IFO/MnSCU MEET AND CONFER
FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 30, 2007
WELLS FARGO PLACE, 4TH FLOOR, BOARD ROOM B
ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA
Present: (IFO) – Nancy Black, Elizabeth Dunn, Cathy Summa, Judy Kilborn, Don Larsson, Bruce Svingen, David Bouchard, Jan Loft, Russ Stanton. (MnSCU) – James McCormick, Mary Leary, Gary Langer, Richard Davenport (MSU, Mankato), Linda Lade, Alfred Essa, Judy Borgen, Mike Lopez, Linda Baer, Lynda Milne, Pat Opatz, Kevin Marsh, Becky Sobolewski, Cyndi Crist, and Bob Donahue.
The meeting was called to order at 8:10. The IFO expressed their deep sorrow regarding the death the previous evening of the Winona State University Student Association President. Details on a memorial service will be forthcoming. He was an outstanding young man.
PROPOSED POLICY 3.35 AND PROCEDURE 3.3.1 CREDIT FOR PRIOR LEARING
MnSCU brought two issues forward: these proposed policy and procedure have moved through the policy committee with the intention for the policy and procedure to be presented at the Board of Trustees meeting in January 2008 and also to Presidents and Leadership Council in December 2007. Starting with “Prior Learning”: MnSCU asked if a review of the document was necessary but the IFO responded that “we are appreciative of the process followed and that we had been heard.” The amendments and policies have been very well received by others as well, according to the Chancellor.
PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO PROCEDURE 3.3.1 ASSESSMENT FOR COURSE PLACEMENT
MnSCU inquired if the IFO had questions.
IFO: “Three of the people on the joint committee are from St. Cloud. They feel a five year life for the ACT would be more reasonable.” It was noted that research shows that academic erosion is not that fast, so five years is reasonable. St. Cloud State University, for example, might need to add between 22 and 25 sections in some courses to handle the required course placements.
MnSCU hoped that high schools will respond and that students will be better prepared by the time they enter the universities.
IFO explained that St. Cloud has been looking at the “cut scores” and basing their predictions on what is known at this time; they are predicting up to 25 added sections to accommodate these students that will need the remedial/required course placement work. Staffing will be a real concern in the future. Because students have not been tested before this there is the anticipation of need.
Clarification from MnSCU: “There is not a change in the ACT scores that would result in the need for placement.”
IFO: “No, it’s not the cut scores that is the concern, but the longevity of the score.”
MnSCU noted that using “underrepresented student” allocations could be used for these types of programs. The Chancellor does not predict the allocations in the second biennium; MnSCU thought it would be there. It was for programming aimed at accessing higher education and success, to use the funding for outreach and support services for students brought to campuses to be successful. How is underserved being defined? The Chancellor agreed with IFO that definitions of underserved varies greatly; he saw lots of success in Little Rock and not to define “underserved” simply as students of color or the poor. If a student is placed in the special categories how do we track these students; what is the plan? MnSCU said there will be a plan when there is a year’s worth of data on these students: it is a long range plan. IFO wondered if non-native speakers are considered for the data other than self identification. MnSCU said there is an admissions process and testing process and they must be very careful on what type of questions they ask and one option for the student is not to respond. MnSCU explained that admission procedures have changed and the question is now is more “where was their secondary education” rather than asking about native or first language.
READY OR NOT WRITING PROGRAM
IFO: “What would be the next step after students have been evaluated, or are deemed not ready for university writing?” MnSCU thought the timing is such that she does not know; there is no plan?
The IFO concern is with understanding the connection between this program and the Accuplacer scores; are students receiving a score that would place them accurately? The Ready or Not Writing Program does not show that the plan is developed or used by university faculty only “college.” Who looks at the university level writing and reading classes the student still may not be ready for because the test may not be a good correlation between testing and the student actually being placed properly in courses at the universities.
The Chancellor noted that universities are open to many students at the first and second level, and that college means one thing and university means something else. The Chancellor thought that IFO was making an excellent point…a student could claim they were told their writing is “college ready” but will discover on campus that they do not meet standards.
“Would they think they do not need a freshman writing class?” inquired IFO. How will a student interpret the feedback? Will they know what they are ready for? We need clarity on the developmental aspect: ready for beginning courses, introductory courses or higher level? What will be the process now for getting back to us? What committee will study this?
