FA Home  >  Executive Committee  >  Minutes — 8/24/04
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETING
Tuesday, August 24, 2004
Old Main Village
Approved Minutes

In attendance: Stephen Bohnenblust, Roger Severns, Paul Hustoles (recorder), Barbara Keating, Sonja Meiers, Gwen Griffin, Jim Petersen, Don Larsson, Dick Swanson, Don Descy, Daardi Sizemore, Theresa Salerno, Wayne Allen, Bill Dyer, Christophe Veltsos, Anne Blackhurst, Ron Nickerson, Brock McMillan, Jim Grabowska, Judith Luebke, Mark McCullough.  Guest: Georgia Holmes.  IFO President Nancy Black joined us after the break.

The meeting was called to order at 10:23 a.m.

FA President Bohnenblust talked about the composition of the Executive Committee.  Bohnenblust: When we are dealing with an issue, we will try to identify an orderly sequence of speakers.  We need to speak to the issue and try not to get into a specific debate between two individuals.  Everyone will have ample opportunity to speak to the issue. 

1.  Minutes of April 29, 2004—Petersen/Keating moved to approve.  Passed.

2. Call for Additional Items/ Reordering of Agenda—Keating: Regarding the student arrest in ROTC last spring, the President told us that they dropped the charges but the criminal action was not dropped.  Bohnenblust: This sounds like a Meet and Confer item.  Keating: The University has an agreement with the police: if we call them, we won’t drop charges.  Bohnenblust: We will put this on the Meet and Confer agenda.  Keating will speak to this issue.

3. President’s Report
a. Contract Negotiations—Bohnenblust: Obviously you are aware that we have a tentative settlement.  There will be two informational meetings on August 31 at 11:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m.  Then we will have the ratification vote.  I am not planning a discussion of the contract right now.  I am anticipating that most of the discussion at the General Meeting today will be regarding the contract.  We do have a couple of issues to deal with regarding the contract process.

This is my second year and I came in with one primary goal: that all faculty will have the opportunity for full professional growth.  I think we have had some success in this.  We have taken a proactive approach in initiating a variety of things that we want.  If there is something we want, we should take the initiative.  The most recent example was with the institution of the Mentoring program.  We are hoping that this will be successful in helping new faculty better adjust to MSU and the community and that we will be able to retain those colleagues.  We have also been successful in negotiating a number of things with the Administration.  For example, we talked to them about the FA members in The Children’s House and we were able to successfully lobby the Administration to save their positions.   We have certainly cut down the number of grievances.  We are now almost to the point where we are only dealing with “automatic” grievances.  During the past year I have greatly appreciated the work that VP Severns has done.

Severns: Just a few thoughts.  We typically suspend dealing with grievances during the summer.  This is in our contract and most of us are not around during that time.  We do have a couple of grievances that fall into this category, a few things that happened at the end of last year.  The clock starts ticking this week on those grievances.  These are not things we have let go, we have just deferred them.  In looking at some of the issues we have been facing over the last six months, the nature of the grievances has changed.  When I started, the first big issue was the Roberts challenge, but since President Davenport and VP Olson have come in, they have made real efforts to head off problems before they reach the grievance stage.  Now we seem to be grieving amongst ourselves, how faculty interrelate with other faculty.  Some reminders: first-year faculty have a meeting tomorrow at 8:30 a.m.  Holmes noted that there was a departmental faculty meeting at that time.  Hustoles: The master calendar is clear; department meetings should be on Thursday and Friday.  Severns: Some administrators will be here for lunch.  We might want to talk about things like the Citizen’s League and the SCTC issue.  It has been suggested that we host a meeting with them regarding transfer issues, they want to become a community college.  We could talk about how much we want to get into distance learning.  Larsson: For SCTC to become a community college, they would have to go through a “change in mission” and that is a complicated process.  Regarding distance learning, this is a “change of mission” for us as well.  The official visit on this is taking place this fall.  More will be available online soon.  Bohnenblust: We will want to distribute the administrators amongst the tables when they arrive.  Nancy Black, our state IFO President, will be here as well.
b. FA Calendar of Meetings 2004-2005—see attached
c. Officer & Committee Members for 2004-2006—see attached

