Final Approved September 20, 2007
Meet and Confer – Notes
Thursday, August, 30, 2007
Administration: President Potter, Provost Spitzer, Mitch Rubinstein, Rex Veeder, Nancy Jessee,
Wanda Overland, Kate Steffens, Steve Ludwig, Kristi Tornquist (Patty Dyslin – note taker)
Faculty Association: Judy Kilborn, John Palmer, Annette Schoenberger, Balsy Kasi, David Warne, Bill Langen, JoAnn Gasparino,
AD: Good afternoon and welcome to this year’s first Meet and Confer. Judy and I thought it would be appropriate for us to go around the room and introduce ourselves.
(all present introduced themselves)
AD: President Potter, would you like to make some opening remarks at the start of this academic year?
AD: In the convocation speech, we intentionally balanced celebration and honoring the work of the faculty and staff to support the creation and realization of a learning community for our students and then talk about going forward. It was really important for me to get the commitment toward an anti-racist culture up front and very clearly stated and note the development of the academic plan that we will be doing this year and the importance of residence life and then, finally, our university-community partnerships. I was touched by the response because what I was hoping to do was to offer my understanding of the university, and I take the response as an affirmation that yes, those are the things that are important to us, and that’s what we think we should be doing. In order to get there, I really want to work with the Faculty Association effectively. Judy and I have developed a list of issues to work on this year. Among the ways of working are exploring all the ways we can work informally and collaboratively towards a set of shared objectives – not simply rely on our formal processes to be the channels through which we communicate all the time. Of course, the contract is the framework within which we work. The formal processes exist to make sure we have clarity and protections and that there are valid, reliable processes that engender trust and are fair to everybody. If we don’t have a quality relationship, I don’t think we can talk and think together/play and work together, and the formal processes don’t provide us with the “stuff” for strong learning communities. I’m really committed to listening and thinking in the spirit of interest-based bargaining which is all I’ve ever done – understanding our shared commitments and interests and working together. That’s the understanding and spirit I would like to characterize our work in Meet and Confer and the working groups we set up.
AD: Questions or comments?
FA: I think certainly the Faculty Association executive committee has talked about the need to work towards a more collaborative relationship in terms of building trust. I’m assuming it won’t be totally smooth, that there will be some bumps. One thing I think is interesting about the Meet and Confer agenda for today is, we’re in the midst of business even at the beginning of the year. It will be a shift for all of us, and I look forward to making that shift.
1. Charge to Task Force on International Studies (FA – 8/30/2007)
FA: Let me read from my notes. I’m going to take this one. Last year a taskforce on international studies met. They made a report in January, and that report went to Senate in March and was passed. We brought that to the Provost, and we were wondering about the response.
AD: I received that report and actually wrote something that incorporated a good deal of material from that report, presented it to the President at the time and was awaiting comment and feedback, which I didn’t receive. I will review it with President Potter, and we will get back to you.
FA: So we should leave this one on the agenda?
AD: That’s something I’d like to review soon.
2. Return to Title IV (AD – 8/30/2007)
AD: There are several issues – two issues – that I think we want to talk about with regard to Return to Title Four and the fact that because we had been remiss in some of our activities with regard to Return to Title Four, we’ve had to return some money to the federal government and we are placed, on something akin to being on probation, by the federal government with regard to being able to provide federal funds to our students through financial aid. One of the reasons for that has to do with the way in which we’ve been responding to requests from them with regard to student academic performance and student academic progress. One of the things that we’ve put together is a list of the various grades that are available to faculty. Mitch is going to pass that out, and we can spend a little time talking about it. When students do not complete a course, we need to know when they’ve participated and when they’ve ceased participating in class because if they cease participating beyond a certain point in the semester, then there is no obligation to return funds. If we don’t know when a student stopped attending class, we have to assume that they never attended class, and then they’re not eligible for federal financial aid. One of the issues that we need to deal with has to do with the grades that students are assigned in their classes. Particularly pay attention to “W” grades, “I” grades and “IP” grades. There’s another item about “Z” grades. Mitch, do you want to talk about the “I”, “IP”, “Z”, and “W” in particular? Also the “FN” and “F?”
AD: The “F” is: the student has failed the requirements of the course and gets zero grade points. “FN” means failure for non-attendance, and this grade requires an entry of the last date of attendance. This is supposed to apply to at least two types of students. One is students who have registered for the course and do not show up at all. It should also pertain, and this is where we need to be clear, to students who might have started attending but have stopped participating and have not formally withdrawn from the course. They might be attending two weeks, or five weeks, or 12 weeks, and if they stop attending without getting a withdrawal, they should get an “FN.”
FA: If they never show up for class, what’s the date of last attendance?
AD: That should be, as I understand it, the first day of the semester. That’s the convention that the registrar uses.
FA: So there are students who come on the first day and stop coming, and students who don’t show up on the first day, and they have the same last date of attendance.
AD: Probably. It might make very little practical difference.
FA: It actually makes no practical difference, but we have to be clear.
AD: Yes. So if they do not show up, and you need a last date of attendance, then it’s the first day of the semester.
FA: So now we have a student whose name appears on the class list who never attended, and it’s two weeks into the semester, and I say, there’s no way on God’s green earth that this person is going to pass my course. Who do I contact? What do I do?
AD: That student gets an “FN” at the end of the semester. It’s the student’s obligation if the student is in any way not going to be a member of that class.
FA: Right. But if you devised for us a mechanism so that we could go onto our class list and indicate, this would be one way, or any way you devise, two weeks has gone by, there’s no way this person can pass my course, you need to know, and may they never darken my doorstep again.
AD: We will have an early warning system where faculty will be asked to comment on students’ performance. One of the things that that could entail would be if the student’s never attended. The other alternative would be to find a way to identify – you have the student’s name, you could contact the student, or the advisor could contact the student, to find out why they have not attended but are still registered for the class.
FA: I actually don’t care why they haven’t attended. Two weeks of non-attendance and you’re history – you’re in the rear-view mirror. It can’t be done.
AD: That may be the case in some classes, but not necessarily in others.
FA: Fair enough.
FA: I think that’s a separate issue.
AD: Do we have the early warning system now?
AD: We tried it on a pilot basis in a limited number of classes last spring,, and we’re planning to expand the pilot this fall semester, but it hasn’t been implemented across the board yet.
AD: When it’s implemented, it turns on at the beginning of the semester and offers anytime input or is it a query system where during the third or fourth week, a query goes out?
AD: I believe it’s more the latter.
AD: That would give you the opportunity to communicate that information. For the university’s purposes, there’s no need for that information earlier. If we get it established that the fourth week of every semester a query goes out….
FA: Four is good for me…
AD: It’s not quite the same issue that we’re talking about.
FA: Mitch, I wanted to clarify the use of the “FN.” If the failure is not as a result of attendance, we don’t use it.
AD: That’s correct.
FA: So if a student was in the class regularly for 12 weeks and was performing poorly academically, the fact that they stop showing for class after the 12th week would not be the proximal cause of the failure, so I would use an “F” grade.
