Meet and Confer

November 7, 2002

 

Meeting Notes

 

Faculty Association:  Theresia Fisher, Robert Johnson, Judith Kilborn, Bill Langen, Tracy Ore, Terry Peterson, Sandra Williams                                                            

 

Administration:  John Burgeson, Diana Burlison, Nathan Church, Lin Holder, Steve Ludwig, Roland Specht-Jarvis, Roy Saigo, Michael Spitzer, Rex Veeder                                                                        Jackie Zieglmeier, Notetaker

 

Independent Review Committee:

FA:  The Faculty Senate elected the following members for the Independent Review Committee:  COFAH--Keiskue Mizuno, COSS--Jeanne Lacourt; COE--Steve Hornstein, Special Services--Renee Rude, COSE--Bob Weisman, Faculty of Color Caucus--Semya Hakim; Jewish Faculty Association--Steve Frank, GLBT--Gary Whitford.  Have the rest of the committee been selected?  When will a meeting be convened? 

 

Adm:  Nathan Church and Theresia are working on convening the meeting.  We have not heard from the students yet as to their representative.  One administrator has been appointed; one more needs to be appointed.  The first meeting should occur in 1˝ - 2 weeks.

 

Faculty Overload versus adjunct appointments:

FA:  At the last meet and confer, we left the discussion saying that Provost Spitzer would get MnSCU’s interpretation of the contract language. 

 

Adm:  I did speak with Chris Dale.  MnSCU’s interpretation was that there are three separate sets of circumstances to hire adjuncts.  These are identified in the section of the contract you referred to at the last meet and confer. (Article 1, Sub. 3. a. 1, 2, 3.)   They are independent of each other.  In any one, adjuncts can be hired.  I have a recommendation of a department in the College of Education regarding adjunct and overload appointment.  I have not had a chance to discuss this with the dean to see if this is an exception. 

 

FA:  In our discussion at the last meet and confer, we said the first sentence in the section before the 3 items contained the clause, “within the workload of permanent faculty, including overload.” 

 

Adm:  I asked about the whole subdivision. 

 

FA:  After your conversation with Chris Dale, how do you relate the first part to the 3 items that follow?

 

Adm:  I am not sure that I follow your question.

 

FA:  There may be circumstances where workload of faculty includes availability and willingness to do overload and the need to come up with additional faculty to staff a position.  Before going to 1, 2, and 3, your inquiry didn’t talk about where the workload of faculty would include availability and willingness to do overload?

 

Adm:  Isn’t that different than what was provided at the last meet and confer?

 

FA:  How do you account for the “includes overload” clause?   That was our intent in contract negotiations.

 

Adm:  I will go back and talk with Chris Dale.  At the last meet and confer wasn’t the heart of the difference No. 3 and the language change from “resources” within a department to “faculty” within a department?

 

FA:  The previous understanding was based on an arbitration award.  The arbitration award hinged on language.  To clarify the arbitration award we provided both sets of language.  We need to look at the contract as it exists. 

Regarding No. 3, we have no concern.  The President determines if such conditions exist that dictate that faculty tasks cannot be accomplished within the workload of permanent faculty, including overload.

 

Adm:  Let me clarify further with Chris Dale. 

 

FA:  I apologize if I was not clear in my statements at the last meet and confer.  Thanks for checking on this.

 

Traffic safety faculty and students:

FA:  At the last meet and confer you heard some of our concerns.  What is the current status of student applications?

 

Adm;  We agreed to submit the credits students took at Resource Training and Solutions for licensure.  The Board of Teaching rejected those applications.  Sara Riley received a phone call from Diana Garcia, Licensing Supervisor, per George Maurer, Director of the Board of Teaching.  The BOT will not accredit those students with courses only from Resource Training and Solutions.  Students who took Hamline courses will be processed.  It looks like there are 21 students who need to get transcripted by Hamline before we can try to process credits. 

