MEET AND CONFER
February 26, 2004
Meeting Notes
Faculty Association: Theresia Fisher, Dale Buske, Fred Hill, Robert Johnson, Judy Kilborn, Andy Larkin, Tracy Ore, Annette Schoenberger, P. N. Subbanarasimha, Sandra Williams,
Donna West, Notetaker
Administration: Roy Saigo, Michael Spitzer, Diana Burlison, Nathan Church, Lin Holder, Steve Ludwig, Roland Specht-Jarvis, Rex Veeder, Kristi Tornquist
Guest: Jill Rudnitski
Acceptance of Meet and Confer Notes of January 22, 2004
Accepted
The FA will submit their recommended revisions.
Unfinished Business:
Admin: I would like to introduce Jill Rudnitski who is our guest today; and I would appreciate if the faculty would introduce themselves. I’m wondering if faculty would introduce themselves in their elected capacity.
Introductions were made.
FA: Thank you all. We do
have one time-sensitive item on the agenda to hit at 4:00 PM, number 8 under
“New Business.”
Admin: We’ll finish everything by then! (laughter)
1. Civility and Academic Freedom Draft (Admin) (9/11/03)
FA: The senate has essentially decided to take no action and has removed this topic from their agenda.
Admin: OK.
FA: Any further discussion?
2. Student Credit Hour Generation Report (Admin) (9/25/03)
FA: Agenda item numbers 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7 are to remain under Unfinished Business, since we are discussing them in Senate.
Admin: One of the most critical items is financial aid, currently being worked on in a committee.
FA: Do you have a timeline?
Admin: I know the committee is in the process of scheduling a meeting. If we could have this subject on the next Senate agenda in order to get Senate’s recommendation, then we could discuss it at our next Meet and Confer.
FA: Have you received responses from faculty?
Admin: We’ve gotten responses from about 40 percent of faculty.
Admin: We fully understood that we might not get wonderful feedback; but we are sending out a similar request for the fall semester and anticipate feedback will be better since it’s current. It was a time sensitive issue, so we moved ahead; but it’s fine -- we’re okay.
3. Sponsored Programs Indirect Cost Sharing Policy (Admin) (11/6/03)
(Discussing in Senate)
4. Proposed Policy for On-Line Courses (Admin) (11/20/03)
(Discussing in Senate)
5. Financial Aid – Verification of Attendance (Admin) (12/11/03)
(Discussing in Senate)
6. Gen Ed Assessment Director (Admin) (12/11/03)
Admin: I want to inform Meet and Confer we want to establish a screening committee to select and ask for names of six faculty members.
FA: Is there a timeframe?
Admin: This semester – ASAP.
It was confirmed there will be 6 faculty members out of 10 people on the committee.
FA: Do you have a job description?
Admin: We’re in the process, and it will be posted as we call for applications.
FA: This is a position that has a great deal of connection with the faculty; and faculty have (in the past) been involved in the job description process.
Admin: The focus will be on general education -- it will be a little different.
FA: What role will the search committee have in suggesting changes?
Admin: If they want to recommend changes, we’ll certainly look at those.
Admin: It’s not going to be a terribly complex description.
7. NSSE (Admin) (1/22/04)
(Discussing in Senate)
8. Business Practices (FA) (2/5/04)
FA: We have this topic on the agenda from the previous Meet and Confer; and in the meantime, there has been a statewide Meet and Confer where this issue was discussed. We, when I say “we,” I mean system-wide, the state university FA Presidents voiced our concern regarding the process occurring at various universities with the issues and with the content of these recommendations which had not gone through what, we believe, is proper procedure for academic issues. The Chancellor and the vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs admitted this had been an error, and they reassured us that technological considerations would not drive academic policymaking, so we’re hopeful this has changed. I guess I have some questions about who makes up this Leadership Council?
