IFO Board of Directors Report
January 26-27, 2006
Present: Mike Ruth, Cindy Killion, Cathy Summa, Cindy Phillips, Wayne Alexander, George Seldat, Gerald Toland, Rose Weaver, Derek Webb, Dave Larkin, Jayantha Herath, Russ Stanton, Judy Kilborn, Debra Japp, Annette Schoenberger, Ruth Zietlow, Roger Severns, Georgia Holmes, Steve Bohnenblust, Andrew Larkin
Not Present: Gwen Griffin, Mary Kesler, Sonja Meiers
Also Present: Debra Japp (Thursday only), Russ Stanton (Thursday and part of Friday), Cindy Finch (Thursday and part of Friday), Patrice Arseneault (Thursday only)
Special Guest: Manuel Lopez, MnSCU
Called to order 6:35 p.m.
Approval of December 1-2 Minutes:
A motion was made to approve the December 1-2 Board minutes. Carried
Board of Trustees Update:
There is a new climate at the Board of Trustees meeting; they are streamlining agenda items from the committees. Tuition and stewardship of state money have been a major topic. Included in the Board packet is the system strategic plan for 06-10, this is where MnSCU will get their work plan.
Nellie Stone Johnson Dinner:
The NSJ fundraiser will be held at the Prom Center in Woodbury this year on March 30. We always sponsor a table of eight, so if you are interested in attending, please let Cindy Finch know.
IFO MnSCU Contract Update:
The legislature needs to approve our contract by the end of the session or else it’s null and void.
Statewide Meet and Confer Update:
Meet and Confer notes for December 9 were included in the Board packets. We also met in January and those notes will be on the website shortly.
We are very pleased that we have been invited to President Ramaley’s inauguration and have arranged to have meet and confer at the Winona campus in April.
Executive Committee Update:
There are two EC sets of minutes in your packet (December 8-9 and January 12-13).
Faculty Association Equipment Requests:
According to our Operating Procedures, capital expenditures of more than $1,000 need to come before the Board and be included in the budget. Two campuses have indicated computer needs and those requests need to be submitted to IFO Treasurer Annette Schoenberger.
Tiffany Nelson, Paralegal:
Nancy read the EC motion/recommendation from January 12-13: to recommend to the Board that Tiffany Nelson be removed from probationary status and be made a regular staff member. Carried without opposition. A motion was made to approve the Executive Committee’s recommendation. Carried
Doctoral Discussion with Manuel Lopez:
Manuel: We finally got approval from the legislature to offer applied doctorates. We have initiated discussions to change the Board Policies 1.a1 and 3.17 through the Graduate Council who did the language tweaking. We are just basically getting system policies for the degree. We will have to go through the Higher Learning Commission (HLC) and that will be major. We are lining-up our part to get things ready. We sent a letter to the Presidents asking what they will be proposing for doctorates. A group of nursing deans have met to talk about offering a doctorate of nursing practice. The HLC allows for partnership agreements and they are looking at their options under that process. The HLC has tried to dissuade joint degrees because in their experience they don’t work. The nurses have come forward and feel it should be more joint based on each institutions strengths. There is a second group of institutions interested in an EDD. A group of graduate deans will come together looking at multiple applications through a consortium on February 17th in St. Cloud. That meeting is just for discussion purposes. There hasn’t been a lot of progress and we will make some changes in the language of the Board policies based on conversations I’ve had with Nancy and Debra.
IFO: How are resources being handled for this new degree?
Manuel: What was said to the legislature and has been said several times in the past is essentially the institution is responsible for handling the degree. We aren’t going to put additional resources into this because it’s an institutional decision. Institutions will have to reallocate funds, or work through differential tuition for the doctoral degrees on track with the market. There is no commitment of system funds being used and institutions will have to individually decide.
IFO: Regarding the institution who takes the lead on the partnership arrangement, will the accrediting agency approve only the lead library, and if so what obligations will that library then have?
Manuel: In some documents I’ve prepared I’m not making direct reference to a library but to library resources. In an HLC process, part of the documentation is any existing articulation agreements. The focus isn’t on the program but the institution offering the program.
IFO: Tuition waiver for dependents, is that still in place?
Manuel: That’s an interesting question, I’ve thought there might be some contractual issues and we are going to have to deal with this soon.
IFO: What about disagreements between the deans and the faculty?
Manuel: When the HLC comes out to the campus they’ll hear about that and won’t move forward. It’s in the self interest of the administration and institutions to have the agreement of the faculty because they’ll be embarrassed when the HLC comes out to evaluate the institution and faculty are not supportive.
