FACULTY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
Minutes of January 31, 2006
4:00 PM Faculty Center
Cyrus Bina (Chair), Edith Borchardt, Alicia Canfield, Gordon McIntosh, and EnginSungur (Ex Officio)
Bina called the meeting to order at 4:04 P.M.
FDC Minutes 12/13/05
Bina asked for corrections and/or approval of the FDC Minutes dated 12/13/05 . The minutes were approved unanimously.
Reflection on the Joint Meeting with the Faculty Affairs and the Consultative Committees
FDC members received copies of the joint-meeting minutes dated 1/19/06; Bina asked members for reflection on the meeting.
- Primary purpose was to discuss purpose and division of labor between the FDC and the newly found FAC
- Collecting pertinent information from faculty through various surveys
Sungur distributed a copy of Faculty Assessment/Evaluation Tools Proposal including the proposed surveys: (1) Faculty Quality of Life Survey, (2) Faculty Opinion on Administration Survey, and (3) Faculty Minute Paper. Sungur explained the purpose, process, and conduct of the surveys.
- The Faculty Center will design, implement, and do statistical analyses of surveys
- The Faculty Development, Faculty Affairs, and the Consultative Committees (the hub of the faculty self-governing structure) will interpret the surveys and will deliberate on proposed directions, and will convey them accordingly to UMM governance structure for administrative action.
Sungur plans, with the FDC's approval, to send these proposed surveys to the FAC for review and any proposed changes. He hopes to begin conducting these surveys this semester. Motion: (McIntosh/Canfield) McIntosh recommends to the FAC/CC to invite Sungur their respective committees for close examination of these surveys. Members unanimously approved the motion. Members suggested sending copies of proposed surveys to the respective chairs of these faculty committees for discussion and further review. Bina authorized Sungur to send the copies of proposed surveys to both the Faculty Affairs Committee and Consultative Committee directly. Finally, Bina's motion (Canfield/McIntosh) to accept the implementation of these surveys by the Faculty Development Committee was carried unanimously.
The Strategic Planning and Culture Meeting
Bina asked members for comments and interactions from the meeting with the Twin-Cities representatives from the University Committee on Strategic Planning and Culture held on January 24 at UMM. Members noted the following exchanges were made on the issues of concern:
- The existence of top heavy administrative structure and light (minute) administrative services;
- The lack of adequate consulting with the faculty;
- Heavy faculty workload;
- Special case of threaten discipline (German) at UMM and workload of German faculty;
- UMM, a nationally ranked institution, should not be compared with Coplac 14;
- Not enough faculty available to teach the German discipline;
- Concern over academic equity within the entire university, concerning workload, salary, scholarly recognition, etc. A member commented on the heavy and unfair teaching load, expectation of research and scholarship, and advising of students at UMM compared with their counterparts at the Twin-Cities campus. The high workload at UMM includes the burden of multi-tasking in the presence of diminishing staff support;
- Unable to do adequate research due to the crowding-out effects of the undefined and ad hoc daily tasks and virtually no serious support for research;
- The lack of equity in salary across the board;
- UMM faculty wish to be involved in every aspect of their governance;
- Mechanism that would not waste faculty's time in the bureaucratic engagements;
- Additional concerns about the UMM administration: “over administrative, under staffed”;
- Faculty do not need to be trained on the ad hoc daily arrival of the new computer software and any technology-related issues; faculty are adamant that technology support should be provided by the staff so that faculty's time will be allocated to what they are primarily hired for;
- The petty administrative tasks imposed on the faculty, such as the expectation that faculty fill out a report any time they give “F Grade” is nuisance;
Faculty Enrichment Program (FEP) 2005-2006
Copies of the FEP application and guideline were distributed for review and editing. Changes noted; the Faculty Center will send the revised application and guideline to full-time tenure track faculty in February; applications due on March 22. The program supports five mentor/mentee pairs. Motion: (Borchardt/Canfield) to approve the FEP application/guideline with noted changes unanimously approved.