MnSCU said they would communicate with MnSCU and she will work with the IFO. The IFO will want some clarification or changes on the website’s disclaimer. IFO noted a paragraph about a data report, error patterns…what might it mean to a student? Is an error grammatical or fluidity? MnSCU thought MnSCU would really appreciate some feedback on these concerns. MnSCU did not think errors were just mechanical and cited some examples listed but IFO noted that the audience reading the website might not be sophisticated enough to discern such language. The IFO should give feedback to MnSCU.
FAILED SEARCHES
IFO introduced the topic by stating that if searches reflect our ability to hire quality faculty then the definition of a “failed search” is important. Although the IFO appreciates the various definitions collected from the various campuses, it is clear that definitions vary from campus to campus. There are some discrepancies because the campuses are not reporting “failed search” the same way. The IFO suggested some consistency and some clarification of definition of the term and clarification in the procedure for reporting. If the data on the annual report is a fair reflection of what is happening in the system then some commonalities and clarity of definition and reporting are suggested.
The positions were clear: MnSCU thinks campuses have autonomy and MnSCU thinks most reports were organized very well. MnSCU did not think the system had a large number of failed searches; definitions depend on the campus, a reflection of the autonomy.
The irony of the IFO arguing for conformity and MnSCU for autonomy was noted. The Chancellor asked President Davenport to respond: it can be discipline related…some positions are always easy to fill while others are more difficult. It really varies for reasons why a search failed. Davenport thought uniformity was a good idea.
IFO spoke to the situation at Bemidji. Many situations are not being reported as a failed search….things are not being reported as they are on other campuses. What about when a position is moved to another area, is that a failed search?
The Chancellor thought they did not want to take autonomy away yet we do need correct data. Is it harder for the system to fill positions at the rural campuses? He thought data that reflect these things would be very valuable; what about first impressions, how are the candidates greeted when coming for the interview?
IFO reiterated the importance of autonomy and yet some uniformity across campuses.
MnSCU wondered if the HR folks should form a task force. The Chancellor wants the Chief Academic Officers working on this as well. The result will be in two parts: (1) consistent definitions and (2) that sub-categories get checked off accurately. The welcoming aspect is another type of classification of data. The Chancellor wants quality campus Presidents just as we want good faculty…he too sees that the good people are wanted by everyone. We must do a good job of making Minnesota attractive, and to sell ourselves across the campuses. Davenport thought the Affirmative Action Officers should be involved too and they should have the consistently accurate listing of what is a successful search but they also have to sign off on any failed searches.
IFO reiterated the need for commonality regarding the filling of the position with adjunct or fixed-term versus filling as advertised as probationary and some sort of defined deadline to declare the failure…such as not filled by the first day of teaching calendar.
TRAVEL POLICIES/PROCEDURE
MnSCU explained the new travel policy as related to MnSCU business. It is still in draft form and is still under consideration with comments. The policy is safety and accident prevention driven as well as the State’s policies on use of vehicles/risk management. MnSCU has made some modification: minimum driver qualifications will be age 18; all other agencies have age 21. MnSCU softened requirements on drive history under “driver use” qualification, on whether student or faculty or staff will need to provide basic information that MnSCU can run through the system to discover violations, something that shows a history of the person’s driving record. This would be used ONLY for MnSCU vehicle use and would not be used for any other driving situation. The Chancellor inquired as to where the information would be held related to the guidelines. MnSCU said the campuses would hold the information. The Chancellor saw some problems.
IFO wanted to know which guidelines were State mandated versus MnSCU mandated. Some guidelines are unnecessarily burdensome and restrictive. What about lengthy training and privacy issues? The record check is touchy. It does not seem feasible because we sometimes have student drivers needed at the last minutes due to lack of a State vehicle. What about when two vehicles are suddenly needed? It is not considering all of the possible academic situations.
The IFO emphasized that our campus reputations are based upon getting our students out into the real world.
MnSCU stated that this is a policy “in progress” and he would welcome feedback. The State has asked all agencies to use the new policy and MnSCU has altered a few areas, exercised some flexibility to meet the special needs of MnSCU. The Chancellor wanted to know how much autonomy MnSCU would have as related to the whole State. MnSCU could be stripped of insurance if we violated some of their mandated guidelines. Is the U of M exempt? Yes, because they do not take the insurance through risk management. If the guidelines are too restrictive for an academic situation it would result in fewer travels or “turning a blind eye” to what type of travel is going on with students.
