FINAL
Meet and Confer
February 28, 2008
Admin: Michael Spitzer, Mitch Rubinstein, Rex Veeder, Steve, Kristi Tornquist, Nancy Jessee, and Wanda Overland
Faculty: Judy Kilborn, Michael Connaughton, Michael Tripp, JoAnn Gasparino, Fred Hill, John Palmer, Frances Kayona, Balsy Kasi, Bill Hudson, David Warne, Joan Wingert – Note taker
Approval of Minutes
1. February 14, 2008
ADM: We agree to approve the minutes of February 14th with potential additions to the Jan. 31 minutes.
Unfinished Business
1. Follow ups
a. Return to Title Four (ADM) (08/30/07)
ADM: This has a lot to do with the grading policy issue and so we were awaiting a response from the faculty on that grading issue
FA: As you know, the Senate asked Academic Affairs Committee to look at revisions of that policy because there were some questions from Senate. The Academic Affairs Committee has not yet responded, so we’re waiting for their revisions to come back to Senate. I understand that we need that policy at this point, is that correct?
ADM: Yes, and we need to let faculty understand and know what the grading system is going to be. So what we would like to do is to move forward with the grading policy as submitted by the Academic Affairs Committee, and then after it has been viewed by Senate, if there are changes that need to be made, we will look at making those changes.
FA: We’re certainly willing to move forward at this time with the idea that, if there are additional changes that Senate suggests, we will put them back in the pipeline for your consideration.
ADM: Has everyone here seen that revised grading policy? So we don’t need to distribute copies to you?
FA: It might be good just to get a copy of what we’ve agreed to at this point so the record is really clear, and then we’ll know what we’re responding to if we have any changes. We’ll be accepting then the document that you’re passing around to us today with the notion that if there are changes, we’ll ask that they come back to Meet & Confer. For the time being, then, we can take the Return to Title Four off the agenda and should we have changes, we’ll bring them back.
ADM: Agreed.
b. Request for one faculty for the search for the new MSUAASF position at the MN Highway Safety & Resource Center (MHSRC) -- Position title: Director of Training (Emergency Vehicle Operators Course Instructor) (ADM) (12/13/07)
c. Request for Faculty to serve on search committee for MSUAASF Position: Director of International Student and Scholar Services (ADM) (01/31/08)
d. Request for Faculty to serve on search committee for MSUAASF Position: Director of International Student and Scholar Services (ADM) (01/31/08)
e. Request for Faculty to serve on two administrative search committees: AVP for Student Life and Development and Associate Dean for COSS (ADM) (02/14/08)
ADM: The next three items have to do with appointments to various search committees.
FA: We have the majority of those. Senate this last Tuesday appointed several FA representatives to search committees. We’ve appointed John Palmer to the search for the new MSUAASF position at the Minnesota Highway Safety and Resource Center in the position title, “Director of Training.” I’ve notified John Bergeson and the Provost via email. In terms of the MSUAASF position “Director of International Student and Fellow Scholar Services. Senate appointed Lakshmaiah Sreerama to the search committee. I’ve notified Margaret Vos and the Provost about that via email. And finally, we’ve approved the appointment of Robert Reff to the search committee for the AVP for Student Life and Development, and Wanda has gotten an email about that and so has the Provost. The only one we have left is the Associate Dean for COSS, and I’ve put out a call for five members of COSS and an at-large person. Nominations will be taken through Monday. At the next Meet & Confer, we should have already completed an election about those and have more names for you. So we can take all of the searches off the agenda except for Associate Dean COSS. Yes?
ADM: Thank you.
FA: Can you make an edit in the name of the Minnesota Highway Safety and Research Center—it’s not Resource, it’s Research Center, and people like to be sure their names are correct.
ADM: Thank you.
FA Only took 25 years to get the other name. (laughter)
2. The Processes for Appointing FA Representation to College and University-level Committees under the IFO/MNSCU Master Agreement (FA) (10/18/07)
ADM: The next item: The process for appointing FA representation to university-level committees. This has a lot to do with a discussion that we had about putting together a website that would demonstrate the processes for appointing committees, particularly search committees. At the last Meet & Confer, Larry Chambers indicated that this was going to the President’s Council for feedback. He’s received some of that feedback; a draft should come to Meet & Confer during the third week in March, we are still on schedule for that to happen.
FA: That sounds good, and so we’ll look forward to hearing about that next time. It occurred to me, Michael, that we didn’t announce—although I think pretty much everyone knows here—that you are the presidential designee today at this Meet & Confer. I think that should go into the record. My understanding is that President Potter is driving around in a bus…
ADM: He’s not driving, riding.
FA: Riding. He doesn’t get certification from the Minnesota Highway Safety and Research Center for doing the driving. Riding around with Gov. Pawlenty. When he’s done with that, he’ll be here and join us.
ADM: We’re hoping that he will be able to join us before we’re finished with our meeting. The tour that they are on, looking at facilities, will conclude shortly.
FA: So we leave item 2 on the agenda?
ADM: Yes.
3. Request for Faculty Co-Chair for Enrollment Management (FA) (12/13/07
ADM: I want to explain why I have not been ready to address that specific request to date, and perhaps even why I am not ready to address it yet today. But I do want to talk about the reasons for that. The position of Dean of Undergraduate Studies, you may recall, was established on a pilot basis in response to the recommendations of the task force that was created several years ago to look at organizational structure in Academic Affairs. When Mark Nook was chosen to fill this position, it was an internal search. When he left for another institution, we conducted another internal search for an interim dean to fill the position for one year. That was Avelino Mills-Novoa who was appointed as a result of that search, and it was pointed out very clearly to him at the time that at this point, the position was going to be reviewed, and that further reorganization was under consideration, and he fully understood and accepted those circumstances with regard to his appointment to the position. I believe it’s extremely important for the University to have an integrated organizational structure that encompasses meeting student needs from the time students inquire about admission through their process of application and acceptance and enrollment and advising and registration and orientation and initial educational experience, including having available to them University experience opportunities, residential experience, academic and other kinds of emotional support, engagement in activities of Student Life and Development, through service learning, and on to acceptance into a major and engagement within academic programs through an academic major advisor. This kind of integration also requires particular cooperation with Financial Aid, Career Services, with Continuing Studies for students who take online courses and PSEO classes, and also International Studies. We don’t yet have that kind of seamless system to meet student needs at every phase of the undergraduate experience. We need to do better in order to improve our service to students, and consequently our retention and our graduation rates, especially when these are tied to accountability measures in the MNSCU system and also increasingly by the general public who want to look at our website and see what our retention and graduation rates are, before they decide on what institutions to involve their family member in. The first step, then, to moving toward some kind of revised organizational structure involved, for me, was notification to the individuals most directly involved so that they would be aware that this consideration was underway. I met with both individuals on Feb. 15th to say that I was considering creating the position of Associate Provost for Enrollment Management and Undergraduate Studies. I explained the reasons for this. I bring this matter to Meet & Confer so campus has an opportunity to comment on these ideas. I sat down with the two. I told them they are both eligible to apply for the position. I’m bringing this matter to Meet & Confer today, and it will be brought to other bargaining unit Meet & Confers so that the campus has an opportunity to comment on these reorganization ideas. So the first step was to sit down with the two individuals involved most directly, inform them of what was happening, and to solicit comment from the St. Cloud State University community. After receiving input, we’ll determine how to proceed. If there is any response to that, I’d be glad to hear it.
