Approved November 17, 2005

Meet and Confer

October 6, 2005

Admin:  Roy Saigo, Michael Spitzer, Rex Veeder, John Burgeson, Steve Ludwig, Kate Steffens, Kristi Tornquist, Diana Burlison, Larry Chambers, Bernadette Wilson, Anne Zemek de Dominguez

Faculty:  Judy Kilborn, Annette Schoenberger, JoAnn Gasparino, Andrew Larkin, Robert Johnson, Mary Clifford, Jayantha Herath, Susan Motin, Steve Hornstein, Bill Langen, Frankie Condon, Balsy Kasi, Polly Chappell – Notetaker

Approval of Minutes

 

Meet and Confer Notes of September 8, 2005—Not ready.

 

Meet and Confer Notes of September 22, 2005—Not ready. 

 

Unfinished Business

 

1.     Centers of Excellence (FA) (9/08/05)

 

FA:  For Centers of Excellence, the deadline for those proposals was this past Tuesday, which was October 4th, 2005.  We are requesting the copies of proposals that have been forwarded to MnSCU for review.

 

Admin:  I’ve asked David Degroote, who is responsible for two of those proposals, to send an electronic copy to the President of the FA, and I’m asking the Dean of the COB, the interim Dean of the COB, to do the same thing.

 

FA: Thank you.

 

Admin: So you should get those either today or tomorrow.

 

FA:  Okay.

 

Admin:  If not, please let me know and I’ll make sure you get them.  Anything else on that?  I think, just to fill you in, I think the judging of those is going to take place by Monday, and I don’t know if they’ll be done on Monday, but at the next board meeting, which is the following week I guess?

 

FA:  The 18th.

 

Admin:  The 18th.  There will be some presentations made to the board to recommend the proposals to be selected, and I guess the ultimate decision will be made by the board at that meeting. 

 

FA:  We’re talking about the Board of Trustees?

 

Admin:  Yes.

 

FA:  Do you know anything about this selection process?

 

Admin:  Um, yes.  What would, what would you like—a more general statement than that?   

The RFP contained a series of categories with a certain number of points allocated to each, and so they are going to be judged on the basis of how well each of the proposals meet the criteria in each of those areas.  The judging will be done by a group of individuals. I think there are faculty from universities included in that, there are representatives from business and industry, there are out—people from outside MnSCU that have also been invited to participate in the judging.  We have proposals in three of the four categories, so none of our folks are involved in judging in any of those three categories.  We do have some people, both an Administrator and faculty, who have been asked to serve as judges in the category where we don’t have any. 

 

FA:  So we do have two faculty members— ?

 

Admin:  There are IFO reps—

 

FA:  —We have two IFO reps from this campus?  I do have the criterion that are being used if you want a copy of that, Robert?

 

FA:  No.  I just know some of the other MnSCU competitions have not always been explicit, necessarily objective and we didn’t get feedback on the proposals we submitted, so I was wondering if it is a different type of game.  It sounds like it is. 

 

Admin:  I don’t know, I don’t know if we’ll get feedback but we will certainly see whatever scores we get on our…

 

FA: Well, that’s feedback.

 

Admin:  Well…

 

FA:  More feedback than what we’ve gotten in the past.

 

Admin:  I’m assuming we’ll get… Okay, the next item then.  Searches Planned, Larry you want…

 

2.     Searches Planned (Admin) (9/08/05)

 

Admin:  Yes, I’d just like to bring you up-to-date on what we are on with the Searches Planned.  For the Affirmative Action Officer search, a search firm was selected, and the first time they met was about two weeks ago.   Cizek is an associate from a firm outside of Phoenix, Arizona.  She’s going to come in and do some preliminary work and meet with some of the folks in Administration on the 14th.  She’ll be back to meet with a search committee—I  think a call has gone out recently to solicit people for that search committee for that position—so she’ll be working with the search committee when she comes back in several weeks for that particular position.  For the search for three deans now, COE, Social Science, and Business, we have drafted an RFP, which we hope will go out within a week or so, as well as the Vice President for Student Life and Development RFP.  So we hope to send those RFPs out, solicit bids, get those bids back, evaluate those bids, and a decision will be made if it is one or more firms to work with search committees to proceed in searches for those administrative positions.  Yeah, Judy?

 

FA: Two questions, you mentioned RFPs are going out in a week.  It sounded like you were… two different RFPs?  Are we looking for search firms for— ?

 

Admin:  Well, go ahead.  Sorry.

 

FA:  Are we looking for a search firm for the dean search and then another one for Student Life and Development, or are we looking for a search firm for all of those positions?

 

Admin:  The way it’s going to be worded is, these firms can submit bids for one or multiple searches.  It could be that we might select two search firms, or it might be one search firm.  We don’t know at this point.  Until we get the bids back and we evaluate those bids and evaluate the prices and what they’ll do for us, so it could be either way.

 

FA: So it could be four search firms?

 

Admin:  Conceivably it could be four search firms or it could be two.

 

FA:   My second question is if you would be willing to spell the name for the search firm for the Affirmative Action search?

 

Admin:  Oh, C-I-Z-E-K, that’s the last name—

 

FA:  Okay.  Is it— ?

 

Admin:  Cizek and Associates.  They are out of Phoenix.

 

FA:  It’s pronounced Cizek?

 

Admin:  They also have offices in Chicago and some other area.

 

FA:  It’s pronounced Chizek?

 

Admin:  Cheezek.

 

FA:  Cheezek.  Okay.

 

Admin:  She will be in Friday of next week to do some preliminary work. 

 

FA:  Well, the other thing is I’ve officially given the Pres—the Provost—I’ve given the Provost a list of search committee members from Faculty Association.

 

Admin:  Oh, for the… ?

 

FA:  For the various searches. 

 

Admin:  Oh, okay. 

 

FA:  And the only one I haven’t given him is the search committee members for the COB because the COB needs to discuss some things and bring them forward before we complete that list.  

 

Admin:  Okay.

 

FA: Well, has the search committee for the AAO met?

 

Admin:  No, it’s…  the request went out to solicit some names, and they have not met yet.  I imagine it probably won’t be for several more weeks.

 

FA:  We… you have our names.  There’s some concern you’re getting ahead of yourself by having all these meetings with this person and not having the search committee involved in that.  I think—

 

Admin:  Well the search committee… she’s going to make a special trip to meet with the search committee after they are formed, in several weeks.

 

FA:  Okay.  So you have all the faculty names.  We did that last year.  What are you waiting for?

 

Admin:  Well…

 

FA:  We gave you those last year.

 

Admin:  Okay, it might have been forwarded to the President’s office.  I have to check with Sue Prout if you want to use the same names.

 

FA:  We had an election last spring.  I can’t imagine that we would want to have another election this fall. 

 

Admin:  Go with the same names?

 

FA:  We sent those…

 

Admin:  For last year—

 

FA:  —and we sent those…  the search committee was going to meet this fall.  We had an election last year, why would we not…?

 

Admin:  Well, if you want to go with the same names, we’ll go with the same names.  That’s fine.

 

FA:  What do you mean go with the same names?   Last spring you said you said, we’re going do this, this fall.  We had an election last spring for a search committee.  Why would you not, why do you think we would not, we were not going to use those people?

 

Admin: Well, if you’re clarifying now we can do that.

 

FA:  Please.

 

Admin:  We’re not allowed to make that assumption.

 

FA:  Please do that.

 

Admin:  We’ll do that.

 

FA:  Okay.

 

Admin:  We can do that.

 

Admin:  Well, I believe there is some confusion.  There was a search committee last year.  We’re not talking about the members of that search committee.  They had a separate process last spring and—

 

Admin:  Yes.

 

Admin: —and they requested membership and they completed that, and certainly we’re going to go ahead with those folks that they’ve named for this committee.  Yes?

 

FA:  There is some concern in that group of people that this is going forward, and they’re not being used at all.  And I think it wouldn’t hurt to involve the search committee in the search, before you’ve decided who you’re going to pick.

 

Admin:  There’s some other people being named from some of the other unions as part of this committee, and I know that just went out.

 

FA:  Two things just that I think would be good is to get a notice out to these folks saying you’re involved in this, we’re going to have you come in at such and such a time. There’s a related question that’s come up regarding the searches for which I gave, just gave the Provost the names.  People are wondering who will be in those searches, so and those are searches that have people besides FA, people besides our names so…

 

Admin:  Well I think, you know, we’ll need to have them meet with the search firm as well, and when that search firm is selected, then when we’ll go forward.