The IFO noted the prelude of the document seems to imply the policy is cost driven and not academically driven which is the crux of the problem, making it not feasible or viable. MnSCU said it was not cost driven, it is “coverage” driven. It is not to save money; we need to utilize the guidelines to keep our coverage, not just save money on premiums. We might get much better rates if we follow these guidelines…if we have a good history then we get the better rates. The IFO reminded everyone that if we do not have the academic programs, due to lack of field experiences, then you will have no risk factors.
INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY (IT) COMMITTEES/REGIONAL MEETINGS
IT Committees: MnSCU reported they have taken into account the information received and agreed that there is a labyrinth of IT committees. MnSCU has directed some people to analyze the IT committee process: There are five goals:
The next step is to share a draft of the model with the Leadership Council Technology Committee and Student Affairs; MnSCU expects to share the results with the IFO as soon as they are ready. MnSCU is in the earliest possible stages and is ready to dialogue. MnSCU will not share the model this week, but wants the Leadership Council to see this as well as the Vice-Chancellors who will have the meeting next week.
IFO: When will there be faculty input?
MnSCU wants to take a look at the structure, and there should be a number of ways. There will not be just a single channel for faculty to be heard, there will be more than one way. The Chancellor noted we all know he needs to take this to Leadership, but what about others offering input prior to that time? MnSCU said the intent was to get something on the table that faculty can react to. The intent is to present something that can be the basis of the dialogue.
IFO referenced a document of last December which recorded the same conversation. The IFO has serious concerns that we have heard this before. How about the January 2008 Meet and Confer?
MnSCU thought we begin with a smaller group right away…structure it any way you want. MnSCU thought IFO would be a part of it, but the IFO can structure as they wish. IFO noted that IFO would be well informed but as a classroom faculty the instructional process is important. Judy was concerned that a small group farmed off would be too small and it should come to the larger group. We do not want to have all the decisions in place but to have the dialogue on the process, the template for IT to talk to the faculty so we can all have input. MnSCU said that would be available within a week. The Chancellor wants faculty and students to see this as important and not give a mixed message to the Legislature; it’s a Legislative issue.
IFO commented on the five goals and noted that they are goals already recommended. Give a wide variety of faculty the chance to weigh in, a wide variety reflected, as long as we don’t get too locked in at first. Faculty should know what part of the structure they can go to when they have an IT problem, knowing where to take their problems, they will feel much better. This is very complicated due to MnOnline and other classroom technology issues, such as “smart classrooms.”
We do not feel we know what is going on, said IFO, when it comes to technology and teaching.
The Chancellor spoke to an experience he recently had related to Legislative issues, realizing that messages must be “simple messages,” two or three simple messages that everyone says in their own way in order for the Legislature to grant allocations. We must have the disagreements and discussion in-house so we can speak publicly saying the same thing.
IFO noted with all due respect we do not feel that we have not been listened to… the IFO is concerned with reliable service more than the bells and whistles. The 62 million is a lot of money, we do not want Merlot or LORs, we want technology on the campuses. If we are going to talk within the family can we get in on the discussion, be listened to, before we hear some announcement about a call for proposals for something we have expressed little interest?
MnSCU said we hear that faculty do not have a voice, so the proposal will ask what is the best way to get faculty involved, what will be the best mechanism. IFO was concerned that faculty on campuses did not know of any formal mechanism for discussion…she still wants the discussion at Meet and Confer. IFO suggested that in order to make progress before January, MnSCU get something to IFO and to David to examine and determine how to respond and move ahead. January is too late and things would take a long time. We have a general sense where things are but until we see the proposal we don’t know what is going on, how the structures will related to each other. Because of the dual paths structure we tend to have miscommunications, we have too many places doing things without a central pathway for a clear picture. We must have a comprehensive structure that would clearly delineate where people would go with concerns.
Davenport has heard that the biggest issue is “what are the priorities.” It is overwhelming to know what comes first. Everyone knows goals, academic initiatives, but it is confusing because there are few communications. The disarray of channels leads to the confusion and lack of clarity on what is important. How tasks are structured, how things are reported is just not clear.
MnSCU thought at this point the group was entering a depth level about structure; the bigger picture is “what do you need” and how do we structure that? It is a bigger conversation about needs in this rapidly changing society…we need to create the structure, the crux of the issue is needs and how to get into the hands of the faculty.
