Final Approved 10-4-07

Meet and Confer

September 20, 2007

Admin:† Michael Spitzer, Earl Potter, Nancy Jessee, Larry Chambers, Wanda Overland, Mitch Rubinstein, Kate Steffens, Rex Veeder, Dennis Nunes

Faculty:† Judy Kilborn, Annette Schoenberger, Michael Tripp, JoAnn Gasparino, Fred Hill, Bob Inkster, John Palmer, Frances Kayona, Balsy Kasi, Bill Langen, Bill Hudson, David Warne, Polly Chappell Ė Note taker

Approval of Minutes

 

1.     August 30, 2007

FA: I believe they are ready and we both agree to accept them?

 

Admin: Yes.

 

Unfinished Business

FA: Items one and three weíre going to wait until next time. The Provost and I agree that we need the documents in front of us for next time.

 

1.     Charge to Task Force on International Studies (FA) (08/30/07)ónot discussed.

 

2.     Return to Title Four (ADM) (08/30/07)

FA: I understand from faculty working on this work group that there is a meeting next Friday. I understand that there is a document floating around. I am requesting that faculty get this pretty quickly so they can be prepared to respond to that document. Is that possible?

 

Admin: Yes. I have another draft. I received comments on it, but I havenít had a chance to incorporate them on the draft. I will send those out.

 

FA: Who is looking at that right now? I know the faculty are Annette, Dave Warne.

 

Admin: Me [Mitch Rubinstein], Sue Bayerl, and Mike Uran. Iíve taken the material from the undergraduate bulletin and Iím revising that from recent issues that weíve been discussing and working on.

 

FA: So should we leave this on Unfinished Business? Will we have a copy by next time?

 

Admin: Yes.

 

3.     Charge for Online Policy and Procedure committee (FA) (08/30/07)ónot discussed.

 

4.     Zmora Agreement (ADM) (08/30/07)

Admin: I gave you a copy. We talked about clarifying the language. Itís the same but itís on letterhead. Hereís a more official document clarifying the language. Essentially it identifies three steps and the idea is that it goes to faculty in regard to each of those steps although in some departments where the department has a standing search committee, one and two might be combined. Any questions on that?

 

FA: I appreciate the headings on this with the dates. It might seem like a fussy request.

 

Admin: Not at all.

 

FA: Steve [Ludwig] could tell us a story. Remember that policy you pulled out of drawer a couple years ago having to do with space disputes in departments and how they are resolved? It was typed on a typewriter, but we had no idea where it came from or who decided itónothing.

 

Admin: Oh, yes.

 

FA: So, I really appreciate having this dated information with the official Michael Spitzer signature. Thank you. Any response to the language there?

 

FA: Iím happy to report my dean has already used step one. (Laughter) Oh, there she is.

 

FA: Is this something that we want to take back and talk about?

 

FA: Just a picky thing. Number two ďselected consistent with IFO/MnSCU agreement.Ē

 

FA: To me thatís a really important change because obviously thereís an agreement with both IFO and MnSCU will enforce. Any other responses?

 

Admin: I will add that to a revised copy.

 

FA: Are we ready to accept this or do you want to take it back, faculty?

 

FA: I think this clarifies the action post-Zmora.

 

FA: Okay, so then the FA is accepting this language with MnSCU added in. This will be distributed how?

 

Admin: The deans all have copies of this and it will have to be sent out by the offices of the Deans.

 

FA: Once I get the official copy, I can also distribute this at Senate.

 

Admin: Sure.

 

Admin: Larry [Chambers] is also working on integrated guidelines to how searches are conducted that will take into account all the agreements and Affirmative Action practices loaded into one document, and that will be going up on the web. And this would obviously be part of that process. †

 

FA: We can take this one off the agenda.

 

5.     Request for Academic Policy Working Group† (ADM) (08/30/07)

Admin: We requested four members. We received the names of three of those.

 

FA: You should receive a faculty appointment from Academic Affairs Committee fairly soon. I can notify Mitch of the fourth faculty member, and we can take that off.

 

6.     UDWR Assessment Committee (ADM) (08/30/07)

Admin: Last year Faculty Senate reconstituted the UDWR as an ad hoc committee. The committee made great strides, but there is still work left to be done on the writing requirements for some 120 or so programs. We completed the work on about half of them, and thereís work left to do like just a final review. In some of them, no work has been done at all. There is a fair amount of work left. Weíd like to have some mechanism in place to continue the work that the ad hoc committee did last year.

 

FA: I served on the ad hoc committee, which I guess is the second ad hoc committee since February 2004. There is a final report that I donít know if itís gone forward officially. I think Senate needs to review it one last time, next meeting I believe.

 

FA: It came to the last Senate meeting in May. We sent it out to departments and we tabled it time definite to the second Senate meeting so departments would have a chance to review it. But Iím assuming, Mitch, that you received a copy of it?

 

Admin: Yes.

 

FA: The consensus among the individuals on the ad hoc committee was that we had gone about as far as we could go in terms of compliance. That there were various prods, and weíre all faculty so we canít threaten anyone. Whatever gaps exist to be filled, perhaps there ought to be some prodding from some source other than our faculty committee. I should say, too, that actual assessment data wasnít the charge of the committee. Our task was simply to set the criteria for looking at assessment criteria, which we did for all that we received. Have there been any received since last May?

 

Admin: Not that Iím aware of.

 

FA: Am I missing something here? Were there some submitted that we did not respond to? I thought we responded to all we had.

 

Admin: I believe thatís correct. There still are substantial gaps and it varies by college.

 

FA: This is an ad hoc committee that extended its term a year. As faculty, I think weíve done what we can do.

 

FA: Maybe weíre premature that Senate hasnít had a final look at it yet.

 

FA: Itís on the Senate agenda for next week. And maybe reporting back to the departments would make obvious what departments are not in compliance, but...

 

Admin: Would you detail the nature of the gaps?