 

FA:  You requested an audit of the former Minnesota Highway Safety Center?

 

Adm:  I have the draft of a contract for an audit on my desk.  The audit will start shortly after the contract is signed.

 

FA:  Can we look at the letter for the audit?

 

Adm:  Sure.

 

FA:  Regarding the rostering of faculty who are currently listed under Academic Affairs, one of the questions we have is who will their supervisor be?

 

Adm:  Officially, Rex Veeder will oversee the evaluation process.  He will consult with them and will set up a procedure for evaluation and have that done by the end of next week. 

 

FA:  Are there other faculty rostered in Academic Affairs?

 

Adm:  Some faculty directors are rostered in Academic Affairs for salary purposes.  We work cooperatively with the dean and they follow their college’s RPT process. 

 

FA:  In the case of the former Minnesota Highway Safety Center, what is their college?

 

Adm:  There would be no college for them.  In most cases, faculty directors teach one course in their home department and do Article 22 and 25 in their departments.  I might co-sign sick leave slips with the dean. 

 

FA:  What does rostering mean?  Is it separate from the official seniority roster?

 

Adm:  They maintain seniority in the home department.

 

FA:  Is there a separate roster?

 

Adm:  No, the seniority roster is the official roster so faculty are not disadvantaged by taking a director’s position.

 

FA:  On the latest seniority roster only former traffic safety people are rostered in Academic Affairs.

 

Adm:  Yes.

 

FA:  How many other faculty have been rostered in Academic Affairs?

 

Adm:  Three that come to mind are the directors of Advising, Honors and the Faculty Center for Teaching Excellence.

 

FA:  What about DGS?

 

Adm:  No, that is a MSUAASF position.

 

FA:  Those faculty from the former MHSC now rostered in Academic Affairs will get a year’s seniority where?

MHSC?

 

Adm:  They do not accrue seniority because they are FT or NTT.

 

FA:  But they show up under MHSC.

 

Adm:  No, not at this point.

 

University Researchers’ Funds:

FA:  At the last meet and confer you presented to us a memo from Richard Rothaus that gave the status of the University Researchers’ Funds.  Given that the process is underway and faculty members have applied, we will let that lie.  We do want to know how many grants have been awarded. 

 

Adm:  I believe that I saw a memo where the FA recently voted on these awards.

 

FA:  Those were professional improvement grants.  We are concerned with the proposal to change the use of indirect funds—a recommendation that is going forward that money be reallocated to departments, colleges, and investigators.  We want to get more information on this and be involved in the process that takes place.

 

Adm:  It has not yet gone forward.  Discussions have centered on providing incentives for a college by returning indirect costs to departments who generate funds.  Most universities do that.  We are wondering if we have the ability to do that under our current budget environment.

 

FA:  We want to be involved and informed of the process.

 

Adm:  We will bring it to meet and confer before it is implemented.

 

FA:  We are saying faculty involvement would be helpful in the development of the process.

 

Adm:  We have no problem with that.  Research directors are already participating.

 

Assistant Deans:

FA:  We presented to the Senate the possibility of assistant dean appointments.  Questions arose and comments were made.  Here is a list:

In summary, the Senate decided that it needed more information.

 

Adm:   Those are very good questions.  I am not sure that I have worked out all of the answers.  We hope that if we do this it will inform our hiring and RPT processes that are taking place this spring.  If this takes too long to get implemented, we are not sure we can do it now.  We may need to postpone the whole idea until we have a better financial outlook.  Costs would be funded out of Academic Affairs for adjunct replacement.  Faculty serving as assistant deans would be given release time.  We have not yet focused on how they would be selected.  We wanted to see FA response before we worked out the details.

 

FA:  Is there a job description written?  If so, we would like to see it. 

