Meet and Confer Notes – Final Approved 10-19-06
September 28, 2006
Administration: President Saigo, Provost Spitzer, Wanda Overland, Steve Ludwig, Dennis Nunes, Rex Veeder, Mitchell Rubenstein, Mark Nook, Kristi Tornquist
Faculty: Annette Schoenberger, Bob Inkster, Jason Lindsey, Jayantha Herath, Andrew Larkin, Steve Hornstein, Bill Langen, John Palmer, Joann Gasparino, Fred Hill, Balsy Kasi
Minutes of September 7, 2006 – Approved
Old Business:
1. Academic Freedom Report Recommendation (FA –02-02-2006)
FA: At Senate on Tuesday, we appointed Dien Phan, Christine Imbra, Kristof Van Assche, Steven Anderson and Christopher Jordan to the task force. Administration has three members too. Who are your three members and who is going to convene the committee?
AD: Rex Veeder, Anne Zemek de Dominguez, and Michael Spitzer. Can I get those names?
FA: We’re wondering whose going to convene the committee?
AD: Rex Veeder.
FA: So Rex will convene the meeting?
AD: I’ll convene the meeting.
AD: Can this come off the agenda?
FA: Do you want to put it down with the progress reports?
AD: It’s kind of early to get a progress report. We can bring it back when we have something to report.
FA: Alright.
2. Maintaining Class Records (Admin – 03-02-2006)
FA: Last spring, I actually went back to the Meet and Confer Notes, when this first came up, the issue you first asked about was grade appeals. We came last spring with a policy that would work for us and we worked it out. Then you said you had this other issue about ultra late withdrawals. I kept looking back at things and we have this academic policy workgroup that we agreed to have. I’m thinking that’s the place that the ultra-late withdrawal issue should go. It’s one of those academic policies they should be working on. Last time there was something about – maybe it was ultra-late withdrawals – it was something you brought last time…
AD: Last time we brought a late withdrawal policy, but what we brought was not the policy, because that’s been approved for some time. What we looked at was the application form that the students fill out to request a late withdrawal.
FA: What we’re thinking is that those things should go to that workgroup and they should be looking at that. What they need to do is kind of have minutes and documentation of what they’re doing and send it to Senate, and then Senate can discuss it. Once that’s finally done, then we can talk about it at Meet and Confer. I think that’s a more efficient way of getting that done.
AD: That subject did come up at the last meeting, David brought it up, and we’ll look into that. We really don’t want the pressure on at Meet and Confer to either be looking at something fresh.
FA: David is the chair of our Academic Affairs Committee so any kind of discussion that he wants to get a broader opinion on before it goes to the Senate, he can take it back to the Academic Affairs Committee.
AD: This discussion has already started and we’ll look into that.
FA: I would also ask that when you bring these, they be clearly labeled as to who has created them, where they come from, and dates and things on them. Sometimes, when I get them back to my office I think, where did this come from; who created this; who worked on it? It’s more useful if I know those things.
AD: Okay. So we’re going to refer this to that group? Are we going to do the same with the assessment of prior learning application form?
FA: Yes, that would be great. Did that come from them?
AD: No. The Assessment for Prior Learning is a policy that’s….
FA: Already been approved.
AD: Both of those are policies that have already been approved.
FA: It’s that form….
AD: It’s the application for it that we need approved.
FA: That’s a good idea. I was going to ask Senate to refer that to the Academic Affairs Committee. It might be more efficient to have them…
AD: So you’d like proposals for policies as well as proposals for forms to go to that committee first?
FA: Yes. Have them work on it. I think that’s the most efficient way to get that done.
AD: We can do that.
AD: As a member of that committee, one of the things being recommended is the maintenance of class records. Is that true? Is that what we’re saying we want them to work on as well as the assessment of prior learning?
FA: Yes.
AD: Yes.
FA: It has something to do with the ultra-late withdrawals.
AD: We have a late withdrawal policy and we have a form that the committee has already pulled out, but we didn’t address how long faculty should hang on to their records.
FA: Right.
AD: That’s the one that’s on the agenda.
FA: Right.
AD: We did do that and we approved the policy on maintaining class records for current faculty and for faculty who are leaving, but we raised the issue with regard to that… and I think the reason for the distinction is because of the short date that we have on the policy for maintaining class records. The second item has to do with medical withdrawals or other withdrawals that come up sometime after a semester has ended and how we address those. A student, for instance, who may have been called up to active military duty and comes back after a year and says “I didn’t withdraw from my classes, I’d like to withdraw.” That sort of issue.
