IFO MnSCU Meet and Confer
Unofficial Notes
February 22, 2008

MnSCU Present:  Chancellor McCormick, William Lowe, Chris Dale, Mary Leary, Judy Borgen, Linda Lade, Becky Sobolewski, Mike Lopez, Linda Baer, Gary Langer, Laura King

IFO Present:  Nancy Black, Pat Arseneault, Cindy Finch, Judy Kilborn, Louise Mengelkoch, Cindy Phillips, David Bouchard, Elizabeth Dunn, Cathy Summa, Jan Loft, Bruce Svingen, Don Larsson

Called to order 8:08 a.m.

Chancellor: I am thankful President Black went to bat for the bonding bill, were hoping this gas tax goes through– the more we can get on the gas tax we can get on bonding.

IFO: We are looking forward to the MnSCU Human Resources meeting at 10:00 a.m. this morning.  That’s a good thing.  It’s nice to be looking across from you all without being in negotiations!

Proposed Policy 3.35 and Procedure 3.35.1 Credit for Prior Learning
MnSCU: We have a handout coming around to you now.  This has been in the Policy Committee for some time now.  We understand and want to make sure this is the best policy; we’ve surveyed our campuses on the priority at this point.

MnSCU: All of our institutions use credit for prior learning except 9-10 who never responded to my inquiry, but almost all of these offer everything except the portfolio; no one is being forced to add that. We don’t want this to be misunderstood. Students don’t know what their opportunities are.

MnSCU: There’s little consistency in the information being provided to the students.  The primary purpose is to have each institution have a policy consistent across the system of what opportunities are available.  What courses are available for the credit for prior learning should be available for every course in the system, then to include the charges for a student. Sometimes this can be very difficult to know how much it is going to cost.

IFO: I wasn’t able to attend the last Academic and Student Affairs Policy Council meeting, but I did get a report from one of our representatives and thought this policy would be postponed.  Is that your understanding?

MnSCU: I was not there. I don’t think so, it doesn’t need to be postponed because it’s going for a first meeting and there would not be second meeting in May.

IFO: On Tuesday, February 19 our rep said Beverly Hill said that Deena Allen would put it on the 08-09 schedule.  They had a probing discussion of 3.35/3.35.1 Credit for Prior Learning which seems to have ended in a decision not to take it to the Board yet but to get more campus discussions going to consider the realities.

MnSCU: It was suggested, but there was no agreement at the end of the meeting.

MnSCU: What’s the difference between going to for the first reading or postponing?

IFO:  Then it’s already out of the gate. As we try and systematically approach problems to serve students… When I hear you say you didn’t hear from 9…

MnSCU: I said 9 did not offer the portfolio.  There were 1-2 who never told me, everyone offers credit for prior learning - not simply that one type.

IFO: I heard you say this would go for a second reading in May. The plan would be for it to be done this spring - that is a significant difference.  You’re still talking about it being a done deal this spring and some people left the meeting thinking it wouldn’t be going forward at all.

MnSCU: At the end of our discussion it was suggested it could wait until fall and Deena entertained that as an option.  It wasn’t a decision, but more just a consideration of that option, that’s the way I left the meeting.

IFO:  Where’s the real issue in terms of how this gets done?  See lines 36-43 on the Proposed Procedure 3.35.1 - there is a difference between saying we put the brakes on then saying a student can do it anywhere…there’s not a process for the faculty workload issue - that is our primary concern.

MnSCU:  There are some internal contradictions, you’re right we’ll be addressing that.  Direct language is on lines 38-39 specifying which courses and line 45-46 should say prior learning where appropriate or where allowed by the university policy.  You’re right, that language is not direct.  If you’re doing prior learning then obviously you’re not doing the assessment.

MnSCU: We did sort out the language on that paragraph. I have some suggested edits.  We understand that issue.  We can do a better job of clarifying this so it doesn’t imply that anyone has to do that in any area.

