Meet and Confer Notes
November 18, 2004
Faculty Association: Annette Schoenberger, Theresia Fisher, Judy Kilborn,
Tony Akubue, Steve Hornstein, Tracy Ore, P. N. Subbanarasimha,
JoAnn Gasparino, Donna West, Notetaker
Administration: Michael Spitzer, Diana Burlison, Nathan Church, Lin Holder, Roland Specht-Jarvis, Kristi Tornquist, Rex Veeder, Anne Zemek De Dominguez; Guest,
1. Partnership Agreements (FA) (2/26)
FA: We’re just waiting.
Admin: I’ll have a written statement to the FA President within a week. We talked about it, but I don’t have it ready to distribute yet.
2. Internal Audit (FA) (4/22)
FA: We’re in the process of setting up a meeting, and we’ll get back to you.
3. Search Committees for Administrative Positions (Admin) (9/9)
FA: We have three different, but related topics.
FA: We were wondering what the status is of the Affirmative Action Search.
Admin: We’ll wait until Anne gets here.
Admin: We have a process set up for the MSUAASF position for the College of Business foundation position. We’re going to ask each department to decide on their representation, so you should get those soon.
FA: We were wondering if we were going to get the description of the Administrative VP position. That’s the only one we don’t have at this point.
FA: There were six searches, and we have all but the one for the Administrative VP position.
Admin: That one is not ready to go.
Admin: As soon as it’s done, you’ll get it.
(Anne Zemek de Dominguez arrived)
FA: We would like to know the status of the Affirmative Action search.
On October 15, the President declared the search was void. One of the recommendations was the position be advertised beyond what MnSCU permitted, and the other issue was regarding the position duties, so the search was failed. The search committee will need to be reconstituted.
FA: Will we be using the same search committee?
Admin: No. We will review the applications we received -- outside people will review them to make sure we did not have a viable pool because there were serious pool issues. This position has been hard to search. The committee toiled between February through October, and they didn’t get but 20 candidates, and not all were qualified. There are questions about why that is.
FA: There is a consultant who the university hired to look at the Affirmative Action Office, and I think that was in conjunction with the Zmora Settlement. I recall the meeting with that consultant, and they specifically said that if you separate the Lead Investigator from the Affirmative Action Officer, you will have a harder time filling the position. Will the firm the university is going to hire to look at the position comment on anything like this?
Admin: The problem with Pat Mullin was they failed to take into account the recommendations of the EEOC as well as Zmora; and I don’t think the outside consultants can comment on it. The Zmora commitment affects our hiring processes for four years, until February 10, 2007.
Admin: The EEOC said they (the positions) have to be separate.
FA: I think it was their recommendation (not an obligation), and agreed with the issue the EEOC raised.
Admin: The Zmora settlement picks up on some parts of this. Under the EEOC letter, the Affirmative Action Officer should be separate from the Lead Investigator. The Affirmative Action Officer can take intake complaints but cannot investigate 1B1 complaints; under Zmora, it specifically states this, and the EEOC states this.
FA: Did the FA get any earlier communication about the failed search?
Admin: Each search committee member received the letter, and we thought they’d let others know.
FA: You don’t think it’s necessary for the FA President to be informed?
Admin: At all times, the search committees keep the FA office apprized of developments. I know the FA was kept advised of the Affirmative Action search problems. There has been a consistent flow of information.
FA: When something happens, how would we be informed about it?
(A caucus was held.)
FA: In the future when something spectacular happens, in addition to telling the search committees, can you tell the FA President?
Admin: Define spectacular.
FA: Anything like this (situation).
Admin: Within colleges if there are failed searches, do you want to know about these too?
FA: Yes. In the Zmora settlement, the Dean needs to relay this information.
FA: I think it’s just some committees will tell me, and some won’t. I have to admit, I had already been told by Anne, but not by anyone on the committee. I said “I’ll be waiting for that information.” I think it was a mix up.
Admin: What would it take to set up a website for all of the searches? I see this done at other universities.
Admin: I don’t want to get into this.
Admin: We understand.
Admin: Anything else?
FA: So, as Anne said under the Zmora agreement, we have a process for four years; what happens afterwards?
Admin: Certain requirements that must be met for a period of years go beyond what our normal procedures are.
FA: So what are the procedures after this time?
Admin: It is up to us if we want to continue these requirements.
