Meet and Confer Notes
WSU Faculty Association
Monday, October 22, 2001
0. Additions or deletions
8. HESO
9. Health Insurance
10. Social
11. Sesquicentennial
1. A2C2: flag courses approved
Senate approved A2C2 recommendations to approve 8 courses in flag categories of University Studies. Attachment of courses sent previously to the administration.
A. Writing Flag
SOC 378 Laboratory in Social Research (3 SH)
ART 435 Italian Renaissance Art (3 SH)
ART 437 Nineteenth Century Art (3 SH)
ART 438 Early Twentieth Century Art (3 SH)
ART 439 Later Twentieth Century Art (3 SH)
B. Oral Flag
BUSA 495 Strategic Management (3 SH)
C. Mathematics/Statistics or Critical Analysis Flag
BUSA 220 Introduction to Business Statistics (3 SH)
SOC 376 Introduction to Social Research (3 SH)
The administration received these flag courses.
2. Committee assignments
Senate approved Committee on Committees' recommendations of faculty to serve on Fac Assn and All-University committees:
ALL-UNIVERSITY
a. Residential College Steering Committee - Rob Brault
b. Affirmative Action and Title IX - Maggie McDermott
c. Athletic and Hall of Fame - Don Wistrcill
d. Commencement and Honorary Degrees - Mary Jo Welhaven (represents
Nursing/HHP)
e. Community Service Planning Committee - Chris Buttram and Dan Bloom
f. Sesquicentennial - Gene Lundak
IFO COMMITTEES
a. Elections and Procedures - Jo Stejskal
b. Instructional Technology - Mary Proksch (representing Nursing/HHP)
The administration acknowledged these Senate recommendations.
In addition, the administration was informed that after receiving clarification from the faculty co-chair of IRB (Human Subjects), Senate instructed Committee on Committees to solicit an additional member of the committee from the Math/Stats Department.
3. Special Ed student teaching supervisor assignments
The report from the Dean of Education describing the assignment of student teacher supervisors in the Special Ed Department was referred to PP&G. The committee will invite the dean and faculty from Ed and Special Ed to meet with it when it considers these assignments and procedures. (The committee also has two other issues on its plate that will be either fairly
complex or difficult to schedule-- (a) the 'Administrators' Extra Duties' report and (b) a meeting with the Academic VP about the Non-Renewal policy--so it may be some time before these appear again on a M&C agenda.).
4. Special election
Senate approved details of a special election for a one-year Senate term to replace David Bratt.
The administration received this information.
5. E-Learning Advisory Team membership proposal
Senate approved a recommendation from Exec Committee concerning membership on the E-Learning Advisory Team, as follows:
(a) two tech personnel from AUTC
(b) three faculty from AUTC
(c) one academic dean
(d) Director of ACEED
(e) one student
(f) Ex-officio (non-voting): E-Learning Director and Faculty Laptop Liaison
The Faculty Senate must appoint all faculty on the list.
Administration Response:
1. List is fine, but pending MAPE Meet and Confer meeting for comments.
6. Phased retirement (restatement of policy)
Senate instructed its reps to take to Meet and Confer a request that the administration restate (or state more precisely) what its policy is in the matter of phased retirements.
Three sorts of comments, opinions, or questions surfaced during the Senate discussion:
(a) The request reflects the belief of some senators that the policy as previously stated had been identical/similar to the one established to evaluate requests for non-mandatory sabbaticals, while the policy stated at the most recent Meet and Confer sounded different.
(b) Non-mandatory sabbaticals and long phased retirements are similar situations in the sense that both require the faculty in a department to take on an extra-ordinary burden in order that a colleague may gain an extra-ordinary benefit. In light of this similarity, departments ought to
be asked identical questions or asked to provide identical information in both cases.
(c) What are those questions? Is the issue "Can the university save some money?" or is it "Will granting of this benefit (sabbatical or phased retirement) adversely affect the department's program?"
Administration Responses:
1. Preferred not to put this issue in writing, though do not mind using same phrasing as non-mandatory sabbaticals.
2. Administration brought issue to M&C because dept's had hard time understanding what the thinking/direction of what they were asked by the administration re. Dept. impact.
3. Institution might be at risk due to unknown effects from long-period phases.
4. Difficulty to get full cost replacement (s) for phased faculty positions.
5. What kind of plan should the dept. have in addressing course-load coverage during phase retirements?
6. Can't guarantee consistent questions asked for each dept. since each dept. would have different faculty in different situations; therefore don't want to put this issue in writing!
