Meet and Confer Notes December 13, 2007

Final approved 1-17-08

Meet and Confer

December 13, 2007

Admin: Michael Spitzer, Earl Potter, Larry Chambers, Mitch Rubinstein, Kate Steffens, Rex Veeder, Steve Ludwig, Roland Specht-Jarvis, Avelino Mills-Nova, Jill Rudnitski, and Wanda Overland

Faculty: Judy Kilborn, Annette Schoenberger, Michael Connaughton, Michael Tripp, Robert Johnson, JoAnn Gasparino, Fred Hill, John Palmer, Frances Kayona, Balsy Kasi, Bill Hudson, David Warne, Bill Langen, Polly Chappell – Note taker

Approval of Minutes

1. November 15, 2007

Admin: Let’s begin with the approval of the minutes from November 15^th.

FA: Those minutes are ready to be approved.

New Business

5. Community Clinic Task Force (ADM) (12/13/07)

Admin: We’ve had some requests to make a little bit of a change in the sequence that we cover the topics. So, we’ll begin with item five under New Business.

Admin: We’re not going to do that anymore.

FA: I would still like it to be on the agenda.

Admin: Oh, sure. But there’s no need to go there now.

FA: Yes, because the person who’s going to ask about it has to go give a final that starts in 45 minutes.

Admin: That’s number four.

FA: Both of them.

Admin: Okay.

FA: So, can we proceed with item number five? We didn’t ask to cancel that. We just simply indicated that we didn’t want the visitors to speak.

Admin: I’d be happy to provide an overview. In the COE, we are experiencing a shift from more Teacher Ed programs to more non-teaching programs like Behavior Analysis, Marriage and Family Therapy, and so on and so forth. Several faculty approached me in terms of whether or not we could somehow put together a community clinic where some of our students would work out in the community in terms of their practicum, and things like that. Samples would be Behavior Analysis and Marriage and Family Therapy, and those kinds of outreach programs. And so, what we did in the college over the semester is we had two college conversations open to anyone in the college to come together and discuss what a Community Clinic might look like for the COE. And different ideas were generated, and so on and so forth. The overall consensus was that people would like to explore the idea of the Community Clinic. So, the recommendation came forth that we might put together a task force to explore the option, look at how this might play out in terms of our community partners. So that’s where we are right now. We’re trying to think about putting together a task force to look at this.

FA: It sounds like a good idea. I was just startled to see that on the agenda because yesterday I was at a meeting as co-chair of the Academic Program Initiative Development Work Group from the Academic Action Plan. It just seemed odd in a way that these two things were juxtaposed. That’s exactly the sort of thing that we had hoped for input on starting in a month or so. Maybe it just raises some questions about the reason why we have to have an Academic Plan. That sounds like a good idea, but it sounds like there may well be some possibilities for collaboration—synergy I think is the language in the charge and so forth. I wonder to the extent this really is at this point of something that is widely known and open to any and all, etc. It seems to me a little on the premature side. I also wondered why it would come to us at a different direction since it is a faculty initiative.

FA: In discussion at Pre-Meet and Confer, one of our concerns was that we are beginning this process that they are planning. It’s meant to be a grassroots kind of movement where discussion comes up from the departments, and it seems to me that this kind of initiative could be part of that discussion at the departmental level and filtered on up. And it’s really our perspective that you’re putting the cart before the horse when we’re having a task force form on something when we believe our energy should be, if this is an interest, filtering that into the academic planning process.

Admin: May I comment? One of the things you have to be careful of when you do an academic planning process is that you don’t create a bureaucratic regulatory system that stifles all thinking. What the academic plan is like is sort of a final gate to which everything has to come. You couldn’t, for example, have this task force and have these folks submit a proposal outside the planning process. It has to come through the plan. I wouldn’t be surprised if I’m going to call for a group in January for faculty to self-identify their interest in sustainability, and open a conversation about connecting around the theme of sustainability. I’m sure there will be lots of conversations that begin to take place, some of them pretty chaotic as we explore interdisciplinary connections. I wouldn’t be worried about that. What I would do is watch that all new program ideas—the growth ideas, the development ideas—are reflected in the proposals in the planning process. And there’s no sort of extra process in things submitted, and trying to do an end run on the whole process. But I would not be afraid of any initiatives from anyone that stimulate thinking and start the conversations.

FA: How would you imagine those would be initiated? I’m coming back to our concern with his expectation that this come up through faculty through departmental processes.

Admin: I think the stimulus for ideas will come from several places. For example, I’m visiting every academic department on the campus. I can guarantee that no one of them would have suggested a sustainability initiative that cuts across the university. So, I’m going to suggest that. That doesn’t mean that the President is directing faculty activity. That just means that the President has recognized lots of areas of strength, and I would like to see the faculty start to talk about this.

Admin: In some ways the same thing is true about the clinic because it involves several departments.

Admin: I did get a message from Leeann Jorgensen saying that they would like to send a letter to Coborn’s to discuss their property. I said well, we have an academic planning process in place. I want this to go through that. And we have a master planning process in place. I want that to guide this thinking. And we are in conversation about their property and the things they are developing, and another initiative is not appropriate.

FA: Just a quick comment. I value very much and I appreciate the fact that there are people interested in the sustainability issues. That isn’t strictly speaking for most of us an academic issue, and this issue is.

Admin: No. I’m talking curriculum, scholarship, academic programs, in Economics, English, Business, the field sciences, and across the university. It is an academic issue. It is not whether or not we’re using too much heat in Stewart Hall. We have to do that, too. And there’s a place where the academic interests of the faculty and really student-pull on sustainability intersects our practices on campus. We can’t have those conversations separately.

FA: Okay.

Admin: The task force would really do a needs analysis, and look at what we are currently doing in the community, what we are doing on campus, ways we can expand. They will explore the issue. That was the result of the college conversations to look at what we would possibly do over the next few years with a clinic. So I think it would fit in nicely with that.

Admin: Sure.

FA: Yes. I do know Leeann. I play bridge with her. We did ask her to serve on the task force for our working group. I now understand why she declined the opportunity to be on the working group. That troubles me in the short time we have from now until the end of academic year our energies are involved in the plan. Perhaps it will naturally bubble up from the departments in the college. Departments are going to be asked to review what they’re doing, what they’re not doing, what they’d like to be doing, and each department in each college could certainly participate. What I’m concerned about is losing a focus on a very tight timeframe to complete an academic action plan.

Admin: I think the reality is that people are really interested in working on the academic plan work, but I believe we also have people interested in participating in other initiatives such as the Clinic task force and other work. I think people will make choices in terms of their interest and their passion.

Admin: This is all part of a poll. An idea is going to come up that requires a group to come together to talk about it. Some of those same faculty members may be engaged in other conversations because the links may be to a different department or different interest. One of the things you are going to see is far from departments developing their plan, and you’re going to see a lot of conversations and movement across boundaries, and ideas and questions coming from all sorts of angles. In the end, the documents that are put on the table will be from departments and colleges and the task forces. And all that conversation will be reflected in those documents with no sort of sidebar proposal on the table from some independent group. For example, with sustainability, if a group comes together to talk about that based on the departments I’ve seen, 10 different departments, we’ll want to participate in this disciplinary collaboration around sustainability. I think that’s important to our future.

