Final approved April 19, 2007
Meet and Confer
March 22, 2007
Admin: Roy Saigo, Michael Spitzer, Kristi Tornquist, Larry Chambers, Steve Ludwig, Mark Nook, Wanda Overland, Nancy Jessee, Mitchell Rubinstein
Faculty: Annette Schoenberger, JoAnn Gasparino, Fred Hill, Andrew Larkin, Bob Inkster, Jayantha Herath, John Palmer, Jason Lindsey, Judy Kilborn, Frances Kayona, Balsy Kasi, Polly Chappell – Note taker
Guests: Richard Josephson, Margaret Vos, Jan Hallan
Approval of Minutes
Minutes from February 15, 2007—approved via email and posted on the Faculty Association website.
Unfinished Business
1. Request for Report on Initiative Budget Spending (FA) (12/7/06)
FA: I’m going to move this to progress reports. One thing we noticed on the documents, that had to do with the Higher Ed positions, there’s money in there for those and then I found out last week we’re already bringing people on campus to interview for those. Now at Meet and Confer last semester, I remember the Dean of the Graduate College telling us they wouldn’t do that unless we had enrollment. How many people do you have enrolled in that program? We’re already bringing people on campus to be in this program. Do we have any students in it yet?
Admin: No. We just put out an announcement within the last week. The program was just approved by MnSCU this week, which was one of the things I was going to announce here today. We were told by the Higher Learning Commission that we can begin to provisionally admit students to the program. So, we’ve begun recruiting for that program. We haven’t hired anybody, so if it looks like we’re not going to have any enrollment then we probably won’t. As applications come in we’ll know what to do.
FA: So these people you’re bringing on campus next week, is that when they’re coming?
Admin: I’m not sure.
FA: I heard this week.
FA: They’re here this week. What’s the plan? How long do you think they’re going to wait before taking jobs elsewhere? Or can you provisionally offer someone a job? I was slightly appalled that we weren’t even told that the searches were occurring because we had an agreement with her that we would be told. The members of the department didn’t know those searches were occurring; some of the members did. The Dean seems to think that if she just makes an announcement at the Dean’s Advisory Committee somehow that’s consultation. We need to know. I want some answers. It’s very frustrating.
Admin: As far as I recall the chair of that department signed off on that position on behalf of the department. At least that’s what the Dean and I assumed; that it was on behalf of the department. So if you’re saying the department wasn’t aware, I’m not aware that they weren’t aware. I’m aware that the Dean signed off on it and the chair signed off on it for the department.
FA: A conversation with a department chair---
Admin: It’s not a conversation. This was a signature on a document.
FA: The bargaining agreement is very clear in expressing the role of a chair. The chair signs a document that has the implication that the department has seen and reacted to it, that is to be noted at the time. I would expect then that there would be department minutes that would indicate the discussion that had occurred with regard to these searches and that the department took a position of supporting the searches. Then when the chair signs the chair was communicating the department decision. The signature of the chair alone does not reflect consultation.
Admin: We don’t ordinarily receive a document that states that the department has voted on it.
FA: The bargaining agreement says very clearly that when the department is to be consulted and a take a position, the chair has an affirmative obligation to say that this is the position of the department. That’s what the language of the contract says. The department chair can not have a position any different than representing the department, without saying this is my personal opinion and this is not the opinion of the department. To say that they signed a form, I would expect that there would be minutes of the meeting at which time the issue is discussed and action was taken.
Admin: Those are generally not attached to those forms.
FA: I’m just asking for the minutes.
FA: We know in this instance that’s the point. We also know I went to the Affirmative Action office and looked at the documents of who was on the committee and when I got something from the Dean there was an additional person not on the documents from the Affirmative Action office. This is part of why we got into that lawsuit to begin with. The deans and department chairs were signing off on people being on committees and those people didn’t even know they were on committees, other people in the department didn’t know they were on the committee, they didn’t even know the searches were occurring. This is exactly the same thing.
Admin: Well, when I see this form I assume that the department has agreed to this or the chair wouldn’t sign it. If that’s not the case, I’ll have to look into that and see. That was my assumption when I received this.
FA: Because the dean did not send the required documents to every member in the college telling them this search was occurring, they couldn’t even tell us that it didn’t go to the department. And that’s why that secretiveness has to stop.
Admin: I agree that there should be no secretiveness and that there will not be any. That’s all I can say.
FA: I was Faculty Association President two years ago and this same college did the same thing.
Admin: Well, it was not the same dean.
FA: It was a different dean. So we thought when we got a new dean that things were going to change. And clearly they won’t.
Admin: They will.
FA: The other piece, it was a surprise to us and we should have been notified when those positions went out. And to find out when they are already being searched is problematic, especially given the fact that we were still under Zmora at that point.
FA: Yes. It was until January. And the Affirmative Action Officer actually told me that that notification to the college should occur anyway.
Admin: Yes, and we intend to continue to do that. I’m sorry it didn’t happen this time. I think it was an oversight. It won’t happen again.
FA: I guess I can’t accept that it was an oversight.
Admin: I do.
FA: I don’t see any changes.
Admin: Why don’t you wait and see if there will be a change at the beginning of fall?
2. Continuation of the Peer Review Committee (FA) (1/18/07)
FA: I think at the last Meet and Confer you said you would come back with some response.
Admin: Yes. Here is something that was developed by Academic Affairs Council. It’s an alternative to your proposal.
FA: So, we’ll take this to Senate to see what they think?
Admin: Okay.
FA: Can you send me an electronic copy?
Admin: Yes. It’s a little different.
FA: I have a question about the last sentence. Is it intended that that “non” goes with Promotion and Tenure as well as Renewal? Or is this to be read that “department recommendations for non-renewal and also for promotion and tenure”?
Admin: Yes, for all.
FA: So the “non” goes for all?
Admin: No, no, no. The “non” does not.
FA: It should say “and also.”
Admin: The “non” is connected to “renewal” only.
FA: Okay.
FA: Are we asking questions on this alternative proposal?
FA: Sure.
FA: A question on ignorance on my part are each and all of the IFO faculty ultimately housed in a college? Like LR&TS faculty are housed in COE. Would there be anyone that would not be, since we’re talking about committee members from five colleges, Special Services?
Admin: Special Services would be included.
FA: In a college?
Admin: As a separate group.
FA: Would it be six members instead of five?
Admin: No.
FA: So there are five colleges, one member each?
Admin: No.
FA: There are only five colleges. Special Services isn’t a college.
Admin: There would be five members for each college on the committee.
FA: See my question is, are there any IFO faculty members that could possibly need a Peer Review Committee that are not part of those five colleges?
