Statewide Meet and Confer UNOFFICIAL NOTES
April 11, 2003
The Chancellor was unable to attend this meeting as he was summoned to Washington that day. Also three of the IFO faculty association presidents were not in attendance.
Salary Review Committee Annual Reviews:
Article 11 states that annual salary reviews need to be conducted. The IFO is requesting that MnSCU follows the contract and conduct the unfinished salary reviews (from 97).
MnSCU stated that this is an issue of bargaining. The IFO replied that this request has been brought to their attention and we are willing to move forward.
Diversity Conference:
MnSCU reported that the conference on April 3-4, 2003 in St. Cloud was handled and attended very well. A memo from the Chancellor dated August 21, 2002 was addressed. The IFO wanted clarification if it is mandatory that state university presidents provide diversity training on their campuses. MnSCU stated that there are no plans for the next conference and it is a matter of a campus coming forward and offering to host the conference. MnSCU has a 20,000 budget and will use the budget towards the conference and the host decides how the money is spent. A $100 was charged to each participant at this conference to replenish the pot for next years conference. The IFO felt that faculty need to be better targeted. The conference was held during a busy time for faculty and is a whole day conference – not easily accessible for all faculty from the entire state university system.
1B.1.1:
MnSCU announced that they would be proposing very minor changes to the 1B.1.1 procedure as a result of a litigation settlement. This should be on each campus by next week. They are proposed changes regarding complainants from more than one protected class.
Inadequate Local Budget Planning:
The IFO addressed an email sent by Judy Borgen on April 4 which seemed to contradict materials provided to the legislature by MnSCU. MnSCU explained that these two documents served two different purposes. The documents provided to the legislature were never meant to provide a guideline but where there to illustrate a “what if” scenario. The email from Judy Borgen was sent to campus presidents instructing them on how campuses COULD prepare their budgets. Ultimately it is the campuses’ decision. The IFO was concerned that MnSCU is giving false hopes to the state university presidents by not increasing tuition. MnSCU stated that they feel they have always sent a clear message that the tuition increase will be 15/15.
Central Office Cuts: Faculty Input
The IFO wanted to know if our faculty would have the opportunity to give their input on the proposed central office cuts. The fear is that programs or departments that have benefited our institutions will be cut and there will be no opportunity to address concerns. MnSCU stated that they are working on a 10%/15%/20% cut scenario and this is going to the Leadership Committee in May (it will not be discussed in the BBAT committee). The IFO stated that across-the-board cuts are not necessarily equal; where do we come into the communication loop? MnSCU stated that they can send Jim Pehler a copy of what they are presenting to the Leadership Committee. The IFO requested that this be a future meet and confer item. MnSCU was not willing to call their budget a meet and confer item, but felt it is more of a courtesy (to show us). Between May and June there will be time to comment on the budget scenarios.
MN Online Council:
The IFO wanted clarification on a proposal that the MN Online Council has developed regarding accreditation of online courses. MnSCU stated that there has never been any discussion about extra fees associated with the online program. The higher learning program has asked us (MnSCU) to do the accreditation. Faculty are involved in this process. Centralized accreditation is only an issue of efficiency – this will save the campuses money (because MnSCU can now accredit programs).
We have heard that you are unwilling to reimburse the travel expenses of faculty who are appointed to this committee. MnSCU stated that was correct. The IFO stated that faculty should not be penalized by having their wages reduced to attend a MnSCU initiated meeting. It seems you are planning to approve your proposal during the summer – faculty aren’t even on duty – they should not be expected to pay their own travel on off-duty hours especially!
Faculty Representation on MnSCU Taskforces:
The IFO wanted to let MnSCU know that the faculty we appoint to their taskforces do not always represent the IFO in total. MnSCU was troubled by this as they indicated that the IFO should have a process of reporting with these faculty.
Presidential Evaluations:
The IFO inquired about seeing copies of the evaluations given to the state university presidents. MnSCU responded that these documents are strictly confidential.
MnSCU’s Visibility:
The IFO inquired about what steps MnSCU is taking during these times to become more visible. The PR department was on hand to answer questions but stated that the Chancellor has been extensively traveling and constantly meeting with legislators. The IFO made many media-focused suggestions. They stated they are working closely with the HELL group (Higher Education Legislative Lobbyists), and our Government Relations team. The IFO feels the HELL group is just a platform to share information and isn’t necessarily an effort towards the media. The IFO feels the Chancellor needs to be much more visible all around the state. MnSCU stated that they created a MnSCU display that will be at the capital right outside the committee room.
Policy and Procedure Decisions:
The IFO stated that they attend the Academic Policy Council meetings where policy is discussed before brought to the Board of Trustees; but there seems to be areas that aren’t appearing in the academic meetings and aren’t considered “academic” policies but yet they directly affect academics and we are not being given the chance to discuss these policies. For example, 5.21.1 which directly affects internet usage – also this was never formally presented to the IFO. We need a unified process for policy changes (see page 21 of our contract). We don’t have a centralized process for handling policy changes. We need to slow down the process.
What is driving this 5.21.1 policy (to be released to the public within the week). MnSCU stated that several issues (DOERs policy in 97 – but this does not recognize higher education) have come up since the mid-90s and now they are getting serious about addressing them. We feel this policy imposes on our academic freedom. MnSCU stated that they are working diligently to avoid that. Currently the policy that we are working on developing is consistent with the University of Minnesota and those across the nation. The IFO feels that any restrictions will negatively affect faculty (downloadable software). According to MnSCU campuses are “begging for these system policies.” In June or July this policy will be presented to the Board. The IFO strongly urged MnSCU to bring this issue to the Academic Policy Council.
MnSCU Committees:
The IFO asked MnSCU to start posting all of their committees on their website along with contact information, agendas, minutes, etc. MnSCU stated that they felt this was a good idea and that a lot of their committees are up on a website but they aren’t centrally located.
Expedited Arbitration:
The IFO stated that they would like to see more progress towards expedited arbitration. We need to be more concerned with due process. MnSCU stated that their objective is to be able to move things more quickly – it’s a balancing act; some of these issues need more attention. MnSCU stated that there are a lot of current grievances that could be solved on their own campuses, and we have told the campuses to move forward. It seems the IFO is getting a different message and maybe what you are hearing isn’t 100% the truth.
Teacher Education Ad Hoc:
The IFO requested information on this. MnSCU was unable to provide any clear charges but that two ad hocs were being created and would involve 60 faculty.
MnSCU Awards:
It seems that over the last 3 years MnSCU has been awarding (plaques) Academic Excellence Awards to state university faculty.
Career Steps and the Media:
MnSCU stated that they had been contacted by Channel 5 and was requested to provide data on all faculty who are eligible for the career steps from Metropolitan State University and St. Cloud State University.
Akita:
MnSCU announced that Akita has requested special transfer arrangements with the MN Transfer Curriculum. We will keep you posted.