Admin: This came from a committee at Leadership Council (four members of that committee). I was at a Chief Academic Officers meeting at MnSCU subsequent to the IFO Meet and Confer and confirm that the staff in the Chancellor’s office was apologetic, and they assured all of us (some of the academic officers were also concerned) this would have greater and broader consultation.
FA: That’s very good to hear and addresses the concerns faculty has.
FA: Is there any further discussion?
FA: Okay, let’s take this item off of the agenda. I assume #1 under Unfinished Business will be taken off too.
1. Faculty Center for Teaching Excellence (FA)
FA: I’d like to get clarification since we’ve been back and forth on this subject. Will you be forwarding an announcement; or is it the assumption an announcement will be made when the restructuring takes place?
Admin: Yes.
FA: Which one?
Admin: The latter. I know you didn’t have a chance to review the notes from the last meeting, but we’re ready to move forward. This will be a 1.0 reassigned time appointment.
FA: Any further discussion? We can remove this item from the agenda.
2. Restructuring Outcomes (Adm)
a. Dean of Undergraduate Studies
b. Academic Learning Center
c. Center for Excellence in Teaching and Learning
d. Advisory Committee on Diversity
e. Academic Affairs Office
Admin: We are still considering some elements of the taskforce’s and Senate’s recommendations regarding the taskforce’s report; but we are going to establish a Dean of Undergraduate Studies and ask that faculty select six faculty representatives for a search committee (internal). With that, we will establish a new academic unit and make the Academic Learning Center part of a department, so this is notification by March 1. Until this is in place – the beginning of fall semester – the Academic Learning Center remains in its current location.
FA: We have a memo from the FA President stating after conferring with Jim Pehler, the IFO agrees this movement is in accordance with the contract.
Admin: Thank you, I appreciate that.
FA: Will it (the Academic Learning Center) stay in its current location?
Admin: Yes, until fall.
FA: Where will the location be?
Admin: Student Life and Development.
FA: There will be no temporary move?
Admin: No.
FA: Will it be called a Dean of Undergraduate Studies and School?
Admin: Not a school aside from this department. We’re not quite calling it a school but just a Dean of Undergraduate Studies.
FA: We have a School of Graduate Studies, and I’m wondering if there is a school (of Undergraduate Studies) with a title of “school.”
Admin: I haven’t thought about it that way.
FA: There will be six faculty members for the search committee -- how many people (total) will be on this search committee?
Admin: 11.
FA: This would affect us in terms of representation. If it’s a new revision, then do we have representation from the IFO, as I’m not quite sure how the unit will be envisioned.
Admin: What happens now is that faculty in the Academic Learning Center, for example, are represented by the Special Services unit, so they already have representation.
FA: If it was a school as in the college of Social Sciences, we have unit representation of college a, b c d e f…..
Admin: I don’t think you’d want representation from one faculty member. I think rostering with Special Services conceives as a single unit.
FA: As of now, there will be a Dean of Undergraduate Studies, and the Academic Learning Center will be a separate unit. What would be the make up?
Admin: There are other units of responsibility this individual will have. This person will be the chief coordinator of the First Year Experience Program, Honors Program, offering general education courses through various colleges and academic support units; the Center for Excellence in Teaching and Learning will report here as well. We’re trying to pull together most of the functions addressed in the freshmen year so we can support and improve student retention by coordinating these efforts (will fall under this dean).
FA: Where will this fit with Mahmoud Saffari?
Admin: They will work closely together. One would be on the organization chart with the Deans and one with the Associate VPs.
FA: If they don’t report to same individual…..
Admin: Both would report to me.
FA: Sometimes when I talk with people in Records, I get the feeling there isn’t a good communication with them and the people in Financial Aid; and sometimes I think it’s because when you look on the organization chart, the place where the “buck stops” isn’t close enough to the individuals having the difficulties.
Admin: I don’t think we’ll have that problem. If it’s a problem, we’ll resolve it.
FA: Where are they going to be housed?
Admin: I’m looking around! Anyone who knows about an empty office, please let me know! (laughter)
FA: They’ll need secretarial support….