FA: There is at least one faculty rostered under the Office of Dean of Graduate Studies. I assume that position would be affected?
ADM: There are a number of Faculty rostered under that.
FA: Can you quantify who would be affected (uncertain if this is the actual statement)?
ADM: Affected only in the sense that there would perhaps be a different person as a supervisor. But other than that, no.
FA: So we have DGS, we have Reading…
ADM: We have the Academic Learning Center, DGS, Advising, a whole host of offices reporting.
FA: So that reorganization or realignment wouldn’t affect units that aren’t presently in that reporting line.
ADM: No, not at all
FA: And there are also programs reporting, there is First Year Experience, there’s Honors, there is DGS.
ADM: The idea is for Admissions particularly, but also Records & Registration, working with a greater sense of collaboration with those academic support services that are reporting to Undergraduate Studies.
FA: So it’s your sense, then, with this reorganization that went forward that these faculty who were currently rostered over there, also programs that report to the Dean of Undergraduate Studies at this point, would probably report to the new Associate Provost?
ADM: Correct
FA: And the Associate Dean of Undergraduate Studies…?
ADM: …would report to the Associate Provost.
FA: What was the reaction from Mahmoud and Avelino?
ADM: One left the meeting before it was over and Avelino understood and agreed.
FA: My sense is that we really haven’t had a chance to discuss this reorganization and that we probably ought to go back amongst ourselves and have that discussion since we’re formally being asked about our response to the information.
ADM: That would be appropriate, yes.
FA: And am I also understanding that a request for a faculty co-chair for Enrollment Management probably isn’t a concern at this point until we figure out what we will do?
ADM: Correct.
FA: Are there any questions that we want to raise at this point or any information we need to bring back to the Faculty?
FA: Do you have an estimate on cost savings?
ADM: Probably about $60,000.
FA: That was in that budget memo?
ADM: It was in the budget materials that you received although the specifics were not mentioned.
FA: So we should leave this on the agenda and come back to it next time. We won’t have time before the next Meet & Confer to talk with Senate. I don’t believe we have a Senate meeting until after that. Does anybody remember? I’m trying to remember if it was EC or Senate next, the Tuesday after break.
FA: EC.
FA: So we’ll leave this on the agenda and get back to you at this point then. Do you have any sense of the timeline on this? When are you hoping to complete the Meet & Confer consultation process?
ADM: As quickly as we can.
FA: OK.
4. Senate Motion Concerning Email Monitoring (FA) (12/13/07)
ADM: You had asked some questions about that and wanted a document that describes the policy. Nancy is passing it around.
FA: I want to note for the record that our passing patterns are rather peculiar (laughter). I did want, while that is going around, to remind people to speak up because we’ve been having trouble hearing with the microphone in the recorder.
ADM: This is in response to the motion that you had passed. Nancy left, so I guess I’ll do my best here about wanting to make sure that faculty members were notified in writing, my understanding prior to ever Email Monitoring. So what we did was just include the two policies that we’re working on, the MNSCU and St Cloud State one. So maybe the most interesting part is the last two lines at the bottom. To date that I’m aware of, everything I’ve handled, we’ve always notified the faculty member in writing prior to monitoring of their emails. Just so you understand, this is somewhere either in the MNSCU system on campus if we get a request to have email monitored, that request would come to us in writing in IT, and then if they aren’t already talking with the employee, then we typically strongly urge them to notify the employee in writing, which again I know has always occurred. I can’t speak to something that happened in the System Office, but what’s occurred that I know of. My understanding from talking to the Vice-President and the Deans is that that is the intent to continue that practice. We can’t promise that; if we get a gag order request, we’re not allowed to tell the employee. So if there’s a certain instance that occurs where we’re prohibited to do so or if there’s a safety concern when we have to act in a expeditious manner…. I don’t know if we talked about this last time where this has happened on the student side where if there’s a fear of suicide and they were trying to locate the person, we may go in and check emails to find out when’s the last time that he or she posted. In that case we wouldn’t be able to notify the employee. But to date we always have. I enact that on the IT side. There’s nothing that’s been said by the Vice Presidents or President that suggests a change in anything.
ADM: Questions or comments?
FA: So any monitoring of email will always come through you. It’s not like there's some unknown techie….You would always be aware of any kind of activity.
ADM: Technically a technician could do that, and if they did, they would be disciplined or fired. We have very clear directives that they never do that kind of activity without something in writing.
FA: So basically anybody who has the know-how can read somebody else’s email. It’s just that legally or policy-wise, it has to come through you. But basically that can be done by anybody.
ADM: Not anybody. They’d have to have passwords and access. We only have a handful of people in LR&TS that can do it. If you’re doing email external to campus, though, that passes back and forth, the System Office could monitor the system if you were going off campus. They could…I can’t speak to what they do. I can’t believe they’re looking at this.
FA: I just thought it was going to happen. It has to come through…
ADM: Yes, one of my staff, unless it’s a really good hacker.
FA: Could someone or some entity external to the University use the Freedom of Information Act to access any employee’s emails?
