Final Approved 4/27/06
Meet and Confer Notes
March 30, 2006
Admin: Roy Saigo, Michael Spitzer, Anne Zemek de Dominguez, Larry Chambers, Margaret Vos, John Burgeson, Mitch Rubenstein, Kristi Tornquist, Mark Nook, Steve Ludwig (Patty Dyslin note taker)
Faculty: Judy Kilborn, Annette Schoenberger, Steve Hornstein, Jayantha Herath, Andrew Larkin, Susan Motin, Bill Langen, JoAnn Gasparino, Balsy Kasi
Meet and Confer Notes of March 2, 2006 – approved
FA: We are going to add one new business item, a request to discuss what I’m going to call Academic Policy Work Group. We’ll put that at the top of the list for New Business.
1. Attendance Policy (Admin) (09/08/2005)
FA: The Senate is still awaiting the committee’s recommendations on the Statement for Faculty.
AD: True. It’s still being written. The taskforce is still working on this – still writing.
2. Taskforces on Diversity (a.k.a. Motion from teacher development) (FA) (9/22/2005)
FA: I’m wondering if there’s anything new on these taskforces.
AD: The person who can speak to that is Rex, and I haven’t had a chance to talk with him about that. Rex hasn’t been feeling well.
FA: How is he?
AD: I believe he’ll be okay.
FA: Maybe we’ll excuse him… (laughter)
AD: I do appreciate that. I’m sure he will too. (more laughter)
FA: Would you convey the concern of the whole group and best wishes for a speedy recovery?
AD: Yes. I will be seeing him after work.
3. Template on Teaching schedule/Office Hours (FA) (10/20/2005)
FA: Is there anything new on that taskforce.
FA: Who is taking minutes?
FA: They are being recorded.
AD: Patty’s mom is in the hospital , and I suspect that that’s what that phone call is about. Sorry to dump bad news…
FA: Would you convey our best wishes to her?
AD: Steve, were you going to speak to that?
FA: Yes. Let me state that due to a conflict in teaching schedules, posted office hours, and travel schedules, the group hasn’t been able to find a time to meet lately. We keep working. The e-mails keep going back and forth. for each suggested time, three of the four people can make it, so we try a different time and a different three of the four can make it.
FA: That’s one indication about the difficulty of contact hours.
AD: We just have the meeting in those people’s offices. (laughter)
FA: Which means we’re going to have to have bigger offices. (more laughter)
4. Academic Freedom Committee Report Recommendations (FA) (02/02/2006)
FA: I’m assuming we’re talking in the Senate on Tuesday about the composition of the taskforce committee. That’s the first item on the agenda for this coming Tuesday.
5. Report on Capital budget Requests (Admin) (02/16/06)
(President Saigo joined the meeting)
AD: Just partly to bring you up to date and to look towards where we’re headed in the future with the Office of the Chancellor. Centennial Hall was funded last year for construction, and the construction started officially today. It’s the interior of the building on the third and fourth floor, so you really can’t see much, but that has begun. That will continue on for about the next year-and-one-half, in phases. We’ll finish the upper floors first and then the lower floors. Riverview, as a result of funding last year, will get a new roof this summer, and so we look forward to that. We also have been working on a schematic design for Riverview as part of that funding for Centennial, and that’s nearing its completion also. Also this summer from previous funding, there will be a new floor installed in the field house in Halenbeck South – a new running track and floor in the center where they play basketball and tennis and throw the shot put and such. We will also be sprinkling the balance of Halenbeck – mostly that’s Halenbeck North in the pool area. We’re also completing planning, that was funded last time, for planning for a lab addition to Wick and also Brown Hall. Both of those planning processes are nearing their conclusion.
