Final Approved by FA President Judy Kilborn and Provost Spitzer on 5/16/06

Meet and Confer Notes

Thursday, April 27, 2006


Administration:  Michael Spitzer, Larry Chambers, Kristi Tornquist, Margaret Vos, Mitchell Rubinstein, John Burgeson, David DeGroote, Anne Zemek de Dominguez, Patty Dyslin (note taker)


Faculty:  Judy Kilborn, Annette Schoenberger, Balsy Kasi, Robert C. Johnson, Jayantha Herath, Andrew Larkin, Susan Motin, Bill Langen, JoAnn Gasparino



AD:  President Saigo is off campus today attending a funeral, and that is the reason for his absence.  The first order of business is the approval of the Meet and Confer notes of March 30th


Approval of Minutes:


Meet and Confer Notes of March 30, 2006 – Approved


AD:  David DeGroote has to leave at 3:30 p.m., so I asked if we could move item #5 under New Business to the top of the agenda, and then we’ll come back and go through the rest of the agenda as written, and Judy has requested that we not cover item #9 under New Business at today’s meeting, so we’ll eliminate that from the agenda. 


New Business:


5.       Proposed Center for Regulatory Affairs (Admin) (4/27/2006)


AD:  Let me pass out copies of some information about the proposed Center for Regulatory Affairs.  The process described here was a policy that was adopted, I guess, in 1998.  At least that’s the date that’s on it.  The material in brackets pertains to the specific center that is being proposed this afternoon.  I’ll ask David to speak to that.


AD:  The source of this idea came from an activity that I’ve been involved in since this past summer in which the University, under President Saigo and Provost Spitzer’s guidance, has connected the university with the local economic development initiative, which is called The Science Initiative of Central Minnesota.  In this initiative, the underlying premise is to bring businesses, particularly in the area of biosciences, into the St. Cloud area.  The nexus of this particular program was the finding by our outside consultant, who was hired by the Chamber of Commerce, that businesses, the small number of businesses that are in the biosciences area, currently in the St. Cloud area all the way up Hwy 94 to a company called Abby Moore in Parkers Prairie, had difficulty finding expertise in the area of regulatory affairs.  They have to hire these people because they are small businesses and cannot, like Medtronic, have on-staff specialists.  Getting access to those kinds of professionals, to really develop their inventions, or their ideas, to bring them to market, has been difficult.  If we as an economic development area want to bring this kind of business into St. Cloud, then it’s important for us to show some kind of support on the academic side for those businesses if they are to expand and/or relocate, or begin here in this area.  So after doing some investigation, it came to me that there are only three masters degree programs in the United States that relate to training, academic training, in the area of regulatory affairs.  Principally, the individuals who do this as day-to-day work are trained in-house.  They are sent off to FDA workshops and pick up some kind of special training on a short-course basis.  The three programs are on the coasts, two on the east coast and one in California.  None of these programs have any particular emphasis in the one area of regulatory affairs that’s strongest in the State of Minnesota, and that’s medical devices.  The three programs are mostly about pharmaceutical regulatory affairs because they’re in areas where pharmaceuticals are the number one bioscience business.  Through another long series of events, I was able to establish some relationships with five regulatory specialists.  That’s their day job – what they do for a living – and we had some discussions about what an academic program in regulatory affairs would look like and how you would coordinate that.  We don’t have any particular department that is related to something in this area because what the training amounts to is being able to understand the Food and Drug Administration’s regulations about how you take a product from its inception, engineer it within the guidelines of FDA rules, take it through clinical trials, and then bring it out as a validated product.  The regulatory affairs specialist is involved with all aspects of the development of any particular idea. 


AD:  Can I interject one thing because ….  When we were developing a proposal for a center of excellence, we had some meetings at MnSCU, and one of the messages that came through very clearly from the folks in this industry was that this was a very significant need – not just in the St. Cloud area, but the Twin Cities as well.  I think at one point, you may have planned to mention this, but we got an e-mail from somebody at Medtronic stating that there were currently 100 vacant positions in that company for people in this discipline – 100 vacancies in one company.