AD: You would use an “F” grade, but in that case, it would be helpful as well to indicate the last date of attendance so that we know that the student was in class through 12 weeks, and therefore we don’t need to return federal financial aid to the government in that instance.
FA: What I’m trying to do is make sure that the happenstance of the creation of “FN” stands for non-attendance is clear. When you mention 12 weeks, the longer a student has been attending, part of what can occur is that they’re making very poor academic progress, and even if they came to every class from then until the end of the semester, attendance didn’t come to bear. Yet we’re trying to communicate to our colleagues precisely how to use the “FN.” I think we’re using the “FN” in the way that Provost Spitzer mentioned, and that is the way to capture the last date of attendance for students who stop attending. I think that’s what we’re doing. It’s a titling problem. As long as I as a faculty member know that what we really need to do to be in compliance, to assist the institution in being in compliance, is record the last date of attendance, I’d rather do it for every student that failed. At least in that situation you have information about when they last attended.
FA: In the situation that Bill was describing, that student doesn’t drop the class and shows up for the final exam and get an “F,” the date of last attendance would be the final. You don’t know their date of last attendance until you turn in grades, and you look at those people who failed, and you know which of the students stopped coming. It is, as John was saying, for every student who fails, what we need isn’t necessarily the date of last attendance. That’s not the language that’s used in the thing. The language that’s used is the last recorded date of participation.
FA: And we’ve used last date of attendance indicating that we need to be taking roll. That student could be turning something in, even though they never attend class. The fact that they turned something in is what counts.
AD: That’s correct.
FA: I must admit that with D2L, we have some of these. I have students who complete all of the assignments on D2L but very rarely have “in the seat” attendance.
FA: The fact that they are doing the D2L stuff, that last date that they participated is what counts.
AD: We’re calling non-attendance, but the note indicates that it is participation and non-attendance.
FA: There is confusion about this. I know that last spring I received a query from Records and Registration about students who were in a questionable category. There was one situation where a student quit attending because she knew she was failing. It might help to have clarification beyond this about, for example, the “FN” because what I’m hearing is not totally clear or consistent.
FA: I think we need, and I said this before, when we create this document, we need to give people the federal regulation that we’re following. When you read it, it’s really clear what’s going on. This is not about whether or not the student is failing the course, it’s about they’re showing up and doing work in the course. When you get to a certain point, there’s a certain amount of money we get to keep. Before that point there are certain amounts of money we have to give back. That’s all this is really about. It’s not about whether or not you think you know a student’s going to fail if they attend class. It’s about returning federal financial aid. That’s really very clear. It’s also very clear that we don’t fall into the category of taking enrollment; we fall into the category of students participating in class activities. I think that has not been said well, but when you read that regulation, it’s very clear.
FA: Students are very stressed and doing other things, and they don’t know the language and forget to drop classes – even faculty are not used to this terminology. The main fact for us to know is that it is a federal requirement and that we are on probation and need to do something.
AD: I’d like to suggest that we get a couple of members of the Executive Committee together with Mitch to work on this document, revise it, include the federal regulation language and come back to the group with it – if that’s agreeable.
AD: I’d like to suggest that Mike Uran be included because there is that 60% date that is commonly referred to in this discussion as Return to Title Four. There are also other dates in respect to Pell Grants and other financial aid programs that aren’t that particular. I think Mike Uran, the financial aid director, would be a helpful addition.
FA: I certainly would like to collaborate on this but I want to…. I mean, we’ve been working on this for a while, and I’d like to be clear about who our audience is. I would like to have something to give to Faculty so that Faculty can help ensure that we don’t have to give anything back. There are a lot of questions from Faculty, and I’m hearing that there are a lot of questions from students too. I’d like to be able to take this document back to Senate and say: “ Look folks, if you’re giving incompletes, it better be for these reasons.”
AD: I think this statement on incompletes is a bit easier and clearer. The “FN” is a new grade that we’ve never used before which complicates that piece of it a little bit. This is intended for Faculty. What we’re talking about now is intended as clarification for Faculty in terms of the grades that they assign to their students. In earlier conversations, some of you have, in fact, indicated that some Faculty like to give students “I”s who are not passing the course because it’s easier than giving them an “F,” then it turns to an “F.” We need to have an understanding of when the “I” is an appropriate grade, when the “IP” is an appropriate grade, and those are related to this whole issue of Return to Title Four as well. We can take this back to the Academic Affairs office and come up with another version, but then if we’re going to do that and then bring it back to Meet and Confer and we haven’t considered some of the issues that you’re raising, then we still won’t have anything that could be final.
FA: I guess in the interest of clarity, I’d like this document to indicate where it comes from. I guess I’d like to have it publicly state, and maybe this isn’t something we can do, that we’re on probation because we are not accurately doing this and that Faculty really should use grades for the reasons they’re intended. This is just me. So Faculty – you can certainly respond here. If I have a document that says you shouldn’t give incompletes because the student has just disappeared, it’s easier for me to tell my colleague “Look at this” than it is for me to say “Ask Judy Kilborn.” It needs to be really clear that it’s creating problems for us with financial aid and that it endangers the institution.
FA: It needs to be clear that I didn’t just type this up on my computer.
FA: This is not.
AD: This is here for discussion purposes.
FA: Do we need to caucus about the subcommittee?
(Faculty left the meeting room to caucus)
FA: We are agreeing to a work group, and Annette Schoenberger and Dave Warne have agreed to be our Executive Committee people on it. Who will facilitate that?
FA: So Mitch will get the meeting together?
AD: Anything else on this item? Let’s move this to progress reports.
3. Senate Motion on Campus Master Plan (FA – 8/30/2007)
FA: We’re bringing forward a motion that was passed by the Committee of the Institution, which is one of our committees, and passed by Senate last spring. It’s regarding the conversation that began last spring at Meet and Confer about how things are moving, departments are moving into new buildings, etc. As you can see here, we’re recommending that we have a more transparent process of sharing information with more frequent updates. We’d already talked at Meet and Confer last year about involving relevant parties in consultation and coming up with some way of lodging complaints and concerns. This is a copy of the motion that we’re bringing forward as an official Senate-approved motion to Meet and Confer.
AD: Are there two motions here?
FA: I’m sorry. The motion is the boldfaced indented item under item 1.
AD: We should ignore two?
FA: I should have pulled this off the document. You can ignore it.
AD: I would not want to ignore it.
FA: I think that went to Senate as well. I can’t remember what we did with it.
FA: I’m only prepared to deal with the Campus Master Plan item.
AD: Any comments on this?
AD: I think we included some of this in our presentation at convocation and have put that up on the Web. I think this is good advice – good procedure. I’m also going to work with the folks in Jill’s shop and Kristi’s area about having active maps that are kept up to date. I think it’s good advice, and we’ll see if we can use it moving forward. Most of it is pretty straight-forward, and some is a little more complex.