Outside of the bonding bill, through separate revenue bond funding and local funding, we are also in the process, the contract was executed today, for the parking ramp design, that we’re proposing to construct on campus, North of the Miller Center and West of Hill-Case. The construction of that should start in less than a year. For ’06, the request is in process now. we have had our request in this year, and it’s part of the Office of the Chancellor request: construction funding for the Wick addition and for the renovation of Riverview. That funding for Wick was in the governor’s budget. Riverview was not, and the Senate reported out a bill already, and both Wick and Riverview are included in that Senate bill. So we’ll see how that progresses as to whether those projects move forward. There also is a separate move at the Capitol that’s kind of in response to the University of Minnesota’s positioning itself for the construction of a new stadium, to build out-state facilities for larger community events and athletics and recreation. So in that context is some renovation to the hockey and event center in Duluth, a hockey rink in Bemidji, an event center of some kind at Southwest State in Marshall, and also, and I think there’s a couple of others, but also in that context is an addition of an entrance and some additional facilities attached to the south side of the National Hockey Center. But that is independent of the bonding bill advanced by the Office of the Chancellor. We will see how that proceeds. The hockey center portion has proceeded out of the Senate committee, but there’s a lot of dispute and discussion over this stadium for the Gophers, as I’m sure many of you have heard. Also in ’06 we’re seeking what’s called HEAPR, which is where you fix things and repair roofs. We’re requesting several roof replacements, some planning money for some window replacement in Kiehl and Headley and also some significant replacement of the air handling system in the business building.
We’ve also been requested by the Office of the Chancellor, that they will send us the guidelines in a month or so, and we will be submitting our capital budget request for the ’08 session, and then it works its way through the process over the next year-and-one-half or so before it’s forwarded to the governor. What we will be requesting is certainly Wick and Riverview, if they don’t happen to be funded this session. We are looking at an initiative around science. As we’ve moved into planning Brown and the Wick addition, we expanded the plans to be more comprehensive around the College of Science and Engineering. We will identify a significant science initiative. Whether or not it’s specifically the renovation of Brown or an additional building has not been determined. We will be determining over the next couple of months how to fashion that in order to secure funding. We will also be requesting HEAPR funds possibly for an additional chiller, to shore up on that as we have added more buildings to be air conditioned, and taken the chillers that use the nasty refrigerants off-line and serve them with the central chiller that uses the somewhat better refrigerants. Also, we will pursue some roofs, windows in Kiehl and Headley because those are single-glazed and waste energy, and in Halenbeck we’ll also be looking at improvements to the air handling system, particularly Halenbeck North. That’s pretty much the update on that, and we will have our tentative or initial request available in the Fall for conversation on campus. It’s consistent with our master plan that we’ve had some discussion on and have been working off of for about the last eight or nine years. If you have other questions, I’ll answer them. I just wanted to get you that update.
FA: Are these, at this point, with your capital budget request, do you ask for money for purchase of properties in the area? Does that come through this at all or no?
AD: We have gotten funds in the past, on occasion, for purchasing property in the area. There is a request in this budget session for funds specifically for some properties in the system, and then they wanted a pool of funds if properties presented themselves. They’ve been reticent to fund all of the requests for purchase, and they have declined to fund a pool of funds that would be available for other purchases in the system.
FA: Thank you.
FA: Questions? Discussion?
6. Upper Division Writing Requirement Status Report (FA) (03/02/2006)
FA: We had agreed earlier that we would have a meeting – Mitch, that you would meet with several of the people.
FA: And I was wondering if you could tell us a little bit about the outcomes of the meeting.
AD: There are certainly issues. One, is about the content, the substance of information about the writing requirement. I’m collecting, receiving information from each department chair, the writing requirement for the degree programs offered by the departments. We hope to have that done by the end of the semester. The other two items deal with the information about the writing requirement appearing in course descriptions and how that will come through the University Curriculum Committee through the normal course revision process, or if there are changes, it might go through the normal process. The other major item is the assessment portion of the Upper Division Writing Requirement. When this was started a couple of years ago, an Upper Division Writing Requirement Assessment Committee was formed with the charge of looking at the proposals for assessing the performance of students in the writing requirement. That Upper Division Writing Assessment Committee, which was a committee of the Faculty Association, I guess was an ad hoc committee, did its work through Spring of 2005. I began meeting with the committee and then learned that the committee had officially gone out of existence because its mandate had ended, and we’re now waiting for action by the Faculty Senate about what to do about a successor for that function.
