MEET AND CONFER Notes October 16, 2003

MEET AND CONFER

October 16, 2003

Meeting Notes

Faculty Association: Theresia Fisher, Dale Buske, Fred Hill, Steve Hornstein, Chris Inkster, Robert Johnson, Judy Kilborn, Bill Langen, Andy Larkin, Tracy Ore, P. N. Subbanarasimha, Sandra Williams

Donna West, Notetaker

Administration: Roy Saigo, Diana Burlison, Larry Chambers, Nathan Church, Lin Holder, Steve Ludwig, Roland Specht-Jarvis, Michael Spitzer, Rex Veeder,

Kristi Tornquist

Jackie Zieglmeier, Notetaker

UNFINISHED BUSINESS

Acceptance of Meet and Confer Notes – September 25, 2003

Adm: There are a couple of corrections:

- On Page 3 in the section regarding the role of faculty in retention, about three lines from the bottom of that section -- the word “no” is missing from “We can all agree, (no) access codes on door.”

- On Page 9, the second paragraph under “adm,” next to the last line should read “by” recruiting instead of “be” recruiting.

- On Page 11, about two-thirds down, “fire wall” should be one word.

- One Page 2, with regard to the discussion on add/drop date, we thought faculty agreed with appropriate rigor and within the bounds of academic freedom they would accommodate students who added classes late. I don’t see this statement reflected here. Could you add this?

FA: Let me craft some language and pass it by the Executive Committee. Since we need to add this statement, perhaps we should not accept the minutes now and wait until next meeting.

Civility and Academic Freedom Draft (Admin)

ADM: We’re waiting to hear back from the FA.

FA: The following motion was made during Faculty Senate on 10/7/03: “That FA Senate reject the Administration’s draft statement on civility and professional responsibility using the statements of CODE and CODAS Committees and Community Studies as a rationale. Further, the university administration should address the problems of harassment and threats and other illegal behavior and actions through existing legal and contractual means.”

FA: The idea was the need to address certain types of behavior on campus. Inappropriate behavior may be of a threatening nature that would present harm. That should be separated from the question of discourse and the nature of discourse on campus. People can exchange views, ideas, and words and be very passionate; but it may not rise to the level of a crime or a violation of code or policy. On the other hand, if people engage in behavior that is threatening and abusive, this behavior should clearly be covered by certain laws and policies and should be addressed. The structure of the civility statement was punishment would be applied to both situations. A person could be punished for engaging in discussion that might not have been approved or liked. There is a need to make a distinction between the nature of conversation or discourse and behavior – this problematic from a faculty perspective. Several faculty members looked at the civility statement, and they presented arguments to the Senate. Our recommendation is the need to address main issues about illegal behavior that threaten the campus community.

Adm: If I heard correctly, you were referring to documents by the CODE and CODAS Committees which were predicated on looking at the wrong documentation?

FA: They understood that there is a different document out there. There was a section that spoke strictly to the question of civility. Regardless of the context of that statement, we thought their analysis held.

Adm: Was there any effort on the part of the faculty to suggest substitute language for any parts of the civility statement?

FA: There was an effort on the part of the faculty to appreciate the need for action to address the problem of people being threatened and harassed.

ADM: When you’re saying people are being “threatened,” how would it happen?

FA: For example, students taunting peaceful protesters with signs and screaming. I don’t think this falls under discourse. People were seeing the whole notion of civility falling into other kinds of discourse.

Admin: Would it be appropriate to talk with Senate regarding crafting a document?

FA: We could take this to Senate for discussion, and we could decide.

FA: From the Senators I have spoken with, there is an appreciation that you are trying to create an environment that would allow us to do our work. When we talk about civility and professionalism, they can be vague and open to interpretation. Some of us thought do we really need something that goes beyond the 1.B.1. process? I’ve had experience in my dept when we craft a statement or policy to all be nice, it then gets misused. We should look at the policies MNscu has set out.