FA: I’d like to caucus.

CAUCUS

FA: We’d like to ask for the charge of the task force to be submitted to us. Then we can look at that. The other request would be that the task force would be comprised of membership in the normal way that college-wide task forces are formed to participate, and that there may also be interest from units outside the college who might be interested so that in either the charge or work of the task force that be presented.

Admin: That’s an appropriate request.

FA: There was another piece to that. Normally task forces recommend action, but they don’t take it. So, we would assume some sort of report would come forward but no action.

FA: The task force would make a recommendation or report, but not be designed to take action.

Admin: Okay. Let’s move on.

4. Naming of the former Business Building (ADM) (12/13/07)

Admin: I have a handout. Steve Ludwig came to me a few months ago and said it’s getting confusing referring to the former Business Building as the former Business Building, and we need a better name than that. MnSCU has a policy that they approve any new names for buildings once an extensive consultation process has gone on. So, we started. I’m charged with that because fundraising opportunities are typically considered in naming of buildings. There are about four criteria in the MnSCU policy. After looking at prospect lists and possibilities, we did not see fundraising as a consideration in naming the building. The renovation project that is going to be starting soon is fully funded. As we looked at prospect and donor lists from the departments that are going to be housed in the building, we did not see a lot of potential to bring forward a donor name. So, one of the other criteria to present a naming opportunity to MnSCU is service to the institution. And, so, I have asked people, consulted with people, about who might have a re of service that we would want to honor at this time. The name, particularly in visiting with the new university archivist, of George F. Budd came forward. A few years ago we named the Math/Science Center after former President Wick. And when we compared accomplishments, the person very close to President Wick who has not had a facility named after him or herself on this campus is George Budd. He was president for 13 years, which is an extraordinary amount of time. He was also the president who pushed through the change from being a teachers college to a comprehensive university. And, so, I started consulting with people from the Budd era because I think it’s important to consider the reputation that will come along with the name, and I visited with people. You will see some of the comments in the proposal that we have here about his accomplishments in getting support from the legislature for the growth that, in fact, President Wick later realized. It was Mrs. Wick who said that if George Budd had not laid the ground work, not gotten the funding for the buildings, had not done the things that he had done, it would have been virtually impossible to deal with the growth and student enrollment that we received in the Wick era. So, with that as background, I have just begun the consultation process with different groups—the consultations are on the back—to find out how people feel and whether this is something you would support. At a certain point when we have been through these consultations, we will contact the family. We have not yet contacted the family to talk about this because we want to make sure as institution that this is something we want to do before we would bring it forward in a way that it might be embarrassing if we were to go back and say, oh, well upon consultation we would not. To date we have not found anything that would bring discredit to our institution by naming it after Budd. We found more and more evidence that this is a person worthy of being honored. Former President Budd is still alive. He is in a nursing home in Kansas. He left here to be the president of a university in Pittsburgh, Kansas, and he also does have children there. So, we can contact them, but we do not want to do it until we had a full chance to air people’s feelings about doing this. That’s why I’m bringing it to you today. Again, I’m just starting. If there are further steps in consultation with other faculty, with the departments, I’m happy to do that. But I felt like this was the appropriate place to start this conversation with faculty.

FA: I guess I’m struck as someone who will be in that building. Frankly, it seems odd to me that you say start the conversation when apparently the conversation seems to be over, to be blunt about it. I wonder why it is that the faculty who inhabit that building are the last people who you consult with. Just an observation.

Admin: My understanding is that I should bring things here. But I don’t think it is a done conversation. I want to hear your feedback.

FA: Please understand what it looks like. Rhetoric is one of my fields and this looks suspicious, excuse my limited French, Fait Accompli.

FA: Impeccable. (Laughter)

FA: As it happens, I know George Budd because he was President Emeritus when I was there. Not that I have any objection to it even. I just think that since I assume that departments that I assume in that building are about to be asked that, I think they might have some other suggestions. I’m not bringing them forward. I simply represent them. I can’t speak for them. I was a little puzzled when I first saw this. I was curious about this process of cherry picking. There are some presidents with buildings named after them. There are three or four who were skipped. The first president of the university was skipped for some reason. I don’t know why. One was de-frocked apparently. We used to have a Gray building that became something else, it disappeared. I don’t know what that process is. Presumably I’m not supposed to since these sorts of things go on without my discussions. There are some issues that I know some other members want to bring up, and I alas have to go to an exam. Maybe my colleagues will bring up some of those other issues.

FA: To pick up on the notion about the process of consultation and criteria, it would be helpful to know explicitly what the criteria are. I guess we were joking in Pre-Meet and Confer that deep pockets might buy you a building.

Admin: A name of a building.

FA: The question of naming, we’ll have a Budd on one end and a Miller on the other. So that might enhance our reputation in another way. We already have a reputation as a party school. On the other hand, does the process of consultation start with a name that has already been researched and put on the process, or does it start with the question of what should be the name or who or what should we name buildings after? And do we have an opportunity to change the image of the university as the university changes its demographics? It’s an opportunity to reflect other priorities, other developments, other missions, other groups. A few years ago, we decided that other aesthetic parts of the university needed to be enhanced if we do more of what we have in this room. So, the image reflects who is coming here and who is going to come here. The naming may also have the same impact, especially in light of today’s events where we have hate crimes going on at St. Cloud State University. It is well-known in the region for these incidents and not for other things. So, do we have an opportunity to speak to developments and what we hope to become and what we think we are by doing something that will permanently impact, or a statement of what we believe in?

Admin: I guess in terms of what you are saying, when I did this for Robert Wick, the consultation process took a full year. I don’t think it’s too late to have those conversations. It’s easiest to respond when you have somebody. When you have those more free-wheeling conversations, a lot of times action doesn’t come forward in the timely manner. But, I’m happy to have them now. I don’t think it’s too late. I would seek the next steps if I should go to departments or what we should do next in order to have a larger conversation. I definitely want to do that before we would contact the Budd family because it is not a done deal at this point.

FA: With the Wick Building it was the same thing. You guys had already decided. You asked us. I said it might be more appropriate to find somebody who was a mathematician. It didn’t matter because you had already picked someone. This is a public meeting. The notes are going to go up.

Admin: Okay.

FA: You said you weren’t going to let them know about this. You have already because this is a public meeting. Once you choose someone, where is the consultation? I think that is the question we’ve been asking. You told us you’ve chosen someone; here’s the person that you picked. You don’t see any reason not to pick this person. Where’s the consultation? We don’t see that in the way that you’re doing this.