FA: Did you come to any agreement about what that might look like? What faculty and people at the meeting might want that successor to look like?
AD: My understanding is that that is an issue that is going to go before the Faculty Senate, and we are awaiting action to see whether there will be a reconstitution of the Upper Division Writing Requirement Assessment Committee or whether that responsibility will be delegated to another entity like the University Assessment Committee.
FA: Thank you very much for the update on this. We do, in fact, have this on the Senate agenda.
7. Maintaining Class Records (Admin) (03/02/2006)
FA: We’ve referred this item to the Academic Affairs Committee. They met yesterday. My sense is that when their minutes come in, we’re going to have a recommendation from them that will go to Senate in terms of a policy recommendation about maintaining class records. So I hope to get back to you at next Meet and Confer on that.
1. Academic Policy Work Group (Admin) (03/30/2006
FA: Michael, do you want to talk about that.
AD: Very briefly. When Lin Holder left the university, we discovered that there were a whole number of matters that existed only in her head and were not on paper any place, and so we’ve been trying to pull together a group of people to codify a series of academic policies and put them in writing so that we have a record that can be shared – that whoever the appropriate person is can refer to that policy booklet. So far, it’s been people in the Registrar’s Office and Academic Affairs Office. We’d like to have some faculty to assist in that process. I’m not calling it a committee so much as a work group to get this thing finished, and then that group can stop. So I’m asking that the Faculty appoint or select, perhaps two faculty, to assist in that process. If there are any issues that are controversial, we will not finalize anything until they are resolved.
FA: Who’s on the committee now? Two may not be enough.
AD: I’m working on that committee. At the moment it’s a collection of interested people. There have been myself, Christine Imbra, Sue Bayerl from Records and Registration, Scott Mortrude from Records and Registration, Kathryn Kelly from Academic Affairs, Frank Loncorich from Financial Aid, Jeff Wagner from the Business Office, Annette Day from the Graduate Studies Office, Patty Aceves from Continuing Studies – it’s mostly the administrative offices where many of these decisions are being asked to be made, and they’re not finding the policies, and they don’t have the background they need to be able to act. We’re finding some things we need to work out. There was one that came up at our last meeting that clearly involves Faculty, and we need to have someone there to represent faculty perspectives.
FA: So what you need are some faculty who have been around here a long time.
AD: That would be most helpful.
FA: You may actually get more than two volunteers.
AD: More than two would be fine. I just didn’t want to significantly increase faculty workload (laughter).
FA: I understand.
AD: Whatever number you wish to recommend, we would be glad to entertain.
FA: We might send you a list of names of people to be consulted on particular issues. We’ll ask Senate what they would like to do. In my experience, Lin was very consistent in her treatment of issues even though there was nothing written down. We need to have something written down.
AD: There are all sorts of policies. There’s a list of 35 policies at the moment that are being considered and worked on – from late withdrawals, to medical withdrawals, to the financial aid stuff.
FA: MnSCU has some too. Some of which are very specific and some that say: “The university shall have a policy…”
FA: Is it your sense that – you were mentioning things like late withdrawal – that people from Academic Affairs might be more appropriate or are you looking for academic policies?
AD: There are academic policies, and there are some non-academic policies. There’s a bunch of stuff going on that needs to be looked at. The one that came up yesterday was late withdrawals. The current late withdrawal sheet has faculty signing off on it, and there was some discussion about dropping that or not dropping that. Does the dean need to sign? Does the faculty need to sign? What should be done with regard to the faculty? We weren’t the people to decide that. I spoke as a former chair, but said we need to have faculty here to talk about this.
FA: Okay. Thank you very much. We’ll take this back and bring you some names.
2. Calendar Task Force (FA) (03/30/2006)
AD: Mitch is going to talk about this.
AD: We managed to get the calendar done for 2007-2008 done for the next bulletin. But we thought rather than dealing with the deadlines and rush like we did this year, we are looking at forming a taskforce to look at the 2008-2009 calendar and look for what some of the underlying issues are and determine what the calendar might be. I put together a draft for the taskforce. Shall I distribute these?
