Inter Faculty Organization and the Minnesota State
Colleges and Universities
March 1, 2002 8:30am
ICPSR: An update was given to MnSCU that this issue had been resolved.
MnSCU Being Proactive: The Chancellor commented that he reviewed the IFO’s agenda when it was emailed to him (and other key MnSCU M&C participants) a week before and urged MnSCU individuals to get a head start on our agenda items so they would be prepared for discussion.
Course Syllabi: The IFO pointed out that we had made some recommendations to MnSCU’s current Board policy on course syllabi. The Chancellor noted that this came about mainly due to some problems that students were having on the 2-year campuses. Students deserve to know what their professors expect. The Chancellor urged the 4-year campuses to join them in expecting professors to give their course syllabi in a reasonable timeframe.
Transfer: This is a hot topic on all of our campuses. We accept the MN Transfer Curriculum but the problem we are having is related to majors and minors. A particular 2-year campus was discussed, as they are having issues with their local 4-year campus. The Chancellor complimented BSU as he feels they may become a nation model with how well they get along with their 2-year campuses. MnSCU stated that a discipline-based articulation agreement should be made between the 2 and 4-year universities. Students need to be informed that articulation agreements exist but students must also be planning and care of what direction they go with their education. Strong advising and counseling is needed. The Chancellor suggested that the above-mentioned problem with one of our 4-year universities, that the key individuals need to sit down with MnSCU key individuals and talk this thing through. It may be beneficial to have a third party be present. Problems with duplicate nursing programs in 4-year territories were discussed.
IPEDs: MnSCU stated that any one has “guest level” access to this data source. The IFO stated that we want more than guest level access and asked if MnSCU would be willing to share this resource with the 4-year universities. MnSCU stated that they would look into this. The Chancellor stated that all data should be available to all individuals.
M&C Process: The IFO stated their frustration because they feel MnSCU is not bringing priority issues to us. When the IFO is bringing issues to M&C that have gone beyond our level of control, it feels like we are always put in a reactive position, when we would prefer that these issues be communicated directly to us at the first-level of integration. When the IFO is always reacting negatively to these issues, we feel it is not a fair representation of our union – like we appear to be a junkyard bulldog. We want to be informed in the early stages if we are going to be effective collaborators instead of appearing to work against MnSCU delaying any new changes. We want to be proactive if given the opportunity instead of reactive.
The Chancellor mentioned that the IFO put them in a reactive position when we presented our pension proposal to the legislature before first consulting with them (post-retirement health care savings plan). The Chancellor feels this issue directly impacts the MnSCU office as he pointed out that there would be $40 million in tails.
Grievance Procedures Step I, II and III: Last year 9 out of 21 grievances came from SCSU. This year it is already 10 out of 15. There is a breakdown at the Step III level. It was suggested that a mediator should be present at all Step III meetings to better streamline the issues.
The Chancellor asked, “How deeply rooted are these problems? This is an overall trend for the last 15-20 years and it permeates every area.” A MnSCU representative stated that these issues have gone beyond Labor Relations.
The IFO stated that the real problems aren’t being addressed, rather it is being solved from a contractual standpoint, and lawyer games are being played. At the level of MnSCU being involved it only becomes a matter of how was the contract violated, instead of what is the root of this problem. The contract does not address the real root.
Travel Expenses: The IFO is concerned that MnSCU is not adequately reimbursing faculty representatives who attend MnSCU meetings, particularly Bemidji and Moorhead reps. MnSCU is on the train-of-thought that they should be responsible for travel expenses as these are MnSCU originated meetings. No decision has been made yet and MnSCU stated that this issue will be brought back to M&C next time.
Diversity Issues: The TOCAR program at MSU Moorhead was discussed. The IFO asked MnSCU if there was a diversity plan for each campus. MnSCU stated that there is not but that there should be. The IFO discussed the issue happening at MSU Moorhead with a tuition waiver for students of color, this program is in jeopardy. The Office of the Chancellor had not heard of this issue and stated that this issue is not a topic for our M&Cs but rather it should be addressed to the Office of the Chancellor through the President of MSU Moorhead.