 

Admin: A completed writing requirement would include the identification of a course and the method in that course for the UDWR. For example CFS 423 is the course: the method is a portfolio, they have to submit criteria for assessing the project, in this case the portfolio, and then the ad hoc committee that met last year was to review and approve those assessment criteria. About half the cases of those have been completed. In some instances the criteria were reviewed but not quite yet approved. Perhaps the committee ran out of time. Iím not clear. I donít know if all my data is up to date.

 

Admin: Before you go on, you said you thought that some that had been submitted did not get reviewed, and Michael [Connaughton] is shaking his head ďno.Ē

 

FA: Iím shaking my head at the word ďapprovedĒ because that wasnít our charge. We reviewed and commented extensively. We didnít get responses in many cases.

 

Admin: Thatís correct. Some of them were reviewed and itís not clear that the process was complete. In some instances the criteria were not submitted, and in a number of instances, the method wasnít identified. In a few instances, the department or program did not identify the course.

 

Admin: Again, for clarification, what established that expectation that departments would do this?

 

Admin: The University adopted UDWR a number of years agoÖ

 

FA: At semester conversion.

 

Admin: Yes. And I understood that this was in lieu of a second composition course taken by students in the first year. So the expectation was that each program would adopt UDWR for every student with implementation in 2004 for students who enrolled in 2005.

 

Admin: And I assume that the curriculum was established by the faculty and voted through the Senate?

 

FA: Yes.

 

Admin: So may I ask a simple question: who does hold the stick when departments violate a commitment by the faculty to create curriculum structures?

 

FA: Supervisor is not in my job description.

 

Admin: Is that your understanding? That if a department was complying with the vote of the faculty to establish an expectation, then it comes back to us for problem solving resolution, corrections, etc.?

 

FA: For me we have a major function in curriculum, but then it goes on to you folks for final approval, so itís only part of the process. Then the supervisory roles fall on you.

 

Admin: Understood.

 

FA: Wouldnít this be similar to the record-keeping function that happens once a degree program has been established? The Office of Records and Registration reviews it to determine if in fact the student has completed the approved curriculum, and if not, they wonít graduate. So, I would expect in a program that has a requirement of UDWR that there was not evidence that the requirement was being met consistent with what we said would be best practice, that department would be told and given an opportunity to remedy the problem or they would stop offering degrees.

 

FA: My understanding is that we propose curriculum, but the Office of Academic Affairs accepts them. That puts that task of enforcing in Academic Affairs. Iím not convinced that there was ever a document saying there was an agreement that we would do this. But Iím sure there was. Someone played with our minds. Itís been very strange.

 

Admin: I would like to get the report back from the Senate once thatís approved, and weíll provide copies to the Deans for the Deans to address this.

 

FA: A public thank you to that committee for several years work in moving this forward. Iíll email them that their work is done.

 

Admin: If there are departments that did not give the committee what was expected, if Administration now takes action and there is paper that comes forward that would need review, how would we respond to that?

 

FA: I believe that would go to our curriculum committee.

 

FA: The next piece is assessment, for which we have a University Assessment Committee.

 

Admin: Where these come together is that the piece that is missing is the assessment part of the evaluation of the assessment criteria. That was a large part of the work that the ad hoc committee did. We need to ask some group, and it would probably have to be faculty to perform this function to review the criteria.

 

FA: Isnít that a normal piece of a curriculum proposal?

 

FA: I think the ad hoc committee could take a look if there is sufficient detail. I think that could be done.

 

FA: Would that be an acceptable process?

 

Admin: Yes. Iíll just have to coordinate the efforts.

 

FA: Do you want to leave this on the agenda, or should I informally notify you?

 

Admin: We might as well just leave it on.

 

Admin: Can we change what it is? Itís a follow up to the UDWR.

 

FA: Report maybe?

 

Admin: Yes.

 

FA: We will bring back Senate action.

 

7.     Academic Policies (ADM) (08/30/07)

FA: We accepted two academic policies last Meet and Confer. We took two back to Senate, and Senate did approve the Graduate Policy on Standards of Scholarship, but we tabled until next Tuesday the Policy on Prerequisites because there were some questions from the Senate floor. Iíll summarize them. There were concerns about the language concerning Fail, Failure, Failing in the opening of the policy, which is old language thatís already in the policy. Some people asked was that F? That question might seem stupid, but the language could also mean it wasnít meeting the standards that the program had set up for moving onto the next course. There were questions about that. There was also the need for reassurance that the system could handle enforcing prerequisites since last time we did this, the system crashed. And there were also questions concerning whether the system could handle multiple prerequisites for the same course.

 

FA: And co-requisites was the other one.

 

FA: We are going to follow up on the conversation next Senate meeting. Can we get any answers to those questions?

 

Admin: I can answer the second one about prerequisites. The system, Iím told, can handle prerequisite checking. I donít know, so Iím not going to respondóI didnít ask if it could handle multiple prerequisites or co-requisites, but I know it can handle prerequisites. You raise a good point because of the issue. In some cases the prerequisite for the course is a C or better in the prior courses as opposed to passing or failing. So that needs to be clarified.

 

FA: Quite a few people spoke to what does that mean. People came up immediately with those two different definitions. Should we just get the questions from Senate and take those back to you and look at re-crafting the policy?

 

FA: I think there may be a motion in Senate to simplify the language.

 

FA: Weíll bring a report back next time, specifically on the prerequisites policy.

 

FA: The questions all concern the previous wording.

 

Admin: Thatís interesting.

 

FA: I think whatís going to come back may be something that addresses that.

 

Admin: I raised this issue in the Policy Working Group and as soon as I mentioned the issues, there was a click of recognition that this might be an issue we ought to address.

 

FA: My question is: could we agree here to refer this to the Academic Policy Working Group?

 

Admin: We certainly could look at it.

 

FA: That makes a lot of sense to me. And if a motion comes forward we could send that to the Academic Policy Working Group.

 

Admin: Do we understand the systemís capabilities with respect to the relationship to the policies?

