was prohibited, you still have to go through significant documentation, the chancellor has to approve it but at least it’s possible now. So when I was reviewing that to say how to do it and figure that out, I noticed another section about travel of family members or minors with University employees, that is spouses who are not university employees or minors and we had not been particularly paying attention to that and so that was highlighted too because I was reading the policy on international travel that had changed which caused me to read the whole policy and I realized that we were not getting the President’s approval on instances where a faculty member and spouse would be engaged in international travel. So I said maybe we should have a form and then the conversation was o.k. we’ve also got to take care of this audit thing and while we’re at it we have this work rearrangement form, why couldn’t we put it into the same thing that way we don’t have a new form, we can get rid of an old form and join these things together. So that was our intent in melding these together. I am ready to listen to the reactions.
FA: So that question then was that concern then about other people who weren’t employees strictly for international travel?
Admin: Yes. Let me refer you to the travel management policy at the board of trustees and those of you with your little electronic devices can just bring this right up, it’s 5.19.3, there is a section called “part for spouse/companion travel” and it is not in the international travel section so it’s a general and I was wrong when I answered that earlier, “travel expenses will not be reimbursed if incurred by a spouse or other individual accompanying a traveler on business unless the spouse/companion is a state employee and there is a bonified reason/business purpose requiring his or her attendance and such expenses are provided for in collective bargaining agreements or compensation plans. A spouse or other individual may accompany a traveler including students on a business trip at the traveler’s expense however personal guests including spouses are not allowed to travel in a state owned, rented or leased vehicle”. That’s the sentence that causes a lot of angst and additional cost. It is there because that’s a State of Minnesota requirement incorporated into the board policy.
FA: I think what we have are some things here however that this form seems to be going beyond this required by the policy. Of course I think we all understand that we cannot bring pals along and charge the State for personal travel, I don’t think we have any dispute about that. But frankly it seems rather intrusive to be asking the question are you traveling with anyone and whom. Certainly if we were charging you or attempting to charge you for any costs for anyone else that would have to be explained and justified but the mere presence of someone else in my personal car as I drive to something that is legitimate University business or inquiring about who is staying in which hotel room, which could be a case of sharing a hotel rooms with other attendees at a conference where multiple professionals share accommodations, there are so many places where there are things that are of no concern to the financial interest of the State and are either professional matters that a person might not even know before they travel or personal matters that frankly are none of your business. So this seems very problematic.
Admin: O.K. so are you looking at that section on the middle of the back of the form?
FA: Look at the first line where it says who is going to come.
Admin: So it’s this section of non employees/spouse dependent will accompany employee during travel, which would mean you would not have to complete it if that’s not the case. If it is the case you’re just signing that...
FA: The following can happen, we go to an accreditation meetings where we try to explain how our programs meet national and international standards and it often happens that around lunch time someone wants to share your ride who is at one of these councils and with whom you want to have very good relations so you may even pay for the taxi, should you tell that person; no,no,no I have a legal problem here because you’re not an employee of the State of Minnesota, I can’t do this. Wouldn’t that go too far?
FA: Why don’t we give you another example, let’s say I was going to a conference in Chicago which is where I’m from and let’s say now that my husband wanted to go along and visit my son who lives there. According to this even if I were driving my own vehicle I would need to fill this out, yes it does, it says I am informing the University that a non employee will accompany me from travel documented on this and it says complete this section if non employee spouse/dependent will accompany an employee during travel. So whether or not I was using a state vehicle this tells me I would need to fill that out and give that information.
Admin: Yes, if you take your own vehicle your spouse can ride.
FA: That doesn’t say this, it says if you are traveling accompanied by a person; to me if I am in my own car and driving to Chicago and my husband is sitting in the seat next to me he’s still accompanying me on a trip to a conference in Chicago.
Admin: Yes.
FA: And I would need to fill out… I’m reading literally.
FA: Would it not be simpler to use this space on the form to quote that piece of policy, just as a notice rather than insisting that we tell you with whom we’re traveling if we are not breaking any of the rules.
FA: I’m concerned because at one point you said no, it’s just for international travel and then you said no I was wrong. So it’s not just related to international travel?
FA: And while we’re at it, we would suggest that maybe we not limit the approval to verbal approval because the dean may not be able to speak because of a problem speaking and just give you a nod or written piece of napkin that says yes my dear or some other response that I would construe to approve with my request but it’s not oral.
FA: And when does email suffice?
FA: I know the expectation is probably conference, workshop travel but it doesn’t say that explicitly and I’m concerned about field supervision where faculty are making last minute changes and they do have state vehicles but they are making last minute changes to travel to Bemidji, they are back and forth so this says at least ten days, it doesn’t seem to reflect the current reality of how faculty travel, excluding conference, you can plan ahead for that but I’m talking when you’re trying to schedule meetings with field supervisors with students, you are constantly changing, does that apply to this? It sounds like it does but I don’t want to assume.
