Final Approved November 1, 2007

Meet and Confer Notes

October 18, 2007



Administration:  President Potter, Provost Spitzer, Nancy Jessee, Wanda Overland, Mitchell Rubinstein, Steve Ludwig, Kristi Tornquist, Avelino Mills-Novoa, Rex Veeder (Patty Dyslin – notetaker)


Faculty:  Judy Kilborn, John Palmer, JoAnn Gasparino, Frances Kayona, Balsy Kasi, Annette Schoenberger, Bill Hudson, Michael Tripp, Robert Johnson, Fred E. Hill, David Warne, Mark Jaede - guest


Approval of Minutes:    10/4/2007 - Approved as noted:


AD:  I have one additional correction on page 18.  It should read “Two or three weeks ago, the President charged a small group to review this situation, namely Nancy Jessee, Jill Rudnitski, and me (Kristi Tornquist).”  Other than that, the minutes are acceptable.


FA:  Okay.  I’ll have that change made.


FA:  Since Mark has joined us, we will start with new business, item 7.




7.      Membership on the Orientation Taskforce (AD – 10/18/2007)


FA: I’ve asked Mark Jaede to attend today since he

was the faculty co-chair of the Orientation Taskforce and can perhaps help to clarify where we are..

Let me start the discussion.  My understanding is that during the process of their work during 2006, the committee did quite a bit of assessment along the way.  We would like to request that the taskforce provide a report on last year’s work.  We are wondering about the status of the committee and would like to talk about the work of the taskforce.


FA:  The taskforce was named last fall.  There was a small delay in getting membership named and planning the work was delayed until spring.  The co-chairs were Mark Jaede and Mark Nook.  My understanding was that Wanda Overland was named co-chair.  There has been no meeting of the taskforce this fall.  We’re unsure of who the co-chair from administration is.  If it’s the same person, then the committee’s work is to evaluate and move on.  If it is a new person, then we need to report and decide what should be going on.  There have been some process issues and no substantive issues.


AD:  I think we would like to continue the taskforce using last year’s experience and building on it.  There are things we can do better.  I would like the committee to submit a report to the Provost, Faculty Association, Wanda Overland, and Avelino Mills-Novoa.


FA:  If we are reporting to Wanda and Avelino, who is the co-chair?


FA:  Taskforces, by nature, are short term.  When will the work of this taskforce end?  If orientation is going to be on-going, shouldn’t we be planning on a more permanent structure?

AD:  Orientation and advising for next summer are not yet in place.  We need to send out information very soon.  Can we bring this up at a future Meet and Confer?


FA:  Is this an ad hoc planning committee?  Can we charge them to come up with a plan?


AD:  One of the problems is that there are very few members left on the taskforce.


FA:  We keep calling this a taskforce.  We are recommending that a permanent process be put in place for doing this type of planning.  We were under the impression that advising and registration are separate from orientation.


AD:  We wanted to put those together.  The total process would be about a day-and-a-half.  We need to have more people sitting around the table in order for us to proceed.


FA:  Two things.  I do understand that orientation and advisement are related.  The charge of the committee needs to be clear and formally presented to the committee.  Good information about assessment is coming back.  That assessment information needs to inform us of what we need to do moving forward.  We were delayed at first.  When things don’t start until spring, it lessens the ability and effectiveness of the committee to do long-range planning.  I believe that one member quit their work with the committee because it ran into summer.


AD:  I agree with you.  We need to get things together for this year and then begin planning for subsequent years.


AD:  Let me remind everyone that orientation was conducted on a calendar that has completely changed from last year.  It is important to consult with staff to see how this is going to affect this year’s orientation.  One of the questions we need to answer is:  what other events take place and how can we repackage these events to best serve students and these need to be imbedded in the first year experience.  We want faculty engaged in this taskforce.


FA:  I want to follow-up on what Robert was talking about.  It seems to me that it would be helpful to have a reformulated charge for whatever this group is called.  We need to look at what we’ve learned that can be used for 2008.  We need to know who will serve on the committee and the timeline for their work.  We should be moving quickly on this.


