Restructuring Task Force Meeting Notes - Nov. 17, 2003

Present: Larkin, Dobey, Rundquist, Hansen, Starks-Martin, Cogdill, Bayerl, Murphy, SubbaNarasimha

Absent: Kang, Spaude, Nunes, Lawrence

Larkin distributed a revised draft recommendation memo.

Item 5a is creating a Vice President for Research and Graduate Studies. This would affect Summer Sessions, Continuing Studies, Graduate Studies, and Sponsored Programs. Having a VP for Research and Dean of Graduate Studies in one position would give signatory powers to this position and would leave the salary where it is. Pay scales are associated with titles in MnSCU. Another option would be to have the Vice President of Research and Graduate Studies with a Dean of Graduate Studies under that VP.

We could consider moving Summer Sessions to Continuing Studies. It is uncommon for Summer Sessions and Graduate Studies to be combined. The rationale for combining Research and Graduate Studies is more common. If Research and Graduate Studies were combined, the Research area would contain Sponsored Programs. Richard Rothaus pointed out that he needs quick access to someone with signatory power. Having a VP of Research and Graduate Studies would increase the university's focus on research and grants. Richard Rothaus is in agreement with this scenario. How will this really change how anything is done? Vice Presidents can report to a Provost. If there's a Dean under that VP, would the Dean also report directly to the Provost? If so, we're creating another level. Other models have a VP for Research and Dean of Graduate Studies with directors of Graduate Studies and Sponsored Programs under that VP. The VP would be a Dean as well as a VP. Does that increase the workload for that person? Right now we have people who do both Graduate Studies and Summer School.

Our experience with Continuing Studies is that they're always short-staffed; if we moved Summer Sessions there we'd have to make sure adequate funding/staffing was in place. There's a more entrepreneurial outlook to Continuing Studies, and a more academic focus to Summer Sessions. Summer sessions works almost like clockwork; there are not that many new features each year. If they were combined, would there be different expectations? Would Summer Sessions suffer? Each area would have a person in charge. In Continuing Studies sometimes fees change, and funding is done in a more entrepreneurial way. Would Summer Sessions funding be done in a different way? If it isn't broken, why try to fix it? Summer Sessions could fit under the VP for Research; lots of Summer School is on the graduate level. The academic courses in Continuing Studies at SCSU are exactly the same as regular courses; more often it's not that way. But a Continuing Studies class can be approved with different criteria than the corresponding regular course. When you move things around, functionality may change. We could state that Summer School is not the same as Continuing Studies and that it's important that each retain its format and focus. The rationale for having Continuing Studies and LR&TS headed by Deans is that they have to have the academic focus, though the structures are different; it provides them with a voice at the academic table.

The scenario with a VP for Research and Grad Studies, with Deans of Graduate Studies, Continuing Studies and Summer Sessions is too many deans under that VP, and those deans wouldn't report to the Provost any more. Lots of schools have the LR&TS position elevated to the level of VP. If there's a VP of research it elevates the level of research.

Does the research position work well as it is? There are some changes we could make. That position needs to be more strongly supervised by someone with an academic focus; it needs to be in a unit in a way that it's not right now. If we recommend one person who would be a VP of Research and a Dean of Graduate Studies, it would be a cost-neutral move – just a name change, but we want MnSCU to grant signatory powers.

We could consider the scenario of a VP of Research and Dean of Graduate Studies with a Sponsored Programs Director and a Summer Sessions Director. There are different levels of directors. Also, Summer Sessions is not a full-time job. At this time there is an assistant who works with both Summer Sessions and Graduate Studies.

Item 5b is moving The Associate VP for Community Relations to University Advancement. Larkin will seek input from the Associate VP for Community Relations.

Item 5c is moving University Communications to the Office of Academic Affairs. Some of what University Communications does is external, but some is internal and that part is not represented as it should be. The Cleveland State University model we've been looking at has the webmaster reporting to Academic Affairs. Now we have a committee, rather than one webmaster, that looks at changes to the web page. Should the committee be a council? The web site people also provide a lot of other services, and we wouldn't want to change their ability to do that. The idea behind this move is that most communications issues are internal and they're being treated as external. University Communications does a lot of work for the President and the Provost as well as for the public. They do a quarterly report on goals; this involves gathering a lot of information from the Provost and the Deans, so most of that information is from Academic Affairs. The web site is used far more by people who are looking at the academic side of things. If employees are working for Academic Affairs, they should be in that unit; employees should be evaluated by people they work for.

Item 5d is moving the AVP for  Budget into the Office for Academic Affairs. Dr. Spitzer didn't seem to think it was an issue. One advantage is that we'd be sending the message that it looks like budgeting is managed by Academic Affairs. There's also the issue of balance of power – do we want to focus the power in one office, or divide it between two? It says that Academic Affairs would have more prominence. Or is it better in Administrative Affairs because it provides a balance of power? Budgeting should be related to the main purpose of the university – running the academic services. What's compromised by it not being under Academic Affairs? There was a belief that budget issues were going to be placed under the Provost when the search for Provost was being done. Larkin will follow up by asking for written input from the Associate Vice President for Administrative Affairs.

There was discussion about the wording of the first sentence in the draft memo. Since we're recommending some structural changes, it doesn't make sense to state, “...we have found that the University is structurally sound.”  Larkin will rephrase the sentence.

We need to review whether our recommendations really address the charges we've been given. If we're recommending something that's not answering the charges, we need to say that.