Meet and Confer Notes
September 23, 2004
Faculty Association: Annette Schoenberger, Theresia Fisher, Judy Kilborn, Frankie Condon, Steve Hornstein, Bill Langen, Tracy Ore, P. N. Subbanarasimha,
Administration: Michael Spitzer, Diana Burlison, Larry Chambers, Nathan Church, Lin Holder, Roland Specht-Jarvis, Kristi Tornquist, Rex Veeder
Meet and Confer Notes of September 9, 2004 – Accepted.
Admin: I’d like to note President Saigo’s flight was to have arrived for him to return by 2:00 this afternoon; however, due to the weather, his flight has been delayed and this is the reason he is not here.
1. Proposed Policy for On-Line Courses (Admin) (11/20)
FA: At our last Meet and Confer, we decided to set up a taskforce; so, we’re suggesting a small taskforce for efficiency – possibly two faculty members and two members from administration.
Admin: That would be okay, but we selected three members from administration.
FA: Then, we can have three (FA) and three (administration) instead.
FA: We can give you names, then, hopefully soon.
Admin: Yes, that’s what we’re waiting for.
2. Partnership Agreements (FA) (2/26)
FA: I’m just following up from our last Meet and Confer when you had mentioned you would be providing some type of financial spreadsheet.
Admin: I’m gathering some information, and I’ll put together material on income as well as expenses; but I don’t have this yet.
FA: Do you have some timeframe in mind?
Admin: When is our next meeting?
FA: In two weeks.
Admin: I might be able to have it by then.
FA: Would the process for implementation of these partnership agreements be available in the same timefrarne?
Admin: Yes.
FA: Also, at the last Meet and Confer, we discussed the need to have a conversation about this – a conversation vs. taskforce.
Admin: We’re talking about agreements to do outreach kind of work?
FA: Yes.
Admin: Can we wait until I receive a procedure as well as budget information so we can talk about it then? If we can agree, we might not need a taskforce.
FA: Okay, sure.
3. Financial Aid Verification of Attendance (Admin) (12/11)
FA: Senate agreed to go ahead and cooperate with this; but there is some faculty who might find it difficult to implement this requirement.
Admin: The Feds won’t look at the 60th day and won’t be concerned if it’s (attendance) from a large class.
Admin: They need to know if students attended class or didn’t attend class. Presumably, if you get information from a faculty member in another course indicating the student attended, that’s all you need, right?
FA: Faculty members who teach small classes might have difficulty; so for those, we would need to find out what the difficulty is to see how we might help them.
Admin: I don’t think we have to put any faculty member through unnecessary pain to do this; so if there is some faculty having issues, please communicate this to Steve, and I’m sure we can figure something out. The issue is this -- not reporting this information to the Feds will result in us paying; however, if we’re diligent about this endeavor, this money will go to good use.
FA: We want this to happen.
Admin: These are our sentiments exactly.
Admin: We’ve been working with Records and Registration on the non-attendance date -- the last date of attendance faculty can easily fill in, as well as an “F” for the reason of not attending vs. an “F” for content. As soon as this is implemented, faculty can easily do this. We can have conversations regarding large classes vs. small classes as well as how to help faculty do this.
Admin: A question I’d like to ask is “What is the difficulty in getting the attendance from a very small class”?
FA: There is the definition of attendance and not taking attendance.
Admin: If we have a class where you don’t have to attend, then we could get in trouble with the Feds, since the student could be getting money and not using it for class.
Admin: if you ask a student to meet you periodically in the office, then you can identify the student was in attendance and was involved in class. The student should be in contact with the faculty member periodically.
FA: Essentially, the point is if you’re not getting the attendance information from the faculty member, then let’s find out why rather than doing discipline.
Admin: Nobody has mentioned that.
4. Technology Committees (Admin) (4/1)
FA: We put out a call and are waiting for responses. (I have some on the Senate agenda.) Regarding the TPR Committee you requested members for, you may actually end up getting more people than you asked for! A lot of people volunteered for one committee; and we’re trying to spread people out. I have a whole list of committees I’m working on.
5. Internal Audit (FA) (4/22)
FA: Theresia Fisher and Annette Schoenberger are working on this issue and will have a meeting to discuss this.
6. Search Committees for Administrative Positions (Admin) (9/9)
FA: (A document showing the breakdown of committee representatives was distributed.) This is the FA Executive Committee proposal for faculty representation on the different search committees, and we would like to get your feedback so we can go back to Senate on Tuesday.
