Faculty
Association: Andy Larkin, Chris
Inkster, Robert Johnson, Judith Kilborn, Tracy Ore, Terry Peterson, Annette
Schoenberger, Sandra Williams
Administration: Larry Chambers, Nathan Church, Lin Holder,
Steve Ludwig, Dennis Nunes, Roland Specht-Jarvis, Michael Spitzer, Rex
Veeder Jackie
Zieglmeier, Notetaker
Approval
of Previous Notes:
The
meeting notes of January 30, 2003 were discussed. On page 3, the administration’s statement regarding course
attempted needs to be clarified. Lin
Holder will send a re-write of that statement to Andy Larkin.
Chairs’
Summer Responsibilities: [FA]
FA: There are two issues: (1) It is not part of the Master
Agreement to charge chair contracts against summer session. (2) When are you going to get rid of the Summer
Sessions Academic Instruction Booklet with the incorrect information?
Adm: The instruction booklet is a compilation of
a batch of memos I used to send out each year.
I heard what you said about the chair contracts. I agree.
I will replace that section with the contractual language in Article 20,
C, Subd. 3. Also on Page 2 of the
instruction booklet, we will delete the fifth bullet under “Associate Dean
Responsibilities.” Annette Day tried to
get the spirit of the summer session information memos in one document. We have had positive feedback that having
the information in one document is helpful.
This is a first draft.
FA: It doesn’t say “draft.”
Adm: It is a first iteration. The first paragraph of the booklet reads:
“This booklet has been created as a helpful guide
for those involved in the administration of St. Cloud State University’s Summer
Sessions. I have attempted to compile
Summer Sessions’ academic and administrative regulations into one
resource. In this first attempt, I can
guarantee that policies and guidelines helpful to your work have been
overlooked. I will appreciate your
suggestions and input to include in future editions.”
FA: Will you be withdrawing the booklet or
correcting the errors? It is problematic to have inaccurate information out
there. It causes misunderstanding. The booklet lists information that was
changed in the previous contract.
You said that you would make clear the errors. How will you do that?
Adm: I have said that we would review the
booklet. Remember, it is a first
attempt. We will make the changes. I can send out the changes on the
scsu-announce listserv. I am not sure
it is realistic to recapture the copies already distributed. You, as the Faculty Association, have
identified issues and we will send to the university community statements to
correct and revise the information.
Again, we have heard that the single booklet is beneficial to
faculty. We will work on this with you.
FA: I am not sure that you caught the first part
of our comments. It is the FA view that
we don’t believe summer session chair salaries should have anything to do with
summer school. We believe that it is
the responsibility of the university so that expense should be from the general
budget. Our rationale is that the chair
duties have little to do with summer session.
Duty days may be taken between semesters. The Master Agreement does not require chairs to teach
during summer sessions nor even to take their 28 extra duty days during the
summer. We know that the money for
chairs’ salaries comes from somewhere, however, we do not believe it is a
summer session responsibility.
Adm: But if it comes from somewhere else, it ultimately
will take away from the summer session budget.
FA: What about chairs who do not teach during
the summer? How are they paid? How do you insure that salaries for chairs
are no longer included in the database for the summer session spreadsheet?
Adm: I will take what you have said under
advisement. We will come up with a
process. I have heard your request. I am not free to make a commitment now.
FA: The instruction booklets says that chairs
are required to teach summer session or the colleges and departments will be
affected negatively in next year’s allocation.
That is not in the contract.
Adm: You are correct. The Summer Session Office provides an allocation to the
colleges. The deans make allocations to
departments.
FA: But you will penalize departments and
colleges whose chairs do not teach in the summer.
Adm: No.
FA: You need to remove chair salaries from the
summer school allocation.
Adm: I will take that under advisement.
FA: How will you make sure that departments
won’t be penalized? The summer session
formula used the chairs’ salaries to determine next year’s allocation. Since the contract doesn’t require that
extra duty days be taken during summer session, how will that be accounted for
when one chair teaches and one does not?
When one chair takes extra duty days during the summer and one does not?
Adm: That is the issue. I need to engage in
discussion before giving a definitive answer.
FA:
How is this being done this summer?
Adm: Not all chairs teach during the summer. The chairs’ salaries are incorporated in
each college’s allocation and all credits taught by the chair are accredited to
their college.