FA: Internship supervision that takes you across state lines that sometimes is changeable at the last minute is problematic.
Admin: I said it’s out of state. Judith and I visited about this form that we have an audit finding that says there has to be prior written approval for out of state travel to be reimbursed. If you cross a state line, that is out of state travel.
FA: I’m not so concerned about that. I’m more concerned about last minute changes in field experiences, that’s what they do and to get ten day approvals when you’re making changes 24 or 48 hours with instate, I’m not talking about outstate.
FA: And the ten day problem had been brought up in other circumstances where opportunities arise quickly for conference participation.
FA: So, Judith that’s just something to think about, how do we handle that kind of activity because it reflects reality of what we do?
Admin: I do have two responses, one is that the ten day issue, that’s what we want to have in order to get all the signatures through, we know that’s not always going to be the case. The second thing I know there’s been some discussion with athletics and people who need to be able to scout or move so there will be a possibility to do some sort of “here’s our travel schedule” so you don’t have to approve each thing individually, you would be able to have a calendar that could be something to sign off on, that wouldn’t prevent you from making immediate changes but then you have to say it’s within the state it has a less formal requirement.
FA: Tuesday, Thursday and Fridays are my internship travel days, I mean I am just giving that as an example but and then that might work but just something to reflect on.
FA: Even on things like conferences there can be reasons why details of your travel arrangements might change in fewer than ten days for any number of reasons sometimes even advantages to the University because maybe we will find a cheaper fare or some other cheaper arrangement in fewer than ten days and yet this need to document the costs and detail of itemized costs down to every meal we are going to be eating, I don’t know somebody might buy me lunch that day, they might not and that isn’t required by the policy. The policy doesn’t say every expense must be preauthorized, the policy says all instate travel and the occurrence of related expenses must receive oral prior approval and all out of state travel requires written prior approval. Prior approval of the travel and similar to that revision of work form to be notifying our supervisors that we are going to be traveling and the nature of the travel but to have to supply a list of all the expenses involved ten days in advance it’s unnecessary to the policy and it’s unrealistic for the faculty.
Admin: Just in quick response, I believe this may be coming with if you wish to have a cash advance, you need to provide all this in advance to get the cash advance but to travel it’s typically not inspired to document your cost like this.
FA: So two responses, one thing that I see missing from this is that when a faculty member travels it’s important that the department know that’s going to happen. There’s a spot on the bottom that says “chair acknowledge or supervisor approve” which to me is not sufficient. I mean if I am going to be gone the chair needs to know because the chair needs to know that if somebody comes in related to my work assignment they know I’m gone.
CAUCUS
FA: Thank you for your patience. We have lots to say still.
FA: What I was moving to with my last comment was it seems to me that this is a multiple purpose form that’s trying to do too much, and therefore it becomes confusing. So you have what would be an informal notification to the department that somebody is going to be gone becomes an either this or the supervisor approve, supervisors we know are not chairs and so I think there’s a lot of things being conflated and I think many of our questions are coming from the fact that we’re trying to put, what three forms, four forms into one.
FA: It was delivered in the email as this is the way it’s going to be from here on and I’ve already received several emails from people saying “but I’m going someplace in twelve days, am I in trouble” and I think we really need some time to tease this out a little more effectively.
FA: My question, and Judith maybe you answered it with the coaches in the athletic department with respect to the recruiting and scouting, will they need to then if the hockey team is going to Ohio State will the coaches need to get prior approval to travel with their teams?
Admin: They will and they will be able to submit their whole schedule but particularly with scouting there will be changes and that has to be understood.
FA: But if they have a prospective student whom they are trying to attract to St. Cloud State they cannot give him a lift in the taxi if they are paying for it right?
Admin: It’s a leased vehicle. There’s a business transaction it becomes a state vehicle when state resources are used.
FA: I didn’t mean it personally.
Admin: I think also there is a definition of what the state business is in your last example. If we’re trying to recruit a student that activity itself becomes state business so it also depends on the nature of the activity you are engaged in. At this point I think our best approach is that we take in all your comments and all your questions and then we take a look and where possible see if we can improve the clarification.
FA: So the justification to most of it I’ve been signing these already and people have been asking me and I said if you’re going to conferences I said “article 22” and so are you going to have this justification all the time because can we have some standard set language if you’re going to conferences that’s article 22, is that sufficient?
FA: And in that vein is there a distinction between University M&E funds or grant funds and IP funds, contractual faculty funds?
FA: Maybe have a check off that says o.k. it’s for my professional development or grant or something because otherwise, you know people are confused about what kind of justification we are supposed to say.
Admin: It seems to me the justification is going to be what the people who have to give prior approval want…
Admin: To your point if I have to give an approval if it states article 22 but my question would also be, because I am an innately curious individual, what exactly the activity is because then I have to make a determination if that activity is article 22 or not. Because the reason for why that question is being asked is to figure out if the travel purpose is appropriate or not.
