IFO MnSCU Statewide Meet and Confer

UNOFFICIAL NOTES

March 3, 2006

IFO Present:  Judy Kilborn, Debra Japp, Annette Schoenberger, Steve Bohnenblust, Corey Butler, Cathy Summa, Tiffany Nelson, Patrice Arseneault, Nancy Black, Mary Kesler, Cindy Phillips, Dave Larkin, Becky Omdahl, Russ Stanton

MnSCU Present:  Chris Dale, Mary Leary, Linda Skallman, Gary Langer, Deborah Proctor, Chancellor McCormick, Linda Baer, Barb Miller, Cyndy Crist, Mike Lopez, Nancy Bennet, Deena Allen

IFO: We want to welcome Mary Leary, the new Associate Vice Chancellor for Labor Relations.  We look forward to working with you; our door is always open to you.

MnSCU:  Thank you, I’m excited to be here.  My door is open as well; let’s keep those channels of communication open.  I’m happy to be here and look forward to working with you.

Nepotism:

IFO: We received another version this week of the procedure and we have questions about aspects of it.  We need clarity of language and for example as we were going through this it was not clear from procedural language in sub part b what was meant by how you would define exceptional circumstances.  I’m referring to part 4, “The Office of the Chancellor should make suitable for transfer…” this doesn’t seem appropriate for faculty and it is simply not possible.  We were concerned about existing relationships effective July 1, 2006 and we’re still unclear and rather unhappy with the definition of family household member.

MnSCU:  Household relationships have been more problematic than family relationships - which is harder to define.  Your concerns are shared with some others in human resources and the leadership council. The household situation is what first caused them to ask us to create a nepotism policy procedure.

IFO:  This draft is a substantial improvement and we appreciate that your office is not blind to some of those problematic situations that exist as well.  I do preserve the same comment that we made before objecting to including of the household.  It’s in the policy that the Board adopted and that needs to then be referenced in your procedure.  We would accept household to be included in positive ways as well as negative ways.  Having said that we don’t have any understanding of what household is.  Given the inclusion of students in this policy that is certainly part of the problem of what “household” means.  The failure to provide us with a definition of household is problematic.  What if you have six students sharing a house?  Is a dorm a house? What is a household in the context of the policy?  That’s an issue.  I’m wondering why you chose to define family as broadly as you did.  Family is defined much broader in AFSCME’s policy.   Where did this definition come from?

MnSCU:  That’s an artifact of the constant revisions.  I’m certainly willing to raise the question if we just got carried away.

IFO: From a small community standpoint, this has a different meaning that it does here.  The definition and the whole policy have generated controversy on the Bemidji campus.  It’s created as much lively discussion as anything I’ve ever seen come along.

IFO:  Is this up to the presidents to decide on their campuses?  In an earlier draft it implied that everything had to come through the Chancellor’s office and reading this it’s less clear.  Is it the campus president who grants the exceptions?

MnSCU:  yes

IFO: So does that allow for wide variance?

MnSCU: yes, my expectation based on the research would be that transfers, for example, would be few and far between because they are more difficult and largely impossible with faculty.  So you would prefer it if we tried to define what an exceptional circumstance was and a time limit for prompt notification?

IFO: I guess we’re looking for some more understanding and clarity.  We all know that on the campus level they put weight in words.

IFO: for example what’s an exceptional circumstance?

MnSCU: We can do something with that to raise your comfort level.

IFO: Can you tell me what it might be?

MnSCU: It would be those situations like Bemidji that you outlined.

MnSCU:  If you only have one person who’s qualified to operate a boiler and live in a smaller community and that person reports to their uncle.  It’s a product of merit assuring the public that their resources are properly used and we’re being good stewards.

Chancellor:  Let me use an AFSCME example, in a small town, the women and men that work in nonstructural areas are often third generation families and a persons’ son would be under that supervisor, who would you have handle that?

MnSCU:  You could have those relationships, where seniority played a role, we would publicly acknowledge the relationships and alternate arrangement would be made for supervisory review, so the person reports to their family on day to day work.

IFO:   Assuming an employee does provide timely notification, as we raised the issue before, and it is a non-traditional relationship or same sex relationship let’s assume the individual informs the HR office - what level of confidentiality can they be assured?  Given that while we are in an institution that has a non-discrimination policy and a state that has this policy these people may want to relocate to a state that is not as protective as that.  What is the assurance of confidentiality?

