Faculty Association/Administration
Meet and Confer
February 28, 2002
Attendance:
Faculty Association: President Fisher, Andrew Larkin, Judy Foster, Annette Schoenberger, Tracy Ore, Robert Johnson, Chris Inkster, Judy Kilborn, Terry Peterson, Bill Langen, Sunshine Shaney, Notetaker
Administration: President Saigo, Nathan Church, Steve Ludwig, Barb Grachek, Diana Burlison, Lin Holder, Roland Specht-Jarvis, Kristi Tornquist, Jackie Zieglmeier, Notetaker
Guests: Joe Christensen, Jerry Anderson, Brenda Wentworth, Beverly Stadum
ADM: We have some dilemmas with our study abroad programs. Each year we try to get faculty appointed in a timely manner and its not working. When we converted to semesters we went to a new model, but its not working. We are sitting right now with no director and no faculty for 2002-2003. The deadline date was Feb. 10 for application. At that time we only had four students enrolled for this summer. As of this afternoon we have 16 expressing interest for summer. For fall we were sitting at 10 that have expressed an interest. We should be appointing directors for 03-04, so we are two years behind.
FA: I am sure the Senate approved the recommendations of the International Studies Committee.
ADM: We haven’t seen anything so far.
FA: The change of policy that happened about 10 years ago was not the subject of a narrow or broad discussion that I was aware of. We ought to reopen this issue and take a look at it.
ADM: We need to know what kind of directions we want to go in. We need some people getting together to discuss this.
FA: I am going Monday to South Africa to try to prevent some of the problems you are talking about from happening over there. We don’t have any idea of what we are sending our students there with and what they are coming back with in terms of curriculum. I am going there to try to find some answers to these questions, using my own personal funds.
ADM: We are sending one person with you at the college’s expense for that purpose.
FA: Not for the same purpose and if it is the purpose its not clear to the members on the African studies committee.
ADM: Part of the question for me is how many of these programs can we realistically sustain within the framework of the university. Any faculty member with a passport is dangerous because we have programs springing up all over the place. I would rather see a more cohesive program. We need a centralized focus and a mission of what we want to do with study abroad programs.
FA: We will have the ISC chairperson contact you and get that straightened up.
FA: I believe that we have authorized that committee to meet to discuss some of these issues.
ADM: They have met a couple of times but as of today we don’t have any information for next year. If the committee feels we should do an extension of some sort, then we need to do that.
FA: FAEC approved the formation of an Ad Hoc committee to review the study and, make recommendations to the Senate on how to proceed with it. That’s just an information piece on previous discussions we had.
ADM: I have made contact with them and spoken of many issues regarding this. Dr. Nichols has agreed to come to campus and meet and work on it. I appreciate the committee that you put together. I am very hopeful in this process that we can come to the best end we can at this point that we’re at. As the result of discussion comes back through your process, we propose that we would sit in on those discussions to help facilitate that if we can.
FA: The committee has been formed and we are having our first meeting tomorrow.
FA: There has also been a request from the committee to get a copy of the contract for Nichols and associates would that be possible.
ADM: Sure we can do that.
FA: I do need to remind this group because this is the group that heard our repeated requests to be involved in this and I appreciate that and am open to that.
ADM: We have a statement to distribute for your consideration. The intention is to put this up with the academic misconduct policy so the two are always side-by-side. 1st paragraph pretty clear. 2nd paragraph-in other words if its not true on your resume when you apply you cannot have the job. 3rd paragraph-basically says punishment has to fit the crime. Last paragraph is a statement of what sorts of things are considered misrepresentation.
FA: Will there be a parallel policy for employees who are not covered by IFO/MnSCU policy?
ADM: For administrators we have to have the exact same sort of thing. For excluded management the principle has to be the same. All of this is underlying to Minnesota state statute.
FA: I would suggest that if this is going to be put on the web page I would hope there would be another posting of not only this policy but the parallel policy as well as the state law as it applies.
FA: That is the progressive discipline article right? What is your reading of the provisions of that article?
My reading I understand it as a process in which there are a series of chronologically fixed steps.
ADM: Yes it is a process. There are certain types of misrepresentations that might be serious enough that the President would take the termination step.