4. Diversity Education Task Force Proposal (FA) (9/9)
Admin: We had a meeting this morning with the chairs of the CODAS and CODE committees. The chair of the CARE initiative was ill and was unable to attend; and we gave a late invitation to the chair of the Faculty Caucus of Color; but she was unable to make it. We talked about what I had said at the previous Meet and Confer about this. The idea of this task force was to have a coordinating function among various initiatives that deal with diversity and diversity education issues. I guess I was thrown by the term “task force” (a short term focus). We talked about some kind of coordinating group. We were, generally, in agreement some kind of coordinating group should be convened on a regular basis to develop themes and coordinate programming to have planning so the various entities weren’t functioning in separate silos but, instead, would build on one another’s efforts. We’re in general agreement about putting together a plan to assess the efficacy to what is being done. The only issue I see, in terms of our discussion, is what we call this group if that’s an agreeable way of looking at it. There would be representatives from each of the various groups that work with diverse populations on campus and in the community.
FA: What would their name be?
Admin: Diversity Education Coordinating Group or Consortium.
FA: Diversity Education Coordinating Consortium?
Admin: DECC
FA: Let me take us back – forgive me for this. I wasn’t sure I heard the Provost respond when Judy said we didn’t receive a job description for…
Admin: I said we’d get back to that.
FA: What is the next step for DECC?
Admin: We can convene a meeting rather soon.
FA: Who would do this?
Admin: I would ask Rex to get started.
FA: I just want to confirm this includes the directors or coordinators or chairs of all of the groups on campus?
Admin: Yes.
FA: Rex, you might want to send an outline to the Executive Committee……
Admin: Here is what we have so far (The Provost showed FA President Schoenberger an outline).
FA: We should add the Racial Issues Colloquium as well as Jewish Studies and Community Outreach.
Admin: We also talked about adding the greater community.
Admin: I’ll send you a list.
FA: I’ll, in turn, send it to the Executive Committee.
Admin: If we left anyone out, it was unintentional.
5. A. Article 22/25 process and explanations (Both) (9/9)
FA: We understand an ad hoc subcommittee came up with an agreement and said the LOU ran into a MnSCU/IFO snafu, and they are still working on those issues.
Admin: I think we should work on language changes, and both of us should bring them to our state representatives.
FA: Would the subcommittee meet again?
Admin: If they’re willing.
FA: Maybe Annette would convene the meeting.
Admin: I might want to volunteer other Deans.
FA: This is on the agenda for the next IFO board.
FA: We discovered there is really less consistency among MnSCU institutions.
Admin: I learned that a while ago.
FA: I pointed out what they have on the website was not what they were telling us, and they changed their website. We along with Mankato seem to be in the forefront in taking the pain away from faculty and administrators, so we understand what we want to do.
Admin: Do you know to what extent?
FA: We had allies last year. What they’re doing reminds us they put a considerable effort into it with retreats and everything…. So, their administration and faculty are just where we are. We’d like to see something much clearer, but there are people at the IFO who like it how it is.
Admin: I like the fair and balanced statements!
Admin: We’re going to wait to hear from FA President Schoenberger until after December. In the meantime, we’ll proceed with the process we have.
B. Process for withdrawing from early promotion and tenure (FA) (11/18)
Admin: I think we should delete “early” from the above -- it could pertain to timely promotion and tenure
FA: Or late promotion!
Admin: What we said the process should be is the faculty member would notify the Dean and the Provost of their intention to withdraw, and we’ll put a statement to this effect on the web page for this procedure.
FA: We’ll take this topic off of the agenda.
6. NCA Committees (Admin) (9/9)
FA: We don’t have any more to state. I sent Lin the most recent list. If I send you a list with duplications (names I’ve already given you), is this ok?
Admin: Sure. I’m calling together folks just to start talking.
FA: This topic needs to stay on the agenda.
7. Process used to decide which department a faculty member is rostered in. (FA) (9/9)
Admin: You wanted a statement on this. Here again, I’ll put something on paper. I have a concern about this because if an FA member is teaching more than half in one department, then that is the department they should be rostered in. If they’re teaching 50 percent in one department and 50 percent in another, then after our conversation with the FA regarding the consequences, the Dean and the faculty member would need to decide. My concern is if we have a situation like this, the faculty member loses the opportunity to vote. I find that problematic.
Help us figure out a way to address this, because I don’t think it’s fair to faculty not to be permitted to vote.
FA: What we need to find out is if it’s possible to have a faculty member who is assigned 75 percent in one department but teaches courses in another department. So, that if they’re supposed to teach 50 percent in one department and 50 in another, we can still do that.
Admin: So, if we roster the person in one department, that person would be in this department, and their teaching assignment would not reflect that.
FA: We have to decide which department they’ll vote in.
