University of Minnesota, Morris
April 4, 2005
Members Present: Sarah Mattson, Jim Carlson, Sharon VanEps, Bryan Herrmann,
Lowell Rasmussen, Emily Carr, Matt Croaston, Andy Lopez,
Maddy Maxeiner, Sara Haugen, Arne Kildegaard
Guests: Fritz Schwaller, Sandy Olson-Loy, Sam Schuman
Andy Lopez asked committee members for agenda items for the remaining spring semester meetings. Some topics include: Briggs Library and Blakely predesign, campus capital request for 2006 and 2008, HEAPR allocations, an update from on Advising office, discussion of salaries, and External Relations Fundraising.
Andy Lopez asked committee members for their thoughts on the motion from the Executive Committee. LeAnn Dean said that based on her recollection as a member of both CRPC and the Executive Committee, when it was suggested that Maddy give an update to CRPC, she thought that was fine because Maddy periodically does that anyway. At the next EC meeting, one member felt that not all the questions were answered. Sam did answer all of the questions in a follow-up e-mail. She thinks the situation has become murky and there is now a level of tension that she is uncomfortable with. She questioned the relationship between the two committees. Arne Kildegaard said he agrees there is confusion about the relationship between the committees. He has heard rumblings that the governance structure at UMM is not terribly functional and perhaps the bigger question to address is whether or not there is a more sensible way to govern the campus. He added that maybe the request reflects a certain nostalgia for something that was never there. He is not enthusiastic about taking on an adversarial role. Andy Lopez added that the committee received the report which contained a lot of information and now we must decide if wešre happy with the report. LeAnn Dean added that she thought the original intent was that this kind of information would typically fall under CRPC and not Executive Committee. Arne Kildegaard asked if the entire Executive Committee believes the questions were answered. Sam Schuman said that although the entire Executive Committee was invited to the presentation, only two were present and he did sent the follow-up e-mail answering all the questions to CRPC and EC. He added that from his observation, his hope is that the administration and this committee could work together, not necessarily that this committee would make administration tow the line. Every year the same question arises about the committees charge. He noted that a couple of years ago he offered to let CRPC do the budget for the campus and it was clear the committee did not want to do that. He added that the administration does not want be secretive or unaccountable and they are not above scrutiny. Andy Lopez added that the committee is not experienced enough to do the budget, however, the committee can offer suggestions and he believes there is no further information needed. Sara Haugen made a motion that the CRPC believes the answers to the questions forwarded from the EC, with regard to alumni, fund raising and external relations, were perceived to be adequate as given. Motion passed: 10 yes, 1 abstention.
The committee finished looking at the proposal from the Getty Grant. A motion was made by Jim Carlson stating that CRPC supports the direction in which the Getty Grant is proceeding. Second by Arne Kildegaard. Motion passed.