IFO: Given that concern, it’s again problematic whether we should go for the reading at that point, it was our representative’s understanding that it was a consensus and he reported that our at our local senate meeting.  This is important for Metro State and we’ve set the tone; our Student Issues group is still actively working on making changes to this effect and we are concerned with setting any expectation on this, we want the consensus of the committee to be resolved and held up.

IFO:  There’s conversation within the committee that changes need to be made.  If there are changes I would always wait until the committee had language comfortable to send forward if it’s already problematic to minimize conflict. 

MnSCU:  Could we work on the language and get the first reading in May?

IFO: I respect that we have a process, and Deena calling this committee together.  I want a special committee meeting for those immersed in this coming to consensus on changes for a first reading in May.

MnSCU: I want you to feel like you can continue working on it and we don’t want to drop it. We do have returning vets coming back and we do want to assist them, college and National Guard have a dual purpose on this.

MnSCU: The Credit for Prior Learning Committee worked on this; should they do this?

IFO: The next step is Academic Affairs.  That is where the issues emerged. Let’s just solve it there.  That makes more sense. There are prior assessments and transcript evaluations for veterans that are separate and in place.  We don’t want to hold up veterans.  We want to alleviate problems before they happen, some concerns are for consistency - how student are treated fairly, and there are workload issues, mainly students don’t know how to put together a portfolio. One of the bum wraps Metro has gotten is for prior assessment, life experience – you can get credit for anything – that’s not true.

MnSCU: Yesterday at the student affairs conference I presented, along with Marcia Anderson from First College.  She did a wonderful job of showing the group the difference.  We’ve always emphasized that we are talking about college level learning.  The strong message we gave is we want to be very clear about that and you just can’t get credit for anything.  We’re dedicated to that and are in the process of putting together a training plan and an e-folio site or something like that to house resources for institutions to make sure they’re working form a strong set of principles and to get advice and help as they need.  They want to implement something more.

MnSCU:  We’ll take it back and plan for a first reading in May.

IFO: We heard about farming-out assessments – only faculty assess. We can make policy and procedures, but actually implementing across-the-board can be difficult.

Update on 60/120 Credit Taskforce
MnSCU: (A hand out was distributed.)  The last Higher Education funding bill requires the Board of Trustees to have a policy in place by January 2009 setting the maximum number of semester credits for the baccalaureate degree at 120 credits and associate degree at 60 credits with some language that applies to waivers.  We put together a taskforce where you had three or five reps.  Students were also there.  We had some lively discussions over a period of time.  You saw a draft set of proposals in a number of components.  The exemption applicable is basically following statute and provides for an exemption opportunity that’s meeting the law.  The diploma piece not there is reference in the law on the books we refer to as the NESS legislation dealing with AAS and the diploma.  Even though it doesn’t say so in the legislative piece, it does say so in statute.

IFO: Just this week I emailed back to Joann Simser about some language. I said there was the language about the missions of the various institutions and one used the word diplomas and another said degrees.  How are we using diploma in contrast to awarding a degree?

MnSCU:  The diploma is strictly-speaking an employment related technical degree.  It has significantly less general education or general studies and they also range currently from roughly 31 to 72 credits.  Occupational areas like carpentry, auto mechanic, LPN, etc. use the term award.  It is a usage that is different from other states.  It’s an historical artifact from the previous system; we had three systems that are now merged.  It’s a long standing difference that has led to some complications, it’s in the policies you reviewed and we amended 3.36.

MnSCU: Do you have any questions or concerns where this has gone with our set of committee discussions?

MnSCU:  On the credit language, we are using the existing processes - the same as on your campus.  The one that pops into mind (a2c2), it goes through your process and your administration conveys it to my office.  We’ve added a few pieces, similar names of programs - it may be conceivable that we asked for one set of applications for the exemption, the waiver, as opposed to handling in the case of accounting, but all the colleges probably have it so there are probably 22 programs, whether than handle 22 requests.  My staff would work with the faculty associations about why they feel and we would entertain a group exemption, but based on rationale in part 3, it’s a more complex process that will requires some facilitation.  In 5, students claimed they weren’t part of the process in contract language they are not part of the curriculum committee so part of the legislative impetus is students.  We said we will utilize another process and duplicate it in a list serve.  We would do the same, but create a separate list seve for campus faculty associations and student groups so they know so if an institution is requesting an exemption all of the other institutions will know about that.  Seven is a parallel to that.  There is a lack of consistency the focus was on the AAS degrees – in order to achieve the transparency we would create a list serve.  Those are the differences in the process. At the end you have the credit exemption criteria on the back. The legislation was very vague – it talked about industry procession accreditation standards. We thought that was too vague and created industry standards and professional standards in sub categories, we added the unique challenge of new and emerging program where we may have no idea where they might be. That sets the process.