ADM: Yes, absolutely. But in that case, we’ve only had that happen once that I’m aware of, and in that case, the employee was notified in writing, and we requested their assistance in extracting that email message. It wasn’t as it was occurring, they asked for one date to another date. The employee was told in writing that it was going to happen.
FA: May I ask a follow-up question: Just to
clarify, if I delete an email, and I delete my trash, is it gone?
ADM: We save for up to three weeks. Everything we do has a little bit different time pattern on it, but I think we have email up to three weeks, so it could be that it’s still sitting on a server for up to three weeks, potentially.
FA: I have nothing to hide. (laughter)
ADM: No, it’s a really good question because people don’t know that.
ADM: It’s a good question and people need to be aware of the fact that what we send over the email system should not be regarded as private information, because it could, under various circumstances, become public, as these policies state.
ADM: One more follow-up—What has happened with us is that the System Office has asked us to freeze the data when they get a potential request from the police or FBI or whatever. They have us freeze it at the time when they get the request. They don’t have us extract it until they check to make sure it’s really legitimate, we’re going to respond, and then the person’s informed and we can extract the information. It’s possible they’ve stopped it; I don’t know who they are looking for. They just tell me to freeze it.
FA: Is that common?
ADM: You know, this is such a bizarre, strange world, I can’t say that anything’s common. We handle about one security request a week. That’s what we’ve been averaging lately. And every one is different.
FA: I’m just trying to clarify some information that was told some time ago. There was some litigation pending where a faculty member, under the Freedom of Information Act, requested copies of all electronic communication where that faculty member’s name appeared.
ADM: A faculty member asked for that?
FA: Yes, I’ve been told that there was litigation where as a result of the investigations, or in anticipation of this litigation, under Freedom of Information, a faculty member had asked wherever their name appeared in correspondence to anyone associated with the University. And that seems to be inconsistent with what I hear you saying.
ADM: I haven’t had a request from a faculty member under the Freedom of Information Act.
ADM: Let me respond to that. That is correct. There was such a case that I’m aware of in which specific individuals were asked to produce their emails and provide copies of them for that purpose. So it wasn’t the system, but the individuals who were the writers of those emails who were asked to provide copies of their email in which that person’s name was mentioned, either to or about that individual.
FA: I think it’s critical that what you said be recorded as you said it so that the mythology where there has been considerable discussion…In fact, a pseudonym has been created. I’m not going to mention that pseudonym because that could usurp me. As I understand what you said, the Freedom of Information request was fulfilled on an individual basis, not a broad spectrum search.
ADM: If I remember correctly, that’s right. There were certain individuals who were asked to provide emails that they sent or received. And some of those emails may have been from third parties.
FA: I think what’s critical here is that the parties who may or may not have had email involved in the Freedom of Information request were aware. So that these people don’t think that my correspondence will end up in somebody’s hands.
ADM: But going back to original question, you wouldn’t necessarily have told me that you gave them. I wouldn’t have been told that.
ADM: Correct.
ADM: So that’s the one part of this thing that we haven’t been doing. If we asked for all Michael’s emails, and it came from me, they wouldn’t have told me. I wouldn’t know.
FA: That’s good.
ADM: It’s an interesting part of this. We tell the person whom we’re asking. We would have told Michael but we wouldn’t have told anyone else.
FA: That’s a much older case. There’s a more recent case where a faculty’s hard drive was duplicated and searched under the Freedom of Information Request. Is it safe to say that the document that you have provided us with extends to all electronic information that faculty may have stored on University equipment?
FA: Yes.
FA: So the faculty should be aware of the fact that anything that is stored on a University piece of equipment is public information.
ADM: I don’t know that. I know email is. I don’t know that your files…I don’t know about the second part.
FA: To what extent do they archive emails?
ADM: I’m not sure. That’s not what the policy says.
FA: Everything you have would be government record.
ADM: Right.
FA: But when you’re talking about a request under the Freedom of Information Act,….
FA: As I read this paragraph right under the SCSU email policy, that first quote says the University has the right to inspect the contents of any University equipment, files or mail on its system. To me that means that if I create a document in Microsoft Word on my computer, that that’s a public document that the University can inspect.
ADM: I think there are two different things. One is that the University can inspect it. That doesn’t mean that it’s a public document. And that’s the part I’m not clear on, and maybe Nancy is. The University has a right because it’s University equipment. It doesn’t mean that the newspaper gets to ask for it.
FA: They did.
ADM: They asked for email.
FA: Mm, no.
ADM: I think that’s what we gave.
FA: That’s not what I was told.
FA: Can we get clarification of that?
FA: Let me pursue this, because what the Faculty Senate asked for, and the response we’re getting back is clarification of what the rules say, and that’s not what the faculty asked for. The faculty asked for some kind of statement of normative practices that would occur that would assure faculty of some due process.
FA: And that’s what we tried to give in the
last couple sentences.
FA: Let me continue. There is a provision of the Collective Bargaining Agreement under Academic Freedom that talks about not using electronic recording devices. I do know that some investigations that have occurred retrieved electronic records. I do know that some people have been asked to provide information electronically for the Tennison Warning sent electronically. I do know that some faculty have had correspondence sent to them electronically to record a statement of waiver of rights for union representation. Those practices all involved the use of technology that is being recorded. There is due process situation where what is private information and what isn’t private information. I do think we as professionals have an obligation to tell our colleagues which it is. My advice to my colleagues would be to assume any and everything that you ever produced that has an electronic trail to it is not in your control, is public information. The way in which we handle these things, at the least faculty or others are going to be informed that that could happen. People come over and dump hard drives, transferred to a flash drive, and it happens because somebody said to go do it. This is the area that we’re talking about. People also access calendars. Is a calendar a private piece of information? It’s stored electronically, although you might make the choice to not show it to the world, but under this policy it’s not private. Somebody who wanted to know what your calendar looked like could get that information. So when we started as an Association down this path, our concern remains a clear statement of what the practices are on this campus. For me, I’m not at a point with what we’ve been given that tells me what those practices are.
ADM: Let me respond to your reference at least to the statement in the contract about Academic Freedom and what that pertains to. As a contract, I think it’s pretty clear in stating that the employer agrees not to use any mechanical or electronic listening or recording devices. That refers to eavesdropping and tape recorders, and that it doesn’t pertain to electronic records on a computer. But what we’re saying is that, within the law, we do not access people’s electronic records without notifying them unless there’s a legal requirement by some agency that says you may not tell that person. And that’s what you’ve asked us about, and that’s the response.