4. Treasurer's Report—see attached.  Hustoles/Grabowska moved to accept the Treasurer’s Report.  Passed.

5. IFO Task Force Appointment
a.    IFO Action Committee
b. Feminist Issues Replacement for Mary Bliesmer (one year)
c. Multicultural Issues, two year. Current member, Gwen Griffin
d. GLBTA Issues, two years.  New Committee (one)

6. 2004 Spring Election Unfilled Committee Positions
a.    College of Business - General Education (2 Year Term); Program Review & Assessment (2 Year Term)   

7. Confirm/Selection/Replacement Appointments
a. Enrollment Management Committee—1 more at large needed
b. Learning Round Table (3 year term)—Need 1 from each: Business; SET
c. Affirmative Action Search Committee - 1 needed
d. Commission on the Status of Women - Kellian Clink
e. Replacement for Jim Kapoun Lib/Unaf Unit Representative—Daardi Sizemore
f. UCAP Replacement for Kimberly Greer, College of SBS
g. Athletic Hearing Committee - Replacement for M. Bliesmer (Jill Barr is temporary)
h. University Judicial Board 2004-2005 (16 needed)(SET - Colin Wightman; SBS - Barbara Keating).  Add Gary Rushing, Dan Cronn-Mills and Cecil Keen
Hustoles/Meiers moved to approve d, e and h above.  Passed

8. Discussion Items
a. Work Place Environment Policy —Bohnenblust: It looks like we need some significant revisions with this.  We do have some situations where there is a potential for violent behavior.  Security can’t really react to the threat, only the action.  There is a need to protect faculty, students and staff from threats.  This policy was an attempt to legislate civility.  It included things like “no gossiping.”  There might be some desire for some level of civil disobedience.  We need to be careful not to squelch free speech.  Grabowska: How does this dovetail with the statement on “student rights and responsibilities”?  Bohnenblust: This would supercede all of those types of things.  Grabowska: It places students in a different relation to the faculty.  Bohnenblust: The way that this is written now, someone’s perception of crude language could be brought to a judicial board.  The comments could be rude and unflattering, but not threatening.  Holmes: Isn’t there some history of administration on other campuses using this against faculty?  Severns: HR Director Lamb is a lawyer and this is a very legalistic attack.  This goes beyond the contract.  We could easily lose a grievance if there is a clear university policy on this.  Grabowska: There seem to be a couple of entities that already exist that deal with these types of issues, like Affirmative Action.  Bohnenblust: Perhaps, but we don’t really have them all covered.  For example, we don’t have an adequate mechanism to deal with real threats.  We need something to protect us but maybe not this.  We will have to get together with HR Director Lamb and work on something.  Swanson: Bohnenblust framed this right.  Lamb is very legalistic.  We have to be very careful on this.  Severns: I think Lamb’s reasoning behind writing the policy in the first place is to try to reduce the situations where this would rise to the level that Affirmative Action would have to get involved.  In doing so, I think she has gone too far and I don’t think she sees that.  Veltsos: What can we do?  What powers do we have?  Bohnenblust: Last year we received a Policy on Policies.  They do have to bring any policy before us and we do have adequate opportunity for comment.  If we reach a stalemate, which we have not before, I don’t know where we would end up.  Hustoles: This Administration has no history of not listening to us.  They have consistently implemented our suggestions.  Larsson: There will be a time for open comment as well.  Nickerson: What precipitated this policy?  Severns: There are some things we just can’t talk about.  There are some situations that have occurred that have given us concerns.  HR Director Lamb ‘s heart and mind were in the right place when she wrote this, but she just went too far.  We need to talk about this some more.  Bohnenblust: There is a need for a policy.  Severns: We could ask about this at lunch.
b. Differential Tuition/Charge of UCAP and General Education Committee — Bohnenblust: If you look at the last FA minutes, we did discuss this before.  Sizemore: Is the Differential Task Force going to meet again?  Severns: No meeting is scheduled at this point.  We did meet at the end of last year.  There was a document produced as the result of the Meet and Confer.  Pomije: UCAP has not changed its perspective from last year.  We deal with curricular issues.  Meiers: Would it be productive for the Budget Sub Meet to look at this?  Severns: They have.  It is, in part, a curriculum issue.  Pomije: As things stand now, UCAP does not know what course is being offered on campus or online.  The Registrar’s is the office that maintains this.  We have no desire to regulate at what point an online course becomes a “new” course.  If a traditional course morphs into online delivery, we do not look at that as a new course.  Sizemore:  Could we recommend that this go to the Task Force?   I don’t remember where we left this.  Hustoles: This issue was discussed at the April 2004 Meet and Confer but not in May.  This is still a work in progress.  The minutes indicate that the task force would meet again.  Severns: Mechanically, how do we decide who should be brought to the table?  This is a discussion we need to have.  Larsson: We also have two new Deans (Delgado and Lipetzky) that need to be brought into the discussion.  How structurally does Distance Learning relate to these processes?  Bohnenblust: Let us bring this forward as a Meet and Confer issue and then get back to our Executive Committee.  Severns and I can identify specific steps as to how to arrive at a campus discussion.  That was the consensus.
c. Procedures for Absentee Ballots—Bohnenblust: We are going to have a contract ratification vote.  I think we should allow an absentee ballot if, for some reason, some member can’t physically be on campus for that.  Hustoles/Keating moved to allow absentee ballots for contract ratification purposes.  Keating: What are the rules for passage?  Bohnenblust: I think that it is a simple majority.  Severns: If you are on sabbatical, you get to vote.  Passed.