   

FA:  And so should I tell them that they should wait for… ?

 

Admin:  Um hmm.

 

FA:  …a call from someone in Administration— ?

 

Admin:  Yes.

 

FA:  —about meeting with the search firms?

  

Admin:  Yes.

 

FA:  Okay, would that come from Larry?  Or would it come from somebody else?

 

FA:  Could we ask that you send them something confirming the fact that you know that they are on the search committee?

 

Admin:  Yes.

 

FA:  For instance, the Affirmative Action people have heard nothing.  They have heard nothing about what is going on.  They don’t, they don’t, they have no recognition that you’ve got their names.  They’ve heard nothing, you know, so they’re, they’re nowhere, thinking nothing’s happening or that you’re going just want them to rubber stamp.  So you’re giving them, they have, perhaps an entirely erroneous impression of what’s going to happen because you’re not communicating.

 

Admin:  Well, you know, we hear what you’re saying.  We can look into that, and we can certainly do that.

 

FA:  And now, and now we are waiting for search firms, maybe just an initial email saying, we have your names, and we are looking for search firms, would be sufficient?

 

Admin:  Okay.

 

FA:  Question, would it, I think it would be helpful to have the RFP sent to the members of these search committees?  Maybe the RFP will spell out the roles of the search firm relative to the search committee.  I think that would be an important thing, insightful to have what is clear, the relative role of each of these searches, as well as the campus search committee.

 

Admin:   I don’t see any reason why we can’t.

 

Admin:  Well, we can… I want to work with contacting the Affirmative Action search faculty members as well as the committee.  I want to talk with them, work with them, and as well we want to work with the other committees, and communicate the information here…

 

FA:  Is the RFP secret?

 

Admin:   It’s a public document.

 

FA:  It’s a public document?  So why can’t you send them to the search committee?

 

Admin:  Certainly could.

 

FA:  I didn’t hear an okay.

 

Admin:  Well, you know, it’s, the process is not completed yet.  The one—go ahead Steve.

 

Admin:   The one for the AA is done.  So that the RFP for Affirmative Action Officer can be sent.  And if you have the contract signed, or as soon as the contract is signed, that, that could be sent, that describes the duties…

 

FA:  So even though—

 

Admin:  … to a certain extent.  And soon the RFP for the others will be complete, and that can also be sent because the public has, can have at it.

 

FA:  It’s a public document?

 

Admin:  Absolutely.  And I’m, I just might suggest that you start, you might want to start the schedule, the search committee meeting for AA because as you get closer it can be difficult to get the time, so this might be a good time to start contacting the members and say can you, do you have some time that you can meet, and as we get it from the consultant, then you won’t waste, won’t take another week to try to schedule it because time… it’s…  time is kind of short.  So I suggest that as a good idea.  The President convenes the committee officially, and it would be good if we can start the process of finding some times that work for these folks. 

 

FA:  That would be very helpful.

 

Admin:  Looking at the list of names for each of the search committees, I just want to comment on one of them.  Seems to me that it would be appropriate to make a change so… I have the names of the members of the search committee for the Associate Dean of the COE, and I think we ought to postpone that search for the time being since there have been other developments within the college, and I don’t think you we should do the search for a permanent Associate Dean until we have a permanent Dean in place.  So I’m going to ask that we will seek to fill the position of the Dean on an acting, and on an interim basis, and maybe once we’ve done that, we can try to find an interim Associate Dean for next year so that following year, during next year, presuming that we have a permanent Dean in place, that individual could conduct the search for the associate dean. 

 

FA:  We’re morphing now, and I thinking we’re morphing with agreement too, are we? 

 

Admin:  Well…

 

FA:  To new business item three?  These, we’ve—

 

Admin:  Okay.

 

FA:  —got three things that are closely related on this—

 

Admin:  Right. 

 

FA:  —and…

 

Admin:  That’s fine.

 

FA:  Is that okay—

 

Admin:  Sure.

 

FA:  —if we go to three?

 

Admin:  Sure. 

 

FA:  New business three then.

 

Admin:  Um hmm.

 

FA:  And consider these things together rather than separately?

 

Admin:  Okay. 

 

New Business

3.   Search for Dean of COE (FA) (10/06/05)

 

Admin:  Okay.  So this is the process that we used when we had a vacancy in the middle of the semester for the Dean of Social Sciences. We appointed an Acting Dean until we had an abbreviated search with a small,  search advisory committee to identify someone who would then serve as the Interim Dean for the remainder of that academic year.  That is the process that we would use for the COE.  There have been people whose names have been proposed, and we’re in the process of making the determination now as to who will serve as the Acting Dean.  As soon as that happens I will ask you to provide the names.  I think it was four or five people that were involved in the Social Sciences situation.

 

FA:  The standard structure has been five faculty from the College and then an at-large faculty from outside the College.

 

Admin:  That would be fine.  And that group will then be advisory with regard to appointing the interim dean for this academic year.

 

FA:   I think also it would be very prudent to consult widely, carefully, and also to listen with a very sensitive ear to the views of the members of the college.   Particularly responding to what seems to be desirable for the new Dean for the College.  For whatever means, for example, consultation with departments, small group discussions or some other way those people can freely express their thoughts and feelings, that there be a canvas of ideas for desirable qualifications for that position so that there’s good input in that selection process. That’s the recommendation, that you listen carefully to the, not just the Faculty Association itself, but to the desires of the members of that department.

 

A: Well, I have asked, via email, all of the faculty and staff in the COE to submit recommendations to me.  I’ve received emails back from forty or fifty individuals. 

 

FA:  Recommendations for names—

 

Admin:  Some are them are recommendations for names.  Some of them were very explicit about the kinds of characteristics they wanted in the person who is going to be Dean, and those are being taken seriously in consideration. 

 

Admin:  Reminder is that usually position descriptions for deans are somewhat standardized because they are benchmarked by MnSCU, which would mean that substantial changes in the position description would create additional delays, and we’d have to send it back to MnSCU, and it would deviate from the standardization that we have for all dean positions.

 

FA:  So a point of clarification, maybe, is that, I think that we can ask for or invite members of the College to talk about the kinds of qualities they are looking for in a person who would occupy that position without necessarily changing what the Administration sees as a standardized job description.

 

Admin:  I think that’s correct. 

 

FA:  I also think that if you do a consultative process with the members of this College and you find out that, that job description doesn’t satisfy the needs of the college, you need to change that job description.  So it delays filling the position.  Would you rather have someone in that position who satisfies the job description but doesn’t satisfy the needs of the college by just waiting maybe an extra six months or a year?  Or do we want just to go and hire somebody. I mean, I can’t understand why the need to hurry would force us to do something that might be a mistake and might cause even more problems than we already have in the college, and if that’s what you’re, I mean that’s what I hear you saying, that is we should hurry up and get this done, and I’m not convinced that that’s a particularly good idea.

 

Admin:  First of all, minor changes to the job description are not going to cause any delays, and I don’t think you’re talking about changing the scope of responsibilities of the Dean. 

 

FA:  Is a dean search similar to a faculty search?  Because if it is, on the one hand you have the job description, then you have a check list that you’re supposed to follow of, well, of qualities that are roughly implicit in the job description.  But are…  They’re implicit but not necessarily obvious, and perhaps this is a way without delaying the whole process but still in a perfectly correct fashion, to take into account what you uncover in these conversations in the College.

 

Admin:  The answer to your question is yes.  And, you know, one of the things that happens in these searches is that the committee prepares a list of questions for the candidate, and the questions can be reflective of its values.  Because you’re really talking about values and qualities as opposed to qualifications and levels of experience in that context.  And I think those certainly can be accommodated in the search.  The question is can you judge those well when you do your search?  That’s always one condition. 

 

FA:  I guess as you speak with faculty, I hope you will continue to do that before you go forward on the search.  Another issue that I think needs to be raised and faculty need to be, their opinions need to be listened to on this is whether we want a very short-term Interim Dean for just the rest of this year or maybe it would make sense to move beyond that.  Our NCATE comes up in the fall of ’07, and perhaps it makes more sense to have a… and I don’t know, I want you to ask faculty this.  Does it make more sense to have a two-year or one-and-a-half-year Interim and do our real search after that time so that we have some consistency throughout our NCATE process.  Also, to my mind, it’s to my mind only, I own this comment, that I think that some healing in the college at that point might be appropriate before we hire, so they don’t have to walk into this hornet’s nest.  So again, that’s my opinion, but I’m hoping, I would request that those questions be asked of the faculty at-large to get opinions from departments and faculty about what they think should happen.