FA: Again, this rule would, then, be applicable to faculty from now on who we hire or place; however, what do we do regarding faculty who are working 50 percent in one department and 50 percent in another?
Admin: I don’t think we have anyone at the moment.
Admin: I do.
FA: So, the faculty member decides which 75 percent (they’ll be rostered in)?
Admin: The Dean and the faculty member will discuss this.
FA: We really don’t want someone to be 50/50.
Admin: I’d like to point out there are two factors that are not entirely overlapping. The contract requires every faculty member be assigned to a department/unit, and that’s where their seniority resides. The other piece is voting rights as defined in the contract. There are personnel issues not like a retrenchment – the everyday life of the faculty member and personnel matters in their own department. I think that the saving grace we have is if we’ve rostered in a department by a process of mutual agreement, that’s where the seniority accrues, and faculty would vote in that department, and the Provost gets to decide on their voting rights.
FA: I’m going to consult with the people at the state IFO. The thinking is if you are rostered in a department, that’s where you vote, and rostering is separate from the teaching assignment.
Admin: Ultimately, the Provost gets to decide the voting issues.
Admin: What if there is a conflict regarding voting?
FA: Lin is saying they vote in their department, and it probably doesn’t make any difference.
FA: The break in courses they teach doesn’t make a difference.
Admin: If I were the Provost, that’s certainly what I’d look at.
FA: I‘ll see what the “powers that be” think, and we’ll leave this on.
8. Opening Convocation and Commencement (FA) (9/9)
Admin: I think we covered most of this. One thing we wanted to talk about was commencement. I suggest we have an annual meeting with faculty to talk about issues and suggestions regarding commencement, without having a formal committee. We can do this before commencement in the spring this year and do afterwards on a regular basis.
FA: Last time, we said we’d have a task force for the Opening Convocation.
Admin: Yes, we agreed for Orientation and Faculty Workshop Days.
FA: I have Frankie Condon and Rich Josephson.
FA: And, I said I’d convene this task force and that I would look for a third person from Senate.
Admin: The members from the Administration are Rex Veeder, Sue Prout, and
Joane McKay.
Admin: I think Sue Prout will be involved in the meeting regarding Commencement.
Admin: The January events need to be planned soon.
FA: I can convene that meeting quickly. Are you thinking the conversations regarding commencement would include the same group?
Admin: Possibly.
We would add Sue Prout to that part of the meeting since she coordinates that; and, perhaps, Dennis Nunes or someone he suggests.
Admin: We’ll get you a third person.
FA: We can take this topic off of the agenda.
9. Extra money in the budget. Senate motion: That Faculty Senate ask the President for a detailed accounting of the unspent money, the exact amount of
money, and why it was not spent before we can begin discussion on how it will be spent. (FA) (10/7)
FA: The Budget Committee met with Diana, and she’s really working hard. What we’d like is for a statement to be made to faculty saying how much of this money is structural and how much of it is one-time so that when they make a proposal, they can be thinking in those terms. That hasn’t, apparently, been made clear – some people thought you add those two numbers together.
Admin: We’ll get something out to the campus community to that effect. I sent a note to the VP’s saying the committee wants clarification and asked what the message should be.
FA: The Budget Committee thinks we should hire help for Diana.
Admin: We want to try to spend all the money -- the money was not spent before we began discussions….
FA: We want these two details -- what is structural and what is one-time and what is recurring. Will this be communicated to faculty?
Admin: Yes.
FA: If a proposal is for structural money, we want it to come out the same for the structural money we have.
FA: This topic can be taken off of the agenda for now.
10. Teacher Education Centers (FA) (10/7)
Admin: You asked us what the status is. I know we’ve had participation in the discussions on this topic. We haven’t appointed anyone here. I just received a letter from Linda Baer on this subject (distributed) indicating it hasn’t really blossomed and talking about hiring a consultant.
Admin: The four-year Presidents felt we should get together to discuss issues of mutual interest outside of MnSCU, and we met three weeks ago at Metro, and this was one item of four or five we discussed. We felt this was moving too slowly, so I convened a group, and the three Presidents from Moorhead, Southwest, and Bemidji volunteered to move this issue. They asked for each of us to donate $1,000 to support a consultant to look into this and come back to us, and that’s where we stand.
FA: So this would be in lieu of a Teacher Education Center?
Admin: It would encompass that and more.
Admin: The issue is this is a difficult time -- I had to get the MBA Program into the cities, and it seems the philosophy has been changing by the month. It has gone from being a huge fence around the Cities, to gates, to a porous situation. There’s still resistance to sharing turf. The growth for the cities in the next 10 years is to be a couple million in population. Some other campuses are having a tough time. We’re fortunate to be on the I-94 corridor. This is a more encompassing plan – a foot in the door we didn’t have.