 

Adm:  No, there is no job description.  I talked with Andy Larkin about two things that might happen:  1)  The assistant dean would be involved with personnel processes, or 2) the assistant dean would relieve the associate dean of other responsibilities so the associate dean could focus on personnel processes.  That latter might make more sense and provide continuity.  The position responsibilities would be worked out by the dean,  the associate and assistant deans.

 

FA:  In some tasks that the deans do—for example budget and scheduling—wouldn’t there be a conflict of interest or an opportunity for favoritism?

 

Adm:  The assistant deans would not have decision-making responsibilities.

 

FA:  Are you looking for a motion of support from FA Senate?  Are you looking for a response—another type of motion? 

 

Adm:  Earlier you mentioned support from the department and faculty.  What did you mean by that?

 

FA:  The question was whether or not faculty would elect the assistant deans.  If they were elected, we believe they would have the support and backing from the college.

 

Adm:  If I could use the COFAH as an example – if someone from Music were to become an assistant dean, there would be no more backing from Communication Disorders than from Biology.  Disciplines are not related to each other.  The college does not hang together. 

 

FA:  So using your example, another question arises – would Music let their person go and accept adjuncts to teach music courses? 

 

Adm:  We would likely do an abbreviated internal search.  One of the difficulties I saw when I came here as President is that deans have an impossible task.  The COFAH, for example, has 170 faculty.  I asked the Provost how we could reduce the workload of the deans.  There is a lot of responsibility for RPT.  We need to find ways to reduce the burden of the deans.  We need your help to oversee the process so that there are no procedural mistakes.  The contract provides a process for faculty to take an administrative leave.  They accrue seniority in the first 3 years, so there is no disadvantage for the faculty member to step into an administrative position for a short time.

 

FA:  If the proposal to combine Article 22 and 25 is approved, how does that reduce the workload of the deans?

How would that affect your recommendation for assistant deans?

 

Adm:  The workload might be slightly reduced.  For example in the COSE, there are 14 second-year faculty who are reviewed in the fall and in the spring.  That is a lot of reviews to take place.  We need to help make sure that RPT and hiring processes are done with appropriate procedures and that affirmative action guidelines are met in hiring.   Perhaps we can have Roland and John write a job description to answer your questions.

 

FA:  Could we have it before the Senate meeting on November 19?

 

Adm:  We can have it to the President’s Office next Monday.

 

Curriculum Matters:  Pre-requisite Checks:

FA:  At the last meet and confer, we talked about pre-requisites checks being put back into the registration system.  We want that only if it can be done correctly.  One concern is that the computer system is not programmed to accept transfer credits. 

 

Adm:  There are 2 other limitations:  1) the computer system does not recognize co-requisites; 2) the computer system does not recognize current enrollments.  For example, if a student was taking Calculus I this semester, the computer system won’t recognize it as a pre-requisite for the Calculus II course the student would request the next semester.  These 3 limitations are built into the program.  We have limited ability to reprogram the system.  I will check if there is a way to get it fixed.

 

FA:  Do co-requisites involve a lot of students?

 

Adm:  A fair number.

 

Curriculum Matters:  Double-counting:

FA:  We have some concerns about double counting in minors.  We assume you will define the problem areas and give them to us for FA review.  We don’t know what the issues are.

 

Adm: Sure.  It will be good to get your input.

 

FA:  We will send the information to our committee.  Our question is how much are we comfortable with double counting in majors and minors?  Also, faculty need to know how to advise students.  If the catalog says one thing and then when the student is ready to graduate the rules change, it reflects badly on the institution. 

 

Curriculum Matters:  Schedule 25:

FA:  What is the status of Schedule 25.  We heard it is dead.

 

Adm:  We heard that it has been finally fixed.  The software company originally told MnSCU what kind of interface was needed for Schedule 25.  MnSCU did not listen.  Finally a workable interface has been designed that will allow us to move forward.  We put the previous task force on hold.

 

FA:  When could a task force start meeting?