 

FA:  I’m waiting… I’m wondering if we could wait to put out a request for nominations for the search committees until consultation has continued?  I’ve had quite a few requests that we not start something until consultation has happened, and I can’t represent the Faculty Association’s perspective on this or the college’s perspective on this, simply to say that a number of concerns about what this should really look like have come up, and I do think we need time to do full consultation, which I understand you are beginning at this point, in the college before we move forward in the searches, and I’m wondering if you could agree to wait until perhaps the next Meet and Confer to… ?

 

Admin:  To do what?

 

FA:   Well, I’m hearing different configurations of filling in, and you know, are we having… You suggested an Interim Dean, short-term Interim Dean, a longer Interim Dean and the full time, and I’m hearing at least one question coming up and it’s from Steve, it’s not from an FA position, it’s about do we want that or do we want something longer for NCATE…  And, I’m wondering if we should wait to formulate these committees until we are sure about what we are going to do?

 

Admin:  Well, I need to have somebody there—

 

FA:  Right—

 

Admin:   —soon. 

 

FA:  I don’t think you’re going to have any disagreement about the short-term—

 

Admin:   Beyond that, in having met with the DAC, the opinion was pretty strongly expressed there that they wanted a Dean, a permanent Dean in place that would be of assistance in the NCATE process.

 

FA:  I’m not sure that—

 

Admin:  Go head.

 

FA:  —I’m sorry. 

 

Admin:  I mean, that’s, that’s what the folks there have said.  That it would help with NCATE if there were a permanent Dean in place.

 

FA:  I’m not sure that the Deans Advisory Council would be necessarily representative of the whole College.

 

Admin:  They may not be.  But they are members of the college.

 

FA:  Yeah.  That’s one way of consulting, certainly.

 

Admin:  I just want to go back to something to clarify something about my involvement in the search for an AA Officer. I was not involved on this search at all last semester.  I picked it up later this summer, and I didn’t know that the complete list had been sent in.  It wasn’t sent in to me, the names of the people on the search committee for Affirmative Action Officer.  But since I’ve had this meeting and you’ve satisfied that list, I will factor that information in because I just absorbed this responsibility a few weeks ago.

 

CAUCUS

 

Admin: Okay folks, we’re back in order.  What you say will be recorded.  (Laughter)

 

FA: I wanted to react actually to the three different positions that need to go forward.  First we acknowledge that somebody is going to need to be appointed as Acting Dean very quickly, and we acknowledge that that needs to happen and know that you’re talking with folks and trying to come up with a quick emergency fill in for that position.  We would ask that you do fuller consultation for the Interim Dean’s position, in particular trying to find out in different venues, I think the email is certainly appropriate, the DAC is appropriate, but you’re going to get really particular perspectives there.  We would encourage you to consult more widely, perhaps through department meetings, to try and get as much input as you can.  And we really believe that that sort of input is really important for the healing process right now, and it’s also important to, not only move towards an interim appointment but a permanent position.  And one of the things we believe you should ask about is, kind of the principles of what you would like to see long-term happen, but also ask about length of time for Interim.  And so we’re prepared to, I’m prepared to put out a call for nominations for the Advisory group for the interim appointment.

 

Admin:  Okay.

 

FA:  And to bring those to Meet and Confer next time, and I will also put a call out for the permanent position but will not promise you that one next time we have Meet and Confer.

 

Admin:  That sounds fine.

 

FA:  Was there anything I missed?

 

Admin:  Okay?

 

FA:  So…

 

Admin:  We’re up to item three, Attendance Policy.

 

3.     Attendance Policy  (Admin) (9/08/05)  and

6.  Uniform Start Date (Admin) (9/22/05)

Admin:  We have provided you with a draft of an Attendance Policy on the 8th of September, and I’d like to know if we have a response to that?

 

FA:  I’d actually like to bundle my response to number three, which we received on the 8th of September and number six, which we received on the 22nd of September, both of which were on the Senate agenda last time.  We didn’t get to them because of more important serious issues, but they are on the agenda. I’m assuming we’ll get to them in Senate next week, and we will bring you back something to Meet and Confer next time.  That’s my hope anyway.

 

Admin:  Okay.  I think it’s really important that by spring semester, we have the ability to have a policy in place so it can be in effect for spring semester. 

 

FA:  So you’re talking about the attendance policy? 

 

Admin:  Yes.

 

FA:  You’d like it in effect by spring?

 

Admin:  Yes.

 

FA:  We just jumped.

 

Admin:  What are you on?

 

FA:  To the Grade Appeal Policy Guidelines.  (New Business, item 2)

 

New Business

2.     Grade Appeal Policy Guidelines (FA) (10/06/05)

 

FA:  We gave you that last spring. 

 

Admin:  Right.

 

FA:  We still haven’t heard anything.  Students have been asking me about that. 

 

FA:  That, if you recall, was a policy that was worked on by Academic Affairs, Faculty Association, and Student Government.  And students are bugging people now.

 

Admin:  Okay.

 

FA:  They want to know what the status of that is, and so…

 

Admin:  We will have it next time.

 

FA:  This isn’t actually a grade appeal policy.  What it is, is a document that would be, that would accompany the current grade appeal policy, that—

 

Admin:  Right. We relabeled it—

 

FA:  —that says…

 

Admin:  —in spring as guidelines for grade appeal policy.

 

FA:  Right.

 

FA:  Okay.  Thank you very much for jumping forward.  We’ll try not to do that again.

 

3.   Attendance Policy  (Admin) (9/08/05)

Admin:  I’d like to jump back to the Attendance Policy.  You know we had Tinto, we had Gardner.  This would be a very simple way of helping retention, and we’ve put a lot of effort in trying to focus on retention.  We’re down 116 FYE this year.  It may be reduced more, but we’ve been going down about 100 FYE a year, and whatever we can do as soon as possible would be a help to this process.  Michael has spoken over and over again about the cost of the 100 FYE, what that means in money, what that means in the number of faculty and staff, equipment, and I think this is one of those issues, Judy, that if you can take it and pass it and get back to us even this semester to encourage faculty that would like to do that this semester even, it would be very, very helpful to the retention of our students.

 

FA:  We talked last time at Meet and Confer about the connections between retention and that policy and Tinto and Gardner have said and studies show, and I personally, and I’m not speaking from the FA perspective now, I’m speaking from Judy Kilborn’s perspective, I think that attendance policies are really important.  I actually got one in our department because I strongly believe that.  So, what I can promise is it’s on the agenda, and I hope we’ll get through it, and we will certainly get back to you this fall about it and hopefully sooner than later.  But we do understand that it’s important in retention.  So where are we now?  Are we on four?

 

Admin:  Yeah, I want to reiterate that it would be very important if you can get that back to us at the next Meet and Confer.  I don’t know when your next Senate meeting is, but that would be very helpful because if we’re going to have faculty implementing, even for next semester, we need to have the word out to them in advance so that they can build it into their syllabus and into their courses and be ready to notify their students, and if we wait too long, we’ve lost another semester.  I much prefer that we not do that.

 

FA:  I think that the element of it is, I think that some of it will be, and I’d be willing to let the rest of the team speak up because we haven’t talked about it, but I think some of it will not be controversial.  Some of it may be.  And, at least maybe we can look at pieces of it that might be reconciled more quickly.  Our normal process would be to refer this to a committee like Academic Affairs, I think, in this case.  I certainly can’t promise that Senate process will work that fast, but I can promise to put it into the meeting agenda.

 

FA:  My experience in Senate is you cannot predict any outcome. (Laughter).  That’s the only thing that’s predictable.

 

Admin:  Okay, next item, Teacher Development. 