ADM: I feel it does not supersede policies at all – it refers to us having these policies that can be acted on now. This just reminds us the policies are in place.

FA: Senators felt they wanted better enforcement of laws. There is still a fear of harassment.

Admin: If we want better enforcement, then we want a statement of what to expect.

FA: I think we have laws and policies spelled out as to what is harassing behavior. On other hand, there is concern about putting sanctions against discourse. Who is going to be the language police?

Admin: Does this document state anywhere there would be punishments beyond existing policies?

FA: Somehow this is coupled with the question of civility. Incivility is not illegal.

Admin: When discussed this, we talked several times about the use of the word “civility,” and the possibility of substituting another word.

FA: There is concern about the concept of the nature of exchange and discourse.

Admin: When does one cross the line from discourse that is perhaps less than civil to discourse that is abusive or harassing?

FA: Aren’t there procedures in place for abusive and harassing behavior?

Adm: Yes, but this statement doesn’t add anything to what already exists other than as a reminder to faculty to try not to cross that line. If you do, then there are things in place.

FA: The intent is this tries to help. The concern is not that we need another policy but that we need enforcement of what we have.

ADM: A way to look at that is if this has taken place over a period of time, the civility statement is a way to say we’re not going to do that anymore.

FA: Then the statement shouldn’t be to us, but to the people who are in charge of enforcing it.

FA: If you have policies that you’re satisfied with in place and the purpose of this is to remind people of policies, why don’t we just do that -- just remind people “here are the policies” and state them.

Admin: I guess I thought that’s what this statement does.

FA: That was the intent but it may not be.

FA: Any further comments? (None.)

Desire2Learn (Admin)

Admin: Handouts were distributed. In the spring of 1998 when course management products were first coming out on the marketplace, we had a group of faculty and staff review the products available. We decided to make an investment in WebCT as a product for our campus. Some faculty opted to use other products on their own. We spent $300 the first year with limited

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

engagement. That has increased significantly. You can see changes over the first few years (referring to the handouts). Almost half of the student body is taking courses using WebCT. Over 200 instructors are using it. In 2000-01, Mnscu decided they wanted to invest in this product for the whole system. They attempted to bypass the RPT process and mandate a product for the system. Many of us were not pleased with that process. Jim Pehler became very involved in this. An RFP was written. Three products were selected that MnSCU would support. Campuses could opt which product they wanted to use. SCSU continued to use WebCT. MnSCU provided one-time money over three years to pay the license fee and a technician for our campus. MnSCU supported centrally some of the smaller schools. We were told we are too big so we would have to provide our support locally. There are five products used across the Mnscu system – the more variation, the higher the costs are for support. By choosing only one, you can drive down the cost for licenses. As licenses began to expire, they started a review process. I “twisted arms” and got J. C. Turner on the review committee – and this was very beneficial. Eungmin Kang was the IFO rep on the software committee. We were able to host the RFP review process so faculty had the opportunity to sit on these sessions. The overwhelming recommendation was to enter into an agreement with Desire2Learn, and a contract was just signed on Tuesday. We’re still getting information and must make a decision if we will commit to Desire2Learn. The hope would be to begin training sessions for faculty wishing to learn the new product no later than January 2004. TLTR met and discussed recommending a decision be made by the end of this semester. They also brainstormed criteria to use to decide if we should stay with WebCT or switch. We would request your input and some suggestion on how you think it would be best to handle a review process. Would like students involved? Technical Support could answer questions.

FA: Through TLTR?

Admn: No, they wrote this up -- they sent to TPR.

FA: Are you looking for a joint committee thing?

Admin: Yes – it would be more beneficial if left up to faculty as well as expeditious.

FA: I can take to Faculty Senate and come up with a recommendation.

Admin: If you need assistance, I would be happy to volunteer J.C.

Admin: I’m always happy to volunteer someone else! (laughter)

FA: If I want to look at Desire2Learn, is it available?

