Meet and Confer Notes
February 3, 2005
Faculty Association: Annette Schoenberger, Theresia Fisher, Judy Kilborn, Tony Akubue, Frankie Condon, Steve Hornstein, Susan Motin, Tracy Ore, JoAnn Gasparino,
Donna West, Note taker
December 16, 2004 – Accepted
January 20, 2005 – Accepted
1. Internal Audit (FA) (4/22/04)
FA: Item #1 is the subject of the Internal Audit; and Theresia Fisher and I are meeting next week to discuss subject, and we don’t have anything to say.
2. Summer School low enrollment classes (FA) (11/4/04)
FA: We agreed to have people get together to discuss this subject.
Admin: Can we come back to this when Dennis arrives?
FA: Yes.
(Dialogue continued after Dennis Nunes arrived.)
FA: Remember we were going to have a couple of people work with you on this subject?
FA: You were going to buy lunch! (laughter)
FA: …to discuss another technique for managing summer school low enrollment -- Steve Hornstein and Matt Julius are the FA representatives, and we were thinking you would convene the meeting.
Admin: I’ll be thrilled to. I will initiate a call next week to find a common time, and we’ll discuss issues of Summer Session low enrollment.
2. Draft Policy on Evaluation of Prior Experience (Admin) (11/4/04)
3. Program Review Procedures (Admin) (11/4/04)
FA: Senate basically said they look fine on paper. We would like to try these; and in three years or if a problem comes up before then, we can try to resolve it.
Admin: Yes -- if one comes up, we can discuss the policies and make the necessary changes.
FA: No one can foresee anything bad; but something might come up.
These items can come off of the agenda.
4. Revision of Curriculum Process (Admin) (11/4/04)
FA: I had an interesting phone conversation with the Chair. They are working on this, and their goal is to have this done by the end of the semester. I asked if there was anything they needed my help with in order to do this faster, or anything at all; and she said at this point they don’t know of anything, but she would talk with the committee.
5. Search committees and ranking of candidates (FA) (11/18/04)
FA: This was the last topic on the Senate agenda, and we just didn’t get to it.
Admin: We talked about having a sub group that would work on a hiring manual.
FA: I need to ask Senate how they want that to occur; so this is still on the agenda.
6. Retention (Admin) (1/20/05)
Admin: This is a topic we brought up in order to discuss the idea of Faculty Senate considering ways of improving retention. In the interim, we’ve been talking about bringing in a Convocation speaker next fall who is an expert on retention in addition to having workshops on retention and making it a theme regarding professional development; so we’d appreciate the cooperation and the participation of the faculty. The speaker we’re considering is Vince Tinto who has a national reputation as a retention expert.
Admin: He’s known for not holding his calendar open.
Admin: Well, is that okay for you, President? (laughter)
FA: We can take this information back to Senate. I don’t know if you want feedback, or are you letting us know?
Admin: He may not hold his calendar open for very long, and we want to get on it.
Admin: I just wanted to remind you we did delegate this to the faculty and Administration group who are planning Convocation.
Admin: That group is aware of this, so you may not need to do too much (in Senate).
Admin: Frankie and I and everyone met last week.
FA: I guess I’m wondering if we want to get scheduled on his (speaker’s) calendar if we’d feel comfortable without feedback from Senate.
FA: I think we did appoint this committee to represent us in this matter, and we have not voted or approved Convocation speakers in the past – just go!
Admin: Thank you.
7. Weekly Schedule: Two hours free for committee work (FA) (12/16/04)
Admin: (A handout was distributed.) You asked me to come back with a proposal addressing time to meet with committees, and I thought it was wise to look at the whole schedule. This is by no means a finished product – just a concept for your feedback. Many people expressed a need for more 75-minute blocks; so what this does is open up a 5th hour as a regular class hour and allows for all classes to start at the same time 8:00, 9:30, 11:00, etc.; but they would get out according to whether faculty would use a 50-minute model or a 75-minute block allowing the schedule to be layered. One of the earlier concerns we discussed were utilization issues, so we may not want to open up the whole day for that layer -- maybe just the afternoon. This is something to think about when you take it to whomever to discuss -- open blocks which could happen with a layered schedule or not. Maybe a layered schedule idea would make more 75-minute blocks for people.
FA: I have a question and a comment. You include two time slots – “classes/labs begun earlier may finish.”
Admin: Labs can operate on their own schedule. I don’t want people to think they need to stop having their lab.
FA: We don’t have on this campus the amount of space in science labs we need to have for the number of students we have, so we need to be really flexible.