 

4.   Motion from Teacher Development  (FA) (9/22/05)

FA:  I just wanted to bring you the motions that were passed at Faculty Senate last time, relating to the motion from Teacher Development, which you saw electronically, and it did take a great deal of conversation in Senate, and I think it was a very important kind of discussion, because it is very serious issues we are responding to.  I don’t know if you should read this into the record perhaps.  And actually you have those so I can just read them out loud, Polly, and you can put them into the record from this electronic copy.  The first motion that was passed was for the FA Senate to support the Motion from Teacher Development.  The second one was for the FA to soundly condemn the expressions of hatred and bigotry expressed in the survey and reported in the external evaluation report.  The third was for the FA Senate to support the EC’s concern regarding the publication of the evaluation of the COE Dean and direct the Meet and Confer Team to convey our grave concern to Administration, and to ask the Administration to advise the University community on what action they will take in response.  And finally that the FA requests the Administration’s Legal Counsel to assemble all the relevant state statutes and University policies regarding harassment in workplace and the creation of a hostile work environment and to assure the University community that the University intends to enforce these statutes and policies promptly and rigorously.  Let me just provide context for the last one, and actually there is something missing here, I’ve just noticed, and I’ll come back to that.  One of the points made, was that, I think it is important for faculty to know that certain things really are a matter of legal concerns and that if they do certain things or say certain things that they really are breaking state statutes or University policy or other sorts of real legal constraints, and if we have those we could remind faculty of those.  So, the first one that I omitted from this list, and I apologize, I don’t even have the direct language in front of me, was that the EC was asked to investigate the possibility of filing a 1B1 complaint or some other formal process.  Ah, thank you.  Motion that the Senate directs the Executive Committee to find out whether a 1B1 investigation or similar official action is appropriate in this case and to report its actions back to Senate.  I did file a 1B1 complaint on Senate’s behalf to ensure timeliness.  I will bring that document back to Senate next Tuesday, and we will decide what we want to do with it.  I have asked Nancy Jessee to hold that in abeyance until Senate could react.  So, I think all of these motions show how seriously we consider the circumstances and the level of outrage.  So…

 

Admin:  How would the FA respond to mandatory training for all faculty?

 

FA:  How would the FA respond to that? 

 

Admin:  Um hmm.

 

FA:  We would have to ask the FA.

 

Admin:  Well, that’s what I’m doing—

 

FA:  Well—

 

Admin:  —asking the FA at Meet and Confer.

 

FA:  We haven’t discussed this.  How we feel individually may be another question.

 

Admin:  How do you feel individually?

 

FA:  Been there, done that.  Approach these extremely important circumstances.

 

Admin:  What approach would you recommend?

 

FA:  I think we need to, well you’re asking me individually?

 

Admin:  Yes.

 

FA:  I will speak as Robert Johnson.

 

Admin:  Absolutely.

 

FA:  Not for the Faculty Association, not for Meet and Confer Team, not for the EC.  I think we need to identify the nature of these problems, we know the nature of these problems, identify what causes these problems.  Figure out a way to reach the people who manifest these kinds of attitudes.  We need to find ways that address the larger issues that give rise to these conditions.  We need to start addressing, you know, if you take the shot-gun approach and just shoot at anything, like these mandatory-type training things do, bring everyone into a room, talk to them, sometimes in a very frivolous less than serious way, and off we go.  And come back and within a year or two we have the same instances.  We need to have a more targeted focused approach, as we begin to address those specific issues as they occur and situations that give rise to those, try to deal with them in a systemic fashion, the underlying patterns there.  That’s my personal opinion.

 

Admin:  What approach would you take to do what you just said?

 

FA:  Not going to go there.

 

Admin:  Well, it’s difficult to get where you are focusing because it makes a judgment and to identify which of us needs more training than anybody else is very difficult. 

 

FA:  I’m not saying individually.  I’m saying we need to find those situations and the circumstances that give rise to expressions of these kinds of attitudes and behaviors and to address those kinds of issues.

 

FA:  One thing I can say in summary of last week’s meeting, I think it was pretty clear that people understand that faculty need to, individuals need to do things that Administrative individuals need to do certain things, and that systemically we need to do certain things, and that maybe one is not going to be sufficient.  We haven’t figured out what is going to be sufficient, and we’re going to need to have, I think, a long-term conversation.  And I apologize to the Meet and Confer Team (we had a very loaded pre Meet and Confer) but I should have reported on the results on the first taskforce meeting yesterday, and we had agreed at the last Meet and Confer that we should convene the Taskforce on Diversity Education.  Okay?  And one of the issues was that we had brought that to Meet and Confer, Senate had passed that a long time ago, we brought that to Meet and Confer, the Administration had agreed to the concept but not the make up of that committee.  Okay?  And so to get things started, we had determined, and I’m identifying the Provost and myself, to start with a handful of people who would convene that.  Not be the Taskforce but convene it and there was a great deal of confusion about how that happened, and it was seen as not being an open process, and as you know we talked about wanting to have some actions start right away that would keep the door open so that the college wouldn’t be, the COE, the door wouldn’t shut, and we would be able to get at some of the problems that are systemic there specifically and this incident that caused the uproar.  But it was really clear in discussion leading up to yesterday, and in the discussion yesterday, that we really needed to start over and disband that group because the process wasn’t clean enough, and wasn’t inclusive enough.  So we’re not saying we’re not going to go forward with anything; we just need to figure out what that something is going to be.

 

FA:  I have, actually, two things to say.  One of them is that this is an extremely difficult topic to discuss and I think we all need to realize that, and I know that when I talk about it, it’s extremely difficult for me to talk about it ‘cause I get so passionate, and so I try, I try to do it without pointing too many fingers and realizing that there aren’t any simple answers to it.  There’s no simple way to solve this problem.  There isn’t anything that, that we can just do tomorrow and it will be fixed.  There’s no one single approach to it.  And so I think we need to keep that in mind when we talk about it.  The other thing that I’d like to say is that some of us we’re looking at… was it the…  one of the… the EEOC recommendations, and one of those recommendations was to create two taskforces, one that would look at the COSS, and the other that would look at the COE.  And that those taskforces would actually be, I think, not be chosen from those colleges.

 

FA:  I think one member from those colleges.

 

FA:  Or maybe just one member from the colleges.  And we were thinking that maybe we need to try that… that.  It was an EEOC recommendation, and it just didn’t go anywhere, and I think part of why people get so frustrated is because these kinds of recommendations get made and then they… nothing gets done with them, and so then when we’re asked what should we do?  You know it’s like, well, one thing we said was go ahead and do those taskforces and it didn’t get done, so you didn’t want to do that.  You know if I got the answer wrong… if that was a quiz, and I got it wrong, then I don’t know what the right answer to it is.  ‘Cause I already said, here’s what I think the answer is, and you said no.  So, give me a hint, what do you want to hear?

 

Admin:  Well, I do agree, this is a problem.  The EEOC when we invited them in, they had never been invited in, and so they didn’t… they admitted that they did not know how to behave under these circumstances.  Second they said it would take twenty years, and I think we’ve come very far in five, on the other hand it’s very deep, it’s very complex.  Robert’s saying, too, the circumstances are different for different people and different times.  And, I’m still kind of hurting from the chewing out I received by the hands of the trustees in closed session, over and over again, by two or three of the lawyers and the rest of them.  It’s kind of like pile on for about thirty minutes on what part of mandatory don’t you understand, President Saigo?  And if you remember, we were negotiating.  Michael was, over time, trying to have voluntary activity, and this was a legal part of a settlement.  And so, what I’m saying is, yeah I feel the same kind of anger, I feel the same kind of hurt, I feel the kind of embarrassment for this institution.  We’ve come a long way, but there is still remnants, some of these things will never change, Robert.  And some we won’t be able to change.  But I think that amongst this group, that we all could get together and find a way to react fairly quickly, identify some good quality programs.  I visited with the students on Saturday at their retreat, the SGA, and they had the CARE group there.  And two or three said, you know, I finally get it.  You’re not going to get it the first or second time, and different people look at things differently, but being that the institution, and all my colleagues know about us because they catch us on the Internet.  But I will tell you a year ago, when I had been called down in a closed session when everybody else had to leave, and I sat there where Bill is sitting and the rest sat right around here, and they… it was like pile on, and I held my head… bowed my head, and I took my beating, and what I said to Linda Baer, I said, were you part of that?  And Linda was right behind me and she says, Roy, I was right behind you, and they should have stopped it twenty minutes ago.  So yes, I like to hear the outrage, I like to hear impatience, I like to hear demands, but we need to work together to solve the problem.  I can’t have mandatory and we’d be working on this until the very end, and all of sudden the system comes to me and says, Roy, how come you haven’t gotten this mandatory done?  And I get myself chewed out, and we’re still trying to negotiate at the last moment so this takes cooperation.  You just can’t point fingers and say, you haven’t done this, this is an all-encompassing problem.  The students said this to us this morning when they gave us a presentation.  They said, how come we are told by faculty what to do and how we have to take Respect and Responsibility, and they don’t do that to themselves?”  So, I’d like to see something coming from this body saying, you know, we have a problem here.  I’d like to see mandatory training for every new faculty that comes in each semester.  And every new faculty that comes in, no matter if this is their first year here, or twentieth year or thirtieth year here, they have to go through training.  And we do this every three years.  And, I’m sorry I can’t pinpoint it anymore. I’m not wise enough to decide who needs what at what time.  But we make this a priority, and we institute it, and make it happen.