AD:  We need to have a holistic approach for this – advising and orientation are linked and need to be integrated in the first year experience.  Whatever the charge is, I hope it speaks to these needs.


FA:  Do we need to appoint faculty replacements?


FA:  I think the original request was for 6 faculty and we only had 3 volunteers.


AD:  Would you be willing to populate the committee with 5 or 6 volunteers?


FA:  I would suggest that we have a smaller central taskforce to identify the needs and then form subgroups to work on plans and implement them.  We don’t need to name subgroups until the needs are identified.


FA:  We need verification.  Who are the co-chairs, Mark and Wanda?


AD:  Mark and Avelino.


FA:  So you want a Faculty co-chair?


AD:  My recollection is that we had a faculty co-chair.


FA:  There were a total of 3 faculty, including the faculty co-chair. My sense is that this number would be sufficient for the taskforce and that other faculty could be brought in for the workgroups.  The presence of other professionals on the committee would be important.


FA:  There are two groups of folks that are really important to have involved.  First, the faculty group, second, advisors and MSUAASF individuals.  We need to find ways to have those groups involved.


FA:  When did the workgroup start?


FA:  It didn’t start until spring term.  This is not ideal.  We hope we can get going much sooner.


AD:  I would like to suggest that the group examine whether we need multiple workgroups or only invite those with expertise.


FA:  I keep hearing talk about what the group may or may not be doing.  We would like to have a charge in writing and a timeline.


FA:  I’ve been involved in summer advising for 15 years.  I was the first to volunteer for this taskforce.  I had to get off because it became so huge that I could never get to the meetings.


AD:  I can put out the charge tomorrow.


FA:  We need the report from last year.  People who have been trying to make that report have been unable to do so.


FA:  I hope that the charge will clarify the boundary between planning and implementation.  The people who worked on the taskforce were the ones who were running the day.


FA:  Thank you. 




1.      Announce, Discuss, and Bulletin Boards (FA – 9/7/2006)


FA:  Thank you for implementing the bulletin board.  Having said that, I want to add that efforts to move people from “announce” to the bulletin board doesn’t seem to be working out.


AD:  We are looking at means of addressing the concern you just raised.  We should have something for you at the next Meet and Confer.


FA:  I look forward to seeing something new soon.



2.  Charge to Task Force on International Studies (FA – 8/30/2007)


AD:  I would like to postpone discussion of this item until we talk about item 5 under new business.


3.      Article 22 Taskforce (was Tenure Calendar, now combined with FA/Administration Work-plan 2007-2008 item on More effective use of PDP’s/PDR’s to support faculty development (FA – 2/1/2007)


FA:  We have provided you with a configuration and a charge for that taskforce, and we’re wondering about your response.


AD:  I want to have time to discuss it with the Academic Affairs Council.  We’ll have a response for you at the next Meet and Confer.



4.      Follow-ups:


A:  Center for International Studies (FA – 1/18/2007)


AD:  I would like to cover this topic during discussion of the academic plan as well.


B:  Request for working group on new Academic Calendar (AD – 8/30/2007)


FA:  We have sent Mitch names for the committee and assume it will be convened soon.


C:  Return to Title Four (AD – 8/30/2007)


AD:  I have forwarded to the Faculty Association Academic Affairs Committee a draft of a revised grading policy.  I am anticipating that the Committee and Senate will review the policy and that we will review it at a future Meet and Confer.


FA:  Somehow, there are individuals who think that this is already policy since it is already being distributed in one of the colleges.


AD:  The policy is being circulated for review and comment.


FA:  It’s okay that it’s being distributed for comment, but Faculty are not understanding that this is for review and comment. Does the document have the word “Draft” on it?


AD:  Yes.


FA:  Let’s leave this on the agenda.


D:  Charge for Online Policy and Procedure committee (FA – 8/30/2007)


FA:  We are ready to accept the charge.  Do you want me to distribute it to the committee?


AD:  I believe one of the work groups for the academic plan will be addressing this issue as well so several members of this committee will be needed to work with that group.