Admin: With the Centennial Hall renovations, we’ll try to accommodate space. I should add, at the moment, we’re looking at this position as being a three-year appointment, during which time if we find it hasn’t made an impact, we’ll change it.
FA: Is there a timeline for the search committee?
Admin: ASAP.
FA: What about the position description?
Admin: It is at MnSCU for benchmarking.
FA: Can faculty give their input on the position description?
Admin: Yes, as soon as we have a search committee.
As part of the restructuring, we intend to create an advisory committee on diversity but need to develop the composition of that. In terms of the office of Academic Affairs, I did want to notify you that Joe Opatz has been on unpaid leave. And, we’re looking at refining the assignments of those folks in the office. There are a few other recommendations to address: one of Associate VP of Administration, and we’ll have that position continue to report to the VP of Administration -- we need to maintain checks and balances, and that position is one way to do so. We’re still thinking about some possibilities with regard to colleges, but there is nothing decided.
FA: What about the office of Graduate Studies?
Admin: I haven’t looked into the issue of signature authority, and that’s an important part of that recommendation and it’s being looked into.
FA: I want to go back to “C” -- the Center for Excellence in Teaching and Learning -- I assume this is another “ASAP”?
Admin: Yes.
FA: What about a job description?
Admin: It is in the process of being finalized. Its search committee will also have 6 faculty out of 10 total.
FA: Will faculty have an opportunity to give their input?
Admin: Yes.
FA: Any other comments?
FA: Will there be a formal announcement to the campus about these?
Admin: Yes. I wanted to inform Meet and Confer first.
FA: If you hadn’t informed us first, there would be a contract violation.
Admin: Boy, am I lucky! (laughter)
3. Four Climate Studies: What is the next step? (FA)
FA: What I’ll do is go back
and remind everyone of the recent history. Over the past two or three years,
we’ve had four Climate Studies, and we got about three quarters of the way
through when we decided here at Meet and Confer we wanted to put together a
campus committee to study these four reports and make a recommendation at Meet
and Confer and various organizations. Last year, we created the IRC, and that
committee worked during the spring semester, and they were expected to bring in
a report at the end of the semester. I understand why it wasn’t possible to
get it done, and we’re at a point where we don’t have a final report. I think
we ought to get a report and make it public to the university so we can move
forward with resolving these problems or go back and say we’re not going to get
a report and figure out what to address that we attempted to address last
spring. Where can we get a report?
Admin: There never was a report – there was a preliminary draft, but it was never formally adopted.
Admin: There was a draft report from the committee. In honor of the people who served, it was a lot of hard work. They got together and compiled a preliminary report that didn’t constitute a consensus of the committee, and part of the operating rules was coming to a consensus. There wasn’t an opportunity to come to a consensus on a number of issues, and there were various exchanges and reactions to the preliminary report; and at that point, the committee members were exhausted.
FA: That’s good, and I’m happy you said that. Now we’re at a point where at least a preliminary report was presented to Administration last summer. We have a memo from the President who disbanded the IRC. We’re under the impression that was accepted as the final report, or the IRC didn’t finish their report. What do we do with this work from the IRC? Should we create a new committee?
Admin: The old committee dissolved itself and said they were not going to meet anymore.
FA: Is there a statement?
Admin: There is not, but we can poll the committee to get one.
FA: We need to caucus.
A caucus was held.
Returned from caucus.
FA: We’re still on #3.
FA: First, we’d like to strike from the record any request of a report from the committee. We have nothing to request. Second, we’d like to ask a question. Given the elements mentioned, in addition to the amount of time and effort and amount of expense that went into the reports and the energy and attention from the community spent on those reports, we’d like to get some sense of what is the assessment of the campus climate, based on the past studies and current efforts. Where do we go from here, so we’re accountable to those people? What do we say about the nature of the campus climate as SCSU?
