Final approved 10-18-07
Meet and Confer
october 4, 2007
Admin: Michael Spitzer, Earl Potter, Nancy Jessee, Wanda Overland, Mitch Rubinstein, Kate Steffens, Rex Veeder, Kristi Tornquist, Steve Ludwig
Faculty: Judy Kilborn, Annette Schoenberger, Michael Tripp, Michael Connaughton, JoAnn Gasparino, Fred Hill, John Palmer, Frances Kayona, Balsy Kasi, Bill Hudson, David Warne, Robert Johnson, Polly Chappell – Note taker
FA: Before we get started I’d like to introduce our new COSS rep Robert Johnson. Do you know most of the people in this room or should we do official introductions?
FA: You don’t need official introductions.
Approval of Minutes
1. September 20, 2007
FA: I’m ready to go on those.
Admin: I haven’t seen the most recent, corrected version.
Note Taker: I just did your corrections today.
FA: Do you want to wait?
Admin: No, I can trust Polly made them.
FA: So we’re accepting those pending your corrections.
Unfinished Business
1. Charge to Taskforce on International Studies (FA) (08/30/07)
Admin: I gave you a copy, Judy. Sorry, wrong one. I gave you the one on the online. This is yours. You wanted a report from the International Studies Committee. We have a number of documents that we’re going to review at Academic Affairs Council and we’ll come back to you with them.
FA: So should we keep that under unfinished business?
Admin: Okay.
2. Return to Title Four (ADM) (08/30/07)
Admin: Last Meet and Confer we arranged a small group to look at issues regarding grading options and our grading system. The group met. It consisted of me [Mitch Rubinstein], Annette [Schoenberger], Dave Warne, Mike Uran, and Sue Bayerl. The result from that was a proposal to redraft the language on grading options that occurs in the undergraduate bulletin including explanations of the grades and when is the appropriate use of the grades. The language on that went to the Academic Policy Working Group yesterday and will be coming to Academic Affairs Council and then to Faculty Senate.
FA: Did we want to say something about the FW?
Admin: One of the changes we’re proposing is to add a grade called FW: failure for not withdrawing. When we adopt that, the FN will be used exclusively for students who never show up or participate in the course. Then the FW will be for students who stop participating and stop attending up until finals week.
FA: That is where the confusion is. They didn’t actually ever attend. They stopped at some point so it’s a failure to withdraw not a failure to attend. Then there’s also the discussion about---
Admin: Appropriate use of Is and IPs.
FA: ---yes, and I think the committee will take care of that. I think the other issue had to do with putting grades in and getting the instructions so that people understand that you do your FNs and FWs first, then you go put the rest of your grades in. So when reading the instructions, it wasn’t clear that that was how that had to work. So, I think the instructions that are going to go out, even this semester, are going to change to try to make that more clear.
Admin: These instructions will come from the Registrar’s office.
FA: Right. The other issue was that if we go to the FW that won’t be a grade people can assign until, I think, spring.
Admin: Right. That would be the earliest.
FA: It’s too late to get everybody educated on it now. So that’s part of what’s happening. I think one of the issues has to do with in order to put in the last day of attendance that has to be done on the class schedule, which is separate from where you put the grades in. And part of the reason for that has to do with the fact that the system we have, the ISRS, is antiquated. Once we get the Oracle system working, then they should be able to put the last day of attendance in at the time that they put the grade in at the same spot. But there’s no expectation that Oracle will be up and going any time soon.
FA: I have two questions. I’m wondering, when the estimated time is on having this document? I’m just wondering.
FA: Which document?
FA: Well, the explanation that he [Mitch Rubinstein] was talking about.
FA: That is with Academic Policy Working Group, it will go to our Academic Affairs committee, then it will go to the Senate, and it comes back here.
FA: Okay. So, when will it be going to Academic Affairs? In other words, when will I have it to send to them? I just need an estimated time of arrival. That’s all. I’m trying to get a sense of the flow.
FA: It goes directly to them from the Academic Policy Working Group.
FA: Okay.
Admin: What I would like to do this year is see if we can get it through the Academic Affairs Council, Administration, to see if there are any problems before sending it to the Academic Affairs committee.
Admin: When will you have a draft for somebody to look at?
Admin: I have a copy here.
Admin: So we could look at it on Tuesday.
Admin: Sure.
FA: The second question is related to this conversation we’re having here. But I’ve been thinking of this question for a while now. In Senate we have microphones. I wonder if we could possibly get microphones in this room? Something to consider, and it’s not on the agenda so maybe we can talk about it.
FA: If you guys can arrange it, you can do it.
Admin: We can discuss it.
FA: Okay. We can do that on the side. Thank you for that little indulgence.
FA: I think the redrafted letter is going to go out whenever it gets signed.
Admin: So, do we leave this on?
FA: Sure.
3. Charge for Online Policy and Procedure committee (FA) (08/30/07)
Admin: I gave you a copy of that.
FA: We got this the other day, and I reviewed it briefly and we need to talk about it at EC. I’d like to check to see if this was our understanding of what would be in it when we talked about it at Meet and Confer awhile ago. It looks to me as if it is. But, I want another set of eyes. So, can we just check on it at EC, and get back to you on this one? I don’t even know if we need to keep this on the agenda. We could just tell you after EC looks at it.
Admin: Okay.
4. Article 22 Taskforce (was Tenure Calendar, now combined with FA/Administration Work-plan 2007-2008 item on More effective use of PDPs/PDRs to support faculty development) (FA) (02/01/07)
FA: I have several documents that are color-coded.
Admin: What do we do for people who are chromatically challenged?
