Faculty Association: Theresia Fisher, Dale Buske, Fred Hill, Steve Hornstein, Chris Inkster, Judy Kilborn, Andy Larkin, Tracy Ore, Annette Schoenberger, P.N. Subbanarasimha, Sandra Williams
Administration: Michael Spitzer, Diana Burlison, Nathan Church, Lin Holder, Steve Ludwig, Roy Saigo, Roland Specht-Jarvis, Kristi Tornquist, Rex Veeder Jackie Zieglmeier, Notetaker
Acceptance of Meet and Confer Notes of February 5, 2004:
FA: Notes accepted.
Acceptance of Meet and Confer Notes of February 26, 2004:
Adm: We have not had a chance to review the notes, so we are not ready to accept them.
FA: We also are not ready.
Unfinished Business:
Student Credit Hour Generation Report: (Admin) (9/25):
FA: This item has been discussed at Senate. We have asked department representatives to take it back to departments and bring input back so that it can be discussed at the next Senate meeting.
Proposed Policy for On-Line Courses (Admin) (11/20):
FA: We have referred this to the University Curriculum Committee.
Financial Aid – Verification of Attendance (Admin) (12/11):
FA: We have referred this back to our Admissions and Retention Committee.
Adm: We were provided with a preliminary audit on financial aid and understand that Theresia received a copy also. The audit is still in process. It takes several months to complete. It goes to a clearinghouse and they do a review. The liability at SCSU is less than $500,000. The original liability was closer to $1 million. The series of requests to the faculty about student class participation allowed us to reduce the amount. There is still discussion but there is the expectation that these funds will go on student accounts receivable. The student accepted the financial aid money to go to school and apparently did not go to school so owes the university money. We are looking at the process used at Metro State University. Students may have paid back some of this money already. It was an oversight on our part by not testing for this condition when the law changed in October 2000. It is federal law to have students return funds when those students do not actively pursue an education. SCSU provides $62 million of financial aid to 6,000 – 8,000 students per year. This issue represents $400,000-$500,000 over the past three years. The amount due is less than ¼ of one percent of the total money provided to students. Last semester procedures were set in place for each semester so that liability is not accumulated in the future. We received preliminary information from MnSCU today. They are reviewing their audit procedures. We relied on their audits to tell us how we were doing. Two years ago we had an audit that indicated we had a problem with how long we held funds that students didn’t claim. There was $16,000 that we returned to the federal government. They gave us a clean audit report last year. Now they tell us that two years ago they didn’t point out that there should have been procedures in place then. That is where we stand. This is an issue people are working hard on—Financial Aids, Business Services and Records and Registration. Your Admissions and Retentions Committee has met with Frank Loncorich, Jeff Wagner, Debbie Tamte-Horan and myself. Michael was unable to meet that day with us. There was constructive conversation. Good ideas came from the faculty so that with as little pain as possible (from students, faculty, the Business Office or Records) we could comfortably keep track of this in the future. The audit report is public information. We had no intention to withhold information. We had originally been told that we could not release the information.
Adm: Can this item be removed from the agenda?
FA: There will be a recommendation coming back from the faculty committee. We need to leave the item on the agenda.
NSSE (Admin) (1/22):
FA: This item is still in discussion at Senate.
Endowed Chairs and Professorships (Admin) (2/26):
FA: This item has not gone to Senate yet.
Sponsored Programs Indirect Cost Sharing Policy (Admin) (11/20):
FA: A motion was passed in Faculty Senate. In general faculty are supportive of the policy. The policy was approved with a few amendments. There was a concern about the distribution of indirect funds if there were more than one unit or college involved. One amendment would add the word, “affected” in front of college/unit/PI and that would give a pluralization possibility. We were looking at a three-year sunset where we could review the policy. We crossed out one sentence at the end of the paragraph in which I talked about the amendment. Theresia will give you a copy of the motion as passed.
Adm: What does the three-year sunset mean?
FA: It will give us an opportunity to review the policy.
Adm: So you are not saying terminate it after 3 years?
FA: The idea is that somewhere in that third year we take a look at it to see how is this working. If we like it, we continue it. If we think it needs some adjustment, we adjust it.
FA: Various items in the contract have that same kind of mechanism. Our intent is not to terminate it but to continue doing something similar to it.
Adm: This item can now come off the agenda.
General Education Assessment Director (Admin) (12/11):
FA: Theresia will give you the names of faculty representatives to this committee. We suggest that the committee first meet after spring break when faculty are available. Does this position have a “sunset?” (laughter). What is the term length?
Adm: Three years. We would want the same person to continue through the accreditation visit in 2007.