 

Adm:  We hope to get the names of your faculty representatives again.  We will start meeting as soon as possible.  Atwood has asked to meet with Debbie Tamte-Horan and explore using the same software to schedule rooms in Atwood. 

 

FA:  Do you have a sense of when the committee would be convened?

 

Adm:  Before the semester is over—hopefully by Thanksgiving.

 

FA:  When would implementation take place?

 

Adm:  We might be a year away.  We might pilot one area/building.  The Business Building might be easiest to do because most of those rooms are regular classrooms.

 

FA:  Is MnSCU implementing Schedule 25 now?

 

Adm:  They are making it available to us.  The license is bought at the system level.

 

FA:  Are you comfortable with the stability of the Schedule 25 software?

 

Adm:  If the task force does not have confidence, they will tell us.

 

FA:  So, you need faculty names for the task force?

 

Adm:  Yes.

 

FA:  Does MnSCU policy mandate us to use Schedule 25?

 

Adm:  Schedule 25 is the only software that has the capability to run large university scheduling.   The suggestion to go to a computerized scheduling system came to us from the faculty.  When buildings go on and off line in the next 10 years, we will definitely need a computerized system to schedule rooms and keep things moving. 

 

FA:  Schedule 25 has a pretty good reputation.  A few years ago, faculty concern centered on implementing  Schedule 25 too quickly and faculty had questions and concerns about priority scheduling. 

 

Adm: I visited deans’ councils 2 years ago to answer questions.  I would be happy to do that again if that is helpful.  Individual departments would still have first choice of the rooms they traditionally use.  There would be less autonomy  in the second round of scheduling. 

 

Special Administrators, appointments, bonuses, etc:

FA:  In September Faculty Senate passed a motion instructing the meet and confer team to request from the administration the following information: 

In addition, in the recent Affirmative Action report, we would like you to disaggregate MSUAASF from administrators. 

 

Adm:  Are you interested in all excluded managers or some subset?

 

FA:  Excluded managers including colleges and central administration.

Adm:  Excluded managers are deans, associate deans, vice presidents, assistant and associate vice presidents and the HR director.   We can give you this now (handout:  organization chart from website)

 

FA:  I will send you the FA Senate motion so you have the complete list of what we are asking for.

 

Adm:  Directors on the organization chart are not excluded managers.  Is compensation what you are considering as “cost”?  So salaries are what you need?

 

FA:  We haven’t defined cost.

 

Adm:  We will give you salaries.  You can assume benefits.

 

FA:  At the college level we are interested in associate deans. 

 

Adm:  We will get you a list.  We hope the organization chart answers the question of reporting.  For responsibilities we can give you position descriptions.  They are updated every three years or so.  As for accountability, excluded managers are accountable to the President and their supervisor to perform their duties.

 

FA:  Our question on accountability is more like this – If there was a special assistant in office “X”, what is the responsibility of that position?  What is the outcome of the position?

 

Adm:  So if we were to give you a list of excluded manager appointments, their responsibilities, who they report to, and the cost, is that what you need?  The response to bonuses is easy—there aren’t any.

 

FA:  We will take what you give us back to the Senate and tell you if we need more.  We are asking for position descriptions because when we looked at the list of administrative positions, we could not get a picture of what is happening in line with the current budget—are administrative positions growing? not growing?  What is needed to get administrative work done?  We have heard what is happening in some colleges and we need to track it. 

 

Adm:  NCHEMS has looked at this so there are benchmarks.  Could we put the question to the deans and perhaps have each dean provide a single page to you? 

 

FA:  That might take care of the colleges, but we are also interested in all excluded management.  You could do a matrix, list positions, and do a summary.  We are making the request.  How you decided to provide the information is up to you.  We are interested in changes at the administrative level.  For example, we know that the Tracy Bowe position is new--lead investigator and designated officer for discrimination investigations.  We know that the Assistant Vice President for Faculty Relations is a new position.  Who do these people report to?  What are their duties?  There may be other new hires, more special assistant appointments, more permanent employees in place and a number of interim appointments. 