IFO: On the consideration of the credit limit caps, we talked about some majors for it such as engineering.

MnSCU: I would like to wait through the legislative session, but I would try to call together the engineering faculty and deans to see on what basis they would do that. The engineers will have it easy.

MnSCU:  Currently our policy says if they go over 128 you have to go forward for approval which you’ve been doing anyway.  There is a process in place already.

IFO: Would they need to do it again for this?

MnSCU: I’d like to hold a discussion with the deans and faculty to get their sense of it.  They came in for the grouping over 132 credits. I would like to have some paper if we had a legislative audit.  It’s called a program redesign - a one page or two page, it could be done fairly easy in some disciplines.

IFO: I want to make sure I understand. The way I’m understanding this, it would be converted in policy language?

MnSCU:  Yes.

IFO: And the Board would adopt the policy? The Chancellor’s office makes the decision to grant the exception?

MnSCU:  Yes, based on the law, the policy is already very easy.  It’s a one line addition.  The policy doesn’t concern me it’s the procedures that talks about the implementation.

IFO: We understand there was significant effort on the two years on some of these issues.  We’re wondering if we end up with a 64 credit two-year program, what kind of pressure we can anticipate in terms of a baccalaureate.  Will the extra 4 credits have an impact on the 120 credits?

MnSCU:  In those areas where the AAS is likely to go to 64, I think the baccalaureate is likely to go to 128 credits (probably nursing). In terms of what we’ve assumed, my interpretation is of very limited implications for the state universities.  Remember the AAS degrees still require an articulation.

IFO: Recently some fields have unofficial accreditation requirements.  The ACM has a set of standards that do not affect accreditation but many programs try to work toward those standards.

MnSCU:  You can argue that the A category industry standard would be important.

IFO:  When you talk about these group meetings are you talking about an all or nothing?

MnSCU:  Not necessarily, the committee understood that one size does not fit all.  It would have to be rationalized, and we would need a separate piece of paper. It would go through a process; it won’t be an all or nothing, that’s why we agreed to 5 and 4 we wanted to give students an opportunity to respond.

IFO: I see two potential dangers, one since many accreditation agencies don’t have official credit limit standards.

MnSCU:  The legislative language has a greater number of credits.  We don’t say credit specifically, we’re looking for rationales.  You’re right almost all the major accrediting agencies put things in terms of courses rather than credits, but we can translate that.

IFO:  The other side is something I like seeing, but the part on special merit, that’s a vague standard.  In one hand, you can say we’re special.  At the same time there are programs with the baccalaureate of fine arts degrees that stand a chance of needing some form of exemptions.  It will be a challenge to find the criteria that determine where those definitions are valid.

MnSCU:  Yes, we’ve already done with the current credit ranges.  The first part and last part are concrete, but the policy would be in place January 2009 and full implementation July 2012.  The students were willing to buy that.  The students were active participants.  We have built in with their agreement that this process will be done in a sequence.

IFO: I want to say this was a good process and I’m grateful to have the faculty voice heard. All of our concerns were well addressed. I hope we are able to continue that conversation as we move through the waiver exemption process.  A couple of things we talked about, two items that are potential fall-outs.  One is the impact on liberal education.  Generally there is some concern among the state university faculty that to get to 120 the first thing to cut is in the students’ flexibility of general electives or liberal education.  We think this might fall into the transfer curriculum. The other concern was these big programs in bottom line dollars to campuses and we’ll have to watch our operating budgets there isn’t enough money.  We need to provide quality education to our students and now less time to provide them the kind of experience they need.