 

Admin: Certainly with a single prerequisite. Iíll need to verify if it can handle multiple prerequisites.

 

Admin: Is that background work that has to precede discussion?

 

Admin: It can occur at the same time. It shouldnít take long to answer those questions.

 

FA: In Calculus I think youíre supposed to get a C. We know even if the system canít. I look at somebodyís class list. So even if the system canít, we know. This isnít something that requires the system to do this. Itís more can we actually have a published policy on this.

 

Admin: Thatís the first thing you do is have a policy of an academic practice.

 

FA: Right.

 

Admin: Next step is turn to the system and check it. It has to be capable otherwise you will blow up student services.

 

FA: That occurred once already. They are working on it. It works for the math classes.

 

FA: And business classes, too. How time consuming is it to test that? Iím asking you from a Computer Science point-of-view.

 

FA: In a system like this? Itís not easy at all. The difficulty is with transfer students. They donít have the courses on record, but I think they are putting those courses in so that might be eliminated.

 

FA: Weíre talking about a system crashing and MnSCU comes with a certain reputation of that.

 

FA: I understand what youíre saying, and I looked at the D2L failure patterns at statewide Meet and Confer, so it is a serious question. It sounds like weíre agreeing to first sending it to the Academic Policy Working Group to get a good academic policy, and in the meantime, looking at the systems. But simple prerequisite checking it should be able to handle?

 

Admin: Yes.

 

FA: Weíll be referring this out, and it will come back to us on the Meet and Confer agenda when itís ready.

 

8.     Center for International Studies (FA) (01/18/07)

FA: You gave us an update last year, which we found very useful, of the fees collected and the use they were put to. And weíd like an update for this year. You indicated your willingness to give us a report on the tuition, so weíd like that as well. Is there anything you can tell us about the tuition today, or should we just wait?

 

Admin: Let me get the report.

 

FA: Is it possible to do the tuition piece now? I know in spring when we talked, the accountant in that office did a lot of work in putting together materials in various places, and is it possible get the tuition in that picture now?

 

Admin: I donít see why not.

 

FA: Weíll follow up on that later then, okay?

 

9.     Tenure Calendar (FA) (02/01/07)

FA: We would like to combine items nine in Unfinished Business and one in New Business because we think theyíre related.

 

FA: We believe they are related because the evaluation for promotion and tenure as it relates to our teaching calendaróthey create pressures, one to the other, on faculty work schedules. We hope we can get a group of people to begin to examine the EPT in light of the common start date, where we already had a calendar for a couple of more years, and that they would be able to work out the interface to try to create real opportunity for give-and-take in that process without creating undue stress. And then we see that task force moving to examine the lessons being learned about the proposed calendars and the developments that occur relative to the uniform starting date. Weíre prepared to identify people to be on the working group.

 

Admin: I have no objection to that. I think that should work.

 

FA: I want to remind you that one piece of the conversation before, in looking at EPT calendars, as youíre calling it, was making sure that we reviewed that calendar in a way that would help make it less onerous, and that would give more time for certain pieces of that process that weíre having difficulty getting done. Maybe this isnít as simple as the academic calendar being done; I think there are more pieces to it. Maybe we want the same configuration? Or do you want a different configuration of numbers of people?

 

Admin: I think we need to have different or additional people working on the EPT schedule or calendar. The academic calendar for next year is done. So itís really looking at the 2010 calendar. And if it works, it will work for subsequent calendars. So Iím not sure if we need both at this point.

 

FA: We need to begin looking at the academic calendar for the following year.

 

Admin: We have to do that, okay.

 

FA: We have Ď07-Ď08 and Ď08-í09.

 

Admin: And Ď09-Ď10.

 

Admin: I guess I would think we would want two different groups. There may be some overlap. But I think we want people who are familiar with the EPT process looking at that part and people looking at the academic calendar who have same expertise on the teaching schedule.

 

Admin: The group we had last time for the academic calendar had faculty representatives from the Senate and a whole list of other departments who had interest in the academic calendar like starting dates and holidays which is different from the EPT factor.

 

FA: My point is that if we donít include some overlap between the two groups, neither agenda will take the other agenda into account.

 

Admin: The committee that would look at the EPT calendar would have to work with the academic calendar that is already established for next year. And that should set a pattern for subsequent EPT and tenure calendars.

 

FA: Do you want to caucus?

 

FA: It seems to me that weíve agreed that the first task is the item number nine.

 

FA: I think we do have agreement on that. What we donít have agreement about is whether it should be one or two committees.

 

FA: It could be the calendar committee minus the extra people.

 

Admin: Or put another way, you might want to consider the same faculty representatives for both.

 

FA: My concern is that we need to get started on this.

 

FA: And there are serious problems with the calendar in terms of getting the work done between PDRs and the tenure process. Letís talk.

 

CAUCUS

 

FA: We can see that thereís a difference between the two different tasks. Weíre thinking that perhaps one of the goals weíve been in discussion with the President on regarding professional improvement and task forcing that committee along with the calendar would be natural.

 

FA: The tenure calendar.

 

FA: Thereís some overlap there. We could begin the process more quickly if we separated out from the committee.

 

Admin: Thatís a good idea. I need to say something about that. Not every member of the Administration team has seen the document weíre working on and weíve been talking about identifying a list of issues that we can work on together that would improve our work together. And itís a fairly short list. One of the things was to improve the PDR, PDP process. I think that would make sense. Thatís a task that we need some folks to work on. The calendar issue is tied to that. That would make sense to me.

 

FA: What we could do then is agree to convene the Academic Calendar Group, and can you give a list of what the last breakdown was? Specific membership?

 

Admin: I pulled together last yearís roster and I have the new charge.

 

FA: So you could give us that charge and that roster and we could come back with a response?

 

Admin: Yes.

 

FA: In the meanwhile the leadership from both the FA and Administration could have a conversation about how we might set up this working group to deal with the tenure calendar and the PDP/PDR sorts of concerns. Would that seem reasonable?

