Faculty Association: President Fisher, Andrew Larkin, Terry Peterson, Judy Foster, Robert Johnson, Judy Kilborn, Jack McKenna, Annette Schoenberger, Robert Johnson
Administration: President Saigo, Lin Holder, John Burgeson, Diana Burlison, Larry Chambers, Barb Grachek, Steve Ludwig, Roland Specht-Jarvis
Guests: J. Anderson, Steve Onstad, John Palmer, Cheri Rae Sundin, Karen Thoms,
Dennis Nunes, Kristi Tornquist
ADM: The issue is that we are not very happy about the level of participation that has begun to occur in faculty forum day. The issue is we are fully committed if it is meaningful to us. The first Wednesday of April for the Faculty forum day. We did not put it into the printed schedule because of these concerns. I would ask you to give some thought to preparing a plan to bring about greater faculty participation.
ADM: I am passing around some numbers from the workshop date. The first set of numbers is what we came up with based on the people who signed in. We had a grand total of 191 people attending. That’s not very good given the number of faculty we have. We had a number of panels and roundtables and workshops. I was able to provide you an estimate of how many people attended these sessions. We had some problems with the faculty workshop day last year. Generally the feedback from the people who attended came out fairly okay. Some brought us some concerns. We are already working on the presenter for April. I have several people in mind for that position. My intent is to identify the presenter by Nov 25 and have the first or second book talk of spring semester centering on that individual’s publication.
ADM: Some preliminary work is being done and I appreciate that. The larger issue is participation. Our request is to ask the faculty to come back with a plan to improve faculty participation and if you feel it has lost its value we come with an agreement that this is no longer needed. Please think about it and comeback in a reasonable time with a plan or recommendation to discontinue.
FA: My understanding is that the decision was made not to implement Schedule 25 for spring semester because it apparently doesn’t work as promised.
ADM: That is true. We don’t want to implement it until we are relatively confident that it will work.
FA: We are still getting a lot of areas where people are pointing out things that could be problematic. One of the things that occurred is that on the surface this appears to be something that will solve some bureaucratic problems. We would like to have a task force that will be charged with investigating these issues. To look at those 3 issues. So we have something the faculty can get behind rather than dragging their feet. It would be a joint committee
ADM: This actually was agreed to and initiated in one case by faculty. So there is a history that we kind of forget sometimes that this has been on the agenda for two or three years. An is our best estimation this is the only product that will work for an institution this size. It’s taking a lot of work. I am not sure what a task force would do, but if you would like to provide us with a proposal we would consider it.
FA: The task force would the nitty gritty of the implementation and the various issues involved. At this point we haven’t had a lot of faculty input. There were a number of concerns raised around campus. The idea of the task force is to meet all the various concerns of faculty, administration and such. How can schedule 25 be implemented to meet the various concerns around campus?
ADM: I’d like to have a proposal with composition and the charge you would like to see the committee have. I don’t know a lot about the technical side of it. I’d like to suggest that the person with responsibility of the implementation certainly would be one of our choices for part of that task force. We will certainly consider it.
FA: Would you have any suggestions for other ways to deal with this?
ADM: We will certainly consider the task force.
ADM: The first sheet you have you’ll note the income is the tuition income from COB. The return was instructional cost vs. instructional tuition. It appears that we have had the most productive summer of any of the universities in the state. That’s a function of faculty working with administration, selecting the right courses, and marketing our efforts. Page two all the data that lead up to the final allocation for 2002. This allocation has been increased from summer 2001 approximately 9%. The amount last year was one million 730,440 has increased to one million 894,831. There is nothing here you haven’t seen from the past several years. Last page is total summer session budget. This is for 2002 it’s 9.5 % increase from 2001allocation. This is an overall figure projected for 2002.
FA: If summer school enrollment is flat what impact would that have on the bottom line?
ADM: Summer session is conceptualized as alone from the budget of the institution. If we were to be well below the projections, it would be from the budget for the regular academic year. If we were to have substantially lower return it would have an impact on the money available for this institution to carry out its regular academic year.
