IFO MnSCU Statewide Meet and Confer

Unofficial Notes

November 17, 2006

IFO Present:  Nancy Black, Steve Bohnenblust, Mary Kesler, Cathy Summa, Annette Schoenberger, George Seldat, David Bouchard, Elizabeth Dunn, Pat Arseneault, Cindy Phillips, Cindy Finch (taking notes), Russ Stanton

MnSCU Present:  Chancellor McCormick, Chris Dale, Manuel Lopez, Leslie Mercer, Linda Baer, Gary Janikowski, Barbara Miller, Judy Borgen, Lynda Milne, Richard Davenport, Steve Franz, Mary Leary, Whitney Harris, Linda Skallman, Cyndy Crist, Steve Gednalske, Al Essa

Called to order at 8:05 a.m.

1.B.1.1: (A handout was given.)

IFO: We just wanted to know the status of the procedure after our meeting at St. Cloud State University.

MnSCU:  We are making some of those changes and it is being reviewed and will be sent out again for comments.  Some of the major issues you addressed will certainly be in the draft.

IFO: I haven’t seen the draft since October.

MnSCU: I’ll make sure you see that.

IFO:  The news media in Fargo was covering 1.B.1 and I thought they were confusing it with the Nepotism policy.  I’m seeking clarification. They were talking about the responsibility on everyone’s part to self report their own behavior that might be in violation of the policy.  I thought the only duty to self report was in the Nepotism policy where people are in a relationship and a reporting line.  I didn’t see that under 1.B.1.

IFO:  It’s in the nepotism policy.

MnSCU:  That’s what’s in effect.  It’s in part three.

IFO:  I’m trying to understand if we are imposing a duty to report – asking people to tell on themselves if they’re in a consensual relationship.  But that’s under the Nepotism policy; certainly they overlap.  I’m not finding any duty to report the consensual relationship under 1.B.1., unless you are a supervisor with a general duty to report violations of any policy. 

MnSCU:  The policy says this provision.  (?)

IFO:  Let me try to ask this again. We have a policy governing the use of  the internet but it does not include a line creating a duty to self report violations, but the Nepotism policy   does say if one of these relationships exists and I am in that relationship I have a duty to report it , to self report.  I don’t think that is or should be part of 1.B.1.

MnSCU:  Yeah.

IFO:  But the back to the media.  I want to make sure my understanding is correct so that the public impression is correct.

MnSCU:  That’s an issue we need to address and I’ll work that out.

IFO:  To follow up it did appear in our local newspaper.  Was that information put out to the media?

MnSCU:  I have no idea we did not release a press release.  Renee Hogoboom had an interview with the Pioneer Press and the Star Tribune.  To the best of my knowledge Renee did not make that statement. We will follow up.

IPESL: (A handout was given.)

IFO:  We were wondering about an update on these awards.  Who requested modifications?  Who received this information?

MnSCU:  The individuals listed on the project cover sheet.

IFO:  I need more clarification; is it the project manager or president?

MnSCU:  All correspondence went to the President as well as the contacts on the cover sheet.  The primary person at Winona is Kurt Hohenstein. 

IFO:  Regarding the extension of the status report deadline to February 26, we appreciate that.  We wanted to note that the schedule for completion makes it impossible do to meaningful assessment; it can’t just be a snapshot. 

IFO:  We’re also glad the State Universities and Community and Technical Colleges are meeting separately, and we want that to continue.

IFO:  We appreciate the CTL breaking out the sessions. One of the issues we’ve had, when we are all in one meeting, we’re going to the lowest common denominator - we’re separate and we serve different needs [refers to state university professional development in contrast to two-year institutions].  A lot of good work is coming out of these projects however it is an add-on to what faculty are already doing, and faculty are not happy with their situation in terms of compensation and in terms of these IPESL grants.  We’ve made that clear in terms of how we view competitive compensation and how that is being handled by the Office of the Chancellor.  We also have the position that these projects on IPESL funds are not welcome.  We are not looking for a “son of IPESL.”  If there are going to be these kinds of conditions, they are going to be negotiated.  We need recognition on what we mean by fair compensation.  To faculty, fair compensation is based on a national basis.

MnSCU:  They are being negotiated.  I do understand you are talking about the success of negotiations when you refer to the “son or daughter of IPESL.”  We’re mindful of your position.

IFO:  Ok, good.

IFO:  About this February 26 date, has this information been sent out to the campuses?

MnSCU:  No, it was just decided yesterday.  I haven’t even had a chance to discuss this with Linda Baer.  We will update the website.

Applied Doctorate:

IFO:  Our major question is the source of funding for these applied doctorates.  Where is it coming from?

MnSCU:  At this point, what we have, we shared with you at the last meet and confer.  The report Manuel Lopez received from each campus doing the doctoral has business plans.   Each campus is using their own planning mechanism.

MnSCU:  It’s what I had said last time and at the Graduate Council.  We’re trying to get the institutions to understand they are initiating these.  They have gone through the campus’ processes, curricular committees, local meet and confers campus by campus.  We are trusting the institutions to provide the business plans and each are capable of addressing the programs on their campus.