 

Admin: It seems reasonable to me. We just need to be aware there are contractual things that are required.

 

Admin: I have a comment. A lot of the work that the Academic Calendar Group did last year of making adjustments with the common start date, and having done that, I would anticipate the work of the next work group of having an easier time by simply taking the principals we adopted and applying it one more year out.

 

FA: So weíll take this and weíll get back to you on both.

 

Admin: Please note this is last yearís roster. So we will put out a call for new members.

 

FA: What we should do is either confirm the configuration or not, and react to the charge?

 

Admin: Thank you. Weíll keep this on the agenda for follow up.

 

10.  Requests for copies of replication, articulation, and transfer agreements (FA) (3/22/07)

FA: We requested information concerning replication, articulation, and transfer agreements. And we got the information about articulation and transfer agreements, but we still need replication information, which, as I understand, is more difficult to get. Iím wondering if we should set up some sort of calendar or some sort of tickler file that we get these on a regular basis, because this is information that we ask for every year.

 

Admin: Unless there were new ones or discontinued ones, they would be the same. I will get you the replication.

 

FA: This is one of the things we ask for, like the quarterly budget, for example. Iím wondering if there is a simpler way of getting these updates on a regular basis.

 

FA: I think thereís a MnSCU website that tells about transfer agreements.

 

Admin: Yes.

 

FA: Maybe we need our own place where thereís replication and we pull it out from the web.

 

FA: We could do the same thing with other sorts of information that we ask for on an ongoing basis. It would be wonderful to have a quarterly budget report that people know about.

 

FA: Theyíre not supposed to be secret?

 

Admin: No.

 

FA: This could maybe be one of the pieces, long-term, for the website? Perhaps we could go through a portal for information that is relevant to us internally?

 

Admin: It would be internal information.

 

Admin: Do we have a list of all the things that you routinely ask for?

 

FA: We could get one.

 

Admin: That would be helpful. We could put it on the calendar for dates that the information would be shared annually.

 

11.  Request for report on Initiative Budget Spending (FA) (12/07/06)

FA: A year ago I received a copy of the description of the committed carry forward that was included in the amount of money that appeared to be excess revenue to spend. Some of it dated back several years. I know we have not yet closed the books from the previous fiscal year. But I also recall that you made some calculations that describe what did get spent since we last visited. I also know weíre talking about the development of a policy with regard to carry forward, which perhaps will result in a smaller amount of these funds having to guess at where theyíre at. I wonder when we might be able to take a look at what actually happened to those committed carry forwards, if any of them lapsed in the sense that they were rolled into the general fund as opposed to the specific category, and if there are commitments in this year?

 

Admin: I can provide you with what weíve agreed to carry forward from last year. It includes the typical things like faculty travel and all that is contractually carried forward. But I can show that, and the other thing that I recall we had is that we made some commitments a few years ago for specific items that werenít really carried forward but theyíre identified in that initiative group. And thatís what weíre putting together now, where the expenses actually occurred in the initiative group. If you would like me to bring the carry forward to the next Meet and Confer or give it to your sooner, I can get that to you. But what we did with carry forward at the end of 2007 in terms of at the end of the fiscal year, thereís a little discussion about it now, but thatís pretty much settled now as to what that is. So it would give you an accurate picture of that. And then weíll put together another element out there, which is unusual circumstances and particular projects that we committed one time funds to and weíre keeping track of. Thatís another issue I think. Should I provide it to you and also take it to Budget Advisory?

 

FA: Yes.

 

New Business

 

1.     Request for working group on new Academic Calendar (ADM) (08/30/07)ódiscussed above under Old Business, item nine: Tenure Calendar.

 

2.     Summer School (ADM) (9/20/07

Admin: Iím providing you with the summer session information for summer í07 and the budget for summer 2008. We will begin with the first sheet. For those of you who have served on this body previously, this follows the same format as previously. Thereís not any change in terms of how weíre going about this. There is one change in terms in how it is allocated, and how it is being done this year given this is a year where negotiations are ongoing and we donít have a budget yet.

 

The first page is essentially the outcome of the summer in each of the colleges and the income generated. You get that by multiplying tuition rates by credits; the costs are our salary costs. Those are the only two variables we look at here. This analysis is only of tuition income and salary expenses. The far right column essentially indicates what the return was on the dollar invested in faculty salary to the university. Youíll note the similarity across the colleges. The money returned above that, initially spent on salaries, is from the general fund of the university and budgeted in this fiscal year. Keep in mind the summer is the first part of this fiscal year. The return is budgeted into the universityís budget for the year.

 

The second page: two columns; the estimated tuition income, which is the whole summer session: approximately $5,000,000. What is unique this year from previous years is that the budget is going to be held constant. Normally if the budget were to be held constant, it would be a decrease in the amount to the faculty because of salary increases and thus a decrease in summer session classes. Summer session enrollment, the total number of credits generated is down just over 3%, and I proposed here a budget that would keep the amount to faculty constant from last summer; and thus the number of classes would be constant as before. The amount that was allocated last year: $2,227,792 to the colleges and the other numbers are the same, also. What will occur after the collective bargaining settlement has been reached, whatever the amount is will then be added into this through Administrative Affairs. So it does project an increase, but that increase is very difficult at this moment to determine. So it will be a certain 3%, 4%, who knows what the amount is. Does that make sense? This does not project as it would some years if this amount were held constant; seeing a decrease for faculty salary increases. Salary increases will be added in at a later time. So this projects the same number of courses, the same amount to our colleges as in summer 2007.