FA: It says “classes and labs.”
Admin: It would be very few classes. There are a few I just want to allow flexibility if we need it; but if you don’t think it’s appropriate….
FA: I worry about having exceptions.
Admin: That’s a matter of faculty discipline.
FA: The other thing is if we overlap 50-minute and 75-minute classes, then we’re dealing with two schedules each day and have fewer meeting times outside of these blocks.
Admin: In some ways it’s true in order to get in enough blocks, we almost have to add the 5th hour. It’s a more flexible schedule but will require discipline -- if we don’t go outside (the schedule), we’ll have just as many opportunities. We would have to be a bit more disciplined.
Admin: I would argue that we wouldn’t have 75-minute classes on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday until the 3:00 PM hour.
FA: So that would be another alternative.
Admin: Yes.
FA: And that would address my concern.
Admin: The way it is set up is all classes start the same time everyday, giving students flexibility (i.e., if they have a class in Halenbeck, they can get there in time). Maybe they can schedule a 50-minute for one class and a 75-minute class for another. So, I think there are some advantages to it, but it is certainly a change and not perfect. Please come back with a recommendation.
FA: This is one that Senate wanted this group to do.
Admin: That’s the brainpower.
FA: We need to go back to Senate.
Admin: Maybe what we should do is appoint a little subgroup to meet and come back with a proposal to the full Meet and Confer to bring to Senate.
FA: We can agree to the subcommittee idea.
FA: We don’t have to wait until the next Meet and Confer -- you can e-mail Michael, and one of the two would ask someone to convene.
FA: We’ll go find two people.
Admin: Two people sound good; and if you have ideas before you meet, I’d like these as well.
FA: I just want to thank you for bringing this to us -- and in such a timely manner – like “lightning”!
Admin: I’ve been thinking about this for awhile.
1. Academic Year 05-06 missing duty day. (Admin) (2/3/05)
FA: We have an Unfair Labor Practice. We’re upset you’re only allowing us to work 167 days! (laughter)
Admin: This is a great big “oops”!
FA: You looked this and we looked at this, and then J. C. Turner started working on the fall schedule…..
Admin: The simplest solution is to plug in one more day to work in our office on Friday, September 2. We really do have to do this quickly. We have to contact LR&TS so they can have the appropriate schedules set for the fall.
FA: This year we worked on this Friday, right?
Admin: Yes.
FA: Do we agree to Friday?
FA: Yes, we’ll agree to Friday, September 2.
Admin: That would be a faculty workday without Convocation events unless we need them.
Admin: Fortunately, we published a disclaimer statement.
FA: We’re not going to have Convocation events; but will there be college-wide events?
Admin: The committee will do their work -- we’re just giving them an extra day.
FA: I would agree to this; but if we use this for college-wide meetings or Convocation, that’s different than a prep day.
FA: We were agreeing to add this Friday as a “work in your office day.”
Admin: Then, that’s fine.
Admin: We have cards that you punch in, too! (laughter)
FA: If you want to come around and visit faculty on that day, I’ll let them know, and they’ll be there!
Admin: I’ll take you up on that!
Admin: It’s a duty day; but if my faculty have to work their duty day in the library, I will not give them a hard time if they’re not in their office that day.
Admin: Yes.
2. Status of Affirmative Action Search (FA) (2/3/05)
FA: We’re just asking for an update on where this is.
FA: You just asked my question! We’re just wondering because you had told us that you were working with the search firm, and we were wondering what they were supposed to do and where we were.
Admin: We have a time line we’re working on that we should have available for you to look at our next Meet and Confer.
Admin: There is no search firm yet. People make bids, so it is laborious.
FA: That’s what we’re asking.
Admin: We’re constructing when the RFP will go out, getting bids, establishing the search committee, determining what the relationship will be between the search committee and the firm, as well as preparing for advertising and interviewing.
FA: Would we still have a search committee?
Admin: Yes, and we’ll give you the timeline at the next Meet and Confer.
3. AVP for Administrative Affairs reporting structure (FA/Admin) (2/3/05)
FA: At the last Meet and Confer you gave us a document, and then you said you would make some updates and changes; and we’re interested in what you’re thinking about doing and how that’s going to play out. We didn’t get much input from Senate because they thought the document was fine; but I understand you intend to make changes.
Admin: You all made recommendations.
Admin: We’ll go with the 1995 version of Gilchrist’s old job description. I shared this with Dennis Nunes, and the title would remain the same and the reporting would remain the same; so we’re waiting for comments from you. If it is OK with you, we’ll go forward.