FA: Summer session expenses do not reflect chair
salary? The allocation is in there.
How
many chairs do not teach in the summer?
Adm: I believe only 5 chairs last summer did not
teach. I will have to check to say for
certain.
FA: Can we have responses to our questions by
the next meet and confer?
Adm: I would be happy to discuss this with you
then.
FA: We would appreciate it if you could quickly
make the changes we identified. Here is
something that troubles me. The
contract is signed by the IFO and MnSCU.
I am uncomfortable when we are given a document and basically told that
we should find the contract violations and you will change them. There should be some onus other than on the
FA Executive Committee to make sure that when a new contract comes out changes
are made in existing documents that reflect changes in the contract. Why wait for us to tell you? I can’t understand that way of
operation. Where is the accountability
for other parties who sign the contract?
Adm: I am sorry that you are disturbed.
FA: The FA has a website that lists what the
contract changes are.
Adm: This is a small point but the contract is
not ratified.
FA: Again, the changes we are talking about
related to the summer session instruction booklet were in the previous
contract.
Adm: Again, the Summer Session Office has offered
a draft that has consolidated past numerous memos on summer session into one
document. Dennis Nunes has indicated
that changes will be made to the document.
In the spirit of meet and confer, we have invited your comments and have
not said, “This is it – follow it.”
FA: Thank you, Provost Spitzer, for coming to
the FA Senate meeting. We thought that
it was a productive exchange. We know
that there will be a budget town hall meeting tomorrow. We believe that we have some of the same
questions that will be asked tomorrow.
Consider this a dress rehearsal.
You gave us a draft of criteria to be used for reauthorizing frozen
positions. Have you moved past the
draft? Has it been accepted? Are the deans responsible to adhere to the
criteria?
Adm: We modified the draft adding a
recommendation made by a faculty senator—that positions be consistent with the
mission and vision of the university.
The criteria should be used by deans in deciding which positions are
filled in what sequence. We know that
there is a pressing need to get fall schedules done. We have postponed by one week the deadline for course schedules
to be sent to Records with the understanding that departments will only have
one opportunity to review drafts and make changes. Previously there was the opportunity to proof schedules
twice. We did this in response to a
Faculty Senate request to postpone the schedule deadline. We have told the deans to fill 30
positions. The deans and I have had
lengthy discussions about probationary versus fixed term. It was the general consensus that filling
searches with probationary appointments now is unfair to candidates. We have the sense that there will be fairly
significant cuts in ’04. I think we can
manage those cuts. I am scared to death
about the cuts for ’05. Hiring
probationary faculty and then giving them notice at the end of their first year
is unjust. It is more appropriate to
hire fixed-term faculty until we have a clear sense of where we are going in
the long term.
FA: Can we check to see if the deans are using
the criteria? I was told by our dean
that there is no criteria. I could have
misunderstood. We want to know
especially about the criteria for adjunct.
Our department does not have an adjunct pool. I am not sure where adjuncts would come from. We have some positions unfrozen. How does that happen?
Adm: To remove the search moratorium does not
mean that we have extra money. We need
to create equilibrium again. We have
had some shifts happen in retirements.
There may be the perception that the situation will be healed in two
years. There is awareness now that this
is more than a two-year problem. The
NCHEMS people who were on campus yesterday and today emphasized that the
long-term financial prospects don’t look good for several years.
FA: We want to know that the criteria are being
used.
Adm: I understand that colleges are doing this in
consultation with departments.
Different colleges use different strategies depending on the needs of
departments and programs. Are we
mandating 50 students per class?
No. Departments look at course
loads and make increases where it makes sense.
Some programs may add more auditorium classes. Some may add auditorium classes where they did not have
auditorium classes before. Another
strategy is to serve the same number of students with fewer resources.
FA: Our concern about raising class size is the
availability of rooms to accommodate those larger classes. Today our department asked for 5 large
classrooms. We got 2 and a list of who
to call to try to secure the rest.
Adm: Steve Ludwig is investigating remodeling the
old bookstore into large classrooms for the short term. The problem with the bookstore is that with
a flat floor, rooms cannot be larger than to accommodate 100 people. There are only 4 spaces on campus which can
accommodate more than 200 students—Ritsche Auditorium, Brown Hall Auditorium,
Math-Science Auditorium and the Center
Stage of Performing Arts Center. Large
classrooms are a scarce commodity.