MnSCU:  The public has an interest that some kind of meritocracy exists.  We’re still bound by the Data Practices Act.  People are aware in the community and then those folks are the ones who may question a supervisor supervisee relationship, and a procedure to ensure that we are handling the issue of nepotism appropriately.

IFO:  In terms of medical conditions, if you’re doing an accommodation you’re restricted from telling your work why you’re doing the accommodation, there’s a model that might be more appropriate to the extent that’s publicly known.  Certain disabilities are visible, but not all are. I am very concerned about confidentiality.

MnSCU: We are too and we take the Data Practices Act very seriously if for no other reason than liability can result if we don’t.  It’s the law and we’re expected to obey it.

MnSCU:  We’ll have to work with our CIOs and we can address that issue of confidentiality with that and working with HR.

IFO:  I’m thinking of faculty and other situations for instance.   In my experience, if the dean is told that a faculty member has an accommodation but the department is not told the reason for this special accommodation but that the schedule will be switched.  I’m not sure if that’s true of other kinds of employment issues - if there is that kind of protection.  That comes out of the disability laws so I guess what I’m asking for is a policy that assures the maximum level of information which may be higher than the data practices act.   I’ve seen much more disclosure flowing down to department chairs and members on non-medical issues rather than accommodations.

Chancellor:  Are we in harmony with MN law?

MnSCU: I think we are, but I’d like to ask Gail Olsen for a sentence on confidentiality.

Chancellor: I wouldn’t think of getting into someone’s file; who does that?

MnSCU:  The documents in HR files, personnel files, electronic or paper, are restricted to HR staff who have a reason to look at the file and the immediate supervisor.  I think we control that on the campuses and we look at that on the HR in the departments.

MnSCU:  In the real world departmental colleagues talk to each other, for example you might overhear someone say, “I hope you’re feeling better.”  If someone heard them, it might be revealing medical conditions.  In the real world there’s a lot of discussion that takes place between people on information that we (employer) cannot formally disclose.

IFO:  We’re concerned that the procedure makes clear that the highest level of confidentiality applies to this kind of information.

MnSCU:  We appreciate your concerns and I will bring that back as we discuss with the presidents.

Merlot and Reusable Learning Objects:

IFO:  Thank you for addressing our questions from the last meet and confer and we have other questions, thank you Deborah (Proctor).  I’m looking at voluntary participation and non-participation.  From the wording of this we were concerned about this becoming mandatory.  How are you getting faculty to participate?

MnSCU:  The opportunity is open ended.  Those who want to participate, participate as with any opportunity.  Some people are building their curriculum around this.

IFO:  Is this becoming the norm for faculty?  Would there be any down side for faculty who do not participate?

MnSCU: no

IFO:  If we receive money for a grant to develop some kind of curriculum where substantial money is given by the Office of the Chancellor, I would expect voluntary would mean even if we were getting money from the system, we would not be expected to provide the products of that grant.

MnSCU: We fund and give incentives for faculty to create learning objects.

IFO:  The money to develop something, small learning grants, one could say since we got the money from the Chancellor those products would have to go into the repository.  If it was truly voluntary it would not be required.

MnSCU: We could say if you develop this, it would be added to the repository.

IFO:  But it would be voluntary?

MnSCU: yes

IFO:  We understand that there’s a MnSCU version of this, but why wouldn’t faculty want to contribute to Merlot vs. the statewide system?

MnSCU:  They have both options.  Since we are unique, we think it’s good to have that Minnesota level so it’s our curriculum.

IFO:  Can you talk about intellectual property rights and once people decide to submit something, how does that affect their ownership and ownership distinct from right to use by other people in any case a faculty person could say I want a royalty fee if people use this piece.

MnSCU:  Those things are still in conversation - it’s a detail issue.

MnSCU:  In the repository there is a place to track intellectual property rights.

MnSCU:  You can’t use it unless you pay for it.  You (the author) can designate how you want it to be used, otherwise you don’t access it.

Chancellor:  Will there come a time when something special is developed for national use on university time and would there then need to be some sharing of the benefits? Would that be negotiated?

MnSCU:  Ownership of intellectual properties is with university support and the faculty member could work it out in advance in a contract so that they can resolve the disputes that arise.

IFO: We have had issues.

