Statewide Meet and Confer

Unofficial NOTES

February 7, 2003

Began at 8:30am.

Fond du Lac Tribal and Community College:

MnSCU informed the IFO that Fond du Lac Tribal and Community College is seeking approval from the MnSCU Board of Trustees and the legislature to expand their program offerings to offer a Bachelor’s Degree in a limited number of programs.  The best way to move forward is to quickly get some kind of discussion with all of us in the same room.  They do intend to move forward.  We’ve met with their lobbyist and they have found chief authors for their proposed bill and intend to have it passed by the end of this month.  The language in this bill would specify the two degrees they are seeking:  Elementary Education and Ecology which is in-line with their mission with their land grants.  The Board of Trustees have not talked about it at this point.  The Chancellor sated that he opposes this moving forward until the Boar of Trustees approves.  Does the IFO have a position on this matter?

The IFO stated that they have no official statement but are working on one at this time.

The MnSCU Board of Trustees will have an informal meeting in February but won’t make any decisions at that time.  If we wait until March there will be a hearing and the Chancellor may be asked to speak.   There is some land grant money, but this is a different type of [2-year] institution.  Currently the only degree they want to move forward with is the Elementary Education degree (there is a major shortage of American Indian teachers in their community).

The IFO stated that if a 2-year institution is going to offer 4-year degrees then they need to be a University.  We are concerned with creep – if language is being proposed the Board needs to make sure that every other 2-year institution understands it is because of Fond du Lac’s funding that they are able to offer this 4-year degree.

MnSCU stated that all over the country 2-year institutions are offering 4-year degrees.  The Labor Relations Act defines a state college – it would mean that all faculty at Fond du Lac would be deducted their union dues by MSCF.  We need to try to manage the union territories.

The IFO stated that PELRA is a major concern.  We are not against anything a tribal college wants to do.  Again, we want to bring to your attention [MnSCU] do not over look the Bemidji State University cohort.

MnSCU again stated that there is a need for American Indian teacher in this state and we [MnSCU] have not met that need; that’ll be Fond du Lac’s argument.  The state of Minnesota has an extreme shortage of teachers of color; that is a problem.  The Urban League center is involved.  Are we aligned with the changing demographics of Minnesota?  It is not about the quality but about the gap.  This begins at the grade school level.

The IFO brought an article in the Moorhead Forum to MnSCU’s attention, where Nancy Connor, MnSCU’s spokesperson, was quoted with potentially damaging words.

MnSCU replied that her words were taken out of context and twisted.  She felt that she was quoted in a way that she didn’t intend for it to mean.  She stated that she did not recall ever speaking negatively.

Teacher Education:

The Chancellor stated that he has never spoken poorly of teacher education programs.  Wilson Bradshaw (Metropolitan State University) has started a program.  This is a matter that is being dealt with by our COPE committee.  They are focusing on the Twin Cities.

Grievances (Length of Time to Resolve):

The IFO stated that they feel that the time being taken to resolve grievances is creating more frustration for our faculty.  We have a mature contract!  We’re wasting effort and money to resolve our issues.

MnSCU stated that whenever possible they try to resolve issues on a campus level.

The IFO said they are not being resolved on a campus level.  The Office of the Chancellor needs to make a statement to the campuses “handle your grievances at the campus level don’t send them to the central office!”  Due process requirements are not being observed.

The Chancellor stated that the state university president have the authority to resolve grievances on a campus level.  We [the central office] cannot micromanage and we don’t want to strip our state university president’s authority!

MnSCU stated that sometimes the state university presidents don’t take the advice of the Labor Relations Office and they wind up back in our office again.  Shouldn’t we be shipping these back again to the campus?  Informally we do that.  How can we establish that we hire state university president to run these institutions?

The IFO stated that they believe this is a provost level issue.  This is just a waste of money.  We need expedited arbitration.  We feel we’re being treated like our contract was written two years ago; we should be able to move quickly, we have a mature contract.

MnSCU stated that there are some less-experienced state university presidents who aren’t comfortable and confident taking control to make these decisions.  We tell presidents and provosts to make their own decisions.

The IFO has the impression that MnSCU is doing a lot of hand-holding.  We were told by a particular provost that they were told by MnSCU not to make their own decisions.