Admin: Yes, we have access to a demo version. You can call J. C. Turner or Rene Rittenburg.

FA: Has MNscu signed a contract with this company?

FA: This was on the Statewide Meet and Confer agenda – the faculty did have issues such as whether there was going to be support for the conversion. There has been some discussion and MNscu looked like they were ready to go.

FA: Do we have a choice to go with this or do our own? Are they offering any support with the contract?

Admin: MNscu will pay for implementation and training through Aug. 31, 2004. I wanted some guarantee they would pick up costs in September, and we’re

doing everything to make a longer-term commitment.

FA: MNscu has money reserved for this. It’s not clear to faculty how money will be disseminated. One of the main issues was support for faculty if they’re going to do the conversion. MNscu thinks it’s minimal.

Admin: It takes 5 minutes per course. Faculty members will need to learn the new look. People were pretty impressed -- it’s easier to use than WebCT.

FA: Is there an advantage not to drag our feet so we could learn this before 9/1?

Admin: MNscu has contracted for three weeks of training. I hope they spread out the training beyond the fall – the sooner the better. There is concern if people are going to convert, they start.

FA: Any other comments?

Admin: Will you get back to me?

FA: Yes.

First Year Experience Pilot Program Affecting

Academic Programs – DGS Committee Recommendation (FA)

FA: Administration, do you want to begin?

Admin: I can pick up where you left off if the group has worked their way through.

FA: In a nutshell, we have an academic program that we thought was cooperative by the First Year Experience but is out of control. We realize changes were made. We’re trying to assess and keep our focus on academics so students and parents know what they’re getting. This kind of incursion on our academic program created chaos and bad press, and we want to make it clear our programs have integrity. We have some additional questions.

Admin: It was an academic decision to use existing courses. Perhaps one feature was to include DGS students in Holes Hall. They expected to be included in this, since that space is offered up to students first. The idea there wasn’t any choice was a little bit of a misnomer. We thought this would be an added benefit to DGS students. The pilot program to sort out logistical pieces is being sorted out. I think as I sat down to manage the residential side, I said there appeared to be courses on the books we could use. The notion was to extend to 400 (students?) in Holes Hall for the second year. CT150 paired with Study Skills 110. It wasn’t really the intent to make any inroads into the DGS Program, but simply to use courses already in this program. These courses are used by other universities. The most complicated logistics will be resident changes. I think there was more impact on DGS students than expected. The intent was they would benefit. I think a logistical piece was some were registered in Study Skills 110 in the fall, and we wanted them to register in the spring. A letter went out, and 18 students made that choice. We did not encourage students in 0990 to change – the intention was to create an added benefit.

FA: Part of it was logistical. Some students came in saying they were to drop classes they were required to take. These were students in 0990.

Admin: We’re confusing two issues -- 18 students out of 48 DGS students. There were 18 students registered in the fall for Study Skills 110. There weren’t any students removed from their own…..You may be confusing that sections in fall Study Skills 110 closed, impacting 17 students.

FA: Students, instead of being moved, were given a standard one paragraph letter where they were told -- part of this was conversation that didn’t happen. Another issue is being given an option to take another course. We’ve had conversations with people teaching -- they don’t feel qualified and that’s difficult.

Admin: Study skills 110 – has a component of reading.

FA: If they’re high risk, we feel they should be taking a course from qualified people.

FA: There is confusion about how CT150 and Study Skills 110 works.

Admin: It is 2 credits.

FA: We recently had an agreement DGS would not be involved.

Admin: DGS would be given a choice to participate.

Admin: There were 16 students who elected not to drop 110 and take it in the spring; those who elected to drop the course will have the same course on their transcript and will have to get credit through a reading course.

FA: I’m confused – why would they need to have replacement credits? If they’re taking one credit, why would they need credit if they’re already getting credit through normal DGS classes? The underlying question is what model are we using? Not the residential life model? What research model is this based on? Has it gone through the First Year Experience Committee? I think all of this could be prevented.

