FA Home  >  Executive Committee  >  Minutes — 1/8/04
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETING
Thursday, January 8, 2004
9:00 a.m.; Old Main Village
Approved Minutes

In attendance:  Stephen Bohnenblust, Roger Severns, Paul Hustoles (recorder), Barbara Keating, Sonja Meiers, Pat Earle, Don Larsson, Dick Swanson, Don Descy, Jim Kapoun, Gregg Marg, Wayne Allen, Jim Petersen, Ron Nickerson, Daardi Sizemore, John Thoemke, Mark McCullough, Lisa Baures.

The meeting was called to order at 9:10 a.m.

1. Minutes of November 20, 2003—Severns/Sizemore moved to approve.  Passed.

2. Call for Additional Items/ Reordering of Agenda—none.

3. President’s Report
a. Negotiator Replacement for John Parham remainder of 2004 needed — Bohnenblust noted that Georgia Holmes has volunteered to replace John Parham at the negotiation's table.  You have heard that we have reached an impasse.  This was kind of a surprise because we had already talked about ratification procedures.  MnSCU has declined to go through arbitration.  So I’m not sure exactly where we are at.  There are only a few details left, so I’m not sure what happened. 
b. Ad Hoc Meet & Confer Proposals—We need to be careful in Meet and Confer that if something new comes up we don’t automatically jump on it.
c. Task Force Guidelines—Some of the task forces are getting a little out of hand.  How long do they last?  What is their specific charge?  If we are going to have these various task forces, we need to know exactly what they are doing.  For example, the Distance Learning Task Force.  Hustoles: Our Constitution does speak to this, although that specifically refers to our own committees.  We should bring this to Meet and Confer.  Descy: But if a committee is going to be two years, it would be nice to know.  Bohnenblust: Look at the Campus Master Plan, Perry Wood has been on there forever.  How do we get a handle on that?   Severns: We can always limit our participation on any task force assignment.  We can have a fixed point where we have to reevaluate how we are going to participate.  That way there are no hard feelings if the task force knows that the Executive Committee will reevaluate what is going on.  Keating: Designating a single year term seems arbitrary.  However, one of the challenges is that many of us are over committed.  I would recommend designating a time frame.  We could say normally a year.  Baures: Some task forces don’t start until the middle of the year.  I don’t think I would want to set a hard date.  I do like the idea of setting up a time frame.  Being on Distance Ed, we set our own charge.  It needs to be set somewhere.  Larsson: It needs to be flexible.  Hustoles: There is nothing wrong with reviewing at a particular fixed time, people could opt out if they wanted to or new people could jump on board.  Larsson: This could be helpful to our faculty of color who are often over-committed.  This could help to even it out.  Severns: I agree, a regular time every year would be good.  The second committee meeting of the year would be a good time to do this.   Hustoles/Swanson moved that at the second Executive Committee Meeting of the academic year, we review all committee (task force, round table, etc.) assignments and charges, in accordance with our constitution.  Passed.

4. IFO Task Force
a.    IFO Action Committee—Bohnenblust: We need a representative on this committee.  Swanson: I was on the committee, but they called meetings at the last minute.  Maybe if we wait for a while and see where we are going, I might be willing.  You need someone on the Executive Committee on this.  You want someone in the loop.  If a strike comes up, it is really crucial.  Bohnenblust: We are not really looking at a strike.  This could be a very dangerous option in this particular political climate.  Severns: I talked to Chris Brown, chair of the negotiating committee, what he talked about was that the Action Rep could help to determine what could be done to make the local administration more amenable to our issues.  We are not that far apart on them.
b.  IFO Academic Affairs—Reappoint Marcia Stevens from AH&N.  Hustoles
Larsson moved Stevens’s reappointment.  Passed.

5. Confirm/Selection/Replacement Appointments
a.    Book Store Advisory - John Lindberg - A&H
b.    Dean of Graduate Studies Search Committee: Kim Sung - Bus; Judith Luebke -
AH&N; John Krenz - SET
c.    Search Committee for the Director of Integrated Marketing Communication -Ann Kuzma
d. Budget Committee - College of Education - Replacement for Spring, 2004 - Select 1 - Arthur D. (Doug) Ganss or Linda Shirley (Underwood)
e. Distance Learning Task Force - Ann Quade
f. Portal Website Development Task Force - Roland Nord - A&H; Mahbub Syed - SET; Melissa Holmberg - Lib/Unaf; Don Descy - Educ. Scott Fee – SET.
g. Georgia Holmes to replace John Parham as the FA negotiator for MSU, Mankato.

