Faculty
Association: Andy Larkin, Theresia
Fisher, Chris Inkster, Robert Johnson, Judith Kilborn, Bill Langen, Terry
Peterson, Annette Schoenberger, P.N. Subbanarasimha, Sandra Williams
Administration: Diana Burlison, Larry Chambers, Nathan
Church, Lin Holder, Steve Ludwig, Michael Spitzer, Rex Veeder, Kristi
Tornquist Jackie
Zieglmeier, Notetaker
Guest: Karen Thoms
Approval
of March 20th notes.
Adm: I have
not had an opportunity to review the April 10th notes.
Academic
Calendar for 2004-2005, 2005-2006, 2006-2007 [Adm]: (handout)
Adm: We
want to have approval of the academic calendar for 2004-2005, 2005-2006,
2006-2007. Units who do long-term
scheduling and planning particularly want to see these calendars
finalized. The calendars follow the
base format used for 2003-2004.
FA: We will
put this on the Senate agenda. The FA
Committee on the Institution is studying the general calendar, for example,
early and late starts and finishes.
Adm: You
have already given us feedback at the March 20th meet and
confer. We have incorporated the study
day that you requested and made minor language changes since the last time you
saw this. We are looking for quick
approval to get these calendars published.
Plans
for Budget Cuts: [FA]:
(1) Reassigned Time:
FA: Have
university-wide policies for reassigned time for chairs and others been
coordinated across the colleges? We
believe reassigned time is unevenly being done across colleges.
Adm: We are
still working on this. I have not had a
chance to consider this since we met last week. We will look at it and try to address your concerns.
FA:
Regarding reassigned time for faculty, we want to reiterate that the FA
opposes any reduction of reassigned time.
Adm: At a
previous meet and confer you stated you were opposed to reassigned time or at
least questioned the perception of how reassigned time was being
determined. So, I am not sure what your
position is.
FA: There
are two issues. One, the university
administration issued a policy on reassigned time for chairs—a university-wide
policy. There was a memo indicating
that. The administration made a
decision regarding reassigned time for chairs. We are not debating whether that was good or bad. There seems to be a discrepancy from the
guidelines. It is important in these
hard budget times that the policy not be applied differentially across
colleges. Two, we recently received
from you a list of directors/coordinators who receive reassigned time. Our concern there is that there would not
be reassigned time other than that required by the contract. It was a relatively long list of directors
and coordinators who are receiving reassigned time. If, in fact, the idea is to reduce and eliminate reassigned
time, the duties still need to be performed.
We want these duties to be maintained.
Adm: They
pretty much have been maintained.
FA: A
statement made by one of the deans was that there is no reassigned time other
than for department chairs.
Adm: Except
for coordinators and directors.
FA: Not in
our college.
Adm: I will
continue to look into that. It concerns
me.
(2) Faculty Center for Teaching Excellence:
FA: We have
a guest with us today, Karen Thoms.
What are your plans for the Faculty Center for
Teaching Excellence?
Adm: We are
looking at reduction for the Faculty Center for Teaching Excellence—in one way
or another. We have some ideas. I want to first discuss the specifics with
the center’s director, Karen Thoms, and I have not had an opportunity to do
that.
FA: We
would like to caucus.
[caucus]
(3) Budget Planning – Next Biennium:
FA: What procedures should we
use for budget planning during the next biennium (’04-’05)?
Adm: (handout: FY 04 Proposed Budget
Reductions)
The vice presidents and I (Diana Burlison) have been working together
to come up with proposed budget reductions for FY 04. The handout is the latest revision (4/16/03). The sub-total for Academic Affairs is $2.3
M; for Administrative Affairs, approximately $600,000; for University
Relations, $246,000 (soft-money); for Student Life and Development approximately $235,000; for the President’s
Office approximately $100,000. The
total reduction is estimated at $3.6M.
FA: What
does the soft-money mean for University Relations?
