Minutes approved as read February 6, 2006
Pending approval at the February 6, 2006 Faculty Senate Meeting
WSU FACULTY SENATE MEETING
January 23, 2006
Senators Present:Susan Ballard, Kimberly Bates, Tamara Berg, Chris Buttram, Toby Dogwiler, Darrell Downs, Mark Engen, Emilie Falc, Pat Ferden, Tim Gegg-Harrison, Matthew Hyle, Mary Kesler, Cindy Killion, Jean Leicester, Vernon Leighton, Dan Lintin, Bill Ng, Christine Pilon-Kacir (ITV-Roch), James Reineke, Roger Riley, Kimberlee Snyder, Jo Stejskal (ITV-Roch), Cathy Summa, Bruce Svingen.
Senators Absent:Sara Barbor, David Bratt, and Kelly Herold.
Visitors:Ann Rethlefsen, Ryan Flynn, Kari Cuinter, Ashley Yors, and Ruth DeFoster.
Agenda Scheduled before Senate meeting:
I.Call to order
II.Approval of minutes of 11/21/05
III.Agenda Additions and Approval
IV.President's Report
V.Review of Meet and Confer Notes of 11/28/05 and 1/11/06
VI.Committee Reports
A. A2C2 (COMA)
B. Graduate Council
C. Government Relations
D. Personnel Policies and Grievances
E. Committee on Committees
F. ROTC Task Force (COMF)
G. Ad Hoc CIO Task Force Report (COMG)
H.
VII.Old Business
A. Learn and Serve America Grant (OB-A)
VIII. New Business
A. Nepotism Policy (NBA)
B. RFP from Faculty Development (NBB)
C. Volunteers for Student Book Rental Task Force
D. Center for Mississippi River Studies Director NOV
E. L21 Update (NBE)
F. Spring Education Projections (NBF)
G. Summer Course Cancellation (NBG)
H. Dean of College of Business Search
I. OCED Director
IX. Adjournment
Information Items
1. AAC&U Statement on Academic Freedom at
2.Leadership Academy Document (INF)
3.Liberal Education Outcomes at
4.President Ramaley’s Work Plan
I.Call to Order
M. Kesler (MSK) called the meeting to order at 3:05 p.m.
II.Approval of minutes of 11/21/05
Correction:
Under “Senators Absent”, add (Sabbatical Leave fall 2005) after Dan Lintin.
C. Killion/C. Summa moved to approve Senate minutes of 11/21/05 as modified.
Motion Carried.
III.Agenda Additions and Approval:
Deletion:
NB-D:Center for Mississippi River Studies Director NOV
Additions:
NB-J:Web Links and Conversion of Paper Forms
NB-K:Five-Day Drop
NB-L:Request for Summer Budget and Sabbaticals
NB-M:Professional Improvement Form
NB-N:Remodeling of Maxwell
C. Killion/S. Ballard moved to approve agenda as modified.
Motion Carried.
IV.President’s Report
Mary Kesler reported:
1.As announced during the break, contract approval and information are on the web.
2.Changes in DCR and TSA plans have been announced. Check on IFO web. TIAA-CREF is now the sole recorder with lower management fees. Wells-Fargo and SB investments have been dropped. Those funds will be mapped/transferred to TIAA-CRED at no cost to faculty.
3.Applied Doctorate committee has been set, need to forward to the administration. Looking at Nursing and Education.
4.MnSCU Board has approved a 9% tuition increase for WSU for next year.
5.A state group of faculty has been working a licensure program (different from degrees) for science teaching. This state group came from COPE. Details are being worked out. Official appointments should be made to this group so proper process can be followed.
6.Senators (and faculty) were highly encouraged to attend the March 24/25 Delegate Assembly. It’s important for WSU to have a good turnout for voting purposes.
V.Review of Meet and Confer Notes of 11/28/05 and 1/11/06
Meet and Confer Notes received by Faculty Senate.
1
VI.Committee Reports
COM-A. A2C2 (document in Senate packet)
Ann Rethlefsen, A2C2 chair, presented the following items for Senate consideration:
I.Notifications (Information Only)
A. EDUC: Change in courses for Social Studies teaching major
B. MIS: Change in course description
C. MIS: Bank course MIS 462
Faculty Senate received notifications in Item I.