Keating/Earle moved the slate above except for Ganss and Shirley and letter f.  Passed.
Earle/Hustoles moved to approve Ganss for d.  Passed.
Hustoles/Keating moved to approve all of f.  Passed.

6. Discussion Items
a. Differential Tuition (Attached)—Severns: A lot of this comes out of my college.  The real impetus is to reinstitute the MBA.  We need additional resources to run the MBA.  St. Cloud is already charging a differential tuition.  We are just talking about graduate credits.  While it goes against egalitarian principles, we have established parameters and it makes good sense.  I would urge, as we go to Meet and Confer, that we support this concept.  Earle: Why is the MBA more expensive?  Severns: You get into accreditation problems, you have to have additional release time.  We are going to need some additional faculty.  Keating: First, does an increase in financial aid follow?  How would that affect other programs?  Severns: Those students that are working full time typically have tuition paid for by their employer.  Most of the financial aid is pretty well fixed at a max level.  Keating: We need to consider this.  Second, differential tuition does not always mean more expensive.  Will some of us be pressured into offering discount programs?  Sizemore: Having read the MBA proposal, a lot of this money would go to faculty.  Swanson: You better make sure that the money is being earmarked to the college that is generating the funds.  Release time is a big issue that this does not address.  This is a large amount of dollars.  The college needs to get the money.  Severns: A lot of that has been addressed in the MBA proposal.  Without additional revenue, the College would have to take more out of hide, or more from outside the university.  Larsson: I think this is especially crucial for the online courses.  Marg: I support the idea in general.  However, we are talking about undergrad courses as well.  Bohnenblust: We need to bring this to Meet and Confer.  At the very minimum, we need to ask the administration to justify this on a case-by-case basis.  Petersen: I want to speak against this whole idea.  I think the legislature can use this against us.  Programs that don’t have higher tuition will be considered to be less.  This could open up a whole lot of things.  If a program is more expensive, the university should have to pay for it.  Baures: We did have an issue with Minnesota Online, MnSCU is going to charge a $10 fee.  What are the implications?   Sizemore: As it is right now, we are losing students to St. Catherine’s.  Price doesn’t seem to be an issue.  Severns: Differential is not necessarily higher.  Maybe Nursing gets a special legislative grant, but this needs to be on a case by case basis.  Larsson: If you are charging specific tuition rates, the legislature could actually reward that.  Nickerson: Maybe we could say that we are OK with the MBA program, but we have concerns about the rest.  Nickerson/Severns moved that we accept this for the  MBA program.  Hustoles: I speak against the motion.  We need to look at the general policy—it is premature to accept this for the MBA when we have not seen the entire proposal for the MBA program.  Financial aid is a very important concern.  The motion was withdrawn.  Bohnenblust: Maybe we would want to see a complete policy draft on differential tuition.  Swanson/Nickerson moved to ask the administration to share a draft policy on differential tuition.  Keating moved to amend this to explore the significant concerns about the entire concept of differential tuition.  After some discussion, both motions were withdrawn.  Bohnenblust: We need to look at the possibility of how differential tuition will be used.  Larsson: There is a policy on the review of policies that should be able to integrate all of these things.  Bohnenblust: But we do want it to be known that we might want to reject this.  Sizemore: The MBA proposal is at MnSCU right now.  We need to move on this immediately.  Our plan is to offer the program in the fall.  Sizemore/Larsson moved to ask the administration for a policy on differential tuition.  Passed.  Sizemore/Severns moved that we support the MBA differential tuition at this time.  Keating: That hasn’t been proposed to us.  They are depending on this and this is already at MnSCU?  Severns: It has gone through our committee structure.  Bohnenblust: The MBA program was discussed in committee, but not the differential tuition.  Swanson: This is a classic case.  They put the cart before the horse.  They need to get ahead of the curve.  Sizemore: If this has not been on the table, this was my fault.  This has been discussed in the committee.  Baures: If we support the MBA, we have to support all of those online programs that have been approved too.  Marg: Could we get the information needed before our next Executive Meeting?  Bohnenblust: You can’t approve differential tuition in your Sub Meets.  Hustoles: This whole point could be moot.  The administration can set whatever tuition they want.  Bohnenblust: I disagree, we have the right to influence this.  Larsson: We did talk about banded tuition when that was brought forth.  There is a certain amount of precedent.  Larsson/Marg moved to table the motion until our next Executive Meeting to get further information.  Passed.  Severns: Do we want to invite someone from Business to the next meeting?  Bohnenblust: The issue is differential tuition, not the MBA proposal.  Clink: This sounds like a subversion of a process that came from the faculty itself.  Swanson: The administration is proposing a significant change in philosophy.  Bohnenblust:  We need to get the rationale for the MBA tuition differential.  Do we need information from Business?  The consensus was “no.” 