FA: I can point out the different ones; the search for the VP for Administrative Affairs -- we said 4 out of 13, and you said 4 out of 11……
Admin: Pardon me while I retain consciousness! (laughter)
FA: We’ve been more specific about what kind of representation we want, breaking down by departments; and the statement at the bottom of the document speaks of female and minority representation.
Admin: For the last position listed, the correct title is Registrar not Records and Registration.
FA: I used the information you gave me.
Admin: Does the paragraph at the bottom of the page refer exclusively to faculty?
FA: Right.
FA: So if we get approval at Senate, we can proceed?
Admin: I have no objection.
Admin: Thank you for this – we’re moving forward.
7. Diversity Education Task Force Proposal (9/9)
FA: We’re waiting for a response from you.
Admin: In looking over the proposal from the committee, we have questions we need to have addressed -- some are very minor. Under the section qualifications for taskforce members regarding all bargaining units must have a representative – we have one bargaining unit with only one member. If that person chooses not to participate, then we’re not adhering. Also, under the section of necessary resources -- we’re not permitted to pay honoraria.
I think, however, there are larger questions we have regarding how many different groups do we want to have addressing diversity issues. We need to work through some of our thoughts and come up with some plan.
FA: CODAS has made a decision to focus their work around cultural and educational programming. CARE is working on a 30-year timeline for an analysis of race relations and racism in the university; so neither one of those groups, at this time, is working on diversity education for faculty and staff that addresses not only racism but all forms of oppression. Therefore, this proposal is intended to move the university toward a standing and flexible diversity education curriculum for faculty and staff. Last spring, the university implemented mandatory diversity education for faculty, and we want to pursue ongoing curriculum.
Admin: That certainly is something to be supported, but you mentioned students as well. Do you focus on what we do in regard to students?
FA: This proposal is designed for staff and faculty. Understanding and analyzing the forms of oppression shapes learning and encourages the maturation of students on campus. This is not a taskforce for students, this is about growing a diversity program for faculty and staff.
Admin: I think I speak for everybody from the administration that we’re supportive of an initiative and we want faculty input and I’ve been yearning for it; but let me come back with a formal response to this.
FA: I think when the CODE Committee wrote this proposal, we asked for the best of what we could think of and expected we would negotiate; for example, the issue of bargaining units being too small and the university paying honoraria. I think the people who wrote the proposal would think this was acceptable.
FA: The changes are fairly minor. I think in the spirit of all the bargaining reps, they must have the opportunity to be represented. The more important aspect we’ve been asking for a long time is we include the people on campus who do this for a living and recognize this in a substantial way. Also, the request for honoraria could be substituted in another way.
FA: Do you think it would help if you met with the committee?
Admin: That’s possible.
FA: Whom would he talk to?
Admin: Michael Tripp….?
FA: He’s on sabbatical. Margaret Villanueva is the chair of the committee.
Admin: Let me say I’ll get in touch with Margaret and report back at our next meeting.
8. Article 22/25 Process and Explanations. (Both) (9/9)
(Hand-outs were distributed.)
FA: This is what the committee came up with. The next step is for us to form a committee to rewrite Article 22. Do we want to do this and create an LOU to get this article changed?
FA: We already agreed to do this, and Senate approved.
Admin: We didn’t agree we would rewrite Article 22. We agreed we would begin discussion on a plan that would result in rewriting the article, since rewriting Article 22 would require going back through negotiations.
FA: It would not go through negotiations. An LOU would be an agreement between MnSCU and the IFO that changes the contract when the next negotiations occur.
Admin: None of us is authorized to do this on behalf of the administration.
FA: That’s right -- we’re doing this locally. We were referring to a system process.
FA: A process from the bottom…..
Admin: Prospects are substantially improved if the request comes from both sides.
FA: Right.
FA: Would an LOU mean we’re doing something against the contract, and would it give us approval to do this?
FA: The LOU is between MnSCU and the IFO and is counter to the position MnSCU took at the workshop saying Article 22 does not need to be changed. It is a very bottom-up thing and should include the other universities too.
FA: You can do an MOA – a one-time thing (for a single campus). An LOU is a Letter of Understanding; and when you do this, it means in the next contract, this will be there. So, if we were to somehow get together and rewrite Article 22 and from both sides work together on an LOU, it means in the next contract this would be Article 22.