FA: We presented something to the First Year Experience Committee and said we wouldn’t do this until fall 2004. The committee is frustrated -- hours of work were wasted.

Admin. The model we used was based on the freshman seminar model in place for 20 yrs. The Ct 150 course is the 4^th edition of John Gardner’s text. It is the most common model for the First Year Experience. This is just a pilot program. An option was presented of being thematic cohorts -- pairing existing curriculum. Pretty standard models have been out there. This wasn’t intended to be the answer -- it was presented to be one of a number of options available. I understood pretty clearly to use existing elements of curriculum. If we misunderstood, I apologize.

FA: We agreed at the meeting to put it on hold. Other models were being researched. The committee members have expressed frustration. Any recommendations now will be ignored, because it’s underway. What is the purpose of this committee? I’m familiar with your literature, but there is a lot more. Why have you gone ahead with the program involving curriculum when we agreed not to? Can we look at the minutes from last year’s Meet and Confer meeting?

FA: Yes, I can look at these minutes.

Admin: Another issue is that it’s a pilot program -- not the (official) program. It is simply one model to explore how it would work to work out the logistics. It is geared towards matching course assignment to residential space.

Admin: I can add detail – there were three groups of DGS students. One group was placed into 0990, study skills 110, and a group testing out of needing 110. I’m not sure how it’s being handled. If they choose to stay in the program, they’d have to stay. There was not a very large group of students who chose to stay in 110. Most families and students chose not to. Of that group who has the credit, we might offer a credit of independent study. My suggestion because of all this, is to give it to them free.

Admin: It seems to me just listening there is a lot of talking past one another – I feel you should come together and report back. The First Year Experience is very important to this institution. I think your comments are very important. It is important to try to get our feedback. There seems to be a lot of different questions for the four of you to discuss. We’re not going to solve this issue now.

FA: I thought we already did that. We have a committee trying to get a proposal to bring to senate. We should be allowed to do our work and come forth with a pilot project. I can raise the question to the committee whether they want to meet again. I don’t know if another meeting needs to be held.

Admin: I think it’s important for the four of you to meet. To discuss where we are and where we want to be.

FA: It is really clear DGS does support the First Year Experience. We decided we shouldn’t be involved -- looking at current curriculum. Part of this is unfortunate. DGS is our opportunity program. Second, students may have chosen to live in Holes Hall -- DGS students -- and didn’t realize there was curriculum involved. It should be resolved for next year that no DGS students should live in Holes Hall. What models would be appropriate for students – beyond the normal freshman (first generation in college)?

FA: In summation, what is Meet and Confer if we have agreements in process and they aren’t followed through. We can go back and assess where we are and move forward. I think we need to keep in mind faculty are expressing frustration after going through the long process of having open communication through this mechanism here. Agreements made here should be honored.

Admin: I’d like to make one point regarding the First Year Experience Committee -- whatever work it does it should continue to do. It is not a matter of what we attempted this semester being fixed in stone. We’re eagerly looking forward to work from the committee. With that point in mind, we just recently received a flyer for an annual conference on the First Year Experience, and we want to invite people on the committee to attend in order to bring back workshops. Therefore, if you want to talk with the committee and submit names, we’ll provide the funding for them.

FA: The DGS Advisory Committee is not a faculty committee – it is a cross-university committee. I’m wondering where we stand? Should we have this meeting that administration suggested?

FA: In follow up to referencing the Meet and Confer notes regarding the First Year Experience in light of the disagreement and the suggestion to hold a meeting, I will touch base with the faculty regarding a meeting and get in contact with the administration. We will come back to Meet and Confer after we review these notes -- perhaps you want to dig up your notes.

Admin: One thing I certainly can speak for myself and for others involved – there wasn’t any discussion or intent to say we’re going to push ahead rather than do what was discussed in Meet and Confer – to violate what was agreed.