FA: I think they talked about this in the Statewide Meet and Confer, and I think there was positive support – certainly from Linda.
Admin: When I chaired the meeting, the three campuses most adamant were those three named.
FA: Is this graduate program only in Education?
Admin: No.
FA: We would be interested in non-duplicative programs in the Cities.
Admin: That’s a dangerous statement.
FA: Non-duplicative of Metro.
FA: This letter states it is specific to Masters’ of Education; but you’re saying they’re looking at all Masters’ levels.
Admin: And, also, not just in the Twin Cities, but across the state, because it brings in a new avenue of E-learning.
FA: We can take this topic off of the agenda.
11. Committee workload and its value in promotion and tenure considerations (FA) (11/4)
FA: I believe we addressed this to some extent the last time (we met), and we’re saying to extend the same recognition for good advising by faculty.
Admin: Absolutely. Of interest is the Diversity Education Coordinating Consortium, or DECC, will try to develop a series of programs where faculty would make presentations on campus; and rather than having one person give a speech on what research they’re doing, we could have faculty talk about their current research, a second person talk about community involvement, and a third person talk about what they’re doing in the way of advising and other kinds of activities promoting good practices in the university—a triple kind of presentation with the benefit of attracting people in all three areas encouraging a better response rate and a way of acknowledging and recognizing faculty’s contributions other than scholarship. We will look for other opportunities at the same time.
FA: We will leave this topic on the agenda.
FA: FA President Schoenberger suggested a party.
Admin: We can have a party!
FA: We’ll need to hold many talks to discuss our ideas.
New Business
1. Reorganization of College of Science and Engineering (FA) (11/4)
FA: We understand the College of Science and Engineering had a committee or task force looking into restructuring, but it was not formed (following the contract regarding how a committee is to be formed); so we are requesting the recommendations of the committee be scrapped.
Admin: If you look at the ad for the position of Dean of the College of Science and Engineering, it describes the college and position as it currently exists, and it suggests there isn’t any reorganization. We haven’t acted on any of those recommendations. The original approved task force had recommended the college consider various possible reorganizations; but we’re not adopting any of those, so you can take this off.
FA: You’re saying it’s implied that the reorganization isn’t going to take place. Should there be a definite statement?
Admin: The ad itself implies this. Let me say we’re not accepting any of those proposals.
FA: We were a little perturbed the task force was formed, and we need to get this cleared up so it doesn’t happen again.
Admin: Agreed.
FA: This topic can come off of the agenda.
2. How were the assessment directors chosen in the colleges (FA) (11/4)
Admin: In each case, the Deans solicited the faculty and asked for volunteers. In most cases, there were not volunteers, so Deans requested people to do the job and appointed them.
FA: In each specific college?
Admin: Yes -- some colleges already had assessment directors.
FA: We can take this topic off of the agenda -- thank you.
3. Summer School low enrollment classes (FA) (11/4)
(A handout was distributed.)
FA: We have a question regarding why these funds for activities are coming out of what appears to be instruction, the summer school instructional allocation. Although they appear to be only 8 to 10 percent for the COE, it’s still a pretty sizable dollar amount.
Admin: I believe that all of the faculty of that college who wanted to teach that summer received teaching assignments, and this money was used to fund college-wide needs for which other funds were not available.
FA: What rules do people have to follow for use of this money on things other than instruction?
Admin: I need to look into this further. The COE has, by far, the largest summer school enrollments, and they generate a lot of revenue and allocations for the summer.
FA: They’re going to lose considerable allocations.
Admin: I’m not sure what the exact amount is.
FA: I’m wondering if all of the other colleges would want to use this money for instruction.
Admin: In fact, in the COE, that additional funding was made available for new graduate courses added later on. Would there have been more money made available if it hadn’t gone to the COE? Possibly. I take it you’re saying you find this not to have been a very good idea.
FA: We’re exploring that now. If our focus is on retention and getting students, it is counter to this if in other colleges we could have had summer school courses.
FA: They do have an active graduate program. If, as a result, they have less money, does this impact them negatively? It seems problematic when money issued in a different way affects students negatively. That’s the question.
Admin: We have to look at this.
FA: The main principle of the guideline, here, is that it is directly related to faculty teaching; so this is all we wanted to bring out.
FA: No, actually, the problem here is there are courses that may have been offered elsewhere at this university if the money hadn’t been spent on this; and, as a result, there is less money going to the COE for this summer.
