Statewide Meet and Confer
IFO/MnSCU
August 15, 2003 UNOFFICIAL NOTES
Present IFO: Jim Pehler, Russ Stanton, Pat Arseneault, Theresia Fisher, Richard Gendreau, Steve Bohnenblust, Becky Omdahl, Cindy Phillips, Mary Kesler, George Seldat, Cindy Webber (note taker)
Present MnSCU: Chancellor James McCormick, Michael Murphy, Chris Dale, Jim Jorstad, Gary Janikowski, Linda Baer, Judy Borgen, Don Beckering, John O’Brien, Lynette Olson, Linda Milne, Mary Stanton, Gail Olson, Manuel Lopez
HEALTH AND SAFETY IN COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITY PROGRAMS
(Hazardous Waste Notification OSHA)
There have been repeated concerns at MPCA and OSHA with conducting our campus’ inspections since 1998. There have been alleged violations of MPCA rules. With their investigation this year the same violations were cited (17 total). To keep fines to a minimum, we need a system-wide hazardous waste system. We think OSHA and MPCA are viewing MnSCU as a system or a singe entity vs. individual campuses, so system-wide solutions may take place.
The IFO strongly urged MnSCU to do this on a individual campus-by-campus basis so that the campuses that are doing the right thing are not penalized.
MnSCU stated that is what they plan on doing. They plan on contacting each campus to find out their processes.
The IFO strongly encouraged MnSCU to involve faculty because they are the end users and need to play a major part.
SALARY EQUITY
The IFO brought a letter from Chancellor McCormick dated July 16, 2003, which states that MnSCU’s position, will be that any financial settlement as a result of the salary equity studies need to be brought to the negotiations table. Please consider the way this issue of salary inequity originated. There has been litigation, Article 11 and now we have an issue of a tight budget. This should not be considered part of the negotiations process – it only compounds the issue. We need to be more sensitive. We don’t want the negotiators to deal with this as just another financial interest but rather system wide changes are needed in the infrastructure to correct the past. Equity is a core value in our classrooms and all faculty have this value. MnSCU needs to send a strong message that they value equity. We think it will only cost MnSCU between $500-700,000 to correct this problem. In your budget there is a $2.34 million fund for Board of Trustee initiatives – this is a great initiative!
The Chancellor asked the IFO to talk more about this growing distrust. The IFO stated that if you go campus by campus it will go back a decade ago with the class action lawsuits. The data we received from the recent studies was the system’s data and because the information was so clear and no action has been taken the perception was there was no intention to make corrections for the past. The communities are concerned. We aren’t saying the process isn’t legitimate, we are saying the results exist from contract language we negotiated and agreed to in 1994. This isn’t new language, what we are getting results for now are for things we have previously committed to so it is senseless to renegotiate.
MnSCU stated that because the issue does involve salary and pertains to existing contract language, it is our obligation to bring this to the bargaining table but that doesn’t mean this has to be the exclusive platform for these discussions. The Chancellor stated that he would allow Labor Relations to handle this process at the table or away. We need to be careful not to tell the IFO reps what their priorities are – if this issue is so critical that it needs to be dealt with by itself then we need to hear that from you. Any economic matter needs to be dealt with within the context of the contract. We cannot do that outside of negotiations.
The IFO asked MnSCU, “Was the committee’s role to do the study and make the recommendations?” MnSCU replied, “Yes, now the recommendations are with the bargaining parties.” The IFO says that MnSCU are making their own set of recommendations which are not Salary Equity Committee-approved and then just handing them to their negotiators. The process is breaking down.
MnSCU states they have not cut off discussion. The bargaining parties did solicit an agreement on a deadline for proposals. The bargaining team made proposals. Several MnSCU members on the SEC are also on the negotiations team. We are dealing with public money. I don’t have the authority to sign this paycheck. We need to negotiate and all agree to it and then get the Board of Trustees to authorize it.
The IFO pointed out the contract Agreement language says that the matter is turned over to the organization not negotiations. We are working with a past Agreement not a future item.
MnSCU stated that if we entered into a Memorandum of Agreement providing salary adjustment for faculty based on salary equity, I believe we could do it in the way the IFO suggests. The dollars allocated are still considered a cost of the labor agreement in force. We do need to consider the current resources for the next round of bargaining. There is another issue, if we believed we had a problem with protected class we may be able to resolve this outside of negotiations, but the vast majority of the problem is based on disparity and not protected class. How are we going to handle promotions and those new salary increases to achieve equity in the future that is why it is a negotiating team issue so we can prevent this from happening again in the future.