AD:  Since then we’ve met with – I haven’t formally met face-to-face with Medtronic, but I have an on-going dialogue, and I’ll get to that in just a minute.  We’ve met with 3M, Boston Scientific, and we will be meeting and having conversations with Medtronic.  In all cases, they’ve been extraordinarily interested in this opportunity.  One of the things, given our system, is how would we manage a program, a master’s degree program?  Where would we put this – in biology?  Well, it’s not really biology.  Would we put it in statistics?  Well, that’s an aspect.  You kind of go through the various aspects of what it might meet.  Given the idea that we can have an academic center which is interdisciplinary, which is what this is – it’s interdisciplinary.  There are three aspects to this degree program.  There is the regulatory affairs, which has to do with the approval process, there’s the clinical validation and quality control which is the second part of it, and what really makes this program unique, not only from the standpoint that it is involved with medical devices, is the third component of this program that has to do with health economics and Medicare reimbursement.  If a device, no matter if it is approved by FDA, does not get reimbursement approval from the Center for Medicare and Medicaid, that product will not be successful.  It has to have that kind of approval.  This program provides course work in that area as to what it takes in the design of a product and the clinical trials in order to be able to better assure that approval from the Medicaid/Medicare Center for Reimbursement.  That’s what, I think, has made these various companies very interested in us doing this.  Is there any competition from the University of Minnesota?  I haven’t had formal contact with them, but in looking at and talking with folks, this is not their thing.  They create PhDs.  This is a professional degree program, and they’re interested in designing medical devices, not getting them approved.  The need for having a center would allow us to be able to pull faculty from various disciplines to these courses.  We would deliver the program in the Twin Cities.  I have some contacts at North Hennepin Community College.  They have a computer lab, which is basically all that’s needed.  Most of the instruction is done in the computer lab.  There aren’t any overhead costs of equipment, and nothing has to be purchased in that context.  It is a program that, as they step through these courses, they would also… these are working professionals.  These are people who have Bachelor Degrees in engineering, biochemistry, biology, statistics, something along those lines.  We would offer it as an evening and weekend two-year program that they would take in addition to working full-time.  I don’t know if you need any more information than that.


AD:  Let’s see if we have any questions.


FA:  The classes are going to be held at North Hennepin?  The faculty will travel from here to there?


AD:  The faculty mostly will be adjunct faculty, and to what degree we have qualified campus faculty, they will be involved with this as well.  The additional point, which is made here, is that this is self-supporting so this is tuition-based to ensure revenue to cover all costs.


FA:  So the tuition will be higher?


AD:  The tuition is substantially higher.


AD:  Very substantially higher.  (Laughter)


FA:  Are these companies… are they willing to assist with start-up costs as well?


AD:  There have been some casual conversations, conversations I’ve had with the companies, because we have to be very careful.  The curriculum part has gone to the College for approval in our ordinary curricular process.  I’ve written a new program application for MnSCU so that the College Curriculum Committee can see, not just the curriculum but also this material about the academic center.  So the College Curriculum Committee and the University Curriculum Committee will have all of the information to date.  The lead regulatory affairs person and the Science Initiative of Central Minnesota Coordinator and myself have been meeting with these companies to ask them the very simple question – what do you think?  What courses might you change?  What other things might you see in these courses?  The general comment we got is, this is great, but we need more.  We want regulatory affairs around pharmaceuticals.  We want regulatory affairs around other things.  I said, that’s fine; we’ve got to start some place.  Medical devices is where the largest potential is, and that’s where we want to start.  I see this as potentially growing, but as we have a habit of trying to do too much to begin with. I thought we needed to keep it focused on where we have available expertise.  They have shown a great deal of interest, and there have been some implications that if and when this goes through the approval process, that’s what I keep saying, I’m not marketing this, because I can’t market because it doesn’t have any approval.  At some point, if this is approved, I need to come back and visit with them about start-up costs.


FA:  The approval process – how much of that’s been done?  I’m wondering if you’re expecting to get something back on this for next year.


AD:  The flow of this…


AD:  It’s gone to Academic Affairs Council.  It’s gone to the President’s Council.  I’m bringing it on behalf of the President, to Meet and Confer.


FA:  Right.  So the next step is for – the curriculum has to go to the Curriculum Committee…


AD:  That’s the College Curriculum Committee….


FA:  Then it has to come back to Senate.  So it’s going to be some time in the fall.


AD:  The College Curriculum Committee meets this next week.  Hopefully that will be moved beyond that.


FA:  But it’s not going to get to the University Curriculum Committee and Senate.


FA:  The last Senate meeting is in a week-and-a-half.  That’s what we’re trying to figure out – where we are in the process of how far we can get this spring.


FA:  Will the faculty benefits and reassign time and other things….


AD:  This would be adjunct or overload.


FA:  Okay.


AD:  Except for one position.


AD:  Except for one position.  The Director is the only position that’s rostered in the center because that would be a regulatory affairs specialist – someone we would hire to manage this program.  Currently, one of our faculty, Ben Baliga in Mechanical Engineering, is Interim Director for this process of developing paperwork and getting this moved forward.  We’re obviously not going to go out and hire someone until we get through all the approval processes and we’ve vetted the program with all of the various companies.  We want to make sure that we’re ready to go and that we have some prospect or possibility of being able to launch the program.  We’re not going to go out and hire somebody in advance of that.


FA:  There’s something ringing in the back of my mind.  Didn’t we just institute a policy about overload?  Maybe I’m mistaken.


AD:  I’m not sure what policy you’re referring to.


FA:  If a person had….


AD:  We talked about not extending substantial overload to people who have reassigned time for research purposes.


FA:  That’s the one.  Okay.  Thank you.