Admin: Yes.
FA: So they wouldn’t necessarily have---
Admin: No, they would as well. They would have their own separate… I guess we would need to modify that.
FA: Thank you.
FA: Let me just walk through what I think this says. The current process by which recommendations are made on each of the items starts at the department level. The department and the department members each have an opportunity to express an opinion on that. The department in total can express an opinion. Then the chair of the department is obliged to express an opinion, and that goes to the dean. From the dean it goes to the VP, from the VP to the President. It’s not clear to me where this proposed committee would fit in that time frame. The current Peer Review, I believe, occurs between the VP and the President.
Admin: No. Between the dean the VP.
FA: Between the dean and the VP?
Admin: This would be between the department and the chair and dean. It’s recommendations would go to the dean.
FA: So this is in fact a proposal to add a step that’s outside the contract?
Admin: It’s not specified in the contract, that’s true.
FA: We’d have to consult.
Admin: Sure.
FA: There’s also the issue that in the contract the faculty members see all recommendations and are given an opportunity to respond. And any recommendation that’s not from the department the chair or the dean they have the opportunity of not including them. And that’s one of the main principles in the contract.
FA: Would it be the intent that the trigger is automatic? That for each and every recommendation from the department and department chair to the dean would go through this committee?
Admin: Yes.
FA: The Deans can’t get this stuff done now. How do you expect to add a step? I’m sorry.
Admin: Well, we’ll have a little more time beginning in the 2008-2009 academic year (laughter).
FA: I just don’t know how you think that’s going to get done. I need an electronic copy.
Admin: I’ll send you one.
3. Article 22 and Professional Development Document from IFO (FA) (2/1/07)
FA: Some time ago we shared with the Administration the document that Pat Arsenault had put together for our members to describe the Article 22 process. And in talking at least one member of the Administration, I had gotten the impression that there might be some response coming back. And there is?
Admin: Yes.
FA: Any idea when that might be?
Admin: As soon as you stop talking (laughter). We would prefer that we use the document that was agreed to by the faculty and the Administration, and approved by the Faculty Association in September of 2004 that describes the personnel process. This, I think, adds a level of information that can lead to some ambiguity and confusion. There are elements in it that I’m not sure fully follow the contract. We’d rather use the document that we agreed to and on the web now. There’s a copy of it here. If you recall, on September 14, 2004, this was approved by the Senate and accepted by the Administration.
FA: We didn’t write that document. It came from the IFO.
Admin: I understand that. We don’t want to endorse that officially.
FA: Okay. This is just more information.
FA: We certainly don’t want to tell you what information to provide your members, but we don’t endorse that.
FA: Okay. Anything else?
FA: We’ll have to take a look at the differences, if any, between the two documents.
FA: Okay.
4. Search Committees for Positions in Student Life and Development (Admin) (2/1/07) (This turned in to Director of GLBT and Director of Counseling Center.)
FA: Senate elected members for the search committees for the position in Student Life and Development. And they are for the GLBTA: Catherine Fox and Tracy Ore; and for the Director of CAPS: JoAnn Gasparino and Rose Stark.
FA: I think I already sent those to you.
Admin: Yes.
Admin: Thank you very much. We really appreciate it.
FA: So we can take this off?
Admin: Yes.
FA: Okay.
5. Honors Program Director Position (FA) (2/15/07)
Admin: You sent us names for this as well.
FA: Yes. Bernard Reuter, Andy Anda, and Plamen Miltenhoff. Now it turns out that I put a deadline on these and I actually got somebody right before the deadline. If you’d like a fourth faculty member, I think I can do that. And it is a woman.
Admin: That would be appreciated.
FA: I need to take it to Senate.
Admin: They are meeting next week.
FA: So we’ll take that off?
Admin: Okay.
FA: We’re concerned as we hire a new person for that position, as we move that program into Centennial. We’ve been hearing the same sorts of concerns for three related programs that will occupy that space: Honors, FYE, and DGS, and the Math Skills Center, also. We’d like to request that conversations happen among those folks to try and troubleshoot some space issues that they have before they move into the building. We’re concerned that they have adequate space to house the people that are in their programs. And in some instances it sounds like there are a few less offices than there are people. We would hate to have them move in, and still have those issues unresolved. And I think there are difficulties that they share. They need the opportunity to troubleshoot together, and to come to agreed upon solutions to those issues. And this also raises concerns for the future. We’re in the process now of moving into a time when there is going to be considerable construction and reconstruction over the next few years. And we think it would be really helpful to start becoming involved as faculty in the process of planning buildings in a larger way than we are now. Particularly, we’d like to encourage conversation among groups who are occupying a building. And I use my own as an example: English is one of the groups moving into the Business Building. We haven’t had any opportunities to converse about that space with the other groups moving in. It seems as if we might have some shared goals that could be accomplished if we actually talked with one another rather than having the architect and Administration talking to one group and report what that group says to another group and so on. It would be nice to develop some joint principles for planning that would address concerns that really apply to students, also. I look at that building and I don’t know where spaces are for students to meet, for instance.
Admin: Which building?
FA: The Business Building. But that’s really the first of several that’s going to be reconstructed and it’s not as if we’re going to go in as one department into that building and not encroach on the space that other people are competing for. This is simply a request to start that discussion publicly.
FA: I wouldn’t want you to infer that there hasn’t been any consultation. We’ve had numerous conversations, Steve and I, and John Christman, who has been the architect on this. This has really been a real epiphany in the last two or three days especially. A couple days ago Jason came to Executive Committee and he was talking about space issues in that same building that the Political Science department is experiencing. The light bulb came on for me. It seemed clear to me that in addition to the very useful conversations we have had, we need to enlarge that so that all the occupants that are involved get expressed and have a chance.
Admin: Do you want to talk to the specifics first and then the general?
FA: Whatever you want.
Admin: Because you raised the questions about Honors and DGS. They’re connected.
FA: The one is an instance of what might happen. I think we can be proactive and look towards the future. And these groups are related, they are student-oriented.
Admin: Mine is to the general. The departments are most familiar with units. Some might not be considered departments. We use the architect to manage among the various groups the needs. I think in many of these buildings it’s a good idea. We haven’t done that, sat down among the neighbors, if you will, and said, okay, let’s see what your mutual interests are. Maybe you want to see how this works for them or what the activity level is or something. I think that’s a good idea. It’s something we can do. Sometimes buildings have a single occupant or a group that’s perceived as a single entity. Sometimes things that I might perceive as single might have their own segments. I think that’s good. We could sure start with the Business Building to talk about that. I need desperately another name, that building over there.