Admin: I think there are a number of things. We have taken a number of steps to address some of the issues raised. We wish to continue to take steps to address them and can talk a little about them.
Admin: In looking at all of the reports and some of the responses coming out of them in terms of moving forward – the Advisory Committee is one example of us moving in a direction, attempting to focus and think about topics. CODE and CODAS is an example of work that continues in response to the assessments and surveys. In addition to the CARE Program, we’ve initiated in our long-term commitment of working with issues of anti-racism as well as our continuing development of Jewish studies. We’ve maintained a separate lead investigator to deal with these issues and will hire an Affirmative Action and Social Equity Officer who is going to be responsible for these issues directly. The whole issue of training and workshops and the emphasis on diversity within the community include continued support for racial issues, of course, and are important responses to those campus climate assessments. It’s a continuing process and we’re continuing to look at these issues; and, I guess, I would ask where the faculty thinks we should be going.
Admin: We continue to ask for faculty suggestions, recommendations, and proposals for ways to continue diversity training on campus. If I remember, there was no one item in the NSSE report relatively significant. There is a positive difference between our students and the national average (.4 something). I’m not saying everything is fine; but in comparison to how we measured two years earlier, we’re making some progress and continue to.
FA: I guess I see there are a lot of positives; but my impression of what you were trying to do to respond to those reports was to get a blueprint of a campus-wide systemic response, and we need to think about how we can deal with the issues. What we still don’t have is a systemic vision.
Admin: This is a good question (laughter). The initiative yesterday with CARE and Deborah Leigh really emphasizes the support of the Minnesota Anti-racism Coalition. The two individuals who gave a presentation said they are looking at systemic changes in procedures and policies to reduce/remove racist behaviors, and I said I’m so happy to hear this since this is the focus. The other night, I called Rex and said we’re putting money into this since the Provost asked me about funds, and we’re funding overtime for MAPE and AFSCME to participate. So the foundation is such that we’ve come a long way, but you just don’t say this is a magic wand. We’ve approached this from so many different ways, and we’ve made great progress. What is exciting about CARE is we’ve had community involvement. I’m optimistic as we put our thoughts together, we will give you a list of what we’ve done.
FA: We’re not quite done with the topic; but it’s the 4:00 PM marker. Can we jump to the FTNP reappointment?
Admin: Thank you, President Saigo for your comments. Training provides the kind of opportunities we all want to have. We have a number of issues, and President Saigo said there would be a report coming. As I look at these, I see a lot of systemic stuff going on. Maybe together we need to see what it looks like and have an advisory committee become involved.
FA: One of the indicators is the Strategic Planning Committee, and you can expect strategic planning will be put under the Climate Study, enabling ongoing assessment of the environment.
Admin: I would add, we were disappointed in not receiving a report – President Saigo extended the deadline for the committee to come to their conclusions. It would have been better if we had an official report from the IRC, but we need to move forward, regardless.
FA: I think that what we asked the committee to do is extremely difficult, and we need to recognize they worked really hard.
Admin: Rex made this point earlier.
FA: We’re joining you to make this very clear.
I’d like to add: I have only been to the St. Cloud Times web response site twice – and this sort of thing expresses the greater community, and it makes our job here extremely difficulty as a group of people trying to move St. Cloud into the future. Is there something we can do?
Admin: We had a forum and heard from Joseph Edelheit. At the last meeting, there were over 100 people present from the community. Sometimes they asked very naïve questions, but some questions were very good. You should come to some of those to observe how they’re going to see how we can model from that example.
FA: Going back to where we started, there were four reports; so we want to integrate those reports to see what needs to be done. Are all these initiatives that are being taken related to what was said in those reports (referred as systemic)?
Admin: We need to involve more faculty in some of this diversity training since some of the issues raised from students are what they perceive as discriminatory behaviors by faculty.