 

Again most of you are familiar with the enrollment demand courses, for adding courses late in the process; if we see students demanding seating more than we projected. Some other structural salaries is that summer session funds and thereís amounts for that. I made one change this year. For years there was a term called ďspecial projects.Ē These were the proposals submitted by faculty to the Provost for workshops, seminars, and sorts of things that would not be funded under our regular summer session. And these are then on a competitive basis reviewed by faculty committee, by the Provost, and ultimately awards are usually $60,000, usually funding for faculty projects during the summer. It was called ďspecial projectsĒ and honestly, I didnít like that term even though we used it for years; I changed this to ďinnovation awards.Ē I think it better reflects what faculty are doing and the kind of proposals put forward; they do reflect innovation. And essentially they are special projects. Not much different, but I thought the new title better reflected essentially what faculty were submitting. So itís going to be innovation awards for this year, and perhaps next year Iíll put special projects behind it. This is not to produce confusion and not to change things with this $60,000. It goes through to essentially expense budget of approximately $2,000,000; although that will be increased after the settlements.

 

The last page, this is the page you might have the greatest interest, this is a spreadsheet identical to the spreadsheet function Iíve used previously. The far right column is the amount allocated to the colleges for summer session Ď08. Youíll see in the little box down on the bottom the amount allocated for 2007. They add up to the same amount. Essentially youíll see as a function of this yearís credit of $2,227,000 reallocation produces slightly different figures for each of the colleges over summer 2007. The amount remains constant. For example, HCOB decreased by $33,000; that was a function of enrollment. In competition, in a sense, with the other colleges. If you have more specific questions, Iíll be happy to address them. Each of you participated previously in this forum and have seen documents like this over the last several years.

 

FA: The difference in estimated tuition income and actual tuition income, is that that we werenít able to charge the higher tuition in inter-session?

 

Admin: This is for 2008. This is what Iím projecting in 2008; the amount of income I predict weíll generate through summer session one, inter-session, and session twoójust over $5,000,000. This year we generate, this is this yearís figure: $4,900,000.

 

FA: What throws me off is your notation ďno change in undergraduate credits.Ē

 

Admin: What Iím projecting given that we were down this year, I project next summer we will be flat. We will not change. We will not have a decrease in credits next summer. So this income projection is predicated on an assumption of flat enrollment next year. If we were to have a decrease, the $5,000,000 would decrease. That in a short-hand form I was trying to show.†

 

FA: Iím trying to understand why the COB went down in tuition.

 

Admin: It had a reduction in credits from the year before. Its productivity in terms of return was fine, but there were fewer credits generated this year in Business from previous years. And that shows that. Youíd have to compare these from previous years. I have them if youíd like.

 

FA: Two things. One is kind of a nutty question. On the first page you have ďotherĒ under colleges. Does that ďotherĒ have to do with instructional salaries on the next page?

 

Admin: Yes.

 

FA: When you gave me this set of pages you commented that we had been down this last summer but you were not concerned about that and that you had projected flat enrollment for this coming year. Can you talk a little bit about that, please?

 

Admin: We need to be diligent in terms of what weíre offering. I provided to the Deans and the Associate Deans an analysis of all their classes. We need to look and make certain what weíre doing is appropriate, meaning the kinds of classes are attractive and they complement well other courses and the configuration in terms of timing and courses taken during the regular academic year. We need to carefully analyze where there is demand, where we didnít need enrollments during the year. So essentially what weíre doing, weíre working with a substantial amount of information and meeting with each of the summer session administrators and associate deans who work in each college with the faculty developing a schedule.

 

FA: The online creditsóhow do they get distributed? And how about the total income going up with a flat indication?

 

Admin: First of all, about the total income going up although flat enrollment, thereís a tuition increase. It will generate that change estimated at the same number of credits this summer. I just factored a tuition increase. Then secondly, the work done through Continuing Studies is not included in this analysis. These are only the credits generated from the classes allocated from summer sessions. Continuing Studies works on its own 12-month budget; and it generates summer session credits, which do accrue to the total number credits to the university in summer, but are not included in this analysis because this is the analysis to the colleges for our traditional summer session work on campus. There are other summer session activities going on funded through other ways.

 

FA: Any course offered in the summer through Continuing Studies is not going to be reflected in here?

 

Admin: Right.

 

FA: So itís very important that we define a courseÖ

 

Admin: Again, maybe the courses should be offered in Continuing Studies. But the dollars I have are for work on campus; this is that analysis. Some work may be better done through web-based or through Continuing Studies. Iím not opposed to that at all. But these dollars do not fund that, thus those credits generated donít go into that analysis.

 

FA: With our doctoral programs coming up, a majority of those classes will be loaded up during the summer. Would that be reflected as a summer program?

 

Admin: Yes, it will.

 

FA: So what it means is that if youíre offering something on campus it doesnít make a whole lot of sense to offer it through Continuing Studies, as well, unless there is a large enrollment because Continuing Studies takes away from the on-campus enrollment and it shows up as a decrease. So if you want to offer it, you can still offer it online but you have to offer it online through the department and not through Continuing Studies, otherwise youíre going to lose that.

 

FA: I taught a class this summer and it was offered through Continuing Studies because we didnít have the money. Is that a reason we would go through Continuing Studies, because we donít have the money and we need a course?

 

Admin: We try and put our courses with higher enrollment through Dennis and then some courses that have six to eight students---

 

FA: It makes sense to go through the college. Okay. Thank you.

 

FA: Any other questions? Thank you very much.

 

 

3.     Sponsored Programs (ADM) (9/20/07)

Admin: I want to clarify that Richard Rothaus has requested and has been granted a leave of absence. I know there have been rumors that there were some other reasons why he might not be here this year, but it was based on his request for leave for particular activities. He will return at the end of the year. In the interim, Dennis [Nunes] will oversee the office of Sponsored Programs. And now Dennis can say a few things about that.

 

Admin: A couple comments. I met with the staff in the center. I met with Richard before he left. I would hope to provide faculty the same services that Sponsored Programs has. In fact my goal is that at the university we will increase our work in Sponsored Programs. Faculty that talked with Richard, Iím going to try to assist. Iím learning a lot about contracts and all sorts of things that I have not worked closely with. If you, as faculty, wish to pursue Sponsored Programs opportunities, I will be very pleased to meet with you. Iím dividing my time between the two offices. This in no way diminishes our commitment to Sponsored Programs. In fact this is an opportunity to look at some things, do things differently, and have a different voice. I am available and Iím anxious to work with all the faculty who have an interest in Sponsored Programs work.