FA: I try not to pick colors close together. I’m going to pass in one direction. We talked at the last Meet and Confer about combining the Tenure Calendar with an item on the President/FA’s work plan dealing with improving professional development in the Article 22 process. The green document you have is actually an overview document that EC approved the other day. It provides an overview of the problem, the charge, a recommended configuration for the taskforce, and then there’s a description of needs that I’ve actually listed from Meet and Confer Notes since 2004. I’m going to run through what you have in the documents. The gray item provides just a short summary of actions concerning Articles 22 and 25 that are documented in EC and Senate minutes, as well as Meet and Confer Notes. That’s intended as background for you. The yellow document is what we brought to Meet and Confer last spring from the IFO. Pat Arsenault wrote it, and it’s what the Faculty Association sees as its position relative to the process of Article 22. The white document is the 2004 document that was negotiated through an ad hoc Article 22 committee who were addressing issues with professional development and evaluation procedures here at SCSU. You’ll notice on that last document under the bold-faced agreement statement, we did agree on this provisionally on September 14, 2004. There’s an acknowledgement that this is the beginning of a process that was going to hopefully extend to the signing of an LOU that never happened. So, we’re proposing this task force charge and configuration to start addressing local confusion about the Articles 22 and 25 processes. Essentially, the IFO/MnSCU agreement mandates processes for professional development evaluation, but on our campus there are a multitude of interpretations and outright contract violations that muddy that process. At this point, I strongly believe that even if people are trying to follow the processes there is absolute confusion about what those are. We need uniform processes that are in complete conformity with the IFO/MnSCU agreement. What we’re suggesting is that this task force would start by identifying issues and problems concerning the current Articles 22 and 25 processes, come up with a plan for addressing them, and then, based on that assessment and analysis, develop a time table for Articles 22 and 25 processes that would align with the academic calendar. So, we’re not seeing that calendar piece as a small thing. We’re seeing it as a last thing after we figure out what the issues and problems are, and come up with a plan. And the plan would be for local processes that are in conformity with the agreement. You’ll see nothing in here that suggests anything going beyond the local campus because that’s really out of our hands.
Admin: In fact, that’s what happened with the agreement we reached in 2004. When it went off campus it was not acceptable at other places.
FA: This is a pretty large set of documents. I tried to provide some background in different places that people could poke around in that paper trail, if you will. I don’t know if you want to take it back and think about it and talk amongst yourselves, and come back to the next Meet and Confer with sort of an idea of how you want to proceed? I don’t know if you want to agree to the charge and the configuration today?
Admin: We haven’t had enough time to look at all of the material in the documents, but I think we can agree to establishing a group. Then we can come back if there are issues with any of the content, and we can address those, perhaps, at the next meeting. I think overall the idea of trying to clarify our processes locally makes sense.
FA: Are we agreeing to the configuration?
Admin: Three plus three?
FA: Yes.
Admin: Yes.
FA: So, we could bring back our names next time if you like.
Admin: Yes.
Admin: Can I just say a couple words about the philosophy?
FA: Yes.
Admin: From my perspective, and it’s obvious that we all have an interest in faculty development and its development towards the expectations that the university has for the faculty role. One of the challenges is going to be, and it’s not clear to me at this point, that our expectations are clear or well defined across the campus. I expect you’ll delve into things for further work. It would be friendly towards saying we have to do some more work here. The second thing, just as a general statement, is that it might be—I don’t know that it is, but it might be—true that on either side we’re unhappy with some provisions of the contract now. And I recognize the risk of folks sort of hoping they can resolve some of the problems they perceive in the contact in this working group, and I recognize we cannot do that. We work with a contract we have to do the best job we can within the boundaries of the existing contract. Then if either one of us has difficulties with the contract that goes back into a bargaining, etc. So, I’m optimistic. I appreciate the Association’s willingness to work on this. We’re committed to work together to try to make some positive difference.
FA: I think it really is a complex situation. In framing these documents, we were seriously struck by the fact that we are limited by our circumstances here, and we have to look at what’s happening right here on our campus. As I looked back at the conversations at Meet and Confer, one really large theme was we need to put the emphasis on PDPs, we really need to do a much better job in helping faculty develop professionally. Right now we’re in a situation where we’re putting so much weight on the end part of the cycle. We certainly want to encourage our faculty to develop in ways that are useful to them professionally and to us programmatically. Thank you. This obviously is going to be a long-term item. I don’t know if you want us to keep it on Unfinished Business?
Admin: Well, we can keep it there until we give a response. But once we have it established, we don’t want to have to reference it every meeting. I don’t think we’ll have progress reports at that level of frequency.
5. Follow ups
a. Request for Academic Policy Working Group (ADM) (08/30/07)
Admin: We have designees from the FA to the Academic Policy Working Group. This item can be taken off the agenda.
b. UDWR Assessment Committee (ADM) (08/30/07)
Admin: Work still needs to be done in the UDWR Committee.
FA: As you know, Senate voted to approve the work of the UDWR Assessment Committee, including its report, and they thanked the committee for its work, and we’re considering that committee defunct at this point. I’m assuming we’ll take this off, and it comes back if it needs to.
Admin: Yes.
c. Academic Policies (ADM) (08/30/07)
Admin: We have several academic policies. We reached an agreement. Those policies went into place, especially the Standards of Scholarship for Graduate Studies. There’s another one regarding Prerequisites. That is working its way through the Academic Policy Working Group process. They reviewed it yesterday, and they’re sending a draft forward to Academic Affairs committee.
FA: You said that was the Prerequisites policy?
Admin: Yes.
FA: We passed kind of an odd motion at our last Senate regarding that. We want to table it time definite eight weeks until the Academic Policy Working Group gives a recommendation. So, we’ll bring that back to the table once we get the motion from Academic Affairs on that Prerequisites policy.
Admin: Okay.
Admin: I think there was a question last time whether the system can handle multiple prerequisites?
FA: And co-requisites.
Admin: And co-requisites. The answer to that is yes.
FA: So does this come off the agenda until we have some sort of report?
FA: It’s been to the Academic Policy Working Group. Our FA Academic Affairs Committee needs to say what they want.