FA: The names we place on buildings are sometimes a source of levity, but in another sense they are really, really important. Every person that comes on campus for the first time, and perhaps for subsequent times, orients themselves with the names of those people we’ve chosen to attach to the buildings. Those names are signs of prominence and distinction. So, it’s worthwhile contemplating what kind of prominence and distinction we celebrate at St. Cloud State. It’s interesting to compare the list of names on the buildings. Preeminently those are past presidents with what is said at the beginning activities in the fall every year where we celebrate every person who gets up and talks about our academic distinction. If that’s the case, why can’t we have at least one poor building on campus that is attached with a name of a person who is a distinguished scholar? Why would that be inappropriate? Then everyone that seeks out that building for whatever reason sees the name of the scholar that it was named after, not some former president whose name was attached by other administrators.

Admin: It’s an interesting idea. It is not true that this is a done deal. I think Jill is trying to say that. As far as I know it’s not done.

FA: I guess for us the proof will be in the pudding.

FA: Since we had a conversation when we put this on the agenda, and you told me the name proposed, I asked in the English department in my departmental meeting last week if anyone knew anything about this person. A few faculty recognized the name as being a prior president. As you have already been told, obviously, English is going in there, Political Science is going in there, Ethnic Studies, Women’s Studies. I don’t know if you’re going to get an objection to this from English, although people were indicating that it would be better if the person’s first name were Bill or William and we could do a Billy Budd building. I do think it’s important to think about. And this may seem like a playful thing, I think it’s important to think about what people will do with that name, too. We just joked about the Miller and Budd buildings. We were joking about language like this “Budd’s for you” or “Budding scholars” or “the darling Budds of May.” So, if you put English types in there, we will play with the name. So, you should be aware of that too.

FA: I saw an article where people are giving money not to name a building.

FA: The other piece, I should maybe say, is that going along with the academic piece, we also talked about a faculty emeritus who had donated, bequeathed us with, to us it is a large amount, $250,000 for student scholarships. That’s a huge amount for student English scholarships, but considering those sorts of things also for discussion. I’m speaking out as my role as a member of the English department, not as my role as FA President.

FA: You indicated that raising funds doesn’t look promising?

Admin: We went through the lists not only of past donors like Bob Coard and prospects and have looked at that. That is something that I will need to go back to the Foundation Board with because when we consulted with them, that was their concern, that we were passing up an opportunity. Two things, first of all, that is not the area where we have explored a lot of donors in the past. Most of the donations have been to scholarships, and when you talk about the needs of the departments in the building, I would hate to take… typically in order the test for MnSCU for fundraising there would need to be about $600,000, and it would have to go towards the project in order for fundraising to be a factor. What would any of those departments or every department do with $600,000 if you had it for your programs or you had it for your students? Wouldn’t it be a lot more important than for a building that is already funded? To focus our limited effort on that it seems more compelling.

FA: Thinking about what is going in that space, we have Ethnic Studies, Women Studies, it might be an interesting idea to have somebody whose not, to use a cliché, “a dead white guy.” Of course he’s not dead. Let’s strike that (laughter). Seriously, if we’re going to honor some of that, it might be interesting to think about this in a different way where we honor a range of individuals, with a range of contributions, including academic ones.

Admin: Just a couple comments. And obviously this is my first in this conversation. I don’t have the history. The fact is that the naming of buildings is a board policy and requires board approval. There are general conventions about the naming of buildings at universities, and naming buildings for significant donors is a fact well established across the country. It would not serve any of our interests to remove that possibility from our portfolio. I am intrigued by Robert’s suggestion in reflecting our values in the way we think about naming a building. Apparently, as I read the board policy, there’s not great room for that kind of strategy. That doesn’t mean we couldn’t explore it. And if the faculty think that would be a worthwhile conversation, I would welcome that. There’s an earlier conversation that we have to have, and that is about the principles that guide our selection of people to whom we give honorary degrees. That’s something that is much more urgent and very relevant to the question you raise about public choices we make to exemplify our values and our commitments. I think we should do that kind of selection in the spirit that Robert outlines absolutely. That’s a conversation we have only named. We haven’t begun to have the conversation. But it is really important that we begin that conversation. You’ll notice that we have student speakers at commencement in the fall, which has not been the past practice, precisely, because we wanted some time to have the conversation and think about the selection of the folks we might consider for honorary degree, but we wanted to do that in the value context. That conversation is really important and urgent, and I would hope we get that one very soon. This one is related, but whereas that one we have quite a bit of autonomy in the way we approach that, we have a board policy to operate within this case. I have no difficulty having a more extended conversation about our approach to naming buildings, but we’ll have to do so either within the confines of the current board policy, or we will have to come to a point where we say the board policy doesn’t offer us an option that we would prefer and address that as a challenge. This has been lingering for a while. There’s no great urgency. I haven’t been here long enough to disappoint too many people, yet. I would hope that you would accept my word that this is not a done deal.

FA: We would certainly welcome the kind of conversation that you’re indicating. I certainly think it would be an interesting conversation if we needed to, to take to the board, but I think it’s important to express values through names.

Admin: I don’t want to run into John’s concern that we’re going to distract from the Academic Planning task forces. (Laughter)

FA: That’s right. That’s top priority.

Admin: So you’re going to have to tell me whether you guys can figure a way through that independent effort.

FA: As Michael can tell you, I kept adding the word “values” yesterday in the conversation about the Academic Plan.

Admin: I don’t want another task force on this.

FA: No.

Admin: Let’s have the conversation. Let’s take a look at the boundaries and let’s establish some comfort that we’re doing this in a way that’s good for us.

Admin: Thank you.

FA: I think one of the things that disturbs me the most about the way that we go about doing this is if we had someone else that we thought was a good person, because you’ve essentially made this public, you would have to dig up something publicly bad about this person. Because what you’re saying is give us reasons why we shouldn’t use this person rather than let’s have a list of names and see who’s the best. One of the people I think we should be naming buildings on this campus after is that woman who got the first honorary doctorate.

Admin: Nellie Stone Johnson.

FA: Nellie Stone Johnson. Why don’t we have a building named after her? We should have done that a long time ago.

Admin: That’s a question that has to be asked within the context of looking at the board policy.

FA: You’re right. It does. But when you do that, I’m not even allowed to propose her. Because you’ve already said to me here’s who we picked. And that’s my biggest concern. Sure, it’s not a done deal. But my biggest concern is there are other people I can think of that we should be naming buildings after. I’m not even asked.

Admin: You just made a recommendation.

FA: I heard some reference on how to describe the building that doesn’t have a name on it. What’s the street address?

Admin: I don’t know. Every building has a street address that is unique to the building, and I don’t know the name of this one, but I believe it’s 1-something 8^th Street.

FA: I simply suggest as a way to begin to not have to call it the former, if we started to call it by the address. I would be fearful that people will start thinking that it is going to have a name. I take the president at as his word. This is serious business to make a selection within the board policy guidelines. If we raise $600,000 and we could spend it, and Roland over there I’m sure could figure out a way to spend it, we could perhaps find a means to do that. Maybe you could put together a fundraising campaign to honor the name we provided. We can only do that if we are involved in a fully collaborative way.

FA: Just a suggestion as far as a name nondescript. When I was at the University of North Texas, there’s a huge building on campus they call the G-A-P: General Academic Building.