FA: So do you want us to say then criteria 2 and cite…
Admin: No, all I want you to say is if you’re going to a professional conference say you’re going to a professional conference.
FA: That’s already on the form.
Admin: Then just say see above.
FA: You alluded to this, the question has to do with faculty who receive short and long term professional development grants. Some of their international travel, conference fees are received so can there be a conversation with sponsored programs because I think we are going to have to make a note on our budget forms for these professional short or long term grants so somehow we are going to have to let sponsored programs know and then these committees are going to have to revise our forms to make sure faculty know ahead of time what they have to do to streamline them.
Admin: Are you suggesting that having sponsored programs information like they should be added to the form or they already have the form?
FA: In these committees the short and long term faculty research grants—there’s a budget page and budget justification and these monies are contractual monies that we get to do this kind of thing and I assume that faculty are still going to have to complete this form.
Admin: Yes.
FA: But we’re going to have to change our grant application forms that sponsored programs is typically involved in that so I am just lighting a long fuse… I’m basically asking the question do we need to take into consideration short term/long term professional development grants and will all that be covered in this form in the final draft of it or do we do something different in these committees that were sponsored programs? It’s just a question?
Admin: So it would be good for me to talk to sponsored programs about what their process is and make sure that there isn’t anything here that’s…
FA: That everything’s seamless.
Admin: O.K.
FA: I am just wondering, this went out right? It was sent out in an email and it is declared the current policy and we are now raising a series of what we regard as very serious concerns and at the very least I’m certain that many employees are going to be confused by the meaning of this. What happens, you just agreed to take a look a this and to consider whether some revisions might be appropriate, what happens in the interim?
Admin: I think once it’s out we assume people will use it and we are getting them in so I think it’s in progress, people use what they have.
FA: You are getting them in because you ordered people to use them without this process and that’s our process.
Admin: I think what’s happening is that currently as discussions were going on we have an existing system and that existing system is being altered. So it’s not really a new policy, we are not altering a policy, we’re talking about a procedure so as we go on if there is a way to improve the procedure in some ways which will help us with the clarity and also meet our obligations to the board policy then we will do that and until that time we will use the existing procedure which is put in place. What we’re suggesting here is that, a lot of the questions for examples that relate to justification I look at these special expense incurrence forms and I see routinely justification is given there’s usually two or three lines and I would say 99% of the time when I read those three lines it is very clear to me what the purpose is and how it is related to the professional activities of the faculty member and then there is an estimated amount and that tells me what exactly is the total amount which it will cost and we check the accounts to see if the funds are available or not and then we sign off. So I think there is a way in which this is already working, the form part, I am not referring to the other aspects.
FA: So I think this is an overcomplicated form and I just want to try to run through it for perspective. So you talked about right now we have a very simple form, you go to a conference you give what you’re doing and that gives the justification that gives a rationale, on this form you have full title conference, workshop, seminar, meaning event full type, event sponsor, if I filled that out from my perspective as a faculty member I’ve given the justification. There are all kinds of other reasons for traveling and this is creating a lot of confusion, I actually filled out my work revision request and gave it into my department and the person who processes them talked about how much confusion there is in my department about this, how much time she spent talking about it and I’m wondering if this isn’t ready for prime time, I think what I am hearing my colleagues say is we should pull this and use the previous agreed up on thing if this is, you’re saying this isn’t a change of policy, I’m getting some questions that suggest that we haven’t had to in the past say who we’re traveling with and so there are a lot of things that are creating concern and conflict, can’t we get this right and then do it?
FA: If you should chose to redesign this form would you consider rethinking the mode of travel because you are offering five modes, air, bus, private auto, motor vehicle and rail but you’re missing the following ten that come to my mind without thinking hard, ships, taxis, rikshaws, space shuttles, Russian rockets, bicycles, camels, motor cycles so is it really relevant what you are asking for or is my ten as relevant as your five. If it does not meet any legal objections do we need it or can we just save that?
Admin: So your suggestion is that we didn’t need to give examples of types of travel.
FA: Yes, it asks for something that doesn’t help us, what better are we off knowing that?
FA: The policy said permission to travel it doesn’t say approval of details.
FA: I would like to request that you pull this back and suggest a far streamlined interim approach so that we don’t have people struggling to fill out something they can’t do that we have identified so many problems with. I believe that’s the only way to approach this that’s going to reduce confusion.
Admin: Let me just say we’re not going to reduce confusion if two days later we say we take it back, we’ll let you know.
FA: No, not we’ll let you know, this is what you do now, you contact your supervisor you get an email from your supervisor or a written signed approval from your supervisor saying this is what I’m going to do, this is where I’m going to go on these dates, that’s all we need to match that policy, the rest of this stuff is constraining.
Admin: But that doesn’t take care of these other issues. It doesn’t take care of the audit issue.
FA: What is the audit issue, the audit issue was it is approved?
Admin: Prior approval.