II. Motion: Ask the Faculty Senate to ask the President's office to communicate the Senate action from April
18, 2005 to the Registrar's office to allow a student to choose which major is counted first. M/S; Passed
The Senate Language in III A. on April 18, 2005, was as follows: "Multiple major policy A2C2
Recommends that, effective immediately, a student seeking to graduate with two or more majors be
permitted to specify which of the curricula will be considered to be the major and which the minor."
(Registrars Office claimed that they did not receive this motion last year, so need to restate and resend from Faculty Senate via next Meet and Confer.)
Faculty Senate approved A2C2 request in Item II.
III.USP Course Expiration and Renewal Process: See Attached Document
Senate discussion of Item III:
1.Departments need to send syllabi to initiate renewal process but not need to be present, unless requested by committee.
2.Director JP Johnson will notify departments about renewal timelines.
Faculty Senate approved USP Course Expiration and Renewal Process in Item III.
COM-B. Graduate Council
No report.
COM-C. Government Relations
D. Downs reported:
1.Lobby days have been tentatively scheduled for the two days before DA (i.e. March 22, 23).
2.Local GRC will meet this week.
Concern that faculty might need to address the loss of several consecutive teaching days in March. Concern heard and will be relayed to State GR.
1
COM-D. Personnel Policies and Grievances
No report.
COM-E. Committee on Committees
V. Leighton presented the following faculty names to Faculty Senate for consideration:
Committee NameRecommended Candidate
All University
Long Range Planning and Assessment Committee
Stejskal, Joanne
Svingen, Bruce
Vice President for Academic Affairs Search Committee
Hartkopf, Pat
WSU FA
Student Affairs Committee
Florin, Suzanne
University Studies Program Assessment Plan Fine and Performing Arts
Plummer, Anne
Faculty Senate approved above faculty appointments.
In addition, the following faculty members were appointed via an e-vote in December 2005:
Wednesday, December 14, 2005
Committee NameRecommended Candidate
All University
Inauguration Committee
Kesler, Mary
Leighton, H. Vernon
Wolff, Amy
Memorial Renovation design and Expansion Predesign Committee
Alsaker, Eunice
Ferden, Patricia
Juaire, Stephen
Kastello, Gary
Reidy, James
Zeller, Brian L
National Student Scholarship Applications Review Committee
Elcombe, Ronald
Study Group for Applied Doctorate Degree
Borror, Gaylia
Gray, Lee
Hatlevig, Jacqueline
Nelson, Wade
Ponto, Julie
Sherman, Thomas
Wiseman, Mary Jane (Guy)
1
COM-F. ROTC Task Force (document in Senate packet)
D. Lintin reported that the ROTC Task Force met on January 3, 2006, discussed various issues, and noted the following Task Force recommendation:
“Winona State University should seek an affiliation with Army ROTC with an appropriate affiliate(s). The Winona State University Vice President for Academic Affairs should continue to work with appropriate personnel to determine the nature and scope of the affiliation.”
Senate comments/questions:
1.Want to hear what VPAA will decide.
2.T. Kruger wrote legal opinion to President Ramaley but was not willing to share with Task Force. Why not?
3.Curriculum issue dealing with possible transfer of ROTC courses: WSU can only accept non-WSU-equivalent courses as general electives, not as US courses.
4.Why is information being withheld from committee considerations/discussions? Legal opinion could help with committee recommendation(s).
Will take above Senate Comments/Questions to next Meet and Confer.
COM-G. Ad Hoc CIO Task Force Report (document in Senate packet)
The All-University and WSUFA Technology committees provided the following list of CIO characteristics: (the first six were taken from the 2004 Hawkins article on AA framework for the CIO position):
1) excellent oral and written communications skills, including listening as well, and an ability to communicate well with and at all levels of the institution;
2) the ability to form alliances and relationships with key campus constituents to make sure that all information technology efforts are in line with the institution's goals;
3) the ability to work collaboratively and effectively, both with one's staff and with one's peers;
4) the ability to make and stick to hard decisions that are in the institution's best interests, combined with the agility to stay flexible and open at all times;
5) the ability to manage resources in an environment where the demand is far greater than the supply; and of course,
6) deep expertise in at least one aspect of the technology itself.