IFO:  Point of clarification, on October 26, you sent me material and we reviewed it.  I now understand the figures are not up-to-date?

MnSCU:  That’s what was proposed - what I received from the campuses.

IFO:  Regarding state allocations, I think it is the assumption that the schools will receive the same amount per student than any other student.

MnSCU:  What they will receive for a doctoral student will be consistent with a graduate student.

IFO:  What some of us have been told is that that number was supplied by MnSCU; they were told what that figure was.

MnSCU:  It wasn’t from me/MnSCU, maybe they contacted Judy Borgen, but that was not provided by us, apparently it was provided by the institution’s finance people.

MnSCU:  The only information provided was the access number to the proposals; we didn’t put any dollars on this.

IFO:  Then there’s confusion on the campuses.  The other part is that the numbers are different on different proposals.  I’m looking at nursing.  They are using estimated averages on state allocation of 3,760 FTE and the one I’m looking at for Mankato, they’re using approximately 3,000.  We’re just trying to figure out the real numbers.

MnSCU:  The numbers are based on the institutional numbers.  Four nursing institutions are participating.  While I’m assuming they agreed on a tuition rate, the internal allocations are determined by the institutions’ finance people.

IFO:  This is the state allocation.  Are you giving different schools different amounts for grad students?

MnSCU:  No.

IFO:  This is in the anticipated state revenue allocation - I don’t understand this because I thought every school got the same amounts.

MnSCU:  No.

Davenport:  We did our calculations.  The student ratio used was based on meeting accreditation. We have another program in education administration for k-12 which will even be less. I put this together to illustrate the state allocations.  We‘re not asking for new dollars - 2,250 per student added to our base for new students.  That’s at the undergrad level.  There is no special allocation for the doctoral program in the allocation formula, but I’m hoping that will be addressed.  At the time legislation was passed there was a statute in place allowing for a periodic adjustment, that statute was dismissed and voted down. We did put in the tuition as it currently would be without any additional funding. Our cost per student runs 10k per year.  At the end of four years the funding will stabilize.  We’ll add in 12 students every year and the number of graduates will be on a regular cycle.  We tried to factor in all the expenses.  We always did assume we would add in two faculty positions from our budget to every doctoral program.  There is a question about the tuition revenue.

IFO:  I would appreciate if you could get back to us and tell us what the state allocation amount is and if it is different for the seven schools.

MnSCU:  That may be laid out in the narrative stuff that accompanied those materials.

IFO:  It’s hard to evaluate a program when there are these differences.

MnSCU:  I will seek the assumption on which they based those calculations on each base.

IFO:   I’m not clear on the four campuses who are doing the Doctorates in Nursing.  From the information you’ve provided us, this campus (Mankato) is the only one that talks about an internal reallocation (campus money), all others are zero on that line.   I didn’t understand where the institutions were making that decision.  There does not appear to be any internal reallocation.

MnSCU:  The use of existing faculty and the costs associated there are part of the reallocation in the expenditure’s line.

IFO:  Existing faculty are doing that work and that’s listed as the cost for the program.

MnSCU:  That’s listed as an expense for the program.

IFO:  The faculty have worked really hard for a quality doctoral program out of hide. The problem is we can’t tell what the ramifications are for faculty in terms of who will fund the start-up costs for these programs without having something suffer.  How will this happen?

MnSCU:  What is being said at local meet and confers?

IFO:  Comparing the doctoral nursing internal reallocation zero, but on the campuses that is a shift, but on this one, it’s specified as internal reallocation.  The foot note said 300,000 for faculty in masters who are being reassigned.

IFO:  We’ve had these discussions on campus and there is no doubt, on the CSP program and the dollar figures, the revenue minus expenses, the program is at a deficit, even under the most optimum set of numbers, there will be a deficit.  Our concern, if we’re looking at long term viability in the CSP program and we are looking to graduate 10-12 students, we’ll need to recognize at the OOC that graduate education is more expensive than lower division classes.  Will you open the discussions for some kind of change in the way campus allocations are made?  There was a lot of work done; internal reallocations were made to allow these programs to start up.   We have serious financial reservations about the CSP and DNP programs or future proposed programs.  Changing the MnSCU allocation formula is the real key.

MnSCU:  We are moving to that discussion.

MnSCU:  A recommendation was brought to the Leadership Council who is looking at the allocation model.  We are recommending that we create a 4^th level of funding and the allocation based on that.  As soon as we get students in doctoral programs, we will start counting.

IFO:  What is the impact on existing programs? Has there been an assessment on existing programs?

Davenport:   I’m happy to hear this, Judy. I think the allocation model discussion has to occur before the students are enrolled.  When we take our doctoral programs to the Higher Learning Commission (HLC), they’ll want a stable financial plan.  If the allocation committee could take that into consideration in their planning, we might know what kind of allocation we can expect and we’ll add that in.

