Final Approved May 12, 2005
Meet and Confer Notes
March 31, 2005
Admin: Roy Saigo, Michael Spitzer, Lin Holder, Steve Ludwig, Anne Zemek de Dominguez, John Burgeson, Diana Burlison, Larry Chambers, Nathan Church, Roland Specht-Jarvis, Patty Dyslin - note taker
Faculty: Annette Schoenberger, Judy Kilborn, Theresia Fisher, JoAnn Gasparino, Susan Motin, Steve Hornstein, P.N. Subba, Tony Akubue, John Hill
Meeting called to order: 3:05 p.m.
Meet and Confer Notes of February 24, 2005 and March 17, 2005 – .approved
The President and the Provost need to leave the meeting at 4:00pm so, we will be covering the topics listed below. If time permits we will start on the remaining topics that are not in italics.
1. Status of the Affirmative Action Search (FA) (2/3/05)
FA: The senate supports it and we have two questions requiring clarification: What was the title of the position - Director of Affirmative Action - shouldn't it also be and social equity?
AD: No.
FA: I thought we talked about and it was decided last year.
AD: Yes it was, but what happened was towards the end of the search, the search committee, before it disbanded, made a recommendation to the president that the title was frightening and perhaps misleading and that we would have better luck simply returning to the original title of Director of Equal Employment, excuse me, Director of Affirmative Action, and he agreed to that and he agreed to some other things in regards to the recommendations.
FA: Did it change the job description?
AD: No.
FA: So there will be a search committee and the university will be hiring an independent search firm. All we wanted to know is a little bit more the relationship between the search committee and the search firm.
AD: Michael asked me to speak on this and I will based on the search committee we ran in conjunction with the search firm when we hired the provost. The search committee and John, I believe, was the chair of that search committee, or co-chair, and the search committee basically did their job as most search committees do according to the affirmative action manual. The role of the search firm was to go out and recruit candidates to bring forth to the search committee for review. Isn't that pretty much…
AD: Pretty much, and they ran, they helped us through some of the candidate interviews, etc.
FA: So the search committee, essentially directed what the search firm did for them.
AD: No. An RFP, request for proposal, was put forth…
FA: Who's developing the RFP?
AD: The president's office and president.
FA: What role does the search committee have in creating the RFP?
AD: None.
AD: It's a pretty straight-forward process listing what the role of the search firm would be.
FA: A faculty member I spoke to the other day responded very positively to the use of the search firm before. I guess what most of these questions are related to is: how is this similar to - how is this different from the use of the search committee before?
AD: I was on one end of that process and not the other, but I assume it would be the same.
AD: Search firms never, I mean, they don't make decisions. It's not their job. They are never asked to function in that capacity.
AD: There are a number of searches going on in the MNSCU system. Basically they interview, screen and look and the strengths of the applicants and compare them to our needs. They encourage people to apply and a lot of times they will get people who are not looking for jobs. Then the search committee interviews and goes through the process and we make our selection.
FA: Is that it?
AD: I believe was a, wasn't there a timeline that was to be submitted - is that correct?
FA: No. We gave them the timeline and they were supposed to comment on it.
AD: Ok. Have you gotten a response to that?
FA: Yes. They supported this document, but just had these questions to figure out.
AD: Although the timeline is probably off now by about 2-3 weeks.
FA: Are we that far off of it? Well, yeah. But we still ought to be able to get a search committee by the end of Spring. That's why they were asking about writing the RFP. Because if the search committee's not involved in that, if they weren't last time…
AD: Can we rephrase that you support the elements of the timeline and the dates that fit?
AD: It's really a pretty standard thing and there's nothing controversial. It's mostly just a statement of the processes that are to be followed and the terms and conditions for the firm.
FA: I think that as a faculty we're in agreement with the process but the questions arose, I mean, if we're supposed to be a part of something, then we need to be there. So that's where the 2 questions came from. The process is what they responded positively to and the questions were just for clarification.
FA: OK. Can we take this one off?
AD: Yes.
