FA Home  >  Executive Committee  >   Minutes — 1/11/07
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETING
Thursday, January 11, 2007
Heritage Room – CSU 101
Approved Minutes

In attendance: Stephen Bohnenblust, Roger Severns, Paul Hustoles (recorder), Georgia Holmes, Tricia Young, Glen Peterson, Anne O’Meara, Don Descy, Daardi Sizemore, Theresa Salerno, Wayne Allen, Gerald Schneck, Paul Brennan, Evan Rusch, Ron Nickerson, Scott Page, Steve Gilbert, Cheryl Radeloff, Dan Cronn-Mills

President Bohnenblust called the meeting to order at 8:28 a.m.

1.  Minutes of November 30, 2006—Severns/Radeloff moved to approve.  Passed.
   
2.    Call for Additional Items/ Reordering of Agenda—none

3.    President’s Report
    a.    Eligible to Run for Spring Election 2007—Bohnenblust: We have enclosed a list of who is eligible to run out of those currently serving.  Everybody start recruiting.
    b.    Lunch with Tim Walz—Bohnenblust: I had lunch along with President Davenport and VP Olson with new US Representative Tim Walz. It looks like we have a real friend of higher ed.
    c.    Legislative Day (December 14, 2006)—Bohnenblust: I also had a meeting with the I-90 corridor group of State legislators. There were a significant number of them present.  They seem very amenable to higher education. Even Tony Cornish said that he didn’t realize what a wonderful resource we have here at MSU. It may signal a shift in attitude. The election should have some direct benefits. They were surprised that MnSCU had put such little money in HEPR this year. Their request was relatively modest.
    d.    Board of Trustees Meeting (December 20, 2006)—Bohnenblust: IFO President Nancy Black had asked us to attend if we could so we could have a presence.  We had an opportunity to go over doctoral programs with Black. There is a huge difference in understanding among the campuses regarding this issue. Many do not understand graduate education.   
    e.     Meeting with Dean Alessio—Bohnenblust: The basis for this meeting came when I met with probationary faculty members. I had also heard from many faculty members outside that group who were concerned about their PDP meeting with Alessio.  The gist of my meeting with him was that he did not intend to give the impression that he had.  Apparently he did send a letter to clarify.  Allen: My impression was that his letter was a fair response. I also had met with him and I thought he was pretty responsive.  I don’t think he is being as misinterpreted as he feels he is, but he does seem to be aware of the challenge. He sort of apologized to the college in the letter.  One of my colleagues was on the faculty with him at St. Cloud and feels that he is very genuine.  Our department is meeting with him regularly.  Bohnenblust: Is there any need to follow up on this? Allen: I also got the impression that VP Olson had talked to him too.  Bohnenblust: Yes, Severns and I had talked to VP Olson as well.  Allen: A lot of people were not clear. Many felt that things had changed mid-stream.  Bohnenblust: He did say that he is pretty abrupt when he sees things that he likes and then moves on.  Severns:  Bohnenblust and I will both be on sabbatical next year. It’s important that we remember that we follow up next year to make sure things are progressing. Bohnenblust: I did ask Alessio if he thought there were some problem faculty members. He thought that the group looked good. There didn’t seem to be any hidden agenda.  

4.    IFO/MnSCU Committees
    a.    BOT Award for Excellence in Teaching Review Committee (Approved Nomination Janet Cherrington by electronic vote 12/14/06)
    b.    MnSCU's Spring Diversity Conference Planning Committee (1 Needed Statewide)
    c.    Board of Trustees Academic & Student Affairs Policy Council (1 Rep from State University System)
    d.    Instructional Management System (IMS) Advisory Council

5.    FACULTY ASSOCIATION COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS NEEDED
    a.    College of Business Representation on the following: General Education (2 Years)
    b.    General Education 1Year Replacement for Education
    c.    Workplace Bullying Study Group (2 to 3 needed)—Bohnenblust: We just got a request this week for this. We haven’t put out a call yet. Any Exec members interested? We also need to get at least one female faculty member on this.  Sizemore: Who is doing this? Bohnenblust: It’s through the Women’s Commission. Are there any particular groups that should be represented? Or should we just put out a general call?  (Consensus on general call.)

6.    2007 SPRING APPOINTMENTS
    a.    Research Committee – Replacement for Spring for Melissa Holmberg – Mark McCullough—Hustoles/Severns moved to approve McCullough. Motion passed.
    b.    Search Committee for the new Vice President for Technology and CIO (Need 2) – Deborah Jesseman (Educ); Peg (Margaret) Lawrence; Wayne Sharp – Lib/Unaf.; Dan Sachau;  Steve Vassar (SBS)—Descy/Allen moved to approve Vassar.  Motion passed.  Sizemore/Schneck moved to approve Lawrence.  Motion passed.
    c.    Search Committee for new VP for Strategic Business; Education & Regional Partnership position (Need 3)—Hustoles/Allen moved to approve Sachau.  Motion passed.