FA: That’s Stewart Hall. (Laughter)

Admin: If I could respond about the more generic buildings because actually that would have been our preference. In the archives there is a series of correspondence, and this is old and things change, where the Board of Trustees at the time when we were not colleges and universities but just the state college board. Back and forth, back and forth, you have to name the building something. The names like Education Building that we had, and Math and Science, were hugely controversial in their day because the Board did not want to accept naming a building simply generically in the Administrative Services Building. This was sent back and forth several times because they said the function of a building can change, and if you name it the Business Building and then you move, you end up with an issue. We were very hard headed at the time and just kept writing back and saying it’s the Education Building; it’s the Business Building. But I recognize that at least at one time they wanted us to put a name on it. Now there are still other options besides this that might not be a person’s name. But that’s where they become very focused: it should be a person and it should be a person who’s done this or that. But Nellie Stone Johnson has come up. I didn’t see it tied to this particular building, but I would welcome a proposal to name a building on campus after Nellie Stone Johnson. I would work to do that.

FA: I would suggest if Political Science is going in that building, Nellie Stone Johnson, has more of a connection to Political Science than more of the activists in this state in the Democratic Party. If you read her autobiography, you’ll soon see that connection. So that would be appropriate in terms of the academic connection as well. Not to advocate too strongly, but there is a clearly a Political Science connection with Nellie Stone Johnson.

FA: So, we’ll be having more discussion. Thank you very much for all your work.

Unfinished Business

1. Announce, Discuss, and Bulletin Boards (FA) (09/07/06)

a. Policy for E-mail as a Means of Communication for Employees, St. Cloud State University

FA: Senate asked us to refer the draft policy for Email as a Means for Communication for Employees to Pat Arsenault at the state level just to look at that in terms of contractual issues and to provide also a lawyerly response.

FA: I was just wondering how that bulletin board is working for you folks? In particular, I’m wondering, what data you gathered to compare, as you decide, whether it was a success or not considering the volume of announcements, say in the fall, to currently? I know as I open my email on a daily basis, it’s been imperceptible to me, but you probably have data on that, and I would be very curious to get your impression on how that’s working for you? Because down here in the trenches, it ain’t working so well!

Admin: It’s working just fine for me, the bulletin board.

FA: I assume you’ve unsubscribed from Announce?

Admin: No, I haven’t unsubscribed to Announce. I find Announce useful in certain ways.

FA: You like puppies?

Admin: I want a Labra-doodle, and I think if I stay on Announce, I might get one. (Laughter)

FA: Come on, if we’re talking seriously, about email an official means of communication, and people who are well disposed currently start the day by deleting huge blocks of announcements, surely you can see how that cripples the whole idea. There’s going to be messages besides the student email that I try to dig out of it, which comes in a pretty big volume itself, but that’s legitimate. I want to read that stuff. But the AFCSCME announcements, you know what I’m talking about, so I’m not going to list a whole bunch of things and put it on the record. This isn’t functional. And to imagine that you’re going to use this as an official mode of communication, are you serious?

Admin: Yes, if I could respond. We’re not talking about using it that way. It’s not coming through as an Announce, it will come through individually.

FA: I’d like to tease out two threads from comments that people have made. I want to go back a while in our conversation. One of our concerns when we initially brought this to you was that by Minnesota state law, we’re not supposed to use state resources for particular things. One of our reasons for requesting a bulletin board on an off-campus server was to get things that were patently illegal off of the listserv. And although I like puppies, and you know that I have a cat that’s a result from an inappropriate posting on Announce, it still is inappropriate for anybody to be posting some sorts of postings that are coming across. Some of us have emailed people when they’ve put inappropriate postings on, and asked them to use the appropriate place now that we have one. And yet the business doesn’t seem to be migrating. Many of us have unsubscribed to Announce, but that doesn’t take care of the issue of people using state resources for personal gain. The email policy aside, we’re wasting resources, including human resources for those people who read email and have to delete things from their mailboxes that they don’t deem as appropriate. I’m wondering if we can have a plan to get those kinds of things migrated to the bulletin board, which is set up for this purpose, and it’s not being used for that purpose. I can’t tell people, well I have as you know, I’ve told people in the past and so has Annette that this is inappropriate, and put it on whatever. That’s not technically my job.

Admin: Yes, I’ve told a few people the same thing. I think we need to promote the idea of a bulletin board for effective use of it, and that that’s an alternative. What Bill is talking about goes beyond notices that belong on the bulletin board.

FA: That’s right. What if I don’t want to get a notice about the latest play being put on by the theater department? Or if I don’t want to get the latest notice on the Women’s Center, or on and on? Why can’t I just say I’m categorically uninterested in that. By the way I want to know about athletic events, I want to know about the theater, but there are others that I’m not going to mention that I have a persistent disinterest.

Admin: I don’t know how we can set that up.

FA: I can tell you how, for the second time, since I said it last spring. You offer faculty the opportunity at the beginning of the fall to go over a checklist of the top 30 posters to Announce and say do you want to opt in or not? You will not be included unless you opt in. Would you like to receive notice of athletic events, etc., the top 30. That’s going to cut down on the volume of your mail, if that’s a problem for you, as it is for me in getting things lost. You’re all set. The problem is solved. Now that creates another problem. There are lots of people that don’t care if you want to receive that message or not; they want you to have it. If it irritates you, it’s of no concern to them.

FA: I’m not vested in any particular solution or another solution. I’m just vested in a solution. He’s asking for a situation where you could opt in and then the particular notices would come to you in your email. You can also look at it as pull technology, push technology. Those things could go to the bulletin board, and if I knew that theater announcements were going to be posted on the bulletin board, and I was interested in receiving these announcements, I could get used to looking there for them. But obviously this conversation is getting pretty old and repetitive. There are some fairly simple technology fixes for this, and I guess I’m just wondering why they haven’t happened. So, I don’t know if we want to stop there for now and come back with our response to the policy.

FA: Just quantitatively I have 26 pages in my INBOX. Each page has 20 messages. That’s in my active INBOX. I have 12,600 give or take and a few in my trash bin. I run at about 86-90% full.

Admin: Why? (Laughter)

FA: That’s the question. I delete and delete. I can’t catch up. I can’t empty it and maybe I’m paranoid about throwing away something that I should. That’s to Bill’s point. The volume is there. I have things that I did not ask for that come. They come from the campus, and I’m not even on Announce anymore. As I unsubscribed, as I did, it did reduce my volume. It saved me 15-20 minutes in the morning. Heaven forbid if you’re gone for a long period of time. The question is, do we buy more disk space and forestall the problem, or do we find a way to reduce the volume?

Admin: Let us look into this and get back to you on this issue, the bulletin board in particular as an alternative to the Announce. That is one of the two topics identified here. We need to come back to the other one as well.

FA: If there is going to be another attempt to educate the faculty in terms of using one over the other? Perhaps a stronger way to influence faculty to make appropriate use of subject line would also help those of us who sort by rules. If we could suggest some consistency of the kinds of things that go in to the subject line, I can set up rules to remove all kinds of stuff, but when the subject changes periodically, but the content never does, we’re doing each other a great disservice. Maybe we just need to have that reminder included in our attempt to reeducate. Take a short paragraph to continue to suggest that the appropriate subject, and something short, might be helpful to readers.