Admin: We need to look into whether or not colleges felt there was a shortage of courses.
Admin: I think you need to talk with Dennis Nunes regarding criteria. If there are criteria, then we follow them.
Admin: The formula used to allocate Summer School does not address the demand in areas and where investments were made or emphasis on downsizing programs. It is based on credits historically generated, taking many years into consideration.
FA: I understand when Dennis was here, we used the formula to allocate funds to each college, and then it’s up to them; but the underlying principle is the money is for teaching and courses selected, not for these activities.
FA: We’ll leave this topic on the agenda.
4. Status of implementation of the TPR recommendations (FA) (11/4)
FA: Last spring, the TPR Committee asked us to formally inquire what the status is. I think they are interested in wanting to know if anything has happened since the letter and what we can do to push this along? We’re still getting complaints regarding telephones not working and not getting the help we need from the Help Desk; so some of this is still occurring.
Admin: We’re trying, but it doesn’t happen overnight. With regard to the telephones, we’re hoping to install them over the break period. It’s hard to do this during classes. Our plan is to install telephones in all classrooms starting in January. We need $3,000 per room per year if we replace the computers and the software as well. Right now, computers and software have been the burden of the departments.
FA: This is all of the rooms?
Admin: The Ritsche Auditorium has an endowment that pays for its rooms. There are 15 TECH FEE rooms not included; and there are also five or six ITV rooms that have a separate funding source. Therefore, there are 90 rooms remaining that do not have a funding source. If we add more rooms, the number goes up. This is what we know. I believe by taking care of routine maintenance, it would help immensely. I agree with ongoing training needs being put in place, but that doesn’t happen overnight; for example, after-hours coverage, doing specific training -- it isn’t just the Help Desk. There is someone who will be the person (for after-hours help). We’re making sure they have a telephone, in the event they’re off campus and get called.
FA: Does this include personnel?
Admin: We estimate one person for 50 rooms, and we’re at about the max for those folks. If we add another 50 classrooms, yes, we’ll need to add another person. Now, if you want all full-time staff on the Help Desk, that’s more than just in the classroom, and we can staff the Help Desk with full-time people.
FA: I don’t think that’s necessary – we just need them to be trained.
Admin: You’re having trouble when you call the Help Desk?
FA: Right – with student staff. We recognize that’s part of how they learn, but they should have better training.
FA: Can you send this (document) to me electronically?
FA: Thank you -- this is very helpful.
FA: We can take this topic off of the agenda.
5. Draft policy on evaluation of prior experience (Admin) (11/4)
6. Revision of Curriculum Process (Admin) (11/4)
Admin: We mentioned the long-standing policy issues coming onto the front burner.
FA: Can you send me an electronic version?
Admin: Did you put your name on it?
Admin: I’d suggest finding a way to get this in the hands of a committee. We have two or three cases a year. There was one from a student and two from a faculty member. I’ve been using this informally to guide the process the few times we do this. It would be useful to have your input and to make this readily available to students without the draft notation. Would you try to get us a recommendation as soon as you can.
The current document was approved in 1994, and the only revision made was to bring the forms up to date in 1998. The UCC has had this on their agenda for some time. It is our understanding in 2002 a draft of a new flow chart came in, and Faculty Senate sent it back. I put together for you a copy of the approved 1999 policy and a copy of the forms we currently use.
FA: Is there something that tells me why you think it’s necessary we should change this?
Admin: Faculty requested to change the forms so they could do them electronically.
We made goals to move things quickly and now it’s taking months and months for proposals to move through. If there’s a way to move them quicker, post them electronically, reflect assessment concerns. I will make a list.
FA: Will you send me an electronic version?
Admin: They don’t exist.
FA: That was a joke!
FA: If you would send me a note regarding what the issues are, then I’ll go to the Curriculum Committee.
Admin: Part of the problem is time, and we’d like to bring this back to the forefront. The last we heard was in 2002 when there was a new flowchart and then we never heard again.
FA: I remember looking at a chart with errors, and it came to me on Announce. I remember having a conversation with the chair of the UCC and being told they’d get back to me, but I don’t remember it ever coming to Faculty Senate.
Admin: It would be nice to get faculty input and approve the curriculum process.
FA: We’ll see what we can do.
7. Program review procedures (Admin) (11/4)
Admin: You didn’t have major objections (with the procedures) but couldn’t give us a recommendation; and because of the need for them, you told us they could be put in place as long as they could be modified.
FA: Are these posted somewhere?