7.    Discussion Items
    a.    House Calls—Bohnenblust: If you recall, we asked for some description before we agreed to put our stamp on this. Any faculty member could participate no matter what we do.  Sizemore: The information we got wasn’t exactly what we were looking for. But VP Olson did say that he knew of a way to assess this.  I would rather wait.  Allen: I concur.  O’Meara: Are they doing House Calls this semester? Allen: VP Swatfager-Haney did say they would come back to Meet and Confer. Severns: I wasn’t sure but they are well intentioned. Hustoles: I think we could agree to participate and make it much better.  Young: There is a huge investment of their time.  I’m all for it.  Nickerson: I agree with Hustoles but I do see this as an invasion of privacy.  But we still need some more information. Hustoles: If we get involved, we can get unified, organizational  information, rather than personal anecdotes. Hustoles/Young moved that we participate on the condition that the program is evaluated and assessed. Allen: VP Swatfager-Haney did say she would come back with a better description. Brennan: But if we don’t actively participate, how can we make it better? Peterson: Should we get more information before we agree to this? Hustoles: But that shouldn’t prevent the motion. Let’s participate and assess it. Bohnenblust: We can put this back on Meet and Confer too.  Motion passed.
    b.    University Contracts—Bohnenblust: What kind of trigger should bring a contract  to us? Severns: One trigger could be dollars. You don’t want every contract coming to us.  The other is, What areas will be affected? Vans or Sodexho affect several areas. Hustoles: I agree with Severns. Maybe they could bring a list to Meet and Confer for us to “call out” any contracts that seem controversial. Holmes: Also, any exclusive contacts, like Pepsi. Allen: Sodexho has actually been found guilty of infractions at other institutions. Why are we even dealing with them as an institution of higher leaning? Muslim students cannot just come in and prepare food here like we were told. It is important that we look at these. Nickerson: This is a spot where we have something of a responsibility for students too. Those ought to come to us, like Aviation or D2L. Brennan: And they affect us a lot. Hustoles: Should we have a subcommittee draw something together for us to look at? Bohnenblust: Planning is looking at this.  Sizemore: If we do get a list, should it come to Planning or to Meet and Confer?  Nickerson: By the time a contract gets to us, it might be too late.  When we want to see something is as important as what we want to see. Young: Is there one person in administration who deals with contracts?  Bohnenblust: AVP Kinne.Young: Could this be put within that person’s responsibility? Allen: I met with VP Swatfager-Haney and she was very gracious about working with cultural groups, but if there is a contract, their hands are tied. Peterson: I would second Hustoles’s recommendation about drafting a plan.  Bohnenblust: Let me talk to Planning about this first.  
      c.   IPESL Review—Bohnenblust: The grants have been awarded. The facilitators have been chosen. Young: Any more information on payment? Cronn-Mills: It is paid through duty days. It is not a MOA form. I have seen the list from AVP Winkworth. Payment is based on base salary and when you might have a “day” free.  Bohnenblust: We had 112 faculty apply and 38 got them. I have heard from individuals who didn’t get them. We may end up having more of this kind of thing. We need to look at the process we went through and the strengths and weaknesses. I’ve heard that the Steering Committee was not set up by college, but by submeets.  We had four reps from A&H and one from another college. That’s one comment. Another criticism was that members on the committee got paid for being on the committee and some also got grants. However, we did have a double blind review.  Nickerson: We need to remember that we put this together in very rapid time. We had to move quickly. I think they did a wonderful job with a reasonable amount of fairness. Some people would have liked a better understanding of why they were not selected. Bohnenblust: The steering committee did send out several preliminary announcements and even a pre-form before it was finalized. Nickerson: They did and they also posted the grant recipients so the information is out there. It also says to us that the faculty took this seriously and we should look at continuing this. Young: It appeared that there were a lot of seasoned faculty who got grants. Was it a question of grantsmanship? Bohnenblust: I thought we had a pretty good mix. Brennan: We look at a lot of grants in Faculty Development.  It is the nature of the game that good grant writers get grants. Regarding newer vs. seasoned faculty, we try to balance that now and it is controversial. We give a bonus to first time recipients. Young: If it is the ability to write the grant, then it might point to the need to have a workshop on grant writing.  Bohnenblust: The new CESR position could help with that. Cronn-Mills: One item that came up is whether the money should go to a  person or a project.  We decided that it would go out per person. Bohnenblust: We can create a mechanism where we are going to get widespread interest. I ask Cronn-Mills to give us some kind of review of the process. Page: Did all universities tap into that money?  Bohnenblust: Yes, in various ways, but the money is gone. Severns: There is nothing to prevent someone from adapting an IPESL grant application that didn’t get funded, into a Faculty Development grant. Bohnenblust: And some people will do their idea even without getting funding. 