IFO:  The financial implication related to that are staffing especially in elective areas.

MnSCU: I want to thank everyone for their hard work.  This is quite a task.  These were long meetings. I appreciate your comments today. I think that often the faculty coming together to talk about their discipline is a good thing to do and we’ll pilot it with the engineering folks.

Request for Support for the IFO – Request that the Minnesota State Colleges and Universities Board of Trustees Attend Anti-Racism Training
MnSCU:  We can carry this over as Whitney has a schedule conflict.

IFO: We can bring it back in April, but we did want to make a request to you as the Office of the Chancellor.  Our institutions are very much aware of problems on the campuses particularly with anti racism, and training on campuses.  All of our IFO officers have gone through the anti racism training including our Board.  Our Multicultural Issues Committee has requested that the MnSCU Board set an example and be a model for others and attend anti racism training.  We would like your support. 

Discussion of Future MnSCU Initiatives
IFO: Issues tend to pop up at the end of the year (i.e. IPESL, the tuition waiver for applied doctorates, etc.).  We’re wondering if you would please tell us if there are any future initiatives that you are planning that we need to know about that affect terms and conditions of employment.

MnSCU: At this point there are none, except helping campuses fulfill Board initiatives. While we will be going to the campuses, we will support resources of strategic goals. It’s one-time money that will still be doing some things in health care, STEM teacher education, but we won’t have that set up.

IFO: Do you anticipate having these discussions with the faculty about this one-time money?

MnSCU:  We’ve had resources the Chancellor has approved to go toward the support of the strategic plan.  It came out of base money the legislature asked us to use (i.e. CTL).   We’ll assess all things.

IFO: …buying additional faculty time?

MnSCU: I’m not saying that, I don’t know how these resources are carried out on the campuses, it was a campus decision how they are dealt with.

MnSCU:  We will adhere to the contract.

IFO: We discussed this in October, the security planning for campuses. We have several concerns on preventative in terms of counseling and in terms of being proactive with students.  In the last year we’ve had the pandemic plan and the emergency taskforce.  There’s a lot of activity.  We want to know of faculty input development and implementation in the process.

MnSCU:  Copies of our most recent update to the Board are being handed out now. This was distributed at the January board meeting. I wasn’t sure what the question was so I thought I’d start here. There has been a lot of planning that has been confusing and hard to keep track of.  This Board lays out the architecture plan in process and then talks about the deadline we have in place here and at the campuses.  The overall planning process refers to the All Hazards plan.  That document is governed by Federal and State statutes and regulations after 9-11.  There were several orders issued and crafted.  This whole new set of requirements for planning and that’s what we have dropped in. The All Hazards plan - each of these sections have a different deadline, we did all the pandemic planning before all of this stuff started. You’d put the pandemic planning in the emergency preparedness section.  My feedback is that folks are moving along.  There should be planning committees with faculty and staff involved.  There should be a method in place in the campus to communicate these plans among the administration and staff.

IFO: I know I would like to get some feedback from the faculty before we continue.

IFO: We’ve not been asked to be involved in such planning committees.  Some faculty who are chairs are being told to fill out surveys – that is inappropriate in the language.  It assumes the chair is the supervisor, which is inappropriate.  I had a few chairs call me and say these questions weren’t even consistent with the contract. With pandemic planning, we’re not being told in any systematic way the development of these plans.

IFO:  One difficulty is this is very complex and has a number of overlapping areas.  We are told they are being integrated but we haven’t seen a plan showing how they will be integrated.  There it was clear to administration from the outset where the surveys couldn’t be easily applied or was pointless in many academic departments.  I’m not sure what our administration was thinking, but once our association heard about this we requested an update.  It’s now in the academic phase.  It’s being farmed out through the colleges. I’m not clear about the consistency among the campuses. This is just on our campus.  Cindy has some differences at Moorhead.

MnSCU:  None of these plans are done any where.  We’ve got deadlines that are 6-8-12 months out.  There are questions, the timing is good. I think you’re right; we’re not doing it for them. There are guidelines.