Admin: These are the program review procedures. Every Department Chair has a copy, and every Dean’s office has one. We want to make small changes. This summer, Sharon had to write a follow-up report for NCA. It was a year late, but we submitted the report. In the process, she looked at assessment, and I’ve elaborated what she’s done. It would strengthen the self-study process by asking departments to study the assessment data, how they’re using assessment data and external reviews. Departments using this process might not be ready now, but next year we could make this a policy. Please take a look at this if you’d like to make a recommendation.
FA: Have any departments complained about this red book?
Admin: No.
FA: Is it on the web now?
Admin: Not yet -- we’re hesitant to put it out there.
Admin: We have it on the web in my college -- I can send you the URL.
FA: You’re asking if people want to comment regarding these two, new expanded items….
FA: This topic will stay on the agenda.
8. Math 196 and the Curriculum Process (FA) (11/18)
FA: At this very moment, faculty from the College of Business and the Math Department are meeting to discuss the Math 196 requirement and the use of Math 193. I hope we as a group can encourage faculty to discuss all of the pertinent issues and work out a collaborative, congenial solution. Of course, we all know curriculum is largely under faculty. Subba, would you like to join me?
FA: To add, it appears this has happened for the first time; and from the faculty side, it seems to have made the Math people and the Business School people uncomfortable; so I thought this would be a good time to encourage, at a faculty level, to come up with suggestions.
FA: We will keep this topic on the agenda.
(The agenda was moved to #13)
13. First Year Experience – Program Synopsis (Guest, Mark Nook)
Guest: The first document is a description of the First Year Experience Synopsis for the program next year, and the second document is an application for faculty to use for this coming year. We’ve put together a program that was approved by Senate and accepted by the Administration that was very specific and intended to be limited to a small group of students and not intended for all incoming students. I met with the committee and suggested we expand and develop a program-based First Year Experience. In the meeting with them, they suggested it was an extension of the theme and they said this worked well. I was not willing to move ahead without bringing this to the faculty first. Our goal is to try to move towards 400 new entering students (75 this year) in a very limited pilot program; and to do this, we will need 15 – 20 cohorts with the ultimate goal being to have 80 to 90 percent of freshmen in the program. We need to start getting applications from faculty. What I handed you is an example of one of two application forms (theme-based) and another for program-based. What we’re looking for is a sort of blessing to go ahead and send this out to faculty.
FA: We can’t do this today.
Guest: I understand. By bringing this to Meet and Confer, we can bring this to Faculty Senate quicker.
There are people on the advisory committee and other people already on the committee; so I wanted to bring this to Meet and Confer for people to see. If the FA says it can go out, I’ll have it out tomorrow. It’s up to Faculty Senate if it needs full Senate approval. My personal feeling is that what we’ve done with the program fits into the guidelines done a year ago; but I didn’t want to move forward. If it needs Faculty Senate approval, then we won’t get this for a couple weeks.
FA: So, this December 13 date?
Guest: It’s flexible.
Guest: I had hoped to get this to you earlier. The thing I’m very aware of and make sure others are aware of also is the need to have these out and applications back and sorted by the middle of January at the very latest, because Chairs will be putting together schedules for fall and spring.
FA: Last time, we had such a low response. Are you optimistic?
Guest: Yes, I’ve been out in many departments who will have a big effect. I’ve met with English and Communication Studies. I’ve talked with departments interested in program-based and talked with other faculty interested in theme-based and had people come to me about what they can do, so there is a lot more interest in doing this than what I hear there was a year ago. The big difference is the plan wasn’t even developed until this time last year. The plan has been out there, and people know what is happening. We’re trying to move forward with a relatively small cohort so we can build a support system. The one person who is crucial is the Director of Residential Life, and that person has just been hired; so I’m working with him and the housing office and Records and Registration to make it work. It clearly doesn’t happen without faculty, and these are going to be faculty programs. The big reason I went to English and Communication Studies is I think other departments will approach them.
FA: I think I have a couple of experts on this on the Executive Committee, so I’ll ask them. Can you send me this in an electronic version so I can send it to them and get back to you on Monday. Then, I’ll try to put this on Tuesday’s Senate agenda. I can’t guarantee we’ll be able to look at it.
Guest: I understand -- thank you.
FA: On campus, the committee related to this is the First Year Experience Committee – have you been in touch with them?
Guest: Yes, they at least know what it looks like. I’m not sure I got to everyone on the First Year Experience Committee list.