IFO: I’m involved with the science licensure and reusable learning objects, primarily with the intellectual property issues, the language raises some red flags.  Reading Deborah Proctor’s Q&A, “can be enhanced and reused,” this is contrary to intellectual property rights, you don’t modify it and use it as your own.

MnSCU:  That’s where the developer has the option to open the source, reuse, enhance, or not.

IFO:  How are we insuring that that remains clear? We ask that it be made clear.  There’s a claim that you make that says reusable learning objects are great things because they enhance classroom technology; what evidence is there? I’d like to challenge the system to engage in looking into the evidence.  I want to know that it’s going to work by seeing the evidence.

MnSCU:  You’re requesting a research base for those who are using it.

IFO:  If you want to be the best, like the Chancellor says, we should study to see if it does really enhance teaching and learning.

MnSCU: Can we continue to work on that?

IFO:  Can you tell us exactly what exists in this project now?  It appears as if this is a train that’s left the station; what is the status?

MnSCU:  We have one funded project in entry level home health care, but we can give you an inventory. 

IFO:  This is happening before we have our intellectual property rights understood.

IFO: I’d like to caution that people may feel as if people understand IP issues regarding digital copyright especially.  People don’t understand and the issues are complex and we need a more extensive discussion.  I’ve talked to faculty who have given up their rights without knowing it.  That’s not helpful for anyone.

06-07 Meet and Confer Dates:

IFO: we agree with the m&c schedule starting at 8 a.m.

MnSCU: Tentatively, it’s possible that the Chancellor has commitments that supersede these meetings.

IFO:  We don’t meet and confer without the Chancellor!

MnSCU:  We understand that’s your position.

Science Licensure:

IFO:  we’re concerned that there are reps from MnSCU meeting with faculty and discussing issues that would come to the union like compensation, and discussion about the IP concerns and drafts of IP agreements as well as curriculum issues.  In particular on compensation, there was an agreement reached about what would be paid and come about.  We thought this issue was coming back to meet and confer and it didn’t.  I just recently learned about it and I discussed this potential MOA to deal with compensation and IP issues.   It’s a process concern.   Even more so we are concerned with the curriculum particularly in light of this draft IP agreement that faculty saw that is coming from MnSCU and we have a question how the curriculum will be maintained and the university still have control?

MnSCU: Nancy Bennet is here to address curriculum.  With compensation I can say that no body entertained the notion that we were free to negotiate with a group of faculty on compensation, but from time to time, the agreement provides that we can talk to faculty about extra duty days and overload.  It’s fair for us to talk to them at the same time if we provide compensation not covered by the agreement we need to talk to the IFO.  I can assure you that your concerns are not necessary - we know the contract.

MnSCU: We at least inform faculty that there was the possibility of an IP component and we’ll let them know that.  I was there to hear what issues there might be to satisfy the goals of the project and faculty concerns.  It’s my understanding that you’ll be bringing back the MOA with IP and compensation included.

IFO:  Just this week I’ve discussed this with Jim Jorstad.  Getting back to discussions with faculty, we understand the contract allows this discussion on extra duty days but that normally happens in the context of the university, dean or the department at the heart of where these matters are.   There’s the process concern with where MnSCU is having these discussions.

MnSCU: I don’t think anyone anticipates that they won’t be working for the universities.

MnSCU:  These faculty members said we know there is this concern on science licensure curriculum. They came to us and said they have an interest in doing this and we discussed and developed how we could get this good idea going; we understand that a sharper process should have been done.  It’s a good idea; we’d like to solve this initial run with the MOA that would include the IP.  On the other side, there’s building out the curriculum that our schools are in need of.  Can we agree this is something we need to work on and settle phase one through an MOA and after that put through the RFP to put out calls for the curriculum build-out?

MnSCU: Faculty spontaneously have ideas and discuss them with the administration and employer and the employer wants to support those ideas. If it’s going to be compensated it must be agreed to by the IFO.  Most of our administrators know that clearly and if not, they are told.

IFO:  I was at that meeting regarding IP, the document we looked at was one developed with print IP principles in force and faculty didn’t have a clue what they were looking at.  With an initiative this large and important, we do need to get this out to rural teachers.  It’s important though that we do things that set a good precedent for other projects.  This is a large project; we need to figure out the compensation.   We need to start getting contractual language and we need to have that happen in the contract talks.

MnSCU: Our experience is the contract is either flexible or not, with compensation it is relatively flexible, as long as the university and faculty member are in agreement.