 

FA:  I think that one thing that ___ and his friends told me is that people do see this as priority, and I think another thing that I’ve been hearing a lot is that maybe the Taskforce on Diversity Educational wasn’t the right kind of body, because that’s an educational body, and maybe what we need to be looking at now and I’m not discounting the effects of education, believe me I’m not, I’ve taken CARE training myself, more than once.  I strongly advise that people take that, but I’m concerned that we not consider this just to be an educational thing and that the problems in that College are going to go away.  There’s a lot of polarity there.  Polarization, rather, in fact I can’t even say that it’s polarization, there’s fracturing there, so much hurt and pain, as result of things that… these… this survey was a part of but, I mean it… a structural thing.  There is something going on with the systems there that, I don’t know, engenders that?  And I’m not… I’m talking about the systems, not the individuals.  I mean we could pull the individuals out, and I think that we’d still have the problems.  You could put them in there and they certainly create and exasperate the situation.  But, what I’m hearing is that we need to do something systemic.  I’m hearing a lot about we need climate studies or we have climate studies, let’s look at this at various levels and see what activities, more that one, we can do to address the issues.  I’m also hearing the COE faculty saying very loudly, don’t leave us out of that, and that’s what they’re telling us with our idea of the taskforce, which would have exempted them because we wanted to keep people outside of the College for obvious reasons.  So, I go to training—

 

Admin:  I agree—

 

FA:  —I go to training...  Roy?

 

Admin:  I’ve taken your resolutions seriously. 

 

FA:  Okay.

 

Admin:  I will come back with a process for you.  Because I’m fed up with this.

 

FA:  Well, keep in mind, Roy, that we’re putting ourselves in that equation.  We’re not saying that Administration has to do this.  We’re asking you to do certain things, we’re asking ourselves to do certain things too.  So…

 

FA:  I’ve been sitting in the center of this for the last fifteen years, in the COE.  I see matters different like the bigotry and the anti-Semitism, that we see, I think is symptomatic of something else.  It’s not… it’s a problem, but it’s not the core problem.  I said this to a number of people.  What I see having grown over the last fifteen years, I’m going to call a culture of arrogance.  And it’s an arrogance on all sides that says, we’re right and you’re not.  And those that are in power take those who disagree with them and they become… get rid of those folks, those people are deadwood.  You can see in that evaluation all kinds of comments about people, you know, that are considered deadwood.  And that’s because they’re not onboard with what somebody else wants them to be, and at the same time, folks on the other side will say you’re not righteous enough, your not out on the line enough, you’re not fighting this enough.  And so Roy, I think you hit it right on the head, is that there really is not respect there of one another, of one another’s work, of one another’s perspectives, of one another’s initiatives and caring about the institution and the work of our students. And that, that’s what, we back up and attempt to restore.  And I think that the anti-Semitism and discrimination that we’re seeing over there is just what happens when people run out of other excuses to say I’m better than you.  You know, if my ideas are better than you, then I’m better than you because you’re Jewish, you know.  I think that’s just the ugly cousin of that arrogance, and yeah it’s a problem, but if we can get to the respect first that says, we have different perspectives, we work different ways, but we’re all concerned with students, we’re all concerned with society, and we take advantage of those differences to build a great university.  That’s what’s going to make the difference here.  We continue to play, yep I like your idea, but yours is worthless and I’m not going to listen to it or you know, the way I experience this personally is that people will come with ideas, and they won’t consult with their colleagues.  And when their colleagues who haven’t been consulted with complain, they are not heard.  And so those who are pushing their ideas forward can the idea that those of who don’t like their idea are deadwood, or anti-innovative.  You know, so we need to build genuine collaboration and genuine respect.  And I think if we did that, that would solve a lot of the problems, and it’s not only eight years old.  I want to be careful I tell you it’s fifteen or more years old over there.  So, you got a long-term problem, I understand, like twenty year of it, but I think the core of that is that.  Fix that, get on that, some of those other things will start to disappear, but we’re still going to have to deal with racism and anti-Semitism, but it would be calmed down. 

 

FA:  I just want to disagree with you there because some of the things you just said, if we require mandatory training by legal decree or board mandate, by the President and proclamation, then we will see people will do the fleet walk in, take their seats, listen, and walk out, and we will have done nothing.  I would maintain that… if we have to do that then, mandatory training is going to take… but over and beyond that to move toward resolution of the problems.  We need to be very targeted, focused, and systemic and long term in our thinking, and comprehensive.  And I’ll argue that mandatory training may be a piece of that, but it’s not going to get us where we want to go.  So that would be my two cents worth.

 

FA:  I was like, as other people have mentioned before me, I was struck by the degree of polarization, and the intense hostility that, and here I’m not even talking about the anti-Semitic remarks, but long before those cropped up it was already shocking to me and I’m accustomed to full and frank exchanges between people, I was… it was actually kind of ugly what these people were saying.  Polarization, as it strikes me, has a certain shape, certain array of symptoms, it can be detected when it’s in its nascent phase, and there is nothing necessary about it.  It’s something that is either cultivated or it’s tolerated, and I don’t think at St. Cloud State we should, on either side of the fence, tolerate practices that foster polarization.  We should foster and model learned, respectful exchanges and discussion, and then the environment in which these kind of ugly exchanges, and fundamentally anti-intellectual, occur would perhaps be fewer, and people will feel less entitled to make them.

 

FA:  Well I want to qualify what I have to say, like Robert did, so now I’m not talking as EC or Senate.  This is Frankie responding to the question.  In the CARE training that the CARE Leadership has been through for an intense period of a couple of years, and in other forums an argument is made that I agree with that we can’t teach racism or anti-Semitism or other forms of oppression away, and the reason we can’t teach them away is because they don’t have their source in individuals.  They have their source in the weight of history and organizational systems.  What education can help with is calling individuals to attentiveness and responsiveness in the ways in which we internalize those logics of those systems of oppression, the ways in which we are taught to think through those systems.  So it’s not the case that training or Diversity on Education is useless; it’s what it can do for individuals it can’t necessarily do for the systems and institutions that teach individuals to think the way that we think sometimes or to say the things that we are willing to say.  So one of the things I think is that when people are in situations of crisis or perceived crisis or when perceived, there are conditions of scarcity, whether those conditions are real or perceived, or they are constructed so that people feel like resources are scare, they tend to go to the default.  They tend to go to that place where they say out loud the things that they have internalized, those ideas that they’ve internalized, because they feel they are in fierce competition with one another.  And so, I think that Diversity Education has its place, its one prong on working on campus cultural climate.  I think another effort that would have its place in some kind of meaningful action would be to work on institutional processes and procedures.  The theories in use, and the principals in use that are different from the theories we espouse and the principals we espouse.  And reducing the duration of time when people feel like they are in competition for scarce resources.

 

Admin:  I’m going to go along with saying this is Rex speaking.  Those of us on the CARE team will echo with what you are saying, Frankie.  Those of us have gone through a particular journey together, in terms of the CARE team, have found this is extremely difficult, painful work.  Everybody knows that it’s work, but it’s an investment, and part of it is that people, we have to find ways to let people let go of the idea of controlling the whole situation in these environments.  And we’ve done a lot of surveys, cultural climate surveys, all that, those are all removed from that struggle.  We have to try to organize to change things.  And what… this is a difference in the education.  I mean we are used to discussing these things and having theoretical discussions and arguing back and forth.  But we’re clearly demonstrating that we’re not good at organizing together to change these things and that those systems for organization of change, and that kind of hard work together, we’re going to have to find out how to do, and I think that is going to be a big part of this.