FA: This is not only about the web-site. It’s also about talking to people, before the construction workers show up, about what it is that’s going to happen to the buildings. If there’s more than one department that’s involved in a building, getting representatives from all those departments at the same time to talk about things rather than talking to them separately. That has been a complaint that, when we have more than one group in a building, they’re talked to separately and then sort of played against each other. That doesn’t really need to happen. What we should be doing is getting them all together so that they can all talk about what they need at the same time and work things out together. I think that’s also what’s in here. It’s not just the techno-whiz stuff of getting things up on the Web. It’s about having some real discussions with people.
FA: Pulling back to Meet and Confer last year. I'm the one who brought this up because my department is moving with two other departments into the old College of Business building, and it wasn’t until really late in the process that we had a meeting together, at our request. It was really productive. Steve, you remember how productive that meeting was.
FA: I believe I mentioned that it would be good to have discussions about shared interests in buildings and to have some way of talking about what we wanted our buildings to do – not just in terms of buildings, but how they fit in with our institutional goals – like student retention. I believe I brought up the example of there being no meeting spaces in that building, and if you want to retain students, you want have places for them to meet and have group work. I think we could come up with some principles of building and what should be in academic buildings if we have long-range and advanced discussions amongst ourselves – all of ourselves – not just within departments but institutionally.
AD: I recall this discussion – particularly the nuance of bringing together the different groups that might occupy the building. I believe I agreed at that time that it was a good idea, and I still continue to think that’s a good idea – especially when you do planning that’s specific to a building. I support what you presented today. One nuance of it is the electronic communication; it’s not the thrust of the thing, but to have that available is a good thing.
FA: I apologize for narrating the Meet and Confer from last year, but we have a lot of new people who are not familiar with the topic, and so I’m trying to pull things together.
AD: Okay. Sure.
AD: What is the timeline for the Master Plan?
AD: We would present it, likely the year after next.
AD: It’s my intent that that be widely inclusive. That was part of my point about planning with the City and the neighbors and the campus community and not just looking at buildings, but looking at the spaces between buildings and how we want the campus to work and the way we want the approach to the campus to feel. The whole community has to participate. We need to start early enough with the talk about our campus environment and values so that as the plan is developed, that’s available. It is not a discussion of a draft of what the Administration develops but is an early conversation about the future of the campus. There certainly needs to be discussion of the design of individual buildings and the character of the learning space we’re trying to create. That’s the reason the System’s decision to cut our science building proposal from $46M to $26M is a problem. I’ve taken that back to Laura King, and she’s going to give us the opportunity to re-present that proposal because our intent for creating the learning space for how science should be taught in the future was destroyed by the System’s response. I am glad that we will have the opportunity to redo this and am very sympathetic to engaging the Faculty in how the space should be done.
AD: Anything further on this subject?
4. Sabbatical Applications (AD – 8/30/2007)
AD: Ever since I’ve been here the sabbatical application material that’s been distributed to faculty has contained a statement which I believe to be non-contractual. It’s a statement that says: “Because of contractual guarantees (IFO Agreement, Article 19, Section C. Subdivision 2) applicants with 10 or more years without a sabbatical and requesting a full academic year of sabbatical leave need to provide for information, only the project overview.” The contract does not say that. What the contract says is – on page 58 – “However, the faculty member shall be granted a sabbatical, upon request, after ten (10) years of service, or ten (10) years following the conclusion of the faculty member’s last sabbatical leave. Such eligibility is subject to presentation of a satisfactory plan in accordance with Subd. 3 below.”
Subdivision 3 below describes the proposal requirements that a faculty member has to provide when applying for sabbatical for a seven year sabbatical. Essentially, they’re the same requirements. I’m mentioning this because it is my intent to delete that language that I read to you before from the sabbatical application form and expect that Faculty will submit the same kind of application for a 10 year sabbatical as is expected of them when they submit for a 7 year sabbatical.
FA: Not surprisingly we have a different read on the contract language although what you plan to do wouldn’t in any way interfere with our disagreement of contract language.
AD: What is your disagreement?
FA: We do believe that the language says that at 10 years there will be a sabbatical. The question becomes what a written plan is.
AD: The contract says that it should be in accordance with Subdivision 3. If you look at Subdivision 3, it tells you what the proposal should contain.
FA: Michael, I’m not disagreeing with what your action is. Your action simply makes the language consistent with the language of the contract. What I am suggesting through, is that there is a difference in how a review occurs for a 10 year or longer sabbatical than for those that occur earlier. If there wasn’t, we wouldn’t have used the word “however” in the paragraph at the top of page 58. They’re treated differently. Yes, there needs to be a written plan, but that written plan doesn’t have to meet the same standards or review because the matter is addressed by the 10 years.
AD: The difference there, I believe, is that the 7 year request can meet all of the requirements for a proper proposal and not be supported for a variety of reasons, whereas the 10 year sabbatical would be. That’s the “however” as I understand it. That the material which the faculty member is expected to submit should be of the same quality and cover the same points as is the case required for a 7 year sabbatical which is certainly more optional. If a 10 year sabbatical proposal does not meet those criteria, it seems that it could be rejected.
FA: There are three aspects of the contractual language that are at variance with your interpretation. The first is the location of that sentence that begins “however.” It’s immediately after a sentence that says “Where sabbatical leave is denied, reasons therefore shall be communicated to the faculty member in writing. However, "the faculty member shall be granted”: this is the second reason. “Shall” was used in opposition to “will” in full consciousness. I know, because I insisted on it myself, that this is the emphatic future in English rather than the simple future. “Shall be granted the sabbatical…” The third reason is that…
AD: What does the next sentence say which talks about “Such eligibility is subject to presentation of the satisfactory plan in accordance with Subd. 3 below.”
FA: Yes, it does. So let’s go to subdivision 3. The president’s decision is not, except for those 10 year sabbaticals described in subdivision 2 above, grievable.
AD: Right. Which means, if a 10-year sabbatical is denied, it can be grieved.
FA: That’s right.
AD: Whereas a 7 year sabbatical cannot be grieved.
FA: Right. These are not inclusive reasons, but they are reasons that lead us to conclude that the threshold for the sabbatical plan and the nature of the sabbatical plan is different for 10 year versus earlier.
AD: I disagree.
FA: But you understand our reasoning.
AD: I understand your reasoning, and we’ll deal with it as appropriate.
FA: As I stated at the onset, by modifying the form to include language that’s consistent with the contract, we have it both ways. In the matter of the 10 year sabbatical, quite clearly the language says it’s grievable. As a practical matter, the committee that does this work is made up of faculty.
AD: The committee makes recommendations.
FA: Yes. And the faculty review the materials provided by their colleagues in making those recommendations. I think the process can work. I do want to remind all of us that the one area that we have a tentative, tentative agreement on is to modify the language in sabbatical that will result in an additional desire to grant a sabbatical to junior faculty within a year after granting tenure. Assuming we end up with an agreement, not only would we have the two classifications that we currently have, there would be a third category that is being superimposed there. Both Bill and I were party to the interest-based discussions and Bill, correct me if I’m wrong, there is not unanimity between the IFO and the Administration with regard to the discretion that is used in granting a sabbatical. That’s not surprising. We have common ground that would say that as long as it’s consistent with the language in the contract, why would we object?