AD:  At the onset, just to be very clear, most of the instruction would be provided by professional adjuncts, and our faculty who have some expertise in economics can sit in with the classes because the academic training that, for example, a statistician has in designing certain statistical procedures, may be academically sound, but may not be well-founded in the process by which FDA looks at these things.  There’s been some interest among our faculty in cooperating with some of the regulatory affairs faculty to gain some knowledge and some expertise in what that might represent.  As time goes on, or perhaps as new faculty are hired – I had a meeting with economics earlier this week and some of them are interested, perhaps in cooperating with some of the regulatory affairs people, or actually thinking about another faculty position at some point in the future, that that might be an aspect of the expertise of that faculty member.  Right now we don’t have a great deal of complete knowledge related to this, but that could evolve with time.


FA:  Two things.  Most of the staffing you’re thinking of now would be adjunct faculty who are working professionals in that field and people here who have expertise or are developing expertise, and in the future we hire based on needs.  Secondly, right now, if it’s at the College Curriculum Committee, we’ve got UCC, Senate and MnSCU left, so we’re probably looking at fall for finishing that process?


AD:  I would expect that.


FA:  Okay.  So we would be looking then to start a year from now?


AD:  The projected date was January of 2007, but we may have to push that back to late spring. I just developed, mostly for the new program, a expected first and second cohort.  The first cohort would start spring ’07 and the second cohort fall ’07.  We may actually have to start the first cohort fall ’07 instead of spring ’07.


AD:  Are there any other questions or comments?


FA:  How did you arrive at the $12,000 per course salary?


AD:  It was based primarily on what professional degree adjunct salaries are at the University of Minnesota and the University of St. Thomas.  If we’re going to attract professionals with the kind of training necessary to offer some of this course work, we need to be competitive in terms of the salaries we would offer those folks.  Currently, those are comparable to salaries being offered in other professional degree programs for this kind of course work.


FA:  I have a question, David.  Did you talk to anyone, like Medtronic, about the salaries – what kind of pay ranges these kind of jobs would demand?  If somebody were to go through the program and graduate, what kind of starting salary would s/he have?  Do you have any idea of that?


AD:  Again, like most things, there are ranges (i.e., Tech I, Tech II, etc.).  Like our system, there’s not a clear translation.  The easiest answer that I can give you is it looks like a Bachelor’s person who’s trained in-house starts at about $75,000.  Someone with this degree could probably garner $150,000.  That’s the best I can come up with.


AD:  And the people we’re talking about who would be the adjuncts in this program are earning substantially more.


AD:  The adjuncts that would be teaching this course, the $12,000 is sort of pocket-change as far…


FA:  They’re doing a public service…


AD:  Yeah.  They make a very substantial living at this.


FA:  How about a medical librarian?  (Laughter)


AD:  They have said that they have some humanities people with Bachelor’s degrees who have – I mean, they have to train these people themselves.  The private consulting companies have to train them in order to be able to get them up and running.  Although we’ve described this as primarily people with science or math background, they have indicated they’ve had people with liberal arts degrees.  Another group that could potentially be very interested would be people who have law degrees.


FA:  So the degree would be a Bachelor of Science….


AD:  No.  It’s a Master’s of Regulatory Affairs and Services.  The reason we use the term “services,” not very many people ask, is that the regulatory affairs really talks about those regs, the FDA and all that, but the other stuff is the services – the health reimbursement and so on and so forth.


FA:  I would suggest that you define regulatory affairs in this document somewhere.  Because you talked, I actually timed it, you talked for 15 minutes before you told us what that meant, and we were all beforehand saying “What is it?”  There should be some… it was difficult to pay attention because I didn’t know what you were talking about.


AD:  Okay.


FA:  You say that the Director would not be rostered in a department?


AD:  No.  The Director would be rostered in the center.


FA:  Okay.  So it will be a one-person entity/unit?  Would the center be located in the Cities?


AD:  No.  It would be here.


FA:  And they’d report directly to you?


AD:  Right.


FA:  Will this be a faculty position?


AD:  Yes. 


FA:  If that person’s the only one rostered in the center, how would he or she be evaluated by peers?


AD:  Part of it would be with the other faculty members.


FA:  I’m wondering about EPT – usually we do it by EPT Committee or a Committee of the Whole, and if there’s one person, who does that person get evaluated by in terms of colleagues?


AD:  I think we would try to find colleagues from other departments who are in somewhat related disciplines…


AD:  Statisticians, economics people.


FA:  That might be fine.  You have to look at the contract and see… it might require writing an agreement ahead of time.


AD:  I’m sure of that.


FA:  So if this will be in compliance with the MnSCU – IFO agreements, a department of one, a center of one, the question would be can the nature of the governance… I guess a center of one, a unit of one poses some of these questions.


AD:  If the program becomes enormously successful, we’ll have a center of two (laughter) and maybe three.  We will work with you to come up with a way of doing this.


AD:  We would very much want to be able to have equitable and assured performance evaluations, annual evaluations through the Article 22 process, and that they are full and equitable in terms of that.


FA:  Thank you very much.


AD:  So let’s go back to the agenda and unfinished business.