7) Advanced degree with experience in managing technological infrastructure.
8) Commitment to support and advocate for a multiple platform campus.
9) Strong understanding of academic environments and current trends in higher education.
10) Some work experience in the academic environment.
11) Management skills with a good understanding of the IT cost and budget issues.
M. Kesler has already forwarded the above to the administration.
Senate discussion:
1.Noticed WSU advertisement (in Daily News) for a Laptop Director vacancy? Will ask at next Meet and Confer.
1
VII. Old Business
OB-A. Learn and Serve America Grant (document in Senate packet)
The document described a group, the Southeast MN Regional Higher Education Service-Learning Consortium consisting of four Higher Education Partners and numerous community partners, working collaboratively to enable higher-education partners to fulfill institutional missions through service-learning opportunities. The immediate goal is to draw our partner institutions (and faculty/staff) together to share initial ideas, to broaden conversations, and to revise initial frameworks to one that works for the consortium partnership. The initial framework required the hiring of a regional service-learning coordinator who will serve all partners (with position based at WSU). The position initially will be funded by the LSA award, with increasing institutional commitment with each passing year.
Additional information:
1.Intending to apply for $0.5M LSA grant for each year for next 3 years.
2.Presently trying to ID faculty and community partners to build on work already being done by faculty.
VIII. New Business
NB-A. Nepotism Policy (documents in Senate packet)
A document listing the MnSCU Board policy 4.10 on Nepotism adopted on 10/19/05. The policy states that employees of MnSCU shall not participate in the selection, hiring, supervision, or performance review of, or decisions regarding compensation or staff complement for, any person who is a member of the employee’s family or household and is an applicant for employment with, or employed by, MnSCU, except as permitted under procedures adopted by the chancellor. The System Procedure 4.10.1 Nepotism describes a process, which allows members of the same family or household to be employed by MnSCU and its institutions without placing them in a real or apparent conflict of interest.
The GLBTA Statewide IFO Committee presented the following document (dated 1/11/2006) regarding Nepotism Policy and Procedures to the Faculty Senate. The committee discussed the MnSCU Nepotism Policy and the proposed System Procedures and related serious concerns about both the policy and procedures to the IFO.
RE: Nepotism Policy and Procedures
From: GLBTA Statewide IFO Committee
Date: January 11, 2006
At our meeting in December 2005, we, the members of the GLBTA Statewide IFO Committee, discussed the Nepotism Policy and the proposed System Procedures. We have serious concerns about both the policy and procedure that we would like to share with members of the IFO. These are our concerns.
1. Definition of “member of the employee’s family or household”
According to Part 2 of the System Procedure 4.10.1 Nepotism, “members of the same family or household” cannot be in a “supervisorsubordinate relationship.”
1
The terminology as established in this document fails to carefully differentiate the term “family” and the term “household.” This oversight is a carry over from the MnSCU Board policy, 4.10 Nepotism, adopted on October 19, 2005. The implications of this policy and the proposed System Procedure 4.10.1 Nepotism, problematizes various types of relationships that fall outside of officially sanctioned (e.g., marriage/blood/adoption) relationships in the society. Under this policy/proposed procedure, two individuals who are residing in the same location due to financial constraints could experience negative repercussions (See 14.10.1 Part 4 and Part 5). The definition of “household” in this document fails to clarify whether this includes “domestic partner.”