E.  Changes to web registration & web course schedule (FA – 10/4/2007) 


FA:  We will be talking about this at statewide Meet and Confer.  It is clear that the designers did not know that this needed to go through the academic process of consultation.  At the IFO board meeting, one of the people responsible, Cindy Mehoves, is actually on our campus.  She has asked to have coffee with me.  One of the messages we tried to get through is that we need some sort of formal way of communicating.  I know that Records and Registration and others knew about it and that students have tested it.  As a faculty, I can’t look at the student entrée to the website.  I have no way of seeing what they’re capable of doing.  It is important to get faculty input, and I’m asking the administration to help see that this occurs.  They said that we might eventually be able to have waiting lists.  There would be a problem if a faculty member needed to override a registration.  These are the types of problems that need to be worked out.  This is not just a faculty problem.  Others who deliver academic programs need to be involved in the process as well.  We can take this item off the agenda.


  1.  Campus Parking and Transportation Taskforce (AD – 10/4/2007)


FA:  I have put out a call for members.  We should be able to vote on that this coming Tuesday.



5.      Administrative Searches (AD – 10/4/2007) COSS Dean Search


AD:  We had asked for representation on the search committee for the Dean of Social Sciences.  I believe you have responded to that one.  If we can proceed with that, then that issue is resolved and we can move forward.


FA:  So that everybody’s apprised of where we are in that process.  Senate approved a motion to reappoint Faculty to the COSS search committee from last year to ask them if they wanted to continue serving on the committee and if not, to continue with our normal election process.  I did, in fact, ask and two people have opted out of that committee.  A majority of the rest of that committee would like to have a conversation about tenure before they agree to serve on the committee so they know what they’re looking at.  That meeting will happen next Thursday.  We’ll let you know when we have a full committee.




We’re going to skip over item 1 of new business to talk about the administrative searches that you see listed on the agenda.


2.      Administrative Searches (AD – 10/18/2007)


AD:  There are four administrative searches for which we’d like to have faculty representation.  The first is the search committee for the Special Advisor to the President.  We’re requesting three faculty to serve on that committee.  The Associate VP for International Studies – last time we did that search we had six Faculty on that committee, I’d like to have the same number for that.  The Associate Dean for the College of Business – five faculty – there are five departments in that college so five Faculty seems to make sense.  Associate Dean for the College of Education – that’s the position that John Hoover is serving in as an interim appointment – we would like six Faculty for that search.  Actually, I think for that particular search the faculty were identified last spring at Meet and Confer.  If we can continue with those same individuals, that would be fine.


FA:  Are you speaking specifically about the College of Education?


AD:  Yes.


FA:  I have two lists.  I have one for the 2006-2007 College of Education Associate Dean Search and I have one list from 2005-2006 so that’s a previous search.  I actually have the lists right in front of me from off the web site.  The Associate VP for International Studies, six is fine.  Last time we had 3 for the Special Assistant to the President search committee and that’s fine.  I will put out the call for that first thing in the morning.  We’ll have a second call for that next Tuesday.  According to our voting processes, Senate can vote on those representatives on October 30th.   I have a question about the make-up of the other two searches so if we would caucus, that would be good.


Faculty left the room to caucus.


FA:  We’re fine with five representatives, one for each of the departments for the College of Business Associate Dean position.  I’ll put out that call tomorrow.  For the Associate Dean for the College of Education, we’re uncomfortable in general about recycling search committees.  We think it’s an unfair pressure on those folks and we think that everyone should have the opportunity to serve so we would like to begin with a new search committee which would be based on the departments – six people.  I will put out that call tomorrow also.


FA:  Judy, wouldn’t that be six and no more than 1 from each department.


FA:  Yes.  Thank you for that clarification - six, and no more than one from each department.  We will have names for you next time. And we can get these searches moving.