Unfinished Business:


1.       Attendance Policy (Admin) (9/08/2005)


FA:  This past Tuesday, Faculty Senate amended and approved the class attendance policy that we had gotten from the taskforce.  You’ll see that we’ve actually amended one word.  On the statement for faculty we replaced the word “required” with “encouraged.” 


AD:  Okay.  Thank you for having acted upon this.


FA:  What’s the next step with this?  Are you going to respond then to this policy?


AD:  Yes.


FA:  So you’ll come back with your response?


AD:  Yes.


FA:  We’re not at the point of actually beginning to use it then, right?


AD:  We have another Meet and Confer.


FA:  So at that Meet and Confer you’ll tell us what you think?


AD:  Yes.


FA:  Thank you.


2.       Taskforces on Diversity (a.k.a. Motion from Teacher Development) (FA) (9/22/05)


AD:  Where are we on that?


FA:  That’s essentially the question?  Is there anything new to report?


AD:  I think they’ve met, but I don’t think the people who are involved are here to speak to that.


FA:  So keep it on the agenda…


AD:  Right.


3.       Academic Freedom Committee Report Recommendations (FA) (2/02/2006)


FA:  Senate has voted to convene a committee to act upon the third and final enumerated recommendation of the Ad Hoc Faculty Association/Administration Committee on Academic Freedom.  We had the recommendation of that joint ad hoc committee that was passed in December of last year, and the final recommendation is that a committee will act to enact what’s in that.  We’ve come up with a recommendation from membership and that would be the membership of the recommending committee plus an elected member of each college, and we’re speaking there to the faculty membership.  We understand that there was an administrator on that original committee.  You could propose that the administration be represented in particular ways.


AD:  You’re suggesting that the people who are on the ad hoc committee plus members…


FA:  One member of each of the colleges.  Our normal six. 


AD:  And there were, I think, three others?


FA:  Yes.


AD:  Or four?


FA:  Four faculty.  I’d have to look at the list.  I can name three.


AD:  I can name three also.  I think there were just three.  Frankie Condon, King Banaian, and Andy Anda.


FA:  Larry Roth.


AD:  And Larry Roth – four.  There were four.


FA:  So four plus you plus you can make a recommendation, plus one per college.


AD:  Okay.  Thank you Andy.


4.       Upper Division Writing Requirement Status Report (FA) (03/02/2006)


AD:  Have we made any progress on the Upper Division Writing Requirement Status Report?


FA:  Yes, we have.  I believe it’s progress.  We took an action the other day at Senate.  We’ve had a request to make the Upper Division Writing Requirement Assessment Committee a standing committee, which requires that it go to the Committee on the Constitution.  We have referred that request to the Committee on the Constitution, which is a required step prior to making a standing committee.


AD:  Thank you.


FA:  Did you want to say something Andy?


FA:  What I’m thinking is, that having a committee and having a procedure are two different things.  So we need the committee first before we can actually develop a process.


AD:  Okay.  Anything else on that topic?


FA:  No.


5.       Maintaining Class Records (Admin) (3/02/2006)


FA:  We have a policy that’s come forward through Senate from our Academic Affairs Committee regarding maintaining class records.  It’s actually pretty simple.  It was based on processes for grade appeals.  You can see that we are starting with the assumption that students have the right to appeal grades, we need those records in order to process grade appeals, so we need them until at least two weeks into the subsequent semester.  The problem comes, of course, when somebody leaves.  What they’re recommending, in essence, is that these records should be kept long enough to enable an appeal of a grade and that adjunct faculty, fixed-term faculty and permanent faculty who are leaving need to either leave contact information with the department or leave grade records with the department.  We tried to keep it as simple as we could. 


FA:  The expectation is that when someone is hired, they’ll be told what they need to do.  So when you hire an adjunct, part of the instructions they’ll be given when they get their letter is that they will do this.


AD:  Do we have an adjunct handbook?


FA:  We don’t even have a faculty handbook.


AD:  We’re developing a handbook.  We have a draft of the faculty handbook.


AD:  I think that would be very helpful for adjuncts.


AD:  I wonder if this would be a responsibility of the department chairs to get this out to the adjuncts.


FA:  Who’s hiring them?


AD:  Adjuncts are generally hired in the departments.


FA:  Who signs their contract?


FA:  The President.


AD:  The contract gets signed by the Dean and me, but the appointments and the conversations take place with the department chairs.  I’m not generally involved in the specific grade appeals that come forward to my office.  I think Mitch has handled some of them.  One of my concerns is that many of these come after the second week of the next semester has started, so I have some concerns about the two week thing.


FA:  The grade appeal policy… if they don’t make an appeal by the second week, it’s too late.


AD:  There are students who come in after that who want to withdraw from a course for medical reasons or something like that.  If the student has been hospitalized for three months, as an example, the student will come in at the end of that period, or maybe after the semester is over, and request a withdrawal or some other…


AD:  Another issue that arises from time to time is changing the nature of the grade from a letter grade to pass/fail or pass/not pass. 


FA:  We used as the basis for this the discussion in Meet and Confer and obviously now we are bringing other items into this.