The IFO stated that the issues in the past were wrong and now MnSCU is asking us to make a choice: remedy the past or get salary increases. They don’t need to be bundled. We just need to know if there is another way to address this. We think the roadblock is in your office. MnSCU stated that they do not agree and have offered to meet outside of negotiations (via a letter that came of our office yesterday).
The IFO stated that there needs to be a change in dynamics. At the last SRC meeting, MnSCU just handed out to the IFO team what the recommendations were and the whole committee did not agree to this.
MnSCU replied that they do not think that what they handed out was controversial and felt it will cure the future problems. I don’t think we disagree with each other that we want to resolve this. We will add this to the September 5 agenda, we want to respect this whole process.
The IFO stated that it is a politically explosive issue.
ACCEPTABLE USE 5.22 POLICY
The IFO stated that there are some procedures that are going to put limitation on academic freedom, data and research. How do you plan to deal with these issues?
MnSCU stated that there was a meeting earlier this week in which we received from the IFO some specific concerns and recommendation and now we’re looking at them. We are taking your recommendations into consideration and within a week we will send you that draft.
The IFO reminded MnSCU that campuses have had Acceptable Use Policies in place which were created by faculty and administration – they seem to be working. These are your procedures. You have given us a very tight timeframe (September) and I don’t like having to go before the Board of Trustees and argue small pieces of policy. We may need to slow it down for more faculty input. We went through this same discussion two meet and confers ago. It’s a closing down of existing policies. Allow each campus the choice of if they want to accept your policy or the one they have in place. This is being rushed and I’m not being successful at representing my new faculty. We need more time for input.
MnSCU: The policy does specifically address faculty concern and academic freedom that was our primary concern and it is addressed in this policy.
IFO: SCSU’s faculty senate strongly disagrees with you.
IFO: Have you reviewed current University policies and found problems?
MnSCU: That’s part of it. We haven’t looked at a few but this is an issue for our internal audit folks. They believe we need a system-wide policy.
IFO: The last internal audit went into non-academic areas.
MnSCU: This wasn’t done through the audit but through discussions. We can’t separate the academic from the administrative network.
IFO: We have quite a gap here. I recommend we look at having more discussion before moving on. Our interest is the faculty.
MnSCU: Will there be another draft? That is the decision where there is disagreement. Can we get closer before the end of August? What about a frequently asked questions list?
IFO: I think that would help. We need this succinct but there are already good policies. Why do they need to be changed?
MnSCU: Security is an issue. We’ve created a policy now we need to discuss how the procedure works. Systems all over the world are visiting security issues – it is a concern.
EXPEDITED ARBITRATION
IFO: We’ve discussed before our interest in this and still do not think it is happening. Do your folks have any thing to say?
MnSCU: We haven’t had many arbitrations. We do support this idea but certain cases would not qualify. We’ve made some proposals at the table for expedited arbitration and there hasn’t been IFO agreement. We have been making progress.
Chancellor: I have to leave. Think about tension over territory at our universities (i.e. Metropolitan State University and St. Cloud State University’s business programs) it’s been stressful. I would like to discuss how we deal with that. In five years this won’t be a problem, we’ll all be teaching each other. I want to work this out. Also thank you for working out Fond du Lac Tribal and Community College.
OFFICE OF THE CHANCELLOR/BOARD OF TRUSTEES INITIATIVES
MnSCU: Initiatives were identified by the Leadership Council (and their subcommittees) in the 03-04 work plan. Here is an info piece for you and you can get back with questions.
IFO: Will there be additional BOT initiatives?
MnSCU: No [what we’ve given you] are the BOT initiatives. These are the priorities.
IFO: I’m curious to know how this was arrived at. I come from a campus who all work together on budgets and I want the IFO to be involved.
IFO: For the FY04-05 budget there has been a 10% increase in the BOT initiatives and in these times of crisis, I don’t know if that makes sense.
CTL SURVEY
MnSCU: We want to administer this survey to faculty next week.
IFO: That’s part of the reason we asked for the delay. On many campuses there is a survey group that assesses them before they go out. There’s a concern for their legitimacy – that is just good research practice.
MnSCU: This was created last January and was distributed among our CTL campus administrators. We’re eager to have your support because it is about services to faculty. We want to know if the CTL is meeting faculty needs. Nobody likes surveys but we got the sense faculty appreciated the questions. We want to know how the CTL can improve, we want to utilize our resources the best way.
IFO: Our Board of Directors was very concerned about what was happening with surveys. If you send out a survey on August 26, you are going to lose faculty involvement. We can send out a letter endorsing the survey. The IFO BOD can have this letter out on September 22 – this would be a better time for faculty.