FA: Any further discussion? (None)

Workload Report (Admin)

Admin: I indicated we were developing the information on an individual faculty member basis and would distribute this to the deans for accuracy. We are waiting to receive this information back; and then we will make corrections and will make this information available.

FA: I’m wondering the way the columns are set up if advising is included in workload.

Admin: Yes it is. The report only addresses on and off load teaching -- including advising, service, etc.

FA: In light of the fact the current workload model doesn’t include advising and other activities of faculty, would it not be premature in publishing this document since it might be misconstrued?

Admin: Maybe we should term it “Faculty Teaching Load.”

FA: We might still think that the nature of faculty workload is teaching; and if we put something out on line and people within the campus community get this, they might think the faculty is only doing “X” amount of work. This may lead to the wrong impression and there may be misstatements about faculty work. Is there another model we can use to look at what you have so far, before we disseminate, in how we measure and report faculty work? There is the question of time spent working with students, involving a great deal of work, not getting reflected in printed hours.

Admin: Clearly, there is a lot not reflected in credit hours and differences predicated on disciplinary requirement and differences in what is considered the norm, and those need to be acknowledged and taken into consideration. It is my impression that faculty wanted this. If you think we shouldn’t, I would consider this. We would need to get faculty cooperation in the Delaware Study. I’m not sure if we’re ready to move to that yet.

FA: I think the difference in courses designated as on load and off load is problematic. The problem with designating might cause some misunderstanding.

FA: If data is released, we should say this looks at just part of the faculty’s workload.

Admin: That is part of the intent.

Admin: We could indicate this on each page.

FA: As I remember, the point of the discussion is trying to get at what happens to workload in the context of a significant reduction of reassigned time. You’ve looked at the data -- has it helped you understand the question that we had originally?

Admin: That wasn’t the original intent in looking at the data. It was to get an understanding of what faculty teaching load was so that comparisons could be made in context of how are we doing in comparison to other institutions of what faculty requirements are. The question you asked is something this report could shed light on but not the original reason.

FA: Will this data be used in decision making? If so, what are some examples?

Admin: If there is a dept with a lot of capacity to add students in classes (empty seats) and they say we’re overworked and we need more staff, I’ll question this. If departments have large student hours, large classes, teaching at 100 percent and ask for another faculty member, I’ll look favorably at.

FA: Will there be an allocation of resources?

Admin: Yes, partly.

FA: Is there an interest faculty might have in looking at the data when administration is making decisions on resources?

Admin: Yes. Otherwise, on what basis can we make a decision if we don’t have this unless someone pleaded their case (laughter).

FA: On the fact the data is out there in preliminary form, who might use it in ways not intended for its concern?

Admin: It’s not out there.

FA: It is problematic if we’re going to have information without context and completeness.

FA: Certainly administration has the right to do this. The issue is where does it go and how public should it be. We have five criteria we’re evaluated on – legislators and others are working hard. Eventually we’ll need to have honest discussions on advising since we don’t grant doctoral degrees. At some point, we’ll have to address this. We’re not doing this just for ourselves.

Admin : Clearly mission is a very important consideration at looking at this info.

FA: How are we judging meeting capacity?

Admin: In part, we’re looking at where enrollment cap is set on 285 and 14 students are registered. This will suggest the course is meeting at 7 percent of capacity. Would ask department to set more reasonable caps.

FA: If we had our way, we’d have our classes at 25 – but we were told to have at them at 32.

Admin: How would you recommend data be weighted? Roughly looking at picture, how much of faculty time is used for scholarship preparation and other elements? Tell us whether you think it’s safe or insufficient data. It seems to be heading in the right direction. How should be proceed?

FA: We need to take that to Senate to have a discussion. What is the time frame?

Admin: The next set of decisions for hiring is November 4^th.

Admin: The Delaware Study is the most comprehensive look at what the faculty workload is by incorporating all elements.