AD: This would be a taskforce rather than a formal committee. Its charge would be to look at a variety of issues that relate to the formation of the calendar – I’ve listed some of those on the sheet. We’re suggesting 15 members – this is not cast in stone – the chair would be designated by the Provost, three representatives of the Faculty Association and a variety of entities and offices represented on the taskforce. If there are suggestions for additions or deletions, we will entertain those. The schedule would be for the taskforce to meet, I’m guessing it would be a little late for this Spring, but I’m guessing sometime next Fall, and complete its work by the end of Fall Semester.
AD: Just because the membership of the committee is of interest to this group too, there should probably be a representative from MSUAASF. Have you talked to them about that?
AD: I’ve talked to an individual who’s a member of MSUAASF.
AD: A number of these people would be MSUAASF members.
AD: I understand. Talk to Sue Bayerl. Never mind.
AD: Is this coordinated in any way with the Master Calendar that the system is trying to put in?
AD: If it’s coordinated in any way, it’s going to be coordinated in select coordination because we’re looking at putting together a calendar a couple of years out, or more, and the proposal for Board policy on this would mandate the Chancellor recommend a calendar at least 12 months out. So that’s a much shorter time frame than I think is uncomfortable for a campus like ours which has many other commitments besides scheduling classes.
FA: We pointed out that that was a very short time line at the last Meet and Confer.
AD: For a number of reasons and a number of areas. First, we print two-year calendars in our catalog, which is usually prepared six months before it arrives, so that’s two-and-one-half years out, and I think our athletic conference games often get scheduled years out in advance, so that would have to be based on having a calendar in place.
FA: Any further discussion? We’ll take this proposal to Senate and get back to you on it.
AD: Thank you..
3. One Schedule of Courses (FA) (03/30/2006)
FA: The Senate has recommended that the university publish one schedule for all university courses. We recognize that this is done for Summer, and we would like it for Fall and Spring as well. That would include online courses, Continuing Studies, self-paced, workshops, etc. If we could do this beginning with the next schedule – I think it’s already out isn’t it.
AD: I’m not sure that it hasn’t already gone out.
FA: It's gone out hasn’t it?
AD: Beginning with whatever the next schedule is that we have to print.
AD: One of the things that I think we should be aware of is that the Fall and Spring schedules are no longer being printed in large quantities. They’re online. Only 5,000 copies of the schedule are being printed.
FA: Perhaps we should use the word published.
AD: That might be a better word. It is easier to update. We have a lot of changes in the course offerings from the time the 5,000 hard copies are run and when students actually sign up. Those are taken care of online. We’d have to look at the workshops online.
FA: One of the things about that document that’s printed that is very important to students is the information it contains about General Ed, the calendar, and when they can register. So what I would ask is that the other information – it is very important to students to have that information in their hands.
AD: We can look into publishing a much abbreviated version of that to include those things.
FA: We do worry about the students. They want it in their hands.
FA: I would also include dates of withdrawal. Also the finals schedule. I know they look at that. They want that information.
AD: For sure we want the drop for non-payment dates and clarity about how that’s going to work. That’s one of the critical dates that is driven by the calendar.
FA: Two points. Susan pointed out that it’s important to have print copies of those available in the library because they use them for reference all the time. The second thing is that it’s important that they have all these things in the same place because students have a hard time finding them. When we talk about that one-stop shopping, we also need to start thinking about that for students and also for faculty in terms of being able to look at a schedule and having it be complete.
FA: Every course that is offered should be in one document instead of having to go to two or three different documents.
FA: We want to serve our students and do the best job we can.
AD: Absolutely. I think one of the ideas was that each department would have a printed copy. As you know, the printed copy quickly becomes out of date, so the online version of that is much more current. I don’t think there’s any problem in putting the Continuing Studies courses in that schedule, but we will probably continue to have a separate Continuing Studies schedule. We haven’t had a chance to talk about that yet.