Admin: The small group who met with some of us has worked on this for many years and thought it would be good to try to craft some language. I don’t know -- maybe we shouldn’t rewrite the article but provide suggested language changes…..
Admin: It is important an LOU clarifies something about the contract that isn’t tremendously explicit. We all know how to do peer evaluations; so it’s my understanding an LOU would clarify the interpretation of the contract (it isn’t clear enough in the contract) -- it can offer an interpretation as opposed to rewriting the contract. An LOU provides a basis for taking some action.
FA: I think we would probably disagree with that interpretation.
Admin: It would be good to agree on what an LOU is.
FA: What we agreed was that the English in this article is ungrammatical, and the emphasis leads to several possible ways of interpreting the procedure meaning faculty members across campus and others could be dealt with differently in this absolutely pivotal process and would produce unfairness and grievances. We have every expectation of impressing this on our organization and hope you can do the same on your side.
Admin: I wouldn’t disagree with this – I just want to know what an LOU is.
FA: I don’t think we have consensus in changing the contract language.
FA: I don’t recall anybody telling us “Look we need to put this in the contract now since we signed an LOU.”
FA: So, they’re not binding?
FA: Yes, they’re binding until the next contract.
FA: What about the interpretation of that language?
Admin: I think we’re having a conversation about not being able to interpret an LOU. I think we need to talk with the IFO and MnSCU to see how it’s read.
FA: There was an assumption, at least on my part, as part of the subcommittee having had basic training from the IFO on the difference between an LOU and an MOA and the assumption reflected in the language; and if you look at the last sentence of the first paragraph beginning with the discussion on an LOU changing Article 22, the master agreement of the language means the contract does change.
Admin: The point is we want to get this training -- I haven’t had training on MOAs and LOUs, so I can’t speak on this particular point, that’s why I don’t want to pursue this until we get clarification; and whatever way we need to get this clarified, we need to do this. The purpose is not to have an LOU but to change the contract.
Admin: It is my understanding we are not the only place with confusion, despite what other people may have said. (laughter)
FA: There are two issues -- getting this changed at the IFO and MnSCU level, meanwhile discrepancies are going on between colleges and departments.
Admin: If we follow the process, then there should be uniformity.
Admin: There can be differences between should and may, and people can decline; but the intent is to have a more uniform approach.
Admin: The intent was not, in all due haste, we absolutely look and see what changes need to be made and make them – it’s if we need an LOU or something else.
FA: So, the next step is to go back to the “powers that be” and find out what we need to do to get the language changed and determine what an LOU is, and we’ll come back.
Admin: It seems to be an “unopened Pandora’s Box of goodies” of what the goals of the department are. I don’t want to open Pandora’s Box, but I’m saying there is room for debate.
Admin: Isn’t that in the contract though?
FA: By a democratic means -- we have for a long time had a problem of having inappropriate comments with Articles 22 and 25; and we’re hoping with the new procedure for Articles 22 and 25 with PDPs and PDRs, deans will remove the inappropriate comments from the process. Are you in agreement with this?
Admin: I’m in agreement with this addressing two things -- When you say remove inappropriate comments, whose comments do you mean? Do you mean the faculty’s or the department’s comments from the process if they are inappropriate?
Admin: Do we want the Dean to remove them?
FA: Either that, or they (the comments) get in personally, possibly resulting in a grievance.
Admin: Can we say it needs to be removed?
FA: If I say Steve doesn’t get along with others, and this comment does not fall into the 5 Criteria, we’re asking the administration to remove this comment?
FA: What I’d want the Dean to do is send it back to the department where the individual is to remove it.
FA: One reason we’re asking for this is because in Senate, there was a lot of concern regarding inappropriate comments.
FA: If you look at the agreement we came up with, specific comments must be related to the 5 Criteria and the goals of the department, college, and university, we can expect they’ll disappear; and we want the help of the Deans to send these comments back to faculty.
Admin: When comments are made, they go to the faculty member so they can identify them as appropriate or not.
FA: But, they can’t keep them from the Dean.
Admin: But the Dean can return them to the department.
Admin: They can say “Steve is a great guy”! (laughter)
FA: I think where someone says “these don’t satisfy the current goals we accepted” -- if these new department goals are so different, then it would be appropriate for the Dean to have a conversation with the department about what their expectations are for faculty members to be working on to satisfy the department’s goals. At that point, we would need to find out why they’re changing goals. I don’t think there’s a simple answer.