    d.    Delegate Assembly Resolution Survey—Bohnenblust: Mary Visser now has  the resolutions on a survey and it is good to go. When we get the results, what are we going to do with them? Severns: As a former negotiator, I would recommend that we play it close to the vest. The Exec Committee is fine. And then we give it to the negotiator. But you don’t talk about it. Young: I would agree. I think it would be helpful for this group to take a look at it. Cronn-Mills/Severns moved that only the Exec Committee should look at the results of the survey.  O’Meara: Would it be bad for any member to take a look at it in the office? Bohnenblust: We are only giving our preferences. It is still up to the negotiators to do their negotiations. Nickerson:  But it could be a problem if the negotiator went against the survey preferences. We need to give them a free hand.  O’Meara: My only thing is that we want faculty to take part in the survey.  How many of these things are there?  It is a big job.  Bohnenblust: We have set it up so people can go in, stop and go back in. O’Meara: Don’t we really want people to do this? Hustoles: My guess is that only Delegate Assembly veterans will actually look at these. Young: Maybe there needs to be an educational process about what these are and what they mean. Bohnenblust: Maybe Visser and I could do a cover letter.  Technically, the negotiators are bound by these resolutions.  Motion passed.   
    e.    Employee Code of Conduct—Bohnenblust: We got this (handout distributed) from MnSCU. I highlighted D, which is very vague. Holmes: And there is a section in B that doesn’t talk about book reviews or written documents. We should ask for an addition on book and manuscript reviews. Bohnenblust: Why don’t we write down comments on the green sheets and I can take it back to the State IFO. Holmes: We need to look at Section I. Brennan: C is also very vague. Descy: 4a is a challenge, are we such an organization? Bohnenblust: We are a private organization. Descy: We need to add “union.”  Nickerson: What about research dollars? This seems to be written for staff, not faculty. Cronn-Mills: This seems to contradict the contract in parts. Do we have legal counsel?  Bohnenblust: We do and we should. Schneck: What about Res Life and Research dollars? We, as individuals, do not receive that, the institution receives that.  Technically, only the President can accept grants. Severns: It depends on the grant. Bohnenblust: We have some external grant contract questions. Brennan: I agree, this seems to be written for another type of employee, for example, the note “on our own time.” We are always on the clock. Severns: What about consulting? Faculty who do taxes? Holmes: And on a grant, it is not unusual for us to work with another organization on the same grant. Bohnenblust: I will compile your comments and take this back to the State IFO.
    f.    MnSCU/Board of Trustee’s Teaching Award—Bohnenblust: This is problematic at the state level. We have 6 or 7 potential nominations from MSU. They are going to choose only one from all the universities. VP Olson has told us that the Administration has little or no interest in doing this at this late date. I confess that I don’t  either. It seems like a lot of work for very little return. The winner would receive $5,000. Sizemore: This is just for teaching faculty? Bohnenblust: I believe so. Should we be put together a nominating committee? I could ask Guynel Reid to put together a group. There is a March 3rd deadline. O’Meara: There are a lot of instructions here.  Bohnenblust: And I only gave you some of this.  Sizemore: Does MSU have its own Teacher of the Year? All: No.  Sizemore: If we nominate seven, it would be great for some to put on their resumes. Brennan: But considering we are to review nominations in January, we are very late. Young: Is there an existing group who could do this? O’Meara: You could have the Unit Reps do it. Bohnenblust: Maybe we could make a statement about being interested in doing this but that we lack the time do this properly. Cronn-Mills: A quick suggestion is to send this out to each college. O’Meara: But students have to be involved too. Brennan: If we can’t do this right, is it really worth doing? Bohnenblust: We could send forward that we don’t believe that we have adequate time and next year, it would seem to be the job of the Unit Reps to deal with this.  Peterson: If there is going to be an official response, I would endorse the point that we express strong interest in teaching but express frustration at the limited amount of time this year. Young: What if we say “In order to have a viable candidate, we need more time” and ask that the date be pushed back. We could put forth a positive approach. Page: To do this correctly, we would really need to do this in the fall. O’Meara: The nominees should really be selected by December. Cronn-Mills: It would be nice to know what the other campuses are doing. Nickerson: We can’t nominate ourselves, but then we are the ones who have to put together a portfolio. Bohnenblust: We can give this to Jan Cherrington who is going to be the rep to the state committee.  Nickerson: It also seems that this is something that the Faculty Development Submeet should do. Brennan: I don’t think that’s a bad suggestion but we would need to do this in the spring. The fall is so busy. Then the faculty nominees could work on this over the summer. Bohnenblust: I will get the full document for the Faculty Development Submeet.  I will write a positive letter and start work on next year’s nominations.