IFO:  The complexity is that a budget was discussed, the faculty were very interested in this program and we are interested in moving ahead and there is a very definite time constraint.  Some of these courses are being offered in the summer and this program is already being announced at Winona.  We haven’t agreed on the compensation or the Intellectual Properties and frankly there was some damage done with the IFO being told we would be brought the IP draft to a meet and confer, then it went out via telephone and walked through with the faculty and the faculty are in a awkward position.

IFO: I was at a meeting for this on my January break.  Nancy Bennet and Leslie Mercer said the IP agreement would be brought to the meet and confer and it wasn’t.  Tim Price brought it to the faculty and when we asked him about this he said he had no intention of sharing the IP agreement with the IFO.  He said faculty were independent contractors in this regard and we are not in this area and we are dealing with representation here, there are bigger issues than getting these courses to the rural areas but as Pat Arseneault said, the process has been flagrantly disregarded in this case and we need to get back on track.

MnSCU:  Tim did not clearly convey what he meant.  We understand that if we want a uniform IP project then we need to have you involved.  It does permit faculty with substantial university support to enter into agreement with the university; Tim was referring to that, but we understand if we want a uniform approach then we need to deal with you (IFO).  We have a draft MOA prepared on compensation, we are waiting to hear if we should address this with an MOA or not.  You have to grant people a little license that their intentions are not as off as they sound when they misuse language, Tim knows if we want a uniform IP agreement, we have to get the IFO involved.

IFO:  Thank you, there is another meeting scheduled on March 31 and faculty are expecting information at that meeting.  It’s important in terms of our relationship and this program that we all want to happen.

MnSCU: Jim Jorstad is prepared to add IP language to the MOA.  You can defer to contract language.

Proposed Policy 3.34 Academic Semester Start Dates and Proposed Procedure 3.34.1 Academic Semester Start Dates and Calendars:

IFO: this is a continuing discussion we’ve had about this; we still think this is a bad idea. 

IFO: it does not allow for regional start dates, we think it’s a bad idea. This policy has been devised to help a few students at the expense of many students.

IFO: we’ve asked for evidence that this common start date would benefit student learning, the dates don’t match local school districts.  As Mary Kesler said also the local regions to us seem give the flexibility that our students need and what we were referring to there are more multiple students enrolled at multiple institutions, students need to be able to take charge of their education, the majority do not apply.  We have issues with technology and the capability of our system to handle this.  We were told that it’s just the common start date and then uniform spring breaks, you are contradicting yourself.  What’s the reason behind student learning and the common start date?

MnSCU: I want to put to rest your last statement -- it’s not about spring breaks, it’s about starts.  The student learning part of this is consistency for students to understand and know their calendars at multiple sites so there is a start mechanism in their own mind and keeping track of financial aid, the rap around is for the individual it helps them have consistency to balance their life.

IFO: do we have those same numbers with regard to how many of our students are at non-MnSCU institutions who might be harmed in terms of tri-college coming from Moorhead?  The question is, there are agreements between MnSCU and private institutions. Do we have those numbers that let us know the degree for regional coordination is important?

MnSCU: we have 234 students by way of the tri-college.

IFO: what about others?  I don’t understand the issue that students will get confused, this seems more of an organization issue; how does this affect learning?

MnSCU: it’s an administrative issue to help them stay focused.

IFO: Is it a learning issue?

MnSCU: When I was a student, while I was standing in lines I wasn’t getting stuff done.

MnSCU: 11,600 students are what we are talking about.

IFO:  we will have long lines now because everyone is starting on the same day

IFO: I’m still concerned about the needs of the few vs. the many.  These are competent students. This seems to be a tempest in a teapot; we’re putting so much weight on starting at the same time when local conditions need flexibility.

MnSCU: This isn’t the first time this has been attempted, it’s not impossible that it can’t happen.

IFO:  Why did we move away from it?

MnSCU: Mankato and the Vikings were the exception.

MnSCU: when we make a choice on a start date, whatever date we pick there will be a certain number of students who won’t like the date, why do you think more students will be unhappy?

IFO: You keep saying this will help students who are enrolled in multiple institutions, but we’ve got many students who aren’t doing this.  Students may be better served by the schedule based on local conditions.