ADM: You asked us only about email in your motion, so that’s why we attempted to responded to. We didn’t answer calendar, we didn’t answer file space. I don’t know the law. Nancy and I just looked at the email part, so Nancy would have to find out for us the interpretation, if it’s public data or not.
FA: I think the email piece is an important piece, because I think a lot of people don’t understand the guidelines for that. But I do think it’s a contractual piece, and we know that people can track whatever’s done on a computer, and so perhaps when that contractual item was written, it meant listening and recording devices. But you can record keystrokes on a computer, so it raises more issues about what people legally have access to, what people produce on the computers and who has access to that. And I think there are a lot of serious questions that faculty and others have that would be useful to get answers to even if those answers take a while.
FA: So the last line says that “SCSU has consistently followed the practice.” So far everybody has been informed.
ADM: Every single one that I’d ever been associated with. And, again, my folks are under instruction that if they do this without my authorization, they will be reprimanded and/or more severely dealt with. If somebody messed up, and you know about it, I want to know that, because that has to stop. So anyone that I handled, people have been notified in writing.
FA: In that case, you are saying that it is a tracer copy that is sent to people?
ADM: We have followed up on every single one.
ADM: I know in certain cases, Kristi has not done anything …
ADM: I won’t pull it.
ADM: …unless she has something signed by the Vice President.
ADM: Or legal council. Sometimes the Attorney General signs, sometimes MNSCU legal, sometimes the President signs.
FA: I believe the employer’s interpretation is the employee does not have the right to refuse. All that is happening is a notification.
ADM: I don’t know the law on this at all, so I’m not going to try and answer.
FA: I think that’s how I read it.
FA: I note that Kristi is nodding, I know that Nancy is nodding, yes?
ADM: Yes, I think that it’s considered that the information belongs to the University, so it doesn’t matter. It’s not ours, any of ours, individually.
FA: So perhaps what we should do is at the start of every year Tennison every member of the University. (chuckles)
ADM: You know, some campuses have on their log-in screens for students and their labs a Tennison, and they require the students to sign it. That’s what I’ve been told.
FA: I may be jumping ahead. It sounds to me as if not just the email but some of the other things are going to continue to be explored around this issue. Is that a fair way to look at this? If not, my question is moot.
ADM: You want us to look into some of the issues pertaining to things electronic that are not email.
FA: Yes. And my question becomes: How are those documents on my hard drive different from, if at all, the paper copies in the file cabinet in my office. I don’t store a lot of paper any more, but in the old days, everything was in the file cabinet. Is the analogy that they are the same accurate or not? I would be interested in some of that. I know that we’ve done second thing just to put on the board for consideration or talking about. I know that we’ve done the data privacy training. I went on D2L and did all of those things, but it would be nice to have some clarification then, because the students have a system where email is the official way they are communicated with. Faculty don’t necessarily have that, but I get requests for information, perhaps from the registrar, some other things, where it may be that the Tech ID needs to be there to verify that it is the same student. My understanding is then that that is not how it should be done. Is that right? Because if that’s the case, we need a little more education in that area even though we’ve been through the data privacy thing. What then becomes appropriate for our conversation between administration units, offices and faculty in terms of when do students withdraw, how did this thing work, the Title Four request that we have. We may even be looking at something in terms of the Early Notification system. Those things all flash before me as well as we talk about this.
ADM: There is certain information about students in those kind of emails that would ordinarily be redacted before the information was turned over.
FA: For me to answer that email is perfectly appropriate?
ADM: Aye-yi-yi-yi-yi!
FA The reason I ask is because we do have a series of ideals and policies, and we did walk through some of those things. But it appears the practice does not always match the policy, and I guess if we’re going to start exploring these things together in terms of the files on the computer and those other things, then let’s get a clear sense in the email of what’s appropriate and what isn’t in terms of how we communicate. In large part, this is about students — information we send, what we do — because how many people think nothing of it. I know I quite frankly did not until this conversation.
ADM: I would make this point: If I had information or material that I didn’t want to have accessible to others, I would store it on a personally-owned computer and not on the University mail system.
ADM: I as an IT person have a large concern if University offices or personnel are asking you to submit confidential information on email, because we strongly, strongly urge people NOT to do that. I just happened to be in when I got asked for a personnel-related thing about somebody and I thought, “Oh, my gosh!” So, you’re right, I think we need to keep educating people on what’s covered or not. We can use electronic means, but typically I may send an announcement on email, go do whatever, but then we should go into a secured website that you have to log on with a password. That would be a more appropriate way to transfer that information than via email, a more secure way.
FA: This Title IV is also on the desk. I know I have received Title IV verification for drop dates and those kinds of things through the email, and I didn’t even consider that I shouldn’t reply.
ADM: That bothers me from an IT side.
FA: If we’re going to explore the whole conversation, I just put it on the table as a possibility for that conversation so we can figure out whether we’re appropriately using the technology at our disposal.
FA: And that’s really what this topic is about. And you can see how easily it morphs from email to other electronic things; I think a natural kind of morphing. But it raises a lot of questions that I think it would useful to talk about.
ADM: So we will try to gather some more information and bring that issue back.
ADM: And I’m wondering if it should be not just us gathering information and bringing it back, but if we could have a little group that worked on it together, faculty and administrators together. Because then we can make sure…We don’t always know what uses you’re getting asked for. Or if you’re too busy, we’ll go get the information and bring it right back, whatever you prefer.
FA: As soon as the Academic Planning process is over, let’s have this conversation.
ADM: You and me both, yes.
FA: This may be something that we should plan for next year, because what happens, I think, is that we start to have this conversation and that people are reminded of other related things, and I think it’s because the topic is…
ADM: It changes every month, almost. How about if we try to get some answers to these questions, and in the meantime we’ll see if it’s worth getting folks together next year.
FA: I will also go ahead and take this document that you‘ve provided and distribute it at Senate, and we can see if there are additional questions or concerns that come out of that that we can bring back to you.
ADM: That would be fine. That’s appropriate.
ADM: Thank you.