MnSCU:  External reviewers are involved and they’ll give us additional feedback on the final proposal before it goes to HLC.  Hopefully it will be enhanced.  We will make some changes.  As a staff we’ll look at all these pieces.  When we go to the HLC, we will need a package that meets their criteria.  This is an intermediate step in a long process.  My assumption, correct me if you think I’m wrong, I’ve had to trust the institutions that they’ve had the necessary discussions in their own framework. Part of the document that will have to be put together for the HLC is a statement that all of these institutions have met. When reviewing new programs, we are always looking for those issues you’ve raised if they aren’t already raised.  The piece that is important within the nursing profession is the DNP.  It is very important and will be a major issue for practioners on several levels.

IFO:  We’ll need a continuing discussion.  After listening to the Board of Trustees, I didn’t hear this program mentioned once nor was any funding mentioned.  I did hear comparisons to the private colleges, for profit institutions, and what the University of Minnesota is doing.  When we talk about issues later on like workload and compensation, graduate faculty have a different set of parameters.  I was talking to a few of the Trustees who make comparisons with the University of Minnesota -- they seem to know more about the U of M than they do about their own faculty and I was disheartened by that.  I said to them, “Look at their workload at the U of M!  They have plenty of time for research which is what you need if you want to turn out quality graduates.”  Similar to Larry Oveson’s issue with not being able to get information back that you request, you are pushed in certain areas.  The Graduate Council webpage is from 2003!  If people go to that site and see something from 2003, what does that say?  This is a really big issue.  We’ve also been given two scenarios, “budget A” and “budget B” for the same expenses for SCSU.  There are issues that need to be worked out about the funding.    

MnSCU: There are a number of issues.  We are trying to participate in the larger discussions and that piece of the process that is incumbent on us to do so we can move this along to a stage where some of these discussions can take place.

IFO:  Obviously graduate education is important when you start talking about redefining the allocation model.  What happens to the institutions that are not involved in the grad programs?  Will they bear the burden of the costs?  It can only be allocated out in so many ways.  That piece is not being addressed.

MnSCU: The major assumption was that we had a differential tuition option and it would be a key component in funding some of these programs.  I hope the ability to use differential tuition will address this.  Even though there are indirectly involved institutions, I have seen correspondence on collaboration, possibility to help teaching and in the development of courses. It’s an outreach from some of the other institutions. I have commissioned an external evaluation for the market on doctorates in the state.  Because of these programs are being designed as practioner applied, having a masters before coming in, many of them will be addressed to currently employed professionals.

Chancellor:  I’ve experienced school districts that will pay for the doctoral program.

IFO:  Today at the next meeting, we’ll discuss the charge document for the Graduate Council.  How long have we had this committee?

MnSCU:  It goes back to before the merger - 11-12 years ago. We’ve never developed a charge document, but we do have a set of bylaws.

Chancellor:  It’s good to discuss the allocation formula.  I’m under the impression that credibility with the legislature…, we told the legislature we would work this out and wouldn’t have a special line-item for appropriations, at least this year maybe we should have had a million dollar line item.

IFO:  Context is important.  At the time that was made, we had a funding formula based on enrollment, while we thought we’d have two incomes enrollment/tuition, we now lack that one income flow.  It seems we are moving toward a new model asking for specials rather than having a formula-based funding model in MN.  The formula doesn’t generate the money, but we made the commitment.

Davenport:  We did make that statement, you are accurate.  We said we would not come back for allocation to get these programs off the ground.  But we were counting on the adjusted enrollment formula which hasn’t always been consistent.  That is a challenging change for us now.

IFO:   I was disconcerted to hear that not everybody in the system is overjoyed that we are going to be doing applied doctorates. 

Chancellor: I haven’t heard any complaining. Manny, if you sense that problem, let me know.

MnSCU:  I haven’t heard that.

Chancellor: I am strongly supportive.

MnSCU Teaching Center/Council on Professional Education: 

IFO:  We have some questions.  We noticed an advertisement for an Executive Direction position of the Teacher Center housed at Metropolitan State University and we want info on that.  Who’s in charge? What’s this position about and how does it relate to the Office of the Chancellor?  The last we heard the Teacher Center was not approved by the Board of Trustees for a Center for Excellence. Update us.

MnSCU:  Let’s get the context; we fully supported moving a teacher center into the realm of being supported as a Center of Excellence.  Our proposal was that we would do more of a collaborative approach and that became an issue of concern with the Office of Higher Education.  Evidently this isn’t what the governor had in mind for a Center of Excellence.  He had listed manufacturing and technology and we were confused about teacher education.  We had to back off in relation to it being a Center of Excellence.  We didn’t drop it though.  The Chancellor and I have a strong commitment to collaborate more.  We have some focal areas most evident to us as we surveyed teacher administrators in the schools and the faculty of education on the key needs.  A driving need is in-service training; teachers in the metro area don’t have as much access - to label non-credit kinds of training for the multitudes of teachers here.  They want more public choices. So we moved to continue to support this effort. Metro volunteered as the fiscal agent and we decided that worked.  We talked to the deans of education and provosts, and discussed a powerful alliance. 

IFO:  It’s going to be housed at Metro, so who is paying for this position?  Will the director be an Office of the Chancellor employee or a Metro employee?