Partnership Agreements: (FA) (2/26):
FA: We asked you to respond at the last meet and confer.
Adm: We did not get a copy of the last meet and confer notes until yesterday and have not had a chance to review them. Our “senate” has not met yet. (laughter) We will have to postpone a response on this item.
Master/Facilities Plan Committee Representation (Admin) (2/26):
FA: We have 4 names that we will send you.
Adm: We asked for 1 or 2 names.
FA: We had more than 2 volunteers. When people volunteer for committees and service work, it is best to attempt to employ their services because committees benefit from a wide variety of expertise. Also, people who volunteer and are turned down are less likely to volunteer again. If you insist on 2, we will give those to you after the first Senate meeting after the break. If you want 4 names, we can give them to you now.
Adm: We will go with 4 and hope for poor attendance. (laughter)
FA: This item can be taken off the agenda.
New Business:
Promotion and Committee Work (FA):
FA: Regarding promotion, some faculty are reporting statements from administrators such as, ”too much committee work.” I know that Provost Spitzer addressed Senate last fall and stated the value he saw in committee work and service work. One of the reasons we have problems in filling committees in a timely manner is statements such as this from certain administrators. Our concern is that there is not a uniform representation of thought.
Adm: We value and recognize faculty work on committees. At the same time that is not the only thing that we look at. There are five contractual criteria for promotion. If someone is doing nothing but committee work, that might prompt an administrator to view committee work as a problem. That is not to say that committee work is not valued, but there needs to be a balance between and among activities that faculty members pursue.
FA: I think in some cases where people are achieving balance in the five areas they are still hearing this. Some administrators are dissuading faculty from doing committee work by saying this committee work doesn’t count. If you are going up for tenure or promotion that becomes a compelling argument not to be involved in the work of the institution.
Adm: I would agree that would be a problem if an administrator is saying that under those circumstances.
FA: Is it appropriate for an administrator to say to a faculty member they are doing too much committee work? Shouldn’t the administrator’s comments say that the faculty member is not doing enough of something else?
Adm: If the administrator’s conclusion is that the person is doing so much committee work that it is interfering with their ability to do other things, it might be appropriate to say that. I think that would be a rare occurrence.
FA: Our concern is that if the person is lacking scholarship or teaching effectiveness, that should be stated. A former dean (no one currently here) has told me directly not to do too much committee work.
FA: This becomes more complicated if the faculty member’s area of research has to do with service learning and if their service work is connected with what they do in the classroom. Since we are being encouraged to do more service learning, this will become a larger concern.
Adm: It is better to say that the faculty member has insufficient publication or service or not solid enough teaching than to say too much committee work. I would recommend that approach to administrators.
FA: I have asked faculty who have not served in Senate or on committees to do committee work. They look at me and say I know a person who got turned down for promotion and there was a statement that they did too much committee work. Therefore the dean doesn’t value committee work. I don’t have to do committee work and you are not the person who decides if I get promoted. At meet and confer you ask us for volunteers to serve on committees. We can’t get volunteers and you tease us about it. The deans need to figure out a way to reward faculty for serving on committees so that we can get this work done.
Adm: We will address this topic at Academic Affairs Council.
FA: Thank you.
Washington School (Adm):
Adm: (handout) We want to advise you of an opportunity that has presented itself. The District 742 superintendent approached the president about the possibility of SCSU purchasing Washington School, a former elementary school, two blocks west of our campus between 7th and 8th Avenue and 8th & 9th Street. It is a single story building. We have taken a serious look at it. It is being offered to us for $500,000—a bargain price. It has 25,000 square feet and 1 ½ acres of real estate. The University Clipper has a stop at Washington School. We have looked at possible usage for this building. We have a shortage of space on campus. Potential users include: 1) The Lindgren Child Care Center could make use of the playground, the sinks close to the floor and two restrooms per classroom. 2)Continuing Studies could expand from their current site in a single family home. Washington School offers more office space and easy accessibility. It would be convenient for evening and weekend programs. 3) Classrooms that will be displaced during renovation of Centennial Hall, Brown Hall and Riverview. 4) The COE Grant Office 5) MnSCU offices 6) Americorp Grant 7)The nursing program currently leases a site off campus. Washington School would give that program a little breathing room if their current year-to-year lease would become unavailable. We are still in discussion. Washington School would be purchased by the Foundation which would lease it to SCSU for 5-6 years and then turn it over to us at the end of that time. Other universities are making similar purchases. Mankato has purchased an elementary school that has come up for sale in the area surrounding that campus. We plan to ask the MnSCU Board at their April meeting for preliminary permission to pursue this opportunity. We don’t expect difficulty with that. We are waiting for an appraisal from the school district. The zoning in the area limits the market to continued use as a school or housing development.