FA: Has your workload report gone to departments?

Admin: Yes.

Admin: They’re working the kinks out as we speak.

Admin: On and off load is the distinction between scheduled classes and other things.

FA: Is this happening in all colleges?

FA: I’ll take this to Senate to see what they’re recommendation is.

Admin: Responses are due next week. Next week, the deans must have their responses to the Provost’s office.

FA: I think we need to have consistency.

Admin: The number is what is in the registration book.

FA: I control the cap on my class.

Admin: No you don’t (laughter)! You propose the cap.

Admin: I’d like to make a short announcement. We are sponsoring a diversity workshop. We’d like for you to come for as long as you can. We’re offering continuing education credits. All are invited and encouraged to attend.

Admin: Is there a free lunch? (laughter)

Admin: It looks like an excellent program

Overloads in COE (FA)

FA: My dean handed out academic affairs notes, and we want clarification since the notes are different. The issue is overload is less costly. It still said that unlike there would be criteria for us, when it’s the same cost – the statement we got was, in general, there will not be any overload, and I’m in charge.

Admin: That’s not what it says in the Academic Affairs counsel either!

Admin: I’ll clarify.

NEW BUSINESS

Non-academic Units Offering Academic Courses (FA)

FA: The Senate passed a motion we bring this topic to Meet and Confer.

The issue is the American Indian Center students who have stated they will take classes through the student service unit on campus. The documentation is that this center is planning courses, program study, developing degree programs, and the like. It is problematic that a person was hired to develop curriculum in this area, and it is problematic in a number of ways and misleading to students giving them the impression they can get academic experiences through a student service unit on campus. This is the problem that comes to our attention.

Admin: What is the date on the documents?

FA: This was proposed as a draft in 1999-2000. However, statements by students came in during the past couple of weeks. There is another document indicating a course will be offered as part of a major in American Indian language and culture, indicating plans of developing curriculum outside of the units.

Admin: As far as I know, they’re not planning on offering any degrees.

FA: Have these documents been withdrawn?

Admin: The American Indian Center has not been proposing courses -- they’ve gone through academic units. This is a long-range planning for student life and development. I apologize if that is a misunderstanding. It has never been a program as the one you’re describing.

Admin: I would encourage you to consider the discussions it takes a department to extend curriculum reflective of the contract. Even though this has to go through a department, we should be mindful we are limited if we need to go through this manner.

FA: Students are still taking classes from the American Indian Center. Courses will be developed to start a major. We work with colleges across this campus. The question is will there be collaboration and consultation? If students are getting the impression they can get academic programs through a student service unit, then we must correct.

Admin: You’re absolutely right – they need to go through established departments. Foreign Language has proposed a piece of the curriculum – whether they sought write-offs appropriately, I don’t know.

FA: There were no sign-offs.

Admin: I just want to clarify. I couldn’t imagine a student saying they could get a degree through the American Indian Center. I will talk with the American Indian Center to confirm this.

Admin: My understanding is any faculty member can propose a course – am I wrong?

FA: Through the department.

Admin: If there are other departments involved, doesn’t the Curriculum Committee refer to other departments? Isn’t it their responsibility?

Admin: It does allow for non-department units to propose curriculum. There is more openness other than departments. There is a built-in procedure.

Admin: Errors were made when a new member of a department didn’t have the curriculum – they missed the sign-off entirely and are prepared to remedy. I’d be happy to tell the department to meet.

FA: This is not about a particular course. I’d be more than happy to consult and collaborate. If indeed the impression is being given to students that a unit can give credits and credentials, then that needs to be addressed.

Admin: Who is giving this information to students?

FA: Roles and functions on this campus is the issue.

Summer School Calendar (Admin)

Admin: We always bring calendar issues – Steve has the issue about Friday closings. We’ll put this in your hands; otherwise, we’ll go forward.

FA: We’ll refer this to the Committee on the Institution ASAP.