FA: That’s what I’m saying, you get prior approval.
FA: We have work revision forms for that.
Admin: The state auditor’s citation dealt with prior approval for travel expense. That’s what the auditors are concerned about. So the concern we have is that we in fact comply with that auditors finding and we collect information that makes it clear that we have approved the reimbursement of that expense that it’s prior approved. That’s the reason we engage on the front page is to make it very explicit what it is you are approved to expend state funds for. That’s what an auditor is concerned about in terms of controlling the obligation to expend funds and the prior approval includes the detail of each of the items because you might be approved to buy an airline ticket but not approved to pay for a hotel room. Because there may not be sufficient money to cover both of them and the auditors concerned about creating an obligation to the state without the state controlling that obligation.
Admin: The auditors concern was founded on somewhat more limited although the underlying theory is as John described it is prior written approval attached to the request for reimbursement for out of state travel. That was the audit finding, prior written approval, approval issued prior to the trip, written attached to the reimbursements. They went and pulled trips in the business office and they found trips out of state and we could not immediately produce written approval that you could go out of state and the state has become particularly sensitive in the last few years because the state has protection, it’s the issue of the paying if you’ve got enough money but after that dreadful crash in Wisconsin where students were killed from Mankato and the state is not protected by the limits of liability and it cost a whole lot of money and there was insufficient recognition of consideration of that trip. That has made the state much more sensitive to that. But the point to the audit was prior written approval of out of state travel attached and then there are a lot of issues around travel we also require prior approval by the President, written on international travel and the other issues that Judith has brought to the table are related to travel.
FA: I have a really basic question, is this intended for all bargaining units?
Admin: Yes.
FA: O.k. maybe that’s part of the issue too because if I fill out my work revision request and if I email my dean and he says go, I have a certain amount of travel money, quote/unquote, my professional development money, I’m limited by that, the business office will not give me any more than that and does that mean I don’t go? No, that means that I submit my expenses and I am reimbursed up to the amount of money I have. So a lot of this I think doesn’t make sense from the FA perspective because we have a limited pot of money either through our development funds or through grant monies and so some of this has to do with differences in the way things go. I don’t have to get formal approval of a certain amount because it’s being determined I should go for training in New York as a part of my job description and that it has to be carved out of a budget that’s not my travel money.
Admin: As I hear the discussion I understand both the breadth and the intensity of the concerns so what I’m saying is we will take those comments and those questions and those concerns under advisement and then we will try to have a review of what our options are in a way that we in the process of fine tuning we don’t create more confusion. So we need to step back and think about it rather than just react to it in an instantaneous manner. We hear you loud and clear.
FA: I would think that since faculty have work revision forms and we have to get the signature of our supervisor on it, that’s our written prior approval and it also has a space on there to let them check whether or not there are sufficient funds so we know the funding is matched. My guess is that there are people that are just not filling those out. We’ve got what’s needed and it’s there, I think maybe if a stronger message could go out to say “if you’re going to travel, make sure you fill out your work revision form” and you will have what you need because I think there’s probably a handful of people who aren’t doing it and so that’s what has created a lot of this mess.
FA: My question is to Steve with respect to the prior permission to travel internationally, is the current form the special expense form sufficient, does that mean it is granted or do we have a parallel form that needs to go with it? Because it speaks about expenses but not so much permissions.
Admin: I don’t believe the prior expense forms have the President’s signature on it.
FA: It does. I just received one back.
Admin: This form replaces that.
Admin: I understand that. If that form is clear that you are traveling internationally and if it has the President’s signature…
FA: Business Office, President, Dean are on there.
Admin: The only thing is that the policy requires the President to approve all international travel.
FA: So that form would satisfy the requirement?
Admin: I think that’s likely. Not having exactly seen that but if it makes it clear that I’m going to Zürich…
FA: It says destination abroad, the length of time, the modes of travel, it spells it out.
Admin: My sense is having signed a lot of them it has enough information that if the form is duly signed by all individuals prior to the start of the travel and if it is attached to the reimbursement form that should work, for international travel.
FA: I just have a question and I don’t know if you can answer it but do you anticipate that permission to travel will be denied as a result of having filled out these forms?
Admin: I cannot say it won’t but that would be a pretty exceptional circumstance but that’s possible because they are supposed to look at it and we have had requests to travel to places that are dangerous that we have considered whether we should proceed with that and I don’t know if anybody has ever had their conference not approved for some reason. It is possible, it isn’t required that the President sign every request for international travel so it’s possible.
FA: But just out of state do you anticipate that people will be denied travel?
Admin: I do not expect it as a matter of course but it is possible that someone would, it can be, it is approval not just signing off acknowledgement. You are required to have it approved and I think somebody could say well, no you can’t be gone that day or something.
Admin: There is a review also that as you do this travel, have you set up the travel in a reasonable manner, have appropriate adjustments been made? Let’s say it’s a three day conference and you put four, I’m not suggesting that would happen, I haven’t seen one but you put forth an itinerary to travel for ten days, those kinds of things come into play.