Adm: Funded
out of the Foundation. The position
listed there that has not been hired would have had the salary paid out of the
Foundation.
FA: This
has never been M & E money?
Adm:
Correct. I (Diana Burlison)
have looked at the projected allocation from MnSCU. If we do everything on the list I just gave you, we will have
$300,000 left over in FY 04. If we take
the same reductions in ’05 and raise tuition both years 15%, we will have
$80,000 left in ’05 above what was budgeted.
FA: There
would still be a reserve?
Adm: Yes,
$3 million. Here are some
cautions. The proposed budget
reductions do not allow for new initiatives.
I am concerned about contract settlements. Health insurance continues to be a concern. Utilities went up $200,000—especially
natural gas and oil. We estimated
$45,000 for voluntary leave—we don’t know how many people will opt for
that. I have asked the VPs to give me a
Plan B with adjustments to balance anything that might not come through as we
anticipate.
FA: You
list $1.7 M in various positions held vacant or reallocated. Can you elaborate on that?
Adm: That
represents 25 faculty lines.
FA: How
many are vacant or reallocated?
Adm:
Positions will be kept vacant.
FA: How
many are already vacant?
Adm: We are
trying to figure that out.
FA: But you
will keep the line numbers in the book?
Adm: Yes.
FA: The
savings from heating/air conditioning adjustment, is that equipment?
Adm: No,
that figure represents projected savings from Friday closing and adjusting
heating and air conditioning during the year.
We are coming to the end of a no-interest loan on energy
conservation. That will reduce our
bill. We made an estimate of what the
utility costs will be. Some years are
outrageously expensive, especially for gas and oil. You know how volatile gas prices are. The projected reductions are based on our best estimate of what
we think costs will be.
FA: What
are “Academic Initiatives”?
Adm: When
I first came here, I requested an amount to be in the budget for specifics not
planned for.
FA: So the
amount is not earmarked?
Adm: No,
discretionary funds to promote academics in the best interest of the university.
FA: I
believe that in the past the President had a discretionary fund that he has
since relinquished.
Adm: In the
present budget situation, I could not justify maintaining a line for academic
initiatives.
FA: Is the
tuition increase of 15% certain?
Adm: There
are interesting scenarios. The governor
has said that tuition increases could not be more than 15%. MnSCU has asked for two years’ of tuition
rates. We are looking at less than 15%
for both years with the caveat given for concerns of the unknown. The Board of Trustees is reflecting on
tuition rates. It is uncertain if the
15% is everything on campus or if there is flexibility with differential
tuition. I am pursuing that with the
vice chancellor. Some units have
requested differential tuition and other units are expected to request
differential tuition. We are looking at
a tuition differential for international students. In terms of allocation from the state, we see less revenue for
international students than domestic students.
Only one-half of the allocation for domestic students is received for
international students. We are looking
at a modest increase on top of the 15% for international students who are
charged the domestic rate. The Board
of Trustees is ringing its hands on tuition.
Students are lobbying strongly for no tuition increase. The FA is lobbying for no limits on tuition
increases. The Board is hearing lots of
discussion but they are being tight-lipped.
Look to May or June before you see discussion of tuition rates on the
part of the Board.
FA: You are
subtracting the $300,000 from some number.
Where is that number coming from?
Adm: The
proposed MnSCU allocation number based on the governor’s plan.
FA: If we
used the House/Senate numbers, we could end up with more.
Adm: It
varies from $25,000 more to close to $100,000 over the biennium. Joe Opatz was not optimistic about getting
the $100,000. The impact is hard to
say. MnSCU is running cost studies and
will again do an allocation. That is
why I asked for a Plan B from the vice presidents.
FA: Plan B
would include additional cuts if needed?
Adm: Yes.
FA: How are
we compared to other MnSCU universities?
Adm: I can
send you a spreadsheet.
FA: We mean
a breakdown of where other MnSCU universities are doing the cuts.