FA: The very name of the article is “Progressive” which implies a process of graduated discipline.
ADM: All discipline is different for individuals. Worst-case scenario its saying termination is allowed under the contract for certain types of misrepresentation. Employment law itself the due process would require one hearing for the individual to present their side of it. Our policy allows more steps but doesn’t require that all steps be taken.
FA: One of the questions is why we need a policy like this?
ADM: I am not sure this is a policy; I think it is just a statement making sure everyone knows where things are going to go. There is no secret we have had some problems with the Academic Misconduct Policy so its just clarification.
FA: If it is already in the policy I don’t see why we need this. Is there another committee of inquiry that goes with this – does someone have the power to unilaterally terminate a faculty member?
ADM: No, no one has that power. This policy exists because it is necessary to get federal funds. The policy as it is written serves very well to deal with cases involving research. Almost every university in the nation, with any decision dealing with RPT either runs everything through the Academic Misconduct Policy or another policy.
FA: I just don’t know that we have assurance that there will not be an arbitrary and capricious use of this.
ADM: It has to tie to Article 24.
FA: The separation of the academic misconduct form Article 25 is something Senate raised as a concern. I think what may materialize as a concern is under Article 24 when you are dealing with progressive discipline and misrepresentation how then do we describe due process? I think that removing Academic Misconduct from article 25 is a good idea but we now have several other issues we should be discussing. I think we should take it back to Senate for discussion.
ADM: The point you have made is perfectly correct. Contractually due process is grievance. We need to know what the rules are how we are going to do this whether those rules are perfect or not are contractual issues. If the Faculty Senate hates this let us know real fast. If we do have to do this, we’ll need to know.
ADM: I think in any institution, the whole notion of progressive discipline is that as soon as you see a performance problem and this indicates a diligence on the part of the employer to be aware and progressively discipline that kind of behavior. We identify those items that would result in the immediate removal. I think the RPT hiring process by its very nature tends to be one-time events. It is difficult but we shouldn’t relieve ourselves from the duty to do these kinds of things for clarification. I think it is critical that it’s clear where a person could go awry.
FA: I agree with you entirely and indeed the faculty have historically pushed for clarity in all such and related matters as well. What is a watertight argument is that there is no detailing of these behaviors that would allow the President to leap to the most severe sanction. That is particularly anxiety producing. We are in a perpetually volatile state.
ADM: I think that is a contractual issue. Article 24 gives the President that power which means we can’t take it away.
FA: I would point out to you that you are involved in a first level contradiction.
ADM: These are issues that have to have a sense of reality and support within the community. It also has to have the general academic community support. I think we have to do further internal clarification but also have to clarify within the standards of other institutions. I think there is both a larger professional component and a very detailed institutional component that need to be handled.
ADM: Many of us have been active in search committees you get a number of applicants who look very strong and how do you decide. Imagine now that you recommend hiring someone and you find out afterwards that this person has lied to you.
FA: This is not a good time to bring something like this to Senate. It’s going to come in as a document from the administration and this is the worst time for you to do that.
ADM: I would ask for your help in pointing out to the faculty that it really just says article 24 and 25. There is a pressure that we don’t want to multiply with our legal problems by being unclear.
FA: I personally don’t know if academic misconduct is a proper term to use. This has to do with a memo that was sent to the President regarding allegations of “academic misconduct” with regard to an administrator on campus; I believe that memo included evidence and there were several different sources for these allegations. We have not heard anything about that memo and they are expecting answers and responses from the administration.
ADM: The president asked me to verify information that was contained in that memo and I did report that the document in question did exist.
ADM: The question was something about the book being available but that it was mislisted. There were two confusing statements as to how it was printed. We’ll put it back together and send it to you.
ADM: Dennis has met with honors advisory counsel and the next step is to go ahead with a search to find a director. The second issue has to do with the assessment director. We would like to give those chores to avp for institutional research. Thereby increasing effectiveness of assessing student learning. In case that person cannot be hired in the next few months we would look for an interim assessment coordinator to tide us over.
FA: Is this an announcement or brought for discussion and our consideration.
ADM: It is our recommendation.