FA: So, it will go to Academic Affairs to Senate and back here?
FA: Yes.
d. Center for International Studies (FA) (01/18/07)
FA: That was the question regarding the tuition.
Admin: Right. The folks in the center are working with putting together the recent expense and budget information and that material is being developed. I will bring that to Meet and Confer as soon as it is ready.
FA: Did you indicate that they are using a different format in trying to capture a better picture of the finances?
Admin: I believe that’s correct. And that’s why I think it’s worth waiting a while for it.
FA: I would suggest that this comes off the agenda and we put it back on when that report is ready? No? You want to keep it on the agenda for a progress report or follow up?
Admin: I’d keep it on the agenda. I’m hopeful we’ll have it at the next Meet and Confer. I know it’s in progress.
FA: Okay.
e. Requests for copies of replication, articulation, and transfer agreements (FA) (3/22/07)
FA: Last time we had talked about the possibility of getting the information we request on an ongoing basis, maybe up on the web. I agreed to bring in a list of what we normally request, and here’s the list. You’ll notice it gives the people we usually get the information from as well as when it usually is requested. The majority we’d like in electronic format.
Admin: I see both.
FA: Yes. We often get them in print. It’s much easier to distribute if we have them electronically. Although, if they go up on the web, we could do both.
Admin: I appreciate having this in the format it’s in. That will be very helpful for us. We have a tickler file and we can have those generated on a regular basis. Here are copies of various replication agreements. There are three agreements. They are for the North Branch program, Masters of Engineering Management, and one with the Department of Corrections for our Social Development program.
FA: I’m wondering how we might keep these some place,… some means of collecting all of these things in one place where people have access.
FA: They could go up on the Academic Affairs website.
Admin: We’d have to put them in PDF format. We could do that.
FA: That would be useful because I think it is one thing for me as FA President to have a copy of these in my files. It’s another thing to have these readily available. Especially, I know two years ago there was encouragement coming from Administration to do more work on articulation agreements and so on. For somebody thinking about doing one, it’s valuable to have an example of what it looks like.
Admin: Those are listed, aren’t they?
Admin: A couple of things. First, whenever we approve a new articulation agreement we send it down to the Office of the Chancellor, and they put it on their website. So, all of them are accessible on the MN Transfer website.
FA: Are they easy to find there? Could we link to that site and have them available, and have people be able to find them?
FA: You could have a link on the Academic Affairs website.
Admin: I could give you the website address, and if you’d like anymore information…
Admin: I think we can create a link.
Admin: The other thing is I have a template for articulation agreements that I share with departments that are interested in starting an articulation agreements with two-year colleges. I readily share that, and I could send a copy to you if you would like that as well.
Admin: And put them on the website as well.
FA: It would be useful to have that on the website, and it would be useful, too, to have these items go up to help people where they can find them by sending an email. She’s flinching and we haven’t even gotten to that topic. Maybe let chairs know or something; have some way to communicate so departments know where those are and where they are readily available.
Admin: I think we’ve increased the number of articulation agreements from about 30 maybe two or three years ago to well over 100 today. Mitch, do you know the exact number?
Admin: No. Some of these agreements have multiple articulations, so depending upon how you count them…
f. Request for report on Initiative Budget Spending (FA) (12/07/06)
Admin: In the discussion last time on carry forward, I provided that document, and then the initiative budget, because that’s kind of buried in how people have expended it on in their accounts. We’re talking to the deans and others responsible now that we’ve closed the year, and so we’ll have that, I would think if Michael and I can agree, by next Meet and Confer. Do you think that’s reasonable?
Admin: Yes. I think so.
Admin: I do too. So we’ll have an accounting of any initiative funds that we dedicated a few years ago for the next Meet and Confer. We just finished the audit in the last day, so we can’t publish that until after it is presented on the 24th of the month, I think it is, but in any case there weren’t any horrendous surprises—not really any surprises at all in that.
FA: Thank you for having Diana forward to me the list of the roughly $10,000,000 of designated carry forward from fiscal ’07 to ’08. It is a good starting point, but it is very difficult to tell what actually is happening because you have to guess by the title and your guess could be completely wrong.
Admin: Oh.
FA: What we’re asking for is if we could have a narrative of what’s being planned and actually what occurred when the money is expended, and some sense of filling out when that money might be expended. I do see in fiscal year ’08 we’re spending that balance down.
Admin: Yes.
FA: But that’s not been our past practice. We seem to hold money back, and hold money back, and then the year comes to an end, and it gets carried forward again.
Admin: I agree with you. We had discussions this past week at the Budget Advisory Group. The process is not as formal as I’d like it; in particular that document. These are funds carried forward, essentially supplies and equipment money; they’re not salary money.
FA: Yes.
Admin: A plan and where we’re going to go should be something we do want to go forward with. People are well-intended and do good things. We just need a somewhat more formal process so we have some documentation and can look back afterwards and say, did you spend it as you intended? Did you have the desired outcome? Were there some benefits to be expected? Is there something to be learned here about our allocation that maybe should be adjusted?
FA: Yes.
Admin: I think we have incomplete information. I think that is part of the reason it came forward on the NCA report and why it resonates with us also. So, I agree with you.
FA: We are working on a document that deals with carry forward policy that would formalize it. We’re just curious to know with that $10,000,000, what’s planned to be achieved. I trust it wouldn’t be difficult if you asked the people who have it to create a little narrative that says what they’re planning to do.
Admin: I think we can do that. Many of them do have something like that readily at hand, and some might take a little bit of looking, but I think we can put that together. Maybe not the exact plan and outcomes precisely like we would like to see, but I don’t think that’s an unreasonable request.
FA: Thank you. We have the document in front of us that provided the dates when things were requested and who it was requested by. I know that we have not yet received the quarterly budget reports, nor did I expect by October 4th we would. I’m not saying that, but it’s certainly something we would expect to see pretty soon. And I wonder where we’re at on the new faculty list and seniority roster.