 

Admin: I just got back from this alcohol and drug prevention, drugs and other drugs.  The President of DePaul University spoke about this, and this seems appropriate for what we’re talking about, Robert.  He said, I don’t know why I’m here, and of course everybody laughed.  He says, you know, we’ve done a three-year study.  He almost got fired.  There was an email that went out that he was going to make the campus dry, and 80% of the living organizations are fraternities and sororities, and so all the rumors went out.  Parents are for drinking because they remember the time and day when they enjoyed themselves as alums, the faculty kind of wink at it, the staff winks at it, and on and on, and he wanted to get prevention, he wanted to get understanding, he wanted to get, you know, students from being locked up and from being intoxicated to the point where they have to go to the emergency room.  And we’ve had the same kind of problems here.  He said, but after all these years of doing this, we had an increase in the incidents of alcohol abuse, but the seriousness was down.  So he said I don’t know what I’m reporting on, you know, society is moving in this direction.  And I asked Mark ____, the head of the taskforce, ‘cause we got to do something, and I don’t want to see students lose potential.  You put this onto the issues we have on racial relations, on respect for each other, for religious choice, GLBT, you can put this right on top of it.  And, maybe it’s too late to being teaching mature people, I don’t know.  But, we got start someplace.  I don’t know the answer.  I wish I did.  I wish we had a program and could say this is the way it is going to be.  But we got to start someplace, and the thing that frustrates me, and you can sense it, is that we see this problem.  We see the motions, we agree with the motions, but then we have again a committee.  I don’t know about this committee, and yet we’re backing up again.  So, we’re going through the process, but we’re not solving the problem.  I guess you two had talked about committee and all this, let’s get on with it, you know, well let’s do something.  Let’s not stop this all the time.  So, somebody says, well, we never solved the problem.  What we can’t get to, can’t get into committee to solve the problem.  I don’t know.  I don’t know the answer. 

 

FA:  The way we have solved a lot of problems, while you were here, before you were here, we have had a lot of problems on this campus, a lot of problems in society.  We’ve been working on them.  We have been getting some of them resolved, some of them have been more retractable, long term, can’t get a handle on them.  Some of these things we can’t get our arms around.  We can’t get our minds around them. But we are working steadily together, so we are making progress.  Unless you can say never in the papers are underlined, I don’t know what never means, ‘cause I’m not going to be here to see it.  (Laughing)  So we don’t know what’s going to occur in the future.  I’m sure my grandparents never expected that I would be sitting where I’m at today.  I’m sure they expected… they… some of them would have said it would probably never happen, but it certainly is here now.  So, things are happening.  They’re going to happen.  This is why we are going to need an approach that is going to be conceptual, situational, and all of the long-term plans and visions that we have as an institution, the goals and that, but as these problems are going to crop up, it’s going to be like some of these game shows, you know (hitting the table noises).  You don’t give up.  You know…

 

(Laughter)

 

Admin:  I would prefer to take the hammer out and, if you wanted me to.

 

FA:  Well, whatever… Things have changed.  Things are changing.  They will continue to change as long as we focus our attention, our resources, our minds to it, we’ll go forward soon.  We may not have the perfect answer, but we will come to it.

 

Admin:  And with your guidance we’ll get there, because one of my great strengths is not to have patience. 

 

(Laughter)

 

FA:  Well, you know, I used to be impatient too, but I realized it didn’t solve the problems.

 

Admin:  Thank you.

 

Admin:  You know, I don’t want us to come away from this meeting thinking it should be a dichotomy between Diversity Education training as opposed to more processed systemic things.  You have to do both.  You have to do all of it.  I would bet we’ve taken altogether 99.9 percent of the employees who have been around for a year or more, do some phases of diversity training this last six years, could you imagine what it would be like if we hadn’t done any of that?  I agree with Robert, you know; some things have been solved, you know, we’ve worked on some programs, it’s not perfect yet, but again we need to do a variety of things, and I hate to see a dichotomy where diversity training, that’s not going to do it or the more processed stuff, you know, that will get to it.  You have to do a variety of things to get to where we need to be.

 

FA:  A lot of times, I think you need different approaches, for example, gender schemes people look at and other people purposely go and say, well, I’m going , they often articulate it, it’s like a young baby.  If you have a small baby, you don’t know the sex of the baby, it’s small, but you define the sex of the baby by saying if it’s a boy, oh how strong he is, how tall he is.  But if it is female, you say how soft, how sweet, how gentle they are.  So often times people think they don’t have any biases.  And so, that is why education is important sometimes as a solution.  Not that everybody will like what they have to do as a part of education.  But it’s not the only approach to solve the problem.  In fact, in one of my classes, just two days ago, Gender and Technology, we have four men and eighteen women in the class.  And one man asked why do we need to take this class?  What’s the reason to take this class?  The women put him in his place.  (Laughter).  And why it’s necessary is because of that exact attitude.  And he thought, why did he need to take the class, except for the requirement, the MGM requirement.

 

Admin:  Well, I think, you know, we do have an immediate issue.  And we attempted one approach.   And we were frustrated with the outcome of some of that.  So we need to move forward with some alternative approach, something that’s going to be more broadly accepted, and we can move forward relatively soon because not doing anything is also not an option.

 

Admin:  And we can talk about how to form that forever—

 

Admin:  Yes.  That’s what we need to address now.  What do we do as the next step?  If the idea was of the EEOC taskforce that didn’t get formed some point in the past, well, maybe now is the time to do it, and how do we identify individuals to serve on that in a way that will be broadly accepted, and an open and transparent process?

 

FA:  Yesterday at the meeting did people get to that question of what… ?

 

Admin:  Beyond, you know, saying what we need is open and transparent, no.

 

FA:  And it needs to include COE folks, that was a really…

 

FA:  So can I follow up on that question? 

 

(Laughter)

 

FA:  The description of the taskforce in the EEOC recommendations does call for representation from the COE. And, but it seems like maybe it’s a good idea to ask them now.  We could even take them the recommendation from the EEOC recommendations, and ask the College, in department meetings, if this is an appropriate way to proceed.  And can you use…  

 

Admin:  I thought that Annette said that that recommendation was to not have people from the COE?

 

FA:  Because of something about how they are chosen, I think maybe? 

 

FA:  Yeah…  it’s a very short…  I could find it and email it to you and to the EC.

 

FA:  You could just go to the EEOC report, which is, which I think is on one of our—

 

Admin:  Yes…

 

FA:  —on the HR website.  It’s four sentences, and it has something about…

 

FA:  It does have a selection… something about selection, and it has something about representation that includes the COE.

 

FA:  Yeah, the representation is included, I think, not to be chosen by the dean or something.

 

Admin:  When, when Judy—

 

FA:  Of course, if there isn’t a dean, that’s not a problem.  Sorry. 

 

Admin:  —when Judy and I talked about the composition of the group that we did try to put together.  One of the reasons why we didn’t go to the COE particularly, is because we felt that because of the polarization within the College—

 

FA:  Yeah.

 

Admin:  —that wouldn’t be a wise thing, and it would be like having a mediator come in, and one of the parties of the College was the mediator, and that’s why we shied away from selecting people from the COE.  Not that we didn’t want the COE faculty to participate in the process because that was always our intent, but to have that little group convene and begin to do some planning and then to incorporate members from the COE into the planning process. 

 

FA:  And in fact one other piece was that that kind of did a hybrid between… and picked two members who the Dean had said would be involved in investigations in the college, and combined that with some representatives who would have been on the Taskforce on Diversity Education, for an ad hoc group.  That would not necessarily have been the final group that populated it, that group, who would have… was the problem.  I’m sorry we had a couple hands up.  I just wanted to clarify that.

 

FA:  I hope this would be a wonderful book for someone to write.  I’m just thinking about this.  The history of this university in terms of our progress.  That was just my two cents, if someone wants to think about that.

 

FA:  The progress, in trials and tribulations.

 

FA:  I just wanted to say that one of the things the CARE Leadership Team is doing is an organizational history and accounting.  And that’s the process of that group, and that’s that long-term solution.  It doesn’t really solve any of the immediate problems, but there are people doing that in that group.

 

FA:  One of the things that we talked about in EC that might make sense is multiple groups with kind of overlapping the different tasks.  Perhaps the Diversity Education taskforce might be, might have a different task than this other taskforce you’re going to… one might be a more discovery climate group to look at specific things.  And the other might be operating something else.  But I don’t think this is going to be something that is solved by one taskforce or one group.  So maybe it makes sense, the EEOC said do that, okay, that’s one thing we can do.  Maybe we could convene another group, with a slightly different… oh, and make sure they meet together, make sure they talk to one another, not operating independently.  But maybe there could be other groups doing different things.  So those are some potentials as well.  I understand how the process gets bogged down.  But it is a deep seeded issue that needs many of our best thinkers to try and solve.