FA: There was a discussion also of what kind of records need to be kept and where those would be kept. All of that, it seems, is academic policy. So they should work on it and get some sort of an agreement before we go ahead. Is that okay?
AD: Yes.
FA: Do you want to take this off now?
AD: Yes, and it will come back when it comes back. And the same with item number eight.
FA: Okay.
3. Template on Teaching Schedule/Contact Hours (FA – 10-20-2005)
FA: This is what Senate approved on, it think…
FA: The 12th of September.
FA: September 12th. The changes are marked on there.
AD: Do you have any more copies of that? They didn’t get over here.
FA: No. That’s all I’ve got.
AD: Since Kristi was on the working group…
FA: So you’ll look at that and come back with comments?
AD: Yes.
4 CETL Reporting Structure (Admin – 4-27-2006)
AD: The Center for Excellence in Teaching and Learning and the Center for Holocaust and Genocide Education are both kind of stand-alone centers that I would like to have reporting to the Assistant V.P. for Faculty Relations for EPT purposes. A group of members of the advisory committee and of the department in which the individual teaches would make personnel recommendations on behalf of that individual. As far as I know, the advisory group for both of these has been apprised of this and that’s not a problem. Right now the director of CETL reports to the Dean of Undergraduate Studies. There was a reason for doing that in the first instance but that reason seems to have gone away because it had to do a lot with training tutors to work with some of the centers where we do tutoring. Now that activity is being done elsewhere.
FA: We may need an MOA for that because the contract doesn’t have any language in it that allows advisory groups to be the primary….
AD: We did talk about that. If you need an MOA we’ll construct one.
FA: Could you write this down so I have something I can send?
AD: Yes.
FA: Can this happen immediately or does it have to wait until March 1st?
AD: We’re not changing any rostering.
FA: So you’re not rostering?
AD: Right.
FA: Okay. So you can change that reporting structure right now. I think the problem is going to be with…
AD: The evaluation process?
FA: The evaluation process. So write down what you think it’s going to be so I can talk about it.
AD: Okay.
FA: Ordinarily, the department or unit that the person is rostered in will make the first recommendation on personnel matters. I think, if I understand the proposal correctly, there would be a surrogate for that entity, recognizing that the people serve as directors of those two centers have unique assignments.
AD: Correct.
FA: So what we’re saying is, we need a different way to make the initial review and evaluation on personnel matters.
AD: Correct.
FA: But they would remain rostered in their departments…
AD: Yes.
FA: So when they’re done, the departments would have them.
AD: They would return to the departments.
AD: I would think that the advisory board, for that review, there should probably be somebody from the department.
AD: I said, the advisory board and the departmental representatives…
FA: Okay.
FA: As we develop this policy, I have no problem until we get to the tenure decision. When we get to the tenure decision, what’s happening is, the person is being tenured in that department. So my concern is when that decision is made by a body that’s not that department. So perhaps for PDP purposes, you might have a joint committee. But for Article 25 purpose, for tenure, maybe you want two separate recommendations – one from the department and one from the advisory committee – simply because I think it’s crucial that the department be able to speak as a department about a member being tenured in that department. Unfortunately, that puts the faculty member in a funny position.
AD: It does, and it creates an issue if the faculty member’s not already tenured.
FA: Yes.
AD: I understand the point you’re making. The person in the difficult spot is the faculty member involved because the department might well say, we haven’t observed this person’s work in two years, so in some ways it’s important to make sure that the person in one of those positions is already tenured.
FA: That’s obvious. Yes.
AD: We’ll write something up and provide you a copy of it.
FA: So I can take it to the IFO and see if we need a…
AD: Right.
FA: Okay
5. Reassigned Time (FA – 5-4-2006)
FA: Article 20 of the Agreement, Section I, describes the requirement that the administration provide a list of directors and coordinators that have been given reassign time. We are then to Meet and Confer before the end of the Spring semester. From what I gather in hearing the discussion when this item was on the agenda at the last Meet and Confer, we haven’t done that for last fiscal year. I believe that what we asked for is that which is covered by Section I of Article 20.
AD: You’re right.