The supervisorsubordinate relationship would, according to System Procedure, 4.10.1 Nepotism, “represent a potential conflict of interest and [would be in] violation of Minnesota Statute 43A.38 Code of Ethics.” (This also applies to Part 4 and 5 in that same document.) In the Minnesota State statute, the only mention of family arises in Subd. 5, Section a. in which the following action is a conflict of interest;
(a) use or attempted use of the employee’s official position to secure benefits, privileges, exemptions or advantages for the employee or the employee’s immediate family or an organization with which the employee is associated which are different from those available to the general public:
MnSCU moved from using “immediate family” in the state statute to “members of the same household” without clarifying whether this refers to “domestic partners” and without incorporating “other household members” language into other policies and procedures. It is unclear what the rationale is for this language change. If MnSCU is increasing the number of policies, which includes in the definition of family, same and opposite sex domestic partners, we applaud this action. If this were the case, we would demand that MnSCU make the definition of family consistent in all sections of the contract, including those about benefits and tuition reimbursement. For example in the 20032005 IFO contract under Bereavement Leave it states “A bereavement leave shall not be deducted from sick leave in the case of relatives of the faculty member or the spouse’s parents, or an individual who regularly resides in the employee’s household.” Also, under Sick Leave in the same contract, sick leave shall be granted for “members of the immediate family, the term an immediate family shall be defined to include the spouse, brothers, sisters, children, step children, foster children, grandchildren, ward, grandchildren, ward, grandparents, parents or parents of the spouse. These provisions should include an individual who regularly resided in the employee’s household.”
2. Guidelines for determination
How will MnSCU decide if a person is a member of an employee’s household?
What are the guidelines that will be used? When the IFO enjoyed samesex
partner benefits, there were guidelines as to who would be eligible.
According to “Your Employee Benefits 20022003” the pamphlet used during open enrollment for that academic year, “A domestic partner is defined as a relationship between an employee and another adult of the same sex, in which the parties, hereafter called domestic partners:
1. Have entered into a committed interdependent relationship with each other;
2. Are jointly responsible for each other’s basic common welfare;
3. Share a common residence and intend to do so indefinitely;
4. Are not related by blood or adoption such that would prohibit marriage in Minnesota; are neither married nor in another domestic partnership; and
5. Are legally competent and qualified to enter into a contract.”
“Joint responsibility, means that each partner agrees to provide for the other partner’s basic living expenses if the partner is unable to provide for himself or herself”
“Basic common welfare includes food, shelter and health care.”
“Share a common residence, means that two people share the same place to live. It is not necessary that the legal right to posses the common residence be in both their names. Two people may have a common residence even if one or both persons have an additional place to live. Domestic partners do not cease to live together if one partner leaves the common residences but intends to return, including, but not limited to, periods of time left for longterm or shortterm medical care, education, sabbaticals, or employment.”
Will similar guidelines be used? Having guidelines is extremely important in this policy since people are being asked to file forms with the institution or MnSCU if they are a member of an employee’s household.
1
3. Is an institution or MnSCU going to out GLBT persons?
This is the first time that individuals are being required to inform their institution or MnSCU if there is a conflict of interest based on their relationship with another individual. With bereavement leave, sickness leave, and samesex partner benefits, persons could opt to out themselves if they wanted to enjoy the benefit. With this policy, it is a requirement to out oneself. What happens if there is a complaint from a third party about two individuals in a supervisorsubordinate relationship? Will the institution or MnSCU ask these individuals if they are members of the same household? Will the institution or MnSCU pry into the sexual orientation of its staff members?
4. Requiring persons to notify institutions or MnSCU AND file paperwork
For domestic partners, their personal lives will now be in writing and on file. How will these files be stored and who will have access to these files? The knowledge of individual’s sexual orientation in this society, sad to say, can be used against them. If the Supreme Court were to restore “sodomy laws,” these documents could be potential pieces of evidence in a trial against an individual. The consequences of having this information in written form could be detrimental and suggests levels of social control of personal relationships that go beyond the terms of individual employment.
5. Same Supervisor
In Part 4, “when members of the same family or household” work “for the same
Supervisor” they must receive prior approval from the “president or chancellor” Furthermore they must fill out a form which will be “filed with the institution or Office of the Chancellor Chief Human Resource Officer.” The conflict of interest is not immediate apparent in this work situation. Many couples already work for the same supervisor, say for instance, the dean of a college. Unless colleges are expected to engage in a long- term upheaval of departments and programs, it is important that we understand how these situations will be dealt with by local administrators. Will these people be grand-parented under the old policy? Under what circumstances would individuals be denied approval and asked to transfer? Would faculty who are tenured in a particular department be asked to transfer simply to fulfill the rules of the policy?