MnSCU:  We allocated the funds from the Chancellor’s initiative funds, but it is the dean of Metro state.

IFO:  Nancy Bunnet was the person at the OOC heading that up, the last time we heard.

MnSCU:  Nancy isn’t working in that project now but the decision was this person would be a Metro employee.  The search committee is from Metro State and other administrative faculty from other campuses.  I’m the search person from the OOC.  I believe it’s all the seven state universities. I will give you a list of the search committee members.

MnSCU:  This happened during April.

MnSCU:  The Winona person on this search committee is Jan Sherman.

IFO:  Who appointed the search committee?

MnSCU:  Being directed by Metro state, it’s their search. It’s their employee. Metro appointed their own members as well as members from the wider set of SUs participating in the center and k-12 education. 

IFO:  We do not consider faculty to be represented on this committee unless we appointed them.

MnSCU:  I understand what you’re saying.  Dr. Malecki is the chair of the search committee at Metro.

IFO:  I’m the Faculty Association President at Metro State.  I heard about this yesterday.

IFO:  What will be the role of this Executive Director on other campuses?

MnSCU: The funding is being provided from the OOC for up to three years to fund an Executive Director, Administrative Assistant and continue the practice with the Teacher Center on-campus coordinators.  Those people will really be the pipeline back to the institution along with the Executive Director.

Davenport:  This really started with the presidents thinking about the need for teacher education in the metro area.  Recognizing all the universities will offer various programs, we thought it important to be more coordinated.  When the presidents met, we brought in COPE.  COPE talked about how to continue what we are doing in teacher education and making improvements.  My understanding is faculty have been involved from the beginning.  We need to be more competitive.  We didn’t see it as a threat.  Our faculty still have a choice if they want to teach in the program or not.

MnSCU:  To clarify, because the Centers of Excellence became campus based, we operated in that same way. We don’t have the resources to do much more.  What we see happening through this Executive Director, is opportunities needed in the Metro area.  This person, in contact with the school districts, will respond to the campuses that have those needs.

Chancellor: From my impression, what worked for me in my former job, I had a education czar who worked on this.  I had a lead person for the state and it worked well. This person is still in that position in Pennsylvania. We know we need to do more in teacher education.  I’m sorry because I think when things get a bad start they are hard to fix.

Davenport:  We took this down to the lowest level on the campuses; the College of Education (COE) is communicating with faculty.  I’m surprised you don’t know about this. This discussion has been happening for over 2 years.

IFO:  Faculty buy-in is important.

IFO:  This is a good model and one we all want to see succeed.  I appreciate the Chancellor’s observation, but the perception of deans and faculty are not always the same.  If you are only talking to the deans then you are only getting a part.  I am distressed that COPE wasn’t meeting.

IFO:  As soon as I saw this employment opportunity, I met with Linda.  Within the required qualification there was no listing in university teaching.  How can you have an Executive Director who doesn’t have university teaching experience?  Linda said the deans wrote the job description, there was a short turn around time.  It raised concerns if this was truly an open search. 

MnSCU:  This is in the process of being advertised in The Chronicle.  I can assure you it is an open search. We’ve been working with the affirmative action person at Metro State and we assure you we are meeting all the guidelines.

IFO:  Even if this is an open search it is very troubling that this person isn’t required to have any teaching at a university level.  We’re seeing this in deans; now you are bringing in a person to supervise faulty?

MnSCU:  This person is a coordinator utilizing the existing university talent. They are basically a broker.

IFO:  If you would have consulted with us, we could have pointed that out when you created a job description.  Chancellor, I know you’re sincere in what you say but I don’t think it’s getting through to people.

MnSCU:  We don’t know what happened; it may not be obvious right now.  There are more facts out there that we know and we shouldn’t jump to conclusions.

IFO:  This issue never came to a meet and confer at Metro.

Chancellor:  This is not an OOC search. This is not an OOC search.  We delegated it but we are not running this. My staff is not supervising the search.  This is an employee of Metro State.  This is a Metro employee.  Is that where the meet and confer should have been?  Do we need to get [President] Brad[shaw] involved in this?

MnSCU:  There was an update in the status.  I don’t know how specific it was, it did not include the job description.

IFO:  We brought this item to this meet and confer to ask for information.  I don’t believe anyone is accusing.  With that said, I would note that last year we did engage in conversation about the Teacher Center and we asked for a charge document and it lead to a discussion how the Teacher Center lead to COPE.  Now we have the COPE charge doc but we don’t have a charge document from the teacher center.  I don’t know how this fits. I’m really passionate about teacher education. This goes beyond the deans of ed or COE; we’re doing a huge disservice if we don’t make efforts to make certain people know what’s going on. We support this but we need to do this right, it is surprising to me that this didn’t come through as an information item.  What we heard last year was that Nancy Bunnet was heading up the Teacher Center at the OOC.  We’re not trying to shut this down but we need to make certain we are doing this right otherwise you’re just going to upset people. 

IFO:  We’re prepared to get involved, if we can do the appropriate consultation. It’s an issue that needs to be recognized as an appropriate step.

MnSCU:  Will you initiate that at Metro?