 1.  Report on Budget (AD – 10/18/2007)


AD:  I’m circulating a document that’s labeled “Scenario Overview for Fiscal Years ’08 and ’09.”  We received information late last week from the Office of the Chancellor and some guidelines that we had to work through over the course of the week to put this together and apply it to St. Cloud State.  This document was discussed first at President’s Council on Monday, Tuesday at Academic Affairs and the Budget Oversight Committee and now we’re beginning to share it through our Meet and Confer process.  It describes six scenarios.  There are two levels of tuition and 3 levels of salary changes.  Please note that salaries do not refer only to Faculty salaries.  It also includes unclassified salaries which is Faculty and staff.  It includes Faculty, MSUAASF and excluded managers in that line of the budget.  There are some notes on the second page that describe some variables we don’t know about – specifically, we’ve included in fiscal year ’08 the technology funds, student funds and the performance initiative that we expect to see.  We’ve also maintained the reserve at 5 percent which as our expenses increase, that increases the amount  of money in the reserve.  It also doesn’t include the carry-forward from 2006, which is approximately $750,000.  Adjusting that carry-forward number will get us a long ways toward balancing fiscal year 2008 into balance without great difficulty we believe.  As you look at ’09, it becomes a little more of an issue for us to consider, but the level that we’re looking at in deficit is about 1.5 percent.  Due to the fact that we have reserves at this time and we’re seeing some growth in enrollment, in fact, greater than we expected, we think that these circumstances will help us in our discussion.  We’re going to begin discussions on appropriation of our resources, tuition increases with groups across campus.  We certainly invite your input on that.  There will be opportunities through the budget advisory group.  We will share additional information across campus, we’ll be working through our other bargaining units and administratively, through the various Vice Presidents’ units and the President’s office to develop plans around this and will share those with the campus.  I would also like to distribute a draft calendar for budget planning.  This calendar is subject to change by our practices on campus and is also subject to change by what might be required of us by the Office of the Chancellor or perhaps, in some cases, by the legislature.  Are there any questions or comments?


FA:  Thank you for continuing to share the information in a timely way.  The Faculty Association Budget Committee did have an opportunity to examine the material.  We will be bringing a series of questions surrounding the closing of fiscal year 2007 – particularly accounts receivable, which concerns us.  We’re also hopeful that we’ll receive the information we asked for regarding carry-forwards from prior years – how they were spent last year and how they are planned to be spent this year.  I think we asked for that at the last Meet and Confer.


AD:  The carry-forward that we did this past fall from last fiscal year.  We’re putting that material together.  There are one hundred different accounts involved.  We have a brief explanation for about one-third of those.  I hope that by next time we can have that substantially put together.  We’re also making a similar request around the initiative funds which we had out there for about three years now.  We provided a report last spring and we will provide an updated report.  We’re also completing the quarterly report for the quarter just ended.  We will present our financial statement to the staff at the Office of the Chancellor next Tuesday.  There isn’t remarkable news in that financial statement.  We are going to ask them at that time if we can distribute it.  Often times they won’t allow distribution until after it’s been presented to the Board as a whole.   


FA:  As a follow-up, there appears to be a rumor that somehow faculty are going to be getting a big pay raise.  That’s circulating around, and I have heard it from a variety of places.  When this document is circulated, you see the faculty salaries, under all the scenarios, show something a little bit better than inflation.  There is a mismatch between that and what the Faculty are being offered at the bargaining table.  If you’re interested, it’s public information on the web at the IFO site.  We’ve been offered to date, a one step increase in the second year, reductions in a number of ways that Faculty were compensated in the past, so there seems to be a disconnect between the desire to raise the average base salary closer the 70th or 80th percentile than what’s actually happened.


AD:  That’s not true.  What you see there are budget numbers.  You can understand as well as I can that we’re not going to discuss negotiations at this table and that the final number of the budget is affected not only by the size of the raises but when those raises are given and how things are scaled.  The various proposals that will go back and forth cannot be discussed now.  There’s nothing at odds with the budget figure and the Board’s interest in improving Faculty salaries significantly.


FA:  Are there any other questions or discussion?  Steve, you’re going to have some more numbers for us, right?


AD:  Four kinds of numbers.  One number would be the information on the carry-forward from last year to this fiscal year and the intended uses.  The second was a report on the initiative funds that we’ve been carrying for a couple of years.  The third element is our financial statements for fiscal year ’07, and the fourth element is the quarterly report for the quarter that ended September 30th.  The short answer to ’08 is that we’ve met our enrollment goals and that gives us some breathing room as we look at this fiscal year.