The issue of MnSCU’s upcoming diversity conference, to be held in St. Cloud, was thoroughly discussed. The IFO stated that their faculty are not going to go to “MnSCU’s Program” but rather they need to be involved with setting this up from step one. The faculty need to feel that they are a part of this. MnSCU stated that this is a statewide conference that MnSCU is putting money into. The Chancellor stated his concern that the IFO’s own President was not in the loop from step one. The IFO stated that their Multicultural Issues Committee addressed this issue with MnSCU but felt they were not taken seriously. The MIC presented a proposal to MnSCU on a more hands-on faculty workshop for anti-racism but the Office of the Chancellor has yet to respond. Again, the Chancellor stated his concern that it sounds like this MnSCU-sponsored diversity conference in St. Cloud was not accurately handled. The Chancellor stated, “If you drive it [the diversity conference initiative] down from the top, it will never get done.” MnSCU stated that the IFO is only one of three faculty institutions. MnSCU’s issue is that they are trying to serve the needs of the entire system. If we [MnSCU] only try to meet the IFO’s needs, we will be overlooking the 2-year institutions. MnSCU needs a system approach. The Chancellor stated that this approach is not working. The IFO mentioned that SCSU was asked to do fundraising for this diversity conference, and if faculty are being asked to raise money then they should have a say in the matter. The IFO stated that they are passionate about the anti-racism issue and feels they are struggling just to get an ear from MnSCU for their anti-racism workshop proposal. The Chancellor stated, what appears to have been directed to his Office staff on behalf of what the IFO was stating, that you cannot get it [diversity conference] done without the involvement of faculty. We’ve got to make a break-through. If the union leadership isn’t buying it, then faculty won’t.
Salary Consultant: The IFO has a major concern with the lack of movement on MnSCU’s part towards nailing down a proposal with a salary consultant. MnSCU stated one of the issues they are facing is that they cannot move forward with hiring any consultants due to the MN Department of Administration’s prohibition of professional technical contracts. The IFO requested a copy of this document. The IFO stated that they felt MnSCU changed direction with what was it’s (the IFO and MnSCU together) original intent: to do a system-wide study not seven (7) individual campus studies, which was what was requested in the original RFP. This decision to do a system-wide study came directly from the Salary Equity Committee (which is comprised of MnSCU and IFO representatives). MnSCU stated that they are waiting to hear from the Attorney General’s Office before they will proceed. MnSCU was reminded that this salary review is years overdue.
Negotiations: The IFO stated that they want to settle the contract in the upcoming mediations session.
Board of Trustees Bookstore Committee: The IFO was informed that faculty received an email coming from direct orders of MnSCU’s Board of Trustees that they were to form a Bookstore Committee so students may elect to rent books as opposed to buying them. Office of the Chancellor staff were not informed of this.
Meet and Confer Dates: The IFO expressed concern that the M&C dates/times for FY03 were cut short by a half-an-hour. The Office of the Chancellor expressed their concern that the Chancellor has a tough time working in a two-hour meeting into his busy schedule. The IFO is waiting response to their request to continue M&C times at two-hours.
Campus Control of Reserves: The IFO expressed their concern that since MnSCU is cutting campus budgets, they are still asking/requiring them to maintain their 5-7% reserve fund. The IFO believes there are some cases where this is not possible for certain campuses and that this rigid policy is frightening. The Board of Trustees is giving the impression that this is a requirement. MnSCU stated that the IFO’s impression was correct but that the issue of reserves will be addressed once they know where things are this legislative session. The IFO asked for a list of reasons the MnSCU Board of Trustees has set this standard for reserves. MnSCU stated that this is something we can bring back to our next M&C. The IFO stated that this should be handled outside of the M&C process. MnSCU said they would get back to us on that.
The IFO addressed several other budget concerns.
The M&C adjourned at 11:45.