IFO:  Making it easier, while I agree it’s likely and admirable if what we’re trying to do is prepare students to what we need in the workplace, by managing multiple things at once is important in the workplace, I’ve talked to students who are enrolled in multiple campuses, and they are able to work longer over winter break.  There are benefits to staggered start dates.  My point is I think we can easily overlook some of this skill-based learning to mange their time.

MnSCU: if we find that the administrative burden is reduced …

IFO: Students have variable start times because there are so many different opportunities, there are a whole variety of opportunities for students.  This is an unnecessary homogenization for the system.  We’re not in favor.

IFO:  This might seem like a strange discussion to have such a long and somewhat bitter confrontation about a calendar or start date. But when you broaden the issue, a common theme at our meet and confers is we have been very resistant to the one size fits all mentality.  A general concern we have is the business practices that are being implemented are more for the convenience for the system office rather than meeting the needs of our students.  I would disagree with Linda Baer about the spring break, we heard Gary Langer say something at the last meet and confer.

MnSCU: it does not include spring break.

IFO:  I think you’ll see in general a lot of resistance to this one size fits all that seems to be pervasive in your office.

IFO:  The system can’t handle the load.  Come to my office on the first day and you’ll see that the system can’t handle this.

MnSCU:  I’d like specific examples.

IFO:  we need assurances that the technology can handle it.  We’ve had such bad luck.

MnSCU:  it sounds like existing problems that can be addressed individually.

IFO:  Our president has said that he has made his concerns known to the Chancellor.

IFO:  We have a calendar committee on our campus and in consultation with that group we propose these dates.  There has been quite a good deal of controversy that people have worked out on the student and faculty view to negotiate a settlement people can live with.   It has taken that out of the hands of the local campuses.

MnSCU:  There are programs that you can make exceptions to.

MnSCU:  If there are specific programs, but is it that you just don’t want to do it because it is uniform?

IFO:  I brought a long list of concerns generated by the campus.  IT was problem enough, but we negotiate the calendar locally.   I’d imagine that you’d have all the universities asking for exceptions.

MnSCU:  Please re-forward that list back to us.

IFO:  Linda Baer, your office has that list.

IFO: I’ll resend it.

IFO:   I brought this up at the Academic and Student Affairs Policy Council, since it sounds like you’re going forward, I have to comment on the policy itself, it says at least 12 months in advance the calendar will be set.  At that time I said, please, you need to understand that we plan much farther ahead than one year.  We are three years ahead on our campus, it needs to be more generous, and if you’re planning an international program you need 2-3 years in advance.  When you have a policy like this it appears that the OOC doesn’t have a clue as to what happens on the campus in our planning committees. The Designed for Learning Grants implies that this work can be implemented in the fall, our students are registering for the year already, it can’t work.  Class rooms have been established for the entire year and I think what I’m hoping will be recognized when you develop a policy that planning is much more than a year, I know you know that, but do recognize we think much more long term.

MnSCU:  Gary and I talked about that yesterday and we know we need to work on this further.

Chancellor:  The work of the Business Practices Alignment Committee (BPAC) was in an attempt to get more efficiency.  I think I’ve said in every talk that it was to get back office procedures.  We have presidents involved in the BPAC.  The first mistake we made was Tim sending all of that stuff out without a cover letter; how did we not have this discussion back then that we are having now?  Would it have been good to take the BPAC out for some focus groups?  How did we get to this list of 130 BPAC recommendations?  Is there a way we can go back and look at the BPAC and see what we could have done differently?  There’s been so much damage done for the BPAC even being mentioned.  I’d like to have some buy-in.  I regret we didn’t have this discussion before the recommendations came out.

Applied Doctorate Update:

IFO:  Thank you very much.  This is exactly what we said we wanted to know - the intent that had been expressed by the presidents to you.  As we look at this handout, we had a lively discussion about how this work was going to be done and how things will roll out.

MnSCU: In one of our first steps toward the opportunity offering applied doctorates, this is the response we got from the SU Presidents.  Our intention is that we would have fewer to begin with.  We want to make sure we have very sound capacity to begin with and we intend to have one or two to begin with.  This shows you some campuses have more ambition.  It’s our intention to start in a more measured way.

Chancellor:   This was quite a subject at the North Central review at Mankato.   I’ve been involved in this. That was quite a battle to get that through and you all supported it and it wasn’t easy because of the U of M.  I’ve said it’s terribly important that we have outstanding programs and that we are thoughtful and we have to do them well.  The quality is very important.  I hope we take the time we need.  We all pledged we wouldn’t ask for new money.