FA: On summer school where does the state match come in?
ADM: We don’t get any money for summer session. Summer session is self-supporting. We are only allocated state funds for fall and spring credits.
FA: The chairperson expenses is that to fund a half time chairperson?
ADM: Yes. That’s right. I’d like to take it to the deans and if there are any more questions please let me know.
FA: Perhaps it may be just one view. Despite optimistic projections of the success of outlook faculty are having problems. Some of them are very serious problems, which may perhaps be a glitch. Faculty cannot get access. I think there are two parts. One is process that we think perhaps maybe flawed. Many faculty appeared the first of this term not having a clue what husky net was. Many students still don’t know what it is. I think what we are asking for new technology that there be either a longer lead-in or more information to get everybody up to speed. There have been conflicting statements that faculty will be required to switch to outlook. The second part for solving the current problems We are asking for a task force to discuss what went wrong with the rollout and what we can do to solve the concerns. Our recommendation is the formation of a joint FA/ADM task force to be charged with two parts; Solving the current problems that faculty are reporting to us and concerns for future technology:
FA: Would you like to receive a proposal on the formation of this task force?
FA: I think we need to realize that when we choose a certain technology, we have to keep in mind that technology is not neutral. There are pedagogical effects on teaching because of this. A major issue that has come up is that a lot of people do not have computers that will support outlook.
ADM: I don’t know that I can answer all the individual concerns. We have a task force (TLTR). We are waiting for FA: to give us names of members on that task force.
FA: I think we are looking for a problem solving committee not one who just listens to concerns.
ADM: Have people been going to technicians?
FA: The reason why I think that the task force is needed is hat some people feel that TLTR is part of the problem and you can’t take concerns to a committee where the problem is. I think there are two parts, solving problems in the process. And solving current problems.
FA: It’s not just a matter of not being informed it is not being consulted. For example many of the smart classrooms were upgraded with new equipment. To my knowledge people were not informed of this.
ADM: Learning resources were to go into any classroom to be effected ahead of time with the information.
FA: Didn’t happen. We can’t use this new equipment because of the policy implementation. So we are asking for one to go to the classrooms and solve immediate problems and two to be thinking about future implementations and how to we fix it so this doesn’t happen next time.
ADM: I would like any advice on how to get people more involved.
FA: Well you have our recommendation.
ADM: Come back with the proposal and we will consider it. I am surprised that we haven’t resolved some of these problems because how can you teach if you don’t have access.
FA: People make mistakes and even with the best planning there are mistakes made. The problem is that people weren’t even considered in the discussions and planning of this. I think we need to talk about process for future implementations.
FA: We will bring a proposal for your consideration.
ADM: Due to the legislation of 2001 the funding for Highway safety center has ceased effective March of 2002 they will no longer fund that unit. They have at this point ceased to support the activities and will do it through a competitive grant process. We issued them letters to inform them that funds will no longer be available. We felt it was better to be upfront.
FA: Is it correct then to say the sole reason for the termination is budget.
ADM: Yes.
FA: Can you explain the competitive grant process?
ADM: The safety center will come together to compete for a grant to continue their program.
FA: So the funding for the positions associated with the center would shift from the grants to the M & E.
ADM: Yes at the end of the year.
FA: With regard to any of the programs of this center are there any issues with those?
ADM: There is one small curriculum piece that this is our announcement to you that program will cease.
ADM: We went to this process of it being a self-supporting entity.
FA: As you pointed out this program has been highly successful for many years and although the legislation does change the way the funds will flow I think it is certainly reasonable to expect given our history of providing information in this program that we will be very competitive for the grant process. This is real news to us. The last email I got was from the dean applauding the fact that we had a new building. Certainly there has been no discussion of this and other possible ways of dealing with this. My concern is that we are abandoning this program that has been so successful for so long. I am afraid that the inertia is to close the center rather than to fund for it.