AD:  I thought we did bring some of these up at Meet and Confer.


FA:  Well I gave them the whole context of the conversation.  Certainly, we can have you respond to this and bring in your concerns and your questions.  There were a few perspectives that we should maybe share, and the rest of the team can help me with this.  People are concerned that – many faculty feel uncomfortable leaving records with someone else, and they want to be able to hold on to them themselves.  From a department point of view, the most problematic is adjuncts with grade appeals.  I think that’s one of the focuses that came through here.


AD:  I don’t think there’s any issue with who would hold onto those records.  I think, as I mentioned when we had this conversation initially, that I have student grade books from 1968 in my file cabinet at home.  There’s no reason why a person couldn’t keep grades him or herself if that’s what the person wanted to do.  We’ll come back on this one.


FA:  I’m concerned about something you said about changing the grade to pass/fail.  We have an agreement that you don’t change grades.  And if you do, we have to be told that you did it and why you did it.


AD:  These requests come from faculty members.


FA:  Okay.  Faculty can do that.


AD:  It’s not technically a student appeal.


FA:  Right. Faculty get to do that.  There are times when you may need to do that, but we get told when it’s done, and why.


AD:  The instances I was referring to involve faculty members.


FA:  So we’ll keep this on and wait for your response?


AD:  Yes.


6.       Academic Policy Work Group Request for Committee (Admin) (03/30/2006)


AD:  We have requested a committee to help staff in my office develop a series of academic policies, and you have indicated that you would provide some membership names.


FA:  Yes.  Senate, in our meeting on Tuesday, approved the appointment of two members from the Academic Affairs Committee and two members from the Admission and Retention Committee.  I’ve asked those two committees to provide me with names.  I should have them soon.  Who should I give them to?


AD:  Mitch.


FA:  Okay.  These would be the two committees that do a lot of work on policies, Mitch. 


AD:  Can we take that one off the agenda?


FA:  We can.


FA:  Actually, what we should have on the agenda is a report on the progress they’re making.


FA:  You just don’t want us to take anything off the agenda. (Laughter)


FA:  I don’t want us to create a group and they go off and they never come back and we never know what they did or that they create something and it doesn’t come back to us.


AD:  Anything that this group will do will become a set of policies that we will bring forward.


FA:  So we’ll actually see the work of the committee.


7.       Calendar Task Force (Admin) (3/30/2006)


FA:  Senate approved the appointment of the entire Committee on the Institution to the Calendar Task Force.  This isn’t a huge committee, but we did just have an election, so we have more names than we had before.  I can give the names of those people to whomever you tell me to give them to.


AD:  Mitch again.


FA:  I will send Mitch some names.


AD:  Thank you.


FA:  On this one, did we have some question about all those other members?


FA:  You’re right, we did.


FA:  There was quite a list of other bargaining units and other offices being represented.  Is there some reasoning for having that many members on that list?


AD:  Mitch, do you want to talk to that?


AD:  We had to balance matters of inclusiveness vs. unwieldiness of the committee, and we decided to go with the units that we did because we felt that each of them had something unique and important to say about the calendar.  At one point we had a more extensive list and actually whittled it down a bit. 


AD:  So, some of the groups for example….


AD:  The registrar would be represented, Student Life, Atwood Center, the Business Office, Athletics – because each one of those can be affected in a substantial way by our choices about starting dates.


FA:  Why did you put in bargaining units?  I think AFSCME was on the list and maybe MAPE was on it.


AD:  Because we weren’t sure that, by the nature of the offices, they would have somebody on the committee.  We thought it would be important to make sure that somebody from those groups were.  We were pretty sure MSUAASF would be represented by the nature of the offices included, but we didn’t know if MAPE or AFSCME would be.  We did check with an official in MSUAASF about this.  They understood what the situation was and understood that they would be represented.


FA:  Are there students on the committee?


AD:  I think we included Student Government.  I think we would be required to do so under Board policies.


AD:  Anything else on this task force?  We’ll take this off the agenda until we have a calendar come back to us.


FA:  Right.


8.       College-level Technology and Resources Committees (FA) (3/30/2006)


FA:  Last time we had recommended that each college faculty explore the creation of a college-level technology and resources committee to provide input on technology and resource decisions – especially regarding budget.  You said you wanted to take it to your Academic Affairs Council and then get back to us.


AD:  We did and we’re fine.


FA:  So you’re going to ask the Deans to do that.  Is that how it’s going to happen?


AD:  I could ask the Deans to do that, but we have to have a way for the faculty to select representation.  I’ll ask the Deans to talk at each of their colleges about how to construct those committees. 


FA:  There are a lot of ways of setting up those committees.  TPR said that they’ve got a variety of models in hand so the college could decide on the model it preferred.


AD:  I don’t have any preference as to how the colleges establish those committees.  They can do it in conjunction with the Deans and that should be fine.


FA:  If you prefer, I can certainly transmit the message that TPR is willing to help with configuration of the committees.


AD:  Okay.  Anything else on this one?