FA: So the question then becomes, do we have a sense of when we ….
AD: Did we not get you a list of the folks with reassign time from HR?
FA: I don’t have any…..
AD: HR was going to provide that.
FA: No. I don’t have any… I can’t find it anywhere if I got it.
AD: That was a different list.
FA: We got a list of people who worked overload.
AD: Yes.
FA: We got the overload and adjunct list, which we had asked for.
AD: Okay. We’ll get it for you.
6. Applied Doctorates (FA – 9-7-2006)
FA: We’re just wondering how that’s going. I know that the UCC was going to address the Higher Ed today, but I don’t know what results they had. I was wondering if you guys had any more to say about it.
AD: What I have heard, and this is all informal because I haven’t received an official communication from UCC, is that they tabled it for consideration next week. They’re planning to act on it next week.
FA: Okay.
AD: And if they do, to get it to the Senate.
FA: Alright.
AD: Again, that’s not official.
FA: Okay, I don’t know what happened. We don’t really know anything about this is what it comes down to.
7. Searches in Academic Affairs (Admin – 9-7-2006)
FA: Referring to Article 6.b2, we’re asking where we are on that? What’s the progress on the searches? Are there qualifications…
AD: I have job descriptions for the positions which I have brought here. They need to be reviewed by Human Resources to see if they need to be reviewed by MnSCU because there have been some modifications to both job descriptions. I would like to do that before providing you with the job descriptions. At this time, I would like to request members for search committees for those two positions that are now interim that we’re planning to search – Associate Vice President for Academic Affairs and Assistant Vice President for Academic Affairs.. I should be able to provide job descriptions within a week.
FA: Does one of the titles include the word curriculum?
AD: The Associate Vice President position will be in charge of curriculum and the Assistant Vice President position includes faculty relations.
FA: What do you think these committees should look like?
AD: They should have fairly broad representation; 6 Faculty and 2-3 Administrators.
FA: Will there be one or two committees?
AD: Two committees. The search committee for the AVP for International Studies has identified 3 finalists. They will come to campus in mid October.
AD: You’re not afraid of losing the other two?
AD: Those folks are still available.
FA: Are there any other questions? When will you have the job descriptions?
AD: As soon as I get them back from HR.
AD: They just got to HR today
FA: What does that mean?
AD: That they got them today so they haven’t had a chance to review them.
FA: We need to see these as soon as possible.
AD: I understand.
FA: Is that it? We already did agenda item 8 and will be passing on 9.
(Note: the digital recorder malfunctioned at this point – minutes are not verbatim from this point on)
10. Task Force for International Programs (Admin – 9-7-2006)
AD: We wanted to talk about forming a group to review the current way we handle and coordinate international programs. Essentially, we have semester, intersession, exchange and relationships with other universities. We’d like this group to review what level of support, including budgetary support, these programs need and what role CIS can play in promoting them to students. We need to decide and evaluate if we want them to do more in these areas. We would like to have a group look at this and come up with some recommendations.
FA: We already have an international studies committee and a CIS advisory committee. We are concerned about a proliferation of bodies working on the same turf.
AD: It is my understanding that the International Studies Committee works with reviewing specific programs and identifies faculty leaders for the Alnwick program. The advisory group is supposed to discuss how we support students who are here. I’m not talking about a standing committee. I would like a taskforce to look at the issues, make some recommendations and then their work will be finished.
FA: Who is on the CIS Advisory Committee? I think it has a bunch of faculty and students on it.
AD: I’m not sure who’s on it. It seems to me that their charge is limited to a specific center of activities. What I’m looking for is a group to review and make recommendations about how we structure CIS so that it provides maximum service to its many constituents.
FA: We’re very sensitive to the whole issue. You can be sure we will look at this seriously. We will take this to our International Studies Committee for discussion. We are concerned that we have several bodies already that seem to be doing work in the same area. We are concerned that the formation of another group will result duplicating efforts in the same area and incursion on other committees’ turf.
AD: I don’t have a problem with that.
FA: We will take this back for the benefit of discussion and come back to you with our comments.
FA: Listening to what Michael said, what is the specific charge and timeline for this task force?
AD: The charge would involve the things I was talking about earlier. I can put it in writing if you’d like.
FA: Would this committee have wider faculty representation or representation from other bargaining units?
AD: Yes. Both.