 

Iím considering trying to assist that commitment in meeting with some additional unmet needs. Iím asking the staff there to tell me what they feel are road blocks to faculty to help them win grant contracts. What are the sorts of things faculty find as a problem. And potentially Iím going to request from the Provost some resources to provide assistance. If, for example, youíre determined, and the issue is writing, some of these proposals for faculty who have not written grant proposals may seem difficult. They may have great ideas but find this a bit intimidating to produce the necessary competitive grants, and they may not be worth it. If there were someone who could assist in doing this work, thatís one thought.

 

Again, in the next 10 days Iím hoping to have a number of ideas generated by the staff and by input from faculty about sorts of things. I hope to meet with Faculty Association Professional Development and Research Committees to arrange that. Iíd like to have a chance to discuss with you the sorts of things that could help that office be more effective. Again Iíve just had a chance to meet twice with staff. I hope to know a good deal more in the next few weeks than I do at this moment about that operation and how it can serve the faculty more effectively.

 

FA: My sense is that you want to hear from faculty and specifically youíll be asking the faculty committees who historically work with Sponsored Programs what we can do in the next year to fill that gap.

 

Admin: Absolutely.

 

FA: The numbers seem to add up to a loss of one fulltime excluded manager. Thatís a budget savings of substantial proportions. Dennis, you say youíre spending half your time in each office. It would seem just on its face that the services of one of those offices is either going to decline or youíve been hiding. I know you well enough, youíre not hiding.

 

Admin: Weíre making him sleep deprived. (Laughter)

 

FA: Short term these things can be managed, but long termÖ

 

Admin: Some of those savings will be used to a degree that is necessary to supplement some of the activities that Dennis will engage in.

 

Admin: Iím not dividing my time equally at this point. I have more time in Graduate Programs right now than I do in Sponsored Programs. Iíve asked the staff in Sponsored Programs to look carefully at their position descriptions and determine ways in which they might engage in some activities beyond what theyíre currently in. There may be some opportunities or there may be something they believe is not critical. After talking to faculty Iíll have some feedback. But Iíve asked them to consider engaging in some of this work which is beyond what they may normally do in Richardís absence.

 

FA: So we expect invitations to these committees on how you can maintain the same level or higher level of services?

 

Admin: Absolutely. I donít see this as diminishing this institutionís Sponsored Programs. I see it as Richard taking a leave and weíre working to provide the same level if not enhanced services to faculty, and an increase in the number of submissions and awards.

 

FA: Thank you.

 

4.     Office of the Chancellor IT Funding (ADM) (9/20/07)

Admin: One of the things that weíve done is look at the IT funding that MnSCU has made available to us, just over $500,000 a year. Weíve put together this list of priorities according to which the various requests for funding will be prioritized so that that money can be allocated in a rational way based on some criteria. What you have here is a list of the criteria that have been put together. I want to make two editorial corrections or changes. Item one; Iíd like to add ďProjects that enhance the ability to ensure continuity of operations.Ē And thereís groups that provided recommendations or are asked to review projects; change ďAdministrative AffairsĒ to ďAdministrative Computing Advisory Group.Ē But the list of the five priorities are pretty much the same. Those are just clarifications. This list was presented to the Budget Advisory Group, which had the opportunity to comment on it earlier in the week.

 

Admin: Itís been slightly edited since then.

 

FA: Part of our paper has to do with the group. Iím going to hand out a duplication of the things you have because we have an earlier draft of this information that went to the Budget Advisory Committee. †

 

FA: I made the comment to our Executive Committee that the Budget Advisory Committee did that which we had hoped to do. It provided a forum where discussions could occur freely between all of the interested parties on campus, which then allowed FA to take a position to support the request from the discussion. So our motion is to support the following funding proposals: $60,000 for software licensing; $80,000 for electronic classroom maintenance and replacement; $116,000 server systems; tech support $40,000; faculty computer replacement becomes a balancer, that is it becomes what we fully request and are entitled to; $100,000 for data center modernization; $40,000 for D2L support; $100,000 for remote access to software; $10,000 for radios that work on a common frequency with local public safety agencies.

 

Admin: Just two small notes on that: the $40,000 for technical support and D2L were predicated. By the time you hired somebody, it would be about half a year so that is why they are not the $78,000 listed to the far right.

 

FA: Both tech support and D2L?

 

Admin: Yes. There is a mix there of one time and ongoing funds, that was discussed at the Advisory Group.

 

Admin: Thank you for the recommendation.

 

FA: There was a second motion also.

 

FA: That must have happened when I went to teach my class.

 

FA: One of the topics that came up was the fact that smart class rooms are very popular. It would be ideal for 90% of the classrooms to be like that. We know that canít be done. We also are concerned about all this moving around; departments and faculty donít know what the plans are for any of the rooms when they are being renovated. So what we passed was a motion that says basically, we want to know what the plans are, and when you spend money on renovations, you want to be considering the instructional needs for faculty as well. †

 

Admin: I think Kristi had said 106 of our classrooms, and that could also include some labs that arenít exclusively classrooms that are smart, but they are equivalently intelligent; a certain level of smart. I think that our goal in renovating buildings is to make classrooms smart. And we do talk to the faculty about their needs within the rooms, as we did in Centennial and as weíve been discussing the Business building and others, weíre doing the same thing. With Centennial, the classrooms in that building will be smart. When we do the Business building, the classrooms will be smart. The ones in the labs, the instructional spaces in the Wick addition will be appropriately smart. There is some special circumstances in a room with a cadaver that are different than a typical smart classroom. And some of the labs have requirements that arenít the typical smart classrooms. There we worked with the faculty to develop those rooms. Riverview, which is on the horizon also, will also be appropriately smart. It has some special circumstances that represent what speech communications faculty want, which are video recording and other things that arenít typical, but are specific to their needs.