IFO: We are concerned with the start-up timeline of fall 2007. Is that too soon?
Manuel: Fall 2007 is a target date, nothing is in stone. I don’t think if you’re the first out of the shoot for the first disciple offering the course, that doesn’t preclude other institutions from offering their own. (Manuel referred to Moohread’s Tri-College.) I’m not so concerned with the quality but more concerned with the thorough planning. I’m disturbed in a sense that some institutions are in a rush to do this.
This is the first time we’ve done this, and we can’t do this like we handle regular programs. We have had the presidents in the room all together with the CAOs to lay out some issues; it’s possible we may have to rethink based on what we receive tomorrow at Graduate Council. It doesn’t make any sense as a system to paper the state with programs; we need these programs to be high quality. We need to trust the institutions; the OOC doesn’t offer the degree or develop the curriculum. We have to trust that the institutions will act in their own self interest. I have many of the same concerns as you do.
IFO: What are the means of communication in general with all of these system-wide meetings?
Manuel: They’ve been very informational. The meetings with the EED and the deans are part of this as an attempt to maybe negotiate between the various parties a more rational approach to implementing a specific degree.
IFO: As I think about preparing a program there are costs incurred before you even bring a student into the door. Is there any way we will get a special appropriation?
Manuel: No, in essence it was promised at the table that we would not do that. I don’t think that would float with the legislature or the Board of Trustees. One reason for allowing state universities to offer this degree is the U of M’s monopoly on this market. The legislature felt they (U of M) weren’t being nimble enough to respond to the state’s needs. We need to be aware that we don’t fall into the same trap. We (MnSCU) are not authorized under HLC guidelines, but the individual institutions are. There is no guarantee that we will be nimble because we have to deal with the HLC and accreditation industries.
IFO: Is there any way to leverage with what HLC would perceive as necessary start-up costs to do something more reasonable?
Manuel: HLC guidelines are done at the institutional level, so there isn’t much. The process is akin to doing the 10 year accreditation study but in a more compressed way.
IFO: Would it look at all problematic that we’ve received no money and no support by the OOC?
Manuel: That’s an interesting question. (i.e. NCAT 225,000 pilot projects for under- graduate education and the Chancellor has shown no support for the doctoral planning).
IFO: In the College of Business in Mankato, we started a new MBA program based on the differential program. I see this as something we‘d like to do with the doctoral program, recognizing there are additional start up costs. The College of Business dean was loaned two lines for two years; would something like a loan just to get the people in the program and get it started so they could generate some money be a possible solution?
Manuel: On the surface, it seems rational; I don’t control the money. It sounds reasonable. The other possibility is having a mobility loan of staff in the absence of what you suggest.
Manuel will come to the February 3 AAC meeting, if you have additional questions, please give them to Debra Japp.
Debra will be sending out the Academic Affairs report via email. Between the last BM and this meeting, there weren’t any meetings; they were all this week and last week.
Delegate Assembly Update:
According to the Operating Procedures, the IFO Board determines the rate of mileage reimbursement for delegates. The IFO Board of Directors and IFO standing committees use the regular rate of reimbursement. The Board made a motion to let the EC determine the rate of reimbursement. Carried
That rate will be communicated to the campuses electronically in a timely fashion.
Lobby Days:
We have an issue with the calendar. It is important to discuss what is happening that week in March. The Chancellor has accepted our invitation to speak at our Delegate Assembly banquet and he is nervous about that. We have sent him topics and we’ll see what he talks about. The Chancellor has been advocating for the state universities. Currently we are exploring a lunch speaker who will address Intellectual Property issues because we are way behind on that and the EC felt it was the most important issue to bring before faculty. It was also suggested by the GRC to invite gubernatorial candidates during our other lunch period. Russ said we need them to start thinking about the state universities. Faculty Associations were reminded to please follow the Delegate Assembly timelines Cindy sent out in the last Board packet.
Labor Relations and Equity Report:
The Salary Equity committee has completed their 2005 report. No names are ready yet as we are still checking on a few individual’s data. As soon as we have that list we will provide it to the FA presidents. Faculty who receive increases will have them retroactively to the beginning of FY05. We hope to begin the next salary study of the FY06 data. The chair of the committee would like to get the salary equity committee together before the April meeting or possibly at Delegate Assembly.