FA:
There needs to be someone to look at the whole picture to know what is
available—a single source of information.
Adm: There are fewer than 10 classrooms that seat
100 or more students. Academic
Affairs takes initial requests for
large classrooms through the dean. Then
the requests are placed on a master grid and we note the conflicts. We give the master grid and the conflicts to
the deans to work out. For fall semester, requests for large classrooms are now
back in the hands of the deans. Mary
Williams in Academic Affairs also has a master grid. Deans don’t have authority to bump classes in other colleges. If the deans, working together, can’t
resolve a conflict it will come to Academic Affairs. We will try to make fair decisions or offer alternatives. Nathan Church has contacted University
Programming Board. Ritsche Auditorium
is now available for class Monday nights and possibly another night of the week
(Wednesday or Thursday). I know the
deans have proposed the following:
FA: I have heard a complaint in the College of
Education where the dean was requiring larger classes—the size was to reach the
capacity of the room. The issue of
violation of fire marshal regulations was raised.
Adm: How would it be in violation if the classes
were at room capacity?
FA: It was reported that the fire safety rules
would be suspended. Neither of those
are issues now because there has been a change of view. We have questions about reassigned
time. What is the university’s plan
regarding reassigned time for faculty, including chairs?
Adm: We are trying to move to the contractual
language with an understanding of 50% reassigned time for
all chairs but not more than the contractual minimum above fifty percent.
FA:
I sent the provost an e-mail attachment
of a memo where a chair was getting 66% reassigned time where, in fact, the
contractual reassigned time was 1/3.
That impacts class schedules. We
are looking for fairness across the university.
Adm: I haven’t seen that proposal. I would frown on disparate treatment.
FA: I can provide you another copy of the
memo. How will adjuncts be used?
Adm: To the extent that there is money in the
budget. We will need to use some
adjuncts. I would like not to micro-manage
that. Last year there was a $750,000
fund for adjuncts. Two colleges have
indicated that they will use adjuncts similar to this year. I can’t promise there will be $750,000 for
next year until I know what the allocation will be. I can’t see that we would be using fewer adjuncts than last year.
FA: Are you saying that positions out there will
be fixed term or adjunct?
Adm: In our college there were 26 positions
requested. We reduced that number by
25%, so the number became 20. We have reduced
that to eight fixed term.
FA: What about departments with poor adjunct
pools? Will you allow for faculty
overload?
Adm: It would be preferable to find adjuncts
because the salary would be lower. We
can advertise to build adjunct pools.
FA: We tried that. We got one response from someone in a different discipline.
Adm: I believe that adjunct pools are enriched
late spring, early summer.
FA: We are close to the U of M. A lot of adjuncts are already teaching
there. How will fewer faculty advise students?
Adm: We have not addressed that yet. It is a component of workload. What is your recommendation?
FA: With the same number of students and fewer
faculty, that means faculty will be advising more students. Most advisers are probationary and tenured
faculty.
Adm: We could make it part of the fixed-term
appointments to do advising. We could
provide training sessions.
FA: How do you plan to reduce the size of the
administration? At the last meet and
confer you mentioned not filling one administrative position—the Center for
International Studies position.
Adm: We are looking at all positions. We are currently searching for an Associate
Vice President for Enrollment Management.
We were looking to hire a Director of Admissions. We will not fill the Admissions Director
position for the foreseeable future. We
were looking to hire another person to help with institutional research. That position won’t be filled. Academic Affairs is looking at other
possibilities, as are the other vice presidents.
FA: We see that as no reduction. The institutional research position was
eliminated last summer. Who is
currently doing the Director of Admissions job?
Adm: There were two positions in institutional
research. One person left last summer
to take a position at the University of Nevada-Las Vegas. Mary Soroko transferred to the College of
Business. We have not had an admissions
director for a couple of years. When
Myron Umerski resigned we combined the admissions director with that position.
Debbie Tamte-Horan is currently doing both jobs.
FA: The point we are making is that we don’t see
a reduction from where we are.
Adm: There was money in the budget for these
positions. That is where we found part
of the $1 million we cut.