NEW BUSINESS #4: Security Planning for Campuses (FA) (02/28/08)
ADM: One of our administrators has to leave early, so we’re going to move New Business #4 up on the agenda for now, and come back to unfinished business afterwards. #4 has to do with Security Planning for Campuses, and I think there were some questions about that?
FA: Yes, and I’m going to let Michael start this, and I’ll add to it.
FA: Everyone in this room knows that a determined individual who’s willing, for whatever reason, to do grievous harm to people on campus probably can’t be stopped in most instances, but there does have to be a process that will limit the damage that an individual can do. One of the things that’s happened in recent weeks was the posting of these Emergency Procedure Guides. I think this is useful but surely this isn’t sufficient. It took me awhile to find out what one does. In fact, it’s two-thirds of the way down. So, I hear what sounds like gunshots in Riverview. It says to call 911. What else do you do? Well, you turn to seven pages down and this is what you discover. Clearly by the time I find out what I’m supposed to do, someone has broken into the room and shot seven people and run out. It also suggests doing certain things that CANNOT be done. Many of the doors in academic rooms cannot readily be locked. You have to have a key, or there’s no easy way to do it. So I’m wondering what sort of comprehensive planning—worst possible case scenario, training, etc.—is under consideration. This is helpful; I’m not suggesting it isn’t. It covers many of the things which aren’t emergencies, actually. They’re difficult situations, but when the guy walks in with the 35 caliber automatic, it would be helpful that people would familiarize themselves with the contents so they don’t have to start looking when somebody walks in with a handgun.
ADM: We want to respond more fully about some of the activities and actions that have been ongoing at the University.
ADM: If I don't answer your questions, I’ll come back to it. Let me just give you a broad stroke of what we have been doing, what we’re planning, and what’s to come, and some things that have actually happened and how we have addressed them as examples. Since Virginia Tech, there’s a governor’s report that came out, and we have a CIRT Team (Critical Incident Response Team), which is a threat response team and evacuation center. We’ve been reviewing the governor’s report and are in the process of putting it together. It listed a lot of recommendations that we as institutions should consider, so we are further exploring those. There is also MNSCU, which has two initiatives underway. One we’re participating in and Steve and others are involved in this. One is a Continuity of Operations Policy: If something happened, what would be our continuity of operations. There’s another initiative called a National Incident Management System: If there’s a major incident, how do you respond to that? Let me just talk about what we are currently doing at SCSU. This fall we created what we call the Behavior Intervention Team, and it’s made up of Mitch, Public Safety, Health Services, Counseling Services, our office. They get together every Tuesday morning at 8 AM, and they look at what is happening across the campus, are they individuals or groups that they actually repeat activities, and they do some threat assessment and some follow-up to see what happens. And then we make decisions based on that as to whether we need to do interim suspension, whether we need to do an investigation, whatever. At the Faculty Forum Days last Spring in April and last Fall, there was a session on what do you do with disruption in the classroom, and there’s been good attendance at that because there’s been a lot of questions from faculty like “I have a student in my class I’m concerned about. I’m not really sure if this person if a threat or not.” We are also planning for this April a session exactly on the question that you raised about what do we do in a situation, what is the University doing. We are also planning to do a session next Fall. After the President sent out the email expressing condolences to University of Northern Illinois, he received three emails that he was concerned about. Students indicated guns and threats related to other people. We investigated each of those situations and we also received information from students, information from faculty and staff. Probably this year alone we interim suspended half a dozen students because we felt that they were a potential threat to themselves or to others. And we received at least weekly if not more than weekly calls from faculty saying, “I have an individual in my classroom with concerns” or “This person is not showing up for class.” We will go back and look to see if there are incidents of public safety, if there are student conduct issues that have happened. In the case of University of Northern Illinois, if there was a response we were concerned about, we checked with the State Police to see if there had been incidents off campus. Based on that, we have interim suspended six students, and then of course they have an opportunity to go through a hearing to make the determination if they remain a student or not. But to be honest, every situation has been different, but I think we have been able to respond because we have had faculty call and say there is concern about this particular individual or a student in my class has changed or there’s a problem. So that’s the way we’re going to be able to manage this if we continue to get those kind of concerns and requests and we can follow-up on it. But we know that we need to get this information out further, and that’s why there’s plans to have a forum in April and the Fall to share about Behavioral Intervention Team that meets every week and who faculty or staff or students should notify, but at this point should call 911. When somebody calls 911, that 911 call also goes to Public Safety.
ADM: The other thing that the CIRT Committee has been looking at is various ways to ensure that information is getting to the campus community, including sending out text messages. Students use text messages more than email these days. A lot of these issues are being considered. One addition to what Wanda said: I’m aware that in at least one of those interim suspensions, faculty acted superbly.
FA: My concern is about notification. If something happens in Stewart Hall, we may not hear anything. There’s no real way to do that now. Many faculty insist that students turn off phones in class.
FA: I hear reports from individual faculty,
sending in documents that thick of constant reports of finding their office
accessed, of students in a place they are not supposed to be. The paper trail I’ve
examined seems to minimize the issue. But issues such as the purchase of a
camera to put in a faculty member’s office as a security means, re-keying an
office. When I see documents like this over time, it concerns me. What if
someone wants to report a phone call saying there is a fear of vehicular
attack? We don’t have the resources to do that, and it concerns me. What if
they’re aware of a student with a gun and are involved in a confrontation? Let
us hope those are the exceptions, not the rule, but we need to be very careful
of where or who we call.
ADM: This is the first I’ve heard of this.
FA: It was reported to Buildings & Grounds and Public Safety. I would reveal the person’s identity if I say where else it was reported.
FA: What I’m taking away at this very moment, if a faculty is fearful for students or for their own safety, the answer is to call 911, which is placed under a 911 operator.
ADM: And it rings also in Public Safety.
FA: Any 911 call on campus…
ADM: …rings in Public Safety. A cell phone won’t work. It has to be a campus phone to place a call on campus. Then it will ring in Public Safety as well.