 

Adm:  Are you interested in specific ones?

 

FA:  Again, we want to get the big picture at the college and university levels.

 

Adm:  For the college level positions, should they be related to number of students served?

 

FA:  If you want to provide that.

 

Adm:  I think the NCHEMS information will be most telling. 

 

FA:  These are nerve-racking times for us to be in.  Faculty are anxious about contract ratification.  Members are coming to us with questions.  It will be healthy for you to respond concretely. 

 

Adm:  If we understand what you want, we can do a better job of giving you the requested information. 

 

FA:  We are not instituting a blanket search to cover a vendetta against 2 people.

 

Adm:  It might be a good idea to go through any changes in excluded management with you early each fall.  Rumors might be quelled if we have open dialogue.

 

Chairs meeting with President or Provost:

FA:  What is the purpose of the chairs’ meetings with the President or Provost?  How are those meetings different from the chairs workshops?

 

Adm:  Three deans and three faculty members developed a series of chairs workshops.  The meetings the President had last year with the chairs and the meetings the Provost is having this year with the chairs are to get to know each other better, share information and discuss issues confronting the university.  They are primarily informational.  The chairs have told the Provost that they appreciate the opportunity to talk. 

 

FA:  We will report that information back to Senate.  How do the chairs’ meetings differ from deans’ advisory councils or meet and confer? 

 

Adm:  Deans’ advisory councils focus on other kinds of issues—within a specific college.  Chairs’ meetings are more general to the university. 

 

FA:  In the past, we had some information sessions that were more university-wide.  How do the chairs’ meetings differ from those university-wide meetings?

 

Adm:  When we do the budget piece, we will make those meeting opportunities available to the entire university.  Those meetings will focus very specifically on the budget.  The meetings with chairs are open-ended.  The focus is on issues that chairs want to bring up.  At one meeting, we talked about retention and why it is important to the university.  The meetings also provide an opportunity to ask the new Provost questions.  A lot of the chairs do not know each other, so the meetings also provide an opportunity for chairs to get to know each other.   Last year when President Saigo met with chairs, the FA President and President-Elect also attended. Good discussions took place.  It was helpful to get a sense of what faculty were experiencing.  It was also helpful for chairs to hear about issues being dealt with in other colleges, to exchange ideas and not have to reinvent the same process to solve the same problems.  Many chairs have expressed gratitude for being able to have those discussions.  Has the FA heard back from the chairs?

 

FA:  The discussion in FA Senate focused in part on the confusion around chair training workshops and how they differed from other chair meetings.

 

Adm:  The workshops have had an agenda.  The next chair workshop will be on dealing with difficult people.  The other meetings have open conversations.  The meetings are intended to give chairs a means to cope with different situations.  The idea is not to exclude—if you are interested, we can make it broader and ask you to join us.  When I came to SCSU as President, I saw a lack of communication.  I started with the chairs to provide an opportunity for more communication and give them an opportunity to understand each other’s point of view and to help the university community understand where the issues lie.  We have a contract and we abide by it.  The issue of faculty governance is more elusive.  We value faculty guidance and assistance.  We are not usurping anyone.  One way to contend with rumors is that if you have a question, you can ask that question and get a direct answer that has not been interpreted for the fourth or fifth time. 

 

FA:  You mentioned the upcoming chair workshop on dealing with difficult people.  There are jerks.  We have to deal with the contract.  We need to approach this cautiously.  That has been proven difficult in the past.  As we explore options, we need to err on the side of caution and seek advice.

 

Adm:  On the pro side of this issue is that the workshop on dealing with difficult people uses the same reference as mediations. 

 

FA:  We need to get everyone to understand that we need to deal with the jerks right now.

 

Strategic Planning:

FA:  Our question is who made the decision to link the strategic plan to the budget?  For a long time strategic planning was a separate process from the budget. 