FA:  No.


FA:  Will the colleges ask for volunteers?


AD:  I think some of the colleges already have committees.


FA:  Some had had them in the past and were trying to restart them.  We’re just really trying to enable university-wide participation in decisions about technology.


AD:  Okay.


9.       SCSU Report of Offering Online Courses (FA) (3/30/2006)


AD:  You had asked at the last Meet and Confer for a report on what online courses have been and are being offered.  Here it is.  That can be made available to you electronically if you want.


FA:  That would be very good to get this electronically.


AD:  John, do you want to send that?


AD:  I will certainly do that.  Who do I address it to, Judy?


FA:  You can just send it to me.


AD:  Okay.


FA:  The one thing we don’t know from this… we asked for courses by department and course number, and we have those.  We have enrollments.  We have total number of credits.  We don’t have media codes.


AD:  Those are all media code 3.  Those are the only courses that have been offered through Continuing Studies.  I have no knowledge of what courses might be offered online, on-load.


FA:  So what you’re saying is that all of them that would go through you would be off-load?


AD:  Packaged courses.  Yes.


FA:  So all of them are off-load.


AD:  Packaged courses. 


FA:  We don’t have a definition of “off-load.”  It’s a term I hear.


AD:  So they’re not on load.


AD:  They’re packaged courses.


FA:  I should maybe pass that around and give people a chance to review it.  We will want to have a chance to look at it and bring back questions next time.  I’ll let you know to keep this on.


AD:  Sure.


FA:  Does that make sense?  It would be too difficult to look at now.  We can send it out electronically to the Executive Committee.


AD:  There are 8,000 course registrations listed there.  I think we’re up to what, 7 percent?


AD:  Seven percent of the total FTE production is online, up from four percent three years ago.


10:  Plan for Enhancing Student Success (Admin) (3/30/2006)


FA:  Senate voted to support, in principle, the plan.  Part of the reason we’re supporting it in principle is, there are things that aren’t there that we’re assuming will be there.  For example, there were questions about how does this interact/interface with the idea of a University College, which we haven’t even decided on yet.  There are details being formulated as we speak.


AD:  So we’ll keep this on the agenda.


FA:  Some of the stuff, we can’t imagine how it’s going to be done or whose going to do it.  Whose workload does this become?  As the plan is implemented, we need to come back and discuss those kinds of things.


AD:  Okay.


11:  Rights and Responsibilities under the Grade Appeal Policy (FA) (10/6/2005)


FA:  We have approved the changes you made to the document that you gave us at an earlier Meet and Confer, but, we wonder now, when you plan to implement the policy.


AD:  If the policy is approved and accepted, we would begin implementing it beginning in the fall semester.


FA:  This actually isn’t a new policy…


AD:  That’s true.


FA:  So it’s going to get published…


AD:  In that format so that…


FA:  The policy hasn’t changed. This is a document to go with the policy to help people understand it.


AD:  That is a good point and that’s correct although it does have a few steps in there that have not been part of the process before. 


FA:  When is this going to be published so that people will be aware?


AD:  We will put those on the Web as soon as possible.  I think we can take that one off the agenda.


FA:  Yes.


12.      Template  on Teaching Schedule/Office Hours (FA) (10/20/2005)


FA:  We wanted simply to know if there is anything new.  I heard that we had met the other day.


FA:  We met the other day, we tossed some ideas around, and the ideas will be coming back to the Deans and the Executive Committee before we move forward.  We don’t want to bring something out here that one side or the other is going to shoot down immediately.  So we’re going to check back with both sides about the ideas that we’re floating, and we’ll meet again.


AD:  So that’s still being developed?


FA:  There’s an idea that will be circulated to the committee tomorrow.  We agreed on it. I just haven’t gotten it written yet.  Then we can go back and talk to our respective groups about whether the idea makes any sense before we try and go any farther with it.


AD:  Okay.  Anything else on that topic?


New Business:


1.       Ad Hoc Doctorate Committee (FA) (4/27/2006)


FA:  There’s been a lot of confusion about various elements concerning doctorates.  Part of it is just that we’re going forward with a really complicated thing that we haven’t done before, and not all of the people are connected who need to have all the information.  Actually, the request came from UCC, who didn’t know how they were supposed to process certain things, or what sorts of decisions were being made, what they really needed to be doing, if there were budgets for the various doctorates.  What we’re proposing is an ad hoc committee on doctorates that would be made up of the Chair of the Budget Committee, the Chair of the Graduate Committee, the Chair of UCC, the Chairs of Curriculum Committees of colleges proposing doctorates, and on the administrative side, Dennis Nunes, Michael Spitzer, and Mitch Rubinstein.  The main thing is to coordinate information and make sure that the various groups needing the information have it when they need it and that there’s not misinformation going out.  We would see part of the charge of the committee to clarify this charge, what it needs to be doing.  We’re seeing this as a limited time group.

AD:  So you want to call that an ad hoc committee.  Sure.


FA:  I’m wondering how we get this off the ground.  Should we have someone convene it?


