Skip global navigation
St. Cloud State University

St. Cloud State University

SCSU Task Force on Restructuring
Home
Documents and Reports
Peer Institutions
Restructuring Recommendations
Presenter Responses
Minutes
Your Suggestions
Committee Members

Restructuring Task Force Meeting Notes - Nov. 19, 2003

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

Absent: Lawrence

Andy Larkin distributed a revised recommendation memo.

In the first paragraph:

  • Would everyone understand flat, rather than tall, structure?
  • Change “parameters” to “principles and guidelines.”
  • Decentralization wasn't true in all of our recommendations. Change wording to indicate we considered centralization/decentralization.
  • Can we use words like ‘realigning' or ‘degree of centralization' instead?

Item #1, recommending the creation of an Advisory Council for Student Diversity and Social Justice:

  • Should the Director of Student Organizations be included in the advisory council? The focus is on diversity and social justice; this might dilute what it means. It could be stated, “comprised of at least…”
  • There are a lot of religion-based groups – where's their voice in this? But this is an advisory council, so there would be no harm in having the overseer of the student organizations on it. It's advisory, there's no decision-making authority.
  • It would reduce the focus, because it's about diversity issues, it's not just everybody.
  • The intention of this group was to put these people together so they could work on the issues that they have in common. It's more than just communication.
  • Are we looking at a different conception of diversity? Each student group has a narrow aim, so there's diversity there, too.
  • Is it really up to us to define the composition of this council, or is it up to those who are interested in being on the council? We shouldn't be exclusive; maybe there are more people who have input and interest. Is this micromanaging?
  • We might say “it should include at a minimum the following people.” Could we word it so that we don't say who should be on it at all?
  • It's a good principle to let the group decide who should be included.
  • If we're exclusive with the first recommendation, the rest of the recommendations won't mean anything.

Second paragraph under Item #1: Change “to promote the success of various groups of students” to “success of all students.” It should also state that it's about faculty and staff as well as students.

Item #3: So far seven departments of COSE and the COSE dean have indicated they are in favor of the proposal to consider reorganization of COSE. This recommendation has been endorsed by the dean and College of Science and Engineering.

Item #4 has been revised to delete the History Department from a review committee to consider reorganization of The College of Fine Arts and Humanities. The History Department doesn't wish to be listed as being involved in discussions about moving to COFAH at this time.

A faculty forum has already been established in COFAH to begin discussions. There was concern about whether such a forum should have the approval of the provost before beginning.

Item #5b, to move the AVP for Community Relations to University Advancement, is being deleted. It has been clarified that the work of that position is academic in nature, and it was concluded that it doesn't make sense to move it from Academic Affairs.

Item #5c, to move University Communications to Academic Affairs, is still being considered.

Though the office does a lot of work for the president and the provost, it would add another responsibility for the provost to supervise this area, and it doesn't make sense to move it from that point of view. One thing we've considered was to reduce multiple lines of reporting, but perhaps this area should have a double line of reporting.

Item #5d, moving the AVP for Budget to Academic Affairs, is still being discussed.

  • If it were moved to the Academic Affairs office, how would that affect the Administrative Affairs Office – is the budget person a significant part of that? Would we create a double line of reporting? It should be in Academic Affairs because there should be a clear conduit between the budget director and the provost. Even when we're dealing with money for buildings etc., the main focus is still on academics. But the relationship is not a supervisory one, just informational.
  • While the predominant focus is academic, it's not that simple; it's a functional area. The budget director doesn't set policy. It should stay as it is.
  • The problem is that the budget isn't constructed so you can tell difference between expenditures and cost of instruction. The budget reflects items relating to building projects, etc. because of the focus of where the position is located.
  • We have talked about connecting the university mission and strategies into the budget; if we want to do that, the budget person should be under Academic Affairs.
  • Does anything really change if we just move that position from one office to another? This is one thing the provost seemed to feel wasn't a problem.
  • Where does Mike Mundis fit in? It used to be that the Assistant Vice President helped with faculty lines. That wasn't being done that way any more, so the provost hired an assistant rather than another VP. He is an accountant, and his responsibility is the accounting around faculty lines. It isn't the budget for buildings, snow removal, bonds, loans, any of that.
  • Wasn't the budget going to be one of the things that was to be under the provost? At the time the provost was hired, there was a belief that the entire budget was going to be moved.
  • More and more, we have a need for accurate data regarding faculty teaching load, credit generation, etc. These kinds of things don't appear on the budget. It has been clarified that while we have contracted with MnSCU for certain kinds of reports, what we get from MnSCU in no way comprises all of the Institutional Research we used to have.
  • The AVP for Administrative Affairs has pointed out that things are different than they were before we had the provost. At that time the person in charge of the budget was the VP for Administrative Affairs; now the budget person is under the VP for Administrative Affairs.
  • A decision to move this should be done under the judgment of the provost – he's the one who knows what he needs.

Item #5e: Carefully considering the associate and assistant positions within your office to determine if the number of positions can be reduced by one:

  • The wording should be a little more direct than it is now.
  • It should clarify that this is being recommended in conjunction with the recommendation of creating a Dean for Undergraduate Studies, with the understanding that some duties of that position would encompass some of what's being done by other assistant/associate VP's in his office.
  • We need to focus on definition of the duties of the position. This needs to be in place before this recommendation is made. Andy Larkin will work on defining the duties of those positions.
  • Is this contingent upon the acceptance of Item #2 (recommendation of a Dean and School of Undergraduate Studies)? Yes. Then that should be clearly stated, rather than assumed.
  • We need to make a stronger recommendation to combine the three positions into two.

Item #5f: Enlarging the Academic Council to include the provost, the associate vice presidents, and the deans and associate deans:

  • Why is it there? To bring together these officers of the university for regular discussion, so it's not just deans.
  • We're really only recommending that associate deans be added.
  • It's not a problem the way it is.
  • With regard to the possible COSE restructuring, if it works, Associate Deans would have to be given more authority and should be included.
  • If it were to read that way, would there be a problem with an associate dean not going? There are two issues here – one is identifying who's on committee, the other is if there are line responsibilities. There is a wide range of communication between deans and associate deans. But attendance at Academic Affairs Council is pretty much mandatory.
  • It takes more people out of their regular work to attend a meeting.
  • It would be good because there would be a broadening of communication flow. There are a lot of details that the associate deans handle, and they can add to the academic affairs council discussion. Associate deans can be looked at as a bridge between faculty and deans.
  • Should we just throw it out or make it explicit so that the whole university knows who's included? The problem is that people don't know.

Do we feel we've addressed the seven items we were asked to address? We should review those along with our recommendations before Friday's meeting. Members will consider rewording of various recommendations before Friday's meeting, which is going to be the last meeting.

It was decided the organizational charts of other universities will not be put on the website because of the large volume. They are available from Andy Larkin if anyone wants to see them. 

Since Andy Larkin is on the Executive Committee of the Faculty Association he needs to add a sentence about dissolving the task force, but that it can be re-convened if needed.