Admin: That should come from HR. They’re at a conference so I’ll check with them.
Admin: They’re back today. I’ll check on the seniority roster. And, yes, it is about time for the quarterly budget report. We want to get through our audit. I had some inclination to get the 30th day, which is supposedly the official enrollment, which comes up in a little while, but we’ll be putting it together. I jotted it down here when I saw the list here, but we’re due for a quarterly report. And now that we got people breathing easily after completing the audit, I think we can do that now for the month-end of September.
FA: Thank you.
Admin: You okay, Annette?
FA: I’m thinking the seniority roster is not due until November 1st.
FA: Less than a month.
Admin: I think it will be timely then.
g. Request for working group on new Academic Calendar (ADM) (08/30/07)
FA: We passed a motion by the EC that our representatives on that New Academic Calendar Work Group will be the Committee on the Institution. And I can provide specific names for you if you indicate who should get them.
Admin: They should go to Mitch. Do you have an idea, just off hand, how many members there are on the committee?
FA: I didn’t look.
FA: There could be as many as 12.
FA: We’re in the middle of our elections.
FA: John was pointing out that there are some people on here on this list who are---
Admin: What list are your referring to?
FA: ---the list Mitch gave us---who are faculty.
FA: Right. There are two on the list Mitch provided. There are two entities that have faculty in them, the athletic department and the undergraduate studies, both have faculty members in the bargaining group, and if they’re going to have representation that representation should come from us. We believe the best way to represent the faculty is through our standing committees. One of the standing committees is the Committee on the Institution. And one of their responsibilities is to examine academic calendars. So when we looked at the list, we saw two problems that were there, plus we saw perhaps an imbalance in a working group that says the title is Academic Calendar but doesn’t have a working majority for those who deliver the academic program. That’s a concern. The example I provided is you don’t make K-12 policy based on the bus schedule. The bus schedule surrounds what is academically correct.
Admin: I think the athletic department reference is to Intercollegiate athletics not HPERSS.
FA: They’re in our bargaining group.
FA: Collegiate Athletics has people in our bargaining unit.
Admin: I don’t know if they’re familiar with the overall athletics schedule.
FA: No. no.
FA: I think one difficulty with this list is that it is ambiguous. When you say even graduate studies, I’m assuming that’s coming from that office, but I don’t really know. So, it would be useful to know actually what people we’re talking about and the bargaining units represented. That’s the information we’d like to have on this. So if it is not HPERSS---
Admin: HPERSS is HPERSS.
FA: There is no athletic department.
FA: Yes, there is. They meet. They don’t have a chair. But they do in fact meet with some regularity. All but the excluded managers are in our bargaining group; all of the coaches are in our bargaining group.
FA: Let me put it a different way. When we’re asking for membership on this, membership indicates what perspectives are being represented, and we’d really like to know what perspectives are being represented. And we don’t know that unless we know specifically who is going to be on the group. Obviously by making the motion that we’re bringing to you—we include as our representation the Faculty Association Committee on the Institution—we’re indicating that we think academic elements are the central part of an academic calendar.
Admin: I certainly don’t disagree that that’s the case. I think there needs to be other perspectives as well.
FA: We’re not saying that there shouldn’t be. We would like clarity of what the other perspectives are. We might be able to suggest other perspectives that aren’t on here, for example, are students represented here? I don’t know if they are or not. Student Government, I guess they are; two people from Student Government?
Admin: I shared last year’s roster of the Academic Calendar Taskforce---
FA: That would be good, thank you.
FA: We asked for that last time.
Admin: I thought I distributed that at the last meeting.
FA: No.
FA: What we got last time was this Taskforce on Academic Calendars. I don’t remember seeing another piece of paper. It’s possible my memory is flawed.
Admin: I thought I shared it. I remember there were questions about the roster; it was last year’s roster that indicated who the members were and where they came from.
Admin: Let’s make sure we provide that.
Admin: I’ll give it to you, and we can move on from there.
FA: Okay, so we’ll leave that one on for follow up.
h. Veterans Program Taskforce (ADM) 09/20/07)
Admin: An email went out to a group that will be receiving a letter from the President. From Faculty Senate there were three members. Then there was a request to appoint three students representing diversity, students of color, and we were able to accomplish that.
FA: So you have four students?
Admin: Three students. One is a graduate student, two are undergraduate students. One of the undergraduates is president of Veteran Students. One of the undergraduates is a student of color. All are veterans.
FA: I appreciate that information. I know that Senate was very concerned that veterans be represented who are students on this campus. So that will be helpful information for them.
FA: They also thought it was an awfully large committee. How are you going to get a time when they can all meet?
Admin: We’ll have some organizing meetings and then probably break into some subgroups. What I will do now that we have the three students, is send you a complete membership list.
FA: Thank you.
Admin: Just a comment, Annette, the size of the committee reflects some of the problems there are—so many pieces scattered all over the place—and this is an effort to bring them altogether in the same room.
FA: I think we understand that, but I think the concern was that they would never be able to meet and that would delay their activities.
Admin: I understand, but if we don’t get them all together we will never bring processes and practices together. So it’s really sort of essential.
FA: I understand that.
Admin: Thank you.
Admin: I recognize that, too. But we should be able to make that work.
FA: And we recognize that it was your call. We just made the observation: you have a challenge.
FA: We didn’t see anybody that you could take off it. It’s not like we’re saying you have people on there that don’t have to be on there. We’re just saying, wow, it’s large.
New Business
1. MnTC (MN Transfer Curriculum) Review (ADM) (9/20/07)
Admin: We’re in the process of gathering… we have a mandate directed from the Office of the Chancellor to review all the courses we list in the MN Transfer Curriculum. There are 158 courses, and this is a process that started last year. We’re at the stage now we are receiving reports on each course from the respective departments. Once we have all these, we intend to review them. The folks reviewing them will be on a working group to include Judy, Annette, Jean Hoff, and me, and possibly others. We plan to review these on November 2nd. We received 105 of the 158 courses. Judy is passing around a chart showing the status of the courses, the indication whether the department has completed submission, partial submission, or has not submitted.