MnSCU: We thought we would get it to faculty before their teaching started.
IFO: That is a crazy time for faculty (the week before class starts).
MnSCU: It would be helpful to get your letter of endorsement.
IFO: We do need the Board’s final approval. Privacy with this survey is also an issue.
FOND DU LAC TRIBAL AND COMMUNITY COLLEGE
MnSCU: This is a great example of people working together.
AKITA
MnSCU: Our office has been working with Akita towards instituting the Minnesota Transfer Curriculum.
IFO: How is this different from accreditation of other universities outside of the USA?
MnSCU: Planning for Akita is still ongoing. They are still applying for accreditation. This proposed process maintains the same integrity of any other institution. This international university could set prescience. They have faculty on staff at this time. They posted 11 job openings in the Chronicle; 50 faculty are on the roster. They should have accreditation results by November.
IMS
MnSCU: Thank you, IFO. The process started over one year ago. Your reps have been participating and we just tripled your membership. We want to support one platform. Currently we have three; that is difficult and agreement has been across the board to support one platform. Once your contracts expire your campus will have the choice to use this platform “Desire2Learn” unless they chose to host another solution at their own expense.
IFO: I’ve got individual faculty members who use Web CT, can they easily convert to Desire2Learn? What about the faculty who have spent the time creating a program – which will pay for the conversion?
MnSCU: The implementation team will be set up after a contract has been negotiated. Our assumption will be to include conversion. We would not expect faculty to do these conversions.
IFO: Without having a decision ready on the product, you should be assuring us that this will be MnSCU’s cost – before the RFP – and that the individual faculty member will not be burdened with the conversion. That statement will alleviate a lot of fears. We were told we would not be required to convert.
MnSCU: If MnSCU hosts centrally, our goal is that we would be able to pay all the licenses so you would not have to spend funds and you would still have the flexibility to retain your own look and feel. We’re hoping for a five year contract. We’re trying to protect faculty from discomfort.
IFO: So I can assure faculty this program, if housed at MnSCU, will still look and feel local? Faculty members have pride of authorship. Will this look like a MnSCU system?
MnSCU: Each campus will be able to give their Desire2Learn system its own unique look and feel. IP will not be an issue.
IFO: Will universities be chare for the number of sites they have?
MnSCU: I can’t answer but we will pay the licenses. If we have to charge them we won’t be able to get people to buy in. We will also do training.
IFO: You said you wanted to serve faculty – it sounds like you are speaking for all faculty as a system wide initiative. How much money is being used on this program that isn’t being given to the Universities? I am sure some will really appreciate this.
MnSCU: Pricing wasn’t an issue, we just asked your reps to choose what the best product. As it turns out, the best product will result in actually saving money.
IFO: You give the sense that this is a “techie” decision but to us “non-techies” we need to buy-in.
MnSCU: This “Desire2Learn” has a much more promising future. It is a decision that was reached by campus users who served on the various evaluation teams.
IFO: When will this be available? Our universities have already made commitments and contracts to other providers.
MnSCU: Faculty should continue using what they’re using if they have contracts in effect.
IFO: Can Desire2Learn be hosted on the campuses & MnSCU still pay the license?
MnSCU: Sure, but then you’ll have people working to host instead of serving faculty. You will still have all the same options.
IFO: But what about all the hours faculty will spend in training and converting?
MnSCU: We have heard that four hours can provide faculty with enough training to use Desire2Learn. I thought faculty would have chosen WebCT, they decided Desire to Learn would be a great upgrade, it is easy to use, a browser-based platform. Desire to Learn has no extra customization fees. We’ll pay for all of the hardware for installation.
IFO: What if some of our computer browsers cannot handle the upgrade?
MnSCU: Desire2Learn dips way down to Netscape 4 - it works with more browsers than the others.
IFO: The faculty on this committee are technically elite. We represent all faculty.
MnSCU: Faculty across-the-board who have used Desire2Learn say it is easy. Our current contract with WebCT ends in August 2004.
NON-RESIDENT TUITION
MnSCU: Heads up, there is discussion on the Leadership Council. Possibly this will become a campus decision vs. a Board decision.
IFO: Please remind campus administrators that this needs to go through the local meet and confer process.
ENROLLMENT UPDATE
MnSCU gave the IFO a website address.
SEXUAL VIOLENCE POLICY
MnSCU: This policy was sent out to everyone. We need to comply with 1358.15 and federal law. Campuses need to post that they use a Federal Student code. We need feedback, this is a draft.