FA: Tell us about the electrical condition and utilities. Is the building up to code? Does it have three-wire plugs? Can it support computers and internet use? Is that part of the remodeling cost you have listed on the handout?
Adm: It has three-wire plugs and seems to have pretty good electrical service. Much of it is not air-conditioned. I have not hired an engineer to review the building. The building is well cared for. It was most recently used for an early childhood center.
FA: Air-conditioning is an issue.
Adm: Parts are air-conditioned. That will influence our ability to use some sections. We could consider adding air-conditioning to other sections. The building has ventilation.
FA: We were drooling over the parking. Is there a neighborhood issue in terms of traffic?
Adm: The bus already moves through the neighborhood. The neighborhood was used to traffic in the evening and weekends when the school was used as an early childhood center. We have told the city about this. Parking at the site is accessed via an alley. The parking is enclosed by a chain-link fence. We would probably sell permit parking but there would need to be drop-off parking for the child care center and accessible parking.
Adm: Can we take this off the agenda?
FA: OK.
Advisory Council for Student Diversity and Social Justice (FA):
FA: (handout) We would like to resume discussion of the advisory council that was recommended by the Task Force on Restructuring. This issue came to the Senate. One of the reasons it was adopted by faculty is our concern about what happens to students. The handout includes some of the documents used by the Task Force on Restructuring including Provost Spitzer’s charge to the committee. In the charge, the Provost states, “It is, therefore, imperative that we improve how we serve our students…” The Provost refers to consultants Ken Mortimer and Kalyan Ghosh. On the handout, I have listed a quote from the report, “The organization of Academic Affairs should reflect the basic themes and values of the academic and student support plan in achieving the students’ intellectual and personal development.” The emphasis is on personal development and what we referred to in the TFR committee as the social aspect of the students’ lives. Consultants Maruyama and Healy were on campus last summer. I have added some of their ideas for strengthening the services we offer. The Provost’s last sentence of the charge reads, “And please do not submit recommendations that increase the cost of administering the university,” Staff for the proposed Advisory Council for Student Diversity and Social Justice are already on campus. The Provost’s charge also included the statement, “How will this organizational structure enable SCSU to best accommodate the needs of all students?” On the bottom of the handout I excerpted some paragraphs from the SCSU Strategic Plan, the Diversity and Social Justice goal: “Retention of students of color (63%) lags that of majority students (73%). Students of color graduation rates also lag majority students (29% vs. 40%...) On the back of the handout I excerpted a section from the July 11, 2003 Maruyama report:
…why focus on the multicultural programs?” … to use a term from a book from Guinier and Torres, students of color and other disadvantaged and under-represented students are the “miner’s canary,” for they potentially are most vulnerable and most likely to fail when confronted with obstacles, for they may lack the cultural knowledge and resources that they might be able to use to overcome the obstacles. Other students are adversely affected by the same obstacles, so I believe that institutions learn a lot about themselves when they look at their vulnerable populations.
From the Healy report, August 8, 2003, I excerpted some descriptions of departments that offer student services: Multicultural Student Center, Student Disability Services, Women’s Center, American Indian Center, Jewish Cultural Center, GLBT, and Center for International Studies. I also want to go back to the four surveys we talked about at meet and confer last time which were part of our concerns. Those surveys reported problems coming from these particular groups. I believe it was the Rankin report that had a lot of information that we were not treating disabled students well—that were was disrespect and a lack of accommodation. We want to begin to resolve these problems. We need regular and comprehensive information about these seven groups of students without adding additional cost. The TFR recommended that we form a council of the seven directors of the groups named earlier and that they meet regularly (monthly) and that that they report to the campus community. Personally, I believe a monthly report outlining any problems faced by this group would be best. I need this information as a teacher. I know that I cannot be as good at teaching students if they are being harassed from pick-up windows as they walk down the street because of their skin color or whatever. We urge that you put this advisory committee together and convene it as soon as possible. Your recent letter to the campus community suggested that the committee would be formed upon the appointment of the Director of Affirmative Action and Social Equity. We would like to go ahead with the advisory council before that appointment. That position has been vacant for a long-time. I believe Laurel Allen left two years ago. The committee is not intended to be policy-making but advisory to the campus community and independent from the affirmative action office so I do not see a reason to wait for the appointment of the Director of Affirmative Action and Social Equity.