FA:  Should we keep it on?


AD:  Yes.


FA:  Okay.  Thank you.


3.  Joint letter (March 30, 2006) from bargaining units and presidential response (May 8, 2006) concerning Recommendations for Search Committee Procedures (FA – 10/18/2007)


FA:  This letter that I gave to the President with a copy to the Provost is essentially a request for consistent notification and representation on search committees.  We brought it forward to President Saigo two years ago, and we have brought it forward again to see what President Potter might say.


AD:  Before I had received your request and this letter, I had directed Larry Chambers and Susan Moss to create a document which integrates the various requirements we have to satisfy in constituting search committees for each type of position for which we search.  Susan has now shared an initial draft, which I shared with you before this meeting, in an attempt to do that.  That draft has a number of deficiencies in terms of the absence of timelines and a few other things that we have to address.  I think to take into account the FA’s request for timely notice and the time and the process to respond effectively.  We’ll do a little more work on those drafts describing processes and then bring them to Meet and Confer.  Based on the condition of the current draft, I would assume we could do that at the next Meet and Confer.


FA:  We should leave this on the agenda?


AD:  Yes.


4.  Processes for Appointing FA Representation to College and University-level Committees under the IFO/MnSCU Master Agreement (FA – 10/18/20070


FA:  I want to start by pointing forward to another document that we will bring forward to Meet and Confer at a later time time.  One of the most frequent requests I get is about how the process works for appointing people to college and university committees through Meet and Confer.  I’m glad to describe that process, and I do it frequently.  I don’t mind doing it when there are new people coming in.  Also, this document that we will be presenting, I hope will provide a unified flowchart, if you will, that demonstrates the processes for doing this.  I want to start this discussion today by indicating the hitch for me and past presidents.  When we explain these processes, which are outlined in the contract, and then people don’t follow those processes, it is problematic.  In particular, we’re looking at Article 6, Subd. 2 – Association Rights. “The Association and the President shall confer on the need for faculty to serve on college and university-level committees, after which the Association shall appoint the faculty.”  What we’re noticing repeatedly is that they are either not brought to Meet and Confer or we don’t get a formal request, or more troubling, they come to Meet and Confer, we start the process, and then we find that an excluded manager has made an appointment to the committee.  At a certain point, when those sorts of breaches of the contract occur, we’re going to have to send out less than polite reminders about the processes.  It is perfectly appropriate for anybody to encourage Faculty to contact us if they want to serve on a committee.  The problem I have is when excluded managers simply appoint individuals to committees and I find out after the fact and there has been no FA process.  I’m asking for your help in ensuring that excluded management do not violate Faculty rights by appointing Faculty to committees without having gone through the formal process.


AD:  In principle, that seems perfectly reasonable.  It’s hard to respond without some specific instances.  In order for us to take action that would be helpful, I really need some specifics.


AD:  Perhaps this is something we should discuss individually so we can address those particular concerns.  If you’d like to talk about them here, we can do that.


FA:  If you would prefer, I would be willing to sit with the President and with you and talk to you about particular instances.  I also know that the contract is not an IFO contract.  It’s a MnSCU/IFO contract.  That means that excluded managers need to honor the contract just as faculty do.


AD:  Of course.


AD:  I agree.  I’ve talked with excluded managers who I deal with on a regular basis, and I’ve made that clear – fairly emphatically – so if it has occurred, it should not continue.


FA:  Thank you.  I heard what you were saying, and I look forward to talking with the two of you about these types of breeches.


5.  Academic Plan (AD – 10/18/2007)


AD:  We have talked about the academic plan at the Strategic Planning committee and also last week at the Faculty Senate.  What I’m coming to Meet and Confer about is to request that Faculty appointments be made to the various working groups that have been identified in the academic plan with a recommendation that it might be simpler, and it might be most effective and efficient for standing committees that deal with issues related to the specific working groups, it might be helpful to have some of those folks appointed to those committees.  What we’re talking about is an administration  co-chair and a faculty co-chair.  The suggestion that we’re making is that the two chairs would get together and agree on the size the working group should be and then come back to the Faculty Association to request specific membership.  First we would need Faculty co-chairs for each of those workgroups.


