FACULTY ASSOCIATION
No. 2 North Office Center - St. Cloud State
University - (320) 255-3979
MEET & CONFER NOTES
February 27, 2003
Faculty Association: Theresia Fisher, Judith Kilborn, Annette Schoenberger, Sandra
Williams, Tracy Ore, Chris Inkster, Robert Johnson, Terry Peterson
Guests: Jesse Benjamin, P. N. Subbanarasimha, Emily Schultz, notetaker
Administration: Roy
Saigo, Michael
Spitzer, Rex Veeder, Diana Burlison, Larry Chambers, Lin Holder, Steve Ludwig,
Roland Specht-Jarvis, John Burgeson
FA: You were going to report back to us with
information about the allocation model.
ADM: Chairs were included in current figures for this
year as far as the allocation model goes.
You have requested that they be removed from the allocation model for
next year, and we will do this.
FA: So whether chairs teach or not this summer
will have nothing to do with next summer’s allotment? Will departments be held harmless if they don’t meet a certain
ratio?
ADM: Every department has a ratio, but there’s no
penalty attached to it based on department productivity. The more credits you generate, the more you
are allocated next year. What I work
with is a summer school amount, and I allocate that to colleges. The college deans then allocate money to the
department. I don’t do that part. Those allocation models could differ by
college. Low enrollment classes have
been defined as less than nine at the undergraduate level and less than six at
the graduate level.
FA: We are very pleased with your decision. Thank you.
ADM: This is a complicated issue. It deals with
contract issues and we need to check with MnSCU to see if it’s feasible to have
faculty participate in evaluating these people. This will require some research
to make sure we’re not crossing boundaries. We’ll start with MnSCU. There are
no policies or mechanisms in the plans we have.
FA: What kind of time frame could you set for
this?
ADM: By next time perhaps I can share what I’ve
found out. If you want the current practices, we can talk about that now.
Administrators are evaluated annually. We have a form that’s completed by their
immediate supervisor. The excluded managers are supervised by a V.P. and the
V.P.s are supervised by the President.
FA: Is the 360° evaluation just for the
President?
ADM: It’s up to each institution. Presidents are
done by 360° occasionally. Only 5 were done this way last year. It happens
every three years. I went through 421° last year. (laughter)
FA: So there is some precedent of doing this
locally?
ADM: As far as I know, it’s only done for the
President. It’s going to require further research. The years that a 360°
evaluation doesn’t take place, the president is evaluated by the Chancellor and
Vice Chancellor.
FA: Does MnSCU have a policy on administrators’
evaluations?
ADM: Yes. Evaluations are done annually and are a
part of their contract.
FA: Do contracts vary by administrative level?
Managers, excluded managers, administrators. . .
ADM: Yes.
FA: How is the Chancellor evaluated? 360°?
ADM: The Chancellor is evaluated by the Board.
FA: Other than the president’s contract, are
contracts for deans a certain length of time?
ADM: They’re for one year at a time.
FA: We’d like to ask for clarification on how it
works to have faculty supervised by a MSUAASF employee. We’re not sure how that
fits. That happens in the Counseling Center. The director is appointed by the
president, and there is no chair.
ADM: There is special language in the contract
that applies to that. It’s in Article 10, Section B, Subdivision 2, Workload.
It’s here somewhere. Let’s leave it on the agenda.
New
Professional Evaluation Procedures [FA]
FA: The draft for these procedures has been
approved by Faculty Senate on Feb. 18, 2003. Here is an original copy of the
St. Cloud Times which contained an article about the grievance filed
concerning this matter. Getting these procedures approved is a big victory,
since it shows how the administration and the FA leadership together have
changed policies in place since 1978, which nobody had been able to change
until now. We can drop the grievance
and proceed to work out a new interpretation of the contract.
ADM:
We ought to cut a ribbon. It has taken a lot of time to get to this point; the
President’s staff, the deans, and the Faculty Senate have all come a long way,
and we’ll continue to work to get to where we need to be. This will change how departments evaluate
faculty, and the administration will need to work with the faculty to become
educated about how to do this. There
will be a development workshop on March 21 to make sure that faculty members
get the proper Article 22 response.
Everyone needs to understand who in the department is responsible, and
the new dates when things are due.
FA: Larkin is taking this agreement to the IFO
board office even as we speak.
ADM: The deans thank Judy Foster, Mark Nook, and
Theresia Fisher for their work on this.
ADM: The revised procedures need to have MnSCU
review as well.
FA: Thanks to the administration for their help,
especially deans Dennis Nunes, Roland Specht-Jarvis, Dick Lewis, and Kristi
Tornquist.