FA: John, I don’t know if you’re talking about certain faculty members, but I do want to share this because it was scary. In the College about a year ago on a Saturday morning about 8:00, a custodian went to a faculty member’s office to empty the garbage and there’s a man standing in the office. And she knew it wasn’t the faculty member. And she questioned this person. And he took off running. And so she went into the Main Office, which in this case the Chair happened to be there on a Saturday morning just doing some work, and reported to the Chair what had happened, and the Chair called the faculty member. And the faculty member said, “For weeks now, I’ve been coming into my office and noticing something weird about my computer, about my office.” And she just couldn’t figure it out. The point is, it was all reported to the Dean and it was like nothing happened. She didn’t get an email even saying, “Are you OK? Can we help you? Is there anything we can do for you?” It took quite some doing to get her office re-keyed. It’s like there was no consideration, even concern. It’s neither here nor there, but the faculty member is a small, petite woman. I was frightened for her, and now she won’t work in evenings and she won’t come in on weekends because she still doesn’t feel there’s enough done to secure her office.
FA: It’s a different case.
FA: I’m not sure, but it does happen.
ADM: Well, that shouldn’t happen that way.
FA: My question is about cell phones. It’s been answered.
FA: I’m actually the one who put this on the agenda, and I put it on the agenda for several reasons. We did talk about this topic at Statewide Meet & Confer on Friday, and I know that other campuses are looking at things like response systems, with some asking would MNSCU consider paying for response systems. There are a couple of threads that came out of that conversation that I just want to add to our conversation here. In one case we know they are doing a test of a system, and it’s happening during finals week. In other words, faculty are not involved in the conversation at all about that. I think that testing and having training sessions would be a good idea. I would love to have something that would enable me not to run to that flip chart to remind me what I’m supposed to do. In another case, there’s going to be a test over Spring Break, and obviously that’s a situation in which faculty haven’t been involved. What I’m saying is faculty need to be involved in some way. When you’re talking about response systems, which seem to be a topic that comes up, I know a lot of interest nationwide is in this response system’s technological use of cell phones. There are other issues that come up that directly affect those students and faculty. Some students choose not to have their numbers recorded because of privacy issues at school, and obviously we need to have a conversation about that. A lot of faculty have “No Cell Phone” rules in their classrooms and are trying to imagine what it would be like to have a large classroom and they allowed cell phones to stay on because of the response system. So, there are a lot of questions and concerns that surround this. Personally, we know what happened during Meet & Confer two weeks ago. I went back after Meet & Confer, got on my computer, and I belong to a technology community that has a pretty active listserv, and it was going nuts because people were concerned about a faculty member at Northern Illinois who at that time was locked in his department office with a bunch of students looking down at Cole’s Hall at all the activity. To many of us, it’s very personal. We know people who been involved in these situations. And there was also of course an incident at NDSU where a student with a pellet gun was arrested the other day and there is concern that we have some sort of systemic response and know what we’re supposed to do, not just in the sense of having the information but knowing it in an integral enough way so that we can react without thinking.
ADM: I think the challenge is that there’s not going to be one system that will work and provide multiple communication mechanisms. Not everyone is going to have a cell phone, not everyone is going to be at their computer, not everyone is going to check their phone for a voice message. So having to have multiple things in place to try to reach as many people as possible is going to be essential.
ADM: We have looked into those response systems and the possibility of using text messaging and also having students and others sign up if they have a cell phone. That would have to be something they do proactively.
ADM: Regarding that response system, MNSCU did purchase one of these to try out. Maybe this is what you have heard about?
FA: A pilot system?
ADM: Right. We were asked to be on that pilot, but they only went through the IT people. They didn’t ask this as a community discussion. We had to decide pretty rapidly, so at that point we said no for a lot of the reasons you said: First of all, somehow you have to collect all those phone numbers, and how do you get them all? People think they’re going to be safe because you’re going to send out response on a phone system. It’s not going to work. We have to have multiple ways to do it. The second thing was as soon as we started down that road, MNSCU was very interested in sending out other announcements to people using this system. I was not willing to partner into that until there was agreement that this was going to be emergency only. They did keep saying that that was their intent, but I didn’t have a lot of faith in it. So we didn’t join the pilot for all those reasons.
FA: The pilot system is the one that’s being tested during finals week?
ADM: There is a website now. They sent out an email about a lot of what we’re discussing. I thought people might want copies of that. There’s really two sheets. The first sheet is there.
ADM: The cost was about $2.50/person, so if you did the math for how many people are on our campus, you would know, and you would have to determine about that.
FA: The other piece is that I do think long term we do need to have something that would involve community participation in a larger way. And I just wanted to say that in conversations with my colleagues from other universities, they would bring up a variety of things having to do with the local landscape. One of them was talking about difficulties with doors having windows next to all of them. One of them was talking about having buildings that had many classrooms with glass walls. I don’t even know what conditions here would be except for the fact that I don’t know how to lock doors in most of the classrooms I teach in.
FA: Lest we forget that we already as a campus have been victimized. Melissa Johnson was a student at the time when she was abducted, raped and killed not very far from our campus. We also as a community have an unsolved abduction. It’s the 30th birthday week for Jacob Wetterling. That’s not to say that we should all be fearful, but the reality is if you read the case from N. Dakota, the young man probably went through our community on his way to N. Dakota. He was released from Oak Park Heights after serving 9 years. Some of you remember Hill Street Blues, where the sergeant would always say just at the end of his charge to the officers going out there, “It’s a dangerous place out there, be safe.” It is. And any kind of threat that’s perceived is real. The person that perceives a threat even if it isn’t real, it’s real to that person. So this conversation, I hope, will continue.
ADM: Yes, because there’s a lot of stuff to be done. Even education and training—we talked about doing a mock practice. It’s recommended to do a practice run. So there is a lot of work to be done.
ADM: We will have a session at Faculty Forum on some of these issues. And we should build some training into the week before classes start.
FA; In the K-12 system, we have these nice packets of emergency planning. The same issue exists. Not everybody’s going to read or remember when there is a crisis, so one of their strategies to help, just one of many, is to develop short checklists with just the basics, the fundamentals, and they’re put on magnetic cards you could put on your file cabinet. It’s just everywhere, so wherever you look, you see this little 7-10 item checklist. And that’s just one additional strategy. I don’t know what it costs, but it’s something that can be handed out during luncheons, etc.
ADM: It’s a great idea.
FA: The key is multiple strategies because that’s what we’re going to have to do.
ADM: That’s right, and that’s a good suggestion.