FA: Thank you.
Admin: You’re welcome.
FA: I haven’t received much other than right now, our Financial Officer reports directly to you.
Admin: No, it’s always been on a dotted line and would report to the Administrative VP with a dotted line to me.
FA: What does this mean?
Admin: Just like Rex reports to Michael, and I still have access to him.
FA: OK.
Admin: The same with Lin.
FA: Don’t we all have “dotted lines”! (laughter)
Admin: I’m pleased -- when I talked with Michael, he said “thank goodness Saigo wasn’t there (at the last Meet and Confer) because we got done early”! We’ll get done earlier today! (laughter)
FA: In Gilchrist’s job description, Enrollment Management reported to that position -- I couldn’t see it in there.
Admin: Right – the position description was developed before that assignment was made, so the description you have does not include it.
FA: This may be why I’m not getting comments.
Admin: If you hold it in the light, you’ll see it! (laughter)
FA: Anything else?
Admin: No.
4. Partnership Agreements: Consultation is a letter from the department chair to the Dean indicating that the department has seen the proposed budget and the date of the department meeting where it was discussed.
Admin: This is not ascribed to FA.
FA: I did this in the middle of the night – I don’t know why it doesn’t show a name. It must be from me.
FA: In general, we are satisfied with the proposal you put forth. In my unit, we have seen the budgets, and they look spectacular, and I don’t think there will be an issue -- I do think they’ll go. What we want clarification on is will there be consultation with departments and what will the consultation be? To say consultation, will it be a document in the form of a letter from the Department Chair to the Dean?
Admin: I have a small problem with that which is consultation -- with the department it means, among other things, discussion with faculty in the department; and if they choose not to submit the letter, the whole process dies; and I don’t think that is the way it should happen. I think we should have consultation involving a letter from the department, Dean, or Provost that consultation has taken place with the department.
FA: Could consultation be a discussion with the Chair and no one else in the department?
Admin: The Department Chair usually has to act with the agreement of the department.
FA: Could we have the language that indicates that?
Admin: Would we desire to micro manage departments concerning the Chair and who coordinates this? They should make sure everything is brought to the membership…..
FA: Concerning the contract talks about department recommendations -- wouldn’t the Administration want a recommendation from the department?
Admin: But, if you give it to the department to make a recommendation, then you’re stymied.
FA: If the Department Chair chose not to give it, then there is no recommendation to consider.
Admin: There is a precedent in the contract regarding teaching schedules – reminding the Dean that departments have to certify to the Chair that the department has seen it and has chosen the Chair to act – maybe that is what we should do as a precedent.
FA: That’s what we’re asking for.
FA: Our problem is sometimes regarding the other direction – when it has been said it has been consulted with and, in fact, we’ve been told we’re going to do something without seeing anything. We want to craft a guarantee -- a clear record that consultation and deliberation has happened.
Admin: Let’s work on this -- I don’t think we should revise this here, but let’s try to come back.
Admin: I won’t try to revise this here, but I had a suggestion.
Admin: ….if it’s a good one! (laughter)
Admin: It’s also a possibility the issue here is one of notification, and everyone understands that discussion has taken place. I’m not sure where the process has to go -- it doesn’t need to go one direction.
FA: I think what we want is a clear idea of what consultation means; and as Lin points out the part in the contract that talks about the Chair certifying that the department has seen the schedule -- something in that direction.
Admin: Do we have signed documents when a schedule comes in that the Chair certifies?
FA: My department does.
Admin: Do other departments?
Admin: I get department schedules from the chair…
FA: We don’t need (language) that the department would raise “holy heck” if the schedule didn’t come to them. In this case, we have a new situation and need a procedure for it -- recommendation or no recommendation.
Admin: OK. Let’s try to reword this and come back.
FA: One other piece people were pleased to see was the level of detail in the budgets -- primarily the concern for replacement money. It’s really nice to have information for departments up front if they’re asked.
Admin: I want to know if each department should see the entire budget or just their budget.
FA: The department’s concern is replacement money and travel – I don’t think they need to see the whole budget.
Admin: What about a statement that the department will get replacement money at the following rate and travel at the following rate?
FA: That would do, only the funny game that happens in my department is they say your allocation is reduced elsewhere and they say “see it’s in here.” You don’t know if you have it or not. I think we need to have it in different orders – the initial allocation for the department first and then reallocation on top of it.