FA: I’m glad you said that because I’m planning to travel and one of the things I looked at is would it be cheaper to drive so that I can meet the budget or would it be cheaper to fly and in the way the gas prices are going up and down right now the cost of taking a state vehicle out of state is like twice, almost four times as much as it costs to rent a vehicle outside of the state and take it and so there are a lot of variables that go into that and I’m just trying to determine o.k. so what’s going to get this approved and what’s going to make it fail, if it’s an airline or…
Admin: The approval or failure is not changing, what’s being approved is not changing by how the form is presented.
FA: O.K. so I’ve heard the Provost say that you’re going to take this under advisement and do some modification, what I’m not really clear about is what the status of this particular form is right at this point.
Admin: I think with any instrumentality, it’s not perfect and so that has been made very clear to us and so again I go back to what Judith said, we also don’t want to create a confusion but what it means is given your concerns here as we get these things we will use them in a manner which makes sense in the context that if we have a written indication some way or another the person is traveling and not all the I’s are dotted and T’s are crossed then in that intervening period while we perfect this we will be a little more accommodating. That is true of any change in process which occurs.
FA: And that needs to be published. My question and this is back to something Steve said earlier and something John said, I’m still not perfectly clear if the authorization is to travel or if the travel is to spend money? Because if I’m out of travel funds and I am going to drive to a conference in Chicago on my gas money, in my car, and my hotel bill, then shouldn’t I have to fill out a work revision form and the rest of it is none of your business? So to get authorization to travel I have to say yes I am going to be gone, I’m going to the place for this time…
Admin: If as a state employee, in your role as employee, not your vacation, but it has no cost to the state, you are not going to seek any reimbursement; you still require written approval to travel out of state.
FA: Back to Judy’s point if I have a limited amount of IP funds then how much each individual is going to cost if I’m traveling out of state I need approval to travel but not approval to spend that money and I am trying to determine what of the data about dollars and cents is required beforehand. What you said is authorization to travel attached to the reimbursement form.
Admin: Yes.
FA: The decision whether or not to reimburse is made at the point the reimbursement form is turned in, correct?
Admin: For approved travel.
Admin: I believe there are a couple of exceptions where it requires a special expense form. There are some other things that may make it quite not that black and white but those are unusual.
FA: I am going to Moorhead and I am going to Fargo for dinner and I want permission to go to Fargo for dinner while I am in Moorhead.
Admin: I would seek the indulgence of this body because it is very clear to me that you all don’t like this form. (laughter) And we have already said we have taken it under advisement, we will work on it and it will take some time. So let us do some thinking and maybe next time we meet we will come up a little bit better to your expectations.
FA: But in the interim can you at least publish something about the flexibility that has been stated in there. The ten days, it doesn’t say ten days if you can, ten days is recommended, it says ten days. Let’s fix that. You can at least put out an email that says this form is interim, some of the things are flexible, we’ll work on it. Instead of leaving the form there.
Admin: We will work on that. The only thing is we have to stick to the fact that prior written permission, evidence should be there.
FA: Sure, and is email written. That’s another thing you can tell us. Is email written?
Admin: Sending an email to go does not constitute approval.
FA: No but if I get a response back from my supervisor that says, yes you can go and it’s an email response, is that written approval?
FA: Yes, do I have to go to my supervisor and stand in front of her and say please let me go?
Admin: Verbal is considered a lower level that otherwise if you get something in writing that’s better.
FA: But is email written?
FA: In the context of email being the official university communications, let’s understand the context.
Admin: It is not, not to faculty.
Admin: Here’s the issue, yes email might whatever but the problem is when you have to submit your reimbursement form you have to have a copy of that approval, right? You might keep your email, I might lose my email, but by having a form and having a process, the problem is right now there is no consistent process, right so and I have heard you all too there is a problem, I think I was the first one to use this form, I said I’m leaving town tomorrow so I filled it out and got it signed, got it to Greta and when I came back and I needed a copy of that Greta knew where it was. So that’s the issue, we can debate about email but whatever we decide to do we have to be able to find that form in order to get paid. Because reality is in the business office folks are very…
FA: I don’t disagree and I see your point and consistency is what I’ve asked for if the Provost remembers a year and a half ago I asked him for consistency on work revision forms and we haven’t had it yet and this is a very good idea, the excursion just isn’t so great.
FA: Can we move on? We are on item six and I see we are running out of time.
FA: Thank you yes, we have places to go.
7. DGS, Honors, and FYE (FA)
Admin: If you let us know what your concerns are then Tracy and I have had a conversation and Tracy will respond.
FA: I guess we would want more information so I know there’s a discussion on what are we going to call DGS? Then also how many DGS students, there are rumors in the wind anywhere from 800 to a 1,000 so therefore we’re concerned about resources specifically under the new budget constraints. And also then is there going to be a director of this new whatever we’re calling it and is the current director of honors and DGS in with those conversations that have been going on because to have him participate in this and if there’s going to be a new process of having this person, is there going to be a process that’s done? So those are some of the questions.