FA: The future former Business Building?
Admin: The future former Business Building that we could talk about that.
FA: FFBB?
Admin: It’s possible.
FA: We have some names that we’ve come up with.
Admin: I hate to solicit suggestions from English because if they start… (laughter). In any case, I think that’s a good idea. And we can start there and use that a little bit. The problem we’ve always had with the buildings whether they are being renovated or whether they are done or whether they are existing is that the buildings are pretty rigid, and our relationships and our activities are dynamic. And they change and we have to be able to change. And there are often changes within departments; things that they do differently, but they don’t really vetti with anyone else. And departments do tend to make good use of the space they own, if you will. When we are planning a building we do sit down and talk about it. We never do it otherwise.
Admin: When did we first begin planning Centennial?
Admin: Ten or 11 years ago.
Admin: We had an architect start planning the plans for it?
Admin: I’d have to get the date. It was probably six. But 10 years ago we did the master plan, we identified a broad stroke of where people might go as we shifted to Centennial in the future. We polled all the departments on campus about what they saw for the future and there are some principles around that. But that was about ’94, ’95, and that’s when Centennial became how it is, generally what it is. There have been a lot of changes. We didn’t have some things. We didn’t do some things. There have been material changes.
Admin: In the last 10 years there have been changes within some of those units. Some have grown and added staff. And that contributes to the problem that we are dealing with.
FA: Which is why we suggest that you have discussions amongst all the people moving in.
Admin: Steve has agreed that that is a good idea, and I do too.
Admin: Right. I don’t think it solves people changing their general use over time. People change the use of buildings all the time. There is one time we talk about it when we renovate or move people around.
FA: But if we get in the habit of doing it on a regular basis. And even do some talking about it when there is not a building sitting there waiting to be renovated. Maybe I’m from a department that does a lot of work with small groups but I go down from Riverview and there are students sitting all over on makeshift tables and chairs. And I wonder going into the Business Building where those students working on projects together are going to be. Where they are going to hang out to socialize? And I think that retention really is strongly affected by having places to hang out. I think it’s an important principle. There is no place in that building for those spaces. I think long-term we need to start thinking more broadly in terms of those sorts of things.
FA: Quick comment and question. I think that’s the strength of Miller Center. There is so much space for hanging out. Was it ’94 when that master plan was brought to one of the faculty forum days, or when was that?
Admin: There’s a second master plan since then. Yes, about that time, between ’94 and ’96. We did a revision to the master plan a couple years ago and we did the same thing.
FA: That was an excellent presentation and it allowed all of the faculty who wanted to attend those session to see where we were going. And I believe input was invited at that time. If that hasn’t been on a continuing basis, I think it would be very nice if it were.
Admin: Probably a good thing to do in the fall. We did one when we revised the master plan. We went through a revision and presented it. First we presented it when it was in process and then we did it again after we finally presented it to MnSCU and got their dissention.
FA: The last half of my question, and there could be a negative to this, that was one of the reasons why I wanted to stay and work longer, more years, because I wanted to see these things come to pass. So the negative could be that you don’t want to show me those anymore (laughter).
Admin: Frankly, I hadn’t thought of that and it gives me pause.
FA: So, can we go back to the question about DGS, FYE, Honors, and the Skills Center, and getting those groups together? Can we get a commitment to do that? I would volunteer to actually help attend that meeting to get them talking.
Admin: We knew we needed to make some changes. We made some changes. About a little over a year ago we had to pretty much lock the plans down. The building renovation had to start. So we locked the plans down with the sort of people we had at that time and the growth that we could anticipate at that time. We’ve had more growth. We’ve had several meetings with Honors, FYE, and DGS, the Academic Learning Center, the Advising Center, all those people we’ve been discussing the plans with. Those happen semi-regularly throughout the year at our DAC meeting where they are all meeting with me, and we’re discussing the plans. The selection of the offices is still up in the air because things have changed relatively recently. We are at a point where we are starting to put together and finalize who goes where. I met last week or earlier this with the Honors Advisory Group and we talked about space issues they had. I think there will be a document coming to Senate next week. That’s what they were talking about. There isn’t any reason we can’t get all these people together to talk, even the Math Skills Center, but I have met with them about space and there is a secretary for them and the Academic Learning Center. I’ve continued to meet with Honors, the Advising Center, ALC, FYE, DGS, and as a group talking about space. So, we have had these ongoing meetings probably without Math Skills Center involved, but their space has been acceptable. The other groups that haven’t been involved on that floor are Career Services, the Student Disability Services, the Multicultural Students Center, COB Advising Center, and then there’s an office that was supposed to be a MBA Director’s office, but it’s under the Dean of the COB. So this is a much bigger group. If you really want to get everyone together, we got a much larger group, and we have three administrators involved in overseeing those areas.
FA: I think more discussion is better than somebody telling you. I’m getting these rumblings that it is not clear to them of where they are going to be and if there is enough space. One of the concerns of a lot of the faculty is that students in these programs, when they are talking to a faculty member, they need to do it in private. If the faculty member doesn’t have that private space, the student doesn’t feel comfortable talking.
Admin: I know of no faculty member or academic advisor that doesn’t have a private space.
FA: So they will all have…
Admin: For the moment, that’s true. One of the things we have to keep in mind about this space is that there are about 500 square feet that hasn’t started to be built yet, that sticks out to the east.
Admin: A little more than that.
Admin: That is going to house FYE, and Honors, and the DA, and the secretarial position. So that’s not until January of next year. So there is some space there that hasn’t been filled yet.
FA: So, they won’t move until later?
Admin: No, they won’t move until January, FYE and Honors.
FA: So they will stay where they are at? I think that is a concern.
Admin: Yes. Probably after May 1st we can move the Advising Center. We can’t move them during a big advising season, which starts very soon. We have this little one week window to move the Advising Center to not disrupt student services. So once that happens we can move forward.
FA: I think some how the information is not all trickling down. I’m getting a lot of concern about where am I going to go, what am I going to do. You have to do over-discussion with people and listen to them and hear what they are worried about. At this point there’s some concern that this is not happening.
Admin: So what are you going to do to resolve this?
FA: Keep talking.
Admin: What I heard is this doesn’t seem to do any good. Give me some solution.
FA: What I heard Michael and Steve is that long-term this is something we can change. What I heard from Mark is that at least two of the three entities that we seem to hear from are really not moving until January, which means that they can start this process of collaborating to plan and occupy. The more they are involved, the earlier they are involved, the more predictable and the less anxiety there is. What I’m hearing is a commitment to engage in this process of cooperative planning of occupying space in new or remodeled buildings.