FA: Will you be providing a charge to the committee?
AD: Which committee?
FA: Our International Studies Committee could provide representation on this committee.
AD: That might well work depending on the composition of the committee. It might be a good way to address this.
FA: Our International Studies Committee has 2 representatives from each college, maybe 3.
AD: I thought their focus has been making recommendations on curriculum.
FA: That’s one of the things they do.
AD: It might work to have CIS work with that committee. Ask them if they are willing to do this. I don’t have any specific names of other taskforce members at this point.
FA: Okay. We can do that.
FA: Should we take this off the agenda?
AD: No. Let’s leave it on for now.
11. Budget Advisory Group (Admin – 09-07-2006)
FA We brought this up at the Faculty Senate meeting and take the position that the university follow the model of TLTR with 2 co-chairs – 1 faculty and 1 administrator – with meetings open to the campus community.
AD: I think that’s something we can work with. We still have a lot on the agenda right now. Let’s come back to this next time. Rather that say like TLTR, I would like to say something like modeled after TLTR.
FA: Great.
AD: I appreciate your quick response on this. I didn’t bring this up last spring. That was my mistake. I appreciate you working with us on this. We can work through the details on this.
FA: When would you like to have something on this?
AD: I would like it if we could bring something back next time. That’s next week. We may not be able to do that.
New Business:
1. Presidential Search (FA – 09-28-2006)
FA: A simple question: How many faculty are we going to be asked to provide for this search?
AD: I don’t know.
AD: You were at the meeting for administrators…
AD: I was, but I don’t recall hearing any specific numbers regarding committee make-up.
AD: We were told that the committee would not exceed 11 members. Bill Tschida is the person responsible for determining the make-up of the committee.
AD: What did he say at your meeting?
FA: He hasn’t ruled out a number as high as 6.
FA: When are they hoping to have a hiring decision on this?
AD: They are hoping to have the search completed by March.
AD: he suggested that questions about the search would need to be directed to the Office of the Chancellor.
FA: Our concern is that we respond as quickly as possible. That’s why we’re asking. The timelines are short and we want to make sure we allow for total participation of the bargaining unit.
AD: Wilson Bradshaw will be the chair of the search committee. He is not one of the 11 voting members. He is ex-officio, non-voting.
FA; Is that it?
FA: Yes.
2. Summer Session (Admin – 09-28-2006)
(Dean Dennis Nunes distributed information on the fiduciary results for the 2006 Summer Session. He indicated that we increased our enrollment by 50 FYE over last year while other universities showed a decrease in their summer enrollment. He reviewed the financial information with the group and noted that for every $100 spent, the summer program generated $1.56. He also noted that while allocations for most colleges would increase next year, there were some areas that decreased. He indicated that he would be requesting at increase in funding of 2.5% for summer of 2007.)
FA My college has raised some concerns about this. By your own data, our net income is higher than any other college and yet we will receive decreased funding in 2007.
AD: What really drives this is productivity. That college had the lowest productivity for 2006 and hence, will receive decreased funding for 2007.
FA I understand. My college is asking, if we have higher net income, why should we be receiving less money?
(Dean Nunes explained the formula for the allocations and indicated that if the monies are allocated away from instruction to other areas, the net result will be lower productivity and lower allocations in future years.)
(FA expressed further concern that reducing funding to colleges who are generating more revenue yet receiving less funding could serve as a disincentive. It was also expressed that if colleges receive decreased funding, it could be the beginning of a downward spiral in future funding.)
3. Space Assignment Policy (FA – 09-28-2006)
FA: There is a written policy for space assignments and resolving conflicts. There has been a systematic shift of space from one department to athletics. It appears that the decisions are not being reviewed under the policy. There is concern about this and we are wondering how this would work where there is a conflict between units.
AD: I think our policy covers that. Disputes between departments of the same college are decided by the dean of the college. Disputes between colleges are resolved by Academic Affairs. Are you talking about specific spaces?
(Conversation went off the record for the rest of the discussion)
FA: We want to make sure that deans discuss reassignment of space with their departments.
AD: So noted.
4. General Ed Assessment Committee and Assessment Pilots ( FA – 09-28-2006)
FA: At the Senate meeting, the Senate passed 2 motions that were from the university. The first was a pilot of Gen Ed assessment tests and the creation of a general education assessment committee. There is a description of what that committee might look like.
