Restructuring Task Force Meeting Notes - Nov. 12, 2003

Present: Larkin, Starks-Martin, SubbaNarasimha, Dobey, Spaude, Cogdill, Kang, Nunes, Bayerl, Hansen, Rundquist

Absent: Lawrence, Murphy

Andy Larkin distributed a revised agenda and a White Paper regarding the creation of a School of Nursing.

In reviewing the charge to the task force, we might provide a list of options with pros and cons for each.

There has been strong feedback against moving the Counseling Center. They want an internal restructuring; it has nothing to do with what we're doing. They want to stay out of the Counseling academic unit for student confidentiality reasons.

What have we heard about dividing the College of Fine Arts & Humanities? History may fit better in Fine Arts & Humanities – it's not a new idea. It will have to be a department decision. E. Kang has asked to have an official decision from the department. Our last reorganization put the History Department in COSS partly to balance sizes of colleges. We need to first make a decision about dividing Fine Arts & Humanities and then decide about moving History.

The discussion is of dividing COFAH into two schools, with Fine Arts & Communications in one, and Humanities in the other; the two resulting colleges would be fairly similar in size. The committee could recommend it, but the college would have to decide – people are willing to talk about it.

Question to Suellen Rundquist: Is there no strong argument about why they should be together other than size? We don't have problems as we are, but it's a large college for one Dean and one Associate Dean.

The College of Business and the College of Education have internal coherence because of the similarities in the disciplines represented; fine arts & humanities don't have the same coherence.

Proposal 6a, Consolidate the associate position for curriculum, assessment, and student appeals with the position for faculty relations and diversity :

We're looking at increasing the effectiveness of the university; we need to streamline somewhere. For instance, where would we get an additional dean? Do we need two people in that office? Do we keep all the positions?

Pros:

• The new Affirmative Action Officer position is going to include Affirmative Action and Social Equity, and could do some of the work of faculty relations. With affirmative action increasing that role, it may diminish the faculty relations work for the AVP for Curriculum and Faculty Relations if the two were combined. The connection between curriculum assessment and a lesser role in faculty relations could work.
• If we have as a parameter not to increase administrators, this will give us the ability to add an administrator somewhere else.
• If we are also recommending that DGS be moved under a Dean of Undergraduate Studies, that would off load some of those duties.
• If diversity and general education duties get moved out, then it may be that there's a reasonable amount of work for one person.

Cons:

• The faculty relations position is important; we might think about making the duties of that position more well defined.
• Curriculum/academic issues are important. Until we have a well defined Affirmative Action Office, the AVP for Curriculum would have to take care of the faculty relations work as well.
  (Has the position description been created? Yes, it was distributed at faculty Meet & Confer. Currently two individuals in that office are carrying associate/assistant vp titles; an affirmative action officer is a different position. Traditionally the affirmative action officer reports to the president directly.) Faculty problems should be able to get solved in academic affairs, and if the affirmative action position is doing faculty relations, that wouldn't be possible.
• Having everything relating to diversity reporting to the President doesn't make much sense.
• Diversity work that occurs in the classroom should be under Academic Affairs.
• Affirmative Action has no obligation to report to Provost – we lose someone who can be liaison between faculty and provost.

This doesn't necessarily mean that faculty relations responsibilities would be leaving academic affairs – someone needs to assist the Provost in dealing with faculty issues. With the expansion of the Affirmative Action Office, some things are moving out, but not necessarily faculty relations. Curriculum issues are often faculty relations issues as well. We can specify that there are two aspects - the Affirmative Action Officer would deal with the legal issues, but things related to curriculum would stay with Academic Affairs. Then is it a position for one or two people?

What does the AVP for Faculty Relations do? What is the need? What does the campus want these two positions to be responsible for? SCSU decided we were going to resolve more of our conflicts on campus (some are curricular concepts, some not); the impetus in setting up the position was to do that, to have somebody who was available. It was an attempt to keep grievances to a minimum. If we're really going to do that, we may need that person.

If we're going to address issues around diversity, we may need specialists who know how to do that. We may need to say that we're going to be addressing diversity. The commitment to diversity never takes any material form; we never turn to expertise, and this would be an argument for a diversity person inside Academic Affairs. The problem with recommending to keep that position is that it lacks credibility because it wasn't searched, and that position has no authority.

