Statewide Meet and Confer Notes
Unofficial
May 3, 2002 8:30am 

The Chancellor started the meet and confer with a statement to the IFO.  He stated that he would be greatly interested in having pre-negotiations discussions on the topic of finding creative and competitive ways we can improve our marketing of the IFO’s state universities.  A good example of this was Article 22 of the IFO/MnSCU contract.

 2-Year Institutions Becoming 4-Year Institutions?

The IFO has been hearing rumors about a couple of 2-year institutions aspiring to become 4-year institutions.  The IFO asked MnSCU what they have heard.  

MnSCU replied that the national market shows that 4-year institutions are doing 2-year courses and vice versa.  We need to get our research department to look into this so we understand what we are dealing with before we get locked up.  Fond du Lac (and White Earth), a 2-year institution, is a different kind of institution and I am aware of those discussions.  Fond du Lac says there is a need for 4-year programs focused on the Indian community and is their dream to do more.  This will not take away from Bemidji or Moorhead’s programs. 

The IFO commented that St. Paul Technical College (SPTC) was rumbling about this at one time.  We have reports that SPTC is currently offering 4-year Bachelor degrees. 

MnSCU asked for a copy from the IFO of the SPTC program to confirm.  At this point MnSCU has only heard about this from Fond du Lac. 

It was noted that the IFO is interested in finding out more about this as the 4-year MnSCU institutions are having financial difficulties.  We need to discuss the mission s of the various MnSCU institutions we have.  *The IFO feels that economics are driving these program decisions rather than academics.

 *The Chancellor stated that this talk drives legislators crazy and those people stating these things should be told they are out of line with the Minnesota majority.

 2-Year Advertising Lower Gen Ed Course Rates?

An advertisement was placed in the St. Cloud Chronicle from St. Cloud Technical Colleges announcing that students can take their general education courses there for much cheaper than those offered at St. Cloud State University.  The IFO perceives this as competition and feels we need to focus on keeping the relationship positive between the SUs and TC/CCs.  The IFO asked MnSCU if this represents a systematic strategy.

 The Chancellor stated that he has spent time with both of these presidents (SCSU and SCTC) and feel they have a good working relationship.  The IFO thought they were probably right.  The Chancellor stated that both of these provosts should be working together on this (note: both provosts are leaving their institutions).

 The IFO underlined it’s point that because this ad was in the SCSU newspaper, and was making the point that you can spend less per credit at SCTC, that they ARE focusing on economics rather than academics.  We are all one system; what are we doing to ourselves competing like this? 

The Chancellor stated that he wouldn’t think this should be a problem, as they are just beginner (gen ed) courses like technical writing 101. The Chancellor stated that he assumed that TC/CCs need technical writers too.

 The IFO stated that it does not bother the 4-year institutions that 2-year institutions are offering the same courses; what bothers the IFO is that there does not seem to be a mutual coordination or a connection.  MnSCU felt this was and excellent point and stated they would look into that (starting mini-alliances between 4-year and 2-year institutions).

 4-Year Institutions Offering Doctorates?

The issue of offering doctorates at 4-year institutions came up.  What faculty are hearing is that MnSCU feels this will not be an extra cost to the universities to offer doctorate degrees, but rather that the costs associated will be simply absorbed.  The issue of teaching load seems to be ignored.  MnSCU feels there needs to be further communication on this topic.

The Chancellor’s Citizen Advisory Commission:

The issue of combining the administrators from Minneapolis Technical College and Metropolitan State University was discussed.  The IFO stressed its point that they would like their feedback to be considered as valuable or as primary issues during this process.

 MnSCU stated that the Commission worked very hard to devise these work goals.  They were very bold on this issue of MSU and MTC.  Keep in mind, that these are recommendations; we will determine where to go with this.  The Twin Cities metropolitan area is a BIG challenge (competing with the U of M).  MnSCU feels this would greatly benefit MSU.

 Clearer Goals for Administration (Citizen’s Advisory Commission):

We need to gather the goals/missions for each of our institutions so we may have more clear directions.  We have the personnel resources to fulfill these objectives, but we need clarity.

 The Chancellor stated that in May and June, MnSCU would be working on clarifying their objectives.  At that time I will present a 3-year plan; after that I will develop a work plan.  This work plan will involve continuous improvement and revising the plan, if need be, on a year-to-year basis.  MnSCU distributed the first draft of their 3-year plan.