FA: This may sound odd, but education can only go so far. Some people choose not to be educated. Some people know the rules and like to break them for personal gain. I think we need to look at alternatives to take care of that, and hopefully, finally end this discussion before it becomes terminal to some of us. I would like the discussion to die before I retire from this place, which is a ways off.

2. Follow ups

a. Article 22 Task Force (FA) (02/01/07)

Admin: I think we finally have a meeting scheduled on Monday of next week.

FA: We have a couple questions on that, and you answered the first one. I’m wondering, what the timeline is and when this task force will report its recommendations? It’s a very important task force. Deans at this table know as well as faculty involved in these processes know that they are very complicated and bungled right now, and the sooner we can untangle them, the better for everyone who’s involved in the process. I’d like some sense of when the end point might be for the work here.

Admin: I think we would like to complete that during the spring semester. That’s what we’re hoping for so that we can have this in place the following year.

FA: That would be great.

Admin: I hope that’s possible. It only took us three and a half weeks to get the first meeting scheduled, so it’s not been a very speedy process so far. We can schedule more meetings once the group is all together.

FA: So, as far as I’m concerned we can take this off until it would come time for a final report.

Admin: Right.

b. Return to Title Four (ADM) (08/30/07)

FA: We’re down, primarily, to the policy for grading. We had hoped to be able to bring forward a recommendation from Senate on this today. We had a conversation over several Senates regarding the grading policy. In general, the response is that the document looks pretty good, but there’s one sticking point we’ve been wrestling with. We asked the Academic Affairs Committee to look at that, and they ran out of a quorum before they could make a final recommendation, being their meeting was at the very end of the semester. But they did send forward some preliminary response that can perhaps clarify where the questions are. The issues Senate had have to do with policy language regarding satisfactory, unsatisfactory. The policy says “S/U grades are alternative to A-F grades when permitted in course design. Students must select S/U or A-F at the time of registration. Subsequent changes are not permissible. Students may arrange prior to registration to audit courses for an AU.” That specific language we’re struggling with, and here are the concerns: the policy definition of S/U that they contribute to confusion about the use of S/U by faculty. If you look at the student handbook grade appeals policy “a department grade appeal committee may assign an S if they believe the student’s work in the course is equivalent to the grade of C- or better.” Okay. “This can occur if the contested grade is a passing grade A-D, but may also occur if the contested grade is an F.” And Academic Affairs Committee members felt that there could be greater clarity in the draft policy regarding the meaning of S and U. It’s not clear if an S represents a grade of A-D, which is considered passing at SCSU, or a C- as designated by the SCSU Student Handbook. I can give you this, Mitch, but also there were concerns raised regarding policy wording about when S/U be used. It says it can be used when permitted in the course design. Well, that is one significant place that we use it, but we also use it to deal with grade complaints. Sometimes we move things to S/U instead of a C, for example. There was also suggested language for clarification of that statement S/U grades are only available if the course is so designated. This should make it clear that a course has been through the university curriculum process. Now, the last issue concerns a grade of Incomplete being automatically changed to F or U at the end of that following semester if no other grade has been assigned. This refers back to the second issue. In other words there is a muddling with what does an S stand for and a U stand for. The policy says it could only be used if it is so designated by the course. Well, in fact the grading appeal policy allows for changes to S/U. So, those are the major glitches right now. As you know this is informal. The Academic Affairs Committee discussed the issues. They did not make a recommendation. What we’re hoping is that they can complete their business at the beginning of the semester and bring it to Senate so we can bring it back after Senate at our Meet and Confer at the end of January—a policy that takes care of these issues.

Admin: Is not having the college bulletin that defines those grades and what they mean---

FA: There’s no definition of S/U on this grading policy, and part of the policy was to define what the grades meant.

FA: We have a current thing that is in the bulletin. We need it to be clear because of the return to Title Four.

FA: Right. So, we need to find that in this grade policy. People shouldn’t have to look at three documents to know either. There should be correlation between those documents. So, if the grade appeals process talks about S/U, it should say the same thing and it should be in agreement with the grade policy that we’re looking at now. There are disconnects between those pieces of documents that people will look at when they’re considering S/U. So, we ran out of time at the end of the semester, but we’re hopeful to bring that back next semester.

c. Prerequisites Policy (ADM) (08/30/07)

FA: We passed the prerequisites policy, and so we can take that off. People, I think, felt very comfortable with the clarifications on that policy.

Admin: I will inform people that this is now policy.

FA: Thank you, and that can come off the agenda.

Admin: Thank you.

d. Report on Budget (ADM) (10/18/07)

Admin: Maybe just a couple things. We did receive our review of the allocation model that showed some improvement from what we saw previously, on the one hand. On the other hand, the uncertainty over the tuition buy down gives us some pause as to how that might play out in that context. As I’m sure you know, there are some markers set apparently around the settlement for the Faculty Association, and that’s material to our discussions of budget on this campus, so that gives us some idea of range, perhaps. We’ll have lots of wiggle room and no assumption of resolution, or whatever. But, in any case there’s some additional assistance there. There’s also ongoing discussion with the system office about technology, and some feel that might have some influence overall on budget progress or not. We’re finishing the fall, which Michael might speak to. It looks like our enrollment will be ahead of projected for fall. Then for the year, we will meet our projections or exceed them.

FA: Which one of those? Give us the number.

Admin: The 14.2 is what we budgeted to for this year. And that’s the number we’re looking to exceed.

FA: You know how we always have this enrollment number and subtract 100 off…

Admin: That was a couple years ago, yes, because we were consistently not meeting our enrollment projection. And prudence kind of dictated that. But, this year, although summer was down, fall is up and did well, apparently. And if we have our typical retention into spring, and given graduation and a few new students, then we should be okay. And as we move through break, those numbers will firm up a little bit. And the Vice Presidents are looking at their various units to have a discussion over break about that so we can share more information about how that all seems to come together when we return in the spring.

FA: We had a conversation about the information going out for planning the ’09 budget. I got some information that departments are being told to prepare budgets with 1, 2, 3% reductions.

Admin: That’s one part of the discussion, I believe. There are also discussions about initiatives. As we find out where the overall budget lies, if you want to change what you’re going to do, you may have to stop doing some of the things you’re doing, or reduce some things depending on where the budget lies. And, so, yes, we’ve asked departments through the Vice Presidents to talk about how you might deal with less resources in some areas, and also the other side of that is where you might recommend additional resources be applied. People seem to listen like they’re receiving information on Federal Reserve of anything that’s not as good as they thought is bad. And we’re trying to talk more broadly because we need to maintain some flexibility because there’s still a fair amount of uncertainty even though we’re in the second year of the biennium. We’re trying to plan around that.

FA: So, can you clarify for us the second part of that. You said there’s the 1, 2, 3% reductions in our area…?

Admin: I’ll accept that. I believe that is what Michael has out to his people. Sure.