FA: Another concern regarding the document you gave me was you documented the departments who gave their OK and then some individuals. This is a department issue in those departments where individuals gave their OK, since there isn’t anything showing those departments had been consulted. Departments have to be consulted in this.
Admin: We’ll go back.
5. Zmora Agreement and searches in the COE (FA) (2/3/05 again)
FA: At the last Meet and Confer, we had a discussion about notifying those committees about the oversight regarding the committees. I went back to my office to find out who was on those committees, and I have not been notified of who is on the search committees in the COE and who is chairing those. I’m concerned because some of those committees already have people doing interviews and this will put the university in jeopardy. I’m wondering what we’re going to do.
Admin: I know the FA is being notified of positions being searched. I need to make certain the composition of the search committees is sent to you and will make sure it is sent forthwith.
FA: Other colleges are notifying the FA when their committees are being formed. The understanding was people would have a chance to know.
Admin: You’re right. It’s a problem we have to deal with, and you have a concern and so do I.
FA: They were announced regularly through the college Listserv last spring and summer.
FA: And, so, you will look into it and determine what is appropriate and communicate those things you can back to Annette Schoenberger?
Admin: Yes.
6. Professional Development Funds (FA) (2/3/05)
FA: Bill is not here.
FA: We probably have a different perspective of the issue of Professional Development Funds. You and I spent a lot of time last year; and rather than getting into a discussion here, can we do another subcommittee. I would volunteer to be on it, and perhaps you would consider it Michael, since we had so many conversations, and bring a recommendation to this body?
Admin: I think we’re pretty limited by the language in the contract in this matter. The contract specifically states these funds are limited to “x, y, and z,” and if it will be expanded through this mechanism, it has to be changed by contract negotiations.
FA: We might have some options – an MOA, an LOU…. I would like to at least discuss some of those things, unless you think there is no point.
Admin: Well, I don’t know when contract negotiations begin.
FA: Soon.
Admin: I think that should be on the agenda for those conversations. In the interim, is it possible to find other ways to fund expenses that might be appropriate? It would take as long as an LOU and an MOA.
FA: So, no subcommittee?
Admin: If you want to have one, I don’t have a problem.
FA: Are you going to tell your negotiators to expand the definition?
Admin: I will make that recommendation.
FA: Would you be willing to talk about this?
Admin: Sure, I’m always willing to have a “meet and discuss.”
FA: I had suggested earlier setting up a small fund to cover these kinds of things -- it can’t be very much. People have been covering their expenses out of their pockets that can’t be covered under the Professional Development Fund; i.e., copyrights, living expenses, etc. -- things like art supplies…It is more than a few requests – this is a fairly broad concern.
Admin: What is absent from our discussion is the option of not seeing these funds offered to just one person but offered to a department so that quality is addressed first and repetitive issues later -- a faculty development vehicle that is allocated according to the quality of the proposal and not per capita, because departments could choose a dissemination process.
Admin: There are some departments who have accounts with thousands of dollars.
Admin: We allocate the same amount.
Admin: Some have $6,000 with Professional Development Funds and have not used it in five years.
FA: Maybe if we expanded the definition of what it could be spent on, we wouldn’t have so much carried forward.
FA: Our concern is people can’t use that money for these things we’re discussing -- people who wanted payment for copyrights and art supplies. You can be sitting on $6,000 and still not spend it -- that’s the concern.
Admin: So, we’ll have a meeting.
7. What to do when a search fails (FA/Admin) (2/3/05)
Admin: You want an explanation.
FA: Yes. At the last Meet and Confer, we said that when a probationary search fails, the department needed to be consulted; and, afterwards, someone asked what the next step is. You consult the department and decide to fill the position with a fixed-term. How does that get done?
Admin: When a search gets failed and a fixed-term is to be hired, you need to do a new job description, establish a search committee and do a new search. For an emergency appointment, you need to do the same thing; although, you would have a more limited period of notification and local advertising; and if one of those searches is failed, then you might need to use adjuncts.
FA: Is there still a search committee required for emergency searches? You’re saying the same search process and approval of the position comes back through the search committee. We have to be careful with the term department, but OK.
Admin: Would the exception not be if the search was failed? It wouldn’t always be a search if adjuncts were appointed.
FA: In order to hire from an adjunct pool, you have to do searches.
Admin: Periodically.
FA: But, that candidate must have been a result of a pool.
FA: So if the case is a probationary search failed and the department went to a fixed-term, the probationary position would go away?
Admin: That’s a different issue.