Admin: I’m adding to that I need a calendar of events and the people that you’re going to get together. And I would also encourage you to invite the leadership of the students. One thing I’d like to get clear is that we continue to say we’re going to do things but I want them on paper. And I want a calendar, and we’re going to get people in on January 1, 2008, then we need to plan backwards from that event to where we are today. Is that okay?
FA: How about if Mark and Steve and I get together and talk about it? Get a plan. And you will convene a meeting?
Admin: I’ll have a meeting of the groups that are moving into the former Business Building.
Admin: Centennial is nearly cast. The Business Building, I think we are pretty much there so we can move forward. We just had meetings in the last week with Political Science to finalize things. We’re also working on planning Brown Hall, which involves Nursing, to a limited extent Physics, Continuing Studies, and Communication Disorders.
FA: We need to get those guys together?
Admin: They’ve been planning. The meetings are this week with the architect with each of the departments to go through. Nursing doesn’t want to sit with the nuance about how…
FA: But what we’re talking about is that you should have some meetings with all departments so everybody gets to see what everybody else is doing and planning.
Admin: I understand that. We haven’t done that in the past but I think it’s a good idea that we get something on paper to call the group together to review together.
FA: We had success when we built the stadium. The stadium was a campus-wide committee. You were part of that and I was part of that. I think we ended up with a marvelous space, but many of the community had participation in. I would expect that the same kind of model can work as people shift from one location to another that the space they feel they had say, they feel they were a participant.
Admin: If you get to a certain stage, it’s too late. Those walls are up there, as Steve said. You think of it from one point of view, I think of it from another point of view, students think of it from a different point of view.
FA: I want to be really clear. I think from what I can see there’s a lot of consultation going on with groups, between the architect and the group and you. But what we’re talking about is more disbursed than that. I think that if you have several groups looking at issues within a building they are probably joint issues, some of them, and maybe with the collaboration, ideas can be generated that can solve issues that wouldn’t have been generated had the groups not met together, and I really like the idea of having students there. I know they love Miller, for example, and they’ve been really specific about that. But they see things we don’t see, and that would be an interesting piece to bring in. Thank you.
Admin: We’ve invited students. They’ve been difficult, particularly this year, to get to participate.
FA: So, are we done with this?
Admin: Yes.
6. Center for Global Studies (Admin) (2/15/17)
FA: We sent this information out to our Academic Affairs Committee. They reviewed the proposal. They support the proposal. They do have some “howevers” and that is that the curriculum process and the consultation and approval of the effective departments happen. We also had a department that took specific action with regard to the proposal, and that is the Political Science department. They say they support the concept of the Global Studies major. Their reservations overlap with Academic Affairs. That is they overlap on the curricular questions, but they include questions with regard to budgeting and staffing. They have also expressed a desire to continue to operate a major/minor under the international relations title. So what we’re saying is we support the moving forward with the creation of the center, recognizing that there are curricular issues, there are staffing issues, and there are budget issues that are not yet resolved with regard to how this center would operate.
Admin: Can you give me something in writing that incorporates some of the things you said?
FA: She’s looking at me.
Admin: I’m just reversing what Annette usually says to me (laughter).
FA: I can send you the motions. We actually might get something from the committee. I think in general, people are supportive of it. They just have these anxieties that center around those issues and they are concerned about having this go well and not have people be upset.
Admin: Thank you.
7. New Department of Academic Support (Admin) (2/15/07)
FA: Thank you for getting that on the roster. We were surprised that it wasn’t.
Admin: We got it on there.
FA: The roster that’s posted, that’s changed entirely? Or do you have to look at two documents to find out what the real roster is? When you go to the website. I got a sheet of paper that just had corrections on it, it said delete this, add this.
Admin: Yes.
FA: If you go to the website, there’s a spreadsheet that is the roster, is that spreadsheet changed? Or do you have to look at two documents to find out what the roster really is?
Admin: I think it’s changed but I have to check.
FA: Just wondering.
8. Late Withdrawal Policy and Forms
FA: Those were approved in Senate right before break. I thought it was done before the last Meet and Confer, but when I looked it up in my notes I found otherwise.
Admin: I distributed two sheets. The first two sheets are the policy that the Senate approved with amendments in November. The second sheet is the form. I took these two sheets to Academic Policy Working Group. They looked at it and said we saw something that might be amended. We got that amended.
FA: So do you have something more for us to take back to Senate?
Admin: Unless we could agree to it now.
FA: Is this different from what we did?
Admin: As I said, the first two sheets are what you approved in November.
FA: But we did some more in January.
Admin: This is what you sent me. You did?
FA: Was that something else? There was another set that came through… you may need to come over to my office and we can look through this.
Admin: Okay.
FA: There was stuff that came through at the beginning of March, right before break, after February 15, but before break, at Senate.
Admin: Is that this third page?
Admin: No. The third page is last week.
Admin: Is the only difference in the next to last paragraph?
Admin: This all depends on, hinges on what I have in the first two pages of what the Senate actually approved.
FA: There were other changes beyond that I’m pretty sure.
FA: Senate made no changes to what they gave us.
Admin: I misspoke. What we have here is what the Academic Affairs Committee approved through Senate. Senate made no changes. Senate accepted the Academic Affairs report. Does that make sense?
FA: Can we do something? Why don’t you and I just get together and look at these in my office.
Admin: But, anyway, just for the sake of the folks here. One change that they recommended to change the appropriate grade of “F” or “U” to earned grade, because they thought there might be certain circumstances where a student might be getting a passing grade and wanted to withdraw.
Admin: It seems to me we’re sitting aligned here. It seems to me a subjective decision whether it should be here or here.
FA: What?
Admin: On the withdrawal. If a student is having difficulty in the course and has a difficult time coming to withdraw for whatever reason, why do we set parameters for late withdrawal?
Admin: A late withdrawal almost always happens in terms of either medical or some other really extenuating circumstance. A student is doing fine, ends up in the hospital just after the late withdrawal deadline, they’re in the hospital for three or four weeks, so they can’t submit something. There is no way they can finish this course out. They’d get an “F” if we didn’t let them withdraw. So we have a policy for these truly extenuating circumstances. There’s a couple of them indicated here: military call up and medical circumstances. If a student is just doing poorly, they get to this deadline and they decide they want to drop after that, those aren’t approved. Sometimes they go ahead and file the form, but those don’t get through. There has got to be a medical record, there has got to be an extenuating family circumstance: the loss of a parent, child, spouse, that sort of thing; something that really messes up their life.