FA: I’m planning on distributing this list in Senate on Tuesday.
Admin: I’ll simply comment that we’re expected to report to MnSCU on the outcome of this review by January 2008. So, we have until then to finish this process.
Admin: Our plan is to have a report internally by December for submission in January.
FA: Did you get any more yesterday? Remember we thought you were going to have one? It didn’t come in the mail?
Admin: No, not yet. I had one more come in today.
FA: We actually think that this is a pretty good number. It’s 2/3.
Admin: That would give me a D in a course.
FA: Well, it might give you a C-, but I think Mitch was going to send out another reminder to the ones who haven’t sent them in. They have until November 1st?
Admin: October 22nd.
Admin: I’m thinking we’ll get all these.
2. Community Parking Permit Costs (FA) (10/04/07)
FA: The Faculty Senate passed a motion asking that the current fees on community parking be rescinded and that the old policy of issuing parking permits be reinstated.
Admin: We’re willing to do that with a couple of understandings. One, there isn’t the same amount of visitor parking that we had on campus due to the construction of the parking ramp. That took about 180 stalls out of service, 30 of which we were using for visitor locations. So there’s a little bit of a shortage right now. And we’re also proposing to give some permits, in particular to the deans or whatever, two or three permits that they can use for guest lecturers or whatever on a regular basis. In the meantime, we’ll try to accommodate guests as we did in the past. There are some events that are very difficult to accommodate, if it’s the middle of the day during the school year and someone is having 100, 200, 300 people, there aren’t parking stalls for them near the buildings here on campus. So that will remain. Our proposal is that next year visitors would be encouraged to park in the parking ramp when it’s completed next July, and pay as they would any place else that they would go to visit… other universities. We also made a request for some folks to serve on a Parking Procedures and Policies Taskforce so we could work that out for next year and have a little discussion. So we hope to have that and arrive at a good spot for next year that will cover the cost of parking fairly across the users, and go from there. We’re willing to make the change that you suggest.
FA: How soon?
Admin: Within a day or two.
FA: We’re not talking about availability of parking spots. That’s a whole other issue. What we’re talking about is charging fees for guests when we used to be able to get guest parking permits. That’s seriously affected budgets of academic programs that rely upon community connections with the university. So, for example, I have an email here, which you received a copy, from Community Studies writing about how this is impacting their programs because they didn’t know it was going to happen, there wasn’t consultation about this, and all of sudden programs that rely upon community input are having to figure out how to pay for guest permits. It may not sound like much, $3 per day, but this one email mentions “11 permits for $33 for two panels of service learning agency representatives.” That’s for one event. For the one faculty we’re talking about costs easily reaching $60. Now that doesn’t sound like much, but you “multiply this cost by the number of faculty in our department who rely on community speakers and community partners and this cost will be significant.” We had no warning this was coming. None.
Admin: I’m sympathetic to your argument. We’ll make the change to be as it was last year. My only relation of the supply relative to that is it won’t be quite as convenient as it was last year because we don’t’ have the same number of stalls available on campus. We left about 30 stalls designated for visitors and that was called Y lot. I think there were 25 or 30 stalls and that worked well most times. We’ll certainly make a change, and do what we can. I’m sympathetic to your argument.
FA: Thank you for rescinding. Within a day or two, I heard you say?
Admin: Yes.
FA: Now, another request. The departments that have already paid money, can they be reimbursed? That’s already $60 out of their accounts.
Admin: Precluding some bookkeeping disaster. Sure.
FA: Okay, so what I’m hearing is two things. I want just want to be very clear that I’m hearing what I think I’m hearing. I’m hearing that we are going back to the old policy of not paying for guest permits?
Admin: Guests for classes and things like that as you described as the issue. People that come to campus will still, it’s hard to define guest, but we still have pay lots available for folks that are coming. But for designated guests that departments are bringing for things that you described, sure, we’ll provide permits. And we’ll provide permits that can be available through Public Safety. We’ll also provide permits to deans to use that might be more convenient some times. You know, two or three of those. And for departments that have paid for guests for the department we would reimburse the departments for those.
FA: And that was the second thing I wanted to verify that I had heard. Thank you very much.
FA: I think when the President came, he talked about having community relationships, and I’m not sure that if we want to have a good relationship with the community, that we would have this policy. That’s my intent. We ought to have a policy that promotes community.
FA: My comment was that most of the deans have multiple buildings that they serve. If the dean has a permit and is in a remote building and the guest is coming, it can be problematic. I think what used to be the policy was that there were be some departments that had the permits themselves. In other words, in my case in N lot, so guests coming into Hallenbeck Hall wouldn’t have to go all the way across campus and get the permit from the dean’s office.
Admin: We would leave it to the discretion of the deans. They can make similar arrangements as they have before. Those permits, as I recall, were available to be used in many lots. We did restrict some. Particularly I, D, and F lane because there are so few stalls and just a couple uses of a permit would preclude people who paid for a permit from having reliable parking. They were not broadly restricted, but there were some restrictions. We have to continue that; otherwise, it wouldn’t work.
FA: At what percent are the lots oversold?
Admin: The smaller the lot, the less. The faculty/staff lots almost none. The student daily parking lot, like K lot, is oversold. Q lot is not at full capacity because we expanded it. That’s the overnight parking. But, we generally don’t oversell faculty/staff lots.
Admin: Can I take this one off?
FA: Yes.
Admin: I still want to establish this taskforce to work through the whole process for next year.
FA: For Parking? Can you send me a charge for this committee and a list of what you would like in terms of committee membership? Are you saying you want me to populate a committee for you with faculty representatives?
Admin: Yes. Michael, I thought that you were doing that.