IFO:  You better believe it.  I will initiate this.

IFO:  Last year as we were talking about the relationship between COPE and the Teacher Center, the campus coordinators were appointed through COPE.  Their role is really fuzzy which raises concerns about how this Teacher Center goes forward.  If this goes forward, I would appreciate a formal process.

MnSCU:  I don’t believe they were appointed through COPE.  I believe each state university appointed them through the faculty associations - different ways at different campuses.  There is a mission and vision statement we have shared with you on the Teacher Center.  There is not a charge document because the teach center is not a committee.

IFO:  Does that document give the role of the deans’ and faculty involvement?

MnSCU:  I don’t recall; let me look. Remember as President Davenport said, this was envisioned as a way to come together. This is a new structure/venture based at a campus.  A collaborative effort but headed by an institution.  Some of the roles and responsibilities are spelled out while others will evolve as this is created.

Chancellor:  Do you have some mechanism for oversight?

Davenport:  Speaking for Mankato, there is a campus consultation process.  We have a teacher education coordinator.  This has not gotten up to the level of the president.  I didn’t know this search was going on until now, but this isn’t necessarily bad.  Clearly at Metro they are taking a lead role.  I know they involved COPE.  This didn’t appear to be a presidential issue, now I will make this a presidential issue.  It’s not so much of a problem on our campus; we are already coordinating teacher education on our campus.

IFO:  I wouldn’t agree with you on having the dean appoint a coordinator.  This is different from what we do on our campus.  When you’re looking at education, you’re not just talking about the COE; you’re talking about people in the disciplines who deliver teacher education.  This has been an ongoing conflict to some extent on our campus with the COE and the teachers in teacher education; there may have always been some turf wars on who does what.

IFO:  Who is the point person getting pack to us?

MnSCU:   I will.

Chancellor:  I appreciate what Cathy said.  This is important to our institutions to be involved.  I agree with Steve, the liberal arts faculty, if you don’t have those faculty on board we won’t produce the kind of student we need.

IFO:  The faculty were bitterly disappointed in the BOT for not funding this as a Center of Excellence.  Politically talking about k-12, we need answers here.  At the legislative session and the promises made, we need to get this going.

Policy 2.10 on the Residents Hall: (A handout was given.)

MnSCU:  We’ve had this before.  It was taken to the Policy Council and this is a routine report.  There are very few changes and some were added that you requested.  Policy 2.10 has been seen before.  I’ll be brief.  The changes are more cosmetic.   

Policy 2.3 Student Involvement in Decision-Making and Procedure 2.3.1: (Two handouts were given.)

MnSCU:  These were developed together and this policy was seen by you before.  There are a lot of changes, but all of it is mainly reorganization and simple changes.  The last sentence on line seven is a change on the policy and is referenced in the procedure. 

IFO:  Does this include curriculum?

MnSCU:  No.

IFO:  How do we know that by reading this?

MnSCU:  By reading the procedure.

Procedure 2.3.1:

MnSCU:  On the back side of the procedure on line 22-24, which lists examples, we have listed non-curricular campus proposals.  I believe the addition of that language was your request. 

IFO:  You don’t anticipate the wording.  Such as but not limited to…line 24….it doesn’t exclude consultation on non-curricular issues.

MnSCU:  It does not include curricular issues.

Davenport:  Good practice would include the students when eliminating a program.

PEPER Process:

MnSCU:  PEPER stands for Professional Education Program Evaluation Report.

IFO:  I’ve spoken to Linda Baer about the process.

IFO:  This plays on the last issue we talked about on teacher education.  It is a workload issue and I want to be certain that you are aware of what this is doing to us.  I don’t know how much involvement we’ve had in this.  I’ve talked to MACTE about this.  We have teacher education programs, a state organization directs the rules.  Those rules often aren’t communicated in an effective manner to us and they can be significant.  It asks that faculty outline… and links appear in our syllabi.  This is patently ridiculous!  There is nothing about assessment and evaluation except that we have crossed all our Ts and dotted our Is.  This is taking 4,000 faculty hours on campuses to complete. This affects teacher education.  If we’re not doing this, the Board of Teaching will not allow us to recommend for licensure students who graduate from our programs.  If we actually do prepare 50-70 percent of the teachers in the state, than we can go to these organizations and have some say in what they are making us do.  We need to work together to ensure that we are no longer bound by these requirements.

IFO:  We don’t need all of this paperwork and this will be a long process to change some of these things. 

Chancellor:  Could Leslie or Russ talk about this?  How are they (Board of Teaching) appointed?

IFO:  They are appointed by the governor but have required membership Education Minnesota…

MnSCU:  There is one higher ed representative, Deirdre Kramer from Hamline University.  Staff at the Department of Education and it was primarily through MACTE (deans and faculty members).  It’s clear to me that what came out was more detailed and prescriptive than what anyone had expected.

Chancellor:  Does this board have a hearing where we can express our frustrations?

MnSCU:  PEPER is a process, not a rule.  I generally attend these meetings.  When there are opportunities for input I speak up.

Chancellor:  What do we do?  We need to get a hearing.