FA: The other side that you said about new initiatives. Is that to say that if additional resources are available, it will be considered or proposed?

Admin: That could be true. I could see a case where we would decide something if there is a change in enrollment, there would actually be decreased resources in that area. Or there would be a change in the emphasis, and you would use funds from one area in a different area.

FA: So the idea is departments aren’t being asked to plan additional resources. They may be new proposals or activities or services or programs?

Admin: Given what we know about enrollment and the budget and the settlements that remain uncertain, I think that all three of those, I’ll say, are potentially possible of a net reduction in some things. A simple reassignment to realign our resources best with what we think we should be doing, and perhaps additional resources to use for new initiatives. All three of those, or combinations of those are possible, I think.

FA: I received a copy of Dean’s Advisory Council minutes where the dean said that the reason for the reductions that were occurring were the salary settlements of faculty. That troubles me.

Admin: That sounds like a simplistic explanation.

FA: On Tuesday, I attended the state-wide IFO Budget Advisory Group meeting that gets briefed on the status of the budget. I learned that day that the trustees and the office of the Chancellor have held back $22,000,000 that was part of the amount that could be used for adjusted inflation from the allocation formula. I also learned that the trustees have not placed the $12,000,000 competitive salary dollars that were designated for that purpose by the legislature from the allocation formula. I also learned that the trustees had not found the $10,000,000 in reallocation to put into the allocation formula for the campuses. So I understand that the information you can report is only the information you’re given from the Office of the Chancellor. I report that so people realize that in hard dollars there’s at least 28 million that should end up in the allocation formula based on what the legislature was told, independent of spending on technology. And there’s a 10 million soft, which was this internal reallocation that was in the original MnSCU budget as presented in June. I’m optimistic that when we finally get done with the negotiation that money would become available. I hope it would become available in the reallocation formula because the cost of any settlements are paid locally—they’re not paid at the office of the Chancellor—they end up having to come out of that. I’m surmising that the reason these monies have not been allocated is that that is the bargaining process.

Admin: I considered your discussion about inflation, and I’m not certain if they distributed inflation over the… there was an intent to distribute the inflation over two years and somewhat more in the second year. I don’t know. I don’t have the same figures you have. But just the other nuance is the tuition buy down that’s on the table. And the source and the funds for that is another continuing question.

FA: That’s troublesome because all of the tuition dollars come to us. And if the Board of Trustees were to do something different than they told the legislature they were going to do and cut tuition or have tuition buy back, that’s money dollar-per-dollar out of our pockets—money that’s here to support our program.

Admin: I think in short I’m concerned about the uncertainty, which still remains. But I’m not that concerned about 2009. We’re going to be able to manage 2009. We’re in good financial condition as we go into it. I think we’ll be able to manage that and provide good service to students. There’s some uncertainty out there, but we’re in good condition. Some of our sister institutions, it will be much more difficult for them in whatever the scenario is that plays out.

FA: I nodded my head several times, so I agree with what you were saying, for the record.

FA: I’m assuming, also, that the reports we requested several Meet and Confer meetings ago will come to us when you have the data? The quarterly financial report? The audited FY07 Financial Report?

Admin: Yes.

FA: We’re close on the quarterly data. Diana and I were going to get together, but other callings that I have are taking me away from having that task completed, which is agreed upon presentation of the fiscal condition of the institution. The numbers are there.

Admin: Yes.

FA: We just haven’t had time to sit down and put them together. The local Budget Committee for the IFO meets on Monday, and I would expect that we’ll be closer to being finished with that process. The audited material is tied up in the black hole, and from the Budget Advisory meeting there seems to be something going on unrelated to our audit that’s holding up the ability to release the audit.

Admin: We did the quarterly report at the end of September. And we will do a quarterly report that’s published. They’re talking a little bit about a format that we discussed this spring. Those aren’t serious issues. And then we will publish the quarterly report after we finish the next quarter in December. When MnSCU releases the audit, it will go up on their website, and we’ll have paper copies on campus and distribute some of those, also, and provide a link to that electronic copy as soon as it’s released.

FA: Thank you.

FA: For ’09 you feel comfortable?

Admin: Yes.

FA: For planning on the departmental level, I’m just wondering if we’re going through extra work for what reason? Why do we have to look at scenarios of budget cuts at 1, 2, and 3%? Why not just simply look at an increase? Departments have to consider these matters, what kind of exercise is it? Is it an exercise in something? A plan for the worse case scenario? I’m just wondering why we need to go through this exercise?

Admin: It’s for a couple of reasons. There is still uncertainty of where we’re at. This is the time we can have to begin to consider options on how things might play out. When we look at it comprehensively, it is not necessarily that there’s going to be additional resources to allocate. If we just plan on doing business as usual or doing it the same as we did, and then just adding something at the top, if the resources were constant after inflation or whatever constant might mean, there still will be things that we’ll need to do that cost additional funds, perhaps, reallocation would be the way that we would accomplish that. So that’s why I’ve asked that we look at it, and we agreed to look at it in this way. Yes, it’s about what might be cuts, but it’s also about what might be initiatives, and that can play out as reallocation. It might play out differently. So that’s why we’re doing it.

FA: Okay.

e. Diversity Plan (ADM) (11/01/07)

FA: Two things. We want to ask for an update on where we are with the possibility of the task force or the group that would write a Diversity Plan, and we also wanted to ask if the President would speak to the hate crimes processes that we’re working through right now, and what we’re doing.

Admin: I think the Diversity Plan, in terms of workload and getting things done and getting the Academic Planning stuff going, I really have to rewrite the charge for the Diversity Plan. I have the draft. I don’t like the draft. I have to redo it. So, that will kick off after the first of the year.

What’s been going on, in respect to the hate crimes, let me frame my understanding. The first incident, I think everybody knows, a swastika was carved into the wall in the computer room in the Multicultural Center and chairs were slashed probably with the same tools used to carve the wall. That had to be premeditated. It was not something causally scribbled on the restroom wall. It had to be premeditated. And it struck right to the center of a place we created as a safe place, as a haven for our students. It was hateful, it was premeditated, and it was a crime. I’ve had some push back from members of our community, in writing and otherwise, that it wasn’t a big deal. It is a big deal. As we have talked together, there’s been a lot of sharing and a lot of people stepping up and speaking their minds and hearts, and I think there’s been learning around the table and in the community. Many people who didn’t understand why this was such a big deal are coming to understand, and some have said they didn’t understand, but now they do. There’s been a lot of meetings, and I think some of the meetings are difficult. In one with me, students were angry. One spoke out and said she was angry. The next thing we did was have a meeting with that student and other students. I said I don’t mind you declaring your anger and appreciate you’re speaking your mind. We continued to talk, and the meeting was good. We’re sticking with difficult conversations. I feel that we’re not saying, “You fix this.” We’re saying, “What would we do about this?” We’ve agreed on a way to handle incidents, to talk about them, and make them public. The press has been pretty open and declared our intent and reinforced the values of our community. I think that’s being heard pretty clearly. We’re working on a process through a hotline process to make it easier to report, easier to collect and manage the information. We became aware as we talked together over the last weeks that there were incidents of graffiti on the campus that were the same type that had not come to the attention of Administration. We looked at practices in place, not so much as to hide, but not to lift up these incidents to our notice. We’re acting, and we’re creating processes to manage that more effectively and openly.