 

Adm:  The President, the Provost—any combination of the two.  A strategic plan is exactly just that—a plan in which we try to focus on strategic priorities.  The budget is a plan on how we spend the money—foolishly or guided by a strategic plan. 

 

FA:  Or a foolish strategic plan?

 

Adm:  If the strategic plan and the budget are not connected, we are spinning our wheels.  NCHEMS last year talked about this.  A strategic plan allows for a greater degree as to how the budget gets spent.  Last year the decision was made by the President to invite NCHEMS to SCSU. They have said that if you do not make a plan for the budget, the budget is the plan.  NCHEMS introduced KPIs to the Strategic Planning Committee last year.  Diana Burlison serves as an ex-officio member of the Strategic Planning Committee.   Strategic planning is not about how to spend a few dollars but how to spend $100 million.  That thought process and development became clear to the Strategic Planning Committee.  For two and one-half days the MnSCU Leadership Council talked about the Chancellor’s work plan.  Accountability is a huge issue.  With the state’s new political leadership, it will be an even larger issue.  We are ahead of the curve. 

 

Conducting Meet and Confer:

Adm:  I put this item on the agenda because it is something we talked about at the first meeting and have not gotten back to.  I think we are doing a terrific job—we are having frank and open conversations.  I hope that we can continue to do what we are doing and make progress in that regard with each other.

 

FA:  I thought that we initially talked about a joint set of minutes.  How can we move forward with that?

 

Adm:  We are doing that today.  I had a conversation with Andy on Tuesday and we agreed that Sunshine would be the notetaker today.  Andy called today to say that Sunshine was sick and could Jackie take notes today?

 

FA:  I am taking notes because I knew Sunshine was sick.  They are just notes—not minutes. How would we process a single set of minutes? 

 

Adm:  The notetaker would provide one copy to me and one copy to you.  We can have disagreement.  We would then come back to the next meet and confer and approve the notes.

 

FA:  I have talked to Sue Prout about having something other than sugar for the refreshments provided at meet and confer.  If we become contentious in our discussions, sugar seems to feed that mood.

 

 

 

Assessment:

FA:  Last spring the Assessment Steering Committee forwarded a proposal to restructure assessment.  The FA Senate at its October 8th meeting rejected the proposal because they were concerned about assessment being de-centralized. They feel assessment should be university-wide to deal with general education issues, student life and development issues, among others. Assessment needs centralization and encouragement for faculty and colleges to develop assessment plans. Also of concern is the expense for reassigned time for college assessment directors.  Lastly, the Senate recognizes that an assessment plan needs to be in place for the North Central accreditation visit in 2006.  The Senate motion reads as follows: 1)  The FA recommends establishment of a university-wide task force on assessment to address the structure and implementation of assessment; 2) that the task force be comprised of members of the Assessment Steering Committee.

 

Adm:  I agree that there is a lack of a university-wide assessment.  Can we meet with the Assessment Committee and some administrators to come up with an FA and administrator plan? 

 

FA:  The Assessment Advisory Committee was disbanded. 

 

Adm:  I suggest that we establish a related committee and that we do it relatively soon.  Regarding North Central evaluation, we have an approved assessment plan through North Central—the “pink book.”  Part of that plan indicates who would serve on a central committee.  The membership is broad—includes student life and MSUAASF faculty.  I suggest that we take a look at that and use it as a model for the task force.

 

FA:  That is one reason to include members of the Assessment Steering Committee. We do not want to lose their expertise.   The organization chart shows a vacant Assessment Director position.  We do not currently have an Assessment Director position.

 

Adm:  Until we agree on a new model, the organization chart is accurate.

 

FA:  We will take your suggestion back to the Senate.  The “pink book” was approved through meet and confer.  In the absence of another plan, it is still operative.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FA:  Let the records show that all items of the meet and confer agenda were discussed and that we adjourned at 4:50 pm