IFO:  With regard to the intent and the dates, on the campuses we understand developing quality programs, but we don’t’ know what counts the most, outstanding programs or being the first to develop the program.

MnSCU:  We have talked quality and capacity from the beginning.  Can the state absorb five programs in EDD?  There is a message that there will be two tracks, but we will send out a message to the campuses that we want quality. 

IFO:  We need to know if someone gets the program up first, if they have exclusive rights to the market.

Chancellor: I’ve heard from the community to please develop quality.

MnSCU:  Specialty areas are working collaboratively (nursing), and campuses can share the core curriculum.

IFO: I’m more worried about the education.

IFO: When are we expecting that market research on this?

MnSCU:  The graduate deans got together in St. Cloud.  From that meeting we have information; now we will put together the market research information.

Chancellor:  Geology needs to be included in this.  We’ve talked about serving greater MN and that was a big thing with the legislators.

IFO:  The U of M said that other similar programs were slow at responding to demands of the state and we made the argument that we were more nimble and responsible.

Proposed Amendment to Policy 3.4 Admissions and Proposed Procedure 3.4.1 Admissions:

MnSCU: Do you have specific comments or issues with this? We are bringing it to you with the materials moving forward and it’s been to policy council.  Do you have any particular issues?

IFO:  I have heard discussions at Metro where we have sizeable numbers of adult students before transferring to Metro and they are concerned about handling students with GEDs and the presumptions with meeting high school standards.  Secondly we are always going to have a larger cohort of people at Metro because of their age and our non-traditional students.

MnSCU:  It deals with that in two ways, in the procedures.  Look on part 4 of the procedure, the sub part A deals with individuals who can’t produce traditional documentation, but an individual evaluation on the basis of guidelines with the university.

IFO:  We had a question about the uniform system application form. 

MnSCU:  This has been a major problem.  We’ve had language in the policy in general provisions - language that has been struck in sub part H.  The problem is that we developed a systemwide standard application form with the participate of admissions directors.  They have asked illegal questions on old forms that are not consistent with the systems standards for data collection so it’s problematic.  We decided to put that language in the procedure to developing an online application form that all institutions will use, and the form has been developed with the input of the admissions directors and as far as I am aware, they are all on board with this form.

IFO:  The system developed this online application form, but can students still apply to individual institutions?

MnSCU:  Yes.

IFO:  My concern is that at least as this is developed we consider the needs and messages we send to under-severed and under-represented students.  I’m fearful of the uniformity that would cause those students not to apply.  If the admissions form doesn’t make clear that there are alternative methods to applying, then that’s a problem that may hinder the student.

MnSCU:  It will ease the application process to have it be an online form and they can send their app to several institutions.

IFO:  When we talk about a uniform system-wide admissions application form and a student is interested in a technical college program and the same app applies to the university, isn’t it a generic form?

MnSCU:  To an extent, it is interactive. 

Proposed Policy 3.33 College-Level Examination Program (CLEP) and Proposed Procedure 3.33.1 College-Level Examination Program (CLEP):

IFO:  We are in agreement on this policy and procedure.

MnSCU:  These are moving forward, do you have questions?

IFO: I think we understood that we had been consulted and we are in agreement to move ahead and didn’t have much choice of the score of 3.

MnSCU:  That was established by the Department of Education.

IFO:  There have been some questions on our campus by people that make me think that somehow the information hasn’t gotten to the campuses that this comes from legislation.  Somehow we need to figure out how to inform people that the reason we are doing this is because of mandated legislation.

MnSCU: Good point, usually we give background information.  We will add that statement to all three of these handouts.

MnSCU: Even though we were pushed into this, the concept of CLEP is broader than high schools and was intended for broader application.

IFO:  It’s still a piece that needs clarification.

Proposed Amendment to Policy 3.15 Advanced Placement and Proposed Procedure 3.15.1 Advanced Placement Credit:

IFO: I’ve gotten quite a lot of feedback coinciding with the Chronicle and other publications.  The faculty who talked to me said their experiences were certainly consistent, that people who scored three really weren’t ready.  One of the questions - the procedure says that same number of credits shall be granted for scores 3,4,5.  Could a school grant 3 credits in, say, Math 101 for a score of 3 and 3 credits in a different course, say Math 301 for a score of 4 or 5?

MnSCU: Yes, that’s the cross walk inherent in the AP testing, that’s the way the process moves.