AD: The only schedule we publish now, and I’m not even sure about that, is the evening schedule. I think that’s gone online as well.
FA: I think it’s important to be able to look at that in combination with other things currently being offered so if you’re advising a student, the faculty member doesn’t need to figure out where to look, or the student doesn’t need to figure out where to look. To the student, it doesn’t make any difference if it’s in the regular catalog or if it’s in Continuing Studies. They just want to know if a course on “x” is being offered anywhere during that term so that they can take it. Right now, it’s really confusing. They have to look a couple places, and some people don’t look in the other places. They just look at the main schedule.
FA: For example, most students have to get their foundation course work done the two semesters before they go into student teaching. So they’ll get to these last two semesters, and they’re trying to juggle things around, and of course, some of the stuff is offered at the same time. They’re sitting with me, and I don’t know that one of those courses is offered online or is self-paced. But when they’re sitting with me trying to figure this out, if it’s all in one document, they can see that one is self-paced, and they don’t have a conflict with their other classes. They really need all that information in one place, in front of them, in order to be able to craft those schedules. Even if it’s online, it ought to be integrated into one so when they go to look at Social Science 320, all of the offerings for that course are listed.
AD: Our courses, whether they are online or workshops, are on the course schedule if they’re approved in time.
FA: But online, couldn’t they be added to the regular course schedule?
AD: They are added…
AD: They do appear on the online document.
AD: Most of our online courses we know well in advance, and those are, as far as I know, in the printed version of the catalog.
AD: The only courses that I know of that don’t show up in our online catalog, at the moment, are FYE courses because they are restricted to who can enroll in them. We don’t want people coming back to faculty and saying “I want into this course” when we have a cohort that it’s set up for. As far as I know, all others, including Continuing Ed courses, are in that electronic, online catalog. The print catalog is going away.
AD: I know that the online are included in the electronic and print versions. I just hope that as we move away from the print, which I’ve advocated for a while, is that there still be a way to search. Steve is right. I want to know every option for taking Education 320. There’s another group of students who only want to know what’s available online. I don’t want to look at the other 3,000 courses being offered. I’m just looking specifically for what’s available online or what’s available in the evening. So I hope we can still have, electronically, a way to search for those with ease.
FA: There’s no reason we shouldn’t be able to do that if they’re coded correctly. So we’re all agreed that every course that’s offered on this campus should be accessible in one place.
AD: It is all available electronically.
FA: The schedule of courses actually appears two places online. One is just a plain listing that looks like the printed schedule; the other is the searchable one. Both of those should be the same, and both should have every course that’s offered on this campus.
AD: We agree.
FA: Anything else on that item? Actually, we can take that one off.
4. College Level Technology and Resources Committees (FA) (03/30/2006)
FA: We passed a motion that each college faculty explore the creation of a college level technology and resource committee to ensure faculty have technology and resources positions, especially regarding budget. Our committee, this is a recommendation for TPR. TPR would serve as the clearing house for best practices. In other words, we’re asking for college technology committees. We can’t really start this, so we’re asking that you instruct the deans to do this. There are a lot of models for structuring such committees, and we don’t want to recommend one, but we do want to offer TPRs that they would be willing to consult with colleges about appropriate models for such committees. We would like to have this kind of on the order of a roundtable where everyone has input on the college level.
AD: Let me talk about that at Academic Affairs Council and get back to you.
FA: Some of the colleges already have these, and some of them have happened in the past. We would like to get them going again.
5. SCSU Report on Offering Online Courses (FA) (03/30/2006)
FA: The Senate has accepted this report and is in favor of the recommendations it contains. So we’d like you to know that.
AD: There are two pieces of this that we’d like a little bit of a change to. The first of those is on page 2 under item 2. The Commission on Higher Education is the wrong group. It’s the Higher Learning Commission.
FA: That’s just an editorial correction. I think we can accept that without any further discussion.
AD: I appreciate that. The next is under number 4 – web-enhanced courses. We believe that web-enhanced courses have to be on-load, so that off-load or on-load piece should be removed from that statement.
FA: Are there any objections to that?