The GLBTA issues met in December and they moved on a couple of things on their goals list. They are discussing hosting a conference for GLBTA faculty, are targeting spring 2007, and are working on the approach and topics of the conference. They also discussed MnSCU’s draft nepotism procedure that defines family and household. The statutory definition of family is different which raises problems.
Several grievances were resolved since the last Board meeting. Only one open grievance remains in FY04, 8 are open for FY05, and FY06 there are only 8 open. It was noted that traditionally it’s taken two years to complete a non-renewal grievance; if there’s anything we can do to shorten that span we should. Pat agreed to this suggestion. Pat has requested to schedule those meetings that involve faculty who are out of jobs before others.
MnSCU appointed a new Vice Chancellor for Labor Relations who replaces the late John Shabatura. Mary Leary was hired; she has a labor background and is scheduled to start March 1. Mary is a graduate of Southwest. In response to a question on the ESI (Early Separation Incentive) grievances, Pat stated there have been several exchanges of proposals. The final proposal will probably be an LOU which will require Board approval and review by the negotiations team.
There was a discussion about the grievance log format and how to improve on it. It was suggested that it is hard to see who “won” the grievance. Pat explained the terminology used in the “resolved” column.
Treasurer’s Report:
Annette Schoenberger gave a financial report. We are accruing everything which
accounts for differences between years 04 and 05 amounts. The budget column is
not included on this report and we should add that. The issue with the board
expenses from the last board meeting is that we had an additional meeting and
therefore expenses this year are greater over this time last year. We are
spending more money this year than we were last year-- gas expenses, things cost
more. Annette asked the Board to think about how they can discuss with their
campuses that we probably need a dues increase. This could occur, but we won’t
discuss it this evening. We don’t want to send out financials electronically.
Membership Report:
Cindy Finch prepared a handout given in the packet which illustrated another $45,000 approximately in dues revenue for the fiscal year 2006. These figures were taken from the most recent update on membership as of January.
Investment Policy:
Annette presented the Board with the recommendation from the IFO Investment Committee. They met in early January without Annette and created a recommendation for the Board. Motion we adopt the revision This recommendation would involved selling some stocks and buying a Vanguard fund. Was the total stock index fund discussed as a possibility? Annette wasn’t sure because she didn’t attend the IC meeting. What about social responsibility funds? We ought to be making a statement as well as maximizing our funds. Some Board members felt this new recommendation is an extremely conservative portfolio, and we’re not so sure this is necessary right now because the market is turning around. A motion was made to table until our April board meeting. Carried w/ opposition
Nancy appreciates the work of the Investment Committee and we hope to give them some constructive feedback. Send your comments to Annette and she will forward to the Investment Committee. They will be invited to the April Board meeting. We want to express our thanks to Michael Sher and Rajiv Kalra. The Board investment policy discussion centered on social responsibility and risk factors. The auditors are giving a preliminary report on February 10 with recommendations to the Executive Committee. We would like them to also attend a Board meeting. We need to provide clarification to the Investment Committee. We had a clear policy in existence that was dramatically altered without direction by this body. Typically that is not what the Investment Committee would do.
Operating Procedures Presidential Compensation:
Move to adopt revised Operating Procedures based on the December 1-2 Board motion to revise the presidential compensation package. Carried
MnSCU Committee Student Affairs Policy Taskforce:
There was a committee vacancy on the Student Affairs Policy Taskforce and no volunteers came forward. We have notified MnSCU.
Staff Restructure Update:
Cindy Phillips reported that the staff committee is working on proposals. You all received a survey in which most of you have responded. The restructure committee has extended the survey deadline until next Wednesday - please encourage your folks to respond. If you haven’t, please respond. We are trying to move as quickly as is prudent. In support areas we may need to move quickly (i.e. bookkeeping vs. accounting, personnel vs. human resources, and confidential support for Nancy). The EC may send out a resolution to the Board. Nancy stated that the staff negotiating team is meeting with the IFOSA on Saturday, January 28.