 

FA: Thatís why we said meet the instructional needs.

 

FA: Thereís not a blanket.

 

FA: Iím teaching four classes; two with editions that are perhaps three years old and two with brand new editions. The pedagogical assumption in the two newer editions is totally that you have access to the class and the class is in a smart classroom. Down here where the rubber hits the road, at least in my discipline, thereís a really fast movement to the assumption this class is going to be taught in a smart classroom. For one of those classes Iím not assigned a smart classroom; believe you me, Iím doing work-a-rounds. So, I just want you to have a heads up at least in my discipline this class is going to be taught.

 

FA: One of our key concerns underlying our responses here is that we really want the basics to be supported, the basics of technology. I was down at a meeting, statewide Meet and Confer, and the metaphor used was ďbridges;Ē making sure our bridges are strong. And this is one of our main concerns. We do want to ensure that the basic needs are met and that the money is going there. Thatís why we said in the second piece of our motion that the faculty want to spend some of the carryover money from last year to meet the instructional needs of faculty.

 

Admin: One of the things I want to point out is that in addition to equipping some of these rooms is the requirement somewhere down the road to replace equipment in the rooms. And so weíre trying very hard to make sure that we allocate funds so that so we can accumulate dollars over a period of time to replace the equipment and to maintain those rooms. We allocated out of those one-time special incentive funds enough money to maintain each of the classrooms that we had at that time, but weíve since added 20 new electronic classrooms. And we havenít been able to allocate dollars to maintain those additional 20 classrooms. Weíve been very fortunate that the cost of equipment has gone down so we can cover more of those classrooms with the funds that we have. One of the ongoing issues that we have to deal with is to see that we can maintain those classrooms and keep them up-to-date by keeping the funds in the account to do that on a regular basis. I just wanted to point that out. So, it is not just putting in an electronic classroom and saying okay weíve got a smart classroom. In three years that smart classroom is going to be dumb if it still works.

 

FA: Certainly fulfilling the educational instructional needs of the faculty and students is required. Thank you for keeping that in the picture.

 

Admin: Itís an important piece of it. Just understand that the cost is more than the initial investment.

 

FA: I would like to see some of the responsibility for security and maintenance of the equipment, for the faculty to take some of that responsibility. Weíre in the habit of sometimes not turning off the equipment, not locking it up, and weíre losing equipment and bulbs are burning out. So maybe some general message can go out to just remind faculty that they have a responsibility to assist with the maintenance and security of the equipment, logging off and locking up.

 

FA: Weíre done with this item. We can move on.

 

5.     MnSCU Grants for College Access and Opportunity Centers (ADM) (9/20/07)

Admin: We have funding coming in from MnSCU, and here is some material for that. Last fall to deal with those issues we got back some information that reduced the amount of money weíre receiving somewhat, not enormously. We had to do some revising of the listing of activities that we can fund with that money. When the proposals were originally submitted, the idea was that the funding would cover things we would start doing as of the beginning of this semester, but we didnít know that we wouldnít get the money until after the semester began. So some of the things that we would have invested in, we canít invest in this semester because itís too late. Weíre making some modifications. Thatís item one. MnSCU has also sent out an RFP for proposals to create centers for Access and Opportunity. We have a number of individuals working with District 742 and the St. Cloud Technical College. Itís proposed that there will be three such centers created in the system, but we donít know that weíll be selected to have one. But the funding available for that would be between $800,000 and $1,200,000, presumably per year, presumably ongoing, but thatís a bit uncertain. We have a group of faculty working on a proposal I hope will be submitted, and weíre hoping to get some funding. I wanted to just inform you of this.

 

FA: Can you get us a list of all the people working on this and how you chose them?

 

Admin: Yes.

 

FA: When I looked at it I thought it might have been nice to have other colleges get involved. Do the other colleges also know about it, for example, the faculty in COSE and COB? It looks like the COE is the main college participating, along with District 742, it would be nice to have other colleges involved. I know the faculty in COSE would have been happy to participate, as well. How did they chose who was going to do what? How did you go about this? I think the process should be more transparent.

 

FA: I think part of it is that this RFP came across by email, and I hadnít heard anything about it. I see itís coming from the Office of the Chancellor, and Iím wondering if there is some place when Administration gets these documents from MnSCU that they go to that would have open access for faculty that might be interested? I just donít know.

 

Admin: This got sent I think initially to you, Wanda?

 

Admin: I heard about it at a board meeting.

 

FA: I think I saw it come through Academic Affairs.

 

Admin: I did distribute it to the deans in Academic Affairs.

 

FA: Obviously itís not getting down to all the department levels. Maybe we could just simply request that when opportunities come upÖ

 

FA: I get this all the time. I get attachments, and my mailbox is full. If you put it somewhere where we can access it, that would work. Because we end up with our mailbox full of attachments, I canít even open up my email. At some point, you just start deleting them as junk email.

 

FA: Maybe you could put these up on the web as PDF documents, and faculty will get used to seeing them there. I hadnít thought about the junking of the email, but if youíre up at 92% and students are sending you papers as attachments, this could be a problem. It might be time to move over to a process where attachments are available somewhere else.

 

Admin: We could talk about it. When I get relevant email, I forward it to the deans, and they distribute them to the appropriate faculty.

 

Admin: It depends on the nature of the RFP.

 

FA: The key thing is to make sure every party who might be interested in such an opportunity knows about it, and they know about it in a way they could act and feel they had a reasonable opportunity to be involved. The worst thing in the world that can happen is somebody who is interested in an area discovers the fact that the train left the depot two days ago, and theyíre not included, and now they feel alienated. Thatís one of the biggest challenges Dennisís office has is to make sure that people have the sense of open, free-flowing information about all kinds of grant opportunitiesówhether theyíre private sector or in this case an internal grant. Because if you get the sense that everything is wired, you say Iím not interested. Why do I want to waste my time when the decision has already been made? That, I think, is the question weíre trying to raise here. Weíre not in any sense accusatory, but the sense is that more open, more timely, about how weíre working together is how weíre going to help the campus move forward together.† †

 

Admin: I think youíre right. People were unevenly aware of this opportunity although we tried to reach out and contact folks. And several groups began working independently. And I asked Wanda to pull together one group, because there can only be one proposal from the campus. This is not a grant fund you can have six different proposals from a campus. So we had to identify people who had started on something and pull them together and get them to work together on writing the grant proposal for the campus. You might just list the people who have been showing up so they have some sense.