FA: This is a related question, you said what is the name going to be, I think there’s a more basic question, is there going to be a program like this? There’s a lot of rumors saying it’s going away, it’s being folded under other programs so we need some clarity surrounding that since it is curriculum.
FA: Is it DGS, Honors and FYE, are they all going to be together or what?
Admin: It is absolutely, this process is not involving a proposed change in curriculum or anything like that. So I just want to clarify that.
Admin: Just let me add one thing before we get into the details, just the overarching set up to the context for our response that what you are going to hear and what you have heard is still a draft form conversation which needs to be fully vetted so no decisions have yet been made.
Admin: Right, so let me try to address your questions. In the process of looking at Undergraduate Education and we have involved all of the staff, office managers and directors in every conversation about what will we look like next year. That was going on while ASAOPSA was going on and while the expectations were also directed at me in terms of cutting our budget and thinking about positions that existed in terms of what made the most sense so with regard to the director of DGS I was originally told that we needed to eliminate a dual, we need to eliminate all of those, we can just have one each. Where it made sense to keep them in terms of the need for faculty involvement such as advising, we have kept both the faculty and the MSUAASF directors. With the case of DGS we’ve made a decision too and we, that is all of those of us working in Undergraduate Education, made a decision to have the MSUAAF director and the faculty input involvement come just like it does with any first year experience program through the advisory board that has FA representation and again this is just a proposal. Right now there is a proposal for a University College work group, which will have FA representation, there are faculty on there right now, so with the University College proposal imbedded in that is a proposal for an office right now, it’s called the office of the first year transitions program, we’re talking about student programming. That combines the first year experience office and we’re talking about the administrative money of the first year experience office not the first year experience program, and the DGS office. In the current structure there are two MSUAASF directors and one director so we’re going down to two MSUAASF directors, that is being vetted through this work group and we will be having conversations about it so yes, to answer your question has the director been involved in those conversation, yes. The expectation is that the person who’s in that position right now is like a .25 DGS director and .75 Honors director that will be moving to 100% honors director as interim until we have time to do the search for a permanent director for the fall when faculty return.
FA: Has he been in that conversation?
Admin: Yes he has.
Admin: In fact I met with him yesterday. Let me also make clear, the point which Tracy made is an important one. There are two things happening here, one is we also need to meet our budget targets for FY12 and so they have to come up, their target I gave them was $200,000 so they have to come up with $200,000 of savings and at the same time the conceptual frame is going on. So the conceptual frame that is up for discussion will be fully vetted and then we will look at it but in the meanwhile we will also look at reassignments. That’s what Tracy was referring to whether a person should be 25% here and 75% here from a budgetary perspective we will make those appropriate decisions, how we will support and staff even in the interim period so we extract some savings as we move forward and then reallocate whatever resources we have in order to then fund a new structure which will emerge after full vetting with the campus and relevant individuals.
FA: When will that proposal become public and when will that vetting occur since spring semester is rushing hurriedly to a close?
Admin: The University College proposal?
FA: Yes and when the vetting will take place given the fact that the semester is almost done.
Admin: The proposal can’t become public until faculty have had full input, the faculty representatives on that committee, so it probably won’t become public until after the semester is over but that doesn’t mean that decisions are going to be made, it will be vetted as we continue into the fall. So nothing except with the exception of this what we have to do with the director positions in terms of what DGS is called and all those things and I would like to answer those questions too, those things are not changing for the fall. DGS still exists and will exist next year so can I just answer the rest of your questions first? How many students we’re going to have, there is a calculation that we have done and based on the calculations that we have used over the last several years we are up to about 800 students at minimum. We have been aware of that and been participating in conversations about that and we are finding resources to hire enough folks for the additional sections, Adam Klepetar, myself and Geoffrey Tabakin have been in conversations about creative ways that we can meet these needs like staff that currently already teach some of the college 150 courses for example we are talking about teaching up to eight sections on load so for free because of the needs to fill all of those sections of the courses.
FA: Would you say that again, eight sections on load for free is what I heard you say.
Admin: I didn’t mean like for free I meant…
FA: Doubling the faculty workload.
Admin: No, no, no, no. I didn’t say faculty, I said, as I taught a course last semester for the Sociology department, I taught a course as part of my load, right I did not get paid additional money. That’s what I’m talking about. Adam Klepetar, as the administrative director to teach an additional section.
Admin: I feel I need to clarify that. We’re not going to ask people to work without compensation. That’s not the issue.