Adm: I
won’t have that. MnSCU asked for
reflections from universities on how budget reductions will work. I may get a sense from that, and I can share
that with you. Mankato, Moorhead,
Bemidji, and Winona are basically in the same place we are. They are making a list of reductions, they
are preparing a Plan B, they are estimating, and they have a timeline pretty
consistent with ours. Southwest is in
tougher shape.
FA: We see
$100,000 for a phone system. Is that the
new phone system?
Adm: The
new phone system will save money. It
will take some funding to make the transition.
FA: What
about the category, “Repair and Replacement”?
Repair and replacement of what?
Adm:
Buildings. We budget $200,000
for repair and improvements done here.
That is a small fraction of $1.2M.
The $200,000 does not cover labor.
It buys materials and contractors.
It also covers some unforeseen repairs.
For example, we are replacing elevator cylinders that don’t meet environmental
requirements. Remodeling in departments
comes out of the repair and replacement budget and is not charged back to
departments.
FA: What
about roof replacement?
Adm: That
would come out of capital improvement.
FA: What
about the category, “Moving, Severance, Sub and Sick Pay”?
Adm: That
covers people who have sick pay and sub pay as part of a severance package when
they leave. We budget more than we pay
out.
FA: Faculty
do not have moving expenses reimbursed.
Adm: Some
bargaining units do. Now we will do
less of it.
(4) Restructuring Report from Consultants:
Adm: A copy of the consultants’
report has been given to Andy Larkin.
It will be posted on the web so that it is available to the entire
university community. Some thought was
given to making a quick decision. I
believe we will postpone any decision until fall so we can establish a
university-wide committee. We will
solicit broad input with a timeline through November so we can begin the
process of searching for deans who would start the following academic
year. I ask that you not widely
distribute the copy I gave you until the report is posted on the web with the
explanation of the process. The two
need to go hand-in-hand. We will look
to establish a university-wide committee to solicit feedback. The main reason for not making a decision
now is that we can’t do it with the time left this semester. People need to feel comfortable to respond –
having both time and opportunity.
Academic Learning Center [FA]:
FA: We want to inform you that
we are talking to the IFO about drafting an MOA on the Academic Learning Center
and the faculty situation to clarify their actual status:
1) Does this group of three constitute a new unit? 2) To answer questions about seniority.
Adm: They
have been the same unit for a number of years.
Has anything changed other than whom they report to?
FA:
Articles 22 and 25 are affected because of a different reporting
line. Also Article 20 (departments and
chairs) is affected.
Adm: How is
that affected if the reporting status does not change?
FA: They
previously reported to the ALC Director (who serves in a position parallel to a
department chair); they now report directly to Nathan Church. There is a change in their status along the
line.
Adm: Nathan
Church plays the role of dean.
FA: Then
who plays the role of chair?
Adm: Nathan
Church.
FA: He
can’t be a chair under the contract.
It changes the EPT or RPT process.
The three faculty affected should have a department to have departmental
review for Article 22 and 25.
Adm: The department now does that review.
FA: There
are 8 faculty in the unit now. Five are
counselors; three are ALC faculty. For
this year and last year, did all people in the unit review for RPT?
Adm: Yes.
FA: So you
are saying in terms of reporting everything is the same?
Adm:
Yes.
FA: We are
saying the three faculty previously submitted RPT materials to a director; now
they are submitting directly to the Vice President for Student Life and
Development. We see that as a change.
Adm: We
don’t see it as a change. It is
mutually desired by the three faculty and the director.
FA: The
reporting structure is changed. The
nature of the status of whom they report to is different. That is why an MOA is in order. We are not objecting. We desire contractually to have the same
practices.
Adm: We
fail to see the same issues that you do in the contract.
FA: We will
ask Frank Conroy to draft the MOA and you can respond.