AD: Without reading this first it would be difficult for me to make any comments.
FA: It’s pretty specific.
AD: What is the timeline?
FA: We need to get going on this as quickly as possible.
AD: How will the director be selected?
FA: How did we choose the Assessment Director?
AD: There was a committee 3 people.
FA: Do you want an answer now?
AD: Yes.
FA: Do you want to caucus?
FA: I don’t think that will be necessary.
AD: We would like to see a committee made up of 2 faculty and Lisa Foss.
FA: What would this person’s title be?
AD: General Education Assessment Director.
FA: Would this position have reassign time?
AD: Yes. It would carry 50% reassign time.
AD: Time is of the essence. We need to get moving on this as soon as possible.
FA: Are we fine with that? Yes, were fine with that.
AD: I will get an announcement out on campus. If you know anybody who could serve please ask them to contact my office.
Progress Reports:
1. Taskforces on Diversity (a.k.a. Motion from Teacher Development) (FA – 09/22/2005)
FA: Has any progress been made on this?
AD: Yes to progress. The committee has had its initial meeting. The committee will be electing a chair(s) at their next meeting as well as looking at the charge and various other issues. The taskforce in the College of Education is in the process of being re-activated. Jeanne LaCourt and Frankie Condon are facilitating that effort.
FA: There was an item I forgot about – the Orientation Taskforce.
AD: Mark will speak to that.
AD: We need to put together plan for student success and part of that plan includes a comprehensive orientation program for students that introduces them to them to the academic, cultural and social life of the university. We need to be working with our new students from the time of admission through their first year.
This group would be a small coordinating body comprised of 2 students, 2 faculty, 2 MSUUASF, and 2 administrators. They would take on the task of planning and coordinating the orientation efforts. I think this committee would really need 3 faculty members.
FA: So you want us to take this to senate and see if they will support it?
AD: What I really want are some names of faculty members who would agree to be part of this committee.
FA: I can give you one faculty member, that would be me (Fred Hill) (note: Balsy Kasi also volunteered to serve)
FA: I am expecting you to be at the Senate meeting.
AD: Thank you.
2. Upper Division Writing Requirement
FA: Has the committee met?
AD: The committee met last Thursday, September 21st. They are reviewing assessment plans for the various programs’ writing requirements. We need to complete this work by the end of this academic year because the first students who are affected by this requirement will reach upper division status by Fall 2007.
FA: How many programs do we have?
AD: Approximately 125, and each program must have an upper division writing requirement.
AD: In our exit interview with ABET, the reviewers were pleased and complimentary of our upper division writing requirements.
FA: That was computer science.
AD: They were very pleased.
AD: They were extremely complimentary.
AD: The committee is planning to meet weekly.
3. Academic Calendar (Admin – 09-07-2006)
AD: The committee’s first meeting will be Wednesday, October 4th. We are hoping to complete our work on the 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 calendars by the end of the Fall semester.
FA: Is Frankie on that committee?
AD: I don’t thinks so.
FA: I would like to make sure the committee consults with her.
AD: We will be sure to do that.
FA: She is in charge of the Faculty convocation activities so it is important that the committee consults with her…
No reports on Global Initiatives (Item 4)or Initiative Funding (Item 5)
6. IPESL Funds (Admin – 09-07-2006)
FA: We sent out a call for names will get them to you as quickly as possible.
AD: I met with the 2 chairs and they are going to follow standard procedures and encourage people to submit proposals.
7. Pandemic Planning (Admin – 09-07-2006)
AD: We have submitted our draft plan which is posted on the Web. MnSCU will submit all plans for State review. We should hear something back in late October. We are encouraging people to look at the Web site. There is information there about personal planning that may be helpful and informative to individuals. We also got direction on personal protection clothing, things like masks and gloves. We will only be providing these items for health care personnel and those cleaning up dead birds. There is no requirement for us to stockpile these items. The deans have invited me to their DAC meetings to go over what we expect in terms of planning from colleges and departments (i.e., staffing, telephone trees, etc.)
AD: Are grading and semester issues going to a committee?
AD: I believe so. I don’t believe we’ve looked at that in an organized manner.
AD: I think we need to have conversation about timing.
FA: If you would like to meet with our Academic Affairs Committee, I will send it on.
AD: Okay.
Meeting Adjourned: 5:06 p.m.