FA: The Center for International Studies
position was never authorized so that is not a savings.
Adm: If we have not spent the money, I regard
that as a savings.
FA: You are cutting faculty by 10%. Will the administration be cut by 10%?
Adm: We are looking at any number of
possibilities. Several of the deans
teach free of charge. The NCHEMS study
shows that for administration, SCSU is the leanest among comparable
institutions. On the faculty side, the
NCHEMS study shows faculty at comparable universities generate more student
credit hours than SCSU faculty.
FA: That is interesting. I have seen other numbers from MnSCU which
find SCSU high in administration. How
can we cut back 10% on administration?
Adm: MnSCU figures include MSUAASF faculty with
administrators. There was an increase
in MSUAASF faculty when the advising center was expanded, therefore resulting
in an inflated administrative number.
FA: What do you plan to do after the next
biennium?
Adm: Retire.
(laughter) It looks
like recovery will be slower than we would like. Economics experts predict there will be problems beyond the next
biennium. A trend is noticed in this
direction. Forty states have made
mid-year cuts in budgets. Some have increased
tuition as well. There is a change in
the nature of support for higher education.
The private institutions’ high-tuition, high-aid attitude sits well with
legislators. We need to mount a
campaign directed at legislators. We
need to show how public higher education has impact on the quality of
life. We have not done that
adequately. We need to put together a
strong promotional appeal. Will it
help? Maybe. If we don’t do it? Things
will get worse. I invite your
help. Once we are set with the budget
and plan for fall ’03, then we can think about where we want to be fall ’04 and
beyond. What is the enrollment mix we
want? What is the program mix we want?
FA: I raised with the IFO Board if SCSU should
go off by itself to campaign in this area.
The question is how to operationalize that. It is hard to draw a line between lobbying and publicizing.
Adm: We need to do both. The chair of the House Ways and Means
Committee is in our neighborhood. We
can do it for SCSU and also as part of MnSCU.
The private institutions say that they want more aid for students. Let the students decide where they want to
go. Our message is affordability,
accessibility, greater state support, financial aid and work-study. The private institutions’ message is much
cleaner. The consumer model carries
the day. We foresee a higher percentage
of financial aid going to private higher education compared to public higher
education.
FA: Accredited engineering programs are at state
universities. Accredited business
colleges are at state universities.
Maybe we could parody the recent private education ads.
Adm: We need to put out messages broadly and
successfully.
FA: At several different levels. Our societal discourse is that private
education is better than public education.
The evidence is not there. We
have allowed ourselves to be thought of as inferior.
Adm: You could spend a half million dollars for
advertising. I would rather see that
money go into staffing. I am not saying
that we should not do an advertising campaign but we should make a concerted
effort to promote the quality of education at SCSU.
FA: We have a committee and they will meet next
week.
Adm: We anxiously await your response. Will the committee include Roland
Specht-Jarvis and Nathan Church?
FA: We want to let the committee itself
decide.
Adm: Roland and Nathan are available.
FA: We have the handout Roland provided. We will let the committee decide its
structure.
Creation
of a Department from a Program: [Adm]
Adm: We are thinking about adding a department –
Ethnic Studies. We are notifying you
that this is under consideration to accommodate the contractual deadline of
March 1.
FA:
The contract says that a decision has to be made by March 1.
Adm: That is why we are bringing it to you now so
that you have an opportunity to comment before a definite announcement by the
March 1st deadline.
FA: Our only comment is why has this taken you
so long? The request for department
status comes from a program review recommendation.
Traffic
Safety Faculty and Students: [FA]
FA: We are trying to make sense of this. What happened to getting these people out of
involvement in College of Education kinds of business? Why does this unit participate in activities
in the College of Education (attending DAC) if it is assigned to Academic
Affairs? We understand that they are
not part of the College of Education.
It is confusing to these six faculty and others. Why, if they are assigned to Academic
Affairs and work under Rex Veeder, are they involved in decisions that impact
the COE? The reality and statement
don’t mix. They should be in Academic
Affairs.
Adm: Won’t that increase the administration? (laughter) Duly noted and this will be thought about and discussed. I have met with the six faculty and they are
clear about their assignment and supervision.
I will clarify any issues.
FA: That is what you said at the last meet and
confer. Reading from the notes of the
January 30th meeting:
FA:
If they are an individual entity why are they attending the COE DAC?