AD: I wish I could be at the table and hear how our interests are being described. It would seem to me that we share an interest in the development of Faculty in providing a space for renewal and growth of knowledge. Faculty who review those proposals share that interest. We’re talking about forms and the niceties of distinctions of contract, but we’re committed to Faculty following a plan that’s going to be good for them and the university.
AD: And we want it to be documented. There have been instances where that has not happened.
FA: So for clarification, what we’re looking at is you’re interested in having people who are planning for 10 year sabbaticals, which we read as being mandatory sabbaticals, use the same form, the same detailed plan, but you’re concerned that they do the same high-quality level of work and that they report on their sabbatical. Am I hearing that right?
AD: Both in terms of the application and then in terms of the report, yes.
FA: Did I also hear that you don’t see 10 year sabbaticals as being mandatory?
AD: They’re not mandatory.
FA: Okay. I just wanted to check to make sure that I heard what I thought I heard.
AD: They would certainly be more readily supported if they meet the criteria in the contract, is what I’m saying. And I’d like them to be supported, and I’d like them to be fully fleshed out as proposals.
AD: In which case they would be supported.
FA: Okay. I’d like to make a request. When we have a document that’s going to be changed, can we see the document that you’re referring to?
AD: Yes. It’s the same document that we’re currently using.
FA: It would be nice if all of us could look at it.
FA: Thank you, Michael.
FA: Can I say something? Do you realize that when you say that the word “shall” doesn’t mean that something has to be done that now we can say that the word “shall” doesn’t mean it has to be done?
AD: Shall means: it has to be done subject to.
FA: Do you realize that when you use that word “shall” and you decide that it doesn’t mean that you have to do something, that we can take that same stance?
AD: You’re only reading part of what the thing says.
FA: I think you have to think about what you’re doing – about the consequences of what you’re doing.
AD: There’s no other university in the system that does what you’re proposing that we continue to do.
FA: Can I capture what we agree with? Michael, your action we agree with. We are not going to agree with your interpretation because we are the IFO, and as the IFO, we have a right to our own interpretation. If this matter ever became a case, it will be resolved through the grievance process.
FA: Let’s hope it never becomes the case. Let us hope that our colleagues on both sides behave in a professional manner and review proposals based on professional criteria and the recommendations come forth on a professional criteria basis. Because if that happens, there won’t be a grievance.
AD: There won’t be any problem.
FA: There won’t be a problem.
FA: I made comment to the Executive Committee with regard to this, and when I heard you speak, I knew we had no problem. What you plan to do is perfectly appropriate. Just don’t editorialize. If you editorialize, then we are obliged to editorialize. (laughter)
FA: As you deliberate on the sabbatical requests and the language of the proposal, I hope you’ll bear in mind that every department that supports a proposal, does so at some inconvenience or hardship to the department because they either have to absorb the work or sometimes they have to get some adjunct replacement.
AD: And sometimes a fixed-term.
FA: Yes, sometimes a fixed term depending on the circumstances. But always, a department makes a sacrifice when it supports a proposal, and they are where the rubber hits the road. So I think that their judgment on that should be given some considerable weight.
AD: Any other comments.
FA: I think we’re done with that one.
5. Intellectual Property and Releases from PR (FA – 8/30/2007)
FA: We’re passing around the release form that this relates to.
FA: Let me give you a little history on this. We’ve had at least two faculty members who have been asked to give some sort of presentation that will be taped. So they prepare for the presentation, they get ready, they show up to the presentation, and they’re given this document, and they’re told that it won’t be done unless they sign this. They were not informed ahead of time that they had to sign it, and quite often, what they’re presenting on is their own intellectual property – things that they created. We understand that maybe when you’re taping somebody, you need to have some kind of release that says it’s okay to photograph the person, but we’d like a form that recognizes that Faculty have intellectual property rights. We’d like faculty to stop being ambushed with this form – and I use that word on purpose – and we’d like a form that in some way indicates how the specific information that’s being taped or recorded is actually going to be used so that a faculty member actually knows what’s going to happen.
AD: I believe that this is a form that was originally designed for those instances in which a faculty member was going to either have a photograph taken or something of that sort, and it wasn’t designed for the circumstance that you’ve described, although it’s been used for that circumstance, and what we need to do is come up with an alternative version of this form for the instance in which the issue has to do with intellectual property as opposed to a photograph or something like that. We will do that.
FA: Thank you.
FA: So you’ll bring it back for review?
FA: We’d like you to stop using this now. In the meantime they just need to…
AD: Do you have a different version?
AD: I don’t know. I have to go back and see.
FA: Actually, there’s one piece that we forgot. It’s not just the form; it’s also not having advance notice. Literally, you’re there, you’re ready to present. A faculty member mentioned this to me. He took the form and said “This doesn’t work,” and so he crossed out things, he added things in, and then he signed. The ambush part, meaning no advanced notice, is troubling. With this other form that acknowledges intellectual property, there also needs to be an advanced warning of it – not when you’re getting up there and maybe have nerves. Maybe this shouldn’t be used in the meantime, or people should be talked to ahead of time so that they’re not ambushed.
AD: Do you have a sense of how frequently something like this occurs?
FA: We’ve got at least two instances recently.
AD: Somebody needs to help me understand this. This form only releases the photograph, video images of a person, likenesses, painting of a person and information about me. It does not give any permission to release what the person said.
FA: It says video presentation.
FA: Video images, it says.
AD: All of it refers to allowing publication of my photograph, video images of me or likenesses of me and information about me hereinafter, my information. So that’s the only information that this form allows the release of.
AD: including but not limited to publicity, marketing, on-line instruction.
AD: Yes, but its use of “my information” for those purposes and information is defined above. It gives no permission for the use of the content of what a person said.
FA: Certainly one of the intellectual property issues that Faculty are concerned about, in general, not just here, is that they’re going to spend all this time and all of their creative energy creating this intellectual property, and then an institution or a big entity like MnSCU is going to say “Oh cool. I can put this on-line. I can charge for and sell it.” In fact, one of the incidents that happened was somebody was doing a pretty large presentation – the Elizabeth Exhibition – that was going to be taped and was asked to use it. That actually could be put on-line. It could be streamed, right?
FA: It could be a video image.
FA: Sometimes we don’t listen very well. I think the President is correct.
FA: Because there is an extraordinary treatment of defining what my information is. The first sentence does that.
FA: It says video image. The video image could be the whole presentation.