    g.    Safety Committee—Bohnenblust: We finally did get a charge and membership composition (distributed). Severns: It bothers me that some of this gets into health as well as safety. Bohnenblust: We were thinking about a rep from Trafton, an athletic rep and then a general rep. Young: But athletics already has a rep. Bohnenblust: But they could get someone from outside of the IFO. Nickerson: We have to be involved with this. On Article 7, we have to make sure it does not side step the meet and confer process. Bohnenblust: A good point. We will bring this to Meet and Confer to put on the record. Severns: Article 10 says the committee will do its own assessment. There should be some assessment from outside the committee. Nickerson: The second sentence on the first paragraph is over the top. Young/Sizemore moved to appoint one science rep from Trafton, one from Athletics or Human Performance, and one general faculty member. Severns: I think we should take the composition of this committee to Meet and Confer. Maybe we should ask that it be broken down by bargaining units. Nickerson: I agree with Severns. Every one of those other groups are “double” represented. Bohnenblust: Yes, we can bring that to Meet and Confer. Motion passed.    
    h.    Van Rates—Bohnenblust: This might be something for the Unit Reps to look into.  Check and see what kinds of implications are out there. 
    i.    Athletics—Bohnenblust: You know what we’ve read in the papers. Cronn-Mills: When does Northern Sun decide? Bohnenblust: I have heard that there are three votes against us. Four would prevent us from getting in. We are considerably bigger and the small schools are concerned that St. Cloud and us would dominate the conference.  There is also an arrogance issue. Especially given that UM Duluth was a former member, some resent them coming back. Petersen: Yes, our football coach went on the record as saying how much we will dominate.
    j.    Focus Group University Square—Bohnenblust: I received a call from Bud Lawrence, the developer. They are looking at expanding. They would like to have a couple of faculty members go to a meeting. Is there anyone on the Exec interested? (Sizemore and Severns will check their schedules.)  Let me know if you are interested.
    k.    Presentations into Publications—Severns: Can we use CESR funds for hiring an editor, someone to help us turn presentations into publications? Would it be appropriate to do a seminar on how to write in such a way that a presentation could be turned into a publication? We were also talking about grant writing. What is the appropriate division of labor between CESR and CETL? Is there some interest in doing something, particularly for the younger faculty? This is a learning process.  Brennan: Who has that expertise to deal with all disciplines? There are conferences and colleagues before you get to editors. I don’t know what we could do. Who would be really qualified?  Sizemore: We do have several faculty members who are editors for journals.  Descy: Isn’t that part of Chuck Cantale’s job now? Bohnenblust: But we are looking at the CESR position because we are not sure what that is going to be evolving into. Radeloff: It would be nice if we could get something together for the junior faculty member. An institutional resource would be lovely. O’Meara: And that would not necessarily be the only resource. General writing assistance would be good. Young: Some workshop held annually would be helpful. Also, a faculty-specific writing center would be useful. Brennan: As for the internal grants, it should be the responsibility of the reviewers. We should be able to put together a document right out there with the grant materials. Radeloff: We are bringing on doctoral grad students—I can’t send them to the writing center because it is really for undergrads. Bohnenblust: Would this be useful to bring to Meet and Confer? Cronn-Mills: We have pushed for years to put together a Speaking Center as well. Maybe the scope should be expanded. Nickerson: The Center for Academic Success has the perception of being for remedial activity. We need to change that. Radeloff: It’s not only writing, it has to do with communication skills in general.  Severns: Given VP Olson’s background, I think he would be very receptive to a communications center.   Bohnenblust: We will bring this to Meet & Confer.

8.    Policies up for Review    http://www.mnsu.edu/acadaf/Resources/Policies.html
    a.    Undergraduate Admission   http://www.mnsu.edu/acadaf/pdfs/AdmissionsPolicyDraft.pdf
      b. Repeating of Undergraduate Courses   http://www/mnsu.edu/acadaf/pdfs/CourseRepeatPolicyRevised2006.pdf
Hustoles: These are going to become polices so please take a look at them if you have ever had a student repeat a class!

11. Informational Items
a.    Next Executive Meeting – Thursday, January 18 @ 3:00 p.m., CSU 204 OR  Thursday, February 15 @3:00 p.m. , CSU 204
b.    Next FA/AD Meet & Confer – Thursday, March 08, 2007 @ 3:00 p.m., CSU 204 (A D Chair/FA Agenda)
c.    CORRECTED CALENDAR OF MEETINGS—no meeting next week

The meeting adjourned at 11:05 a.m.

Paul J. Hustoles
Recording Secretary
Return to the beginning

FA Home  >   Executive Committee