The meeting suspended at 11:24 a.m. and reconvened 1:13 p.m.

d. Cultural Diversity Task for Identifying Course Proposals—Nickerson: No one seems to be
asking if general education courses are truly meeting cultural diversity requirements.  We need to have someone checking this.  Right now if a department checks it on the list, we take it at face value.  Bohnenblust: So the issue is, What is the criteria?  Pomije: Right now we do percentages.  UCAP thinks that there might be a better way.  Bohnenblust: Should we refer this to Dean Fagin?  How do we want to propose a solution?  Nickerson: Last year the Executive Committee suggested that we form a committee to deal with this.  Pomije: This seems prudent and topical as President Davenport discussed this at the convocation yesterday.  Bohnenblust: Nickerson and Pomije will bring this issue to their Sub Meets and bring a recommendation for the charge of a new task force.  Griffin: Take a look at the Diversity Strategic Plan because there are some suggestions in there.
e.  Creation of, or re-forming a Promotion and Tenure Sub Meet Committee— Bohnenblust: Years ago we had a promotion and tenure group that was disbanded.  Last year there was a group that recommended that we consider a Promotion and Tenure Sub Meet and Confer.  This is based on a problem we have seen.  We have a fairly significant number of people who don’t go up for promotion for a variety of reasons (e.g., self-selection; the dread of the process; inconsistent standards; lack of encouragement).  The Professional Development Committee has run some workshops.  I don’t see a need for another sub meet.  Griffin: I was in the group.  We were concerned about those who had been in rank for more than ten years.  “Dread of process” was one of the highest challenges.  Hustoles: Long ago, we decided that this Sub Meet opened us up to potential lawsuits.  Why not just have the Faculty Development Committee deal with this?   Maybe we just need mentors to help with the fear of the process.  Veltsos: The Faculty Development Committee has discussed that there were not uniform standards.  We did express our concern.  We do need to make sure that the expectations are consistent.  Larsson: As a former chair of APT, the real issue was that we were meeting with the Academic Vice President.  We were to act as advocates for the “file.”   But we were acting somewhat like administrators.  In some cases we could change an administrator’s mind.  The concern from the state IFO office was that if we didn’t advocate enough, we were in danger of being sued.  This proposal is rather different.  I do think that CETL and training for the department chairs or departments could be beneficial.  We are about to undergo a significant change in the Article 22 process.  This could affect us for the better.  Keating: I was on the committee even before Larsson, and we developed the very first APT process.  We reviewed everyone’s file and made recommendations.  We didn’t approve all files and that pitted faculty against faculty.  As we moved to an advocacy role, we had a challenge because some files were a challenge.  Good people turned in bad applications.  We can train faculty, but we don’t want to get back into an advocate role.  Veltsos: Last year we had a two-hour workshop.  Administrators were actively involved in helping us run the workshop.  Griffin: I think that the Faculty Development Committee going to the Administration to ask for consistency speaks to the basic concerns of the faculty.  Severns: The workshop was a significant improvement than in previous years.  Getting administrators and faculty together to talk about what is expected and what is acceptable is good.  We don’t need a committee to review files, but an ongoing effort.  Bohnenblust: We will have Faculty Development and CETL deal with these issues within our existing structure.  McCullough: It might be helpful to have some kind of follow up from last year’s workshop. 