FA: I want to come back to the issue of Deans returning comments if they think they are inappropriate.
Admin: The first line of defense is a faculty member has the right to say the comment is completely wrong, and the Dean should send it back.
9. NCA Committees (Admin) (9/9)
10.Process used to decide which department faculty member is rostered in (FA) (9/9)
FA: We can discuss agenda items #9 and #10 together. You’re waiting on us for #9; however, this has not gotten to Senate, and we’ll do this.
Admin: We would like to entertain the possibility that since these are university-wide committees that we employ people for their expertise.
FA: We’ll check on this.
Admin: Certain memberships can be based on their position as the chair of a committee, etc.
Admin: We want to come to a mutual agreement on whether we can supplement these committees -- it’s such a big task, and it would be nice to be flexible.
FA: What you’re referring to is the statement the President can appoint people for their expertise. Article 6, Section B, Subdivision 2, Paragraph 1, University Meetings:
University Meetings. The Association may establish a local committee to meet and confer with the President, or when the President is not on campus, his/her designees, at least monthly for the purpose of discussing matters of mutual concern. Additional committees, which deal with, meet and confer issues or which are appointed via the meet and confer process may be established as mutually agreed to by the Association and the President. The Association and the President shall confer on the need for faculty to serve on college and university-level committees, after which the Association shall appoint the faculty. By mutual agreement between the Association and the President, an agreed-upon number of additional faculty members may be appointed by the President to serve ex officio as resource persons based on professional expertise.
Admin: If the President adds someone for their expertise, they don’t represent the faculty.
11.Faculty Forum Day and Opening Convocation (FA) (9/9)
FA: We asked for you to consider creating a joint faculty-administration taskforce to plan the opening convocation, commencement, and faculty orientation.
Admin: Yes, we’re agreeable to this. I’ve notified the Deans at our last meeting not to schedule anything to conflict with these events.
FA: Was that a yes?
Admin: Definitely (a joint taskforce) for faculty orientation; however I’d like to check on convocation and commencement.
Admin: The new faculty orientation regarding benefits, etc.?
FA: Yes, but also introducing faculty to returning faculty as well as introducing the faculty to the Boyer model and how we’re taking this into consideration.
Admin: Extending what we already do?
FA: Yes.
FA: Russ Stanton was only able to speak for 15 minutes at new faculty orientation. We’ve been getting positive feedback on the retirement information he has presented and would like to integrate it into the program. New faculty were a little bit overwhelmed by all of the information they received in a short period of time, and it would be helpful to spread it out.
Admin: It is absolutely desirable, and I want to check on commencement and convocation.
FA: It is important for faculty to be involved in the decision making to determine the workshops, seminars, and opportunities for professional development for new faculty. It is also important for faculty to have input on who will lead the seminars.
Admin: For that, we’d welcome faculty input, and this would need to take place during the spring semester.
FA: That’s the idea -- to plan this early, together.
Admin: One piece I didn’t want to agree on is what the President does that day.
FA: I do think it’s important to set up a process to figure this out. There is a huge advantage to planning this in the spring, but I go away in the summer; and I left before last summer not knowing what I was going to come back to, and I didn’t know until the day before. Therefore, having advance decision making would allow people to know ahead of time.
Admin: A good precedent, too, is we’ve used the Faculty Center for Teaching Excellence, so there has been faculty consultation; and faculty and staff in LR&TS have set up workshops, so there has been a faculty component, but you’re right – there has not been a formalized group.
Admin: The earlier we have input for scheduling, the better -- it really helps to send people off for the summer with some descriptions of the activities and suggested readings. This can build people’s interest during the summer.
FA: I understand the Faculty Center for Teaching Excellence has been involved; but so often, they have one schedule and someone else has another and they conflict; i.e., a technology seminar opposite another technology seminar.
FA: So we’re going to have a taskforce of three people on each side? What would we like to do?
Admin: You want to have meaningful representation, but not too big.
FA: Three a piece, then?
FA: Yes.
Admin: If there is not an LR&TS faculty member, then can we get input from one?
FA: Would you like me to put one on?
Admin: Yes.
FA: Could we talk amongst ourselves and exchange names.
Admin: Yes.
1. October 2nd Opening of the Stadium. (FA) (9/23)
FA: We would like to have clarification about the dedication of the stadium since it is not happening on October 2 -- when is it happening?