AD:  I will ask Dennis Nunes to convene the group.


FA:  We can take this off, can’t we?


AD:  Yes.


2.       Parking (Admin) (4/27/06)


AD:  This is a topic that I’m handling by default.


FA:  Do you have your target with you?  (Laughter)


AD:  I looked for it this afternoon and couldn’t find it, but if I had found it, I would have brought it. (More laughter)  We had some discussions about parking and parking fees.  What you see here on the first page is information about revenue and expenses.  I think the expenses have something to do with the cost of building the ramp.  On the back is information about the permit costs.  These are about the same amounts that we had discussed last year, and we had agreed that we would not have any increases for this year, but that they would be implemented for next, and that’s what this represents.  I humbly request that you not shoot the messenger.  (Laughter)


FA:  Are these the rates that are being proposed for this year?


AD:  Yes, for next academic year.


FA:  So there are going to be 200 permits for the ramp?


AD:  In 2008, yes. 


FA:  The ramp will be available for 2008?


AD:  Yes.  There would also be daily parking rates at the ramp.  There is a percentage of those spaces that would be semester or year-based and others that would be on a daily basis.


FA:  Is there a difference between the two pages.


AD:  Yes, but I cannot fully explain it to you.


FA:  You have a total for daily ramp sales.  Do you have an amount or what it would cost to park daily?


AD:  I’m sure there is, but I don’t know what it is.  Unfortunately, Steve is out of town today.  Can I suggest that you prepare whatever questions you have and try to address them at the next Meet and Confer?


FA:  For purposes of, and not trying to cause any trouble, this is, in some respects, kind of mysterious and difficult to decipher.  So for contractual purposes, do you consider having presented this to Meet and Confer or not?  There are some deadlines.  There are a whole list of questions that we might, if we could understand it better, we might be interested in asking.  Therefore, the question of the deadline.


AD:  I don’t know what the deadline is, specifically.  I do know we have one more Meet and Confer, and we can regard that as the….


FA:  …official presentation and we can more or less regard this as a heads-up.


AD:  Right.


FA:  Thank you.


FA:  How is the ramp being financed?


AD:  I think it’s through bonds.  There’s a revenue bond amount…


FA:  So that $650,000…


AD:  That’s a reserve amount, and there’s a debt service payment which you can see for ’06, ’07, and ’08.  For FY ’07 it’s $391,000, and for FY’08 it’s $385,000.


FA:  This is the amount of debt service we have to pay on parking lots and the ramp?


AD:  I think it’s for the ramp itself.


FA:  And all the revenues come out of parking?


AD:  Yes.  As far as I understand, parking has to be self-supporting.


FA:  I’m just asking the question.  Can parking be financed out of M & E? 


AD:  I don’t believe it can.


FA:  Good to hear.


FA:  So we’ll keep this on for questions for next time?


AD:  Yes.


FA:  And Steve will be here?


AD:  Someone will be here who can answer your questions.


3.       Recommendations for Search Committee Procedures (FA) (4/27/2006)


FA:  I have letters for various people in this room from the various bargaining units.  This year, the Faculty Association, AFSCME, MAPE, MMA and MSUAASF have been meeting to discuss concerns we share.  The letter I’m going to give you regards procedural consistencies with searches.  We’re presenting a joint letter requesting a consistent process and equal consideration of these items.  We would like all collective bargaining units to be notified in writing and have the right to participate in each of the searches at the Director level or higher.  If a position of Associate/ Assistant Director supervises members of other bargaining units, those bargaining units should be notified of the searches as well.  Notification about impending searches which are delivered at Meet and Confer will continue in addition to written notices.  We’re also asking that we receive at least two weeks’ prior notice to provide representation for search committees at the Director level and above, and we’re asking for notification one week in advance for upcoming meeting dates of search committees.  I have a letter for the President and for you, Provost Spitzer, and Steve Ludwig and also for Larry Chambers.  This has been signed by Presidents of all the bargaining units.  This comes out of joint concern that all the bargaining units be treated the same way in terms of notification.


AD:  Thank you.  We’ll review it and get back to you on it.  Any comments or questions?


4.       Fixed-term Rollovers (Admin) (4/27/2006)


AD:  There is an individual in the College of Business that the college is recommending be reappointed as a fixed-term faculty member beyond the fourth year.  The person was to be replaced, and there is a search to replace that person with a probationary faculty member, but there’s another faculty member who just indicated that he would not be returning for next year, so the department wants to roll this person over to fill that vacancy for next year.  My understanding of the contract is that that’s something we can do on notification by the President or designee at Meet and Confer.


FA:  Does this mean that the other roll-over didn’t materialize?


AD:  Yes.


FA:  Okay.


AD:  There was potentially a second situation, but that has not materialized and that position was filled in another way.  Any questions, comments?


FA:  The department has to ask to do this.


AD:  The department has signed unanimously, I think, supporting this request.


FA:  Will there be some sort of agreement letter signed?


FA:  I think we need some sort of agreement letter.