IFO:  Security issues on our campuses this week were handled well.

IFO: I’m really concerned that some campuses translate consulting the faculty into bringing the final report to meet and confer rather than involving faculty in the development.  Some guidance on that would be helpful because we all know the most horrific incidents have been in the classrooms with faculty and students. I don’t see us being asked to be involved in the plans in a meaningful way. If it’s going to be a meaningful plan, I need to be involved.

IFO:  Laura, help me understand.  On page 3 the continuity section, first paragraph, talked about central service. I don’t see academics, but they talk about athletics and library.

MnSCU:  The context is planning for operations after a catastrophic event, not after an isolated event.  Continuity refers to steps you have to take after your campus burned down or after you were flooded or a technology failure.

IFO:  Don’t we have to get academics back up before athletics? My concern is with a document going before our Board of Trustees.  It’s important that everything we put forward that academics is our central mission.

IFO: I would like to reaffirm a few statements.  We haven’t been involved in the planning of these various emergency plans on the academic side. We did get a flip chart in our mailboxes telling us what to do in an emergency in our classroom. I’m not sure I would have the time to go to a flip chart.  My colleague was locked in his department office with students next door, he knew what to do, faculty need to be involved in the planning or training so we now what to do.

MnSCU:  What is our level of reaction?

IFO: but training of people on the front lines…

IFO:  My concern is different.  To get back to what Nancy said in the prevention piece, I worry about all the things going on in our campus rather than what happens after a tragedy.  Backing up a bit, let’s discuss the issue of the counseling centers.  We serve the student population; many students taking therapeutic drugs of some kind.  We need to take care of those students.  We need to take care of them and I don’t think we have the resources to do that.

IFO:  The focus right now is on the materials and plans in place.  The big gaping hole I see is personnel and staffing.  It’s one thing to say you’ll get your servers back in place, but in the interim what happens to faculty, staff, and adjunct faculty?  Will they still be paid?  If this is a long term remedy, not just how do we replace the building but what happens to the staff? Where do they go so that learning can continue?

MnSCU: The faculty planning part is here.  The board policy spends a lot of time talking about different levels of events and what happens to our employees and students at each level.  The conversations you’re having on the campuses are important.  We can’t ask people to plan for every thing.

Chancellor: What I’m hearing [Laura] is it doesn’t matter what you’ve sent out.  This crowd does not feel involved.

MnSCU: I hear that.

Chancellor: I hear them saying it’s important.  We want to be involved.  We’re on the outside looking in.

IFO: We had a level of involvement on the emergency preparedness side.  We did get involved early after about the 12th scenario.  We focused on a confrontation method, when an emergency occurs we have a specific process. We’re going to be working more on continuing of preparations.  Probably the greatest area of concern is crisis intervention, prevention is very important.  They are almost always signs when something is going to happen. I didn’t hear about it until two hours later, we started talking about some of those things.  We’re going to do a lock down in April and we already discovered we get a lot of our security from MCTC.  You don’t want to have to think creatively when a crisis is in progress.

IFO: Cathy and I served on a committee with Mike Lopez on working on developing a response in terms of grades - that was one piece.

MnSCU:  That’s in the policy that the Board adopted.

IFO:  Then I do want to give credit.  I got excited when I got a notice that training was taking place over our spring break. I noticed our colleagues in North Dakota just authorized a contract for calling systems.

MnSCU:  We’re piloting one.

IFO: Our campus just started and the material cost about $6,000.  That is one thing the Chancellor’s office could do - pick up that cost for all of the schools.  That’s one more cost going into the universities who have to make a choice in their budget. I would think picking up those costs system wide so the campuses don’t have to incur those costs it would be a good thing with the notification system.

MnSCU:  One of the lessons from Virginia Tech is that they are delayed 20-30 minutes.  In the best case they are not preventative in that regard.  We’ve got 12 schools piloting one product.  Schools have been picking different products up until now; we’ve let them chose what they want to chose. We’re working on developing guidelines and standards. One question to take back to your campus, is there is real mixed literature on these notification systems.  Some schools are using them for emergency purposes while others are using them for notices or a general notice board.  That’s part of this pilot process.