Technology Plan [Admin]:
Adm: (handout: Technology Plan) I am delivering a copy of the plan to
you. It is available at the website www.stcloudstate.edu/tltr/technologyplan/. The development of this plan has been a
couple of year’s process. We started
the plan two years ago. We are at the
end of the current five-year-plan.
MnSCU requires that we have a technology plan by June. We are requesting your response at the next
meet and confer so we can incorporate changes and make adjustments. I want to thank the faculty who have been
involved in developing this plan. They
have done an amazing amount of work.
There are so many faculty who have worked so hard that I am afraid to
mention names for fear that I might inadvertently omit someone. Judy Kilborn from your Executive Committee
has been invaluable.
FA: Let me
say that we appreciate administrative input and work as well. Can I have a copy of the technology plan
for the Strategic Planning Committee?
Adm:
Yes.
FA: Input
from the Strategic Planning Committee is incorporated in the technology
plan. This plan took the work of lots
of people. It is the best collaborative
work that I have ever seen on this campus.
I hope that faculty will give good input. The technology plan represents a plan for a plan that involves
all stakeholders. I sent the web
address to faculty yesterday.
Adm: I will
send the web address to Academic Affairs; other bargaining units as appropriate
and Student Government. If you look at
one subsection as a representative piece, you can see how the committee wrote
the plan. We suggested what the
dominant issues are and what we recommend to address them.
FA: I am
speaking as a member of the committee who wrote the plan. The plan needs to go forward. We encourage a response by April 28.
FA: We need
to take this to Senate. We will do what
we can. We know that you are under a
tight process. It is a process and will
continue on.
Adm: The
technology plan has been sent to your Technology and Pedagogical Resource
Committee.
Grievances [FA & Adm]:
Adm: A May
7th meeting has been scheduled to discuss English Department
issues. A sub-committee has met and
discussed the 16 issues brought before us and we will have a large meeting with
the Provost to take care of inter-related issues. We are making progress.
FA: Will
there be resolution of the 16 grievances in the near future?
Adm: My
personal observation is that there are crucial elements that can be fixed to
provide relief for the university.
FA: You
said you have identified issues. The
FA has been presented with specific data.
We have talked here at meet and confer.
It is difficult for us to figure out why it has taken so long. Is the Provost involved?
Adm: He was
involved in general discussion early on.
We will be meeting with the Provost.
It is being presented in a way that decision-making will be possible.
Traffic Safety Faculty [FA]:
FA: Have you received the audit?
Adm: No, we
have not received it. It is supposed to
be in tomorrow.
FA: I
thought we talked about you having it today.
Adm: We
haven’t gotten it yet. I will put it
on the agenda for the next meet and confer.
FA: Can we
have a copy before then to prepare a response?
Adm: Yes.
FA: Has the
seniority roster been corrected to includes others with seniority in the unit?
Adm: What
people?
FA: John
Palmer, Barb Vesely, Harold Risk, Rod Dobey.
Adm: We can
understand John Palmer. When did the
others work in the unit?
FA: I do
not have that data in front of me.
John recently. Barb came here in
that unit.
Adm: In the
previous seniority rosters, were they identified in that unit?
FA: Yes, in
previous seniority rosters some years ago.
Adm: If
this is a clerical error, I do not see where this will be a problem. Please send an e-mail to Larry Chambers so
he can formally look into this.
Advising
[Admin]:
FA: We think there are problems
with the interpretation of the survey. Andy sent me the data from the website. What did you say at the last meet and
confer? How did you come to that
conclusion?
Adm: The
SCSU survey had information indicating the way students perceive the efficacy
of advising they receive. Also, the national
survey of student satisfaction expressed concern that students are not happy
with advising. The specifics of the
SCSU survey are not finalized.
Nationally, when students leave an institution, it has to do, in part,
with advising or course availability.
It is an area of concern for universities. We try to do advising as well as we can. We want advisers to be informed so they can
assist students about the process.
FA: How
does the data support that?
Adm: Look
at the National Survey of Student Engagement.