Admin: The dedication has been changed to Homecoming on October 23. However, there are some other previously-scheduled events set to take place having nothing to do with the opening of the stadium – the Athletic Hall of Fame, the President’s Social in the evening, etc. The whole weekend is Family Weekend and has nothing to do with the dedication.
FA: We want to be careful how these things get linked up. We understand scheduling issues.
2. October 26th Conversations on 2010 (Admin) (9/14)
FA: I had a meeting with Nancy Black and Linda Baer last week. Linda and Nancy will give me the topics for discussion. We’re talking about a total of 15 faculty, 10 from other areas in the university -- we thought faculty know what students are thinking, and people in Records and Registration, etc., would also have some idea. I think the topics have to do with getting ideas on what we think students will want from any university and then how we’re going to provide the resources, determining what we need to provide to make it work.
Admin: It sounds like you’re okay with the structure – you just need the topics.
Admin: You may need practical help – would you like us to get a room and arrange lunch?
FA: Sue was gong to get back with me regarding lunch. This topic is on the Senate agenda for next Tuesday.
Admin: I’ll check with Sue.
3. Remind Deans and Directors that Changes that Affect Terms and Conditions of Employment Must Come Through Meet and Confer. (FA) (9/23)
FA: There have been at least two instances where something has changed -- considerable changes -- that have not come through Meet and Confer. Our concern is if the change doesn’t go through the process similar to Strategic Planning, you won’t get the buy-in from the faculty, and this will be a problem. I’m referring to the Enrollment Management Plan and International Studies.
Admin: This was approved by the Administrative Affairs Council to go to a committee, but it hasn’t yet, and it will. There has been no change in the procedures. The only thing that might be new may have to do with a minimum number, but study abroad programs must be self supporting and if they don’t generate enough revenue to cover expenses, we can’t allow them to occur. We can talk about the number or wait until we’ve had an opportunity to go to the International Studies Committee and Senate; but the general principle of a program being self-sufficient has been in effect for a long time.
FA: One program might be self sufficient; and as long as the faculty member can prove it is….
Admin: We’ll make adjustments.
FA: With regard to self-sufficiency, you and I have had conversations about the universe within where we recruit students to make a program self sufficient; and I just want to remake the point that SCSU was, for years, the leader within the state university system for sending students abroad -- not bringing them here but rather for sending them. Also, a high number of faculty thought there were major benefits as a result and realized we could not recruit all students to make the program completely self-sufficient and needed to recruit from sister campuses as well. I just want to put this on the table that we value our status as a campus with a stated international focus, and part of that is to recruit students from other campuses.
Admin: I think we should, but who should pursue recruiting?
FA: I’m impressed with Peggy Fricker, and I congratulate you on adding her to the staff.
Admin: We have had a discussion over the years to what degree we depend on faculty -- they have to make these calls, short of staffers who pursue the faculty, and would be next in line to know what the program would look like. Would you consider determining the expectations in order to make this happen -- before the programs go abroad? Should we consider having a fair to do this?
FA: Something like this.
Admin: Often, recruitment is done with both the staff’s and faculty’s expertise and to what degree faculty can be involved -- then it is determined where we need bookkeepers and processes.
Admin: My experience taking students abroad has been the people best able to recruit students are the faculty who lead them – they explain what the benefits are and what the experience will be like to those individuals; and, perhaps, there are students who have gone before who can explain the program as well. This could be built into some kind of recruiting model.
Admin: Faculty’s enthusiasm is what makes these programs possible.
FA: It looks like we’re looking at two different programs where the processes got dropped but are moving. With Enrollment Management, there was not an understanding of the Meet and Confer process in regard to the early intervention required for faculty if students are struggling in classes. Please remind the directors that faculty terms and conditions of employment need to be met and conferred.
Admin: I’d like to clarify – are these programs (abroad) just programs during intersession?
Admin: They’ve been extended beyond intersession.
Admin: I thought they were just during intersession.
Admin: In some instances I would be troubled when somebody wants to lead a trip in the middle of the semester, and both the students and the faculty leader would be off campus during the time campus is in session – that’s problematic.
Admin: We’ve been doing this for years with the South Africa Program.
Admin: It is usually captured during the week of spring break.
FA: I think the issue here is in order to get the buy-in of the faculty, it has to go through Senate.
Admin: I agree – yes, and I will ensure it goes to the FA; but I don’t think the particular issue regarding the early-warning system changes the terms and conditions of employment.