Creation
of Department from Program. [ADM]
ADM: As of March 1, there will be a Department of
Ethnic Studies created from the Ethnic Studies Program. The Highway Traffic Safety Center has been
moved to the Center for Continuing Studies.
FA: Thanks to the administration for the
creation of the Ethnic Studies Department.
Does the new setting of the Highway Traffic Safety Center mean that
faculty associated with it will report to the Dean of Continuing Studies, for
article 22, in accordance with Article 20?
ADM: Yes.
FA: The Center had been moved to Academic
Affairs.
ADM: There had been questions about this. The
Center had been moved there because they had no other mechanism available at
the time.
FA: It is more accurate to say that the Center
is moving from Academic Affairs to the Center for Continuing Studies.
ADM: Agreed.
We talked to them at some length, that the location in Academic Affairs
was temporary, and they began to understand.
FA: Does this mean that the remaining five
faculty in the Center are also being moved to the Center for Continuing
Studies?
ADM: Yes.
FA: This is new for us—faculty in a unit,
Continuing Studies. Is this a department?
ADM: Yes, faculty need to be rostered in a unit,
and this will be a center. The contract
allows for departments and other units.
FA: Will the representation of these faculty in
the IFO be handled by Continuing Studies?
ADM: This is a unique situation and it will need
to be discussed. One of the individuals does training, rather than courses. We need
to figure out how many centers there are. It is like the Counseling Center,
which are represented through Special Services. It must be announced by March
1. Larry Chambers posted the seniority roster today, but it will not be final
until March 1.
ADM: The creation of the Department of Ethnic
Studies is a vote of confidence in the faculty in that department, and this
gives them opportunities, publicity. (applause)
FA: Will the name of the Highway Center be
changed? There may be a legislative
mandate on this.
First
Year Experiences [FA & ADM]
FA: The committee has met three times, twice
with Specht-Jarvis and once with Nathan Church, but everything is on pause
right now. It is an enthusiastic
committee. They have taken ideas from
Roland and Nathan and are now thinking of a plan for 2004-2005.
ADM: By December 15, Mike Hayman needs to know
about room needs in Holes Hall. The committee is capable and interested.
FA: We will leave it to Roland and Nathan to
handle the rooms, and the committee will go back to work, and go back to Roland
and Nathan when they have a plan.
ADM: Winona, Mankato, and other campuses have
first year programs. Our core values are student-oriented, but students are
transferring. Retention is an issue. Moving quickly on this is important, first
year experiences help students to be successful.
FA: It would not be possible in the short term
to do something sound.
ADM: We need to report to Student Government
through the faculty. Student Government
has expectations about what is going on.
Independent
Review Committee [FA]
FA: Is the IRC prepared to solicit information
from the campus community?
ADM: Yes; it met today, and an announcement will
be out soon. There is no intention to be secretive, they are just very busy.
The announcement will outline what they have done, and the details of the
process.
FA: What about the Rankin report?
ADM: Release of this report is up to the
students, but Sheri Atkinson has sent out an email about it, and the students
will be meeting tonight. Student
Government has a website.
FA: There is not one place to go because the IRC
has no chair. Could the committee choose a place or a contact person?
ADM: We will pass this query on to the committee,
but the committee intended that each member should be seen as a contact person.
If that doesn’t work, then they will consider something else. The committee is
very consensus-oriented, with a revolving chair. The idea is to open this up,
let people contact anybody.
FA: If members’ email addresses were published,
the problem should disappear.
Grievances [FA]
FA: At the last meeting, we discussed
expediting grievances, including bringing some grievances back from St. Paul to
resolve on campus. What is the status of the St. Paul grievances?
ADM: One grievance has been gotten rid of – the
FA grievance. We talked with Steve Hornstein [FA Grievance Committee
chair]. We are set up again with a
list of priorities.
FA: Will we get the entire list of grievances in
St. Paul and be clear on their status?
Consideration of the College of Education grievance has begun, and it is
lengthy. We also have to identify others that might need attention.
ADM: The Employee Assistance Plan is available to
anyone, faculty or staff, who might need it.
It is confidential, and the Human Resources office has contact
information. The office is located in the St. Cloud Medical Group building,
across from Hennen’s Furniture.
Failed
Searches
[FA]
FA: At a recent IFO board meeting, MnSCU
completed a chart of failed searches on different campuses, but St. Cloud State
University was not on the list.
ADM: This question was addressed at the last Meet
and Confer: there has been nobody in the Affirmative Action Office, so we have
not been able to have that information, and we cannot reconstruct it.