FA:  Yes.


FA:  I think in the past, we’ve gotten a letter.


AD:  From the President?


FA:  I can’t remember.


AD:  I know that…


FA:  Agreeing to extend the time…


AD:  I don’t believe we did a letter.


FA:  If he’s in a new position, if he’s moved from the position he was in, into the position that was vacated, then I don’t think there’s an issue at all.


AD:  A lot of it has to do with how similar the courses are that are being taught.  I didn’t want to get into that piece.


FA:  Okay.


FA:  I believe in that situation last year, didn’t we sign an agreement Kristi?


AD:  I thought we had something signed when it was all said and done, but I’d have to go back and look at my records.


FA:  I believe that was a little different because that wasn’t a tenure-track position.


FA:  In the past there’s been something that – there was one in the Math Department where we got some sort of information.  In the contract it talks about if this has occurred or it’s in the best interest of the institution, so there’s some sort of letter that has an argument about why it’s in the best interest -- the fact that you’re not doing this in lieu of a fixed-term position but because you were not able to fill that position.


AD:  I can check our paperwork.


AD:  I think the contract says we simply need to notify you.


FA:  It has to be in the best interest of the institution, or it has to be that there’s a situation where someone’s on leave and their leave is for more than four years, so then you can continue to use this other person.


FA:  We’re not in disagreement about this.  It seems as if there’s a need for – what we’re saying is that we want some sort of documentation.


AD:  Right.


FA:  We agree that if the department, if it’s because of a failed search or in the situation you’re describing, that if the department wants to do it, then it’s in the best interest of the institution, but we need some sort of a letter stating the circumstances under which we’re doing this.


AD:  Okay.  We will do a letter.

FA:  Then we have a paper trail of what happened.


6.       CETL Reporting Structure (FA)  (4/27/2006)


FA:  We have a proposal for a reporting structure for the Director of CETL.  This has come, via recommendation from the CETL Advisory Board and was approval by the Senate, who’s concerned that you have somebody who is essentially pulled out of departmental work for a while and we need some way of accommodating that for the EPT process.  They’re suggesting that that Director have an EPT Committee that is comprised of members of the Advisory Board and also members of the home department so there is feedback from both entities.  We understand you need to look at this and review it, but, when this came up, we found ourselves saying:  this is like this instance that we handled this way, or this is like this instance where we are trying to figure out what we should do, or this is like this instance where it’s handled a different way.  We’re seeing this as an indication – we have lots of instances of multiple reporting lines -- and maybe we should be looking at this in a larger sense.  We’re happy with this, and we do need to go ahead with something regarding this particular set of circumstances.  We should perhaps look more long-term when we’re talking about people with dual reporting lines.  What would be the most reasonable way of handling them across campus because they’re handled differently.


AD:  There are some interesting issues that need to be looked at in that context.  I’m appreciative of this recommendation.  I have some questions about this particular arrangement that I’ll want to discuss more fully, but I do feel that we need to do something in this regard, and we’ll get back to you on that.


7.       Strategic Planning Performance Indicators (FA) (4/27/2006)


FA:  The Strategic Planning Committee has forwarded to Senate recent performance indicators which are revisions of the work completed last year, and Senate approved these indicators last meeting for University Community Relations, Technology, and Diversity and Social Justice.  There’s one more set that we don’t have yet that we hope to act on by the end of the year, but we have voted to support these, and these are your copies.


FA:  If you need more copies, Lisa Foss is the person you should contact.


AD:  Thank you.  It’s good to see that we’re making such progress in getting those indicators approved for all of the strategic goals.  That’s a good thing.  Thank you.  Can we take this one off the agenda?


FA:  Yes.


8.       Membership of International Student Services Committee  (FA)  (4/27/2006)


FA:  The faculty members of the International Student Services Committee, which is a university-wide committee, recommended to Senate that we change the make up of the committee from what’s on the back of this sheet to what you see on the front of this sheet.  Essentially, what they’re asking is that the student representation be increased by two and that the Student Services staff be added.


AD:  Currently there are no Student Services staff?


FA:  I don’t see any on the committee.  You have the full committee on the back.  You can see that there is a community person.  It’s the same administrative set up and the same faculty structure that you have now, but what we’re talking about is adding two student representatives and then these representatives from Housing, Health Services, Counseling and ESL/IEC.  Those people do substantial work with international students, so I’m assuming that’s why they’ve been included.  Also, you’ll notice, the student staff, there’s one undergraduate and one graduate student currently working there.  They’re asking that two of those people be representatives from Student Government, including the SGA International Student Service Ad Hoc Committee Co-chair and one person who’s at-large.  Senate is requesting this change.


AD:  We’ll look at it and get back to you on it.


FA:  This came from a committee.


AD:  Yes, I know.


FA:  Which is a committee that has a mixed group of representatives on it.  We’ll keep this on the agenda, and you’ll give us feedback?


AD:  Yes.  Item #9 is no longer on the agenda so we have concluded the business for this meeting.

Adjourned:  4:14 p.m.