IFO:  I don’t know.  We do have a mechanism for MACTE.  We have rep on this but it comes from local campuses.  What I wonder is how the OOC coordinates with MACTE and how MACTE coordinates with COPE.

MnSCU:  In the last few years it’s been difficult to have any influence on the Board of Teaching. Their appointees have been much more politicized in the last few years.  It’s a challenge.  The challenge of PEPER is that it was all put in place.  There’s been more program changes since this started.  There is some sense that there is more work involved with this than anyone anticipated.  Ironically this has been more challenging.  This is the first time that every standard is being reviewed.

MnSCU:  I’m wondering if, based on an very articulate description of the problem, we can’t take this back to COPE and handle this internally then work with MACTE.  If all the institutions were to work on this, then this would have a more powerful impact than just one institution.  This can be on the COPE agenda.

IFO:  Our faculty agree; they want to change the process.  Seven years ago it was a similar process. What I’m hearing from the science people on our campus is that we aren’t really meeting the legislative intent.  We’re not really doing assessment.  Why not recognize existing agencies already certify our content?  It seems you would be more effective utilizing the process that is already completed than reinventing the proverbial wheel.  We don’t want to fight against this; it’s such a cumbersome process.

IFO:  Faculty are putting in hundreds of hours to preparation.  There are k-12 teachers hired who will receive eight hours of training and then they’ll review five programs.  They are qualified in this 8 hour period.  Faculty are putting in 200 hours to review a program then a Jr. high school teacher will decide if we’ve made enough workable links to ensure our program meets the review criteria.

Chancellor:  Can we ask for a hearing of the Board of Teaching?

IFO:  The new Higher Ed Chair is Ed Pelowski.

IFO:  What’s the best way to institute change?  I have to go back and explain to the faculty this conversation and I’m not sure I can say what we’re doing.

Chancellor:  Aren’t we the great state of hearings?  Is the Board of Teaching above that?  Should Russ, Linda Baer, Cyndy Crist, Nancy Black and Cathy Summa coordinate this?

IFO:  Leslie, will you coordinate this with Linda Baer since she’s left the room now?

IFO:  We also need to coordinate with MACTE.

MnSCU:  (nodding yes)

Chancellor:  I have found Education Minnesota to be very cooperative and I can’t imagine conversations with them before we do that they would have some sympathy for what we think.

MnSCU:  The problem isn’t with Education Minnesota.

MnSCU:  It isn’t the teachers who wouldn’t understand.

IFO:  Sometimes there are key people on those Boards where we could request a hearing.

MnSCU:  There’s one vacant position. The governor makes those appointments.

IFO:  Is there any one on the Board of Trustees with a background in education?

Chancellor:  No, they’re gone.

IFO:  This goes back to the involvement of the dean of the College of Education.  I don’t know how aware they are of the impact on faculty outside of the COE (science, liberal arts, etc.).

MnSCU Biennial Budget:

IFO:  As you know the Board of Trustees passed the budget request. While we support the spending level, we do not support how it is being split out in reallocation and the students’ tuition.  The Key Measure put in regarding the competitive compensation, innovation and efficiencies over the 70^th percentile is not acceptable to us.  This is no surprise. We are in the uncomfortable position of going to the legislature and telling our own story.

Chancellor:  My reaction is I wish we could come together on this but the budget the Trustees passed has a 4% tuition increase maximum each year, and there would be money for inflation according to the allocation formula.  We have an initiative on the underserved in consultation with some legislators on the amount of money they will get and then a plan on what they will do about the underserved.  Some of the money will be on the basis of proposals.  There’s a $10 million line item for STEM, and a couple of other initiatives for another center and some for nursing.  A good thing to say is that if this were funded we would move back from 50 to 53% in state funding.  At one time we were at 67%.  The Board of Trustees did something, I didn’t know if we were going to get that through. I was hearing split votes and the BOT was going through a tough time.  I take responsibility for recommending the budget.  The presidents were unanimous in recommending the 4% tuition increase.  I would have liked to have gone to 0%.  The BOT did something, and I haven’t figured out how this will work on an amendment. They’ve made the tuition for the next two years and we will not raise this beyond the 4% regardless of the legislature.  The BOT made it clear, I’ll be asked by whomever the chair is.  One of the priorities that the BOT made clear is that there are no priorities.  I would have thought inflation would be first but that isn’t so.  There are no decisions on priorities.  I think they’re locked in for two years on the 4% (4% is the average for the system so there could be differentiation).  Technology was in there too.  I’ve said to the presidents, the technology initiative can never get through unless each of the presidents can say this is the impact on their campus. There will be more local level involvement with the legislature.  There was a great effort to pull it all down and finally it came around.  They thought I was requesting too much, but in the end the votes were there.

Davenport:  The presidents unanimously supported a tuition increase.  We wanted that for back up.

Chancellor:  I think I’ve been in MN long enough to say this.  Anything can happen with the legislative session in terms of their role, they could redo higher education budget.  I’d be happy to have a word on the budget.

IFO:  Is that 4% for each year or the biennium?

Chancellor:  Each year.