FA: I should add, President Saigo commissioned the CARE leadership group yesterday, and that entity is going onto training. What most of you don’t realize is the grant this effort was based on, and partially funded by, states that CARE will reevaluate the four climate studies and come up with recommendations. This was before anything was known about the IRC, but now you have this committee, and it is being trained by MCARI also at Metro and Moorhead, and they will now attempt to take those four climate studies and come up with a final report and set of recommendations. We understand how daunting this task is -- and this is happening right now.
FA: I just want to respond, it is true somebody comes up to state regarding Antiracism. Certainly, there is nothing we can do to control the issue; but the question was would you rather not know? I don’t think we can change, but I think the effort is out and the efforts CARE will make can move us.
Admin: I think, one, I don’t know if this is the place to ask, but one recommendation I have is I would personally request in terms of workshops for faculty to be involved in training and workshops. I wish there was a systematic way for faculty to come together to recommend workshops for the university. I know there are committees, but they are pretty ad hoc, and this is the area of systemic need.
FA: Didn’t Senate give a recommendation regarding this? We can certainly encourage faculty participation.
Admin: But we have CODE and CODAS.
FA: And CODE has a diversity education proposal coming to Senate soon.
Admin: Okay, I’m thinking of things for convocation -- the number of times it is good to have recommendations from faculty in terms of what faculty want to do. We have a number of people with expertise.
FA: If you want to put it together, we can take it to Senate.
FA: In regard to the IRC, my own interpretation as I read the four reports is I saw there were systemic policy and procedure changes needing to be addressed. There are no advocates and not anyone being held accountable. That’s my own sense. That’s the kind of systemic stuff nobody seems to address. My question is how do we get to that?
Admin: Systemically, I would hope it would be with the assistance of the Academic Affairs Officer and Affirmative Action & Social Equity Advisory Council.
Admin: Also, regarding affirmative action -- and Tracy Bowe is not here -- but something close to five or six years ago, we had 36 complaints, and it’s now down to 11. It’s easy to say “Where’s the Meat?” but there are a lot of things happening. When we look at this, we haven’t required faculty to take these courses. The question is what are you going to do to change the behavior of faculty, and how do we get to the next level?
FA: So, since the IRC Committee dissolved itself, is the task of collating the four earlier reports being done by CARE now?
FA: Yes, but not because of the IRC -- it would have happened anyway.
FA: What should be done now?
FA: One of the current activities is the CARE initiative to evaluate the four climate studies.
Admin: Judy, you mentioned you had some too.
FA: Yes, one of the KPIs.
Admin: Steve’s point is really a key one in trying to identify systemic issues.
FA: I hate for this to turn into a finger-pointing session. I think I would be very happy to say that yes we’re doing a great deal on campus before the reports came out with many things underreported. At the same time, we’re laying a lot of bricks and mortar; but what is the blueprint – where is it taking us? Will we get something out of that according to some plan – have we answered this? There may be some serious gaps. I think we should ask how do we assess where we are; and given what we’re doing, what direction do we have? All of us have a role in this, and how do we partake in this joint effort? Everyone is interested in doing well and moving on, and the question is how do we get there?
FA: Are there other comments?
FA: The question still remains. We need to, at some point, step back. We also need to occasionally assess where we are and make some changes here and there, and we owe it to the larger community to say here is what we see, examining ourselves for two or three years. Here’s what we want to achieve.
Admin: Good point.
4. Endowed Chairs and Professorships (Admin) - Guest: Jill Rudnitski
Admin: We make everyone go through this much of the meeting! (laughter)
(Draft Policy for Endowed Chairs and Professorships at SCSU was handed out.)