 Liberal Education (Citizen’s Advisory Commission):

The IFO stated that they do not see an emphasis on liberal education.  MnSCU stated that we will see more of a specific emphasis in the work plan and then the operating procedures will be focused even more.  MnSCU’s theme is to keep it simple and focused.  This is moving along quickly and we want to distinguish the difference between directions vs. process.  MnSCU is the opportunity door for the state of Minnesota.

 The IFO stated their concerns that when MnSCU refers to “the community” it may be focusing too greatly on the metro area when we have institutions all over the state of Minnesota.

 The Chancellor stated that they need feedback within 2-3 weeks for it to be considered to be incorporated into the Chancellor’s strategic plan.  The IFO feels they need to present some refinements to liberal education.  MnSCU stated that they would also like members of their finance department to be involved in any upcoming meetings.

 Graduate Education:

The IFO stated that we need to do a formal investigation of graduate programs.  It is time to start a joint-taskforce with IFO and MnSCU.  The Chancellor stated that this should be included in his work plan.  He needs the suggestions within 2-3 weeks, otherwise it will not happen.  You need to communicate your graduate education to the appropriate person at MnSCU.  The IFO noted that it might be wise for MnSCU to investigate alternative education delivery systems as well.

 The Chancellor noted that he is strongly pushing his staff to communicate.

 Negotiations Update:

The IFO requested that MnSCU communicate their impression of where things are with negotiations.

 MnSCU replied that our contract is currently with all of the other labor agreements.  It has been rumored that the contract ratification bill will not stand-alone but rather will be appended to the Budget Bill.  There is a concern that the contracts will be rejected based solely upon the domestic partner benefits.  If that happens, we do not have a good contingency plan.  This would put us all back at the negotiating table.

 There was a conversation about the importance of DOERs involvement.  MnSCU noted that usually there are not executive branches that you have to deal with in a university system (the U of M does not work with DOER).

 The IFO requested that MnSCU put out a statement to faculty.  We are at the end of the semester and faculty will soon be leaving town and the campus.  It would save MnSCU money if they could mail the negotiations update to faculty on campus as opposed to their homes.  Currently faculty are very emotional about the contract.  They have not received their back pay yet (the Chancellor was unaware of this and assumed they already received their checks).

The IFO stated that we are loosing faculty due to low salaries, high teaching load and professional and social amenities.  It would be helpful to these faculty who are considering leaving the MnSCU system to have a positive statement before the end of the school year.

 MnSCU stated that they must be careful of what they say; legislators may misperceive anything encouraging and they are already irritated.  Some of them are out to teach us a lesson.  The IFO stated that the legislature is micro-managing our contract.  MnSCU agreed.  MnSCU noted that when the initial approval of our contract happens by the subcommittee on employee relations, then the back pay would occur.  The Chancellor felt it would be appropriate to send out a carefully written statement that would end on “we hope this can be resolved.” (We’ll know by May 20 if this gets resolved or not.)  The IFO President would also sign the letter.  The IFO and MnSCU contacts will work on this together.

 The IFO stated that some faculty [with domestic partners] have already made their insurance decisions based on the contract benefits (insurance enrollment was in January 2002) and some people are going to be tremendously harmed with this.  MnSCU replied that they should not have done that (applied for domestic partner insurance before the contract was finalized), or they should not plan on it, as domestic partners benefits are still problematic within the legislature.

 IPEDs Report:

The IPEDs report is due out in April.  What is the status?

 MnSCU replied that it is not yet complete.  They would be willing to show the IFO the list of institutions selected.  We are still trying to determine the purpose of this report if it is not going to be used to ask legislators for more money.  We are also concerned if this report would harm us.  It has stalled out.  If leadership decides they want to continue producing this report we will.

 The IFO would like this info.  We want to know if these reports are showing our state universities as under paid/staffed.  MnSCU feels that overall the universities appear to be under funded.  We need to see how the Leadership Council (chancellor, state university presidents, sr. staff) feels.  Does the Leadership Council review these reports before they are published?  Yes.  Are these reports brought to the unions before they are published?  No, but it depends.  The IFO stated that they are concerned because they are often being put in a reactive position (i.e. Syllabus requirements).  We are concerned that you are trying to make every thing fit everybody (TC/CC vs. SU).  The IFO requested to be in the loop.