Admin: How can you make that decision?
Admin: We have to have the documentation.
Admin: No, no. You didn’t hear me. How can you make that decision? Why are you the judge of saying you have a reason to prevent you from checking out of here, but if you’re hit by car then we give you a reason, but if you have another reason, how do you draw that line?
FA: Some of it is Board policy.
Admin: Right now we’re doing this policy, don’t go there right now.
Admin: This policy is informed by Board policy.
FA: Right.
Admin: That we cannot only do late withdrawals but we can refund money, which is a bigger stickler for extenuating medical circumstances where a student can’t complete their classes because of medical reasons. We can wipe their record clean, Board policy says, we don’t usually do that. We like to leave at least a record that they’ve enrolled. We can even refund their money, Board policy says. We have to have a mechanism to support the student who has truly extenuating circumstances that interfere with their education.
Admin: But ordinarily a student can withdraw from a course up to a certain point and not have that course appear on their record. But if they go beyond the certain date, if they choose to withdraw, in many cases, they fail the course. You can’t have a situation in which students who are failing their classes every semester that go and withdraw from their classes.
Admin: Frances, you and I talked about your background when you were at Iowa State and different things. How does that comport with what we’re talking about here?
FA: I don’t have anything specific about myself. Just recently, one of my graduate students was informed that she is having triplets, but she had to go on bed rest, and that would be an example of where it’s too late to withdraw. And we don’t want to give her an “F,” so that would be an extenuating circumstance that I can think of. We have someone now today who had to cancel all her theses meetings and everything, withdraw from summer school classes, and now she’s struggling with finishing out this semester because she cannot come to class. Some of us may give her special assignments to finish.
Admin: We had a fellow who worked in the Affirmative Action office, a Hmong person, and he had a family of eight or nine in the Twin Cities. He had pressures from his parents, his own children, and he had all these kinds of difficulties in getting reports and things in on time. He didn’t get hit by a truck, but he had cultural issues that were leaning on him. I guess I’m trying to get at the reason why we are saying, okay, you can withdraw within these kinds of circumstances. What is the purpose for the student who has a problem, I send about three letters a year on suicide to parents. That’s not catastrophic, that’s not being run over by a car, that’s not being called up for the military. But the point I want to make to you guys so that you understand that’s the line based upon your perception. Mark is not a psychiatrist or a counselor. So I’m saying if we have an issue for our students, what interest of the student is this policy going to help?
Admin: I think the example cited, Roy, would in fact be eligible for early withdrawal.
Admin: You’re saying that.
Admin: I know it’s happened.
Admin: You’re saying it, but Mark isn’t saying it.
Admin: I’ve done it. As long as I’ve got psychological documents, medical documentation, a police report, a court report, something that is tangible that I can put in the record for an auditor to look at it for the academic decision you made, I can approve it. Suicide isn’t a problem. I had one recently of a student who was sexually assaulted and was moving out of the area because the other person is still here on the campus. They wanted a late withdrawal from all their classes. I got the police report, I got the report from the hospital, and I’ve got a report from a psychologist. I think I’m going to approve that one. So there are these sorts of things and they go beyond just sort of medical. They go to psychological and some of them are cultural that I deal with. But, then again I got to have some documentation from a professional in that field. I don’t’ make the call. I end up making the call but I do it on the documentation that’s submitted and if they don’t submit documentation, I work with them until I can get it. But if there isn’t documentation, I can’t approve it. I have to have something at the end of the day that says this is why these things have happened
.
FA: It seems to me Roy what you’re really asking is, can any of us envision circumstances in which we wouldn’t grant late withdrawal.
Admin: I got a bunch of them I’ve denied.
FA: An example where documentation might be a problem is that in my culture if there is a funeral, a death in the family, it doesn’t have to be immediate. It is expected that you will drop what you’re doing go home regardless of where you live and you will stay home as long as it takes. Who is going to provide documentation?
Admin: I’ve handled one like that. I didn’t get a death notice. What I got was a statement from an elder. I can work with that.
FA: Okay.
Admin: That’s one of the things about being culturally sensitive to some of these student’s issues. If we don’t have a death certificate, but I got a letter from one of the elders for that sort of documentation, we have to be culturally sensitive.
FA: I was just going to say, too, that I think before this gets to Mark for a decision in all the classes, some of these cases those of us who are faculty try to reach accommodation. I think by the time it gets to Mark it’s catastrophic. I think the first line would be with faculty listening and working with the problem.
Admin: The reason I bring this up is because I hear Frances and I think you’re on the right track. I think the majority of people will look at it on their criteria. And many times there is nobody there. I think many students don’t ask for help. Why are we playing God? And if you have to document, that’s going to depend on who’s going to ask for this documentation. I will tell you some of my African American friends would say to hell with you, and then they’re gone. So, that’s what I’m asking: who is this to benefit from the majority point of view? Yes, we expect you to get documentation. If you don’t cross this “T” and dot this “I” you’re going to get an “F.” Tough, right? But if you get somebody going to a funeral saying I’m not going to go to my elder. How many people are going to go to their elder and say give me a letter of such and such? That’s what I’m getting at. So how is this policy going to help students stay at school and to be supported and feel secure and be successful? Who are we punishing?
FA: Yesterday I had student who would not initiate this. I had to ask her why she is not coming to class and she had left already to Virginia. I had to make the effort. She didn’t make the effort. It comes to a point, so should I make a decision?
FA: I’d like to move on to the new business because we got quite a bit to go and we only have about an hour.
New Business
1. Permanent position for director of Service Learning (FA) (3/22/07)
FA: The Senate recommended that we do that. I think I sent you some documents. We’d just like to put that in a list when you think about positions to add to the university to take that into account.
Admin: It is on the list, but it’s a long list.
2. OCE Searches in the College of Education (Admin) (3/22/07)
FA: I got a request from the dean to get representation from those departments and I’m working on that. I think the dean complicated it by, this is actually an associate dean who did this one…
Admin: Since Margaret is here, can we go to number 11 and come back?
FA: Anybody object? I think what I’d like to say though about OCE. This is an example that I think we need to be warning, or reminding the deans, and all these deans come to Meet and Confer, that these are the kinds of things that Faculty Association appoints people to and this needs to come to Meet and Confer. It always surprises me when somebody has been at the institution for a number years seems surprised that they have to do that. I guess I’d like you to remind them to do that.
Admin: I’ll send out a reminder.