FA: It requires more work.
FA: This is what we did with financial aid verification.
Admin: I agree it should go.
FA: If you don’t, you’re asking for trouble.
Admin: I’m not arguing.
4. Restoration of Funds to Student Services (Admin) (9/23)
Admin: There are a couple of ways we can proceed – in response to your two resolutions passed by Faculty Senate, I can address those points, or I can read parts of the resolution as I go through it. (document distributed)
It is gratifying to see such a strong interest in Student Life and Development on the part of the faculty. It’s extraordinary faculty have taken such a keen interest in the budget. First of all, we appreciate and commend your interest. You indicate you’d like to see reductions restored; and part of the issue here is that if we hadn’t made budget reductions, then reductions in academic and administrative affairs would have been greater than if Student Life and Development wasn’t bearing its part of the overall budget situation we’re in. The budget reductions in Student Life and Development were conducted, first of all, on the basis of consultation with the directors. We polled them and gave them questionnaires to fill out – in a formal process. Results came back not sufficient to meet the scope of the budget reduction. The budget reduction was very significant. What we tried to do is reduce the budget in a way where there would be the smallest impact on services delivered to students, and the largest reduction in any staff area occurred in my own office with the elimination of an administrative assistant. This placed a much heavier burden on me and Bernadette. The other position reductions focused on offices remaining open in the summer, since there is a smaller demand in the summer on career services area and the Women’s Center and Student Disability Services where we could keep offices open with reductions in staffing. Some of these reductions have been resolved by a Student Life and Development commitment to increase revenues, and we’ve gone back to some of these positions and reduced or limited reductions in some cases to about a ¼ of the reductions originally made, and came up with $14,000 that Student Life and Development has agreed to manage through increased revenue-generating activities. This addresses that part of the resolutions. It’s pretty clear hardships were experienced, but it is evident there was not a significant reduction in services provided directly to students due, in large part, to the efforts of hard working staff members in those offices.
With regard to the search processes -- I’m not entirely sure why it was included, but those search processes included faculty appointments and moved forward such that we now have new directors for the American Indian Center and GLBT Services.
FA: Because of the incredible delay in filling the GLBT Director position, taking a long time in Student Life and Development, it seriously impacted the search -- we worked during the summer.
Admin: Both search committees worked in the summer. Part of the delay in the GLBT search was due to our making changes in the position. We wanted a Director for GLBT Services instead of a Coordinator, and it took time, and there were similar administrative changes in the American Indian Center. I think the search processes moved forward well, after those changes were made, and we now have directors in those positions.
With regard to discussion and resolution about us undermining and blocking efforts to provide services to the student body, I don’t see any evidence of this. I do want to point out some of the issues not completely understood that may have led to this conclusion.
With regard to the Women’s Center, reductions were made recognizing the specific need to provide sexual assault services during the summer. Once it was learned that the director could provide these services also, the director was given the opportunity to determine how staffing would be reduced and how it would be managed. Reductions to staffing have been further limited, as noted already. In response to the Women’s Center proposal that we implement a fee for Respect and Responsibility, we indicated that this would require direct consultation with the students, and we couldn’t do so in the summer. I saw other problems with implementing a fee, but during the course of the year, I saw ways to address these problems, and I forwarded a proposal to the Student Government; and it was rejected.
The Women’s Center also wanted to pursue fee allocation funding. We could accept additional funding for an area that was reduced for M&E dollars as long as Student Government could affirm they were doing this as an additional volitional response and recognized they had met their burden in meeting the budget shortfall through sizable tuition increases they had already incurred. We wanted it to be clear that the Administration was not requesting them to pick up the additional burden and would ask that they consider any funding increases as voluntary responses on their part to any of the budget reductions that were made; so the budget presentation covered all of the reductions within Student Life and Development. Under these conditions, I supported the additional allocation of student dollars, and they rejected that notion of picking up those costs. I think that addresses everything in Resolution 1.
I’d like to note the campus community participated in a discussion about the taskforce’s proposal on restructuring, and it is still under consideration by the Provost. The Respect and Responsibility Program clearly remains strong and vibrant irregardless of the budget reduction. Recent efforts have been launched to enhance and extend the nature of the program, and I appreciate the FA’s recognition of this fine program. The Women’s Center is committed to the reduction of sexual violence for our students. We have worked to expand and revisit the themes for this program as they are presented in the 2-hour sessions at the beginning of the year. Once again, we commend the FA for their concern about these services. We think what the resolution addresses is important, and I will commit myself to doing a better job of communication about these areas to the FA.