Davenport had a conversation with the CIOs because even they don’t know the priorities; there are no new resources…lots of frustration and at their wits end. How can we better communicate the priorities to get the things done that need to get done?
IFO noted that MnSCU stated earlier that there would be something ready for faculty to react to; it is not the “techno” faculty that do not feel heard, but the typical faculty who just want to get their work done in the classroom. Involve the faculty more regularly on design and development rather than just reacting to a plan.
IFO said communicate with the “non techies” that want to use technology to educate their students.
Davenport stated half the problems he predicts is due to staffing, not enough staffing, they cannot get things done, they cannot hire the staffing so if people think MnSCU has too many at the IT level he must defend the number of people there is, which is not enough.
IFO pointed out we have limited resources, we have core programs that need the money; the non-techies who teach the core programs such as nursing and criminal justice, these are the people that need the basic resources. The techies are on the edge and we feel that the “edge” is getting the attention, and we are cannibalizing ourselves. We are against unbridled growth without resources, which gets us right back to prioritizing. Example: laptop programs that are beginning to break down but are not replaced. MnSCU agreed with MnSCU that structure is important without overlooking the whole landscape; some of these conversations may evaporate with data, so MnSCU still believes that sharing the data and facts are important; data such as people’s perceptions that IT has gotten a lot of money that is all going in fancy stuff; the data will show the bulk of the money is going toward fixing the structural problems, the plumbing. The data will show where the money is going, what it is being used for. IFO stated we recognize the back-filling needs, so could we not go ahead with things without first knowing the plan? IFO spoke to a situation at Mankato that highlighted student concerns that faculty are not in on the discussions. MnSCU said from the beginning each campus knew how much money they would have for technology. Now, we are at the point for campuses to report how they are using the money and what is good or not so good. MnSCU thought there had been ample time for a report. MnSCU explained the process a bit and did acknowledge the “correction process” reports had a short timeline. What about a technology sub-committee? IFO noted our representatives on the six technology committees that should be able to report, but the committees have not been meeting…a sub-committee could be formed, but only if it would be worthwhile. Example: some of the state universities have grades on the DARS reports. Why not across all campuses? MnSCU said they would send the memo to the campuses as to how to “turn on” these types of services.
THE 33RD MNSCU CAMPUS (VIRTUAL UNIVERSITY)
From the IFO: Virtual University, please tell us about it. The Chancellor thought about six to seven years ago there was a proposal, a committee, to see how we could do it. The Chancellor gave the University of Maryland as a successful example. He saw it as a mechanism, a way to connect, without faculty. That is not what happened. MnSCU was asked to explain the 33rd: “We have no intention of a 33rd Virtual University; it probably came from the Board of Trustees meeting. We’re not sure what they intend, but we have tried to centralize MnOnline to offer services to campuses, to coordinate services for leverage and resources and, yes, we have had some work in innovations to respond to more learning opportunities but the spin off of operations have not worked well. The questions is where do we need to go next? What do we target next in our build out? Free standing on-line?” MnSCU is not certain what the Trustees meant. What the Chancellor first foresaw is much different…there would have been a President for the school for marketing purposes but there would be no faculty. It would be a mechanism to facilitate what was out there, not a clear focus on where the degree would be granted; but, a whole different model was designed. The Chancellor does not understand the 33rd school concept either.
IFO commented that he was confused…he heard at the Trustee’s meeting a discussion, something that reflects the previous idea of a centralized Virtual University. The Chancellor wants to know if it is now the time to examine what we have and how we are doing it? What organization level do we have? How does what we have at this time look? The Trustees are worried about redundancy…why 32 campuses with 32 “Intro to Writing” courses, for example? They’ve seen Capella grow into a success and may be looking at the private sector competitors and what they have grown to become. It may be a business model the Trustees are looking at. MnSCU reiterated that is not our public education model but it is being examined by the Trustees. IFO asked “what are you thinking?” and went on to say the on-line universities have little academic integrity. The mindset of this Board has been “you take the courses, you get the credit, you hit the correct number of credits, and you graduate.” The Trustees’ idea of a Virtual University is way out there. MnSCU noted the growth in on-line courses have come from innovative faculty designing the courses which students are choosing to take. MnSCU prefers that students continue to take the mix of on-line and on-campus courses, not an all Virtual University. It has been noted that students are aware of the discrepancies or variations between the many on-line courses related to cost, quality, requirements, etc. MnSCU said we need to have a dialogue on where we see student needs and access and how faculty will fit with the process.