Admin: You just did it.
Admin: I will send you the charge tomorrow. I’m sorry it didn’t get to you sooner. It also has a list for the population. As I recall I asked for two faculty members.
Admin: This is something we wanted to put on the agenda last time, but it came in too late.
FA: Oh, so it does relate to what we’re talking about. Can you include in that list what the other make up of the committee is?
Admin: Oh, yes. It’s all on there.
FA: Given the discussion we had last time at Senate regarding this issue, we’ll have more than two people who want to serve. I’m sure we’ll be able to populate it quickly.
FA: I think you need to take into account what percentage of the employees on this campus are faculty, and what it is, who brings the people onto campus. You know without faculty, there wouldn’t be students. You populate these committees, and you look at them, and you think there’s no respect for faculty on any of these.
Admin: Wait a minute. Come on. That’s excessive.
FA: I look at this, and it ends up being like the calendar committee.
Admin: With the 1B.1, for example, we looked at the number of Administrators. We said balance it as you like. There’s a very great interest in appropriate balance that feels fair and represented. If we make a mistake in one, say you made a mistake, and we’ll get it right. Please don’t declare that we have no interest. I’m very much interested in doing this correctly. But we need your help sometimes in getting it right.
FA: Thank you.
Admin: If I recall, I don’t have the list in front of me, it was two faculty members appointed by the Faculty Association. I wanted the dean of Fine Arts to appoint a faculty member, preferably from one of the performing arts because they have a particular interest in the guests coming to campus. Also, one from each of the other major bargaining units: MAPE, MSUAASF, MMA, AFSCME, two students, and I hope that they might represent Residence Life and other students that have daily parking, Miles Heckendorn to convene it together with Diana Burlison, so they could answer questions and work through it. I don’t recall if there was another… there was someone from athletics because they are a big player in parking on campus and also I think, I can’t recall, Rec Sports or Atwood, which both have a lot interest in guests coming to campus. Frankly, it was broad and represented the people who have an interest in the taskforce. I needed to get it going. I will get the list to Judy tomorrow.
FA: Two questions. One, is there a committee that already deals with parking…
Admin: There is a parking appeals committee.
FA: Is this something different?
Admin: They handle the appeal to parking tickets. With Skip and others there will be people represented that are familiar with the ticketing problems, but that committee is incomplete, I think, to give this broader discussion of policy and procedure.
FA: The second question was you’re asking the Dean of Fine Arts to appoint a faculty member?
Admin: That was my hope, yes, for particular expertise.
Admin: This, as a point of philosophy, if I may? Please consider each one of these things that comes forward as a suggestion for the way we build this. And let’s work together and make sure that we get it correctly.
Admin: Any other comments?
3. Changes to web registration and web course schedule (FA) (10/04/07)
FA: This has not been met and conferred at the state level. I would like to say that I understand the appeal to students of having a shopping cart, but a web interface isn’t neutral, and I’m very concerned about the kind of interface that enables people to go pick major courses from any institution that enables them to fill out their schedule in a way that could lead to a MnSCU degree eventually. And I simply want to go on record as saying that. And I know that you don’t have anything to do with the fact that it wasn’t met and conferred at the state, level but we’ll be talking about it tomorrow.
FA: I’d also like to point out that it might be misleading to students. They select classes assuming that they will be qualified for majors at particular universities, and they do not meet those requirements of the program.
FA: That’s a really serious concern. It might over complicate things when you think of students transferring in, and think this course is the same as that course, and it’s not. You know, something agreed upon by the transfer agreements. That’s complicated enough sometimes: to explain to them that this accounting course isn’t the same as that accounting course. And I think this is going to magnify expectations that students have in a way that may make it difficult for us to help them understand our core requirements for our majors. So we may hear rumblings from that, and if we do, we’ll bring them back here.
FA: It’s going to be an advising nightmare. We started in undergraduate studies, and we’re making so much progress. And this is just going to put us… it’s going to be an advising nightmare... if the descriptions, the advertisements for it are actually what happens.
FA: We’ll bring those concerns to appropriate communication kinds of venues. And hopefully it will be smoother than I suspect it might be.
Admin: I hope so too. It just got announced. I thought it was something where this is what we’re going to do. No, it’s already been implemented.
FA: Thank you, for letting me say my piece.
Admin: You’re welcome.
4. Administrative Searches (ADM) (10/04/07)
Admin: I wanted to inform you at Meet and Confer that we’re resuming the search for the AVP in Faculty Relations, and that is underway at the moment. I would like as well to begin the search for the COSS Dean position. My recommendation would be that we revive the committee that was involved in the search last year so we can move forward and conduct this.
FA: I simply wanted to ask a question about the AVP for Faculty Relations. What’s the timeline on that? I’ve had several faculty ask me.
Admin: October 15 is the deadline for application. The announcement went out.
FA: It probably went out on Announce.
Admin: It went out on Aannounce, and it went out on each college list serve as well.
FA: And then it probably got forwarded from the dean---
FA: Okay, Annette.
Admin: I was being extremely cautious to make sure that everybody was informed.
FA: I know.
Admin: So if you got a duplicate message, I apologize. I didn’t want anyone to have the opportunity to come and say I didn’t know that. So, that position is scheduled to begin January 2nd.
FA: Thank you for the clarification about that.
FA: What was your recommendation for the COSS?
Admin: To use the same search committee that was in place for the last search.
FA: We’ll take that under advisement, and get back to you. Several questions or concerns have been raised within the college. Another question, are there other vacant interim positions that are unsearched? Any plans for other positions?
Admin: Yes. They’ll be presented to Meet and Confer shortly.
FA: I think our intent is to try and get feedback from the COSS and Senate, and ideally bring something to you next time.