FA: So you are asking us to take this to the Senate? We will have assessment directors in each college and each director will have its own committee.
ADM: The Assessment Director with work with AVP in IR and the committees in their colleges.
FA: Is there any kind of budget attached to this?
ADM: It’s not a lot of money that can be saved there, so it’s the commitment on the part of the colleges that is coming.
FA: What about general education assessment? Where would the responsibility for assessment of that take place?
ADM: All of those areas fall under individual colleges.
FA: How much reassigned time are we talking? We need details.
ADM: I see the range between one quarter and one half. It will be different in the different colleges. The mini-grants that existed will not go away because the budget is still available and will be available to either the college or the new AVP of IR.
FA: Just a small correction that the Dean has not met with the honors advisory committee just with me and I conveyed the committee’s information to him.
Guest: I have a question of how data would be accumulated and who would keep it and other such.
ADM: Putting the data into that corner will mean that the directors will report their data and where they find it.
FA: Senate passed a motion to reaffirm that assessment is a faculty purview. Senate also passed a motion asking about current statues of assessment. I like the idea of decentralizing this to colleges, but in terms of the expense we are going to one full-reassigned time to at least 5/4.
ADM: Please consider how many faculty actually teach in the classroom and how much time is assigned for assessment and such. The difference is very little as far as budget. So far what we have done in my view is not sufficient.
FA: It was very strongly endorsed in Senate that assessment should remain a faculty enterprise.
FA: One concern is that we are looking at two different kinds of data. There is data we always all need and the data that comes under the understanding of how well our students are learning based on what we do in the classrooms. Frequently the data that’s associated with the research grant is not so closely tied to what we do in the classrooms. I don’t want that to be lost. I think we need a full time person that is looking at the structural piece.
FA: Given the strength of Faculty Senate endorsement of this motion I suspect there will be some concern in what was the faculty role in developing this proposal. What will be the relationship between the college directors and the AVP will also be a concern. There will be a lot of questions as to what this represents toward faculty representation and involvement in this proposal and assessment in the future. If we can be assured that this is a draft and you are open to hearing our concerns.
ADM: Absolutely.
FA: What does this draft envision the relationship being among the deans the avp and the various college coordinators.
ADM: Both dean and AVP would try to serve those directors so some articulation could be made from college to college.
FA: Would it be possible to give some kind of written proposal that I could take to Senate so we could all be very coordinated on this.
ADM: I think we are halfway through our next north central evaluation, keep that in mind as you are putting your timelines together.
FA: I think about the essential role of the Gen Ed courses and what that self-study may be. If we out source this to the colleges, who takes care of this piece.
ADM: We are coming back today to meet the contractual guideline that says we need to notify you by March 1 we intend to close the safety center on March 14.
FA: The termination is the restructuring?
ADM: That is correct.
FA: Do you envision keeping any portions?
ADM: I think there are possibilities but as it now exists we must tell you that the center will be close but at this point we have not specific plans other than to close the center. We will remain open to other option but contractually we must tell you by March 1st of the termination.
FA: How would you suggest ways we can explore things such as a component remaining open or funding being acquired?
ADM: I think we can have the discussions.
FA: This is premature but I am wondering what your understanding would be if in fact a portion of the center would remain would seniority play a role in the staffing of that piece?
ADM: Seniority is a contractual definition. I think when you have any kind of entity such as a driving range if there is no contractual obligation to recognize seniority then its and open door.
Guest: We just have a lot of curiosity because we hear a lot of things second hand. We have wondered who would remain employed if the driving range would stay open.
ADM: We would do it contractually and if there were no obligations we would hire people based on their expertise.
FA: Could we ask that if the administration would decide to keep a portion open, that you would let the Faculty Association know as soon as possible?
ADM: You are certainly asking a good question about if something stays open but at this point my understanding is there are no obligations and once termination takes place that’s the end of our obligations. I would be willing to look into that further.
FA: I think it would be good to keep discussions open on this topic. If we can’t reach agreement well that could be happen but I think we should keep the doors open.
ADM: The door is always open.
FA: You would let the FA: know if you decide to keep the driving range open.
ADM: As far as I know, that’s what will happen.
FA: I have heard there is a calendar out there that goes beyond May 14.