Bohnenblust: It is time to take a break—I was hoping that the Sub Meets could talk about this type of topic: if you are dealing with issues that are broader than your Sub Meet, please talk about this and bring them forth.  Some of the Sub Meets might not be able to meet because you are light on members.  Those of us who are not in Sub Meets, we can look at delegate resolutions.

The Executive Committee meeting recessed at 10:30 a.m. and reassembled 1:02 p.m.

Bohnenblust;  Are there any issues we should discuss?  Sizemore noted that the  Intellectual Property Task Force is forming and will have a draft at the end of February.
Baures asked about Michael Fagin’s new position.  Bohnenblust: We can check on the impact on Fagin’s reassignment on cultural diversity.  Severns: He is now reporting to VP Olson.  We will talk to Olson about this.   
 
Back to the Agenda . . .
b. Vote of No Confidence—Bohnenblust: We still have to deal with this issue.  Hustoles: It is on the table.  It would have to be moved off the table to discuss it.  Bohnenblust: I am anticipating that someone will bring this up.  Swanson: We are going to have a ruling on the Robert’s case in February.  President Davenport was one of our better allies at the grievance hearing.  Severns: I agree with Hustoles, we don’t really have to deal with it.  We can oppose bringing it off the table at this time.  Then deal with it later.  Hustoles: Let’s argue, if we need to, to keep it on the table until we have further information from the Robert ‘s rulings.  That’s why we tabled it in the first place.  Bohnenblust: Is that the consensus?  Yes. 
c. University Project List (Attached)—Bohnenblust: The handout gives some detail as to how equipment is allocated.  I will ask Petersen to look into this to ask specifically if we are getting enough faculty input into the process. 
d. Academic Master Plan—Bohnenblust: This does deal with reallocation of resources.  This is a heads up—the process is going to be looked at.  VP Olson is coming up with a process, some kind of a draft of an academic master plan.  We are going to want to look carefully at that.  This is in the very early stages.  Severns: VP Olson is not doing this all by himself, he is being very inclusive at this point.  Thoemke: A lot of the Task Forces are supposed to be done at the end of this year, I assume that this work will be included.  Bohnenblust: I assume the answer would be yes.  That is what VP Olson has demonstrated to date.  Keating: While we certainly want to support faculty inclusion in the development of the master plan, we need to be careful to not pit faculty against faculty.  Severns: Let’s be frank, there are going to be some winners and losers eventually.  We need to make sure that the process is fair. 
e. Faculty Dining & Gathering Room (Attached)—Bohnenblust: Thanks to Melodie Andrews for her work on this.  We are looking at both a lounge and dining type area.  Swanson/Earle moved to support the recommendations of the committee.  Swanson: Is there a chance that we can have a group look at this and follow through?  Bohnenblust: We have to rent the space.  Payment options were discussed.  Motion passed.  Marg/Severns moved to open this to faculty, administration, staff and their guests.   Passed.  Severns: We were talking about the idea of calling this something like “The Heritage Room.”  We talked about using some of the library archival material to decorate it.  And, for example, someone could go to a play and dinner, or this would be some place to take an alumni member. The actual cost of the space would be relatively low.  Severns/Allen moved to endorse the concept of making this a “heritage” space.  Passed.