7. Feeling is to support faculty as much as possible, without hurt to university.
8. Perhaps non-mandatory sabbatical questions can be used in a similar fashion for this case, but not in writing!
9. Guiding principles are in place. One should be able to come up with a common set of fundamental questions...but not in writing!
10. The specifics might be different depending on the disciplines in different areas.
11. 1, 2 or 3-year phases are easier to handle than phases greater than 3 years.
The administration refused to provide/explain this issue in writing.
7. Discussions of enrollment/budget (President, VP, Comptroller, Admissions, and ??) and residence hall deferred maintenance (Comptroller, Ferden, and ??) at 10/29 Senate meeting
Senate reaffirmed its desire to have members of the administration attend the 10/29 Senate meeting to discuss enrollments, funding, and related matters. As a result of discussion of Residence Hall repair funding, this matter was added to the list of 'related matters.'
The following questions and comments were generated prior to and from discussion of these issues at the 10/29/01 Faculty Senate meeting
Enrollments and funding:
--why will WSU continue recruiting in Illinois if enrolling these students loses us money? (the Chancellor said there were plenty of students in Minnesota)
--aren't we guilty of false advertising if we advertise close faculty/student contact but continue to raise class sizes?
--why in fact do we have so many freshman students? isn't this year's class much larger than expected? why did so many unexpected students show up at the last minute? why didn't we know sooner? or take steps earlier to deal with the extra students?
--do we have data on retention rates of students who do get Basic Skills courses in their first year vs. those who do not? how many new students (primarily those who enrolled on the last day in June or in August) were unable to enroll either in Composition or Speech for the Fall? will these students be able to enroll in both these courses in the Spring? were a disproportionate number of these students male?
--'increase all classes by 1' isn't helpful or realistic...labs, for instance, have only so many seats.
--What is our plan? are we going to rely on designating some courses as megasections and supplying help for them? or are we going to increase every class's size? or...? right now, it looks as if there is no plan.
--some senators recalled that the administration last year had suggested that this year's high enrollment need be merely a temporary blip...after which we can retreat/return to more acceptable enrollment levels. True? if so, is that still the case?
--whatever the enrollment levels are, the university's reputation is being damaged by the larger number of students who disrupt neighborhoods while/after drinking
Residence Hall funding:
--how many WSU students live in residence halls?
--how do retention rates compare between students in residence halls and students in private housing?
--do the two choices, bonding and internal funding, both result in large increases in room/board charges? are these increases roughly equivalent in size?
--to what degree is the increase in charges alleviated if we go to a 15-20 year timeline rather than 10 years? Does WSU have the OK to use a 15-20 year timeline?
--why does the administration believe that internal funding, as opposed to bonding, is the wiser course to take?
--which is the more 'dangerous' funding source? Which harms WSU the most if conditions turn bad, internally? Does either funding source protect WSU (or leave us financially exposed) if dorms at other schools are unfilled?
--is there any indication of which funding source is preferred by student organizations, either locally or at the state level?
Administration Responses:
1. Document provided by the administration.
2. No matter what the size of the university, the faculty to student ratio must be maintained.
3. MnSCU allocation model makes us compete in terms of numbers. Having more students relative to other MnSCU schools should help WSU.
4. The MnSCU Allocation model is a set of nested macros in Excel...but where is the actual formula?
Will try to get both issues (Housing and Enrollment) at the Monday meeting, 30 to 45 min each. Might need more than one meeting on Enrollment alone. Perhaps develop a Task Force from this.
8. HESO
From IFO State Board meeting, HESO is advocating that student wages should be local campus property.
Administration Responses:
1. WSU is already setting its own state-dollar figures for student wages.
2. Don't understand why this issue appeared at the State IFO Board meeting.
9. Health Insurance
D. Bratt referred to the Jim Pehler memo on "Health Insurance Changes for 2002", which will go out to all faculty. Faculty might not be pleased with the information contained in this memo. Faculty will probably call HR.
Special note in memo: "The IFO explicitly reserves the right to negotiate provisions in addition to or different from the plans for other State collective bargaining units. For example, the IFO will insist that the employer continue to pay premiums for dependent health insurance." IFO negotiator added that this last issue is not just insist, it's "over our dead body"..Level 4 Health Plan?
10. Social
The administration was reminded about the Oct. 26 (4-6 Alumni House) Social that the IFO is throwing for MAPE and AFSCME. The whole campus is invited, even the administration, if they behave!
11. Sesquicentennial
Exciting ideas coming from this committee. Suggest that Senate ask this committee to inform them about wonderful celebrative opportunities. 2008 is WSU's 150th year.
12. Document on Allocation Model
As provided earlier under Item # 7.
Adjourned 3:48 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Bill Ng.