FA: I’m not disagreeing there is that subject of how that might be used. There are two ways that this can be read. I do think that the document and the practice and the use of the document will need to be examined. I do believe that. But the actual language is not as troublesome as I would have initially read. If all I read is the section that describes and includes on-line instruction and research, that’s limited. If I had an attorney and sought counsel, I would have my counsel argue that it’s very narrow when it says video image. That means, my picture. It doesn’t say anything about my words. So if they were using my words, I didn’t release them, my words – if we’re splitting the hair. There is a substantive problem of people showing up, under goodwill circumstances, and being given a document that none of us are very comfortable at reading, perhaps with the exception of Nancy. As soon as it starts being legalese, we get nervous ,and we get what have you. I think there was good intent here at one time and things get added. We need to look at our practices. Our practice should be: the reason you’re signing the release is what it says there. All we’re going to use is your picture or your photograph or your likeness. Nobody’s going to object to that. What they will object to is if we’re really leaking into this area of delivering the service without compensation. That’s what this is about. That’s why we have in our bargaining agreement language talking about patents and intellectual property.
AD: I agree. It is a substantive area that requires a lot of thought. We’re going to take it away because I don’t believe the university has documents that reflect the intellectual property with respect to the kinds of things you just mentioned, patents etc. There’s a whole bunch of things here that I would like to see us discuss thoughtfully. I couldn’t even say, at this point, what would be the university’s position on some of the questions we just touched on.
FA: Just a question. Are we going to be using this form for such things as we indicated interim, or are we pulling this? If Faculty call me and say they’ve been asked to sign this form, is that likely to happen? What is the status of the form in terms of…?
AD: That’s one of the reasons I asked you how often this has come up. If the example that you used goes back to the Elizabeth exhibit, then we’re talking about something that occurred a year ago.
FA: It happened last spring…
AD: Last fall…
FA: Last spring as well. When I was talking to some other people about it, they said that it had happened to them, I think, in the summer.
AD: We certainly can have a conversation with the folks in University Communication and perhaps talk about the idea that this does not include use of intellectual property and add that statement to this. We can also talk to them about notifying people beforehand, when the thing is arranged, that there will be a request for a release.
FA: Can we have an update on this next time?
FA: Since the folks in LR&TS do most of the videotaping on campus, I can go back and talk to them right away about this being an issue. I’m not sure if we’re using this form or not. We have a release form we use. The primary emphasis of that release form is when outside speakers come to campus – to have release to use their information. I can tell them that we, for sure, need to follow a different path on the Faculty until it gets resolved at the campus level.
AD: This form clearly is used by students as well.
FA: Uh huh.
AD: As more and more faculty are using technologies that allow us to tape record their images and use them for teaching purposes, there does need to be some understanding about that.
AD: Right. We’ll get back to you on this one.
6. Charge for On-line Policy and Policy and Procedure Committee (FA – 8/30/2007)
FA: Last spring I spoke in a rather definitive way about what a committee was doing, and the Provost was, I think, caught by surprise by what the committee was doing. I did get a copy of a memo that John Burgeson had written sometime in November of 2006 that I think says the same thing that the Faculty Association committee has been doing – which is: work to come up with a package of policies and procedures in the hopes of being able to be accredited to offer on-line programming independent of going through the MnSCU office. My read on what John Burgeson wrote on the 2nd of November, 2006, is what that committee that worked all last spring was doing. Unless there’s a change, I assume that’s what that committee will continue to do – to create the common set of practices and policies for on-line programs.
AD: What you just distributed is a memo that John sent to me that contained his proposal for what that on-line committee would address. There were some other things beyond that. I don’t know that I have it with me here.
FA: This is what you gave Judy.
AD: I think there was something else. I don’t have it with me, and I will have to check my file. I believe there was another memorandum with a somewhat different task that I will get back to you with. I don’t have it here.
FA: When I went back over the documents from when this committee was formed, we were concerned about the number of courses that Faculty were teaching on-line and off-load.
FA: We’re also concerned about the lack of department input on scheduling and lack of assessment of these courses. Our intention was this committee’s work should have addressed these issues. I continue, we continue to have concerns about that. Let me just give you one example. A faculty member called me indicating that he was an adjunct person – he was teaching the limit for adjunct, 10 credits. He had planned to teach an on-line course in addition, and it went forward, and all of a sudden he found out from HR he wasn’t doing it. Well, he just simply wanted to know what the rule is. He talked to different people and had gotten different rules. We’re asking if the role of this committee is to help formulate policy.
AD: If I remember correctly, what we were looking to do with this committee was to go beyond what John had asked for in this memorandum and to look at issues pertaining to workload, how many on-line courses, and what percentage of the workload could be on-line, how much of it is on-load, how much of it is off-load, what the department’s role is in authorizing a course to be delivered on-line, to what degree does the schedule of courses have to identify an on-line course as an on-line course. These were all parts of my understanding of what this committee was to address.
FA: I think we’re in agreement on that actually, and it’s a matter of getting the charge to the committee.
AD: I’m pretty sure I did, but I’ll go back and find it.
AD: Is “I’m pretty sure I did” is “I’m pretty sure there’s a written charge?”
FA: This is an instance where we thought we were working on one thing and we’re not.
FA: I can report because I’m a member of that committee, that every item that I’ve heard mentioned, we discussed. What we did is prioritize our work because we realized that we weren’t going to get everything done.
AD: I understand that the reason to have done that was in order to assist in getting approval by the HLC to have the on-line programs approved by MnSCU rather than individually in each instance by the Higher Learning Commission. That was the impetus for that focus on this element, but it wasn’t the whole thing. I will find that and make it available to you.
FA: Our committee chair is John Theis.
AD: Okay. Anything further on this item?
7. Zmora Agreement (AD – 8/30/2007)
AD: You had asked me for information about which elements of the Zmora Agreement we had agreed to continue. This is the section that dealt with Faculty searches that we have so far agreed to continue.
FA: If I could make a comment about why I made this request. I get all kinds of questions about what is active now, what have we agreed to and what haven’t we. It’s really spread across Meet and Confer meetings. I get questions, not just from Faculty, but also from staff and administrators regarding searches, especially.
AD: This is the section that dealt with searches that we agreed that we should retain the procedures that were described here. We had discussion about other components that we haven’t had any agreement on. Does everybody have a copy?
FA: This is just a test, because my dean has been sending notifications. As I read the language here, I’m not sure that what I’m getting does what this says. Kate, you’ve been having Dori send out what appears to be a form.
AD: We have been using the form that has been provided by Affirmative Action.
FA: It gets to the end and says it will provide a name of a person and disposition. Is that being done before the person is being offered the job?
AD: No. The disposition part is when the person has been selected and appointed.
FA: Last year that college wasn’t telling people who was on the search committee. Is that going to change too then?
AD: That’s why we’re using the form before and after.
FA: That was a problem. There were all kinds of shenanigans going on because nobody knew who was on the search committees.
AD: That is being done.
FA: What I was trying to get at, and I appreciate receiving the document, and as I read it and as this was handed out and read, that notification should have occurred or will have occurred before the person was offered a job. So that’s pretty sensitive information if the name of the candidate is on that…
AD: No. The name of the candidate is not on it. What this says, is that when the position is approved and the search committee is formed, that the announcement goes out to the faculty in the college that there is a search, these are the members of the search committee, and this is the position that is being searched.