Admin: Yes. There would have to be a reason not to retain it, but it does go back and it could be reassigned somewhere else.
FA: We get into this situation sometimes when departments really need faculty and the people that we are interviewing are not the best; but there is the fear of losing positions. If there were some guidelines to make it clearer to departments…..
Admin: If there is a reason to hire a probationary position, there is a reason. Barring some significant budget reduction or crisis, that position should stay in the department; and if the department is filling the probationary position with a fixed-term, there is the likelihood that position would be searched the following year.
FA: We could say, generally, the expectation would be to do so.
Admin: I would not advise the department to hire anybody just because they’re afraid of losing the position. This is not a good strategy.
FA: I’m sorry to be a pest -- I guess my concern is for my own college and a more global enforcement of this.
Admin: What has not been (enforced)?
FA: When a search fails, new things happen.
Admin: It will happen (enforcement)!
FA: Can we just comminute this to faculty since this is a change of culture.
FA: We need to say something to Senate about this.
8. CETL Departmental Liaison and Faculty Consultation Program. (FA) (2/3/05)
FA: The faculty and the CETL Advisory Board asked me to revive the CETL Department Liaison Program and Faculty Consultation Program; and Senate approved this, so we want to let you know that I’ll be connecting with department liaisons. This is an easy one – just exchanging e-mails. The Faculty Consultation Program is to be revived when CETL gets a standing operating budget; then, we’ll use this to revive the program.
Admin: Those are great activities.
9. Governor’s budget (Admin)
Admin: The Governor’s budget proposal calls for availability Centers of Excellence. I understand there is a conference call at MnSCU where they are moving forward with developing activities in this area, and I wanted to inform the faculty through Senate this is in the Governor’s proposal (originally recommended by MnSCU) to establish four to eight Centers of Excellence in the MnSCU system. We need to think of ways and ideas in which SCSU can get some funding for establishing some of these centers at this institution. I talked with the Deans, and they’ll talk with their departments to solicit proposals that will require funding for that end. So, mostly, I wanted to let you know about it and show you what the Governor has proposed so that no one is surprised. It looks to me that it is something that will happen, and we want to be involved.
FA: A document I saw this morning also indicated merit pay for people in the Centers of Excellence.
Admin: There’s a second piece and is basically that -- competitive salaries.
Admin: There are a couple of other specific initiatives identified in the proposal. If you do a proposal for a Center of Excellence, you would also want to ask for additional salary dollars to accomplish that. As you can see on the proposal, specific disciplines are identified, and proposals would have to fall in these categories (referred to the handout), so this is for your info. People in some departments will be asked to participate. I would like us to submit at least three proposals – the most we would get is two, but I want to submit three.
FA: I’m assuming these are public documents. I think it would be helpful if we could circulate this to Faculty Senate.
Admin: This is online. This is available on the Minnesota Governor’s page. Why don’t you print it out, scan it, and send it to her! (laughter)
FA: One of the e-mails from Russ Stanton has a direct link to these documents.
Admin: I’ll e-mail it to you.
FA: Sure -- go ahead and make it a link on that budget page.
Admin: Is this your screen saver, Diana? (laughter)
Admin: Anything else on that topic?
(No.)
10. One-time budget allocations (Admin) (2/3/05)
Admin: I want to note President Saigo has sent out a list, and we’re soliciting feedback and comments. If you have any reactions or responses, we’d like to know.
FA: I gave to this to Senate on Tuesday, and I sent an e-mail this morning saying to look at it. I’m not sure what else we can do. Our Budget Committee is meeting next Tuesday.
FA: Although Senate hasn’t commented on that officially, I think they would support that idea, and we’re very grateful for your letter and for allocations and everything you’re sharing with the university community, and we appreciate the work.
Admin: The staff did a lot of work.
Admin: The last sheet is the one-time money and the last sheet attached is some numbers, projections around ‘06 and ‘07 budget predicated on projections, and we have to guess at compensation, and you have to guess at supplies and equipment costs, and you have to decide on tuition income and on state appropriation; and we’ll know none of those before July 1 -- we’ll guess what they are, but we’ll operate on a budget with those assumptions. Implicit is enrollment, so we’d like to hear what people think about enrollment and retention. It’s real and it’s affecting us – it’s not an esoteric discussion. If we get there, it will be good. We’d prefer folks talk about it. I’ve talked to bargaining units. There may be a lot of individuals with interest. In addition to the one- time money, this is the time to start looking at what those projections are -- hindsight is great… I encourage you to make comments now.