FA: Does this mean there would just be a blank?
ADM: We will keep a record in future.
FA: The deans could be asked; they should know,
even for last year, they should be able to produce a guesstimate. This lack of
data is embarrassing.
ADM: It might be possible to get pretty accurate
information on failed probationary searches, but the information on failed FNTP
searches would be inaccurate.
FA: The union is interested in the probationary
searches. MnSCU wants these data, they use them when they lobby for contract
salary settlements, showing how much time and money is wasted on searches we
cannot fill because of salary issues.
ADM: We will ask the deans to provide the
information they have and present it as soon as possible.
FA: The Affirmative Action forms that record
search procedures and outcomes should be found. If you can find them, you can
reconstruct the data. We need the
information for FY 02.
[Discussion
ensued concerning whether such forms are filled out for all searches, including
truncated searches, or only for full searches.]
FA: Our deadline would be the next IFO Board
meeting, the latter part of March –27th or 28th.
Mandatory
Sabbaticals [FA]
FA: There are cases of two people, who were
hired mid-year, for whom that first half-year was counted as a full year for
everything but sabbatical or seniority. They applied for mandatory sabbaticals
on the assumption that they qualified. The number of years on their
applications had been changed [reduced to less than 10 years] after their
applications were submitted, but they were not informed of that change; had
they been informed, they would have rewritten their applications.
ADM: We agreed four Meet and Confer’s ago to take
care of this. It should be in the minutes. The years of service on a number of
applications were changed because the individuals did not give themselves enough
years of credit. The new application form tells applicants to check the
seniority roster before they apply. The people affected by this matter were
given the opportunity to resubmit proposals and were reconsidered.
FA: We need to do housekeeping to make sure that
these matters have been taken care of and get taken off the agenda.
Policies
for Campus Listservs [ADM]
FA: The draft policy changes for campus
listservs have been referred to the FA Technology and Pedagogical Resources
Committee. The Faculty Senate approved
a spam filter.
ADM: There are two other items awaiting
responses: the academic calendar, and the public expression policy.
FA: These two—the listserv and the public
expression policy—could be put high on the Faculty Senate agenda.
ADM: We need to move forward.
Plans
for Budget Cuts [FA]
FA: The Faculty Senate voted to allow the
Executive Committee to serve as their budget policy spokespersons. We will
report back after spring break with criteria, principles, etc. Thanks to the
administration for the town hall meeting held February 14, we were pleased at
the number who attended.
ADM: 100-200 persons.
FA: We are a bit disappointed, however, that so
many facts were thrown at people, and that the meeting concluded before the
announced time (at 3:15 rather than at 4:00 PM). Interested people with 2:00 PM
classes were arriving about that time [3:15]. Also, many who attended felt that
there was no opportunity to ask questions, especially major questions, while
all administrators and deans were present. They didn’t get a chance to ask
questions and hear the responses in a large forum where everyone would have the
benefit of hearing the same answer.
ADM: There will be another meeting on Monday,
March 24th. There will be a different
format to elicit more participation. We will choose 4 or 5 questions that came
in via the website and listserv which the group will try to answer. We hope to
have a large number of people, and to meet in the ballroom, to divide people in
to groups of 10, and have each group come up with suggestions or solutions to
these questions. Then we will collect the suggestions, and perhaps be able to
put them into action. It is hard to work on solutions with a large audience.
FA: Can faculty identify the questions?
ADM: Yes, they should be sent to Diana
Burlison. Her secretary will put the
list together. She will then post it on her website—next week, she hopes.
FA: This is nice, but the faculty are still
asking for an open forum to ask questions where everyone can hear the
answers. Consider the matter of previous statements by administrators that they
had made no decisions about increasing class sizes, but deans are saying that
such decisions have been made. The dean says they must go to 40 because the
administration says so. Faculty have to hear administrators say that they
didn’t decide that.
ADM: We did not say that.
FA: We here [in this meeting] hear that this is
so. But the deans tell us that the Provost or the Administration has told them x
is so. For the sake of trust and
clarity, it would be helpful to have the deans hear what you have said to us in
here, apart from the two deans present.
FA: I have been asked to come from the Human
Relations department, of which I am a member, but I do not speak for the
department, or for the Racial Issues Colloquium, although I am also a member of
that group. I want to speak about the ongoing discussion about class size. The
question is how to fill the Racial Issue requirement: do we hire more
professors? Or ask more of those we have? We received a directive from our dean
to increase Racial Issues from 30 to 40 students. After meeting with the
provost, we agreed to go to 32—for pedagogical reasons. Then, the next day, our
dean told us that this decision was overridden, although it was not clear
how—that 40 was the limit. This matter needs to be dealt with immediately: we
cannot go through ordinary channels, because of the impending deadline when
this information needs to go into the computer.