FA: I’m looking at “A.”
AD: It goes out again, after the search has been completed and we get the signed contract back, with the name of the person who has been selected and hired.
FA: I’m looking at “A.” “A” says: prior to the extension of any offer of employment for a full-time faculty position. If I get a format with the name of a person on it...
AD: No, it doesn’t have a name.
FA: It doesn’t?
FA: That’s what I thought was on the very bottom.
AD: At the end.
AD: You’re right. That clause is a bit confusing.
AD: The spirit and actually the practice is the faculty want to know, what are the vacancies and who’s doing the search? That’s stated for them and it’s public information so that there’s no opportunity for people to have a committee doing something without everybody knowing about it.
FA: So we can expect as a faculty member to receive three different notifications.
FA: Actually three.
FA: One at the time the committee is formed, which is “C.” One at the time, prior to the extension of an offer, which is “A.”
FA: No. You get “A” when it says this position has been authorized for search, and it doesn’t even necessarily have the search committee listed. All it says is that there is a position being searched. The second one comes through and says: here’s that position and here’s who’s on the search committee, and then the third one comes through and says: here’s the position, here’s who’s on the search committee, and here’s who accepted the position.
AD: By disposition, it could be either somebody’s been hired or the search has failed.
FA: Right. That’s what hasn’t been happening in the College of Ed, and that’s probably why you don’t know…
FA: It has.
FA: Yes, it has.
FA: It wasn’t happening last year.
FA: No. But it started happening.
FA: So it is happening now.
FA: I was trying figure out what that was telling me. And when I read what is here, I’m still confused by “A,” prior to the extension of any offer of employment.
FA: That’s the one that doesn’t have the names of the search committee members.
FA: I’m not sure I’ve seen those.
FA: So there should be three times…
FA: Somebody should be talking to you about…
AD: In some cases the search committee members and the announcement of the position are done simultaneously, so it’s done twice instead of three times.
AD: That would be typical.
FA: I’ll receive tutorial outside of this meeting.
AD: Okay. This is not our language. This language is quoted from the agreement.
FA: So we could change it to make it clearer.
AD: We can modify it at this point and clarify it for you, but this is the agreement language.
FA: It is poor writing that is creating this misunderstanding. What we’re talking about, really, is making sure that the dean will provide written notification to all Faculty and to the FA about all vacancies and all permissions to conduct searches, so that there aren’t any surprises, so people know when a search is going on, and it’s not happening behind the scenes.
FA: We did agree to that; we’re just having problems with the language on that. The second notification is when the search is done, either because somebody’s been hired or because the search has been failed. We just need to change the language.
AD: Right. If we change it to say something like: prior to conducting a search, instead of: extending an offer; that would clear it up.
FA: It’s almost as bad having six English professors write it.
AD: You and I can duke it out. (laughter)
FA: I think there are three things that need to be done. Number one is you inform everyone in the college that this position is open because now they know there’s an opportunity to form the search committee and they can actually volunteer to be on it. The second one is: who got to be on the search committee. The third one is: if it was filled, who was it filled with or if it failed, the fact that it failed. There really are three that need to be done.
AD: There should be three.
FA: That last one also has to have the search committee. One of the other things I saw this last year was a search committee that changed. So the form was given to the Affirmative Action Officer with a name on it, then there were a bunch of other names that got scratched off and penciled in later on. That, we also can’t have. If there’s a change in the search committee, people need to be aware of that and be able to ask why it occurred.
AD: There are frequently changes in search committees.
FA: Yes, we understand that. But it looks bad when it’s not public.
FA: I just wanted to say on “A” that I think that’s the piece we’re not really seeing – that initial announcement. I can only speak from experience at our own department meeting today. There was an announcement for a search, and we were all like “what?” So that that announcing of the search and making it open so that we can maybe volunteer to serve on the committee. The second notice and third notice is absolutely happening. Maybe it’s that first notice… Can you correct me Dean Steffens? Correct me if I’m wrong, but I’m not seeing that “A” part – that initial announcement. Again, it sort of came up by surprise today, and we had that conversation in our department that we have to stop this behavior – it’s too ingrained in the ELCP culture of doing things, and it’s really difficult for us to break out of that habit. That’s the part that’s not happening.
AD: Francis, I think probably what happened in the department today, although I wasn’t there of course, was that the announcement of a search was an assumption because there was a failed search last year. I’m assuming that that was the assumption; that since there was a failed search; that the search would begin in the fall. It wasn’t a new position.
AD: One of the things that might have to happen here is a change in our hiring practices if we’re going to have these separate notifications. Right now all the paperwork goes in together, the request to hire, the notice of vacancy, the search committee membership; all that goes at once. If we want to first have the search approved, then we have to send that paperwork separately from all the rest of the paperwork. This kind of triggers what happens with the rest of the hiring process.
FA: That makes sense.
AD: Currently, there is no one place to go and see how you can conduct a search for all the different kinds of positions that we search. We’re used to going to Susan for her review of a process and guidance, but Susan doesn’t pay any attention to contract issues.
FA: She’s been calling us.
AD: Just affirmative action. I’ve directed Larry and Susan to put together a document that brings all this stuff together in one place, and we would share that document before it gets distributed. That document should include these commitments to notice. I think you’re right. I think it is going to have to break out an early step because one of the complaints I’ve heard widely is: we don’t find out about this until after the search committees are formed. I think that will help a lot.
FA: What we are looking for is more transparency and that notice is given and everybody has time to apply to serve on the search committee if they want to.
AD: When it comes to the faculty searches. Certainly the deans have to submit something to me which I approve. When they get that back, they should be able to notify the Faculty in the college that there will be a search.
FA: That’s what my dean does.
FA: As the chair of a search, I have received a document that has the position number on it and the assumption is, once I get that document, it’s been approved for us to move forward. That step is there, but I’m not real sure how the notification has been done. It seems that I remember the document you’re talking about being what I received to start my process in terms of getting the committee together.
AD: At that point is when the first notice should go out.
AD: We’ve been directed lately to have them all come together, so we need to unhinge those.
AD: Kristi’s right. They want it all at the same time.
AD: Is that AA?
AD: We could still send a notice to the Faculty in the college before that.
AD: If you’ll take the request for the position separate from the rest of it.
FA: I think that with the way searches work. You can’t ever assume what’s going to happen if a search fails. In our college at least, we always have to ask again: is this going to go? I would never trust that it was going to be searched again. A failed search might result in: why did it fail and maybe we need to rethink this position because it’s not written well. I would think that notification would always need to happen no matter if it’s a position that’s been searched before or not.
AD: It does.