The Chancellor stated that at the next leadership meeting (which consists of all of the state university presidents) he will talk to them about these impressions – they were hired and are paid to be presidents.

Transfer:

The IFO addressed their concern about the budget cuts in the Office of Program Transfer and Collaboration.  This is one department that is really working – they have unified faculty!  If we cut back on this department we will slide back into individual campuses again and we may end up back in the legislature.  A plea was made to keep the core staff at the Office of Program Transfer and Collaboration.

World Language Grievance:

The IFO stated their frustration that World Languages had not been brought to a statewide meet and confer before it was integrated into the Minnesota Transfer Curriculum.  This is not a confrontational grievance but rather a clarification grievance.

MnSCU stated that they agree with the IFO on this grievance.  The Chancellor asked his staff if there had been any follow through?  It was stated by a staff member that they were “on track.”  This is an academic/faculty issue not a labor relations issue.

AFA Named Emphasis Degree:

The IFO stated their opposition the AFA & with named emphasis degrees.  It was requested that faculty participate every stage of these discussions. 

MnSCU stated that this was entirely on hold and that the first discussion would take place with faculty; the faculty who are appointed to attend the April 11, 2003 transfer meeting.

State Budget Cuts:

An announcement was made that the Governor, in his first round of cuts, will be cutting 25 million from MnSCU.  The Chancellor stated that until our system gets the money we need (107+67) we oppose any money given to financial aid.

Termination of Tenured Faculty:

The IFO stated that in a recent grievance regarding the termination of a tenured faculty member, due process requirements were not in conformity of the AAUP policies.  A copy of the AAUP policy book was given to the Chancellor and staff in the Labor Relations department.

The Chancellor stated that this issue should be on the table when we negotiate our next contract.  There is no issue of attack on tenure happening in our system.  This did happen at the University of Minnesota.

Early Separation Incentive (ESI):

MnSCU gave a history of the discovery they made as it relates to the IFO/MnSCU Agreement on the Early Separation Incentive.  There is a state law that prohibits any state workers who have retired, and are 65 years of age or older, to receive any health insurance.  Currently our Agreement states otherwise.  The Attorney General’s Office took a look at our agreement and the law and filed a brief concluding that both sides of the issue were defensible.  MnSCU stated that they came up with an idea to solve the problem temporarily but at the same time will have to pursue a definitive answer.  It is an issue of policy at this point because the law is ambiguous. 

The IFO recommended a high priority be placed on this issue.

2-year vs. 4-year Taskforce Representative:

The IFO pointed out that the 2-year institutions have more representation on the MnSCU taskforces.  The 4-year institutions represent more students.  One size does not fit all.

Update on MnSCU Committees:

MnSCU gave an update on all of the committees in their system.  It was noted that there are probably other committees out there that may have been overlooked.  Guidelines for these committees are being put together.  Specific faculty names will be given to the IFO office.

MnSCU Policies (Surprise Changes):

First of all, the IFO brought to the attention of MnSCU, student satisfaction surveys that are being handed out on the campuses.  These surveys were never brought to a meet and confer before they were distributed.  The same is true of policy changes; they need to come through statewide meet and confer before they go out for work and discussion, if only to announce!  There is currently a proposed policy out there now that will dramatically affect our faculty’s freedom.  Policy is constitution; you don’t lightly go about changing that.  How are we supposed to find out about policy changes - a week before the Board of Trustees meets or by trolling around your office picking up loose paper?

The Chancellor stated that MnSCU has just now started adding items to the statewide meet and confer agendas, but he is hearing that we (the IFO) are looking for more academic affairs proactive items.  The IFO agreed.  The Chancellor stated that he wants things to be smooth-sailing by the time proposed policy/policy changes get to the Board of Trustees.  The Board is spending the next three years to look at their policies.  A system level policy on policy development is being created.  (A handout on MnSCU’s policy work plan was distributed.)  MnSCU stated that they have two levels of policy.

MnSCU System Budget:
MnSCU stated that they are looking at ways to simplify their budget and save money.

Annuitant Employment Program (AEP):

The AEP may be looking at faculty requests more closely and will took at he cost benefit analysis (less are/will be approved).

Adjourned 11:45pm