FA:  It’s my understanding that there have been some revisions as a result of input from the Senate and the input that occurred at Strategic Planning.  When might we see those revisions?


AD:  I sent a copy of the most recent document to Judy.


FA:  The date on the document I have, which was sent the Executive Committee is the 16th.


AD:  This one is dated the 18th.  It has two small changes in it.  One of those changes is that we added to the Strategic Priorities – develop stability, scholarship and curriculum.  We added that in another location as well.  There are no substantive changes beyond that.  I can give you the updated version.


FA:  If you give me the updated version electronically, I’ll make sure it gets to the Senate on Tuesday. 


FA:  There was a passing discussion about the additional work that might be done.  Are we any closer to having an answer on compensation for that?


AD:  We talked about some of the processes that we would like each of the workgroups to pursue and some of the tasks as well, to try to limit the amount of work.  But we also had some conversation about perhaps having a retreat during a non-duty day between semesters for which we would want to compensate for that.


FA:  Thank you for the information.


FA:  We’re moving it forward to Senate and will bring back a response.


6.       Early Notification System (FA – 10/18/2007)


FA:  We reviewed the Senate motion that came to Meet and Confer on December 15, 2005, with regard to a pilot project on the early notification system.  We had reason to believe that we were going to receive a progress report with the results of that pilot and that we would receive that before any action would be taken to continue or expand the use of the early notification system.  We did receive information that said that there is an early notification system operational. It identifies classes that might be well beyond the classes that were included in the pilot.  We do know that the word “pilot” appears in the second announcement.  We don’t know what the purpose of the pilot is.  We knew what the purpose of the first pilot was, which was to find out if the system could work, what its strengths and weaknesses were. We don’t see evidence from that initial pilot program going forward.



AD:  This is a continuation of the pilot.  We received some feedback on what did and didn’t work.  It seems the communications system, in particular, was problematic.  We also found there were only seventeen Faculty/Instructors who utilized the system.  So that pilot was really insufficient.  By continuing the pilot, we’d like to find out how many courses that system will hold. 


FA:  To me a continuous feedback model includes continuous feedback.  We have requested that we get feedback about how the initial pilot worked.  The information you provided just now is very helpful.  And we can take this information to Senate.  When we originally took this to the Senate, they thought this was an important project to support.   But my perception is that when we don’t get feedback and the project just moves forward, then there is going to be some resistance.  I would encourage you to inform the Senate as we requested of the progress to date and provide a rationale for the new pilot that would allow us to explain to people who are all of a sudden being told they’re doing it why they’re doing it.


AD:  No one is being told to do anything.  What we’re doing is asking for volunteers to come to these sessions and learn about it.  There’s no expectation for anyone to use this.  All we’re looking for is help in order further improve the system.


FA:  There is nothing that says they’re looking for volunteers.


FA:  The notice that came out on October 5th indicated that is was being implemented, so my immediate response is that I have to do this.  I don’t see anything in that that says Faculty are encouraged to participate.  I think that Faculty want to participate, and the fact that we’re not talking about this on an on-going basis is going to discourage participation.  I’m looking for something that says volunteers, and I don’t see it.  It looks like it’s including general education courses.  That’s a huge number of courses.  I’m just mystified about how Faculty can become active participants without the conversation coming here. 


AD:  (note:  could not hear response and tape did not pick up response)


FA:  That’s one kind of participation and one kind of conversation.  There’s also a very formal process of consultation which happens regarding anything that affects our work lives.  It’s called terms and conditions of employment.  It’s very simple to bring it here and to encourage discussion among us and then take it to Faculty.    I find that it really facilitates getting the word out faster and helps encourage the informal conversation.


FA:  We have an accomplished fact.  What can we do together to have a better experiment?  What I heard, and I take you at your word, is that the first experiment failed because the sample size was inadequate.  What you’re telling us is that this time around you’re looking to have a sample size large enough that we can assess effectively the capability of the system.  That’s what I heard.  I think the experiment is going to fail because of the nature in which it happened.  I can only speak for myself.  I’d be willing to work with you and the Faculty Association to find a way that we could have an experiment that will yield an outcome that’s going to be helpful.