FA: Thank you.
Back to # 5 under Unfinished Business: Honorary Doctorates (ADM) (02/14/08)
ADM: I did want to inform folks that there will be two honorary doctorates awarded at Spring Commencement, one at each commencement ceremony. In the morning, the Colleges of Business and Education and Continuing Studies have their own commencement, and the honorary doctorate recipient will be Myron Kunin, who’s a person who’s provided substantial contributions to the University over the years and funded the Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies. In the afternoon the commencement will be for the Colleges of Fine Arts & Humanities, Social Sciences and Science & Engineering, and the speaker there will be Bruce Pierson who’s a music educator and has been around campus some recently. Beyond that we have an Honorary Doctorate Committee, and that committee has spent some time this semester and last semester developing criteria to be used more broadly and widely in whom to select in the future. This is primarily an informational piece for you. The members of the Honorary Doctorate Committee are: Diana Lawson, Jack McKenna, Dennis Nunes, Jayne Piehl, Eric Rudrud, Suellen Rundquist and Roland Specht-Jarvis. Any questions?
FA: Thank you.
ADM: If anyone else wants a copy, I have multiple copies.
FA: This is the list of the people on the Honorary Doctorate Committee, and we appreciate having this information.
FA: Will there be an opportunity for additional input.
ADM: It’s possible. Balsy?
FA: Just a comment. Who is the Doctorate Granting Institution now? Is the copy (cannot understand words)
ADM: It is often done by non-doctoral granting institutions as well.
FA: MNSCU gives us the authority to do that. So we can take this item off?
ADM: We can take that off and on to the next item.
New Business
ADM: I think you know, and I just want it recorded for informational purposes if you don’t know, that the Legislature has passed a statute requiring two-year associate degrees to have no more than 60 credits and baccalaureate degrees to have no more than 120 credits, with possibility of some programs being allowed to have exceptions for particular reasons. I have the misfortune or fortune, depending on how anyone looks at it, of being a member of this Task Force looking into this topic. I think the institutions that are potentially most likely to be hurt by some of this are those that offer Associate in Applied Science degrees, some of which are have degree credits in the 70s to get an Associate degree in certain technical fields, and for them to have to cut down to 60 credits is going to be extremely difficult. Exceptions most likely will have to be made to that. There are our own folk who are lobbying the Legislature to repeal this statute. I don’t know how successful they will be. But I’ve given to Judy and I will make it available electronically a schedule this task force has arrived in terms of how to influence the conversion to 120 credit degree programs and what the process is for receiving exceptions to the 120-credit cap. As a University and among the 7-state universities, we’re probably in the best position in regard to this of any of the state universities. Out of 150 majors we have 24 that require more than 120 credits, and most of those are in Education, where students need to have essentially majored in a discipline as well as majoring in Education. Our engineering programs are in excess of 120 credits, and our nursing program is above 120 credits. All of our other programs meet the 120 credit requirement as of this date. There will be meetings of faculty from various universities who have same academic specialization to discuss credit limits, because they want some similarity or uniformity among the universities when they’re asking for exceptions. For example, we are over the 120-credit limit in nursing, but I think we have the lowest number of credits required for a nursing degree of the universities that offer baccalaureate degrees in nursing. So, if we can do it in 122 credits as opposed to 128 at another institution, there will be pressure on those other institutions to match ours. Our largest degree programs are 128 credits. I think that that’s not uncommon for education programs and engineering programs. There will have to be meetings of faculty who are in those particular discipline areas in order to work together to come up with a university-wide or system-wide request for exemption for those particular academic programs. I thought it was important to bring this information to faculty so that it’s something you are aware of and understand that this is something that we need to move forward with given the current state legislation. I will make a copy of this with the programs listed on it that are in excess of 120 credits and make it available to Judy electronically.
FA: And I will make it available to Senate. We did talk about this at Statewide Meet & Confer also on Friday. The intent of this process, which we have on the flow chart, is to as much as possible use the processes that are already on campus, the curriculum process to move through information and approvals, but there was talk about having groups of faculty with similar programs from different universities going together for a mass exemption, if you will. The examples used were not perhaps the ones that you’d most want to hear about. One that they mentioned was an Associate’s Degree in Accounting.
ADM: They mentioned that at the IFO Meet & Confer?
FA Yes. It wasn’t the most intelligent choice of vehicles, but we will provide this information to faculty, and I personally am very glad that we have so few programs that this affects, and it is the ones that we could have predicted would be affected. Thank you for bringing this information forward.
ADM: You’re welcome.
ADM: Any other comments on that?
FA: Since it comes from the Legislature, do you have any idea at all of what MNSCU’s attitude towards this interference in our academic programs might be? Obviously any programs over 120 credits have long since justified those changes, deviations. I’m guessing the Legislature’s reasons are not academic.
ADM: No, I don’t think they’re academic. I think they have to do with time to degree, they have to do with cost, they have to do with standardization, and I’m not sure that the folks in the Office of the Chancellor would choose to comment on their attitude toward this other than to say that this is a mandate from the Legislature that we have to meet, and so what’s the point of discussing it?
FA: That’s what I was afraid of.
FA: I don’t think it’s all that surprising. It’s hard to resolve or alter the attempt intended or otherwise that dumbs down, making higher education less that what we would hope it would be. And the fudge factor comes out of our General Education. Eventually your General Education course rings down to almost nothing, and then you increasingly dumb down even more. I think there’s a substantial body of literature attempting to address that. We have no idea where we’ll go. We know that we are falling behind other nations in terms of our scholarship.
ADM: I do think that there is provision for exceptions to the 120 credits, and that we need to work with colleges and other universities in order to arrive at the correct number of credits for those programs which will be issued exemptions and exceptions. I’m not sure that this will impose an undue hardship or change for us or most of our academic programs. I think that we are in pretty good shape in that regard. I think that other campuses will have a lot more paring down to do than we do when it comes to these programs.
FA: Do you have any idea as to what the criteria is going to be for making the decisions about what’s going to be exempt and what isn’t? Because we went through some of this agony when we went through the changeover.
ADM: That’s why we’re in good shape now, because you guys agonized about it then.
FA: Yes, we did.