FA: When you do enrollment projections, you changed them to 14,200; but we’re not even going to have this.
Admin: We’ll be pretty close.
FA: Why are we doing 14,200 and 14,250?
Admin: That’s the information I received from Enrollment Management received at the President’s Council and approved.
FA: Our understanding is the number of students graduating from high school will go down.
Admin: The number is flat, so it’s not changing much.
Admin: This is why we want to focus on retention.
FA: Is it realistic if we focus on retention now we’ll have accomplished that goal for next year, or are we doing this because you won’t try if we say let’s let it slide?
Admin: Retention can offset this.
FA: I understand.
Admin: We’re trying to focus more attention on recruitment and retention and the combination of those two will help us achieve this target.
FA: So, by next fall, we’ll have successes – what the 14,200 means.
FA: I’m ignorant about budgets. Our approach at private schools is to target enrollment and budget for less. Is there a downside to the way we’re doing this -- so our budget doesn’t go “out of whack”?
Admin: We can certainly do that but, that was what came out of the budget audit, and one of those things our previous administration was good at rearranging -- enrollment numbers. We used to go out and submit a number to MnSCU, and we’d have an internal budget number, and that caused problems.
FA: I wasn’t suggesting that.
FA: So you submit 14,200 to MnSCU -- what effect does that have on allocation? Is that what they give us back, so is there an advantage? Do we get less from them if we just say 14,000?
Admin: In some areas, yes; but another thing is what others we look at; i.e., Mankato, and what they’re doing and other state universities in the system – they don’t like numbers going down. You know -- politics. “What are you doing going down if everyone is creeping up 2 percent”?
FA: The answer is some of these numbers is what MnSCU expects us to tell them?
Admin: Not entirely.
Admin: When I came, I had piles of literature; and everything I read over a couple of days said we have the largest enrollment in MnSCU -- a flagship and on and on. If I were Dick Davenport, I would take over SCSU in enrollment. So, I’ve been at places where enrollment slides and you’ll go way down before you come back up. Enrollment Management people guess on this -- tuition, salaries, health care, energy; and then you try to come out in the black at the end of the year. That is what Steve is trying to say -- if we had all of these figures, it would be easy to predict. Credit taking has improved as we’ve had advisors. The Graduate Program is continuing to grow, and we’re only a few students behind Mankato in graduate enrollment. I would like to say “alright, we are the flagship and we are moving ahead on positive issues.” We do have a budget for Strategic Planning, we do have accountability, and we are a superb institution. Today, I had lunch with some faculty. John Harlander was a musician, and he has created optical machinery that went off into space. We have outstanding people here. I’d like us to say we are a flagship, and let’s start acting like it instead of “poor old us.” We’ve tried to keep things as transparent as possible and share and get input. The good news is we’ve tried to share openly, and more faculty today see this. I think more people are more aware of the process and complexity than before. It came because we had an increase in size in classrooms, we didn’t replace faculty, so we’ll fix those things as we go on. We are in a good place, today, so thank you.
FA: Several people have asked what kind of timeline is there in deciding if this is a firm list. Many people are seeing money for things they need.
Admin: There are two pieces -- one was funding identified for immediate release, and that money has been transferred and is available now; and the most recent list is for April.
FA: The one we were given on Monday?
Admin: Within weeks.
Admin: The timeline we talked about was April.
Admin: The President sent an e-mail in November, and that timeline is April. It varied by immediate needs and we’re following the schedule. We’re going to get it done in time so funds are available this year -- funds for this year intended to be made available before we have to close the books.
FA: This week, we got an e-mail with three documents in it, and one of them showed where the money would be spent. Will that money be released sometime in April?
Admin: That was a proposal on how to spend some of that money.
FA: You’re asking for feedback, and the decision will be made in March. Attached to this (e-mail) was a document – a sort of budget estimate, and you’re asking for feedback on the scenarios -- should we change or mix the parameters. If we agree on the scenarios, then we’ll agree on how to spend this money we haven’t committed to, and this will happen according to the timeline where decisions will be made in April?
Admin: Yes, and after this meeting, I wanted to ask if it would be appropriate for me to come (to the FA Budget Committee meeting). At that time, we can talk about what the Governor has in his proposal and MnSCU.
FA: Thank you.
FA: I just want to say thank you for the budget explanation. I thought why aren’t we budgeting revenues low and expenses high, and your explanation is certainly helpful, and it helps me to view those projections in a different way.
Adjourned at 4:25 PM.