Progress Reports on Long-term Concerns
1. Taskforce on Diversity (a.k.a. Motion from Teacher Development) (FA) (9/22/05)
Admin: As we discussed, we have a meeting coming up of a coordination committee whose responsibility is to coordinate the activities and provide access and influence across campus. That meeting is to be held October 8th with a pretty much full contingency. We still need AFSCME, MAPE, and student representatives; we’ll be asking student government. But I’m asking again.
Admin: Have those been requested?
Admin: I don’t believe the student has, but… never mind we’ll talk later. If you have an official way to do it; otherwise, I’ll send it out.
Admin: I’ll get it going tomorrow, MAPE.
Admin: If I may. Some history, some reflections on some conversations that have taken place this last week. We’ve put the development of a comprehensive diversity plan into the work plan we’re developing for this year, and working with Strategic Planning Committee on it. Seeing that, Susan Moss, assuming that might be her responsibility, started to talk with some folks. The Color Caucus, I think, became aware of Susan’s conversations and worried that we were about to commission a group to work on the diversity plan that didn’t include representation of the Color Caucus. In fact, the intent is to ask that we agree to charging the Taskforce on Diversity with the responsibility for the development of a comprehensive diversity plan this year. Since then, if the Association agrees, we ought to look at the membership of that taskforce, because we didn’t have a specific charge before. We have to look at the membership and make sure that it’s appropriate for that task. Affirm the membership, then review the charge, which we’ll develop in consultation. There is a MnSCU template for a diversity plans, but frankly, it’s unlikely that that template will include all the things we should. For example, it’s very unlikely that the MnSCU template includes anything having to do with partnerships with the community to work towards a community environment that supports our diversity objectives. There is an affirmative action plan and there are lots of things going on. The plan would have to embrace current activities, assess our current standing, and lay out plans and budgets for moving forward. So there’s budget expertise required, knowledge of what’s going on, Student Affairs, Academic Affairs, and multiple units. And that’s the expertise we’re going to need. I’ve asked Susan Moss to do some homework. And we can talk about what to bring and what form to bring it in to Meet and Confer to ratify or affirm our shared understanding of what we’re going to do, and then they can get going. That’s my understanding of where we are now.
FA: This task force being referred to, is that not special or a specific ad hoc committee that was set up at another point in time as opposed to being university wide?
Admin: There is a college one, too.
FA: There are two separate ones. We actually were lumping them together under one name, and the college committee has asked that they be called COE Climate Taskforce and that’s separate from this one, which is more university-wide.
FA: At one point I thought we had two different committees. What I’m getting at is that given the charge from MnSCU for universities to present a work plan for diversity, is that not different from the other things we’ve done? Because we’ve never really had a university-wide group to respond to that. If someone has put something together and sent it down to MnSCU, it is unbeknownst to others on campus. Is there not a need for a third group to be put in place to really address these issues? That sounds much broader than anything we have currently.
Admin: It’s much broader than anything we have currently. There has been a MnSCU request that was answered essentially with an affirmative action plan and very narrowly defined, which is part of the reason I say that I understand there is a template from MnSCU, but I doubt it is adequate to embrace all the elements we want in a diversity plan.
FA: I hear that and understand that. I support that 100%. But what I’m getting at is that the manner to develop or implement or respond to that charge doesn’t appear to be in the existing committees. That’s the point I’m making.
Admin: I understand.
FA: I think a new structure needs to do what you’re asking to be done.
Admin: That’s why I said we’re going to have to look at the composition of the taskforce with the charge in mind to see if this appropriately comprised.
FA: One of the issues is going back to the original formation of this diversity taskforce. What we had originally proposed from Senate was to have kind of this committee that would be comprised of people who were doing work on campus on diversity issues and anti-racism issues, and it’d be kind of a coordinating body. The problem was that we were having trouble getting anything to happen with that. I think Rex has been working for awhile trying to jump start it. It seems to me that President Potter said when we first talked about this in Meet and Confer, that that is really not acceptable to have no movement on this. I’m hopeful that this diversity plan will help us clarify our understanding of what needs to happen.
Admin: We had so many members that we couldn’t get them together.
FA: One of the reasons Senate set it up that way was because we knew that there were people who were doing that kind of work already, and we didn’t want to discount what they were doing. So we thought maybe we can just get them together, and they can somehow coordinate their activities and that was really the motivation for it. It was a great idea.
FA: If we look at our agenda, the motivation was a motion that came from Teacher Development from a very specific incident. It is true that there is a long history of recommendations for taskforces to address issues like this. But I think if you look and see, it’s been two years since the motion was passed, and as far as I know having sat through last year’s Meet and Confer after the initial problems of trying to form the group, the momentum was lost, and we don’t have a group. What we have is a President who has come in and said we need a diversity plan. So, let’s figure out a way to get a diversity plan, and acknowledge that whatever we tried to do starting in September of 2005 didn’t work. Let’s have a fresh start.
Admin: I don’t think we want to redouble our efforts to try and do the same thing we were trying to do. Plus it’s a different direction. I would suggest, that given the circumstances, that I get in touch with the people who are planning on meeting on Monday, and say, wait until we hear from Meet and Confer, unless we want to have some other people come to that meeting and have some sort of discussion of these issues.
Admin: It is my intent to simply honor the work that has been done in the past, taking Robert’s point and with John’s emphasis, maybe we should just wipe the slate clean and create a new taskforce labeled differently to avoid confusion, but that will accept the charge of creating a diversity plan. I understand your point. But I want something to happen. I know what it will look like if we get it done right.
Admin: Do you want to do that? Start over?
FA: Absolutely. I’m seeing nods of agreement all the way around the table.
Admin: Well, I’ll send the email.
Admin: So our work together is to shape the charge and populate the committee with all the appropriate input from around the table.
Admin: By the way, folks, the irony is that we finally have a meeting with the whole group. (Laughter)
Admin: People are going to say, see that, we finally got together, and they’re walking away from it.
Admin: Be careful that doesn’t happen.