MnSCU: 3 equals credit in one class and 4 in another class.

MnSCU:  Is there a web address for information?

MnSCU:  MDE collects this information from all of your institutions and it is up on their website.

IFO: I’m concerned with that flexibility and the differences should be made obvious

Chancellor: are we losing students with the advanced placement?

MnSCU: we are not offering AP like other states.

Chancellor:  Should any of us worry about that?

MnSCU:  It’s not our issue, but rather an MDE issue.

MnSCU:  We are fair in our treatment.

IFO:  It is fair to say there will be some complaints as we are mandated to take this, I’m concerned with the impression we are creating with students.

MnSCU:  There are a lot of concerns that AP is expanding so quickly.  They are concerned with quality that students will make good choices.

IFO:  Part two “each” may be a better word to start those points rather than “a”.  CLEP data shows only 7% of those taking the CLEP exams are high school students.

MnSCU:  This is not the typical use of CLEP - we made that argument with the MDE.

Proposed Amendment to Policy 3.16 International Baccalaureate Credit and Proposed Procedure 3.16.1 International Baccalaureate Credit:

IFO:  Is that reflected in the new document?

MnSCU:  I have had preliminary conversations with AG’s office and our attorney, Gail Olsen.  I also spoke to IB North America and we are still sorting through issues on whether or not we can continue to treat individual standard level of exams vs. higher level of exams.  It’s universally agreed that higher level is college level, it’s less clear if standard level is college level.  The IB program was never created to be college credit generating.  We’re trying to get language from them to address this and the AG is collecting information.  In talking to staff another other and they’ll give us an opinion about how the language can be interpreted and whether we have any latitude in the statutory language for the entry level exam.

MnSCU:  That will be important to determine if we move forward.

Chancellor: does this have political overtones?

MnSCU:  It could.

IFO: Another issue we discussed is in terms of the credits that students get they are lower division credits, has this been addressed?

MnSCU:  Yes.

Proposed Amendment to Policy 2.9 Financial Aid Satisfactory Academic Progress and Repeal of Carry Forward Community College Policy III.02.06 Academic Standards and Repeal of Carry Forward Community College Policy IV.07.01 Academic Suspension:

IFO:  I recognize that attempts have been made to tweek wording since our last meeting.  Specifically the grade point average was changed in an effort to make it seem like finical aid is not driving the academic policy.  I would argue that financial aid is still driving the policy.  Financial aid standards are still driving academic policy and that’s a problem for faculty.  There are hundreds of students and many students who have been denied financial aid but continue to take the coursework at their own expense and one remedy was suggested that they could have an appeal process.  The problem at a state university is often the financial aid termination happens at the end of a semester and the student is interested in continuing the next semester.  There is no time for the appeal process and we are talking about hundreds of students.  I have a student who has been denied financial aid; she made a lot of mistakes on which choices to register for and she developed one of these patterns where she is withdrawing and not completing courses, we have a financial aid standard set that says if you’re not completing your course, you’ll get nailed on financial aid, now she is pulling the money together on her own and she is a very good student.  It is unfair to the students who believe in their potential to get a college degree to throw them out the door because we want academic standards.  We’re estimating there are a hundred students and hundreds more at the other institutions.

Chancellor:  You will remember there were so many fines at your institution.  Millions of dollars in fines were issued for us not being in compliance with the federal law.  I’m amazed this didn’t make headlines.  With the federal government, I believe I have a mandate from the Board.  I can’t be out of compliance with federal government.  We are being looked at.  We believe this procedure complies with the audit of what happened.

MnSCU:  I want to respond to Becky’s concerns.  Many of the concerns are driven by misunderstanding.  The perception that the policy is driven by financial aid again, there are standards that are required by the financial aid requirements and the standard is you need a 2.0 GPA after the end of your second year of college.  And the other requirement is that students have to complete their program after they’ve taken 150% of the credits required for the degree.  A lot of institutions interpret that in order to meet the standards  a student should be completing 2/3 of their courses.   I don’t think that 67% is a high percent. That’s the standard that’s required.  It can be scaled up; financial aid should be same as the institution standards. You’re saying students are terminated from financial aid, you’ve got a lot of students being terminated right now not just because of the percentage of completion requirement but because they don’t meet the GPA standards, I bet if you do an analysis it’s not the percentage of completion but their GPA.  In terms of the appeal, lines 18-19 allow for that.  We know that financial aid reinstatement is difficult; we put that language in there to allow that.  You can have an automatic appeal.  That’s allowable under this policy.  I know your financial aid director has had an issue, and there has been a misunderstanding with what the feds are doing.  The feds have backed off on the “young and dumb” appeal.  A financial aid director does have professional latitude to reinstate someone.  It’s not as strict as some people believe.  I think these issues are adequately taken care of in the language, I think there are issues of academic quality and accountability and stewardship involved in requiring students to pass two thirds of their courses.  The state is paying 50% of the educational cost of the student. Metro has a very interesting policy.