ADM: We will try to clarify that and get back to you.
FA: The issue here is that it has come to our attention that the Dean has asserted that Democratic Citizenship in COSS has of the 1200 seats 800 have been vacant. Because of this there has been the decision to now teach all of the DC courses by adjuncts, all those that are currently taught by fixed terms, in the entire college will disappear.
FA: This is from the notes from COSS Dean’s Counsel and he indicated that we have 800 excess seats.
ADM: I don’t have a complete answer for you, but I know the budget plan that the AVP developed did in fact remove all non-permanent budgetary pieces from the existing academic affairs budget. Then she took the block of money that we did have available and reallocated that money according to the number of credits produced. The deans now have that as the budget plus some adjunct money. I believe the deans have been given as much flexibility to determine how to use that budget in the best structural way for the college.
ADM: For next year several ingredients need to be considered because you don’t just look at the lines and money you have you need to look at supply money and equipment money. We cannot tell you across colleges exactly whether we can hire in all the positions we have available to us. My hunch would be that deans would have to use more adjuncts.
FA: The dilemma we are having in COSS we have a direction to plan our schedule according to the faculty we have right now. We do that and then we are told that we won’t have any one to teach that.
ADM: I am convinced that we can’t replace FTNP with adjuncts.
FA: But that is what is being proposed. The issues of adjuncts and fixed terms came up before in contract negotiations. What’s alarming is that we are doing this across the board in a college. From a department perspective, It makes all the issues of departmental governance and such matters much tougher.
ADM: I will check on these issues but the college we talked about has consistently offered excess seats. I think that part of what is happening is based on our experience of conversion to semesters how much is possible to be used up of those 1200 seats. I am not sure how this particular dean is thinking through those multiple factors.
FA: In the departments there are fixed terms that are meeting the requirements and its not just that we are being told that we’re being replaced with adjuncts but that it is not a need in our department.
ADM: last year we needed to cut $900000 out of the budget we just decreased the monies and the lines are there. We need to cut money out of the next budget. We haven’t made that hard decision to say what are we going got do differently than before.
FA: Let me be clear; what we are formally requesting is an explanation as to why the administration is going entirely from fixed term to adjuncts for democratic citizenship in the college. We would like to see the data that proving that there were 800 empty seats. It would be useful to see that data broken down by department. I think there are some serious contractual issues here.
ADM: NCHEMS was here and presented to the Strategic Planning Committee. The information you have in front of you is what was presented. I would like you to read through it. The first part of the report is about trends in higher Ed nationally and within Minnesota. The second part kind of tells about trends in SCSU. If you have questions or concerns, please feel free to call me. What this starts to do is to move towards tying us to STP initiatives and to look at how we do budgeting. I don’t know if we will use every page of this data, but we have to look at what’s important to us through STP and what is important for incentive based budgeting.
FA: The March 6 meeting is open to all faculty.
FA: As regards to national and regional trends, I have a clear recollection of the assertions supposedly backed up by these things. I can’t think of a single one that came true as far as trends that didn’t happen.
ADM: I would agree with you on some of that, some of the trends come true and some of them you wonder exactly now they define those trends to begin with. I have to remind myself if we don’t at least look at our trends we are definitely caught off guard. In some way, in time SCSU is going to look very different than it does now. I have been fortunate to have the president’s leadership in this but I can’t tell you how strongly I feel about not doing budgeting the way we have.
FA: A trend is a piece of information and as humans we erect options to deal with them.
ADM: Yesterday we were at the reception for senators and representatives and MnSCU was there and praised the Administrative VP and the Assistant Administrative VP. I want to thank all of you because we shared the table with St. Cloud Tech people and we’ve always tried to make it a team. It was wonderful and everyone felt good that we were working together. There is so much discomfort right now for everyone. We are all concerned about accessibility and is income going to come up for the state. We have to be very aggressive in recruiting. Every morning we get up and say we want to do what we can to improve SCSU. I want to continue to make sure that we have open communication. Please let us know of concerns and we will get there in someway. I don’t want to be drawing lines in the sand that we can’t cross. I want to thank you for the tone and the way we discuss things.
FA: Thank you.