Admin: What we’re having is a team of people that have worked really well together saying how do we meet the needs of our students. So we have talked with the Provost about resources for teaching an additional ten sections and those sections, those folks will get paid, they will not be doing it for free we will be doing that appropriately. In terms of what DGS is called, and this was proposed by the folks in the division of general studies program, is they chose to change the name for a variety of reasons, one the name doesn’t mean anything, what does the division of general studies mean? Two, the name has taken on a very negative connotation, when I announced in budget advisory group that we were thinking about 800 DGS students, there was a collective groan around the room because there is a misunderstanding that these students are our worst students. When in actuality their retention rate and their GPA’s have been above the general population of students for the last several years. So the name is not serving a function. This program will still exist so rather than a student getting a letter that says you are admitted to St. Cloud State University, you are in the division of general studies, it will say you are admitted to St. Cloud State University as part of your admission you part of the learning community and in that community will take these courses. So it is really a change in name and the third reason was also that a lot of the resources and the services that we give to this population of students it really could probably serve the general population of students and as part of the University College proposal to have faculty develop first year seminars that all students might take, that might involve college 110 depending on what those faculty develop and that’s been proposed by faculty in the department of academic support. So that’s all a proposal but that’s why we’re thinking about moving away from that name.
FA: Two concerns. One, the courses that are part of what we now call DGS and in the future we might call something better, they are real courses, they are curriculum, I’ve taught them, I support them, they are good and courses should be taught by faculty and I get very concerned when I hear about plans to cobble together somebody other than IFO faculty as the primary means in expanding and I’m really concerned about that.
Admin: Let me clarify the college 150, college 110 and college 120 are taught by faculty in the department of academic support and historically have been largely taught by MSUAASF folks and that’s been going on for many years. So you teach and so does Jodi in the office in Sponsored Programs, we have a process for people to get hired to teach those courses but the reality is there’s not enough faculty interest to teach those courses.
FA: I understand that has historically been a fact and I am less concerned when there’s a situation such that, I mean there are also reasons why people have difficulty finding the ability to be interested in teaching those courses because there isn’t alternate support to teach metals course so it’s a multi layered thing but I don’t want to start taking the position that I’m opposed to MSUAASF people teaching or opposed to people teaching DGS courses but I am always troubled by having somebody other than IFO faculty being the primary teachers of anything that’s part of our curriculum.
Admin: Faculty are the primary teachers of College 150, College 120 and College 110, that curriculum is overseen by a faculty member, Vicky Williams, the four faculty in that department, Kari Kenner, Nancy Mills, Vicky Williams, Geoffrey Tabakin have all been involved in these conversations, they run that curriculum, they make the decisions about staffing so I am not making those decisions.
FA: I accept that, this is not about decisions that you personally are making it’s about institutional level commitment to curriculum being delivered by faculty.
Admin: I hear you.
Admin: Absolutely and I will say the faculty in talking about how we develop a first year seminar and perhaps involving some other curriculum of these courses into this, they have a plan of hopefully getting more faculty involved in it in the future as a group. I am scheduling a retreat yet this semester. That is the direction it is going.
FA: I also want to say, and I say this in the spirit of wanting to help this very important and valuable program, one of the things that may mitigate the misunderstanding of who DGS students are and what they are capable of and what they mean for our institution and also what they need to succeed is broader communication with the faculty in every sense and I’ll just say even though I am somebody who is interested in this and has been trying to pay attention I don’t feel like I know very much about what’s going on in the conversations that you’re describing and I would wish for us to do more and I say I am willing to be part of the doing more to get more benefit and information out broadly to faculty.
Admin: Certainly and I think that when it becomes appropriate for the University College proposal to become public and again it’s not appropriate because we haven’t had all the folks involved, it took six months working with my staff to make sure that their voices were really involved in it because it involves all of what they do and now it takes more time to get the next folks. Part of the main goal through developing a University College is opening channels of communication because historically on what was Undergraduate Studies wasn’t connected effectively to the campus and I think that’s the goal that we have in terms of trying to develop this so that you know exactly what’s going on because we are communicating with deans, faculty, with department chairs to let folks know what’s happening.
FA: You just mentioned a retreat date that might happen this spring yet, if we could know that people who are interested then when they apply for the positions they know that’s part of the deal that they should want to be part of that.
Admin: I have a meeting on Monday with the folks that are currently on there to hopefully select that, it will probably be a half day so like the day we are meeting with them then I could probably tell you Tuesday.
FA: Tell Tom.
FA: Actually you need to tell Mark because I am out of town next week.
FA: O.K., tell Mark.
FA: I have three very quick things on this. One, if you say that people are going to be teaching this class as part of administrative load then that removes them from being adjuncts as far as I can tell and that’s a problem for us from a union perspective because folks who teach in the unit should be in the unit and if they teach more than four credits in a year should be paying us dues, so there’s a problem if you take that route from just a logical perspective from us.
Admin: Understood.
FA: The other one is that as long as deans are allowed to say to faculty there’s no overload allowed then we cannot get faculty who would be willing to teach those courses on overload and I know it’s cheaper to have MSUAASF people teach at adjunct, that’s not relevant to our context, if you want us to teach it you have to open up the possibility of overload and exigency and expedience are not acceptable excuses to skip the contract.