Adm: The issue we talked about last time was not whether or not we should have such a committee but what the composition of the committee should be. I went back to the TFR recommendation which said that this committee should be comprised of at least the directors of those groups. While it is true that the directors of these student groups work with students, they are not themselves students. If we are saying we want to listen to our students, there should be students on the advisory committee. The TFR recommendation also said this group would advise the Vice President for Student Life and Development and the President. If we have a director of Affirmative Action and Social Equity, I think that person should work with the advisory committee on a regular basis. The advisory committee could work particularly well with that individual who would be in a position to communicate regularly with the university at large. The affirmative action position has been vacant for a long time because we were waiting as the result of the lawsuit settlement and for a report from a consultant to aid us in restructuring the office. We spent time at meet and confer going over a job description. A search committee has been established and is meeting. The position has been advertised. There should be a candidate selected by summer if all goes well with that search. I do not see that as a delay mechanism. Again, I believe the advisory committee should be comprised of members in addition to the directors of the seven areas you mentioned earlier. The TFR recommendations and the Senate recommendations are, in fact, recommendations. That means we take those recommendations under advisement and we make a decision.
FA: Would it be helpful to have the advisory committee be one of the groups that would talk to the affirmative action candidates? This group could also help select students who are active and involved in issues.
Adm: I would like to have the affirmative action and social equity director have a say in how this group is constructed.
FA: We don’t think that that is necessarily the best idea. We think the advisory committee is independent of the Office of Affirmative Action and Social Equity. They should not feel bad if they have a report to make that doesn’t correspond to what the Director of Affirmative Action and Social Equity is saying. If they are invited and created by that office, they will not feel that independence.
Adm: They would not be formed and created by that office but we would just solicit the input from the director in how this group would be constituted. Those could be conversations that would take place when candidates are here on campus.
FA: We are bringing this to meet and confer for discussion. We recognize that we are making a recommendation. We need to know what is happening to our students and not from the affirmative action perspective. The affirmative action office also needs to know, but we need to know independently. The directors of the seven organizations we identified are constantly in contact with students. We are not opposed to students on the committee. The way to do that is to ask the advisory committee to put students on the committee to help them do the work.
Adm: Are you saying that there is not a mechanism now for these seven people to communicate their concerns?
FA: I am not getting any communication. The seven people report to different organizations—4 or 5 are in Student Life and Development, the Jewish Cultural Center is not, International Studies reports to Academic Affairs. These seven people just need to meet and talk about what is happening to students on this campus.
Adm: One issue is how is this information communicated? How do we get information to the faculty? How we do find ways to talk about this? I can see that being a function of the Office of Affirmative Action and Social Equity. As acting American Indian Center Director, I like the idea of sitting down with colleagues and talking about what is happening with students. It is very possible to organize these directors at this time anyway. The issue is how the information is communicated.
Adm: Once there is a person in the Office of Affirmative Action and Social Equity we intend to distribute a regular newsletter to the campus community. That could be a mechanism to disseminate information. It is not just affirmative action but also social equity.
FA: What the advisory committee does should not be dependent on the Office of Affirmative Action and Social Equity. If they report to the Office for Affirmative Action and Social Equity, they need to give material to that director who then decides what goes into the newsletter.
Adm: I did not say that person would decide what goes into the newsletter.
FA: If they are creating one, they do get to decide.
Adm: Not if someone gives them an article to go in.
FA: There is some history here that I know people of good faith are trying to move beyond. The history on this campus is that people have not been confident in the affirmative action office. When a new leader comes to that office, the history will dog us. From my perspective, for the time being, keeping notices separate from the Office for Affirmative Action and Social Equity so people will start to trust it will be important. It is not that we don’t want people to work together. It is just that we have this history to get by.
FA: My idea of a way to communicate is to have the seven people meet; and after that meeting, one of the seven puts out on e-mail what has been discussed. That is what I want to hear.
Adm: I think I understand what you are saying, but there is a lot of information that comes out now. The American Indian Center and CIS put out newsletters that tell what is happening to their students. Student Disability Services makes presentations to department. We hear about the activities of Multicultural Student Services Office often. You are right that we don’t have specific information—here is what the problems are for our students. We can certainly ask those directors to be more forthcoming with information about what are the obstacles facing students.
FA: To provide an opportunity where the seven directors are encouraged to talk with one another and share information and strategize is a really different sort of thing. There are all kinds of pockets of information but no opportunity for cross fertilization of strategies.
Adm: So you are saying these people would be advisory to one another?
FA: Yes.
Adm: That was part of the reason for consultants coming in and working specifically with those offices. The results from the consultants’ reports are leading in the direction you are talking about. Based on the consultants’ reports, a retreat has been scheduled for those offices to talk about how consultants’ recommendations could be actualized—collecting data, doing educational efforts collaboratively instead of doing work in individual silos. Maruyama’s comment about the miner’s canary is that what we know about students at risk will tell us about the larger institutional issues that we are not as likely to hear about, but are taking a toll on our students.