2. Grade Changes without notification of faculty: Motion from the Senate (FA) (2/24/05)
FA: If we could back peddle a little bit on this issue. Let me just say that it was not our intention to disrespect anyone and if we have done so, I apologize. What we're concerned about and what I think that the administration is concerned about also is that those grade change forms are pretty unsecured and what we would like is just some notification if a grade is changed. So if it's changed by a faculty member then we would ask that that faculty member's name is on there and is returned to the faculty member. And if it's changed by Academic Affairs for a lot of the personal type reasons that Lin, you were talking about before, we're wondering if we can just get notification of that grade change - just the fact that Academic Affairs changed it and nothing else. Is it possible that we could work on something like this together?
AD: I think we could work with you on this. I think it's - there are two limitations. One is that we can't do anything to violate student privacy under certain circumstances - if we all understand that. The second thing is that there is an administrative responsibility to maintain that ability to change grades that we talked about before that is reflected in our grade appeal policy. But that doesn't specify anything about how we can work together and talk to each other about it. I would put it actually as kind of a two-sided thing. One is what we could probably do and one is what I would ask you to do as faculty. I think you're right. When it comes right down to it, we're all concerned about the security of the grade-change procedure. If we can do some things that would improve the security of the the grade-change procedure, I think that that includes everybody. The thing that we will work on is to try to find some way within in those two parameters of not violating student privacy and maintaining administration's responsibility for some kinds of grade changes, we'll try to find a way that we can notify faculty when a grade is changed outside the grade appeal policy. We already have a provision in the grade appeal policy that we're in agreement on that would always notify faculty if it's the result of a grade appeal. We'll work on some way we can provide you with notification. Probably back to the department because faculty sometimes are gone and then the department can be sure that the individual faculty member is notified by whatever procedures they want to set up. It will probably be pretty simple, as you suggested. Probably a half-page form that notifies the student and the faculty. So we'll work on that.
FA: OK. Thank you.
AD: It won't happen yet this year, it's too close to the end of the year for that, but we'll try to have something. It is a fairly labor-intensive process. We have to figure out, if it's done in our office, how do we do that. Each one is labor intensive and it does get to be a burden for somebody to fill out the form and send it out. So we need to talk to registration and decide who will be responsible for processing that form. The other side of it, which I think comes back to what we're saying about grade changes. I think we need to look at that issue. I would like to ask the faculty to come back to us with a policy recommendation. There are a couple of significant issues that I would like faculty to bring us recommendations on. One is: how long should faculty keep grade records. We don’t have a policy on that. So faculty are kind of left up to their own devices as to what they're going to do. Some keep everything forever, some keep nothing - they turn in their grades and it's gone. We always recommended in the past that faculty keep pretty detailed records at least through the period of grade appeal so that if anything did come up then they would be protected - they would have more data to be able to support them. But I suspect that's pretty normal. It would be better if we had a faculty derived policy about what kind of records should be kept and for how long - and what should they do with them when they leave or retire. Maybe they should be retained by the department. Right now faculty get a final grade sheet - that's all they get. So please think about this and get back to us with your recommendations. the second piece of it is specifically about grade changes. Right now, as you say, that form isn't properly secured and they're not very informative. We would like to identify right away, the reason for the grade change. so that we have some identification as to why the grade was changed (i.e. clerical error, etc.). The next step would be to determine how long should a faculty member or anybody should be able to change a grade. There ought to be some time when a grade change might be recommended to a peer review committee. So how long would the faculty be able to change the grade with a simple explanation and at what point might we ask it to go to a faculty committee before we agree to a grade change. Is there ever a case, beyond a certain number of years, when a grade change can't be made at all without some huge exception process. We say the credits are valid for 7 years without having to be evaluated. So, if we want to place a limit like that, we'd say that after 7 years no one can change the grade without some review process. There always has to be a process for exceptions. That's what we'd like to say: right now could we could add a statement on the half page that asks for academic explanation. And I think you're right, there has to be a check and balance - there has to be a way to verify grade changes and the faculty should always be notified when the grade is changed.