FA: We do
not say that we are doing a good job with advising, when, in fact, there are
areas where we are doing a very good job.
Adm: We can
do better with advising.
FA: If we
are going to put resources into advising, we need to look at the data and put
resources where they are needed. We
need to look at the good parts for good publicity.
Adm: We
aren’t using the survey for publicity.
FA: What
about the student newspaper?
Adm: The students were there when the preliminary
results of the survey were announced.
They put the piece in the University
Chronicle. We can look at the national data and see how we compare to other
institutions.
FA: At the last meet and confer someone said
they would send me data. I haven’t
gotten it.
Adm: I will get for you the National Survey of
Student Engagement data.
FA: We need to be careful. Those numbers count students who had not
used advising services. Caution should
be raised because the NSSE data used a small sample of 200 odd-numbered
students out of 500. They did not all
complete forms. If we are to base
policy on data, we need to understand the nature of the data.
Adm: How do students get access codes to
register?
Adm: That is part of the issue. Students can evade getting an access code by
registering later—past the point where an access code is needed.
FA: There is a cultural problem of what advising
is. Faculty are often frustrated by
students asking for access codes by a phone call at home or an e-mail without
any interest to engage further. We need
to look at the whole picture.
Adm: That’s what I want to do. That’s what we need to do. Advising is beneficial—not just for
registration. Hopefully if we have a
solid, substantial first-year experience in place, students will seek advising
early on and seek it throughout their career.
A lot of the responsibility for inadequate advising falls on
students. We need to communicate that
what they do in a university is different than what they did in high school. Advising is an important part of the
educational experience.
FA: We need a group to look at this. There are social pressures. Some students work 30-40 hours a week. Where do they fit advising into their
schedules? In 1997 an advising report
was given to the administration. Only
one recommendation was followed—to establish an advising center.
Adm: I remember that you mentioned the report at
the last meet and confer. I have not
had an opportunity to review the report with the provost. It also contained models for advising in
majors.
FA: As we mentioned before, one problem is that
students don’t need access codes after a certain time. I don’t know how to balance issues. Students need to recognize that the choices
they make are their own. They need to
figure out what to do for themselves. I
am distressed because looking at the data we are doing a good job in some
places. We need to do more with
freshmen. Almost all students feel that
their advising in the major is wonderful.
Adm: That’s what we are trying to do with the
first-year experience.
FA: We have submitted questions to one of our
committees along with the letter from the Student Government president. We will have something for you. We probably should have Student Government
involved in a dialog. A comprehensive
group would be good. One of the
problems is that there is no reward or recognition for good advising.
Adm: We will look at that.
FA: I am talking about Article 22 or 25.
Adm: Advising is listed there.
FA: The impact is minimal compared to teaching
and research.
Negotiations
[FA]:
FA: Last Thursday and Friday the IFO
negotiations team met and is 85% done with its first contract proposal. They will meet again May 1st. On May 2nd they are prepared to exchange proposals with
the MnSCU negotiations team. Reading
from the April 14 letter to Frank Conroy from Chris Dale:
“…I do not anticipate that the
Employer will have its opening proposal finalized
by May 2nd. We expect
that the Employer’s opening proposal, not including
economic items (or insurance)
will be completed around the middle of May.
Thus, to the extent that the
IFO’s desire to meet on May 2nd is conditioned on
mutual exchange of opening
proposals, which will not occur, the union may
wish to reconsider whether
meeting on that date will be productive. “
I find this
distressing. The IFO is prepared for
negotiations to begin on May 2nd, but the employer is not. In the history of our negotiations with
MnSCU, faculty have gotten the impression that it is MnSCU’s approach in the
open gesture to be nonchalant. We are now in a period where it could be very
unfortunate to be nonchalant. It
appears that MnSCU has deferred contract negotiations to a second or third
priority. MnSCU’s seriousness of
purpose contributes to the overall credibility of negotiations. The impression then is that both sides do
not attach to the negotiations process the desirability to move forward in an
orderly, serious and timely way. We are
telling you this because you have access to MnSCU.
