University of Minnesota, Morris

Commission on Women

Advisory Board Meeting Summary



Date: October 1, 2002           


In Attendance:   Anna Dronzek, Argie Manolis, Leann Dean, Amy McGovern, Karen Johnson, Clare Strand, Laura Knight, Shannon Kielblock


Not Present:  Julia Dabbs, Shezwae Fleming, Carol Ford, Miriam Panton, Sara Mennen



Items discussed:  Old model for serving as Coordinator versus implementing a new model for serving as Coordinator. Reassessing current model for the coordinator position; Clare said that the Past Coordinators haven’t always been available to serve on the board the year following their term as Coordinator; there was an idea for a “Coordinator Elect,” but that didn’t appear to have played out.   Karen said it’s hard to fill positions and know a year in advance.  There are problems with getting release-time and back-filling positions.  Concerns are work overload and faculty/staff leave.  Options for new model (permanent position) were explored:

    -PA  position 40% time, 10 months

    -Clerical,  48% time, 12 months

Many questions raised, what about the new initiative that come from alternating coordinators (possible solution—from the board members). Another concern that was brought up was who would be the permanent coordinator’s supervisor?  Karen said it was critical where authority would lie.  It was said that this was a timely discussion with the discussion about a vice chancellor for multicultural affairs.  Karen mentioned retention of spouses, relocation as a plus for this type of position.  Clare suggested having an open forum to get feedback from the campus.  A couple board members were concerned that this was not a hot enough topic to get a lot of people discussing.  Amy suggested a luncheon or breakfast and inviting people as a “focus group” to get better input from a variety of people.  The board will contact potential nominees for a Faculty/ teaching PA Coordinator for 2003-2005 to find out what keeps nominees from saying yes.  The goal is to identify obstacles in the current model.


Conclusions:  Explore old model and look for inadequacies.



Action taken:  Gave assignments to board members to call people who were nominated for coordinator position.  Clare will send a script via email that board members can use to conduct an informal survey of potential faculty/teaching PA nominees to see what aspects of the position keeps them from accepting nomination and/or concerns they have about the coordinator position.


Next Board Meeting: October 22nd-- Discuss the old and new models in light of the new information gathered from informal phone surveys.