IFO: I would nominate this as a category for funds to support critical initiatives and, of course, counseling.  I saw the Chronicle yesterday for the shortage in counseling centers.

MnSCU: The Chancellor invited Gordon Davies who made a great presentation, and we taped it so it’s available for all of you to use.  There were three issues; nobody connected the dots in Virginia.  He said have a plan.  Virginia Tech did have a plan and the plan has to include whatever law enforcement partners you have.  Have a plan that includes your community and practice it.  The shooter had double ammunition, and fortunately he didn’t use it all. I would tell you to see this video.  We need to work on consistency of planning.  In relation to the issues of counseling mental health it has been an age old problem.  Our campuses can’t afford to have the counselors we need.  Maybe we need a group to delve into this more.

IFO: Your handout said you have planning guides.

MnSCU:  On the web, go to the fire center.

IFO: I was in a meeting yesterday with our counseling faculty.  They were saying Mankato has the highest ratio of counselors to students in any place in the state.  It would be very useful to have a survey of what kinds of counseling resource are available across the system so there is equity. Even with the best planning, I don’t know if you can prevent what happened in Illinois the other week. I’ll say the response time was excellent.

MnSCU:  Counselors are experiencing terrible budget cuts in the name of the classroom. This is the same thing in the k-12 system.

IFO: Winona was talking about the nine month contract and it will affect counselors, librarians and coaches. I said on this campus, where are the counselors and how will they be affected? They said we don’t have any counselors in the summer - they’re on call.  We’re talking about prevention.  It’s a fine line because if you are reading a students paper and if they perhaps have a graphic description of a violent fantasy or is it a sign that the student is having some mental issues. We need more sensitivity to the issue - what is the role of the faculty in assessing a student’s mental stability and then what is the appropriate step?  We need actual procedures.

IFO: Counseling staff have been involved in conversations.  We don’t have staff to help when those types of students aren’t taking their meds or there are questions about behavior in class.

MnSCU:  The specific labor issue is about mental health counseling within the realm of counselor category in the two years.

IFO:  The counselors at Mankato are all faculty and at other institutions are mixed personnel. 

MnSCU: What Nancy said was brought up - this person stalked people.  Let’s work together to put together what kind of group needs to be talking about this and a counselor faculty when it crosses over from IFO to MUSAASF. Maybe it’s back to an umbrella with two sides. I’m not sure there’s so much uniqueness there.

Chancellor: This group should try to get some facts about the ramping up of student problems. I’d like to try to get the number of people. I don’t think there is the kind of community support that is easily available.

IFO: I can tell you in Bemidji it is very difficult to have people available. The trauma is that we have the idea that campuses are a safe place.  The faculty are getting frightened; before Virginia Tech I never thought about this stuff.

IFO: We all have stories.

IFO:  We are having a community alcohol summit in Mankato to talk about recent issues and deaths in the community and that is really part of the mental health issue too.  Binge drinking and alcohol can affect behavior as well as the medications.

MnSCU:  I would think you would be hearing from the parents.

Chancellor: It’s amazing how so many more students are on their own without family support. With our older students, they have no support from home. What we are talking about is so serious.  We need to get together and talk about even from a liability point of view.  If you don’t do something about it and someone dies, we could have done something.

MnSCU: I’m proud MSU Moorhead picked up a product co-developed with the U of M. You’re using it in your orientation about alcohol abuse and binge drinking.  They have had a decrease in hospital visits, house parties, police calls with the use of this product in freshman orientation; there has been a difference in patterns of behavior.  What it does is scenario planning: here is Mary at her birthday party and she is passed out on the floor.  What do you do? You then have scenarios to chose from – some causes are saying do a buddy system, you’re response for someone who has had too much to drink. Make that available to the student orientations.

IFO: It’s a required course.  It’s not an orientation training. It’s an actual credit course. 

IFO:  We recognize that this is not just a university program. In one case the person who died is from the community.  That conversation needs to be widespread throughout the community.