f. IFO Negotiations Procedures—Bohnenblust: This is clearly not a good contract.  I am concerned about the procedures used to get there.  Financially, this was about as good as we could get.  I do think we need to support ratification of this contract.  But I do have concerns about the way we’re negotiating.  We have had some significant problems with our own staff.  I am shocked about what comes up.  I support IFO President Black 100%.  It is going to be a tough job to deal with this.  By the way, this is not a slap at Holmes [our MSU contract negotiator], our campus did well.  Holmes: Most of it was determined before I started!  See attached (#8f).  There were a number of things that our Negotiating Team was dealing with but our IFO Board did not know about it.  The Negotiating Team has taken on a life of its own.  We will appoint a campus negotiator this year.  I would like to find somebody who will follow Delegate Assembly resolutions.  We need to keep the Board informed about negotiations.  I think this is a major problem.  Holmes: I know the last time I was a negotiator, we did start by looking at the resolutions.  But, in defense, I can say that when you get to the end of the process, you do need some flexibility.  I support what you are saying but we do need flexibility.  Bohnenblust: President Black, would you like to comment?  Black: I am glad you are bringing up these issues.  I am disturbed by the vagueness of this language (#8f).  I have only become acquainted with the Negotiating Team in the past few months.  Most of them have served long hours and for many years.  They are kind of set in their ways.  There is also some personal animosity with some of the MnSCU negotiators.  I would love to have our team get some professional training.  We should already be working on our next contract.  We are behind.  I would love to get some fresh perspectives on this team.  It does require a lot of work.  Severns: It is a tremendous amount of work, having done this a couple of times.  This team did do some things differently.  I will support this contract but I think, in the next contract, we need to change some things.  We do need to change the relationship between the Negotiating Team and the IFO Board Executive Committee.  I don’t’ think they really had that this time.   We need a fundamental change.  We need to set up some mechanism to make sure that they talk to each other and are on the same page.  Swanson: The release of course time makes a huge difference.  If the negotiator could have release time in the spring term, that would help—and also some scheduling consideration.  Keating: Historical comment: I remember being in court being grilled on this very issue [again referencing #8f].  We need to fix this.  Where did this come from?  Was it our side?  Bohnenblust: Yes.  Keating: That’s a separate concern.  Bohnenblust: There are other items.  One or more of our staff have offered what they thought would be helpful suggestions.  Holmes: I’m trying to figure out that if there was a breakdown, where it might have been.  Historically, both former IFO Presidents Able and Twedt would take part in the negotiations.  Pehler didn’t seemed to be as engaged in the process.  It is a good idea that current IFO President Black is planning to be a part of the process.  It is a burden, but it does ensure better communications.  Pomije: Clarification?  Can we have training at the state level?  Black: I think we need to review the process.  We need to make sure we are in sync with our local associations.  We have received a lot of criticism in that MnSCU has professional negotiators.  We work as hard as we can but we are not trained negotiators.  Holmes: The problem is that you can get someone who understands negotiation, but not understand faculty or our perspective.  Pomije: Isn’t conducting a review or employing a negotiator a viable suggestion?  Black: This team had been working together for several years.  It is my understanding that there will be a new negotiator from this campus.  And thank you Holmes for all of your hard service.  Severns/Grabowski moved to ask Bohnenblust to go to the State Board with a request to review the negotiating process with the intent of finding or exploring ways to improve our negotiating techniques or approach and communication between the negotiating team and the state Executive Committee.  Passed.