IFO thanked MnSCU for the cost study outline of on-line courses. However, the IFO had asked about the comprehensive list of courses on-line, number of enrollees, completion rate, land based section versus on-line and an aggregate of grades between the two delivery methods. On June 29th, 2007 MnSCU had said there had been a change regarding their requesting financial reimbursement for the information and said it would be “several weeks to do so”. To the IFO this is integral information so we can make decisions. When can we expect to receive the data? MnSCU: It is a huge request and we can give you the eight or nine courses with the highest enrollments and because of the huge amount of information for the accountability format it takes time, but it would be forthcoming. Before we go off on paths that do not related to the Missions and Goals
IFO said we want to know who the virtual faculty are? The problem of expanding the on-line courses is challenging the faculty to meet contractual issues and the challenges of virtual faculty. MnSCU said any faculty teaching on-line would be the virtual faculty. On-line equals virtual faculty and stated that when Leadership (LOUMA) for example creates offerings the Agreement does not address the needs of the virtual faculty, those faculty that do not have offices on campuses. IFO stated that all terms and conditions are addressed in this project’s Agreement. There is a proper venue for this type of discussion, but the LUOMA research project is not the place. It is wrong that LOUMA has faculty doing research for the system on what should be done at the negotiation table. The IFO hears about free standing virtual university, virtual faculty, certainly anyone can see our concerns. Meanwhile, MnOnline is making plans and moving and we do not know what the plans are!
The question is that why can’t MnSCU expedite information retrieval? Please, a more broadly disseminated format for sharing information is necessary. Words like “achievement,” “technology” and we can only connect the dots and feel concern for on-line infrastructure. Working with the student we see as our prime mission. On-line is not the end-all and be-all, and we know students are being forced to take on-line courses because the face-to-face courses are not being offered. Where are the similar resources for the day-to-day on-campus needs?
MnSCU said we can discuss where the course delivery is going if the perception is that a large chunk of the 62 million is going toward on-line. The Chancellor explained a recent discussion with a Legislator who had heard things about paying for faculty for on-line courses, additional pay for additional work, and other misconceptions. He has heard the tone that we are saving money and losing quality. IFO said it was not coming from us because we were appreciative of the MnSCU report. IFO noted concerns like the Minnesota Online Digital Exchange, what is that? Answer: It is the repository in D2L, for storing or putting things up for sharing with others. In September, MnSCU said, that until the intellectual property issue was settled this type of thing would not go forward. MnSCU said that is agreed upon by faculty and there is a mechanism to attribute the faculty who owns the intellectual property. MnSCU said they had worked with a consultant in St. Cloud to develop parameters of protection. But, again, it goes back to communication and who is being told what. Faculty and campus administrators do not seem to know about LORs and other things going on. MnSCU seemed to feel that communications had been taking place, but it is a challenge. He assumed there is communication and reporting back from campus representatives. IFO frustration is that we have asked repeatedly for seven representatives for MnOnline Council and have been told that other venues are adequate. Only having three representatives on the MnOnline Council is not enough in proportion to the number of faculty in the whole system. IFO reiterated the number of times we have felt frustrations in the past. What is the role of the faculty in the learning object repositories? Who owns the content? What happens if someone changes it? Who protects the faculty? IFO stated that we need representation from every campus, not just three for the whole university system. MnSCU said the Academic Committee structure will come forward soon; by January MnSCU will bring forward this committee, although this group is not the same group as MnSCU’s. The Chancellor asked how can we get through to people, how can we better communicate? Communication seems to be the issue, not the initiatives or the innovations. IFO noted that when you have this level of complexity and risk management, every time we hear about one thing we don’t know about we ask “what else do we not know about?” That is why we need a comprehensive location to discover what is going on, rather than being surprised by some movement on a project. Let’s create an inventory of projects! “No action” would be reflected by “no information provided”; if information is provided it would mean something is being done or moved forward. IFO commented on the RFPs which was listed as number “five” which makes you wonder what are the offer four and when were they offered. Simple request: can we adopt a system where all RFPs come from a central location to the IFO leadership so we always know what is going on or being offered? MnSCU said it was a good idea. IFO noted it might cut down on surprises.