 

FA:  Just to follow up with that, I think that’s a good idea.  I would hate to see because of how that first little group of people who may or may not be in the Diversity Education Taskforce got convened, I’d hate to lose that taskforce.  It’s something Senate asked for, and it was really a longer term, more responsive to the kind of diversity education issues and questions that we’re asking President Saigo, but for in the long-term developing a curriculum for diversity education for university faculty, staff, and administration.   So I’d hate to see that go away, but perhaps we need to sort of, to talk more explicitly and reframe what it does… as this kind of long-term curriculum development, and then I think this is an interesting idea of having several different groups with slightly different charges, they might be collaborative and cooperate with one another.  But, to sort of branch out and do a bunch of different tasks, ‘cause it’s too big for a small group to do by themselves.  Whatever we do, we I think won’t address that problem of initiatives getting undermined before they get off the ground.  If we don’t ask people what they want, and take what they say seriously.

 

FA:  I think some of these things that we are discussing now are very much on the mark.  I do think there have been, you know, tens of thousands of dollars spent over the last few years on a number of climate studies and recommendations, not just only the EEOC report—the money we spent on that—but should try to go and look at some of those recommendations and have the various taskforces and groups maybe go back and reconsider some of those recommendations that were made by parties external to this campus and then pass it on, looks at it, digest it, come up with some different recommendations.  I think some of those things appear to be on the shelf.  We need to take them off the shelf and review them again.

 

Admin:  That’s maybe not a bad idea, but we don’t have a current taskforce.

 

FA:  I know but…

 

FA:  You have that group that you got together.

 

Admin:  Well, that… we disbanded that.  (Laughter).  That was the meeting yesterday.  That, that group is gone.

 

Admin:  We spent, we spent the entire time that that meeting took place talking about whether not the group should be involved in what we convened it to do.

 

FA:  Oh!  Okay. 

 

Admin:  One of the issues we might take up is, let’s go back to the original proposal that the FA made.  I believe, correct me if I’m wrong, Administration agreed to the proposal in general, but specifically was concerned about the numbers and some of that stuff.  We should perhaps find some way to reconvene that group.  We would find representatives in just about every place on campus.  We could begin to work on and come up with a plan.  Maybe that group, for example, would branch off and do different tasks, or there might be other groups that convene out of that.  But, but there is a proposal on the table, that we can come back and begin to work with.

 

Admin:  Well, when we had the discussion about that taskforce, one of the things that was said at Meet and Confer was that the group would be too large to convene to accomplish the kinds of tasks that it needed to address, and we needed a smaller group that would be representative of each of those entities.  There were twenty-five, maybe, twenty or twenty-five units identified to be represented, and so, I mean, if we had to, if you try to schedule a meeting on this campus with twenty-five people, it would take a month and a half, just in terms of finding people to match their schedules.  So that was one of the reasons for wanting a smaller group and not to have something as unwieldy.  Is there a way that we could identify how we select a representative number from that group, that is open, that gives that body an opportunity to participate in that process?

 

FA:  I just want to clarify, so you’re saying have a working group, a subgroup from that larger group, is that what you’re saying?

 

Admin:  Um hmm.

 

FA:  That’s what we tried to do.

 

Admin:  We tried to—

 

FA:  We picked, and we did pick—

 

Admin:  That’s true.

 

FA:  —and we wanted a quick response, but it wasn’t our intention to have that—

 

FA:  The larger group? 

 

FA / ADMIN:  No.

 

FA:  Okay.

 

FA:  We picked a small group from among those that would have been in the larger group, we thought to get things started.  But not to be the final, and I guess part of, I guess I’m wondering, are we thinking of that group taking on this task, or I’ve also heard people say, maybe that’s not the group to do that.  Maybe that group should be doing the long-term Diversity Education, and maybe we should convene it for different reasons than the one on the table right now.  I don’t know.

 

FA:  I guess what I would… we maybe need to go back to Senate, and talk about this.  But if we… we definitely need to go back to Senate and talk if we’re going to change the proposal that came as a motion through Senate with the configurations.  So if we’re going to change that, we need to go back to Senate and talk about it.  That proposal came out of work that the CODE committee did and some of the reasons for having that large group of people included was to address precisely this problem of people from critical constituencies on campus feeling excluded from conversations about what to do and how to do it with regard to Diversity Education on campus and transformation of campus climate.  So one thing we can do is go back to Senate and talk about whether we can revisit that and make it a smaller group.  Another thing that we could do is keep the large group but understand that they are going to work in subcommittees in smaller groups on various pieces of this curriculum.  So what we need to do potentially is get them together once or get them together in smaller groups right from the get go, subcommittees working on various pieces.  I guess what I heard rumbling across campus about the pulling together the smaller group that might or might not one day be part of the Diversity Education Taskforce, was that people were unhappy and distrustful of that choice.  And so that is why I’m sort of raising up the EEOC recommendation again as an alternative.  Don’t, I’m thinking, don’t affiliate the Diversity Education Taskforce directly with what’s happened, the crisis immediately at hand in the COE.  But let’s convene it and get it going because we know that their work will impact the climate in that College as well as other colleges.  But let’s look again at that EEOC recommendation and affiliate that with what’s happened in the COE, and the recommendation calls for representation from the College, and has embedded in it, I think, a kind of suggestion on the selection process.

 

FA:  Well, I just want to say the same thing as Frankie just said.  Let’s take it back to Senate because that’s where more discussion, more ideas, authorization for our actions would take place, and consider this to be an exchange of ideas for immediate action.  I think, by having consultation, it will have more legitimacy. 

 

FA:  This is me talking.  It’s not anybody else’s opinion.  I think we have to have passion on all the taskforces.  You know if we don’t have any passion, we can sit and talk about it all day long, and all the taskforces we want.  But the one way to fix it, just go and do something about it.  If we don’t have money don’t do anything about it.  If society is so corrupt everything is corrupt, and anything new that can come out of it.  I guess, we can’t fix the system if nothing new comes out of it.  So sometimes you just have to throw out everything, just have passion.  Let’s fix this together, so we have to do something, right?  We can wait for another taskforce, but do something.  So I have to change it first myself.  But we have to do something. 

 

FA:  Would…

 

FA:  I want to move the topic a little bit.  So if we’re still on putting committees together, I’ll wait a minute.  It’s about this topic if you’re going to ask about empowering taskforces.

 

FA:  Well what I was going to ask, is if we want to take back to Senate the conversation about those two items, perhaps the EEOC and looking at that taskforce, and either figuring out how to reconfigure it or how to subdivide it?

 

FA:  Just the EEOC stuff.

 

FA:  Just the EEOC stuff?

 

FA:  Well, yeah, ‘cause Senate passed that taskforce.  If you have a recommendation, what you think that taskforce should look like that is different from the Senate’s then you write it down, so we can take it back to the Senate?

 

Admin:  We did that in the spring.

 

Admin:  Right.

 

FA:  I don’t remember.

 

Admin:  We discussed this in the spring.

 

FA:  Could you give us anything to take back to Senate that we could say here’s their counter proposal?  We never got that.  We just got something that, it’s too big.  Which…

 

Admin:  Can we have a joint discussion between some Administrators and somebody from the faculty about management of that group, and how that group might be managed, that we can then take back so that we can talk about?  Some of these issues are organizational or managerial rather than anything else.  And I think that that’s stuff we can talk about and plan.

 

FA:  So you want us to ask Senate for some kind of… ?

 

Admin:  I just think that some kind of…

 

FA:  … management… ?

 

Admin:  … sit down and talk about how this can be managed, then we could report back—

 

FA:  Okay.

 

Admin:  —and have some sort of discussion about the reality of making it functional or not functional, whether it could work or not.

 

FA:  So is that separate from the recent issue in the COE, or is that the long-term response?  See I’m thinking about connect… are we asking that committee to do a short-term thing or are we asking them to do a long-term thing, which is what it originally was intended to do.   And are we asking a separate thing now, like asking if they want to have a taskforce as the EEOC recommended?

 

Admin:  I think that’s something that has to be sorted out…

 

FA:  See I’m asking…

 

Admin: … I think we…

 

Admin:  We are talking about those as two separate things.  That’s the impression I have as we continue this conversation.

 

Admin:  It would seem to me that whoever is on that taskforce, given the representation campus wide, with the expertise involved it that taskforce.  So whoever would be involved in that would at some point, some of them, might be involved, but we do need to move forward with this taskforce we’ve had on the table for some time now and never been able to…

 

FA:  Well, I guess I’m going to be, and I’m trying to reframe it but… maybe its, maybe I need another cup of coffee or something but are we taking back to Senate then a request for looking at perhaps an EEOC taskforce in the COE.  Is that one thing that we’re asking them? 