Progress Reports
11. Center for International Studies: What are the fees used for $100 administrative fee, $22 student ID, $125 Emergency Fund, $75 application fee. (FA) (1/18/07) /Center for International Studies: Request for External Review and Audit of the Center (FA) (1/18/07) Response should come on March 15, 2007
Guest: I’m Margaret Vos, I’m the Interim Associate Vice President in International Studies. I brought Jan Hallan, she is our new, in fact it’s her second anniversary today, second month (laughter). She is the new accountant in CIS. I started over in CIS July 10th. Tom Torgelson retired in October and then Jan started in January. What we prepared for you is information for this fiscal year. The reason we did that was we wanted to present to you what we know. How we have been operating since July of this year.
FA: You have no idea of what happened in the past?
Guest: We have an idea of what happened in the past. It’s not easy to follow what happened. But we definitely know some things and that’s what we have for you. We know these things to be fact. We laid out the various fees that are assessed to students who have a study abroad experience or an education abroad experience. And those categories are broken down at the very top: there’s a semester fee, a short-term, there’s an emergency fee, and then a non-SCSU program fee, which means for students that study abroad but do not do it as part of our program but for instance a popular program to Australia/New Zealand. They pay $53 that is a processing fee. What we listed for you is all the programs that we have this year, both in semester programs and short-term programs. And we’ve done it through our intersession this summer. So we literally did this as a fiscal year, rather than a calendar year because that is how our money is allocated and that’s how we plan things out. So what you see are the numbers crunched across. We generated about $90,000. The reason we estimated those fees is because we are still collecting those fees as we prepare students for summer programs that will leave either in May or June. Two of the programs were assessed an emergency fee, and we noted which ones did not have faculty involved in the program. That kind of helps in understanding those. On the second page what we did was as we collect these fees, and again, we really are reporting to you a pattern that has been going on for some years. At the end of the document we put some of our goals, I guess, as we go to the future and start planning. We have been using those fees that have been collected to pay for salaries for one of our staff members, the advisor to study abroad whose whole salary comes out of there, as well that we have eight student peer advisors who work in recruiting and meeting with students. We give out scholarships: $25,000 comes off the top to help students afford the programs. We also spend funds on recruitment materials, we do pre-departure orientation, we feed the students at that orientation, so it’s everything that comes into play in getting students ready to go. There’s a lot of shipping of documents that have to be sent out. And then finally, we belong to three professional associations, in order to do the business that we do. And those are NAFSA, MIA, and MEE that we belong to and membership comes out of that. When you add up those numbers, the expenditures right now are exceeding the revenue that is coming into the account. We project, that if we continue to operate at this level with that on that account, we worry about cash flow probably in about four years. We spend a lot of money before we take it in. So we have a cash flow always as we’re buying airline tickets and then we’re collecting the fees. So our cash flow needs to be that. But we do worry because we are spending down on a balance.
FA: So you’ve got some money somewhere saved up?
Guest: It’s in our account. It isn’t so much saved up but money that’s been deposited in.
FA: That’s not this $90,000?
Guest: It’s beyond that $90,000. For example, at Alnwick, we used have about 90 students go to Alnwick. Now we’re averaging about 35. So our cash flow coming in to pay for that has decreased. And our goal is that we start looking at how many students do we really need to make things work. You’ll see on the next page. I’ll show you what else we do with that money. There were questions about our $22 ID card that we charge. I can’t think, folks, of a better dollar value. What it is, it’s basically an insurance card. We refer to it as an ID, but that’s not a true reflection of its purpose. What it is, it’s an insurance covering things that might happen while you’re traveling. I thought it was important that you see the kind of coverage it is. It’s a great deal.
FA: What’s the company?
Guest: It’s called ISIC. That’s the name of the company. It’s not even an acronym as much as it’s ISIC. But they also can flash that ID card at certain museums and they’ll give them this 10% discount to go into various museums throughout the world. So there’s also some travel discounts, some trains, some ferries, some various forms of transportation that recognize that ISIC card. For $22, it’s a great value for our students. We require it of all our students that travel; partly it’s that insurance component part. We feel it’s important. We don’t make any money. That is money that comes in and we turn right around and it goes out to ISIC to pay for that coverage. We manage properties. And right now we are managing three properties that we lease, which is also paid for out of this account as well as out of the program fees. What we have for you is the expenses of those leases. We are in the process of closing down an apartment in Toulouse. We are not closing down the program of study in Toulouse, but we have not sent a faculty member there I believe in about three years. We are in the process of closing that flat in Toulouse. We’ll continue the program with the university, but at the end of June we’ll be done paying rent on that.
FA: So no one is there now?
Guest: No. And no one is planning on going. Things have changed. We just don’t have the number of students studying French that would generate the need of a faculty member to be at that flat. We’ve met with Bill, we met with the Foreign Languages Department, discussed that decision and they all agreed it makes sense to let it go.
FA: Too bad.
Admin: This doesn’t mean that we won’t have the programs going to Toulouse?
Guest: No.
Admin: We’re just not renting the apartment there.
FA: Maybe we shouldn’t say processing closure by June 2007. We should say not renting the apartment. Because this looks like we are completely closing the program.
Guest: I hear you. The program is alive, it’s well. It’s simply the apartment.
Admin: Lease termination.
Guest: Yes. That’s good. And I have it under the category called “Property.”
FA: Yes, but… Can you send me an electronic version of those documents that I can send to Senate?
Guest: Yes. We also have had to replace mattresses at the castle. We have to also replace some stove units in Germany, so what we have there is our replacement expenditures that we either have already spent this year or will spend because we’re just getting quotes right now. The bottom line is that we really want to be on our own. The most important thing is we want to have our programs affordable for students. And we’re looking at ways of doing that. We really want to work with the faculty in planning the program fees for the budgets and also discussing with them directly since they’re the ones that know the programs, how to spend the funds, how to use the funds. But the reality is this: we come in with less than what’s been budgeted. Some things have to be cut. And there’s not a lot of wiggle room except in the program part of it to cut expenditures. We want to start doing a three-year plan out as we plan ahead. Where do we want to be? Do we want 500 students to study abroad? What does that look like? We also wanted to do a plan for replacement and refurbishment, which is what we do with all the facilities on this campus to kind of plan out. I think it is 5% a year. We set that money aside in case something goes wrong or we have to replace something we’ll have the money set aside for doing that. To continue to grow, if there is any money left over from a program, that we start putting it, investing it back into that scholarship fund so that we can give it back to students to help offset future costs. Sometimes we have had situations, this year, where a student cancels literally the day before they’re to take flight. And that means that is money that we then have to try go after, but we also try to work with that student. There are things that just come up that we are expected to cover like weather for example. We’ll have a flight cancel and if it’s weather they do not give you hotel rooms. So all of a sudden we’re putting up students and faculty in hotels not budgeted in here. So we have those kinds of things that come up that we need to take care of.