FA: Could we perhaps follow up on this at the next meet and confer?
Guest: I have been working off this grant for 18 years. We have many self-supporting programs. Every other year we submit a grant for this. Our grant t was not submitted this year. The dean did not submit it. In the law it states that that money is there for next year. The dean is saying we are out of here because we are in the hole and we are not. My question is why would the university want to give a way a million dollar grant that the university gets 12% of. We serve the community around the state.
Guest: Our impact is significant and if you want to look up University ambassador our picture would be in there because of what we do. Another thing that is of concern is that if any of you were to drive to the MN safety center you would see the sign that says our name and the SCSU logo is not on that sign.
Guest: It is more than budget. The money is there. It is a political control issue between some personalities.
ADM: Part of the issue is that last year we had a grant and the final payment 125,000was not made. The grant is current only and it will cover your expenses but it will not cover the 125,000 from last year. I also know that as I understand it public safety will have the funds and they are developing the criteria for the grant and that’s who you would work with.
Guest: This year we have been cut in our duty days. Two faculty have been removed. So there is more than enough money.
ADM: We cannot use the money from this years grant to solve last year’s deficit. The carry forward stays out on the books and I believe the state books keep it on there for seven years. That one grant has left us with a significant financial problem.
FA: Is there a history of deficits?
ADM: I don’t have that information right now.
FA: In the total scheme of things, if one of them comes up short one year is that the basis for eliminating an entire operation.
ADM: The state legislature concerning M&E funds. I can’t use M&E funds to subsidize a grant account and the other way around. I am left with the problem of trying to solve that deficit. I have no guarantees for next year. If we don’t provide them with notices now we will have them on the payroll with the possibility of no grant funds. They have to go through the process to apply for these grants. If they receive funding, as I understand it they could be continued in employment against that grant. I don’t know what we do because we don’t have any guarantees for the public safety money.
FA: We had a grant
that had been awarded for a certain level of funding and they chose not to pay
us 125,000?
ADM: Yes. We have contacted the attorney general and the attorney general will not take action against another state agency.
FA: My fear is that the action we are taking her today is going to prevent them from submitting a proposal for a grant.
Guest: Getting rid of our grant you are also get rid of the other programs that are bringing money into this university. If the attorney general won’t do anything is there any other recourse.
ADM: Outside of seeking legal services, no. Believe me I have tried. I don’t think they would have any terms for suing. The problem is that the grant was written in such a way that made it pretty easy for this to happen. This one was written that we would be paid at the end. The end came and the safety center came back and said they had no funds. I will check on what we did the last legislative session.
ADM: My understanding is that we have a deficit problem from last year; we have funding that is ending in March correct?
ADM: Yes.
FA: Perhaps you would like to ad that there is a grant proposal pending,
FA: Follow up at next Meet and Confer.
FA: I think we are all aware that there were two instance of academic misconduct charges filed against faculty last year. One was terminated. We believe that similar problems existed in the other process that was not terminated. I think it’s fair to say that faculty have lost confidence in this policy and the kinds of problems that arose with it. We are wondering if the administration has any concerns with these policies as they are currently written and if there is any plan to review them.
ADM: We are hearing this for the first time. We cannot confirm or deny any case is being heard under this policy because of confidentiality. We can talk about the policy.
FA: Is there any plan to review that policy?
ADM: As far as I know, not right now. There is no reason why any policy can’t be reviewed and revised as needed. There is some flexibility but this is not something we can just make up on our own. I will consider if it is time for review of this policy.
FA: We would like to look at the policy and the use of the policy on our campus. How would you like to proceed with this?
ADM: We have nothing in mind at this point.
FA: we will take it to faculty senate and bring a proposal to the next meet and confer. We would like to review the policy in light of recent events. We did talk about this last year at meet and confer. There are some outstanding issue from last time and rather than have it surface during article 25 process we think it would be helpful to deal with his ahead of time.