IFO:  When we see some kind of new initiative or reallocation that the expectation is if there is going to be additional staff hired and it will invariably be non-instructional staff and the frustration that sometimes revolved around these words is that the money doesn’t get down to where many of us think it should go to help have quality faculty delivering the educational services we are promising to the state.  Is that a fair perception that our administrative growth is faster than our faculty growth?

Chancellor:  The underserved is all about professional people working with students.  We see all of that money.  There was a question about how much we keep here, in this budget - the underserved $10 million will go the campuses.  This pin-points where the money goes for what.  We know where the money is going for the underserved.  Certainly there will be people in technology. 

Davenport:  I’m the VP on the President’s Technology Committee. For technology, it is to build the system to allow us to do what we need to do on the campuses.  Mankato has had many problems with IT.  When it breaks down, faculty can’t do their job.  We need the engineers that can design the structure so we can get the work done.  We’re very frustrated on our campus and I was glad to be appointed to the Technology Committee.  That will mean more positions in the classroom.  When I talked to Ken Niemi, most of those positions are not long term positions.  Once they set-up on the system, we will outsource these positions.

IFO:  When you talked about the 4%, is it a max?

Chancellor:  It’s a max for the system. It is not a cap though on the campuses.  There have been times when presidents come in lower, but I have to get it all to 4%.    If Moorhead, who has to be competitive, came in with a 3% tuition increase then someone can come in with a 5% increase.

MnSCU:  The 4% is a rate increase for each of the undergrads.

IFO:  What do you mean by underserved?

MnSCU:  First generation students, low income students (PELL grant), students of color, ELL learners.

IFO:  In what way are they not served?

MnSCU:  Traditionally they have not been participating at the same rate of other students.

IFO:  I don’t know if in the data we have we could readily identify campus paybacks to the state office, but we know the campuses pay back to the system and we’re just trying to get a handle on that.

Chancellor:  I don’t’ know about that.

MnSCU:  We charge back to your institution. Centrally we pay for the debt service, we pay the attorney general, our IT expenses, and a number of other activities that are part of campuses services.  At the end of the year other costs are transferred to the books of the institution.  It is not a change but a transfer of expenditures.

IFO:  And the appropriate appropriation amount adequate to cover.

MnSCU:  Yes.

IFO:  So we pay our 1/3 based on individual projects, and the other 1/6 is held at the OOC?

MnSCU:  The technology is if there are expenses, servers, it is assessed to your campuses and you get all the funds and a charge.  You’re not shorted on that deal.  The $12 million was a faculty assessment; that was different.

IFO:  Are there other things that are “different”?

MnSCU:  This is the first time we’ve done something like this and it was meant to jump-start technology and changes.

Chancellor:  The presidents said to me, ‘this is critical we’ve got to do something!’  Later on we talked about taking the money; there was a level of urgency.

Davenport:  Yes.

IFO:  There is the impression on the campuses that there are a lot of take-backs.

Chancellor:  No tuition money comes here.

MnSCU:  Right.

Chancellor:  The money is state appropriation.

IFO:  What happens if we don’t get the $70 million?

Chancellor:  The Board made it clear that there is no ranking and they will then cope with that when things work out.  After the legislature the Board will have to figure it out.  I wouldn’t have had the votes to line up my priorities.  The legislature can decide some things the Board didn’t decide.

IFO:  According to the contract in Article 5 we are supposed to meet and negotiate on the budget.  We’re wondering why that didn’t happen? (Nancy read the contract.)

MnSCU:   This is a complete contract.

IFO:  That doesn’t answer the question.

MnSCU:  Article 34 says this is the complete agreement; we’re done negotiating.

IFO:  We want to follow-up on this.

Pandemic Planning:

IFO:  We had several questions on what direction the plan would take in terms of faculty.  If institutions are closed, we are hearing about an assignment of grades when semesters are considered completed.

MnSCU: There has been preliminary work and an overarching scheme for policy development that has been laid out and this is pretty much all this is.  Once that is formalized Academic Affairs (Steve Franz) would go through the same formal policy process.  It will come through meet and confer.  At this point it is the scheme of the big questions.

IFO:  The issue is that before you sit down and start writing we want you to first consult with faculty.  You really need to start consulting now with faculty before this comes to meet and confer.

MnSCU:  How many campuses are talking about this at the local meet and confer level?

IFO:  We are.

IFO:  We’ve had no indication conveyed to the IFO on our campus that there was any contemplation of academic portions to this plan and the committee for the pandemic plan was constituted over the summer.  We (faculty) are very much after the fact, but it is a fundamental understanding for the universities to be doing academic planning.

MnSCU:  This is just a scheme that talks about the questions that needs to be answered.  We very much recognize faculty involvement is a significant part.  There were campus meetings over the summer.

IFO:  We weren’t invited.

MnSCU:  The planning over the summer was a necessity because the state required that information.  Those meetings took place when students and faculty weren’t there.  Faculty consultation has to take place before anything is considered final. This is sort of a strange process - not the best process.

IFO:  If it’s academic you start there - NOT consult with them at the end.  This contributes to the hostility faculty feel toward people in this building.