Admin: Currency fluctuations.
FA: Oh, the value of the dollar that continues to not do so well is always something that Jan is always checking because a lot of our programs are based on the value of the dollar.
FA: So we’re going to take this to Senate. Does anyone have any questions?
FA: I simply want to say I really appreciate this rendering. This is the first time we’ve seen any information like this concerning CIS. I’m sure that Senate will appreciate that.
Admin: I think this is really important in getting a handle on transparency and accountability. Again, very important. It’s got to be shared as frequently as possible. We need to look three years out. As we look at more global initiatives, the faculty and staff and students will be participating abroad or coming here. I think Margaret and her staff are really getting a handle on this and giving more information than before.
FA: Is there money that comes to you from tuition?
Guest: There is money that comes from tuition. There’s a tuition pot.
FA: Instead of trying to explain to us now, can you do another document like this for us?
Guest: For tuition?
Guest: The problem with that is that the program started but the money never arrived. So I was talking with Diana Burlison and starting now we’re going to change that. A program was set up but the money never got to the pot. It stayed in the big pot.
FA: Really?!
Guest: Yes.
FA: Never has that happened before.
Admin: It’s called Roy’s retirement (laughter).
Guest: So the thoughts and the concepts and philosophies are there, and it never happened. But now we trying to actually get it set up for the short-term.
Admin: The expenses for faculty, I believe, didn’t get there.
Guest: No. It didn’t either. That stayed in the summer session.
Admin: The faculty, for some time, have been covered because they were teaching and the tuition stayed as faculty under the regular account. And the effort is to try to make the costs identified that are associated with the programs which will move the faculty cost along with the tuition. It wasn’t quite the windfall for Roy’s retirement that he hoped because we were still paying faculty.
Admin: Don’t you think this is a great format?
FA: I trust there is one other source of revenue and that is since we manage the property we must be collecting room and board from the participants. Do we have a revenue stream that we use to take care of the property and then to feed the people? Maybe we don’t feed them, I don’t know.
Guest: It depends on the program.
FA: That would be a nice piece to have there also. But this is much appreciated.
Guest: Anything else? You know where to find us.
Old Business
8. Late Withdrawal Policy and Forms (cont.)
Admin: Before we go on, I know Annette you wanted to end conversation on the Early Withdrawal. But can I make a suggestion that maybe JoAnn, Frances, Larry, and Shahzad Ahmad help you with some of this verbage because I know they may be sensitive to some of the issues that may or may not be apparent. I think Shahzad especially because he works with a lot of the students that do this. I know confrontation sounds easy to most of us, but for those who are in difficulty that is a difficult thing to ask for. I understand what faculty are saying. I was faculty for 25 years. But if somebody comes to you and says I’m having difficulty, I don’t have a letter from my elder, I don’t have a letter from my psychiatrist, or my doctor, and I’m giving up, what are you going to do? What is this policy really going to do? When I come back and I say, okay, here we have a chance to save some student or not, is this an opportunity to save some students or to say, “Tough, this is a deadline. That’s it. You’re gone.” And maybe that’s a good thing. I don’t know where we want to be. But I know frequently we don’t hear the other side of the story. So, thank you. Larry can you call that meeting?
Admin: Yes, I can do that.
FA: Okay.
New Business
8. LR&TS Associate Dean (Admin) (3/22/07)
Admin: We are requesting search committee members for two Associate Dean positions in LR&TS, faculty members.
FA: How many?
Admin: I was willing to have it be as many as the faculty wanted. We will appoint the number of staff to be left. But if you want me to name a number, I will.
FA: No. We’ll tell you.
Admin: Okay.
FA: I think Rich has something to say. This is one of the ones where I’m a little bit surprised that since you’re here all the time that you didn’t know that you had to ask at Meet and Confer.
Admin: Yeah.
FA: It’s shocking.
Admin: Some of it I think is when we did the only other Associate Dean Search we’ve done, we didn’t’ go to Meet and Confer, so it was probably me not understanding. The ones that came here you said that you weren’t going to be appointing them so that’s why I thought….
FA: No. The Faculty Association appoints.
Admin: And that’s fine. That’s why I sent you the email and asked to make sure I was doing the right thing.
Guest: The faculty’s position is that we are opposed to the Associate Dean positions. We have reiterated that a number of times. There are probably two large areas we are opposed to those positions: one is from workload from faculty and loss of faculty lines. The second thing is that we are concerned about the micromanagement of faculty. Some of the tasks that faculty might typically do in other colleges, or share in other colleges, I guess in some ways we feel that some of those tasks might be shifted to faculty. Generally, and it’s not a mixed bag, we have not had much support. One item I want to bring up is not to be confused with our participation in working on writing the position. We were asked and we did the best job even though we are not in favor of the positions. We have quite a number of faculty who would have liked stronger memos and stronger oppositions but we’re trying to work within the system as best as we can. So I think it’s significant pressure in workload issues and the fear of the micromanagement.
Admin: Sure. I feel that the LR&TS have been very, very clear on this. I’ve tried hard to listen to those conversations and the written materials. But I think you’ve been very clear in your feelings about this as a group. I also have taken a lot of time to speak with the faculty that leave us; we’ve had many people leaving us and I do exit interviews with them so I try hard to listen to those people as well. I listened to the whole organization, we have 100 people in the organization. The faculty make up about a third of that. So I need to be listening to a lot of people. We made the best decision we can. You have participated in writing the vacancy notice. I appreciate that. You’ve always been clear that this is not your preference to move this way. But when you suggest that you don’t know what the job would do, you guys have been helping to specify that so if we need to be clear we can continue those conversations. One other thing, the department thing, you guys had raised that last spring. I said I would be open to meeting with you. One small group asked to meet with me and I did meet with them on the issue but at the end of that meeting I told them that I had to confer with the whole faculty. So, again, I am at your disposal on that topic.
Guest: We’ve had some discussions about whether who would be at the department with the chair. We knew we were coming up to the deadline and so we deferred that because things are dropping off. That was one of the things.
FA: We have some concerns and it’s not just with these two associate deans’ positions, but also with the second associate dean in he COSE and COE. We’re concerned that there are layers being inserted between the faculty and the dean. We’re not quite sure about what happens to PDPs and PDRs in this sort of situation. Do the associate deans do them or not? Annette and I have both met with the department. We met also with Dean Tornquist and we are concerned that those consultations not be misconstrued as being Meet and Confer; that Meet and Confer only happens here. We’re also concerned, too, that consultation be seen as consultation with the department as a whole. The department has been pretty clear in its minutes about motions they’ve made regarding this. We see that as being very different than consulting with individuals. And obviously I think that Rich has made the perspective of the department very clear on this. I would like further clarity on the relationship relating to that concern about extra layers being added between the faculty and the dean in regards to Articles 20 and 22.