FA: We know that the online courses are. I suspect that they were referring to the internationally delivered courses as well. I know that web-enhanced classes are on-load, but I suspect the intention there was, both of those categories should be offered, only with departmental knowledge. Assuming that Internet delivered are on-load that would be fine. If some of them were offered off-load, then the clause would need to remain there.
AD: Not necessarily. The thing is, there are Internet delivered courses that may be on-load or off load. They could be done as overload. Web-enhanced are only done on-load and could count as the 5 credits of over-load.
FA: What we want to say here is: we don’t care if it’s on-load, or it’s off-load, or over-load; it can only be offered if it’s gone through the departments. We’ll have to go back and talk to the committee, but I think if we delete the off-load and on-load language then it doesn’t matter.
AD: The other way is to move on-load and off-load to Internet Delivered Media Code 3.
FA: I’ll have to talk to the committee about that to make sure we have the same opinion. The thing is: no course of this kind can be offered unless it goes through the colleges’ process for offering courses. This needs to be a policy.
AD: We want that to be a policy as well.
FA: There were a few more things regarding this.
FA: Once we do this, we are interested in being provided with some data. We’re asking for a report that would give us what courses have been offered with these media codes, the enrollment for these courses and how it was offered. Was it on-load, over-load, or off-load. We want to know this. We don’t find the word off-load in the contract, so we’re not exactly sure how that’s defined.
AD: It’s not an official word. It’s a word that I’ve used to clarify packaged courses that are being taught.
FA: In any case, we want to know what is offered.
AD: We can say that the word off-load refers to anything that is not on-load or over-load.
FA: Right. We don’t know what that means though. There’s no way to talk about this.
FA: There’s one piece that’s missing there, and that’s the media codes for each of these.
FA: So we know which ones were web-enhanced…
AD: That’s how we’ll have to pull them up.
FA: We’ll pull them up by the media code, but we want the media code there as well.
AD: Is that all right, Michael?
AD: Okay. I’ll get you a list.
AD: You want it for all, not just ones through Continuing Studies.
FA: We want it for everything.
AD: He’ll get them.
AD: When do you want this? I don’t mean when do you get it, but which semester or semesters are you looking at?
FA: What we’d like is a report every semester. So starting with this semester, give us one for this semester, give us one for Summer, give us one for Fall. Once you set up the report, you should be able to do that pretty easily.
FA: It’s really important if we’re planning on online education, to get some sense of what’s happening. So I believe we can take that one off too? No, we need to get back to you about the few changes in that.
FA: Yes. We’ll have to send this back to the committee.
FA: We’ll get back to you on those few changes.
AD: That’s fine.
6. Electronic Monitoring of Classroom Activities (FA) (03/30/2006)
FA: There’s this conversation that goes on between our Technology and Pedagological Resources Committee and TLTR Round Table. Apparently, a presentation was made by TLTR about a system that could be used to electronically listen in on all those classrooms that have all that equipment in them, and then if the technician thought that something was going wrong, they could help. What we thought was:, we don’t want that. Having this disembodied voice come in and tell you, so we passed a motion that basically says, no electronic monitoring of classroom activities is permitted without the express knowledge and permission of the instructor. We understand that for ITV courses, we already do that. But the instructors know this is happening and have given their permission. We’re basically saying is, don’t waste your money on this technology.
AD: We’ve already had the unofficial response. Is this the official response?
AD: Thank you.
AD: Has there been any difficulty in the past?
FA: We have one example of a person who was teaching a class and was talking to some students, and this voice came out of the air to answer a question a student had asked. There was a student who had been listening in…
AD: Actually, it was a staff member. I did investigate this one. It was a faculty member in Learning Resources and a staff member in Learning Resources, and they know each other. It was in an ITV classroom, but it wasn’t an ITV class.
FA: It still shouldn’t have happened.
AD: We talked to the employee, and it won’t happen again.