ADM: That is a very good question and I will get an answer on that.
FA:
If it continues, something is wrong.
ADM: Let is look into it a little further and come back with some more
information.
Adm: I don’t think that was in the same
context. I think the issue was why was
Bill Ruhr attending DAC? Bill Ruhr is
there as a coordinating position.
FA: What will he be coordinating? What is the link to the college? It seems simple. Give a directive so that this won’t continue. If the dean reports to the Provost and Rex
reports to the Provost, it shouldn’t be an issue.
Adm: We will get back to you.
Independent
Review Committee: [FA]
FA: Is the IRC prepared to solicit information
from the campus community?
Adm: I want to clarify. The Rankin report is out to students. That puts the IRC on a two-month timeline. The students have directed that the IRC
receive copies of the Rankin report. It
is being printed now for the committee, but the report has not yet gone
public. The students plan to release it
to the public soon. They are talking to
Sue Rankin now and may ask for an executive summary or addendum. The report itself stays the same. They may want to issue the report with a
statement from the students. I asked
Sue Rankin if she was aware of any institution where students commissioned a
report. She said no. I think that speaks well for our
students.
FA: Will students ask the IRC not to make the
report public until they are ready?
Adm: You had a previous question about
testimony. To the best of my
recollection, if a group is not represented in the report, the committee will
ask for additional testimony. Testimony
is not as much of a problem as providing the committee with documents from the
university. It is pretty much a
document gathering process—getting everyone the same material. An example of what the committee will be
looking at is the 13 demands of MEChA.
FA: Will the Rankin report be placed on the
website? It is important to have this
out in the open and available to the entire community.
Adm: Agree.
When the Rankin report is available, it will go on the website. Rex will let you know when it is available.
Curriculum
Process (UWR): [FA]
FA: How is the UWR being implemented? By graduate audit? The larger discussion is covered in the draft memo written by
Steve Klepetar (November 26, 2002) which we handed out at the January 30th
meet and confer.
Adm: It will be helpful for me to meet with the
General Education Committee to talk about issues of mechanics and to move
toward a solution on this issue.
FA: There is a process to set up a sanctioned
meeting. I will get back to you.
Grievances: [FA]
FA: At an IFO Board meeting we were given a list
of grievances for the system. SCSU’s
number of grievances was disparately high but smaller than it has been so that
represents some progress. We are
concerned that recently two grievances at Step II were ignored by the SCSU
administration and one had to be sent directly to Step III without a Step II
hearing on campus. We are concerned
that we are not getting grievances resolved on campus. We need to get grievances at the state level
arbitrated so we then get them resolved.
Could we bring some of our Step III and IV grievances back to campus for
resolution?
Adm: I am aware of the one Step II grievance that
went to Step III. It was not
ignored. There was some
misunderstanding that a response was needed without the Step II meeting. Won’t it require an MOA to get Step III and
Step IV grievances back to campus for resolution?
FA: No, you and I can resolve them.
Adm: Then let’s try.
FA: The chair of the FA Grievance Committee met
with you regarding one of those.
Adm: I thought that was an informal discussion.
FA: That is the process. We have not made progress with grievances
sent to St. Paul. They get to be
expensive and they count against the budget for MnSCU. The collective bargaining agreement requires
both sides to resolve grievances. The
atmosphere in the past at SCSU has been not to resolve grievances and to allow
them to go to St. Paul. Grievances get
thrown into the mire down there. It was
difficult with the SCSU campus climate in the past. Grievances became litigious.
Adm: You make it sound like all of the reasons
for not resolving grievances is at the MnSCU end. It takes two sides to have an argument.
FA: Past administrators have told us, “This
isn’t a grievance so we don’t have to resolve it.” We are saying that whether or not you go through the grievance
process, issues need to be dealt with on this campus.
Adm: I agree that if technically it is not a
grievance, that does not mean that you can’t resolve it some other way.
FA: That’s what we mean. I have just heard you say that we don’t have
that attitude on campus any more?
Adm: Correct.
I would like to make a suggestion that the Provost and FA compile a list
of outstanding grievances and look at a calendar to start work on them. The senior administration now does not have
the attitude that you believe existed previously.