At the current time, we have an ad hoc group that is meeting to evaluate each one of these incidents, and they decide together on what’s the character of the notice, and will it be publicized. Our intent is to regularize that ad hoc group through a subcommittee that becomes a response team that gathers when these incidents happen. There have been questions about whether the repeated safety notices are good for the community, whether they might not create an atmosphere that encourages and rewards people perpetrating these kinds of things. Those are conversations that we have to have within this group that we bring together to talk about these kinds of things. For example, it appears that there is a series that’s feeding itself. So, do we treat each one of these incidents as a separate incident, or do we treat it as series of things and sort of keep a running record. What’s the impact on the community of each incident being treated in the same fashion? In my own view the strongest thing is that we have come together as a community, and our voices have been raised up at a Speak Out, which was a great event. There were a lot of people there. There will be other conversations after the start of the year.

It’s been suggested that we broaden the conversation with the community. We’re doing that. We’ll be meeting with the mayor and the police chief to look at relationships, at what happens in this community and the activities in the city. We’re talking to them about their focus on hate crimes and how they manage that, and information sharing, so that we can see the safety of our students, faculty, and staff as an issue that goes beyond the boundaries of the campus. I honestly don’t believe we will ever stop all these events just like I believe that evil will persist in the world. The strength of our community will be in how we respond. I do think we can have some impact. I do think, with increased vigilance, we can make a difference. I do think that increasing our focus on the values of our community and how we’re examining our efforts to educate and create an anti-racist culture is impacted by the courses that we teach, that’s something we’ll have to do in the next few months. We clearly have students that don’t get it, as I understand from the questions that they ask. We spend a lot of money and time educating our students, and for some it doesn’t take. We’ll have to take a hard look at that. I think what you see in the community is a commitment to take these incidents seriously, and to respond with care, to be inclusive in our conversations, and to stand together. There is no automatic and easy fix to this. It’s a long, hard battle. It’s been many years after Dr. King led the country for change, and we’re still struggling.

FA: Can you tell us anything about the efforts to identify the perpetrators?

Admin: Each incident is reported to the police. The police do their usual crime scene evidence collection. And the one case where the person put the cartoon in the history department and several other places, that person has been identified. That has been reported. We’ve had conversations about cameras. There are pros and cons about increasing the number of cameras. The students pretty clearly didn’t want cameras in their private spaces. We have had conversations about whether the investigations need to be raised beyond the local level, and we’ll be talking with the mayor about that. It’s very hard to catch the perpetrators of these kinds of things.

Admin: I heard in the news this morning that the police department is essentially not going to press any charges against the person who wrote the cartoons.

Admin: Have you seen the cartoons?

Admin: No, I haven’t, but the news report said that essentially they weren’t going to press any charges against that individual. They came forward on their own.

Admin: That’s true. Right. When the response team looked at the cartoons, there were some difficult conversations about what the cartoon meant and what the intent was. My understanding, and I have very limited knowledge, is that the police reviewed the nature and content, and the statement of the perpetrator, and did not feel that a crime had been committed. If you look at the cartoons, and you were present for the conversations, people would disagree. I think clearly that the person’s behavior, if that person were a student, the student conduct review might have judged that person acted in bad judgment in our community by perpetuating this series. The police said no crime was committed, though.

Admin: I’d like to switch hats, if I may, and say this as a faculty member who teaches courses where this is talked about. It’s not just an issue of curriculum, it’s an issue of safety for the faculty member in the classroom. Oftentimes that comes back in a way that is damaging to the faculty member and the classroom itself. So, it’s not just an issue of curriculum, but an issue of support that faculty get, particularly the faculty who take a risk in teaching those courses.

Admin: Right. I believe that, and I understand that. The Provost’s message carried some support of the faculty. I have a message that is being framed now to go out. Thank you for sharing that. I think you’re right. In the message that I wrote—I shared it with some folks—some of those issues were raised. I don’t think a message going out is quite comprehensive enough. We need to have more conversations about the safety and support for people that we charge to stand up and intervene and educate.

FA: What was the composition of the people that were involved in reviewing and making a judgment as to whether the cartoon was offensive or not? One more observation, the placement of the alerts are usually outside the buildings, and in this weather most people are not standing outside the building looking at them to read a notice. If they were on the inside of the door, or that second door, I think it would be more appropriate.

Admin: I think that’s a good idea.

Admin: Not all the public safety officers have access to the buildings. We have limited keys and sometimes when they post, the buildings are locked, and they don’t have access. But it’s good advice, and if we need to follow up the next day and get it inside we can do that. I appreciate the comment. There are some on the inside, some in the vestibule; it’s inconsistent. The group has been ad hoc. We want to get it more formalized. But, the group that considered the storyboard or cartoon; I was there, Wanda was there, a faculty member from Human Relations: Semya, Freddie Walker, Miles Heckendorn was there, there were two students of color, Jill Rudnitski, Michael Spitzer was there for part of it.

Admin: In the most recent ad hoc meeting, also included were Tamrat, Geoffrey Tabakin, about ten students of color, and Bernard from the Holocaust Studies Center.

FA: Can you give us an idea of what was discussed?

Admin: The President agreed the day before that we would bring these people together the next day. We looked at the cartoon and tried to discern its meaning. Many were certain of its meaning as being an affront. Some thought that it had some intent to be disparaging regarding those who were perpetrating the graffiti. It had already been turned over to the police. It was the first time we had physical evidence, an object someone used, so we turned it over to the police the evening before. The discussion was around how should we publish it on campus? What should we do? Like the President mentioned, are the series all discrete events, or are they separate events of a similar theme? And due to the character of this, we made the decision it was kind of discrete. It was something different to discuss, and we wondered about the content of the safety alert to put up. At that meeting we discovered that a copy of the poster for the Speak Out had a swastika marked on it with a pen, and it was slipped under a faculty member’s door. And that was presented at that meeting, and there was no doubt about its intent or what that was about. That was a threat to an individual, certainly, and about the Speak Out, disparaging the Speak Out. There’s no doubt about that. It was agreed that that would be turned over to the police. We also talked about the wording that we would include on the safety alert, as to how it should be composed, so that it provided the appropriate information, and didn’t put anyone at risk that may have felt at risk, but publish it. We arrived at that. Subsequently the police published a report that was more than we expected, so we changed it slightly so there was a greater amount of specific information. There was consensus at what we did at that meeting.

FA: Does that answer your question?

FA: Not quite. I thought I heard that the decision was made that there wasn’t any offense.

Admin: No.

Admin: The police determined that a crime had not been committed in regard to that one item of the cartoon. The group determined that it was a threat to the community and a safety notice was issued.

FA: And the police disagreed?