 

FA:  I would be careful with that because that is something that came out of the discussion in EC, right over here.  It seems to me that the initial discussion came as a result of us presenting our motions on the situation in the COE.  We were then asked, what do we think of mandatory education?  And that was the point of departure of the discussion.  So that seems to be the… the question seems to be how we would respond to the immediate situation at hand.  And there is a twofold response.  One, is that there are some things that need to be done to address the situation at hand because the proposed approach was turned down by the members who are affected.  The COE appears to have rejected that approach.  So we’re back to the table with that, and there’s a longer-term question, how do we address these larger issues within the University, in a systemic, comprehensive fashion.  Now these are two questions before us.  I think these are the questions that we should take back to the Senate and ask for input from the Senate in just these two matters.

 

FA:  I see another issue here that I would like to get on the table from my experiences in the COE.  You know, as we’re talking about rebuilding some of these things.  And I say I don’t see a culture of respect in the College.  And it’s not… there is no one individual to blame for that in the long term problem.  But one of the ways that problem has been exasperated over the last fifteen years, is that, to my mind we have never reached any sort of agreement on what genuine consultation is.  So what happens is there’s supposed to be consultation with a group of faculty, and somebody says I invited you to a meeting, but they don’t tell you what the meeting was, and then legally, or from a legalistic standpoint, maybe consultation was invited, but faculty were not really involved. And so, the people who … want to do something, are allowed to do it, and those who maybe had an opinion in the first place are now deadwood or anti-innovative, or whatever, because… and they weren’t really invited on the ground floor.  If we can create a genuine culture of consultation, we’ll start to build some of that respect.  Now the problem is that we keep disagreeing on what that means, and I think we can get into legal things back and forth, but it’s not whether the legal version of consultation; it’s whether people have really been involved on the ground floor.  And I think if we started to do that in that College, a lot of these things that have started to grow up over these last fifteen years, wouldn’t have grown up that way.  Because people would have… assumed that they would have been consulted, voices would have been heard, things would have been put together in ways that everyone was involved instead of creating what we have now.  I think as a Faculty Association and Administration we can help to create that by somehow coming together and saying this is what we kind of expected you to do when you consult.  Not you can’t just send out an email that says here’s a meeting, come to it if you want or not, and out of that meeting comes a $5 million grant proposal that nobody knows about.  But there really are some guidelines for genuine consultation with inclusion of faculty, and I think that might be a good start in the COE.  I don’t know how we come up with that.

 

FA:  I just wanted to say, too, we’ve got some upcoming CARE trainings on the 21st of October and the 17th of November, I believe, that I can remember off the top of my head.  I guess, I’m wondering if a short-term, certainly not solution, but a short-term approach, it might, we might think about, if it’s… if President Saigo, if you’d be interested in, or willing to, invite the University, and to… A couple of things that we’ve done well, and certainly I think the CARE Training and the CARE Leadership Team and the work done there are some of those things.  Common language for these kinds of issues, those kind of things.  I’m wondering if that might not have at least a short-term impact, a collective action, and then in terms of more immediate or other alternative actions, we can also move forward on those as well.  I just think that mandatory training question is one, that is, clearly is, in this community, has been difficult, and I think that there are lots of people who have advocated and agreed that that training is very useful, and I don’t know if that might, at least, show another opportunity for faculty, as we said earlier, to really take the initiative themselves, invite our own kind of housekeeping, and that’s around that issue.  Just a thought.

 

FA:  Can we caucus for a minute?

 

CAUCUS

 

FA:  Are we ready?

 

Admin:  Yeah, we’re ready.

 

FA:  Okay.  Three things:  are we hearing you ask us to go back to Senate and ask them to designate a few representatives to meet with members of the Administration to talk about the management and organization of Diversity Education taskforce?

 

Admin:  That’s…

 

FA:  Are we, are we hearing that?

 

Admin:  Sure.

 

FA:  Okay.

 

FA:  We’ll do that. 

 

Admin:  Okay.

 

FA:  We’ll also ask Senate to spend some time brainstorming and deliberating about productive courses of action that we might…

 

Admin:  With regard to?

 

FA:  To campus climate, and in particular the climate in the COE.

 

Admin:  Do we have enough time for that…  It seems to me…

FA:  We meet Tuesday.

 

Admin:  Tuesday?

 

FA:  Tuesday.

 

FA:  It’s already an item on the agenda.

 

Admin:  Okay.  But we then… can we get information back from you so that we don’t have to wait two weeks for the next Meet and Confer to talk about what we do next?

 

FA:  There is a third one.

 

Admin:  Okay.  We haven’t heard that one.

 

FA:  We want to ask you to please go to the faculty in the COE, and ask them what they what need and what they would like to see happen, and what processes they believe would be most productive, so that you get information from the Senate’s deliberations and you also get information directly from the faculty of the COE about what approaches they would like for us collectively to take.

 

Admin:  How long could we expect to take to schedule a meeting?

 

FA:  About as long as it takes to send out an email to the necessary respondents.

 

FA:  I don’t know which Monday it is, there’s a Monday that’s reserved for college meetings…

 

Admin:  First Monday of the month.

 

FA:  First Monday?

 

Admin:  First Monday of the month.

 

FA:  So that was last Monday.

 

Admin:  We missed it.

 

FA:  But most departments do have department meetings at that time.  You might want to ask that for forty-five minutes or an hour at that department meeting while we discuss these issues with you, because lots of departments have scheduled their department meetings in that chunk of time on Monday, so you might be able to sneak in.

 

FA:  And certainly I think we can bring in the motions that we had, that were passed in Senate.  We could transmit those earlier than Meet and Confer.  I could email you passed motions after the Senate meeting.

 

FA:  It just occurred to me that not everybody meets on those Mondays.  Maybe you could put together, maybe you could ask for a number of joint meetings, have just three and come together.  I know that some meet at different times.  Maybe you can get some of the departments, two or three at a time, have a joint meeting with you or whoever, and so you’d have to have a couple meetings, not a huge college-wide meeting, that might get you…

 

Admin:  What time normally on Mondays?

 

FA:  Noon?

 

FA:  No, three.

 

FA:  Three o’clock.

 

Admin:  We certainly can try that.

 

Admin:  And, probably from the beginning we need the support from folks—you know, people to say to the COE this is something to go to.  This is something to participate in, because what will happen is certain groups will decide not to come.

 

Admin:  Right.

 

Admin:  And it won’t be consultation.

 

Admin:  Right.

 

Admin:  Okay, and we need your support to make that happen.

 

FA:  Yeah, I would be glad to send… if… I need the information.  I’d be glad to send out an encouraging email to COE faculty to attend such a meeting.

 

Admin:  Or make sure you have somebody coming that’s going to express your thoughts.

 

Admin:  Frankie, can you repeat item two?

 

FA:  Oh my God…

 

FA:  We’re going to brainstorm.

 

FA:  We will go back to Senate and ask them to brainstorm possible approaches to deliberate about what might be right courses of action, short and long term.

 

FA:  Annette was pointing out that the Teacher Development motion that was supported by Senate requests collaborative action by Administration and Faculty Association.

 

FA:  So we can help you organize this, you know, kind of send letters to those people encouraging them to come.

 

Admin:  Okay.

 

FA:  I think we decided to dispense with the other items until next time, is that right?

 

Admin:  Yes.

 

FA:  Since we were supposed to be gone five minutes ago?

 

Admin:  I am supposed to be at the Student Government meeting four-and-a-half minutes ago.

 

FA:  Judy, that number four, if they will notice, that you wanted to distribute…

 

FA:  Early Warning Notice?

 

Admin:  We’ll get that before the next meeting.

 

FA:  Okay.  I was going to offer if you wanted us to take that to Senate.

 

5.     Recruitment and Retention  (Admin) (9/22/05)—not discussed.

 

6.     Uniform Start Date (Admin) (9/22/05)—discussed above, along with item 3.

 

 

New Business

 

1.     Meet and Confer Notes (Admin) (10/06/05)—not discussed.

 

2.     Grade Appeal Policy Guidelines (FA) (10/06/05)—discussed under Unfinished Business above.

 

3.     Search for Dean of COE (FA) (10/06/05)—discussed under Unfinished Business above.

 

4.     Early Warning Notice (Admin) (10/06/05)—not discussed.