FA: You make a lot of good points Lin. It's clear that you have a lot of knowledge about this. Would it be helpful for senate or a subcommittee for you to summarize this in a memo and then I could distribute it and get back to you and work together on it?
AD: It would be good to have an answer on the explanation information as soon as possible.
FA: It needs to be clear that the faculty member wants notification of the grade change no matter who did it. So even if…no matter who did it- not just if their name is on the thing. We want it no matter who did it.
FA: Is it because you've had instances of this earlier or are you being proactive?
AD: We've really thought about this for awhile, it has been a concern of faculty. I have consulted extensively with faculty. A faculty member will call and will have had a student that they had in class 5 years ago come back and request to redo the work and get a grade change. The faculty member will say 'I don't know how to respond to that.' Right now we wouldn't have a policy that would help that faculty member know what should take place. I usually advise the faculty member 'It's really up to you, but I would advise you not to change your grade this far after the person was in your class. Now there's no policy that prevents you from doing that.' But this is without peer review and it really puts faculty on the spot. I also tell them 'You can choose not to do this and it's very sensible that you would choose not to do it. University faculty are not required to make a grade change just because this student comes and asks you to make a grade change.' So there are a few things over the years when an exception has been made to change a grade. But I think those occasions are rare.
FA: Lin, those are really terrific thoughts - would you say them again so I can write them down? (laughter)
FA: She's going to send me a note.
FA: I was just kidding…
AD: I would add, most universities do have policies in these areas and that we don't is something we can remedy.
3. How do we deal with issues before they become issues (Admin) (2/24/05)
AD: I just wanted to bring that up and the issues that we'd like to talk about in the future. Again, we've been seeing a lot of interest on Ward Churchill and there's the Horowitz academic bill of rights - have you all heard about these things - and I think there are about 6 or 7 states that are ready to adopt this Horowitz bill of rights and how is that going to affect what we say in the classroom? I just want us to start thinking ahead on things of that nature that could come upon us while we're sitting here talking about some other issues. These are, I think, far-reaching and have a lot to do with academic freedom, freedom of speech and they're huge. I think there's an article in the Trib today - so this is rampant. We need to be aware as academicians to talk about what we think. I would like to set aside a time where we could think of an issue or issues and the topic would be something to deal with: what would be the two or three topics that we could discuss for the best interest of moving the university forward that we haven't discussed before. I keep coming back to that because we spend a lot of time, and I know it's productive, on searches and the process and all. But I think an issue like Ward Churchill's is huge and that it may involve us and it may involve us beyond what we would think.
FA: I'm very supportive of that. In fact, I came across what I thought were a couple of really important issues for our future and didn't quite know what to do with them so I sent one to President Saigo, I sent another one to Dean Tornquist. We don't have a process by which - all of these cutting edge issues come to us and we want to be collaborative, but we don't have a way to really deal with those.
AD: You know, one of the things we might be able to do, if we can identify topics like this one and some others, is organize an event on campus where we might be able to bring in a speaker and then initiate a kind of campus-wide dialogue on some of these topics. We've had some discussion on the announce and discuss list regarding this, but there are issues that in fact, walk themselves into some of our classrooms around some of those topics.
AD: Also, the last 2 or 3 days, although Michael has been in close contact with Frank Cerra, the Vice President for Health Services at the University of Minnesota, but you know, they have come up with a taskforce that recommends eliminating two colleges. How will these issues affect us? That's a real huge concern - which way the state is going. I can't tell you more than this. I can tell you that a couple of searches we've had, one especially, the money wasn't good enough and we will continue to have difficulty replacing faculty and administrative posts. So as much time as we spend on the process, the reality is we won't have the money and resources and security for faculty and staff to want to come here. And we're really hurting ourselves. The state is reducing their support of k-12 and higher education more and more and more, so we've got to turn this around. I'd like to be at some point where we can talk about issues that areaffecting the foundation of this institution.
FA: The article that I sent outlined that state universities are going from state funded to state located.
FA: So are you saying - let's use some portion of the meet and confer to brainstorm?