Guest: I’m bringing this to you today since we haven’t had a policy at SCSU. I took a look a few months ago at our peer institutions in an effort to try to figure out what the standards are. They (endowed chairs and professorships) can be one of the most powerful ways to reward faculty and improve as we move forward to attract and retain faculty who might retire in the next 10 to 20 years. We from the Foundation are asking how we can help the university do this. What you have in draft form is how the foundation operates. We do have a donor who is interested in doing an endowed chair. He left his money in his will for an endowed chair. The time is now for us to figure out how we’re going to use the money so we’ll know when the estate passes probate. We can raise the money, and we’d like to let the university spend it. We’d like this group to pay particular attention to what the allowable expenses would be. On the back is the process -- the process the university would put in place for an endowed chair or professor and would be in the realm of a contract. Those are the pieces I wanted to bring to you for discussion.
FA: Are you looking for feedback from Senate?
Guest: Absolutely. It is important to know what questions there might be.
FA: Is there a timeframe? Not ASAP is it?
Guest: It depends on how fast the estate passes probate – the money will just sit at the foundation. Close to the end of spring semester if it’s possible; I would expect we’d have the money in hand by May. If we had processes in place so we could award one for the fall semester, it would make sense. Internal vs. external is a consideration. It would be nice to have the money available.
FA: What are you asking for?
Guest: Feedback, particularly for an endowed chair what the allowed expenses would be. We read and feel we drafted language to fit with the contract and want to make sure you feel the same way.
FA: Any other questions?
FA: Thank you for the good news! (laughter)
Guest: I’ll throw one thing out -- when I did the study, I looked around a little and one of the things many places do that we chose not to do is put in a salary supplement -- other rewards and incentives without it being a salary supplement, and we purposely did this.
Admin: If you want to modify this for a salary supplement, let us know.
FA: When you said internal vs. external, do you want us to tell you one vs. the other?
Guest: The way we wrote this is to say that they have to qualify for faculty -- for an external search there are processes. We know how to do an external search; but do we know how to do an internal search?
Admin: It offers a whole lot of choices.
FA: I think one thing we could consider is paying a salary during the summer -- it wouldn’t be a supplement. That is a possibility.
FA: We will get back to you to put this on the next Senate agenda if you need an answer by spring.
Guest: That sounds great -- thanks.
5. Partnerships Agreements (FA)
FA: Our concern is over the past several years, there have been a number of partnership agreements, mostly from the College of Education. Promises have been made from course work to school districts, etc. The nature of these partnerships is they really require resources; and given the scant funding, when these get funded, it has the potential to affect others. Because of the impact partnerships have on funding, we see it as our contractual right to come to departments and Meet and Confer first. What we’re asking is how can we go about determining a process before the finances are entered into.
Admin: I’d like for Administration to discuss this and respond at a subsequent Meet and Confer. We’ll bring it to our Senate! (laughter)
FA: We want a response ASAP! (laughter)
Admin: I could say when we get an answer to these other things! (laughter)
FA: You did just say that! (laughter)
6. “Master/Facilities Plan” committee representation (Adm)
Admin: We’re preparing to do a five-year review of the ten-year Master Plan/ Facilities Utilization Plan and would like to request one or two faculty representatives to serve. The last time this was done, we had a representative from Community Studies who I’ve been told brought extremely valuable expertise.
FA: Is there an update of the plan? What happens to the current one?
Admin: Some things have happened, and some haven’t.
FA: Will people be affected?
FA: You’re being moved to Mankato! (laughter)
Admin: MnSCU policy says it needs to be reviewed every five years. This is the half-way point to update it as to what has been done and look to see if the next five years of the plan will be the direction consistent with what we think we might do. The world changes and facilities change and we need to recognize that.
FA: I have a question on this one. When I was Co-chair of Strategic Planning, I believe the Master Plan was a subset to that. Wasn’t it the Administration’s intention to separate the Master Plan from the Strategic Plan?
Admin: No -- this is MnSCU’s.
FA: I believe this was part of the Strategic plan.
Admin: When we did the initial plan, you’re right, there were three areas to come back for cooperative agreement, and one was the facilities plan. All came back to Strategic Planning – there was a lot of input from the campus community.
FA: As the Strategic Planning Committee Chair-elect, I would ask the Administration to consider placing it back under Strategic Planning as a component, just because we want this comprehensive plan to be there.