f. Spring Retreat Ideas (AD/FA)—President Davenport wanted some ideas for a Spring retreat.  Any ideas?  Severns: Article 22.  Bohnenblust: We are getting a lot of situations out there.  Severns/Marg moved that we suggest Article 22 as the main subject of the retreat.  Severns: We have a real history of deans interpreting this subject in many different ways.  We need to determine a time for this retreat soon.  Passed.
g. On Line Student Fees—Bohnenblust: These are fees in addition to tuition.  What kinds of activities might these students use on campus?  Nickerson: There are many organizations that need student fees.  Perhaps the tuition structure should change rather than student fees.  Meiers/Severns moved that online student fees be used in the same way as the regular student fees.  Descy: I would say that it should be different for those who are 50 miles away.  All of the distance ed stuff we talked about assumed people who would never come to campus.  The push was to get the outback people.  Nickerson: Philosophically, that is an unfair thing to do to the students on campus.  I can’t believe that students that far away might not want to participate in campus activities.  If we exempt online fees, then on campus fees will rise.  Someone said: I agree with Ron.  Most of those students are also taking other classes.  And where do you draw that geographical line?  And if they are taking online courses, are they prohibited from using MSU services?  Bauers: We are talking about programs here.  When we were looking at the fees, we were looking at programs, not classes.  Most students will be part of a program and the entire program will be on line.  Larsson: There are a lot of complications and issues here.  I think the fairest way to proceed is to take a portion of the student fees, rather than the entirety.  Motion passed.  Severns: The student association will have a something to say on this. 
h. Selection of Delegates to Delegate Assembly—Bohnenblust: We now have 28, we need 12 more.  Some of us discussed new and continuing resolutions during the break today.  There is a deadline date so get those in ASAP.  DELEGATE REGISTRATION DEADLINE FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 06, 2004.  Delegate Assembly New Resolutions DUE AT STATE IFO FRIDAY, MARCH 5, 2004.  Keating: We need to recruit to fill our delegations.  It is in our best interest to fill up our delegation.

7. Meet & Confer Agenda Items - Thursday, February 05, 2003 @ 3:00 p.m., CSU 204 - FA Chair/AD Agenda
I.    Information Items
a. FA President's Report (Standing Item)
b. MSU President's Report (Standing Item)
c. VPAA's Report (Standing Item)
II.    Discussion Items
a. MnSCU/Legislative Relations Recurring Items (Standing Item)
b. Budget
c. Extended Campus
d. Recurring Items (if needed)
III.    Action Items
IV. Other Items
a.    Keating requested data on the failure rate of probationary searches and also
 data on probationary faculty retention.
b. Bohnenblust: President Davenport mentioned that they are going to use a search firm to find a replacement for the VP of Student Affairs.  Both this action (the removal of the VP) and AVP Fagin’s reassignment were discussed.
c. Hustoles/Larsson moved to request that Administration be asked to transfer the Admissions and the Registrar’s Office to Academic Affairs.  Passed.  Severns: We need to bring this forward right away as the job description is being written.
d. Bohnenblust: Should we invite the Deans to Meet and Confer?  Swanson: I have always had the opinion that the weak link in the meet and Confer process is that Deans don’t know what the process is.  As long as the President and Vice Presidents are there, some Deans ought to be there consistently.   Larsson/Descy moved that the Executive Committee request that Administration consider having two deans represent the Administration at Meet and Confer.  Passed.

8.    Replacements Needed and or Volunteers
a.    College of Business - Research Committee (1 Year or 2 Year Appointment)
b. College of Business - General Education (1 Year Replacement for Dan Levin)

9. Informational Items
a.    Executive Meeting, Thursday, January 22, 2004 @ 3:00 P.m., CSU 202
b. Next Meet & Confer, Thursday, February 05, 2004 @ 3:00 p.m. , FA Chair/AD Agenda
c. Faculty Association General Meeting, Wednesday, February 11, 2004 @ 3:00 p.m. , CSU 253-254
d. Next Executive Meeting, Thursday, February 12, 2004 @ 3:00 p.m., CSU 202

The meeting adjourned at 2:04 p.m.

Paul J. Hustoles
Recording Secretary
Return to the beginning

FA Home  >  Executive Committee