AD: Let me ask the question in a different way. Is there a blue-light way, if somebody comes in, is there a way, instead of listening in, I’m thinking about the safety…
FA: There are telephones…
AD: Actually what we really proposed is… What happens sometimes is the faculty member calls on the phone for help, and then the worker goes to find the answer, and they call back to tell the faculty member, and no one answers. So what they are really asking is: do you want us to put this intercom system in place and come on and just tell you the answer? And they said “No. Maybe we already have it resolved, don’t interrupt our class,” which is a perfectly legitimate response. We have scream alarms in the Miller Center and certain places, but we haven’t put that in all the classrooms. There is a phone in every electronic classroom that people can use for emergencies.
AD: We are talking with respect to a little different view. Some of our buildings have intercoms – Miller Center is among them – where you can announce “There’s a tornado. Go to the basement” or something like that. They are becoming, for some size buildings, a requirement of the code for your alarm system – that you have to be able to announce things. I can’t remember if this building has it. Does it have it in the alarm system?
AD: It’s that little speaker on the wall there. It doesn’t monitor what you’re doing, but there is increasingly a chance, in case of emergency, that there will be an announcement within some buildings, and there’s an interest in that in Higher Ed that that be made available. So that might happen over time. We had one occasion where there was a student working, kind of responsible for Atwood, and heard the tornado warning and thought maybe he should pull the fire alarm to warn people. Then everyone went outside.
FA: That was a long time ago.
AD: It was a long time ago.
AD: I think that having an announcement of an emergency situation is different than what we’re talking about here.
AD: Yes, but there might be discussion, which there is now, about having the ability of making announcements in classrooms, and I’d like you folks aware of that so you don’t say, “Well I thought we covered that” and now they’re still talking about it.
FA: That’s really different than having somebody answer a question that’s been asked in the classroom.
AD: We don’t want people listening to what’s going on in a classroom without the faculty member’s permission. We have taken steps to tell people that they shouldn’t do that.
FA: I like the idea of having a telephone, but I don’t like the idea of someone visually watching what I do.
AD: They can’t see – only in the ITV rooms, which as you said, if you do an ITV class, you are aware of it.
FA: You know all the details of that before you agree to do that. So we can take that one off the schedule, right?
7. Sunset in Contract on Courses Outside of the Calendar (FA) (03/30/2006)
FA: From time to time, you’ve been kind enough to inform us of developments within MnSCU by way of giving us a heads-up and then also confiding in us that you’ve made your desires and views on whatever development that might be, clear, and that perhaps, it might be useful for us on our end to pursue the matter as we see fit with our own contacts within MnSCU. It’s in that spirit that I would like to continue that practice we have and let you know that in the course of several discussions within the negotiating team, we were reminded, we reminded one another, that the sunset in career steps, in our mind, is coupled with the sunset on summer session overlaps in Article 13, Section B. Our approach to that sunset section on summer school will parallel the Chancellor’s approach towards the sunset on career steps.
AD: That wasn’t the way I heard this, but thank you for communicating that.
FA: Any other discussion on that item? I think we can take that one off.
8. Plan for Enhancing Student Success (Admin) (03/30/2006)
AD: I’m not going to spend a lot of time on this. I think everybody in the room has heard me make at least one presentation. Some of you have been unfortunate enough to sit through two of them. (laughter) At this point, we’re officially bringing this to the Faculty and waiting for the response to it. It is a plan to enhance student success on this campus. There are pieces of it that are moving forward, but to really fully implement it, we would like input from Faculty, as well as the other bargaining units. Clearly, Faculty have a very strong interest in enhancing student success, and I want to thank you for the opportunity to present yesterday and give you some idea of what’s in this plan, and I’d be happy to answer further questions at this time. This is really officially bringing it to the Faculty.
FA: We were grateful that Mark and Lisa Foss came in to Senate on Tuesday and made a presentation. The Senators all have a copy of this and are looking forward to seeing the summary and the online version of this. I will be distributing this to all Faculty and asking that people go back to their departments and get input and bring that into Senate. I imagine, based on the session we had at Senate the other day, that we’ll have a lively discussion.
AD: I would say that’s fair.
AD: So we’ll keep that on the agenda?
Meeting Adjourned: 4:05 p.m.