Fall Faculty Retreat (August 21-22)
Members received copies of the proposal for the Fall Retreat 2006 at Arrowwood. Sungur noted that due to the restricted availability of the Arrowwood, he is proposing the Retreat begin Monday noon, and continue until Tuesday at 5:00 PM. Sungur remarked that the Retreat will begin at noon on August 21 with registration and lunch; details and topics shall be discussed at the next meeting. Members discussed other resorts; but distance and handicap accessibility issues at issue. Sungur also stated that this year's Retreat will be devoted to technology, and the Peter's is not physically suitable for supporting sessions on technology. Motion: (Canfield/Borchardt)-Canfield proposed the Fall Faculty Retreat 2006 be held at the Arrowwood, beginning Monday, August 21, with noon lunch/registration, and ending at 5:00 PM on Tuesday, August 22; it was approved unanimously. Sungur indicated the Faculty Center 's willingness to work with other elements of the campus in order to combine the New Faculty Spouse orientation with the Fall Retreat. This, Sungur noted, does not lead to any additional expenses.
On-Line Faculty Club (follow-up)
Members discussed the On-line Faculty Club. The issues discussed included:
- Why should the Administration and Staff have no access to the On-line Faculty Club?
- Why should the full-time members of Staff Association, who teach 75% of their time, have access to the On-line Faculty Club?
- Why not all individuals within the hierarchy (i.e., the campus power structure) be given access to the On-Line Faculty Club? Doesn't this introduce us to yet another division within the campus?
- Why should the FDC (as a governing committee of faculty) authorize the access to the On-Line Faculty Club rather than the FCLT Director?
- Why is the need, particularly in these trying times at UMM, for faculty for being able to have the heart-to-heart, frank conversation confidentially (i.e., without fear of reprisal)? And why not through On-line Faculty Club, which is incidentally designed for such a purpose.
- Suggested to allow guest account on site.
- Suggested to formulate paragraph-defining purpose of the site; paragraph could pop up with the guest request. PROPOSAL: McIntosh proposed a paragraph (explaining the purpose of the On-Line Faculty Club) pop up when someone applies for Guest Account; and make it a temporary account (guest request would need to be completed every 2 weeks).
Bina summarized the entire discussion (including the rhetorical questions) for the record as follows:
No one in one's right mind on this Committee wants to divide the campus or create layers of secrecy or, for that matter, impose positions of privilege on anyone on this campus. Our focus in this Committee is on the overall development of faculty at UMM, which includes the attempt at enhancing faculty morale and thus stimulating faculty participation toward self-governance in these dismal times. Online Faculty Club is intended to be operate as a vehicle for brain-storming toward the identification of the problem areas in the professional life of faculty at UMM and thus effective participation in the task of self-governing faculty responsibility. That is why the FDC by unanimous consent authorized the creation of Online Faculty Club in the first place. Should the Faculty Affairs Committee elect, this vehicle can be utilized as part of its channels of communication for its own objectives. The Committee encourages the campus community to understand the reason behind the idea of emphasizing on the faculty in connection with On-line Faculty Club. Of course, there will be particular arrangements for others who wish to participate in certain discussion via the Online Faculty Club Website. Professor Sungur agreed (with FDC's approval) to create a guest account for the On-line Faculty Club site for this purpose.
Sungur noted, beginning this month, the TAFS presentations will be electronically videotaped and made available (via podcasting) on the Faculty Center Website. Sungur pointed out that the speakers will have a choice if they wish to be videotaped. Speaker will be asked in advance to sign a permission form if their presentation is to be videotaped.
FDC Meeting Time for Spring Semester 2006
The FDC discussed the meeting time and schedule conflicts for Spring semester. Linda Pederson noted that due to Randi Peterson's coaching/game schedule, it is virtually impossible for her to attend the late afternoon FDC meetings. Bina replied, “The FDC is a working committee and cannot afford to have one of its members be absent on a permanent basis.” Bina will reflect on this issue by sending an email to Carrie Grousing, copy to Randi Peterson, concerning her lack of participation in this important committee.
Bina suggested that the FDC plan to meet every two weeks for the time being; the FDC is scheduled to meet again on February 14, at 4:00 P.M. , in the Faculty Center .
Finally, Bina extended his gratitude to Sungur for his extensive efforts on drawing up a comprehensive Assessment/Evaluation Tools Proposal; designing an On-Line Faculty Club and providing a channel of efficient communication among the Teaching Faculty at UMM.
Meeting adjourned at 5:15 P.M.