University of Minnesota, Morris
Campus Resources and Planning Committee
March 2, 2004
Members Present: Andy Lopez, LeAnn Dean, Mark Fohl, Bryan Herrmann, Kevin
Ely, Carol McCannon, Arne Kildegaard, Maddy Maxeiner,
Annie Olson, Tammy Faux, Mike Sullivan
Guests: Jim Mootz, Danielle Stuard, Greg Thorson, Bert Ahern
(In these minutes: Update on Enrollment, Tech fee issue, Faculty Affairs Committee Proposal)
Jim Mootz reported that the numbers are running even with last year. About a month ago, we were headed in the right direction now the numbers are going down slightly. Carol McCannon asked for the actual number of applications. Mootz said as of February 27, we had 976 applications and 189 confirmations. He added that we have many students on the incomplete list. Mootz complimented the staff for all their hard work. McCannon asked if spring visits have been planned. Bryan Herrmann responded that there are several big events planned: 1) Admitted Student Day on March 19 and March 25 is the first registration date. Mike Sullivan said the student leaders would be more than happy to meet with students on Admitted Student Day.
Kevin Ely distributed information about several issues regarding the Technology fee as outlined below:
Andy Lopez asked if this has been discussed with the Director of Computing Services. Ely responded that the Tech fee issues have been on-going and that the fees should not be used for disciplines. Mike Sullivan said currently there are no clear guidelines and we really need them. The on-line scheduling and scheduling of rooms needs to be solidified. Carol McCannon asked what¹s happening to students. Ely said there is no way to find out which computer labs are open and one big concern is that student money is being used for classes. Andy Lopez asked if John Bowers should be invited to an upcoming meeting.
Minutes of 2/19/04 approved as presented. Minutes of 2/26/04 approved with one minor change.
Greg Thorson reported that this proposal comes from the Faculty Development Committee. The committee looked at the structure at UMM and unlike our peer institutions and other COPLAC institutions, UMM does not have a Faculty Affairs Committee to address issues that affect faculty. He added that they have presented the proposal to MASA, the academic divisions, the Consultative Committee, and now CRPC in preparation for getting this on the assembly agenda. Bert Ahern said that as a result of the consultations, several important changes were made to the proposal, including that the membership of the committee will be more diverse. The work of the Faculty Development Committee concluded that faculty issues are not being addressed under the current system. They are aware of the concern about the duplication of efforts. Arne Kildegaard said even though the thought of creating another committee seems unattractive, this is an important idea. For example, there is a morale problem among junior faculty and there is no logical place for this conversation to begin. He hopes CRPC will support the proposal. Annie Olson suggested that one junior faculty member be on the committee at all times. Thorson confirmed that junior faculty need to be heard and there is difficulty in terms of how to structure the committee. They wanted students and MASA representation. He added that membership would consist of one representative elected from each academic division. Carol McCannon said she agrees that there is not enough support for junior faculty. Thorson said they are politically vulnerable. Maddy Maxeiner asked if this would be an assembly committee. Ahern said the powers and responsibilities must be exercised in accordance with all-university policies as well as other existing constitutional provision. Lopez asked how they plan to deal with the criticism that there are already too many committees. Thorson said this has been the strongest argument because the campus has taken deliberate steps to reduce committees. However, he feels there are significant issues that need to be addressed and there is currently no mechanism to address those. Kildegaard asked if the Executive Committee wanted CRPC to make a motion. Danielle Stuard said the Executive Committee wanted to hear from CRPC and the Consultative Committee on whether or not they thought this was a good idea. Maxeiner said she was delighted to hear that they talked to the MASA group because workload is also an issue for them. Lopez said his concern about this committee is the potential for duplication of efforts. Thorson asked Lopez for a statement from CRPC stating that this proposal was discussed.
The next CRPC meeting will be Thursday, March 18 at 8:00 a.m.