AD:  There’s a Senate meeting next week.  Can I suggest that you put on the agenda a statement about the fact that we’re offering this again as a pilot for Faculty teaching general education courses – that the option is available for them to meet with Avelino to get an understanding of how the process would work.


FA:  So what you’re asking me to do is make an announcement at Senate that this is a pilot and that you are encouraging participation in this pilot?  Do you understand that when I do that that Senators who have served for several years or more will remember that information was supposed to come back and that it didn’t?  I’m not trying to be obstructive.  It’s just that when we do this “oops” kind of gesture, it’s hard to recover from that.  I’m not saying I’m not willing to make that kind of announcement.  What I’m saying is that I’m not sure that kind of announcement will totally recoup what might have been an open conversation leading up to the unveiling of that second pilot and that Faculty might have embraced, actually.   


FA:  I think if we have the report to take to Senate, if we get that written report that says what happened along with a request for participation, that actually might be successful.  I’m not sure that without that written report that we’re going to get the cooperation you’d like to see.


FA:  It’s very likely that Faculty, upon hearing about this, may have insight into why the first pilot didn’t work.  It may be that the Senate may have some suggestions on design or other things.  There was also resistance by individuals who believe this will put additional work on them.  It is important to have discussion and gather various ideas about how to implement and use the system.  It may not be that people are going to accept this approach.  They may want to give input.


AD:  Was there a written report on the initial effort?


AD:  Yes.  I will forward it to you and give you a demonstration of the process in terms of its usability.


FA:  I think that a short accounting or report on the first pilot would be helpful.  I do think we need to explore having Faculty provide input to the process.  That’s an important part that’s missing.  There was strong concern and willingness by Faculty to provide feedback to students and help them succeed academically.  The process for doing this needs to include consultation and input from everybody.


FA:  The best thing to do is give the report to the Senate, have a discussion and get feedback from the Senators.


AD:  We’ll get the report to you.


FA:  It would also be helpful if that document would have a call for participation by Faculty and what that participation will enable us to do with the system.


AD:  What was the degree of faculty involvement in the original process?


AD:  I think he (Mark Nook) had some conversation with faculty.


FA:  I remember that there was some consultation and discussion of the elements.


FA:  I believe he (Mark Nook) came to Senate to discuss and answer questions also.  I don’t recall any kind of participation in the process of developing this second pilot.


FA:  For the first pilot, what we were shown was the product that would generated.  There was no discussion about Faculty input or if we would have to keep a different kind of records - we don’t really know what it takes on our part to help you figure this out.  That is part of our reticence.  We don’t know if it’s a commitment of 5 minutes or 50 hours.  That is one of the issues for some of my colleagues and me.  We understand the need, but have never been told what is expected to be part of the pilot.


AD:  Those are all valid remarks.


FA:  I would add that we recognize that we have changed personnel several times during this process so we can’t necessarily assign full accountability to the folks who are now trying to fix it now.  My recollection was that information on Faculty time and commitment was very skimpy at the presentation that we saw.


FA:  I think we’re all agreed that there is potential in this process and that we need to figure out how to improve the way that it’s being put together and encourage participation by the Faculty.  Anything I get before Tuesday morning I can present at Senate on Tuesday.




1.  Taskforce on Diversity (a.k.a. Motion from Teacher Development) (FA-9/22/2005)


AD:  The coordinating committee for the taskforce met and determined that the taskforce recommends the efforts of the university focus on a university-wide committee to develop a university diversity plan and that the taskforce be relieved of its charge, which may be reconsidered after the creation of a university diversity committee.  In other words, the coordinating committee saw their role as working on an education plan for the campus.  How that played out may or may not pertain directly to the university plan.  I want to point out that some of the problems that were experienced with the orientation taskforce were also some of the problems here in terms of size and some confusion about the taskforce doing a study and making recommendations and that others implement them. 


FA:  Thank you, Rex.


AD:  It seems to me that what we need to do now is to create the group that will create the university plan.


FA:  I thought we agreed to that last time.  Given that this was initiated by the Faculty Senate, we should take it back to them for their consideration and action.  That doesn’t preclude us from moving forward with a plan.