FA: We need to know what exactly you think is going to happen here.
FA: Is there the potential of the split between the PDP, PDR cycle and review for Tenure and Promotion? Which we would see as being disadvantageous because the dean is aware of the work of the faculty as if he or she was doing the whole process.
FA: And if you make a plan and the designee says this is a wonderful plan, how are you going to know what the dean thinks of it if the dean is not involved?
Admin: I never said that the associate dean would supplant the dean in the process.
FA: These are questions we want to know. What are these people going to do?
Admin: I’m not sure what situation you are referring to.
FA: In any situation. What are these people going to do?
Admin: It varies from situation to situation.
Admin: I brought along copies of the position descriptions for ours. I can’t speak for the other ones because I didn’t know they were on the agenda. But I did bring these along if people want to look at what we were specifying what we thought these folks would do. How I think the Article 22 and 25 will work in our unit and I can try to find out from the other deans. Mark, have you talked to the other two?
FA: We don’t expect you to speak to other colleges.
Admin: So, the expectation I have after carefully looking at the contract is that the PDR meeting must go through the dean. It would be my intent to honor the contract and follow that. My expectation would be working with the associate deans in these areas. Under subdivision three 3 under progress reports: “the faculty member will then meet with the dean” (this is after writing up the report and working through the department) “to discuss achievements made during the evaluation period and a written summary of the dean’s assessment of the faculty member’s accomplishments in respect to his or her plan and as related to criteria in section C, together with suggestions, etc., etc., will then be sent to faculty member and placed in the file.” So I think that the contract is clear there that the dean needs to be doing that. It doesn’t say that I couldn’t have an associate dean sitting in on that meeting and discussing with me what would be the appropriate things to put in that response. But it does say that I’m responsible for the meeting and writing the response. My expectation would be that the associate would participate in that. Most faculty in my area also do the meeting on the goals as well. There’s a meeting that’s required prior to developing the goals. We do those at the same time. Not all. I give the option to have two meetings if they wish, but typically, we’d have that be a concurrent meeting and so I would expect that that would happen at that time. If not, if we were going to have separate meetings for some individuals it could be either the associate dean or me that conducted the meeting on developing the goals. I honestly haven’t thought through that part. I would guess that maybe the person would want both of us there, which would be fine.
FA: So, how would this save you anytime? How is this going to help you?
Admin: This isn’t the bulk of what I do, I have to tell you, in my college. This isn’t the bulk of what I do in the efforts of PDPs and PDRs. I guess the point wasn’t to save my time. I think maybe that’s not what the goal was. The point was to make more time available for our faculty and staff to have access to a person. The word they’ve been using in Learning Resource is “access to a decision maker.” That was the point more than freeing up Kristi’s time in particular. On the Article 25 side I can keep talking about that one. We are unique in Learning Resources that we have two deans share the unit. So the COE Dean is the teaching component of what we do, and Learning Resources functions under the umbrella of the COE. So we have a long history that the COE Dean and the Learning Resources Dean both look at Promotion and Tenure files. The COE Dean does not review the Article 22 materials until they come forward as part of Article 25. The way we do it and have been for the Tenures as I’ve been here, I read through the packets in a very, very detailed fashion. We have to set up appointments well in advance of the deadline so that the COE Dean comes over, goes through the packets all at one time, and then the two of us meet and look through it. But she reviews them separately from me and then we discuss. At this point after Tenures we have always ended up in agreement over a recommendation, we write the recommendation jointly and we sign it jointly. So in this case if you’re thinking about complicating factors, this would add a third person to that mix of review. Because my assumption would be that the associate deans would participate in that review process too. In some ways I think it’s kind of nice for the faculty member to have three eyes instead of one.
FA: I don’t think that the deans are under worked. When I look at this and even before I saw these numbers two associate deans equal three faculty member positions. We can certainly use three more people in the classrooms. So, I’m trying to look for another way to streamline or handle the way of the administrative work that deans have to do so we don’t have to put money into Administration. And that’s my general position. In particular there are a couple things. One of them is the PDR process and the Article 25 process. Both are extremely burdensome to the point where faculty are spending an entire week preparing a report on the work that they’ve done. And that’s not good for faculty and it also makes a huge burden on all of these deans. As you just said you meticulously read all of that documentation. I think we need to figure out some way to reduce that for the benefit of both deans and faculty. Another thing I was on a search committee not too long ago and there were two deans on that search committee and we only needed one. Both of them did an excellent job on the search committee. They were duplicating each other’s work. Deans’ work is very expensive management work. So they should not be duplicated. There should be a way to spread it out. I guess what I’m saying in general a possibility is to do something about looking at efficiency and making it more effective and less burdensome for everybody.
Admin: I have a response. You think associate deans make a lot more money than they do.
FA: I’m looking right here and I know what it costs to bring in a new faculty member.
Admin: Sure. A new faculty member. Associate deans make less that senior faculty.
FA: No, I don’t think so.
FA: I took a pay cut to be an assistant dean. It’s a fact. Senior faculty take pay cuts. Remember this is 12 months salary as opposed to 9 months.
Admin: And they won’t come in at the top.
FA: Whatever. I did take a pay cut to be an assistant dean. I am certifiably crazy. The PDP and the PDR, Article 22 naturally is related to Article 25. I can only speak for my reading of the contract. I have one supervisor. That is the dean. I don’t want to have another layer, a person, making some kind of recommendation that I have to respond to. I have one supervisor. I don’t need more. I do have a doctorate. I don’t need to be supervised in the same way that you might have to supervise other staff. It’s not for you as much for the other conversation. When you’re first you get different scrutiny. This is very problematic relative to what we believe our bargaining agreement says about the process of evaluation and review and who the supervisor is. The minute there is another party involved, that second set of eyes, may not see the same thing as the first. And you presume it might help. My experience is that it will hurt.
FA: This is a personnel discussion. It’s private between you and your supervisor. It’s not private between you and whoever the dean happens to want to bring along. That’s another issue here. It’s not a public discussion where the dean gets to invite whoever they want. And that’s what you seem to think it is. I don’t think it’s a public meeting.
Admin: Nobody’s sending out invitations.
FA: She is. She’s sending out invitations to people she thinks should be there.
Admin: She mentioned one additional person.