 

Admin: It is Robert Johnson, Les Green, Shahzad, John Hoover, some school district people, the superintendent from the St. Cloud School District, the statewide person, the university coalition, Darlene St. Claire.

 

FA: I think the coordination in this one was further complicated by the fact that as I understand the RFP only existed in paper form. Thatís the only form we got it in and saw it.

 

Admin: No. It came electronically. It came this summer.

 

FA: Thatís a big thing.

 

FA: Thatís part of it.

 

FA: Are there any other faculty other than Robert Johnson?

 

FA: We had a group in our department headed by Jim Robinson and they made some effort toward this. At some point Jim contacted Robert and Shahzad and at that point discovered the other group had a project.

 

FA: Well, certainly we can look at this as a way of figuring out how to communicate more clearly and on a more regular basis. We have some reasonable ideas, maybe we ought to go back and percolate them now. Iím going to take this off the agenda. We would like to move to items seven and eight.

 

6.     University MN Transfer Curriculum (MnTC) Review (ADM) (9/20/07)ónot discussed.

 

7.     Veterans Program Taskforce (ADM) (9/20/07)

Admin: We want to develop a task force to look at our services. What Iím requesting is that weíd like to make one ex officio appointment based on expertise and that would be Jayne Lokken, a faculty member. She developed a website for veteranís services, and sheís also an advisor to veteran students. But then weíd like to request an appointment of a faculty member through faculty Senate.

 

FA: What would be the make up of the rest of the committee?

 

Admin: I can pass around a draft of the task force charge, and Iíll pass around what we are looking at for membership. We visited with people to identify groups, such as financial aid, admissions, records and registration: Kathy Goenner. Then we wanted to make sure that we had some veterans. We also appointed some people who are off campus who have an interest in veteranís issues. As you know we are one of the six regional centers in the state, so Don Pfeffer is part of the MN Department of Veterans Affairs and also Central Lakes College. He would serve ex officio. He supervises James McAuley, who is our person here on our campus; he serves the central region.

 

FA: So youíre asking for one or two faculty to be appointed by the FA?

 

Admin: And then there is Jayne Lokken who would be in it as an ex officio appointment.

 

FA: The rest of the people on this list are a mixture of MSUAASF and excluded management?

 

Admin: Yes, and people from off campus.

 

FA: Would it be possible to get this list with a breakdown by unit, too?

 

Admin: I can do that and get it to you, Judy.

 

FA: I want to know what you think ex officio means. I donít think you know. What is your definition of ex officio?

 

Admin: Well, itís my understanding that if we want to appoint someone for their expertise that would be a Presidential appointment, and weíd like to appoint Jayne as ex officio.

 

Admin: Sheís saying she wants Jayne to be appointed to the committee through special expertise and would therefore serve ex officio.

 

FA: What Annette wants the people at the table to know is that youíre in it because of the position you hold.

 

FA: It doesnít necessarily mean that you donít vote. Like if the treasurer is always on and then that treasure is ex officio. It just means that, what the understanding is that, these people are on this committee because of the special expertise and they donít represent the Faculty Association. But I donít think it says anything about whether or not you vote.

 

FA: It is rotating. For example Strategic Planning has the Director of CETL by virtue of the role. So this is a Presidential appointment by virtue of expertise.

 

FA: I think Minnesota has the largest National Guard population returning from Afghanistan and Iraq. †

 

Admin: Yes.

 

FA: But if we could get a list of what these people do, that would be useful to take to Senate. Then we could respond by agreeing to this make up or not, and agreeing to appoint or not. So weíll take this to Senate.

 

FA: In this instance, are the ex officio members voting?

 

Admin: I would expect them to vote.

 

8.     Ex-officio Appointment of Dan Macari to the Student Welfare Advisory Group (ADM) (9/20/07)

Admin: Iím asking that Dan Macari be appointed as ex officio to the Student Welfare Advisory Group. The name of that group is called Psychological Issues. Thatís a long standing group to look at protocols around student crisis. He would bring the expertise to that group.

 

FA: Would you like to maybe speak more about that groupís goals?

 

Admin: Sure. To look at protocols on how we deal with student issues, whether it would be suicide or how we handle students in crisis that span beyond behavior issues that might be emotional or psychological, and how we might help them be successful.

 

FA: I think weíre ready to accept this appointment.

 

Admin: Thank you.

 

FA: Thank you.

 

Admin: Just for clarificationótthe need for the Student Welfare Advisory Group. Within the last week weíve had at least two students identified as at risk of suicide. We have procedures that are inadequate. Itís only by the grace of God we acted appropriately. So this is an urgent thing to close the door and gaps in our procedures so we protect our students. The Veteranís Program Task Force; we have 450 known veterans on campus. We are getting more inquiries about the Vets than any other university in the state of Minnesota. We have services. There is no map, no plan, no connection between these services, and we have an urgent need to bring these together in a focused fashion to make sure that weíre effectively serving these students. And most of the people on the list have offices or programs related to that.

 

Progress Reportsónot discussed.

 

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

2.     COE Climate Taskforce (separated from Taskforce on Diversity at the 8/30/07 Meet and Confer) (FA) (9/22/05)

3.     Announce, Discuss, and Bulletin Boards (FA) (09/07/06)

4.     Intellectual property and releases from PR (FA) (08/30/07)

 

MEETING ADJOURNED AT 5:00 PM

 

Submitted by Polly Chappell, Faculty Association Administrative Assistant