IFO: I want to end with what Laura said earlier, I found out how many counselors we have on the campuses – 27.  That’s nothing.  We need those counselors.  They provide the leadership on the campuses to keep these initiatives going.  We need help.

Payroll Descriptions for State University Faculty (DOER)
IFO: This is more a DOER issue that came to our attention again, because only members can vote for the contract.  When we sent out our communications to the faculty, we sent out letters to all of our adjunct.  Many said they thought they were members because of the words “labor union” on their paystub, and we request that be changed.

MnSCU:  Paystubs say “labor union.” Additionally, there has been some communication with DOER about a flat rate vs. percentage of pay.  Turning on sections of the payroll software that aren’t already on is an issue.  Although some unions deduct a percentage of base pay, they calculate it themselves and enter it as a flat amount.

IFO: We only have three categories.  We have the same rate for full-time faculty.  If they are members everyone pays the same, fair share pay 85% according to PELRA.

IFO:  We want to see if it’s possible to do a deduction by percent.

MnSCU:  They currently do not do that, but the unions calculated the rate and they put that rate in as a flat amount.

IFO: This is a separate issue that what we put on the agenda.

MnSCU: I did check with AFSCME.  They have “labor union.”  They don’t have two separate codes.

MnSCU:  I can understand why faculty are confused, part of the answer might be addressing a clearer kind of communication effort at the beginning of each year.

IFO: We do that, but it’s still hard.

MnSCU:  Maybe this is worth communicating with all faculty each year.

MnSCU: I’m willing to facilitate a meeting with DOER because it not only changes the code it will change every paystub in the system. Everyone is on the same system you are.

IFO: So I guess I need to talk to all of the unions.

Chancellor: Wouldn’t it be simple to have two codes?

MnSCU:  We will have to meet with DOER.

IFO: Adjuncts aren’t people who attend the first meetings.  Clear communications at the beginning of the semester won’t be effective.  Some adjuncts come in mid-year. It’s a matter of a clear label on a paystub.

IFO: Each necessitates a specific calculation, it shouldn’t be that difficult.

IFO: I think really the more channels the union provides that information to faculty the better.  Administrators aren’t distinguishing the difference between fair share and members. It’s something that needs continual attention, the more systematically we can do that the better.

IFO: Thank you; we will get together.

IFO Proposed 08-09 Meet and Confer Dates
IFO:  We wanted to remind you we gave you 3-4 weeks ago the proposed 08-09 meet and confer dates but we haven’t heard back from you yet.  We build our schedule around the Chancellor’s availability and we appreciate your feedback.

MnSCU: We want to revise the number of meetings to four each year according to the statute.  We know you have some concern about follow through, and we prefer to make sure he is at the four meetings required by statue but set up some systems.  One big area is the issue of information requests systems use whereby we can more meaningfully track and address those issues regardless of where they are. We do want to make sure we have that meaningful dialogue.

IFO: I appreciate the Chancellor’s time. I’m dismayed that it would become more limited. I started a tracking system when I came in as president and I would be glad to share that with you, Mary.  That was not kept up. This is the only opportunity that the Chancellor gets to hear from the state university faculty.  We value that.  It’s a sign of your commitment to us as faculty.  We realize how busy you are but it is dismaying to hear you want this limited to the statute.

MnSCU: We want the quality time; he is doing a lot of other opportunities besides the three hour meet and confer. It will be the same with the extended three hours. I think he got those dates from Cindy Finch.

IFO: I just offer this, and I hope you take it in the spirit with humor which I offer.  When JP Morgan suggested to Teddy Roosevelt that ‘your people can meet with my people’ they ended up with the Justice Department.  We need to meet directly, this is so important.

Chancellor: We’ll look at the dates and let you know.  There might be that rare occasion where I may not be here. I think I’ve only had one or two of those times.  I value these meetings, and I’m not trying not to have them; let’s take a look.

IFO: Communication is so hard with this system and so much misinformation is out there.  We found these increasingly valuable to prevent a lot of that miscommunication.

Chancellor: I would always commit that if I can’t be there, Linda would be there.

Adjourned 9:45 a.m.