g. International Programs—Bohnenblust: This is more of a heads up.  This has been a concern on our campus.  Our international population is relatively low for a campus this size.  Any thoughts?  Sizemore: Do we have a director for study abroad?  Grabowska: Are we talking about study abroad or international students?  The discussion has been if these are separate.  Larsson: There was a posting of a draft last spring and the idea was to have one director for those two parts.  Hustoles: We did talk about this at the last Meet and Confer.  Sizemore: Didn’t President Davenport mention this in his speech yesterday?  Yes.  Bohnenblust: Why don’t we make this a Meet and Confer item?  Where do we go from here?  Veltsos: Can we get the report?  Hustoles has it and will ask Blom to distribute it.   
h. Consider hosting conference with 2 year colleges regarding transferability issues (SCTC)—Bohnenblust: We want to make sure that people coming out of there have the skills they need.  Or we could oppose this.  Swanson: We don’t want to look negative.  Hustoles: I think it’s a good idea.  The mitigating factor we heard today was “open admissions.”  There are a lot of good students out there who can’t make it into MSU.  This is a way for us to get better prepared students.  Nickerson: I don’t disagree but one route would be to bring them up to the level of the transfer curriculum.   The other route would be to water down the transfer curriculum, which we should not do.  Larsson: The issue becomes tricky when you transfer the entire AA degree.  There is a lot of chance for us to work with SCTC.  There is more to be gained by helping than to resist them.  Keating: This may be a moot issue.  The legislators may see this as duplicative.  Will they transfer resources from technical colleges to community colleges?  I don’t think this is going to happen until after we retire.  Severns: I think we should narrow this down to SCTC specifically.  Some technical colleges are coming up with specific courses that they want to transfer to 4-year schools.  I think it would be to our advantage to invite them for discussion.  Meiers: At the state level, our Academic Affairs Committee has worked on a number of these things in the past.  It might be helpful to call on Debra Japp to help facilitate.  SCTC is already graduating students with the AS degree in nursing.  There is a lot of back and forth.  I support continued development.  Black: We are meeting with Vice Chancellor Linda Blair; they have not worked out the transfer courses yet.  Accounting I at the technical colleges is really “bookkeeping.”  You are smart to be trying to articulate these things.  If they don’t have courses in place, get there first and help them.   
i. Items for FA Conference Room—Bohnenblust: We decided that we would do something with diverse cultures.  We could ask faculty if they have something from travels abroad.  We could ask them to donate or lend items.  Please feel free to do that.
j. HLC Accreditation—See attachment—Larsson: You will be hearing a lot about this over the next few months.  We have an awful lot to offer and to demonstrate when we finally write our report.  [Larsson discussed hand out #8j.]  I urge   committee chairs to be prepared; various members of the Accreditation Steering Committee will be coming to you to ask for information.  
k. MSU History Quilt ($100) (Gwen Griffin)—Hustoles/multiple seconds moved to give $100 to the making of a history quilt.  Passed.
l. List of concerns about Chancellor McCormick for possible vote of no confidence—Bohnenblust: If you have things that you would like me to forward, let me know.

9.    Informational Items
a. FA General Meeting, Tuesday, August 24, 2004 @ 3:00 p.m. - Armstrong Hall 101
b. New Faculty Meeting, Wednesday, August 25 @ 8:30 a.m. - Morris Hall 102
c. New Faculty Social/Get Together, Wednesday, August 25 @ 5:00 p.m. - Old Country Buffet


The meeting adjourned at 2:34 p.m.

Paul J. Hustoles
Recording Secretary

Return to the beginning

FA Home  >  Executive Committee