Admin: There are two separate issues. One is, has a crime been committed? Another issue is, has a threat to the community occurred? Do we feel a threat to our community in this act that we should advise the rest of the community? That’s a different determination than the police determination of whether a crime had been committed or not.

FA: No one from this campus was involved in the police decision?

Admin: No.

Admin: We provided the physical piece of paper with the cartoons on it. The police took that, and did an investigation. What it said in the paper was a person came forward and said, “I did that. I posted those. I drew that.” They interviewed him, I presume, and based on what he said and what they had as physical evidence, they determined that a crime was not committed. He was not charged. That’s what it said in the paper, and that’s what happened with respect to that. But we still published a notice.

Admin: What I said was that if that person was currently a student…

FA: I understand that part. In terms of having some accountability or in terms of the deterrence, I guess it’s the difference of what they use as a standard in the community and what we would use in terms of our student policy. I think that creates a problem for even people in the community since we live in the community as well work on the campus. And we’ve always had this problem and issue with the police department and the way in which people of color are treated in this community. And hopefully through several of our different organizations, they have been trying to encourage the university to be more forthcoming in terms of communicating that to the city and to the police department. I understand the configuration and what your contribution is, but it seems like it was discounted. Oftentimes that’s what’s been our experience, for people of color, when we participate in different processes, is that it gets minimized.

Admin: In addition to that the part about whether this is a discrete event or somehow a systemic issue. Oftentimes what happens is that they get discredited by having all these discrete events, and each one is dismissed one by one without taking a tally of what’s going on. And they get by with it.

FA: I saw the Announce about cockroaches. One thing the university has to show the values, we have to be clear. The things going on like the women’s bathroom now the more we announce it, the students just want to get the attention. We don’t know who they are, and they like to get the attention for the despicable act. As long as the students know that faculty and the university leaders make an effort to find out who it is, that’s subsequently a message. Beyond that, I guess hate crimes are to get attention. I read about the cockroaches, and they said cut the head off and they stay alive for more than a week even though the head cannot move around. So, we can’t really avoid it quickly. As a campus community we have to show our values, but not make them feel like they are getting the attention they seek. Maybe we should say it’s vandalism to find out and do something about it. The leadership should send a clear message on that.

Admin: I think that’s why it’s important to have many people at the table as we evaluate these things, and have people listen to each other respectfully, and there’s learning that takes place. In every incident we may not make the very best decision, but we make a decision that the minds around the table can make at the time. These are all sort of ad hoc processes that we’ll formalize and put into place and describe in writing so that the way we handle these things can be shared, evaluated, and the larger community can say we understand this process, and we think this is the best way to deal with this.

FA: Thank you.

FA: I see that the minutes have slipped by rapidly. We do have a space question that is time sensitive. Is there anything else that needs to be covered?

FA: The search committees, and maybe the Academic Plan. We’ll see how much we can get taken care of in five minutes, and see if people are willing to expand another five minutes beyond that.

New Business

9. Space for Honors Program (FA) (12/13/07)

Admin: We can respond quickly to space issues.

Admin: Michael and I have spoken. We will look at the information on the uses of the several areas within Centennial, including the Honors Program, and try to discern what we can do to meet people’s expectations and provide good service to students.

FA: Could we leave this general topic on the agenda for next time so that we can have a conversation about how we can collaborate on these sorts of things?

Admin: Yes.

Admin: I’ve inherited that, so I got to know the information that is going around. I’ve been talking a lot this morning with the two directors, and we discussed the spaces available: the areas where their offices are, and there’s a conference room available. There’s a discrepancy between the message that’s being public and the message that’s being passed on to me by the directors of the programs.

Admin: I think we can sort that out by talking.

Admin: We’ll look at it.

FA: I do think this is part of a larger conversation that we need to have. We’d like to have that. We’re constantly moving, so we would like to leave this general topic on the agenda for next time.

FA: Space is space is space. This is a specific example that has a short timeframe to it. But there are other examples relative to how we make decisions about spaces and who gets them, and how that process works.

Unfinished Business

3. Academic Plan (ADM) (10/18/07)

FA: Senate has acted on the revised department planning sheets on Tuesday. They approved them, but wanted us to bring forward some concerns. I’d like to narrate those. Some of those are easily addressed, it seems to me. There were questions about what an academic department was, and so people were wondering if we’re talking about only units offering courses. There were also concerns and skepticism that the department planning documents may not be processed in a way that allows a lot of conversation and collaboration, and there was concern that that desire be a concern of Administration and that be an ongoing conversation. There was also concern about the weight of the language in that document on looking for opportunities in the future, and there was concern that what we do not be valued. That’s something that could easily be addressed, I think, but I’m narrating here. There’s also concern with the chronic problem we have with budget and planning and the disconnect and the lack of understanding of how those things are going to be connected. So, those are the concerns, and I think they are very reasonable concerns in light of the big project that we’re undertaking in this academic planning.

Admin: There are some, we call them departments, there are some units on campus that function like departments, and we should regard those as departments in this focus. I would think. In terms of the other concerns, I know in the meetings that we had the other day about the work groups that we talked a little bit about and tried to emphasize the fact that yes, we do value current programs. We want to talk about strengthening those programs as well as new program opportunities.

FA: If we could encourage that language in all of our conversations.

Admin: I’ve spoken with every department, I described the exercise as defining the portfolio of programs that your department should have over the next decade. And when I say your department, I don’t mean to confine the program thinking to the constraints of the departmental boundaries. I expect collaborations to increase. When people respond that there are a lot of barriers to that, I said the process should identify barriers to collaboration, and that should be part of our thinking about moving the university forward. So, the portfolio of programs include eliminating things we’re doing now because they’ve run a course, adding new programs, growing current programs, and taking a program that is currently right-sized and investing to increase its standing and reputation in the field. So, all of those are options as people think about what I say is the character, size, and shape of the portfolio of programs offered by a department. And that embraces all those elements of collaboration, current and future.

FA: Thank you.

New Business

1. Request for Faculty for the Search for the Director of GLBT Services (ADM) (12/13/07)

Admin: I think the first one is pretty self explanatory. We’re requesting a faculty member for the search committee.

FA: I can certainly put out a call for faculty volunteers for the search committee for the Director of GLBT Services, and we’ll go through our normal process for the appointment for that.

Admin: Yes. Thank you.

2. Request for Special Appointment of Faculty to the Student Welfare Advisory Board (ADM) (12/13/07)

Admin: We’re asking if we could make a special appointment of Steve Jenkins to this, because of his work with students on suicide and emotional issues.

FA: Didn’t we appoint last year?

Admin: No, you appointed some faculty last spring to that group. You did, you’re right, Annette, last year, one faculty. You also appointed some faculty to the Veteran’s Task Force earlier this year. This is just an extension of a request because of interest in emotional well-being.

FA: We are accepting the special appointment of that particular faculty person based on his expertise to that advisory board.

Admin: Thank you.

Unfinished Business

4. The Processes for Appointing FA Representation to College and University-level Committees under the IFO/MnSCU Master Agreement (FA) (10/18/07)—not discussed.

5. Early Notification System (FA) (10/18/07)—not discussed.