IFO:  Sometimes a student makes wise decisions to withdraw from a course.  We do want a different standard for financial aid than we want for academic standing.  Financial aid is driving academics here.  Secondly, for students without grade point averages, there are small numbers of students who come in and don’t want grades but rather want narrative feedback, that number is a very tiny proportion of students.

IFO:  On the proposed amendment, the last paragraph of background is instructive from the BPAC.  I don’t think anyone would argue that we don’t need tight controls on financial aid, but this goes a step further - it doesn’t just say you’ll have good controls, but it says you will use the same standards for academics.  That’s our issue.  With the appeal process, it sets up barriers.

Chancellor:  Doesn’t the financial aid have the right to set academic standards?

IFO:  yes, but that’s financial aid’s deal, not the institutions.

MnSCU:  The charge came out of the BPAC.  The recommendation came out of the committee primarily of faculty members - the motion was made by an IFO faculty member serving on the Satisfactory Academic Progress committee.

IFO:   On the automatic appeal process, if we have a policy in place that says these two policies have to be linked but the academic piece doesn’t matter if you’re willing to pay for your own credits, that seems like smoke and mirrors. To let students keep going on the academic side but not them up on the financial aid side...

MnSCU:  That’s what you’re doing right now.

IFO:  No, faculty are saying there’s a difference.

MnSCU:  It seems to me that an institution that were implementing this, if it did result from more students receiving notices, that they aren’t doing well.  I would like an opportunity to intervene.  They are wasting their money by dropping courses. 

IFO:  Does the federal financial aid require that the financial aid standards be the same as the academic standards?

MnSCU:  The law says that standards on financial aid have to be the same as or higher than other students.

IFO:   But it does not require for them to be the same?

MnSCU:  No.

IFO: I’m concerned with the linkage between these two policies.  If the federal law doesn’t require the same standards, I don’t know why we should.

Standardization of CIP Codes:

IFO: at the last meet and confer we asked for a list of PSEO courses, you said you had the 2004 data and we have requested a list, are we able to get that?

MnSCU:  Did I send that to you, Debra?

IFO:  No, you sent me exceptions.

IFO:  Please send that to us.

MnSCU:  (nodded yes) What we have is something Craig Schoenecker did, overall enrollment by CIP code and all PSEO courses.

IFO:  We’ve heard on our campus that there is some kind of plan that what will happen is on transcripts if someone gets a BS in biology and then has a sub-specialty, that there will be standardization at the state level.  We interpret that the some of the sub specialists wouldn’t appear because they aren’t under the standard codes.  Who do I ask about that?

MnSCU:  I will get to Craig Schoenecker, who is the keeper, this is probably the issue of how many digits would we would go in claiming CIP code. Let me ask people who know about that.

IFO: If we have these sub-specialties under a major currently, are those potentially going to be different from what we have on the local campuses, because we would no longer be allowed to have that?

MnSCU:  I’ll send you some information.

IFO:  I believe there was a letter going out on PSEO on concurrent enrollment to the campuses?

IFO:  The MSFC and IFO AAC met and are both very interested in these courses, will there be data collected and if so can we be part of that?  If there’s something going out asking for data we’d be interested to put in our suggestions. 

MnSCU: Certainly, that will go right back to Cyndy Crist.

April 7 Meet and Confer:

It was announced that the Meet and Confer in Winona on April 7 will start at 8:30 a.m.

BOT Orientation:

IFO: I’ve proposed when there are new trustees we would like to be a part of the orientation process so they know what we are and what we do.

Chancellor:  I think we meet far more than any other system.  There are some that thought that they might meet one day once a month or two days every other month.  They are assessing themselves.  I think it’s a good idea to be involved, I’ll let them know.

MnSCU: I did invite you last time.

Adjourned 11:40 a.m.