AD: And to have a discussion so that we can frame the issue and identify 3 or 4 parameters and then maybe we can give it off to a subcommittee to come back with a more full report. I'm not very good at just talking about issues and then having an intellectual epiphany. But I'd like to then put steps behind it and solve some of the things within the next year. I think these are real serious. I talked with Bob Bruininks two or three times last year. They've been dealing with General College over 5 or 10 years. Those are issues that they're finally confronting because they can't survive the way they have been. Michael's been talking with Frank Cerra about physical therapy, occupational therapy, radiation therapy and 2 or 3 others, we need to pick that up. How does that affect us and how does that affect our enrollment for the future? So we can't go blindly. We could pass these off to a task force or a subcommittee. But this group, synergistically, must come up with parameters and even identify the issues. Right now we're not identifying the issues, nor are we discussing ways in which we can resolve them. And the strategic planning committee is looking more narrowly, while I'm looking more broadly and these issues are coming up weekly now.
4. International Studies Committee Motions re: Program specific budgets, Approval of the China Program, Notification of which programs were reinstated. (FA)(3/31/05)
FA: Our international studies committee had 3 things they wanted us to bring to meet and confer. One of them was, I think I gave you a copy of that proposal for discretionary budgets? This one talks about the British studies program but I think they were interested in doing this for more than just that. I gave the proposal to the provost yesterday.
AD: I haven't had a chance to study that yet.
FA: Ok. There seems to be a problem that when a director goes to a program they really don't have any access to any information about the budget. So when they have ideas to do things, they're not able to do them. So this was a solution to that issue. The other one was, they'd actually like a list of the programs that were supported or approved for this summer and then which ones were originally uninstated and then which ones got reinstated. I think one of the committee members was telling me that it wasn't even clear that the people who were involved in those programs were even notified. I don't know that, but there was some concern so we thought that when the programs were finally approved, if the letters got sent. I think you sent us a letter for the approval, but when they took that away, they didn't get another. We weren't informed of that.
AD: When you say "we" are you talking about the faculty involved?
FA: Yes. The faculty, the association and the international studies committee. The association is informed of the programs that get approved but then we're not informed when a program is taken back for whatever reason. And we weren't informed about those that were reinstated so they would like a complete list for the committee.
AD: OK.
FA: And then the other one was apparently there was a program that was to go to China, but the committee didn't feel that the criteria had been met and they recommended against approving it because the proposal wasn't complete and yet that program was approved. To the best of their knowledge, that program has very few students. So they're wondering how it is that - what's special about that - that that program can be done.
FA: The program directors would like complete information - they want to have access to budget information throughout. Apparently it is very difficult for them to find out what their budget information is - how much money they have left to spend. They need that information.
FA: And also they would like some discretionary budget.
FA: Right. That's the other issue.
AD: We'll look at the budget stuff and get back to you on that.
5. General Education Revision Document (FA) (3/31/05)
FA: President Saigo and Provost Spitzer, you have copies of the gen ed position paper - it is also posted on the Web. First of all I wanted to comment on how that document was put together so that it's public knowledge. A subcommittee of strategic planning that was focusing on general education wrote that position paper based on the conversations that we've had for years and filtered it through to the faculty general education committee and we share one common person - Judy Litterst. She took it to the general ed faculty committee who responded and we revised it from their responses. It went through several cycles and was approved by strategic planning who voted to forward it to both of you and also to faculty senate. At the same time there was a parallel motion from the general education faculty committee that it be forwarded to senate. On Tuesday, the senate approved a motion that it be sent to the departments for commentary and then that that commentary be brought back to senate on April 12th. Our intention is to start the conversation, that will be a long and involved conversation, about gen ed revisions. It will be bolstered, as you both know, by the conversations on faculty forum day when John Gardner comes and the meetings that strategic planning and the gen ed faculty committee will have with John Gardner, as well as other open forums that general education faculty will sponsor. Are there any questions or discussion? We'll certainly see the results as the discussions unfold.