Guest: The task force would end, but there would be an advisory committee. ……
Admin: Let me add, Nathan Church isn’t here; but he shared an article published in the Washington Post. The premise of the author was that schools today really provide quality education, so this fellow went through the scenario of the NSSE Report and listed 20 schools around Washington, DC, reporting on NSSE outcomes. Most keep that quiet. Going back to the Chancellor’s Work Plan and NCA, everything stacks on backing up the First Year Experience for retention rates, graduation rates, NSSE reports (we have two now) and talk about being student centered. When students respond back to are you satisfied, that answer is very important. At some point in time we’ll raise it and we’d like to make this public too, and we might be asked to share this information openly.
Admin: The national research supports this in retention rates.
FA: This topic will stay on the agenda.
9. Zmora Agreement (FA) (11/18).
FA: We’re aware there has been a violation on this matter and rely on the administration for enforcement in this matter. What are you going to do to ensure this doesn’t happen again?
Admin: You’re correct. There was an error made. The Dean involved acknowledged there was an error and is committed to doing a search for that position to take affect next year. I signed off on it; so to that extent, I’m partly responsible for this and will make sure it doesn’t happen again. It was a little more complicated; nevertheless, an error was made, and we’ll make sure it doesn’t happen again, and we’re sorry it happened. I can’t quite explain it, but it happened, and it won’t happen again. I’ll have a memo to the FA President from the Dean and myself. The person has a contract, so they’ll be employed through the end of the year; but after that, there will be a search for that position in the college, absolutely.
FA: We’ll leave this topic on the agenda.
10. Search committees and ranking of candidates (FA) (11/18)
FA: I’ve had faculty tell me (they couldn’t get this in writing – the Dean wouldn’t put it in writing) they were told if the search committees ranked candidates, the search would fail and the position could not be filled.
.
Admin: When did that happen?
FA: A couple of weeks ago.
FA: I got out our hiring manual, and this is it -- it says that the committee can offer the position to the second as well as the third and fourth…..The first candidate gets referred to the Dean; so this says, essentially, you rank candidates, since it talks about the top-rated candidate. Our own hiring manual says this.
Admin: This is very bizarre.
FA: You may agree, but this is what we have.
Admin: The version I give out has the date of 10/00. We talked about the end result, and it is the one I’m using and has been revised as of 10/00; and I think that revision was approved through Meet and Confer.
FA: No, we would have never approved this.
Admin: Oddly enough, the language doesn’t look too different. The person said this is the hiring manual they have, and they’ve never received the version you have.
Admin: Since when do committees offer positions to faculty?
FA: Why are you saying that?
Admin: Since it says “committees can offer”……it contradicts itself.
FA: Chairs of search committees have made offers under the direction of Deans under this policy. With the previous administration, faculty got beat up regularly for not using this hiring manual. If we need to update it, let’s do it. Faculty are permitted to rank under this hiring manual. If you don’t agree, let’s talk about it. Right now, we have this hiring manual, and now faculty are being told something different from the Deans.
Admin: They refer to the top-ranking candidate, but not 1 through 4.
FA: This just means we give them to you one at a time.
Admin: I still think that’s different than ranking as well. Because an ancillary matter is when faculty members start screening applicants, one-third of the time they want to put numerics on their evaluations.
FA: We were forced to do that many times and we argued against it.
Admin: When you do numerics, you’re using a system of employee selection which falls under the EEOC guidelines, and I’ve been using them and talk about guidelines for selection. Originally, they went to Civil Service positions, and they started getting particular about the impact on protected classes. Any evaluation system has that capability to be misapplied. I use them all the time in a lot of areas - questions come up a lot, but the real problem for almost every faculty search is every search committee makes up its own evaluation guidelines or their own search screening tools, but the EEOC says you need to get them evaluated or get your own process. We have a rolling system with screening tools to use (140 searches – 120 different screening tools and none of them went through EEOC). So, all I ask is when I’m doing it you don’t assign a numerical value to one candidate one more point than another, ranking them; because then you have to justify why one has one point more. The flipside is a person who doesn’t meet the minimum qualifications could still rank in points and beat someone with more. So, it creates a disparity if the EEOC comes knocking and you have to reconstitute the search committee. In Phase 6 of both versions, preference is given to the underutilized class.
FA: This doesn’t say points.
Admin: Your basic assumption is they’re using points.
Admin: Then strike that. If they still meet the minimum qualifications and they’re relatively equal, you still give preference to the people you identify in the hiring manual.
FA: There’s no problem there.
Admin: There was -- I’ve seen it.
FA: Does the copy of the document you have use the kind of language under 2 as well as 3, top-rated candidate, in paragraph 3?
Admin: Yes.
FA: That implies ranking, and our concern is the committee is following this; and if we’re not supposed to do this, then we need a new manual.
Admin: This paragraph hasn’t ever been called in front of me.