It
seems it is time to reiterate an ongoing request. The Racial Issues budget
should ideally be established as a priority distinct from other academic
budgets, and insulated from cuts. Think of it as an infrastructural matter,
such as the heating of buildings that cannot be cut even in a crisis period.
Before the current budget crisis, Racial Issues was already requesting
resources. We felt we were 90 percent there, but still needed to provide more
to make progress strong enough to survive. Now we face further cuts before the
requirement has been fully established. Racial Issues should be seen as a
lifeblood, infrastructural issue. It is the major place to confront racial
attitudes on an interpersonal level. Changes have occurred with students he has
had. We are really having success there. But in classes of 40, we are sure we
will not reach as many students.
The
Rankin report reminds us of our work. I support President Saigo’s response to
the report, but something was missing: supporting the Racial Issues requirement
as a way of addressing the Rankin report. A good place to beef up these
requirements. Class size increases hurt the best pedagogues. Relying overly on
adjuncts weakens the requirement, because of high turnover, sometimes
less-prepared faculty, who can’t develop a commitment. There are 21 sections in
HURL. 20-30 percent of the students are not there because it was a requirement,
but out of interest. Either there are more seats than necessary to meet the
requirement, or students who need the class aren’t getting in. We’re not sure
about the delivery of this requirement, how it is working. Do we have more seats
than necessary?
ADM: I don not understand what you are getting
at. It is true that there are a lot of
people who take Gen Ed courses out of interest, and also a backlog of those who
need it as a requirement. We have 3800 new students coming in. Do we have
enough seats for the next academic year?
How can we put them into the number of sections we have at 30 students
per class? We are talking about
lowering the heat on campus. We can’t
meet the needs of students if we don’t do creative things. There are other
creative ways to provide instruction, having some large and some small
sections. We don’t know any other way to go except to increase the size of
classes.
FA: Others who teach the requirement have a cap
of 45 for Racial Issues courses, which would help. In one of our classes, only
5 students were taking the course to meet the requirement. We are concerned
about students who need to get in.
ADM: Registration doesn’t work that way. There was a meeting of the Colloquium, and
faculty brought these issues up then. Lots of others want that course. The
question is how to provide 1850 seats for fall, allow some for returning
students, and reserve some for first-years. It is even more difficult in
spring. When do you open up the seats?
The registration system makes it hard to manage.
FA: There is a problem many of us experience: a
dean suggests we need to do this because of pressure from Academic
Affairs. Then you say that we haven’t
said you have to have 40. What happens
is that this doesn’t allow for dialogue. How can we figure it out? Conversation
is cut off. We must have x in this class because Academic Affairs says
so.
ADM: There is no directive to any dean that they
have to do x. Deans have to come
up with mechanisms to accommodate more students with fewer faculty. How do we
do that without increasing class size? You can think creatively—adding large
classes in one area allows you to maintain lower enrollment in other areas.
ADM: There are difficulties with core classes,
what to do about caps. What is a reasonable cap? We ought to dump the core and start anew. How can Racial Issues become part of the
writing piece [of the core]? Double
up? Can we couple these two
requirements? That needs to be explored
now. It is highly questionable that a
course in critical reasoning originally designed for 35 students can succeed if
it is expanded to 800 in one class. That makes it a completely different
course. We need that discussion now.
ADM: This won’t impact fall semester.
FA: We need to put this on the record before
time is up. The request for extra resources for Racial Issues has not been
discussed in the Faculty Senate or UCC; personal faculty statements are
personal opinions.
ADM: There are different perceptions of what a
dean is asking when s/he talks with faculty, but s/he is asking for help
because s/he has reduced resources.
ADM: We need
to think about resources for Racial Issues. We agree, but in a forum like this
one [the administration would not have a chance]. Every department feels the
same way. In the case of the first year
experience, we are in competition with Mankato, who are up 50 percent in
applications, while we are up only 20 percent. They are able to keep their
students better than we are. People
have come to us personally. For the next two or three years this will be very
difficult. Everything is on the table. There are new VPs; they are open. We are
sorry the deans have moved more quickly than we want to. But nobody will be
happy with what’s happening. We’ll have to raise tuition…. But I don’t like the
tone. We’re trying to keep the system open. But work with us, otherwise….
ADM: Thank
you very much. We’ll take this under advisement, but would prefer openness and
cooperation.
The
meeting was adjourned at 5:05 p.m.