FA: I believe we started this conversation because this is the one element of the settlement of the law suit that we have agreed should be going forward. We’ve also agreed today that we have the ability to put this in language that ordinary human beings can understand. I heard the president talk about the overall hiring process. It would seem to me that rewriting ought to be contemporary with the creation of this manual; then we can say we actually changed our practices and improved them as a result of the settlement, and we’re not compelled to do it, but did it because it was the right thing to do.
AD: That’s right. Anything more on this topic?
8. Request Concerning Microsoft Word 2007 (FA – 8/30/2007)
FA: This one’s not as serious. It’s simply because of transition and upgrades that we’re receiving documents that some of us can’t open. Case in point; with the new upgrade, even I’ve sent out a very important evaluation program follow-up study report to 742 and they couldn’t open it because they are not using Office 2007. If we can just make sure that documents are saved as a Word document instead a 2007 document until we all seem to get our patches and upgrades, that would be helpful. More importantly, grievances and personnel documents probably should not be sent via e-mail as attachments. They should be sent as certified mail to the person’s home. That was an incident that came up – some Faculty receiving information they could not open from the office. It happened to be either a grievance or personnel related.
FA: Let me step in here for just a second. I’m the one who brought this up. This summer when I started, the first thing that happened after we had the upgrade to Word 2007 is I received calls from Faculty stating that they were receiving documents they could not open – one was a grievance response. The Provost immediately agreed to ask people in his office not to use Word 2007 but to save as Word 2003. It’s not just a matter of everybody getting patches. People who use MACs can’t use Word 2007 either. I wanted to make sure that everybody knew that there were going to be issues, and we needed to be sensitive to those, and any documents that went out as an attachment. Bill had another concern.
FA: We had a discussion about this among ourselves in pre-Meet and Confer, and we’d like to volunteer to submit to you a more general draft policy on communications; breaking down the types of communications and the appropriate mode of communication – along the lines of what Francis just indicated – and then have you consider that and go back and forth.
FA: Kristi, since I’m a MAC user, the classes I teach are all supported by D2L. In the past I told the students the only word processed documents that I’ll look at are Word documents. Now all of the computers that students have access to have Word 2007. If they send me a Word 2007 document, I can’t read it.
AD: This is why I’m passing this out.
FA: This will answer my question?
AD: I hope. Michael mentioned that he thought this was part of the issue so I had my folks put something together really quickly here for you.
FA: You understand that the only thing worse than attorneys and English teachers are your people. (laughter)
FA: I don’t think that’s fair. (more laughter)
AD: One of our guys wrote the number 1 item on here, and that’s what we’re recommending. So absolutely, we’re suggesting that people who are using 2007 save their documents in the older version so that everybody can read the documents. For the MAC people that are having trouble, these are some possible options that you have to get at documents that aren’t coming in a nice fashion to you. We’re recommending doing the top one, and we will get something out to the campus. As MAC users are calling us with problems, we’re telling them these things. I’ll have them get out a more generalized communication to the whole campus.
FA: So this goes from 07 to 03?
AD: This is for MAC users to be able to read 07 documents. They don’t particularly recommend items 2, 3 and 4, but those are options that people have. The first one we’ve only been using on campus. These are the work-arounds we’ve come up with for now.
AD: We’ve advised people to save in Word 2003 format.
FA: Just save as a Word document because that works.
AD: That’s right. I’ll have them get something out to remind people to do that.
FA: Thank you.
AD: Can we take that one off the agenda?
9. Request for Academic Policy Working Group (AD – 8/30/2007)
AD: I’m coming to Meet and Confer to request the naming of Faculty Association members to the Academic Policy Working Group. The working group started last year – it was its first year. It has members from Faculty – four members from the faculty – as well as members from other academic support units and administrative units on campus. It is an informal group whose purpose is to review proposals for new policies and revisions to existing policies, and to draft language that reflects the purpose of the proposal and to take the input from various groups and offices on campus and to draft something that will be useful for further consideration. This group does not vote on anything. Its work is done by consensus and presents something for further consideration in the process. It’s a two-track system that goes through the Faculty Association Academic Policy Committee and then to the Office of Academic Affairs for their consideration. Whatever might result from those processes will ultimately come to Meet and Confer before being officially adopted as policy.
FA: You’re asking for how many members and the same categories as last year?
AD: Four seemed to work, so we would ask for four. I could tell you the individuals who served last year if that would be helpful.
FA: We know those, but some of those have shifted. I know that they were selected based on their role. For example, there was someone from the Academic Affairs Committee who will be going off and will be replaced by another person I’m assuming from the same committee. Okay. I’ll move that forward.
AD: Okay. So we can take that off the agenda too?
10. Upper Division Writing Requirement Assessment Committee (AD – 8/30/2007)
AD: A year ago the Faculty Association named an ad hoc committee to review proposals and the assessment aspects of the upper division writing requirements that are necessary for each baccalaureate program on campus. This was an ad hoc committee with a one-year appointment. It performed its work, reached its scheduled termination date at the end of spring semester, and is no longer in existence. The fact remains that not all the upper division writing requirements are established. There are still some departments that have not submitted them. Others that have submitted them have not been subject to review for their assessment requirements. We also anticipate that there will be an ongoing need for some review and assessment of the upper division writing requirement, and we’re coming to Meet and Confer to request some mechanism for an ongoing function. I understand that the ad hoc committee, as well as the assessment committee, has raised this issue so we’re raising it from our perspective.
FA: Last year the Senate said that we should reappoint the people who have been on it as long as they are willing to serve. We can try the same thing this year. There’s a lot of time and effort that’s been invested in this by the membership. It’s hard to find new people.
FA: So I’m hearing that I’ll go back and check with folks and see if they’re interested in serving on this committee.
FA: Yes. Can you send Judy the names of the current committee members? I think we have a list but yours is probably more accurate.
AD: I can do that.
FA: I appreciate that Mitch.
11. Academic Policies (AD – 8/30/2007)
AD: The next item is really several different items. I hope to get through these things expeditiously. The first item is an update on the standard of scholarship. This is the graduate studies counterpart to probation and suspension policies. We adopted a policy last year in response to board policy 2.9 which required that the standards of academic progress in academic policy and student financial aid policy be brought into alignment with each other. We developed a policy. This policy for the standard of scholarship was approved last year after going to Meet and Confer. Subsequent to that the audit office for the board of trustees determined that further changes were necessary. They came to the university and came up with most of these changes. A few of these changes are editorial to clarify the policy. I consulted with the leadership of the FA about this and noted that we have an obligation to comply with board policy and asked how we should go about this. We agreed that we would issue this as we did earlier this summer, as policy, but bring it to Meet and Confer at the earliest opportunity for discussion.
FA: I believe the agreement was that we would accept this pending Senate approval.
FA: So we have to take it to Senate.
AD: I sent out an e-mail to interested parties who deal with policy to let them know that this was going to be the policy pending consultation.
FA: What was the problem?
AD: They wanted some clarification of the grades.
FA: So we can take this to Senate. Senate meets September 11th. We’ll get back to you on that.
FA: Do we want a copy of the board policy?
FA: It would be good to have a copy of the board policy.