Adm: OK.
FA: We are not placing blame on the
administration here. We believe that
the Chancellor’s Office, particularly Human Resources, is hostile to
faculty. We have to deal with Chris
Dale regarding grievances. It costs us
productivity. It is his job to head the
negotiations team for MnSCU and he can’t get an initial proposal ready for May
2nd.
Adm: Chris Dale is not the only one IFO negotiates
with.
FA: He pretty much runs the shots. If he is earning his money, why does he
force arbitration?
Adm: You need to have two sides for an
arbitration.
FA: He refuses to talk about things.
Adm: I don’t know what his interactions are with
the IFO. We can encourage a quicker
response, but Chris Dale doesn’t take orders from me either. I do not know what can be resolved by
having this conversation here.
FA: We think you need to be aware of the
problem. We will negotiate with whomever
you send. We want them to show up with
a proposal on May 2nd and conduct a meaningful exchange.
Adm: We can convey that message.
FA:
Who was picked from SCSU for the negotiations team?
Adm: Dick Lewis.
Schedule
25 [FA]:
FA: Where are we with regard to the possible
implementation of computerized centralized scheduling?
Adm: The person I needed to talk to was not
available when I was so I had no opportunity to follow up on this. I will get back to you.
Policies
for Campus Listservs and Public Expression Policy: [FA & Adm]:
FA: The draft policy for campus listservs has
been referred to an ad hoc FA committee.
The draft response to issues of free speech, assembly, etc. on campus
has been referred to the FA Committee on the Institution. Committee recommendations will then go to
the Senate.
Emergency
Plan [Adm]:
FA: We have this under consideration. When do you want a response?
Adm: We need to have a policy in place July
1. We had a plan 10 years ago. The current draft, even if you have some
concerns, is better than that 10-year-old plan. One of the government agencies (county, city, state patrol) will
conduct a mock emergency exercise on campus late summer or early fall and they
will want to run through our emergency plan.
We would like your response by mid-May.
FA: We will respond as soon as possible.
Zero
Tolerance of Workplace Violence [Admin]:
FA: This has been referred to the Faculty
Senate. We are struggling with the
meaning of the word “violence.” We will
develop a definition.
Adm: We encourage you to check state law (M.S.
1.5, M.S. 15.86). In the laws of ’92,
Chapter 15 we are charged to have a policy on zero tolerance of workplace
violence. The policy was written in
1997. The language used was in line
with the definition then to meet the requirements of the law.
FA: We are not questioning the need for a
policy. We will study it and come back
with a faculty recommendation.
Shared
Governance [FA]:
FA: The behavior of administrators who refuse to
comply with the contract costs us in grievances, turmoil and invidious feelings
in colleges. We would like to request
that senior administrators instruct junior administrators in the contract,
which has been mutually agreed upon by faculty and the administration. They need to uphold the contract—not to try
to get around it. I have a hundred
reports that one dean does this. One
thing that is easy to misunderstand is that an administrator, perhaps a dean,
thinks they have sought faculty input if they meet with an advisory council or
talk to individual faculty. We don’t
see it that way. We quote the
contract. We have a set of agreed upon
procedures to be more efficient. It
wastes the efforts of faculty and the administration when those procedures are
not followed.
Adm: I do not know who is saying that. I will follow up.
FA: The idea of faculty representation is based
on PELRA. A bargaining unit is the
exclusive representative of the people who belong to it. Consultation with faculty is by way of Faculty
Senate, faculty committees or meet and confer.
We then give opinions or render a judgment in turn. That does not mean consultation with
individual faculty or faculty on college committees. This is a problem not just here on our campus but across the
system. At IFO meet and confer there is
the same problem. It is state law and a
negotiated contract that makes the IFO (FA on campus) the exclusive
representative of faculty.