 Who are “218” faculty?

This is a payroll code for any employee (not only faculty) that does not meet the state’s requirements for state employees under PELRA or for someone whom it would not be appropriate to be a union member.  A 218 staff person would work no more than 1 course with 3 credits for one semester a year or fewer.  If you teach 4 credits you are in [the union], if you teach 1 course with 3 credits each semester you are in.  The IFO (and MSCF) is concerned that these staff members are not receiving legal representation.  A 218 is not a public employee but are in the state system.  To what standard is 218 staff being held?  Who fires them?  Is there a criteria or security for them?  The Chancellor responded that no one is responsible to represent them.

 Biennial Budget Advisory Team:

MnSCU said that the IFO would be receiving a letter on the BBAT.  The Chancellor asked, “Don’t we all work together on this?”  The IFO stated that we think it will be different this year (first meeting scheduled for June 10-11).  The last year there was a more formal structure: union; students; MnSCU; administration; and, state university presidents.  The Chancellor asked, “Don’t you all have to work together to get the support you need?”  The IFO stated, “The only reason they haven’t started is because they need the strategic plan before they can begin.”

 IFO’s Request for M&C 7/18/03:

The Chancellor stated that he has trouble setting dates that far in advance.  There may be an ASCU meeting that weekend.  If you really need to set a date for something, please ask my assistant Janice Fitzgerald.

 Anti-Racism Initiatives:

The following delegate assembly resolutions were discussed: 

M/S - Be it resolved that the IFO express its frustration to MnSCU that the Chancellor's goals for diversity have been thwarted in that diversity training, promoted by the office of Equal Opportunity and Diversity, has not been relevant to the needs of faculty and students, nor has it been accessible system wide.  Therefore, we propose that the Chancellor's Office fully fund the system-wide Anti-Racism Initiative of the MIC, beginning July 1, 2002, thereby furthering the educational objectives of MnSCU and the IFO.  CARRIED.

 M/S - Be it resolved that the IFO strongly encourage MnSCU to support Anti-Racism Initiatives by providing funding to campuses; and by making the Initiatives part of the Chancellor's Workplan.  CARRIED.

MnSCU commented that they felt this was a vote of no confidence in MnSCU and it felt like a burden.  The IFO defended themselves by assuring MnSCU it was not a vote of no confidence.  The IFO complimented the work of Darcel Lewis in the St. Cloud community.  The IFO is concerned that a seminar on diversity will not make as great of an impact as a hands-on workshop on anti-racism addressing campus climate.  The diversity seminar was postponed and will now be in April 2003.  The Chancellor asked if his staff was making any progress to meet the IFO’s need for an anti-racism workshop.  Basically the IFO stated that, no, there has not been progress towards an anti-racism workshop.  The Chancellor verified that the IFO is looking for a plan for this workshop to take place.  The Chancellor stated that he feels he has heard what the faculty want; faculty are asking for ownership and participatory involvement.  I (the Chancellor) understand them (state university faculty) but evidently our office does not.

 The Chancellor made the following statement, “I am a teacher and I see a need for the IFO President to identify one person who understands this issue, I will then appoint two staff people from our side.  My assistant will put together a meeting to talk about ways to involve faculty.  This will not work for us (MnSCU) to do something for them, they want ownership and to participate.  Give my assistant the name and she will get started.”

 HR & EEO Positions:

The following delegate assembly resolution was discussed:

M/S - Be it resolved that the IFO strongly encourage MnSCU campuses to separate the positions of Director of Human Resources (HR) or Personnel and Affirmative Action (AA) Officer by employing at least two (2) different people to fill these positions.  CARRIED.

MnSCU was only aware of this being an issue at Winona.  The situation at Mankato was only temporary.  The Chancellor will be reviewing this.  Staff of the Chancellor also agreed that these should be separated. 

 Mediation:

The following delegate assembly resolution was discussed:

M/S - Be it resolved that the IFO:  Whereas, Article 2, Equal Opportunity and Non-discrimination, Section C, Affirmative Action Plan, Subdivision 4, establishes that "the IFO and Employer agree to offer a voluntary mediation option for resolution of allegations of discrimination," and, Whereas, the FIC resolution was passed at the 2000 DA requesting implementation of a statewide mediation program, and, Whereas, MnSCU created a mediation program without faculty input, and, Whereas, MnSCU's mediation program is limited to interpersonal conflict, Therefore, be it resolved that the IFO through the Statewide Meet and Confer formally request that MnSCU create another mediation program in compliance with Article 2, Section C, Subd. 4 and the FIC DA 2000 resolution.  CARRIED.