Admin: There are three blank spaces for everyone accepted. I don’t get them (candidates) one at a time.
FA: What I meant by not a problem, I think what you’re talking about we don’t disagree with. When this came up before, I contacted the IFO regarding hiring manuals at state universities, and Pat Arseneault said all of them have ranking like ours; so if there are particular issues, and there are, let’s deal with those and work together so we don’t put the Administration in a bind with the EEOC; but right now, faculty are getting conflict between the written word and the Deans.
Admin: If you were going to list the candidates’ strengths and weaknesses, it would be apparent how you ranked candidates without necessarily ranking them.
FA: We’ve already talked about this in Faculty Senate, partly because of the manual and the Administration conflict. Senate says it’s their belief to rank candidates; and we don’t think because there’s a potential of problems, ranking should be swept aside.
Admin: Speaking as the “old lady” at the table from at least nine years on the Administration side, I’ve consistently heard Administration say to faculty “don’t rank candidates.” You can tell us who the best candidates are; you can tell us by their strengths and weaknesses. So, I understand what you’re saying is a contradiction; but I have to say many times, Administration has been very consistent in asking not to rank.
FA: We’re told there’s a statement at the bottom (i.e., stationery) of being an “Affirmative Action Employer,” and it has to go in exactly the way it is. That’s in the hiring manual, and you have to do that.
Admin: The hiring manual does not say rank candidates.
FA: It says give us your top choice.
FA: It’s 5:00 PM -- could we come back to this topic?
(The agenda was moved to #12.)
12. One year schedule for classes (Admin) (11/18)
Admin: There have been discussions with Deans and Chairs regarding developing a schedule of classes for a full academic year. We’re notifying you that we would like to be able to do this for the spring class schedule for students to be able to register for both semesters. Deans and Department Chairs have indicated they are in a position to do this. There are a few technical issues; but if we can work all of them out and go through Meet and Confer, we think this is a very positive way to enable students to get into courses and make adjustments. It allows students to plan ahead and may have a positive effect on retention. We want some feedback from the FA.
FA: Can you give me something in writing?
Admin: Yes.
FA: So in spring 2005 for the following academic year, they can tell us if they’re on campus; and for pre-registration for the fall semester, they’ll be able to register for two semesters, subsequently fall and spring.
Admin: A schedule for registration won’t change sequencing based on the number of credits.
FA: For students, it is optional?
Admin: It’s something we wish to provide for them, yes. They’ll have the option of changing their registration. This allows us a better planning process and anticipation of the number of classes and seats and binds students to the institution more effectively and helps them plan as well.
11. Special Assistant to the President/Lead Investigator replacement (FA) (11/18)
Admin: I’d like Anne to give you a report.
Admin: This is Tracy’s Bowe’s last week. Under the MnSCU Policy regarding 1b1, at any given time, the university must have a person who can take complaints. The President will designate an individual(s) to replace Tracy Bowe, and the notice will go out on campus e-mail and will be posted. There has been a change regarding the design of student 1b1 complaints, and this will be handled by Bernadette. The other person he has in his mind intakes 1b1 complaints and is not the same as someone investigating or being a decision maker. Anyone who is a designated decision maker or investigates must have MnSCU training – this is a limited number of people; so you just can’t designate anyone, because they must have had training.
Admin: They have investigating training and not decision making?
Admin: It must be separate.
Admin: The decision maker needs to be above the level of Dean but not for non-faculty. The requirement for intake is training, and there are a limited number of people here.
FA: So, you’re saying Bernadette will be assigned to intake student complaints for 1b1 only or an alternate, and the other person may intake student complaints and do investigating; but the new arrangement will happen very soon.
FA: Has she been told?
Admin: She’s aware there has been discussion. She’s not ready to do this now, since she hasn’t been trained, but MnSCU will train as needed.
FA: And she’s aware she’ll intake and not investigate or vice versa?
Admin: In the Student Affairs area, it has to be flexible.
Admin: This is a new MnSCU policy, and we need to comply. She’s aware that this is a new policy, and Nathan Church has been advised.
FA: So, President Saigo is going to announce two interim people to take 1b1 applications. Who will be doing the investigating?
Admin: Tracy Bowe has not had many investigations to do, and they’re time consuming; and she has asked if she could handle these on an ad hoc basis.
FA: So, we’d contract with Tracy?
Admin: Yes.
FA: Until a permanent one is hired.
Admin: I had an exit interview and said “gee, time has flown.” She has a lot of activities planned with her sister and encounter workshops; but she has made it known to us she’s available and brought me up to date on some of the issues. She’s done a marvelous job.