(A brief caucus was held.)
FA: Could we have a copy of your notes (for the notetaker to reference) -- could you give us something in writing? We’ll get back to you the next time we meet.
5. Overload Guidelines: Are you still using these? (FA) (9/23)
FA: (Copies of the Overload Guidelines were distributed.) Maybe before I launch into this, I ought to ask if this is a current rendition of the guidelines that have been sent.
Admin: Yes.
FA: We had a discussion a year ago in Meet and Confer on Article 21, Section E, Subdivision 3, defining adjuncts (Page 82 of the soon-to-be defunct contract -- let’s hope). I have some reservations about these guidelines as written because they seem to embody the same problems of a year ago in that they change the clear intent of this subdivision. To take one example “overload may be considered for full-time faculty when an adjunct with required expertise is unavailable….” Subdivision 3, Section E, Article 21, #3) denies the purpose of hiring adjuncts to teach courses requiring specific experience. The article in the contract searches among existing faculty – you use them, or you look elsewhere.
Admin: First of all, with regard to faculty workload -- if we’re saying on one hand, that a 12-hour teaching load is excessive; but at the same time, overload is preferable -- I find that contradictory. When we wrote the statement, one of the issues involved was being able to provide sufficient funds to provide instruction at a time when the budget was being seriously reduced and look at items 1 and 2 in Subdivision 3 which says “to meet temporary staffing needs….”so using adjuncts under those conditions is clearly within the purview of the contract.
FA: I have no argument, but the instance that we sought to ward off was that adjuncts would be used to deliver courses at a reduced cost. We saw that as absolute fate to our interest, and we sacrificed other items to get this language; and we really have to be committed from our point of view -- it’s a very steep and slippery slope once we concede adjuncts can be hired because they’re cheaper.
Admin: Not solely cheaper; but overload puts a burden on faculty – they have less time for advising, committee assignments, etc., that are expected of them.
FA: We do complain and talk about workload and overload. I’m one of the people that falls under #3 when the adjunct pool was not available.
Admin: That ‘s because you have a lot of faculty on leave.
FA: Program integrity is important -- sometimes it does make sense.
Admin: I think there are times when it does and when circumstances warrant it.
FA: I don’t think we can argue giving faculty overload detracts from the work folks are offered; we don’t want to be given adjuncts, we want full time faculty. Since we weren’t given full-time faculty, we now have an overload.
Admin: We can’t always afford to give a full-time faculty position, because of funding. When you give overload, you are increasing work.
FA: I want to have this on record we have discussed the plight of workload more at this table today than we were able to do at negotiations; and during negotiations, that discussion was always abruptly cut short by MnSCU who said they had their instructions from local campuses, and those instructions were to have no discussion of workload reductions.
Admin: I think I’ll try to respond to the larger question you’re raising -- we had a relatively limited budget for adjunct instruction. We had a number of courses for instruction, and we needed to find faculty to teach; and we couldn’t have done this if we went primarily to overload -- we wouldn’t have had sufficient funds. Our primary objective is to make sure students have the courses they need.
FA: Do you mean faculty interested in taking overload would have brought about this impossibility (assuming they’d accept overload)?
Admin: In many cases, it’s twice the cost.
FA: Faculty is massively uninterested in overload – a very small amount is.
FA: Is that information correct?
Admin: I’m not sure if it’s right or wrong – in some cases we pleaded with faculty to do overload because there weren’t viable alternatives; so it varies from program to program and from department to department. Tracy cited examples in other cases, so circumstances vary.
6. CODAS proposal (Admin) (9/23)
FA: The proposal you got from CODAS the Faculty Senate has approved.
Admin: Okay – great. I think we should do much of what is in the proposal.
FA: Do you have any idea of how much of the proposal?
Admin: I don’t have it in front of me; but I’d like to do all if we can.
FA: Do you have a time frame?
Admin: Now that it’s approved, we can move forward.
FA: The October 14 Meet and Confer has been cancelled. Do we mind scheduling this for the November 4 Meet and Confer?
Admin: The President will not be in town; however, we could do just as we did today (proceeding in his absence).
FA: The Executive Committee has no objection. Do you think you can call Sue Prout. We don’t want to make a habit of meeting without President Saigo.