 The IFO feels that this does not meet the requirements in Article 2.  MnSCU stated that the Bureau of Mediation’s program was never intended to be the exclusive participant in mediation.  We are open to other mechanisms as well.  There are other resources out there (i.e. private attorneys) we are open to looking into anything that will work.  Currently many mediators (one from each campus) are being trained.  MnSCU provided the IFO with the names of those faculty who are being trained.  These mediators will not be handling mediations on their home campuses, but rather a neutral person would be assigned.

 2-year institutions are holding job and education fairs where they are including institutions outside of MnSCU – should other MnSCU sister-institutions be given priority and prominence?

It is the Chancellor’s impression that at least ¾ of 2-year institutions feel 4-year institutions mistreat them in the MnSCU system.  MnSCU’s 2-year institutions feel they are treated better by institutions outside of the MnSCU system (i.e. private colleges, etc.).  The Chancellor seemed concerned that there is a perceived lack of communication and unity between the MnSCU institutions.

 Electronic Pay Stubs:

For all paychecks received on July 12 and after, pay stubs will be processed on DOER’s website.  The IFO was greatly concerned about this.  Most importantly, faculty have not yet been properly informed on some campuses.  MnSCU said they would have more information on Monday, May 06, 2002.  The IFO noted that faculty are leaving next week for summer break.  There needs to be a training effort made for faculty who aren’t even comfortable using an ATM.  The IFO urged MnSCU to communicate.

 Travel Reimbursement:

The IFO thanked the Chancellor for his most recent letter addressing the issue of travel, but asked for more clarification.  What are your criteria for being a paid participant [at a MnSCU meeting]?

MnSCU stated that there is some discretion used.  Some situations require our reimbursement some situations do not.   For a meeting where we would require attendance, we would pay for.  For a meeting where we are offering you a position at the table to participate, you would pay for.  It’s an invitation vs. a solicitation and a judgment call. 

The IFO believes it would be best to sit down and define these criteria for paid vs. not paid meetings.  The IFO also believe it would be fair to allocate additional money to these universities that are required to drive greater distances to attend these meeting.  The Chancellor replied that their office is squeezing down on expenses.  They have cut $8 million and 31 staff; there isn’t a pot of money here.  The IFO suggested that MnSCU allocate the money it normally spent on reimbursing travel expenses for SU faculty, directly to the SUs through the allocation model - faculty can then be reimbursed for travel directly from their university and it would no longer be a MnSCU issue.

Salary Consultant:

The IFO requested an update.  MnSCU stated that they would be making a phone call today to the consultant they have been trying to retain.  The IFO stated that if there is no action on the salary equity study by next fall that it [tension] will blow.  The Salary Equity Committee is meeting next week, within one week of their meeting, MnSCU will have made their decision on whether to hire the consultant or not.

Campus Control of Reserves:

We understand the importance of reserves, but in times like this, reserves are indeed needed and we do not want the pressure of MnSCU’s Board of Trustees enforcing upon the state universities the need to constantly have reserves set aside, even if they are depleted.  The IFO is concerned that this pressure from MnSCU will force the SUs to turn to raising tuition in order to replenish reserves. 

MnSCU stated that they would have something out (to the unions, student groups, administrators, presidents, etc.) in a month or so - a system-wide policy on reserves.  This needs to go back to the legislature.

 The IFO was concerned about the money that acts like it is in a reserve account but isn’t called a reserve.  MnSCU stated that these are just state university president contingency funds and this is decided individually among the campuses.  The IFO stated that this happens at MnSCU as well, and would like more disclosure on what fund “3786” really means.

 Duplication of Programs U of M - Winona, Crookston and Rochester:

The University of Minnesota is taking over the Rochester area.  What does the future hold?

 MnSCU stated that Rochester’s College and University Center, who feel they speak for the Rochester community, want the University’s research facilities there.

 The IFO asked if they are to compete or not.

 Meeting adjourned at 11:45pm.