AD:  I agree that we should go forward with this plan to form a new group and have the Senate move forward on this action.


FA:  I can take that recommendation forward to Senate Tuesday so we can have some action on that.


FA:  We have two things to take to Senate; disbandment of the current taskforce and the recommendation from Administration to ask for a university-wide taskforce to the issues for the development of  the university plan.  Those are two distinct requests.


AD:  I’m new enough not be very good at the niceties.  So let me just think out loud.  I’m a little nervous about the notion of asking the Senate’s permission to create the taskforce.  The system has a policy in place that requires we have a diversity plan.  We are out of compliance.  We have to do this.


FA:  Can I stand corrected then?  We will let the Senate know that we want to participate in that plan and that we have to develop the plan using a broad-based group.


AD:  Yes.


FA:  I will take two things forward to Senate.  The document with the recommendation for a taskforce on diversity and also the second item, asking for Senate participation in developing the plan.


AD:  We will bring to the next Meet and Confer a charge and the administrative composition of the taskforce.


FA:  We look forward to seeing that document.


2.  COE Climate Taskforce (separated from Taskforce on Diversity at the 8/30/2007 Meet and Confer)  (FA – 9/22/2005)


AD:  We have a copy of the report and some recommendations from the climate taskforce for the College of Education.  There are a couple of issues there.  One I think is an item that is FA’s issue having to do with the co-chair of the taskforce and a recommendation that one of the co-chairs, internal to the college, issued for the Faculty to address, not for us to address given particularly what was pointed out a little bit earlier.  The other issue is that we will take the report and have a fairly lengthy discussion at Academic Affairs Council and elsewhere and come back with some responses to specific recommendations.


FA:  The report and the recommendations from the College of Education Climate Taskforce are going forward to Senate on Tuesday.   Semya Hakim attended Executive Committee on Tuesday, and we were able to ask her questions.  The Senate needs to authorize and respond to these recommendations.  We hope to have a response for next time, although I don’t know for sure how long it will take us to respond.


It is on the Senate agenda for next Tuesday.  It’s a very important issue, and we hadn’t seen the report, so we were glad to have it.


AD:  Is the taskforce meeting at all?


FA:  They’re waiting for a response.  I can follow-up and ask about that question directly and share that information with you.


AD:  Thank you.


3.  Intellectual property and releases from PR (FA – 8/30/2007)


FA:  I believe last time we were waiting for a draft of the PR release that was being done.


AD:  Nancy is dealing with that.


AD:  I wrote to the Attorney General, who deals with contracts and similar matters.  I sent him a copy of the release we’ve been using.  What you’re getting now is the standard format, which is underlined, and the things to be taken out have been crossed out.  He is also developing a release that is specifically for intellectual property.  This release does not affect any property rights.


FA:  This is the first of two pieces?


AD:  Yes.


FA:  We need some time to process this form and ask questions.  What I heard you say is that this exempts intellectual property cases and that another form will be developed the deals specifically with intellectual property.


AD:  That’s correct.


FA:   When this first came to Meet and Confer, there was concern about people arriving and being surprised and being put in an awkward position.  Has action been taken to make sure that’s not happening?


AD:  For the instances where LR&TS is doing the recording, staff has been instructed to speak with the sponsor, and the sponsor is to notify the speaker that we want to record the speaker and get their approval well in advance of the event.  My staff has been instructed to do this, and I believe this is being done.


FA:  Thank you.


AD:  What’s the significance of the underlining?


 AD:  It is language that the Attorney General added.


FA:  We need to make it clear at the top of the form what people are being asked to sign off on.


FA:  There’s a sentence that refers to “others may use….”  When you say “may” does that mean that it’s possible that a third party might use it?  There’s a difference between “may” and “can.”


FA:  Two things, I noticed on the bottom, there is language that is something related to students.  Can we in some way indicate that there is a section for students?


AD:  Yes.


FA:  We’re getting near to the time when student government starts.  Does anyone have any questions about this form?  We would like to take it back and think about it.  We stand adjourned.


Adjourned 4:50 p.m.