Staff Salary Supplements:
At our December meeting we voted to give a salary supplement to the internal staff, who have been working extremely hard. Not only have they absorbed two positions but are doing a great deal of work around legal issues. Nancy complemented the staff on their hard work. It was recommended by the Executive Committee for Board approval that the supplemental salaries for the staff continue through March. A motion was made to approve the EC recommendation and continue the staff salary supplements through the end of March 2006. Carried
Salary Competitiveness Survey:
About a year ago we had the Joint IFO/MnSCU Salary Competitiveness Taskforce that Russ staffed with half faculty and half management. One of the side projects was to look at what faculty really value as benefits. xx moved we adopt the survey as submitted xx and Seconded There may be some missing questions. What about why people take early retirement? George noted that this survey will give us some indications of areas that may need more exploration. This is just the beginning of a process that we may want to follow in the future. This can help us better understand the relevant issues that make the most impact on faculty retention. Maybe in the future we can use the results to refine the survey. How about instead of using the category “limited knowledge” we say “does not apply.” Move to amend that we approve with that change. Vote on the motion: 10 opposed 7 agreed. The motion does not carry therefore the survey will not be distributed.
IFO Presidential Nominating Committee Update:
Becky Omdahl gave a report. Gerald Toland and Cathy Summa are also on this committee. Only one candidate came forward and our Operating Procedures say two names are needed. A motion was made to set aside the Operating Procedures for the purposes of nominating a single candidate for this year only. Carried. The Nominating Committee would like to nominate Nancy J. Black for the office of the IFO president. A motion was made to accept Nancy’s nomination. Carried. No nominations came from the floor. A motion was made to close nominations Carried.
Legislative Report:
Russ Stanton gave an update on the legislature and the issues taking place.
MOTION: Extend the meeting. Passed
Government Relations Report:
Russ Stanton stated that the GRC proposed 9 goals:
1.Oppose a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages.
2.Support legislation to allow resident aliens who attended Minnesota high schools to attend public higher education institutions at resident tuition rates.
3.Continue to support the statutory requirement that the students will pay 33% and the state 67% of public higher education instructional costs.
4.Support a statute providing domestic partner benefits to same-sex and opposite-sex married couples who are state employees.
5.Support legislation to use abandoned funds in the IRAP and SRP pension funds exclusively for the benefit of participants in those funds.
6.Support a 5% cap on TRA cost of living adjustments (COLAs).
7.Support legislation to change the state tobacco “user fee” to a tax.
8.The MnSCU bonding priority list should be fully funded before any other projects are considered.
9.Support the consolidation of the Minneapolis TRA Fund with the state Teachers Retirement Association provided:
MOTION: Move the approval of the recommended goals as put forward by the Government Relations Committee. Motion passed with #6 and #8 pulled.
Goal #6: The concern was the need for a bottom. It was proposed that we should advocate both a bottom and a cap of 5%. The response was that there are reasons for placing a cap on it to reduce the standard deviations.
MOTION: To approve goal #6. Passed.
Goal #8: Questions were asked about whether there are projects which IFO should advocate funding out of order from the MnSCU bonding priority list. Both Bemidji and Southwest State would like this voted down. The response was that the priority list has been a very effective strategy in getting legislative support for a large number of MnSCU projects.
MOTION: To approve goal #8. Passed.
Motion to move into Executive Session at 9:47. Passed.
The meeting ended at 10:00 p.m. when the Executive Session concluded.
Friday, January 27th
Called to order at 8:35 a.m.
Nancy asked the Board if they would be willing to hear Gerald Toland’s reasoning for wanting to recall and reword goal #8 from the GRC. We need a motion to reconsider. motion to reconsider. The MnSCU priority list should be fully funded. Other projects should also be funded on their own merits and their overall benefits to the State of Minnesota. Toland made this motion to substitute. Annette said that the GRC wanted us to pass this motion so it is not necessary to substitute. Gerry said the GRC understands they make recommendations to the Board and the Board makes the decision. The reason Gerry said other projects would include MnSCU but also private organizations who may add their funding to make the whole thing possible. Motion to consider the substitute Motion Fails
Executive Session:
The Board went into Executive Session at 8:55 a.m. with IFOSA representatives present (Cindy Finch and Russ Stanton were present), to hear grievance appeals for former staff members.
Members present: Wayne Alexander, Nancy Black, Stephen Bohnenblust, Jayantha Herath, Georgia Holmes, Judy Kilborn, Cindy Killion, Andrew Larkin, Dave Larkin, Becky Omdahl, Cindy Phillips, Mike Ruth, Annette Schoenberger, George Seldat, Roger Severns, Cathy Summa, Gerald Toland, Rose Weaver, Derek Webb, and Ruth Zietlow
MOTION: The Board upholds the decision of October 28, 2005 and denies the grievance of the former staff member. Division requested. Passed yes 18 no 2
MOTION: The Board upholds the decision of October 28, 2005 and denies the appeal of the former staff member. Division requested. Passed yes 14 no 6
Adjourned