IFO thought this was a good segue to the next topic; we do not need to be adversarial about these things, let’s work together.
CENTER FOR TEACHING AND LEARNING
IFO: Why is this money going for a full time faculty Specialist position to administer the MnSCU Board of Trustees’ Teaching Award and IPESL? If we knew we would not ask the questions. Coordinating the Initiative work is not a full-time position for a faculty. MnSCU spoke to the issue of history of the position and explained the search. MnSCU said a faculty member would start in January in this position so this is no longer a full-time position. No one had applied. There is no current IPESL at this time, but this person will access and communicate the work that has been done. Women in Science is a good example and we want this person (in the position) to be very active and analytical with the data.
IFO: Where was the position posted? Now we hear that a two year faculty is coming forward to serve in the capacity. We understand this individual is retiring in January 2008 so he is not longer faculty. Is he being hired as a consultant? MnSCU: Yes, he is a consultant. IFO: Do you think that the Board of Trustees envisioned hiring a full time person to administer these programs?
The IFO has repeatedly asked for a representative from each campus to serve on MnOnline and CTL because each university needs to have information and has CTL. MnSCU did not seem aware of such requests and did not think it had ever been an agenda item.
ONLINE TUTORING
The topic of the online tutoring “Smarthinking” was introduced by IFO. She gave “Smarthinking” as an example of how campus faculty are unaware of the service, and that it was turned over to the MSUAAF people. It is a duplication of services on campuses, does not always meet the standards of some campuses, and circumvents the on-campus writing centers. There seems to be unintended circumstances that we have concerns with.
MnSCU said there had not been across the board opportunities for students, thus a system wide service was provided. MnSCU noted that some campuses are doing a fine job with tutoring and help. MnSCU thought a “24/7” service would help students be successful. IFO wanted to know if additional costs are put upon the students if they go beyond their specific number of allotted hours. MnSCU said they simply provide an aggregate so that campuses could have time allotments at the best price. MnSCU noted the colleges are using the services heavily; it was a license MnSCU could obtain and that campuses could use.
NORTH METRO PLANS FOR BACCALAUREATE EDUCATION
IFO said we were all surprised to hear about the bonding request regarding North Metro. It was the Chancellor’s thoughts that we do not have to turn our two year schools into baccalaureate schools. “What we are doing is for the four year schools to offer courses on the two year campuses when appropriate.” There is money for a study to see what we can do, for how four year faculty can get to the two year campuses, but “it is not MnSCU’s intent to turn the two years into four year schools. I have no plan, no discussion in migrating the two year schools into four years”. He hopes the four year schools will participate in developing programs between the two and four years. Every four year university is working with a two year.
IFO noted that a recent article in the paper explaining how to gain upper division courses left out Metropolitan State University completely and mentioned just U of M and St. Cloud. Metro offers many quality programs in the North Metro. Maybe remind them of Metro, because it is hard to develop relationships.
The Chancellor made it clear that “nowhere in our strategic plan do we have the plan to migrate two year school into baccalaureate institutions.” A projected high increase in the need for baccalaureate degrees in the Metro area was studied and they are looking at “what is all out there.” He cautioned that we should not be surprised if Trustees ask “what do we need to do to be more future oriented and what are all the possibilities?”
Davenport noted that Metro is certainly the primary four year university in the metropolitan area; we need to look to their presence and growth and the other schools will recognize that e. Some two year schools have Presidents that think there are “territories” meaning two year graduates automatically go to the related or nearest four year. The seven state universities need to provide the baccalaureate degrees. The other universities must play a role in recruiting.
IFO asked about a quote in the newspaper in regard to MnSCU conducting a study to see where the courses should be made available. “There cannot be any four year courses offered that do not come from our bargaining unit.” The Chancellor responded he knows this, but sometimes Legislators do things or ask questions that want to explore other avenues.
IFO: Why not a science building at Metro if there are initiatives to offer science courses from out state? It all goes back to how do faculty get involved, how do they learn about the priorities, and how do are they communicated?
Davenport talked about Mankato’s long standing cooperation with Normandale, and that the idea at North Hennepin is not much different but that particular notion did not come across in the newspaper article.
The Chancellor hoped contract negotiations would go well this weekend and hoped everyone’s pace could slow down a bit for the holidays.
Meeting adjourned at 11:12 a.m.