FA: Those people are gone but the grievances are
still in St. Paul. That practice also
leads to further grievances. Not all incidents fit into
the grievance frame. We need a positive
attitude to resolve issues.
Adm: What process do you have in place to
evaluate if something is a grievance?
FA: There are lots of things I do. Different people may do something else. We ask what article is being violated. We suggest mediation. A person can say that they do not want to
mediate. Our lawyers tell us that we
have to file grievances if faculty want to pursue that route. Saying that it is not a grievance does not
resolve the problem. We need to take
another strategy. One of the grievance
officers and the Provost have met a number of times. There could be agreement forthcoming on one of the
grievances. Some grievances get
resolved. In some, you just need to
keep going.
Adm:
Yes, but some things are not
resolved. Some grievances are similar
to frivolous lawsuits. It is not
possible to resolve those cases. We
need to communicate with Labor Relations if there is interest to bring some of
the Step III and IV grievances back to campus for resolution.
Affirmative
Action Committee: [FA]
FA: The Affirmative Action Committee resigned
about a month or so ago. Has there been
any progress to understand their concerns?
Adm: I have met individually with Ferman and
Owen. Theresia and I met with
Keith. Everyone I have talked to has
expressed a willingness to work on creating a way to give proper recognition to
this university constituted committee.
We have had frank and professional discussions. I have mentioned the situation to the
President. The committee members want
to meet with the President. We are
making progress in clarifying issues and changing the dynamics.
FA: What is the issue?
Adm: A hardworking committee was lost in the
shuffle and shouldn’t have been. From
everyone’s perspective, what has to change is that we give a visible role for
this important committee. Over the
years with the change in administration and faculty leadership, and the
committee’s own discussion about length of term and confusion about the role of
different committees, things got scattered.
Questions need to be answered:
What is the role of the committee?
How will the committee function?
FA: The committee felt support was
withdrawn. What was promised didn’t
come forth. It was a principled
resignation.
Adm: That is my understanding as well. I worked with them last year on these
issues. I apologize that it has taken
so long to resolve these issues.
FA: We are concerned that important committees
are forgotten about, not supported and not consulted at key times.
Adm: One of the issues was the assignment of a
graduate assistant to work for the commitee.
They came to talk to me early fall or late summer. I had no money. I did not know why there was no budget allocated previously. I couldn’t help them because I couldn’t find
the money.
FA: Why does this happen? Why does this keep happening again and
again?
Adm: I believe that it was the transition between
interim vice president and provost and the discontinuity in the affirmative
action office. Laurel Allen was under
duress when the EEOC report came out and her focus changed. It was an unusual convergence of events. We should not have dropped the stitch.
FA: I am not letting you.
Adm: The role of the affirmative action
committee was not fully discussed.
FA: I was on the committee in the late 80’s and
early 90’s . There was a clear role
then. All university wide committees
have a designated role and function.
The President’s Office maintains a list that speaks to the organization
and function of university-wide committees. If these committee provide a role,
we need to support them. The committee
needs to be independent of Administrator A or Administrator B. At what point do we say that their work should
go on and not be interrupted by job changes?
At this point in time, it seems ironic to have the Affirmative Action
Committee left floundering. The
Mediation Program is also not well supported.
Adm: They have some support.
FA: $10,000.
Training needs to be provided for new mediators and second-level
training for existing mediators.
FA: You said that you would be discussing this
with AAC.
Adm: I did.
The question was would textbooks and research that resulted in financial
gain count toward professional development?
The answer is yes.
FA: Is it appropriate to use state resources?
Adm:
If the incremental cost is not significant.
The policy seems straightforward so that you could do it. The use of state equipment is appropriate if
it does not add significant incremental cost.
FA: Tim Price has a copy of a proposed policy
that addresses what to do if incremental cost is significant – negotiate so
that the university can have some of the money. I have a draft that I will send to all faculty and the
provost.
FA: The
Faculty Senate did not get to this item at its meeting of February 4.
Adm: I will
send you an electronic copy.
Adm: The new process and tasks will put a lot of
work at the department and EPT committee level. We need to establish new process timelines or it won’t be ready
for fall.
FA: We are working on approval of the change.
Adm: What is the status?
FA: It will be on the next Faculty Senate meeting. We have a time-definite April 1 deadline.