IFO:  I’ve heard of several of these plans from the campuses and they have this piece on a grade.  Is something that has come from MnSCU or the state?

MnSCU:  No, this is the first time I was aware they were talking about that.  These are examples of things we need to do (committee from SCSU).  This is just a possibility until there is a whole lot more consultation.  I don’t know that there would be any system scheme to this anyways.

IFO:  I’m concerned about the issues of possible standards you wanted to explore.  My feeling is that there is a high level of confusion in the administrative level about that topic.  We’re hearing there is nothing related to academics when you talk about pandemic planning.  There is a certainly level of confusion to where this is going. 

MnSCU:  I would have used the word standards.  We want to ensure each campus plan addresses those questions.  Issues related to public health authorities, public health - we had to meet the state deadline.

Chancellor:  The real problem here is a group of leaders from the campuses who feel they are not involved.

MnSCU:  Steve Franz has been working on this scheme piece and I’ll make sure he hears your concerns.

IFO:  At BSU we had a summer meet and confer over this.  We have been talking about academic issues all along.  What has been driving this issue is will we get paid and how will be go on if we aren’t being paid.  That’s shaping our whole response to this even though we don’t know the answers.

Chancellor:  That’s a good question… if you have to give half of your tuition back…

MnSCU:  If the state payroll isn’t running...

MnSCU:  The governor’s authority comes into this too so we are also following statutory requirements.  The issue here is all of this is unprecedented.  We are tying to make these decisions in a scenario format. 

Home Internet IRS:

IFO:  Our concern is over your decision to consider home internet a taxable benefit rather than allowing faculty to claim it as a working expense.  Faculty are asking for reimbursement so it seems unfair to be considered a tax benefit.

IFO:  Many faculty are coming to us because they have one specific account to do student work.  Why can’t we have that reimbursed through our personal development funds?

IFO:  The question is the presumption that it is taxable rather than passing it on through and letting the person deal with it on their individual tax return.

MnSCU:  Congress said that certain property lends itself to personal use and requires strict substantiation - that means the employee must account for its business and personal use.  Internet is one of those items that Congress says could be subject to personal use, requiring a log and purpose for that site.  The business office would review the log and if all the requirements aren’t met then it’s considered taxable income.

IFO:  I’m confused if I have a car I don’t have to give my employer the mileage.

MnSCU:  The car issue they would require the same substantiation, if it was your own personal car it would be different.

IFO:  A good place to start is the IRS code section 61.  We need to see those citations for the necessity for the employer’s involvement.

IMS Advisory Council:

IFO: What is the state of the recommendation on the composition of this committee?

MnSCU:  We are looking forward to convening this new IMS Advisory Council.  I just want to make brief points in terms of philosophically what is underlining this.  The IMS current vendor is D2L.  This is a critical core component of our environment and we’re committed to making sure that the faculty are not only the dominant voice but the driving force for the decision to be made around this technology.  We’re going to have to make some tough decisions and choices in the coming years.  I hope what will happen is the decisions that need to me made will be a consensus.  In terms of style, I don’t like committees in general but when it’s necessary I like to structure them in a way that we share information before hand but we telegraph the decisions that need to be made.  What we are going to try to do is before every meeting we’re going to lay out some of the decisions we are coming out with and lay out the options and get people the data they need to advise us.  An example is the D2L upgrade version 8 coming up; currently we’re using version 7.  We have three choices and we’ll have the group make the decision.  I’m talking to Linda about that if we don’t get to the point where faculty have the dominant voice in terms of governance.

IFO:  We appreciated that meeting, and made some suggestions we hope will be built in the structure.  The IMS is a key element to faculty.  The structure does need to reflect that.   One major concern is the commitment from the system to online, but there are distinct structural problems on the capacity and we’ll have to come to grips with that.  A planning problem we face is D2L.  Is there a way around it?

MnSCU:  We’re working on that and the vendor relationship.  Is D2L responsive?  We’ll present the choices and see what the committee thinks.

IFO:  It’s important when working with vendors that the service requirements are clear.  Once faculty have significant input we are in a much better position to work together.

MnSCU:  We want to formally ratify those agreements so we are setting the right set of expectations all around.

Request for Committees:

IFO:  We are having a problem in requests for representation at the IFO.  We have an agreed upon form but consistently we’ve received requests without adequate information.  This happened with the IMS Advisory Council because we didn’t have the form that we agreed upon.  Linda sends me requests but they are incomplete.

MnSCU:  The IMS meeting is set for December 6.  Personally we have to consult with Linda.  I don’t think the meeting is going to have value without your reps being there.

IFO:  So it’s a “tentative” firm date?  We request that you respect our appointment process.

IFO:  When we ask for volunteers there is information faculty need before they can volunteer.  If we don’t get that information people won’t agree to volunteer.

MnSCU:  I didn’t know the protocol.

MnSCU:  Is there some understanding between you and Labor Relations?  We’re not aware of an agreed upon procedure.

IFO:  We won’t appoint our person until our Board meets on Nov. 30/Dec. 1 and the rep we appoint won’t be notified until December 4.

Adjourned 11:50.