AD: I think the 2 committees involved and the faculty need to be commended for taking on this task. The revision of the gen ed program and the review of our gen ed program are critically important to the future direction of the university and the success of our students. There are institutions in this country where they are trying to review or revise gen ed and it's not a very happy experience. It takes a good deal of effort and time and courage to undertake an effort to revise general education and I'm really pleased that the faculty are willing to make that effort and go through the difficult process that it entails and thank you for that.
FA: I would like to add that Dr. Mark Nook has been very helpful in working with strategic planning and Judy Litterist.
FA: And also, I should put on the record that there have been three people who have chaired the gen ed subcommittee. Mark is one of them, Brenda Wentworth is another one, and Judy Litterist. And Brenda also brings in some very helpful expertise on university curriculum committee. There's a lot of historical background on that subject.
AD: Now, you're going to have this process done in about 6 weeks?
FA: I'm thinking 5.
AD: Ok. But I do think it would be helpful if there's a calendar.
FA: Actually, a calendar will be coming fairly soon.
FA: Is that all we have to say about that?
PARKING RAMPS - new agenda item
FA: Parking is always a favorite topic. (laughter)
AD: I've handed out a summary of information about the parking ramp. On page 2 we are proposing a 5% increase in parking rates next year and increased rates for the next three years and the sheet goes on to show projected rates into the future with an assumption about inflation and assumptions about the construction of a parking ramp. So the first page shows sources of funds for the parking ramp and then uses of funds for that project, and then the additional revenue stream that we hope to realize. The other thing that we're planning to do is, we've finally been able to coordinate our parking ticketing and our parking permit system with our accounts receivable. So we will be able to collect tickets more expediently, and so in deference to that, we'd like to take people that maybe just get the occasional ticket (they forgot their permit) and so if they pay their ticket in 5 days, it's $10 rather than the $20 currently charged. This does not apply to people with multiple tickets or chronic violators. The system will also allow us to be more persistent in catching up with those folks. So that's the proposal. We'd like to hear back from you. Much of it is forward-looking out the next year to a couple of years, but the imminent thing is the 5% increase in parking rates to cover the cost of operation.
FA: We need a pay raise…(laughter)
FA: Will this be wider that it is tall?
AD: Yes. It will be on the order of 100+ feet wide and it's not that tall.
FA: So what - 3 stories?
AD: 3 or 4
FA: We just don't want it to be an eyesore.
AD: This is not funded by the state. It is funded by revenue bonds and our own funds. So there will be artwork there and there will be artwork for Lawrence.
FA: Where is the parking structure in the master plan going to be?
AD: Several sites have been identified. The recommended site is across from the Miller Center.
AD: We presented this to the university council on Monday and brought it to MAPE and MnSCU - we need fairly uniform acceptance of the project before we can move forward. Also, Public Safety will be housed in the new facility. This plan was also presented to students and they are requesting that we consider issuing half-day permits - 7 a.m. to noon and 1 -5 p.m. So we're going to do that.
FA: It wouldn't necessarily increase the revenue, but it would increase the number of students who are able to actually use the lot.
AD: It probably would do both because we can't keep it filled.
FA: So you're not able to sell all the permits for this?
AD: We're able to sell the permits per se in our daily lots, especially our student lots, we tend to oversell them. The students have identified the reason we can't get that lot to work. We're going to try that this year.
FA: So what would be the significance of the comments you'll be soliciting?
AD: We could make revisions, just as the students suggested about this. That's not in our policy and procedure now and so we could make revisions. Some people might have comments about the increases, I don't know… but we try to take into consideration what people have to say.
FA: So the increase is pretty much a done deal.
AD: Pretty much. This year, we're about $100,000 in the red on about a $900,000 budget. We have a reserve. During this year, we've added 32 stalls during the construction of the stadium that are a pay lot. We should realize additional income. The pay lots tend to have the greatest income per stall of any of the lots on campus. I think our change in the ticketing program will improve our revenue from ticketing and also improve our compliance with the regulations. That will make some of the parking more valuable to people. There have been increases in labor and fuel and student wages, which are significant…
FA: We need to adjourn.