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:
Issues:
Solutions:
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.