Adm: It is pretty exciting to me as interim Director of the American Indian Center to meet with the other directors and come up with specific recommendations to share with the faculty as well as the administration—whether it is formalized or not. Secondly, though I appreciate Maruyama’s comment, it sets my teeth on edge. Every image has a double edge--the idea that we are somehow sending our at risk population “down into the mine” really bothers me.
FA: What we are asking for is kind of the status of the patient—the “patient” being our diverse population. We should be doing this on a regular basis—not just talking to the affirmative action officer. It is kind of like getting the vitals of the patient once a month. We are not getting that now.
Adm: We understand what is being asked. I am not sure this particular mechanism is the best way to accomplish that. Certainly we want to spend some time thinking about this and/or looking at some alternative ways to provide this information. This is certainly one possibility. We haven’t made a decision. We need some more time to think about it.
Adm: MnSCU is doing an audit on minorities in the system and how opportunities are provided for them. Some of the information is already out there. We can pull those things together to give you the kind of update you need.
FA: I want to emphasize how strongly it affected me when I read one of the reports which said that disabled students were not being accommodated. Those kinds of things I need to know on a regular basis.
Adm: Your point is well made. We need to address that in a concrete way.
Adm: In response to that specific issue, Owen Zimpel, the Director of Student Disability Services, went to every single department to educate departments about ADA—Section 504. Across the board, departments were very positive. I want to say how excited I am that you, as faculty, are saying how important it is for you to hear about at-risk students. This is a positive message for me to take back to my directors.
Adm: We will keep you posted on where we go.
Academic Calendar Feedback (FA):
FA: We have decided to postpone discussion of this item. Theresia Fisher will talk with Michael Spitzer.
Chair Election Process (FA):
FA: The contract, under Article 20, specifically Section D, page 77 addresses the chair election process and the role of deans as the president’s designee. The chair election process in the past has been an area we feel has been problematic. I was in a department meeting where the president’s designee engaged the department in a conversation that was basically who are you going to elect and I will tell if you I will approve or not. We feel that is coercion and it really distorts the election process. When the dean is the president’s designee and does something like the experience I just mentioned, it is actually President Saigo doing this. There are some controversial chairperson elections coming up. If the dean tells me he/she is the president’s designee, I have to accept what they say or go to the President.
Adm: I think Michael should take this issue to Academic Affairs Council to verify the procedure and caution certain initiatives.
Adm: The contract says the president/designee consults with the department to determine if the new chair is to be chosen from within the university or if there will be candidates from outside the university. When that determination is made, the department holds an election.
FA: Look at the nomination process. It lists the role of the president/designee.
Adm: “…shall be submitted to the president/designee as the department’s nominee for the position of chair.” I have not seen a single record of a vote in a department where the dean has disagreed with the person recommended by the department election.
FA: Reports have come to me where chairs have specified to fixed-term faculty in their second year that if they do not vote in a particular way they would not be renewed.
Adm: First of all, elections should be by secret ballot.
FA: Could you go over this in Academic Affairs?
Adm: Yes.
FA: It is important both here and in the promotion discussion that there is a uniformity of response from the deans, provost and president or real problems are created for both us and you. That is why it is so critical to have that communication at Academic Affairs Council.
Adm: We will discuss it.
FA: The issue is the dean has said before the election takes place, “tell me who you intend to elect and I’ll let you know if I’ll approve it.”
Adm: That has never happened since I’ve been president.
FA: Since you have been here, my dean has called me and told me if you don’t elect one of these two people, I won’t approve it—before we had the election.
Adm: The deans have never come to me and said that.
FA: They don’t say it to you but they do say it to departments.
Adm: If you are aware of a situation like that prior to an election, please let me know.
FA: In my college, a department has an election coming up this year. Per past history, they prefer to elect at the end of fall semester so that the current chair can mentor the new chair. First they were told they couldn’t do that. Then there were not allowed to have an election until it was known if the current chair wanted to run again. Then it was put off another time pending some other issue. The fear is if it is put off again and there is a need for a recount or second vote, it will be summer and everyone will be gone. They are concerned that is what the plan is. We need some sort of policy that says here is what can happen—here is what a dean can do. President Saigo, we suspect that you did not know what was happening, but we want you to know what is being done as the president’s designee.
Adm: We have heard what you said and I believe the provost can handle this at Academic Affairs Council.
Adm: If you have information about some kind of impropriety, I would appreciate knowing about it right way so that I can take action.
Notes by Jackie Zieglmeier