Admin: Right and we’ve been finding ways to be creative about getting faculty to teach it at overload.
Admin: Let me answer that because I want to go on the record about your last statement; that I want to assure you that there is no intent or interest in just pursuing expediency as a criteria for supporting classes. So I want to be on record to say that is not the case. What has been said and has been probably not understood as well as we have not conveyed as well is that right now we have more students than we had expected and we are now looking at all possible options which are available to us in order to make sure that we adequately support those students and while we develop those processes I want to assure you that we will keep the integrity of the delivery of that curriculum in mind and there is no intent for us to compromise the delivery of that curriculum.
FA: Thank you.
Admin: And again involve the faculty in the department in every conversation.
FA: We have this problem in many departments where faculty are told you’re involved but here are the budget constraints in which you must operate and that makes the faculty involvement limited.
Admin: No and even within the budget constraints the faculty and the staff make the decisions about where to eliminate funds and made recommendations to me and I went along with all of their recommendations so they were involved at that level and not from one person.
FA: We are not going to get through the agenda, I do apologize.
Admin: Did you also have a question about FYE.
FA: Yes, it was sort of how does FYE fit with all of this and also there’s a resurrection happening of Foundations of Excellence that we’re not really clear on.
Admin: No, there’s not a resurrection of Foundations of Excellence it’s a Foundations of Excellence 2.0 so that’s what it is. Foundations of Excellence the first project we did was on the first year, that project is complete and University College is really acting on the final findings of the Foundations of Excellence report so that’s why the University College conversation is happening so it is the implementation of those things. The problem is Foundations of Excellence is complete, we hear that word and we think it’s the same process. What we are doing right now is Foundations of Excellence transfer project, you will be getting an email from me about staffing or populating from faculty positions on that and this is looking at the transfer experience so not on the first year, they’re on transfer so we’re partnering with St. Cloud Technical College, we already have a meeting with them on their process, it’s their process and we are doing our own process here for transfer students. In terms of First Year Experience based on their recommendation of the advisory board of First Year Experience which has faculty representation elected by Faculty Association, they recommended transitioning out of what we’ve done for our first year experience program moving into piloting the common reading program and that was for several reasons. What they did suggest at that time too was offering to the faculty learning communities under the current FYE program, offer them the opportunity to continue this for 2011-2012 and I think five learning communities have come forward out of that and they also at that time recommended that it not be at the compensation that we provided before because that compensation of duty days or reassigned time was about developing learning communities and since these were already successful learning communities that fund wasn’t necessary any more so that’s why that funding has been pulled out and two of the reasons for moving to this new piloting common reading program was our FYE learning community program wasn’t working very well, it never was implemented, I don’t know what the cause was but it was never implemented the way it was should have been and so faculty participation was very little and in moving to the common reading program even with paying for all the books for the first year students we are still saving $75,000.
Admin: With the time that’s remaining it’s clear that we’re not going to be able devote the same amount of attention to the remaining items. There is an item that does not appear on the agenda but you did get a copy of because we promised this to you at the previous meet and confer. This is the draft for a process that results in the potential to change the names of schools and colleges, departments and programs, so that is a draft. I would hope it would come up at the next meet and confer. I heard today that there were 29 classified BESI’s that were accepted.
Admin: Just a minute, lets first when that agenda item comes we will talk about it. So this draft, take a look at it and then let us know what we want to do. In the interest of time there are just two minutes left.
FA: Do we have a process for extending this?
FA: Can we extend it for 15 minutes?
FA: Do we have the room for another 15 minutes?
Admin: Let’s pick out the items we want to discuss for the next 15 minutes.
FA: We can’t extend because we don’t have the room.
8. Contingency Plans for State Government Shutdown (FA)
Admin: We had a plan a few years ago, as you recall the state government did shut down and when we did that plan at that time we could stay open because we have our own, we don’t get all of our money from state, we get some from students so we can stay open through the summer session. June 1st that should look like that’s a possibility and we will probably by then get some guidance from MnSCU about how we might shape our response.
Admin: Since the room next door is booked, what I can do is since you said 8 & 9 were urgent to you, he has talked about 8 and about 9 what I will do is after I get back, I’m going to be out of town, I will set up a meeting with Tom and he can bring another member of the executive committee and you can relate the concerns and then we can talk about it when we get back next time.
Adjourned: 5:04
9. Request Administration Action to Address HURL Continuing Issues (FA)
Progress Reports on Long-term Concerns
1. Transition Plan (ADM)
a) Chair elections (FA)
b) ASAOPSA timing (FA)
c) Request to include all program coordinators in transition teams (FA)
d) Timing for staffing announcements and effects (FA)
2. Report on Budget (ADM) (10/18/07)
3. Information on BESI for Classified (ADM)
4. Searches in Academic Affairs (ADM)