Frankie Condon presented her updated proposal for a Center for Excellence in Teaching and Learning. She is the Director of the Write Place and has expertise in academic support services. The principle she's working from is that academic and social support for students needs to be widely distributed across campus rather than centralized. Those services should be available in lots of different places. This idea originated in 2001 through conversations with people who were doing academic and social support. There was a sense that people doing tutoring didn't have adequate preparation. The original idea was to have a location for anyone who wanted to be a peer tutor to be trained, not in terms of the discipline, but in terms of pedagogy for one-to-one tutoring.

Since that time her view has expanded. This proposal is for a combined center for faculty and students. This center would expand and deepen the faculty center for teaching excellence. It would deal with faculty development but work with students as well. It would assist faculty with collaborative and research projects, include information and access to funding opportunities and community action research. Similar centers on other campuses have received large grants, particularly when technology is a component.

[Frankie Condon's draft proposal is attached to this message.]

Questions/Comments :

• A lot of what you said in your previous proposal fits into the report of the study on student affairs, which stated that our tutoring services are in trouble. This could provide solutions to some problems that are happening now.
  
• Frankie Condon: Another piece that's different is that this one includes a model for redesigning provisional college curriculum courses that would be offered through the Center for Teaching and Learning Excellence. Students who enroll in those 2-credit courses would also enroll in a core course, a course that's textbook-based. The instructor of record would be a senior graduate assistant, and they would work through the textbook being used in the core course.
• What do you think of our proposal #5 (Dean of Undergraduate Studies)?
  It's a good idea; it would be a good place for academic support services to be located. If this proposal came to fruition it should be under that dean.
• Frankie Condon: We want to incorporate faculty concerns into this kind of center, so that it would be a faculty development center that's more vital. The current Faculty Center for Teaching Excellence has not managed to account for the need for faculty to do things like co-research, collaborative work, in a supported and organized environment. We have failed to provide what faculty say they need and want. The directors would work with CIM people to archive what's available. This model is trying to find a more democratic way of meeting the needs of faculty and manage the huge variety of things they're asked to do.
• Do you see people rostered in this area?
  There are models for that out there – in one example the FYE lead faculty are rostered in other departments, but the secondary faculty are rostered in that area. I haven't included that in this proposal. Because we're talking about a First Year Experience 5-year pilot, we need to see what happens with that.
• Do we have people on campus prepared and qualified to be the director?
  I think the answer is yes. It's constructed as four-year term as director. The center can't be organized around a person or a personality.
• Do you think it's important for tutors to take credit-generating classes? They often don't have time for that.
  There are some ways to be flexible about that. I have some experience with a scientific writing center where tutors were trained not through courses but through a series of workshops attended during the semester. There are also programs that provide certification. There are other ways to get qualified students, by making connections between tutoring and what they plan to do in their career. We need to make the case that the experience and training would help them get assistantships, and it reads well on a resume.

Proposal 6b – move AVP for Community Relations to University Advancement :

This position was not searched; it's perceived as politically motivated, and it's only a part-time job.

The position emerged under the Grube administration – it was felt that we needed to have a strong voice in the legislature. The position was moved from Atwood Center to be a Special Assistant to the President on a wide variety of issues, some of which were related to legislative work. With the change in presidents, the decision was made that it would go to Academic Affairs. The position now is not a 12-month position by virtue of the person in it being gone for legislative work. This position does community relations, some faculty relations and other things now. Bernie Omann is our liaison with MnSCU. He is a MnSCU lobbyist, and works half for MnSCU & half for us. He works with the President on a variety of issues.

Is there any reason we're recommending moving it to University Advancement rather than to some other place? Is there any link? Yes, by virtue of community relations – business, government, and education connections.

The primary argument is that it ought to be moved out of Academic Affairs.

Where did this proposal come from? It came from a conversation between Larkin and Nunes, also in response to the charge of looking at the reorganization of Academic Affairs. Ideas like this were also mentioned in faculty senate.

Do we need a person separately for lobbying? We cannot technically have lobbyists – the lobbyists are MnSCU.

Do we have a sense of the pros and cons? Nunes and Larkin will meet with the AVP for Community Relations. We're on the outside looking in. We'd like to have his input. The primary argument is that it doesn't make functional sense in Academic Affairs.

We should identify the need - what should the position do? If we answer that, we'd be better able to figure out where it should be structurally.