ADM: I think that licensing requirements, perhaps, or teaching requirements, accreditation requirements are the factors that are going to be looked at most closely. But I think one of the difficulties we’re going to encounter with this is that accrediting agencies are increasingly pointing toward learning outcomes as opposed to course requirements. And that’s going to make it a little harder to make the case on behalf of various exceptions.
FA: So it seems like what’s going to be sacrificed in terms of General Education requirements…?
ADM: Not necessarily,
FA: We’ve become technical colleges as opposed to universities.
ADM: I hope not.
FA: We might continue to look also in the legislative mandates in the last several years is the pass for curriculum is 40 credits, and that is still on the books. This law didn’t change that, so now we have a tension between the legislative mandate of 40 credits of General Education that we fought with before as well. But it’s my understanding that this statute did not change the requirements of General Education in the MNTC Transfer Curriculum, and as a result in our own General Education program.
ADM: That is correct.
FA: If I look at the program length exemption criteria and the credit length exemption criteria in the document that you gave me and that I received a version of at Statewide Meet & Confer, there’s a term called “Industry Standards” and we talked a little bit about what that meant. Maybe there will be national or international standards that include skill standards that aren’t necessarily accreditation standards or standards from professional organizations for licensure. They’re calling them Industry Standards. As faculty, we need to be careful not to react to that. It’s essentially what the industry (like engineering, for example) has indicated are necessary even though there might not be accreditation standards surrounding that. Some of what was talked about from the MNSCU person who addressed this was the fact that there’s lots of literature that may say that, ok, there’s this skill, this skill, this skill, or this outcome that needs to happen, and programs usually need this many credits in order to do that. There’s a lot of literature out there that we might base the credits on.
ADM: Another thing that we could look at is what the standard number of credits are with programs nationally at other institutions. There are a number of things we can look at, but we will have to do those things and submit…You know, with the exceptions of I think it’s four engineering programs and nursing and a Bachelor of Music, which is a very unique degree, all of the other programs are teaching degrees. I think we will be able to support the need for those programs to be in excess of 120 credits.
FA: To reiterate some earlier comments about 2-year programs, that we’ll see the biggest impact on the 2-year programs. What I see are barriers to transfer matriculation to associate degree programs if they decide to reduce the number of General Education Credits in the Associate Applied Science programs. Students will have to come here having to take more General Education.
ADM: I’m not sure. Again, I think the number of General Education credits required for those degrees is not changing.
FA: But they might cut back. Curriculum is 18 for the Associate of Applied Science. Sometimes they add more to it, they have some latitude.
FA: If you look at the schedule, it will be several years before it’s implemented, between 2010 and 2012?
ADM: Yes.
FA: We can take this one off the schedule then?
ADM: For now, yes.
FA: Frances, why don’t you start that, and Michael, if you could add to it.
FA: There is a motion passed that Faculty Association asked Meet & Confer to inquire about students satisfying required courses that are not offered online in online degree programs without departmental consultation. This is through Continuing Studies. So basically degree programs are being offered to students that are online, and there is a required course, Racial Issues, and we’re not sure if that course is being waived, if they’re finding another course online somewhere, but faculty (and this is where, I think, faculty speak)…The faculty in that department feel that this course is not suitable for online. It’s a face-to-face, brick and mortar type of course. There’s some concern about what’s going on here with these online degree programs being offered through Continuing Studies, and how is this particular course being satisfied. The faculty have not been consulted.
FA: And there are at least two issues that are of concern to the Racial Issues Colloquium: 1. There are courses that are being offered that have not gone through Curriculum process. That includes having a sign-off or at least input from that committee for any course that’s going to be qualified as a Racial Issues course. And yes, in terms of pedagogy…
ADM: Say that part again, please.
FA: In that whenever a course that has gone through the curriculum process…
ADM: On campus?
FA: On campus. But offered by any department, is that there is a sign off also by the Racial Issues Colloquium in terms of whether or not it is meeting the criteria for qualifying as a Racial Issues course. We’ve had several courses by different departments. Let’s say English, for example, that wanted to have courses that did not address all the components of the criteria for a Racial Issues course. Particularly for those departments that have not been involved in providing courses that meet that criteria, right now there are several departments in Sociology and Human Relations department in the College of Education that have been offering courses that meet that requirement. There is a pedagogical component in terms of students developing a capacity to communicate and to interact with people, particularly if it’s considering issues about differences in people in terms of communication. Communication is a very essential part of understanding human relations. It’s not about what one sees in a one-way communication that happens online. I know that they have some arrangements that it’s done electronically, but there is a different dynamic that happens in the course if you have 30 students that have to see face-to-face. And you can also pick up not only verbal communication but non-verbal cues about how people are communicating and interacting. Thirdly, there is this occurrence in situations of communication in which there is a certain distance, particularly when you have some anonymity such as in a chat room that people feel much more free to act as if it’s a mob as opposed to being sincere and being held accountable for what they say. Particularly here, for example, in St. Cloud in the St. Cloud Times, there’s been some very negative and vicious conversations and comments, and it’s because people are hiding behind that anonymity or, if nothing else, that distance that they feel not to be responsible for what they’re going to communicate. So if Continuing Studies is offering courses online or even if they’re offering courses that have not gone through the curriculum process, there’s no quality control.
ADM: We need to consult with John Bergeson about that. But I’m not aware that they are offering courses online that haven’t been approved. I’m not sure how those students meet that requirement. I think they do it by transferring courses from other institutions, not necessarily online, but I’m not sure about that piece, so I would like to wait until we have an opportunity to talk to John and have him respond to this particular issue.
FA: I think there’s a few questions.
FA: I think it’s wise to collect some information. Let me see if I can frame a simple question: How can we, St Cloud State, advertise the ability to get a degree from St. Cloud State 100% online?
ADM: As with everything, this is a more complicated issue than you might think, and might deserve more extensive conversations and clarification. One thing that comes to mind regarding the Racial Issues requirement applied to 2-year associate’s degree and 4-year degrees, baccalaureate degrees. Modified graduate degrees, for example. So graduate programs they’ve offered online would not be an issue here. For baccalaureate programs, one of the things that frequently happens when these bachelor’s degree programs is advertise this online. What they’re really talking about—and we need to clarify this—is the last two years of baccalaureate programs, essentially the major, and not necessarily the first two years which would be the General Education and could include the Racial