Admin: I don’t know enough about timelines, and Steve is unavailable today. I could have him send you a note.
FA: Okay.
Admin: I think his expertise is needed.
FA: What is the deadline to have the five-year review back?
Admin: I don’t know.
Admin: I’ll find out what Steve’s plans and timelines are.
FA: Do you want appointments ASAP?
FA: We’ll get back to you.
Admin: It might be good if you had an urban planning committee.
FA: “Local and Urban Affairs.”
Admin: What did you have for lunch today?
FA: Simple, I didn’t!
7. Internal Audit (FA)
FA: This should really be labeled as a follow-up to the internal audit, instead. What we’d like to do is go back to the process in place with the Budget Review Committee, and this committee would like the opportunity to review the entire university budget.
FA: Also, back to my hat as Co-chair of Strategic Planning, we had a lot of conversation about the incentive-based budget. Who would I talk to about that? Would that be you Diana?
Admin: Yes.
Admin: I guess I wasn’t aware of the past practice of the former VP calling the Budget Committee together. There’s a little transition problem -- I was well aware of the Budget Committee; and then one day, there wasn’t a Budget Committee. I don’t know what happened.
FA: The Budget Committee is part of our constitution. We’ve always had a Budget Committee, and the procedure Gilchrist used was to contact the current FA President and they’d convene the committee for discussion on the whole university budget and projections.
Admin: I’m more than willing to do this – I did not know the procedure Gene Gilchrist used; and I’m terribly sorry. I didn’t know he initiated the process. I will call you tomorrow to initiate contact with your Budget Committee. Sorry for the slip – I sure wish somebody had told me.
FA: Thank you.
FA: One of the things about this is that one of the recommendations of the internal audit was that this be done and reports be made in clear and consistent ways, with more frequency and in more detail, and I’m finding we’re not doing any of those. We probably should get our act together on this.
FA: I just want to recognize Administration’s effort in open town meetings regarding the budget.
FA: Regarding the incentive-based budget, this appears to be something to come to Meet and Confer regarding the change in formula and basis.
FA: And it will come to Senate also.
FA: I just wanted to comment why Diana is probably confused. Last year in the process, we moved the budget considerations into the Executive Committee (Senate made this decision), that’s why our Budget Committee did not contact you – because of the crises we had last spring.
FA: Let me just go over the process: our experience is that it’s the Administrative VP or Associate VP who contacts the FA President.
Admin: I just didn’t realize it came that way. I’m really sorry. Thanks, Andy.
You’ll have an e-mail tomorrow.
FA: We can take this off the agenda.
8. FTNP Reappointment (FA)
FA: A contractual exception was made regarding a Fixed-term faculty member, and it is coming to the conclusion of her four years. Jim Pehler, who has been the IFO President for four years, is coming to his conclusion at the same time, but he’ll be gone for one year on sabbatical. I approached the IFO to ask if the faculty member can be extended for one year to replace Jim. I received notification that contractually it is sound, and we have to bring it to Meet and Confer; so the FA President generated a letter to Administration citing paragraphs of the contract to be signed off on allowing us to do this.
FA: We have an agreement that if you so decide to do this, the four-year limitation will be waived, and we’ll agree it’s contractual.
Admin: So long as the department and Administration are supportive, that would be okay.
FA: Thank you -- and that is the case.
Admin: We need to determine that same vacancy is the one we most need; then I would make sure they’d be agreeable.
FA: Can we go back to number 3?
FA: So we’re taking number 7 off of the agenda and number 6 off of the agenda – no, let’s leave number 6 on. Number 5 stays on; number 4 stays on; and what about number 3? Let’s put number 3 on for next spring to come back and look at what we’ve done and see if what you said does address the problems Steve was taking about. Number 2 goes away, and number 1 goes away.
Admin: You asked me to push all of those down for Annette! (laughter)
Meeting adjourned at 4:50 PM.