AD: I will send you a copy of the policy.
FA: We have a few other ones here too, right?
AD: Under the item that says Probation/Suspension Policy – Undergraduate. This again was approved through Meet and Confer and adopted as policy. After that somebody pointed out three quarters of the way down the page, item B.4, that there was a problem with the language that caused confusion unless it was corrected. After consultation with the Faculty Association leadership, we agreed that we would adopt the changes right away because this is in response to board policy and then take it to Meet and Confer for presentation to the Senate.
FA: Can we just accept this now?
FA: Do you want to accept it?
FA: We’re going to accept this change right now; we’re not going to take it to Senate.
FA: She was channeling all the members of the Executive Committee. (laughter) She did it quite well.
AD: Then we have Military Withdrawal. This is an item of some urgency because it is required under board policy. This was approved as written without the underscoring or the strikeouts. I guess it came through the Senate, it was approved by the Senate, and when it came through Academic Affairs, these editorial changes were suggested. We’re coming to you to request that these be brought back to the Senate for their consideration before they’re actually adopted as policy.
FA: So this one needs to go to Senate.
AD: My understanding is that this was approved without these editorial changes.
FA: Do you want to take it to Senate, or can we accept this today as it is?
FA: Military withdrawal? It’s okay with me if we take it today.
FA: They’ll hang us on Monday.
FA: I’m kidding.
FA: We’re going to accept this one today without taking it to Senate. It doesn’t look to me like it’s a substantial change. I know we spoke about conferring with other on this.
AD: I spoke to members of the military about the last provision, whether it’s a 14 day annual leave or not, and they said: yes, that is the appropriate language. As written, with these changes, this is a wonderful policy.
FA: Alright. Great.
AD: The last item is not in policy per se, but the registrar’s office requested the adding of this sentence regarding prerequisites to enable the registrar’s office to implement policy as stated in the two sentences. The first two sentences contain the policy; the last one was a request from the registrar’s office to enable them to implement policy – in other words, by canceling the registration of a student who failed to meet a prerequisite.
FA: Who initiates the request to cancel the registration?
AD: Their view is: when a student has failed to meet a prerequisite…
FA: They would do it automatically?
AD: Yes. Right now they do it but they have to notify the student because nowhere does it appear that this, in fact, will happen. This way they can do it with the notice that this can occur appearing in the bulletin.
FA: Did this go to Senate already?
AD: No, this has not. The question was, does this require approval as a new policy?
FA: Did the previous policy go to Senate?
AD: Yes. This is currently what appears in the bulletin. The only change would be the addition of that sentence.
FA: Part of the thing is here, we’ve never had the ability before to check for prerequisites. We tried it once before, and the whole system crashed, if I remember correctly.
FA: It was a disaster.
AD: We can do it now.
FA: Shall we take this to Senate then and bring it back here?
FA: It would be good to have a discussion about it.
AD: That was the last one – right Mitch?
12. Request for Working Group on New Academic Calendar (AD – 8/30/2007) – not discussed.
1. Taskforces on Diversity (a.k.a. Motion from Teacher Development) (FA – 9/22/2005)
AD: Let me just mention that the College of Education taskforce has had two Faculty co-chairs, one of whom has left the university and one of whom is reassigned to an administrative position.
FA: Only one. Let’s let John speak to this.
FA: Jeanne LaCourt is the co-chair, not Avelino.
AD: Okay. Good.
FA: That’s what my understanding was.
AD: I thought Avelino was in conjunction with that – we still have one left.
AD: There’s one position we need to identify and one position we need to replace there.
FA: I believe Frankie Condon was there as an external person – external to the college.
FA: We’ll need to figure out how to do that in terms of Faculty Association.
FA: It’s further complicated by the fact that the committee, and I believe last year the two co-chairs had reassigned time to serve in that capacity, so…
AD: We’re providing Jeanne LaCourt reassigned time for this semester. We already have that established to continue her work.
FA: If we can use the language that the members on this taskforce use, it’s a taskforce on climate, not diversity and they're very sensitive about that. Whenever we slip and say diversity, they correct us and say it’s climate. So if we can just get in the habit of using that language – they are very sensitive about that.
FA: It’s my fault.
FA: Actually, it’s because we had too broad a concern for climate which involved, to a degree, diversity and racial issues. Maybe we should at this point create a College of Education Climate Taskforce and have a separate entry for it.
AD: Please, let’s do that. That will help a lot.
FA: Just a quick question. Did that taskforce end up with the budget they requested? Wasn’t there a request for a budget to deal with an outside consultant?
AD: They put forth a systematic plan of action for the coming year. We funded the reassignment, and Michael and I met, and we are supportive of their work for the coming year.
FA: Does that mean there’s money?
AD: Some money, yes.
FA: Does that mean the person that we locate, who’s outside the college to work with that can expect to have reassigned time also?
AD: If it’s a course that we can’t afford to cancel or we can’t find someone to replace that person, we’ll have to figure out some other way of compensating them.
FA: It’s so late now; I don’t know that we’d have time to do it for fall.
AD: I had a discussion with Jeanne LaCourt earlier – actually it was last week. She was going to talk to Avelino to try and determine if he has any future role on the committee.
FA: Officially, I think we had two people…
FA: He’s from that college.
FA: The other person we’re talking about replacing is outside of the college.
AD: They were both outside of the college.
FA: They did want people who were from outside the college.
FA: We will figure out some process to replace…
AD: You need to do something to reactivate, recharge the university-wide taskforce.
FA: We pulled out the document – I believe I gave President Potter a copy of that too – I think there was a report written a couple of years ago. You were involved with that, right? We need to figure out what we need to do regarding that. It’s a big conversation so let’s not do it now.
AD: I just want to say, if we’re going to have a taskforce on diversity, it can’t be done lethargically or badly. It’s really our commitment to address this in a timely fashion, do good quality work, and get something done. I don’t want to fumble around with this.
AD: Can we make that the last word? I would like to adjourn.
2. Announce, Discuss, and Bulletin Boards (FA – 9/7/2006)
FA: Are you going to have an announcement about the bulletin board next time?
AD: Would you like us to demo the bulletin board for this group or just demo it for the campus?
FA: I think we need to get the bulletin board up and out. I think we can attend public demonstrations of the bulletin board. We have lots of things to talk about at Meet and Confer. We don’t need to block out a time for a demonstration.
AD: Normally we would have more feedback before we roll out something. The only people we’ve shown this to is the Academic Affairs Council and TLTR last spring. If people are willing to have something less than perfect out there, we’re happy to roll it out. TLTR liked it. Academic Affairs liked it.
FA: Roll it out.
3. Center for International Studies (FA – 1/18/2007) – not discussed
4. Tenure Calendar (FA – 2/1/2007) – not discussed
5. Requests for copies of replication, articulation, and transfer agreements (FA – 3/22/2007) – not discussed
6. Request for report on Initiative Budget Spending (FA – 12/07/2007) – not discussed.