FA: It wasn’t my recommendation to wipe the slate clean. My point was that this committee was created to address some issues. But we have a different charge here. My point was that we really need to structure a committee to meet that charge with MnSCU. That’s my point. It’s not my suggestion that it comes from this body to wipe the slate clean, and then we offend a lot of people. I’m simply asking we have a charge from MnSCU to develop a diversity plan; we need to put a group together to deal with that. These other groups can remain. That’s a local issue. I think they should be distinct and separate.
Admin: The question is do we charge this new group that we’re talking about simply to create a diversity plan for MnSCU, or is it more expansive than that?
Admin: It’s more expansive.
FA: I agree that the whole thing from MnSCU can be more expansive than what they ask for. It could be a real plan for the campus community. But that’s not what any of these other committees have been charged with. It’s a totally different mission. I think we have enough smart people on this campus to set something up.
Admin: The suggestion underlying is that we keep this taskforce and have that meeting take place?
FA: Have it take place and have them do whatever they’ve been charged to do.
Admin: I think it’s a good idea to have this meeting that’s been scheduled so it doesn’t seem like they finally have the act together, and they’re canceling it.
Admin: I think we will need to have some discussions about the specific parameters in the charge to that committee because there was talk of websites. It’s expansive and it’s broad. I think this group deserves a shot at something manageable. I think we need something specific to do. I’m requesting that from somebody. We can have a meeting on Monday and try to come up with some suggestions.
Admin: What Robert’s presumption is, there was a charge to this committee; they had been asked to do something. I’m hearing from you, well, not really. It was kind of fuzzy.
Admin: It was pretty fuzzy.
Admin: So they don’t really have a task to pursue.
FA: It was to coordinate the diversity efforts on campus.
Admin: It’s very hard to coordinate if you don’t have a plan from which you are working.
FA: Part of the difficulty is when they started the committee on diversity education out of FA, was that it had so many cross purposes they couldn’t get anything done. What eventually came was a focus on what resulted in the CARE Initiative, because then it was focused on just a particular type of diversity and issues of aggression. So the other type of issues of discrimination were dropped off. Because we did have a focus in terms of what we wanted to do with the subcommittee, we did wind up with having the CARE Initiative. But as long as it was cross purposes, the people who had particular interest they were bogged down and most of the people eventually stopped coming. But then there were some of us that stayed and did have enough commitment at least for that part in dealing with racism.
Admin: I think your point is well taken. Part of the dynamic here is, what do we do with the other interest groups on campus like anti-Semitism, GLBT, and all the issues on campus? How do they share resources and what is the coordination of those groups? But I’m not sure that’s something a task force can do.
FA: Part of the diversity committee’s detail was meeting with the IFO that also responded to MnSCU’s diversity plan, which was actually rather short-sighted, very narrow. Our response at that time, a couple years ago, was that it needed to be revised and that it was insufficient. So, when you talk about having a broader approach, I think it seems appropriate. Otherwise there’s always going to be, in a certain sense, it’s a disingenuous effort, if you have objectives that are falling short of what we really want to try to achieve.
FA: So it’s my understanding then that you’re going to have the meeting and talk with the committee?
Admin: I think I’ll have the meeting and have a sit-down with the people that are coming, and talk through this with them, so that we do all this face-to-face. I’ll get some feed back.
FA: Certainly we’re going to be populating another committee along the same lines.
Admin: I think there are people who would show up on this committee that would probably be interested.
Admin: I have a recommendation you’d be sympathetic to, so we can move to planning something rather than planning on how to plan it, and I think the people in the group would feel badly if they were disenfranchised from the committee. So it is my suggestion that on the agenda of items for Rex’s group is, are you interested in serving on this committee that’s being formed? And generally the committee is going to be about developing a comprehensive diversity plan that includes what MnSCU wants but broader. In the meantime, we can develop a charge for this other committee so it can be defined a little more carefully. If you bring back the interest of those people in their membership, presumably we can use that as a basis. And that will inform all of us as we search for other membership for the committee on the plan. So, if you can at least find out if they’re interested in serving, and if there are issues that they believe are independent of this broader committee, then with that information and the charge, pretty quickly we could form the committee to do this and get on with it. That’s my suggestion.
FA: And, of course, if the members are faculty, assuming I know you Rex, would you say that when the call comes out from the Faculty Association, please respond?
Admin: Yes.
FA: I would appreciate that.
2. COE Climate Taskforce (separated from Taskforce on Diversity at the 8/30/07 Meet and Confer) (FA) (9/22/05)
FA: As you know, the co-coordinators of that group were two faculty members who were from outside of the COE: Frankie Condon and Jeanne Lacourt. Since neither one of them can continue in those roles, the EC asked and I went to the COE Climate Taskforce’s first meeting and I gave them the charge from EC to make a recommendation to us of how the co-chairs would be selected. I’m a little concerned about what happened, in fact more than a little concerned. What happened instead was that I received information from members of the committee that people had been elected as co-chairs who are actually members in the COE. I wanted to say a few things regarding this. First of all a committee does not have the ability to re-configure itself, especially when that committee configuration has been agreed upon by Meet and Confer. There were particular situational concerns that led to the formation of the committee in the first place. As you may remember when that committee was formed, Senate came forward with a recommendation that we respond to the EEOC recommendation concerning climate in the COE by forming a COE Climate Taskforce. The Senate recommendation that came forward to Meet and Confer and was agreed upon was that the co-chairs would be external to that college, and that was a purposeful choice. It wasn’t something that we just made up on the fly. It may be that there are reasons now for reconsidering that agreement—if there have been changes in circumstances, that might be a reason to reconsider the configuration of the committee. But, I haven’t seen any evidence that that committee is ready to be on its own. I think it still needs to have people external to that college, coordinating the efforts, so that they have help from outside in working through some thorny issues with climate in that college. I’m requesting that that process that we requested be followed. I let people know on that committee that we expect a recom