ADM: A recommendation for a minor change is that we would like it to be written in to add as far as who the admistrator is. That’s as far as we’ve gone.
FA: That would address one of our concerns but there are others we would like to look at.
ADM: Under the old MSUS there was a specific policy that covered the concept of consulting faculty. MnSCU allowed that policy to carry over for sometime. The policy has changed to that each university can have it’s own policy. We would like you to take a look at our draft proposal for this policy. If there are any recommendations let us know. We would like to have a policy in place by the end of semester or beginning of next so we could put it in place. Think about the ways in which we could use it and if there is something that isn’t right please let us know within a reasonable time.
FA: This is just an update on the FA grievances. The FA grievance regarding dean of COSS history department. We are awaiting the decision of the presidential designee. We have recently filed a FA grievance regarding dean of COE. I am happy to inform you that FA Grievance with regard to article 25 we have reached agreement. My thanks goes to administration and presidential designee. There is and MOA being drafted regarding implementing article 25.
ADM: Some of you may know that several deans have been looking at the hiring process. The effort is to make the hiring process more updated and to allow human resource to participate in that process. We have proposed some tweaking to allow it to run more smoothly. For example: provide training to search committees. Also; to have a confidentiality form for all search committee members to sign. Essentially the form would say that members would abide by confidentiality guidelines for the search. Also: to give more involvement to deans to be involved in making decisions about searches. Also; looking at placing a statement on the application indicating that the individual signing is telling the truth about all items contained in the application. Those are basically some of the changes
FA: You said these are things you are looking at. Are you coming with a proposal to make these changes?
ADM: I think that would be at a subsequent meeting.
FA: We have had discussions on this. I did get a draft with modifications to the hiring process. This was the committee that I had been told that I was going to be a part of but I wasn’t. We do have concern about the confidentiality form.
ADM: I think we wanted to get this into the notes that we need to get going and move forward and that we are working on this together.
FA: Would it be possible for those items you listed here, could you perhaps issue a memo listing those items?
ADM: Yes.
FA: Thank you.
FA: As you may remember last year we agreed at M&C to hold mediation on the concept of resolving grievances locally. We are requesting that we move forward with that as soon as possible.
ADM: It would be helpful if you could resurrect where you are with that.
FA: You would be determining your group and we would be determining ours.
ADM: I believe this just fell through the cracks. This is a proposal that came to you two years ago. If we are going to take any of your recommendations into account we need them by the end of November.
FA: I am willing to put on the record that indeed FA needs to take responsibility for this not getting done in a more timely way. I apologize for that.
FA: We would like to ask for two faculties on Special Assistant to the President-Legal Counsel
and at least 60% representation on Associate AVP for Institutional Research. Also we would like the status and composition of Special Advisor to the President-Investigator. It would be helpful for us to know that. Could you recommend some place we could get information on that. What are the plans for AVP search?
ADM: I know this has been brought up before. I have seen the document that is undated and unsigned. We have never agreed to a specific portion of 60-40. If you have specific concerns for those searches, I can look at that and let you know. I think the IR search is ready to get underway. We can look at it but there are a lot of other units that have a stake in this.
FA: How is the composition determined?
ADM: It is determined by administration-President’s Council.
FA: Could the rationale for these numbers of representation be discussed? How the composition was determined and what it is.
FA: This IR is the office out of which we got the famed website on killer courses. That was an incredible feat. Whoever we choose needs to be someone who would not do something like that. Someone who understands how awful and hurtful that was. To say That person doesn’t affect faculty and students more than administration I can’t accept that . When something like that occurs you get our attention. If that person is someone who can’t work with faculty I don’t know that we want that person on there.
ADM: We certainly can discuss the rationale for this and the makeup of the composition
ADM: There are other opportunities to have feedback other than on the search committee.
ADM: I think the other thing that would help is to have some sort of job description with the request for a search committee.
FA: Can we get an update on the AVP search?
ADM: We have so many activities I will be getting back to you and letting you know.