University of Minnesota Morris
 

 
 

 
UMM Home > Committees > Faculty Affairs > Minutes > 02-08-06

Faculty Affairs Committee Minutes (02-08-06)

Meeting: Wednesday, February 8, 2006 in the Prairie Lounge

Present: Stacey Parker Aronson, Keith Brugger, Bart Finzel, Tom Mahoney, Argie Manolis, Pam Solvie, Janet Schrunk Ericksen,

Absent: Keith Brugger

The Faculty Affairs Committee was called to order on Wednesday, February 9 at 9:00.

Sarah Mattson, of the University of Minnesota, Morris Human Resource office was a special guest.   She was asked to attend the meeting to discuss the exit interview process, etc.  

Stacey updated the election process; Sam Schumann suggested that the committee postpone the elections for 1 year to next spring. Pam Solvie, Stacey Parker- Aronson and Argie Manolis would go off at the same time. While wanting to do things as usual (elections) will the terms that were to be up in one year's time be postponed for one year also?

.

The committee discussed the Exit Interview process

  • When someone resigns there are contacts made using the same list serve as when they were hired, so that the right people are notified.

Campus Security

Human Resources office/benefits

Computer services

  Division contacts

  • A checklist is used for the routing of an exit interview

Supervisor-Internal interview (meaning within UMM)

Exit interview is given to employee to be filled out or can be completed at exit interview with supervisor

Completed interview sheet is sent back to Sarah's office

Routed to supervisor

Area Vice Chancellor

  • The Twin Cities Campus also sends an exit interview to the employee

Probably not as useful as UMM's - multiple choice not essay

Salary is a bigger issue for leaving at the Twin Cities

  • What are some issues mentioned for leaving on UMM campus?

Another position

Furthering education

Geography

Personal reasons

Health reasons

Spousal opportunities

  • What are some of the things people like most about UMM?

People

Students

Classroom freedom

  • What things are liked least?

Limited resources

On the job training

Little money for professional development besides attending conferences.

Pay could be better

Waiting period for retiree benefits

Lack of guidance and support

Limited Resources for research

Better office arrangement

Comment listed: A clear vision or mission is needed at UMM

How many exit interviews are completed?

About one third are completed at meetings and another one third are done by employees and sent in. HR office does track the forms to some degree. About 50 have been completed since 2001. Twin Cities had 3 people complete their form.

Have exit interviews been tracked according to gender?

            They have not been in the past.  

Would it help if when the form was sent by the Human Resource office to the Division Chair, if HR would follow up with a phone call?

            Sarah said that she could do that, if it would help the completion rate.

What is the history of the process?

The UMM was doing their exit interviews first and the Twin Cities started at about that time, both campuses do forms. UMM will continue to do our form as the information is much more constructive.

How could the checklist for choice of who the exiting employee would meet with be changed?

Clarification was needed on whether the employee has to meet with his/her immediate supervisor; but the supervisor does need to see the form.

  • The employee is not required to meet with his/her supervisor
  • Should supervisor be changed to Division Chair?
  • Faculty training?Professional development or mentoring and PA similar to faculty;

Non teaching P&A does see their supervisor as the Discipline coordinator or more closely their discipline colleagues.

Sarah asked if the Faculty Affairs Committee would like to see a draft of one done for specific P&A?

Should this form not go through Division Chair but through Human Resource office and if it is filled out with HR should it be returned to the Division Chair of the division where the employee is?   Yes, the finished form should be returned to the Division Chair.

There should be a check off indicating who he/she is willing to share the information with, such as Division Chair, Faculty Affairs Committee.

Who should complete the interview?  

            Individually

            Division Chair

            Or someone else

It would be ideal to meet with the person and have discussion, complete on own and mail the form to VC or Sarah or other suggestion.

How could the form be delivered to the exiting employee so it is not misplaced or forgotten?

            Directly from Sarah with directions

            Sent to hiring authority-with a personal call to set up an appointment.  

It was reiterated that this form is not sent to someone who has been let go.

Sarah asked for routing suggestions?

            Dean

            Division Chair-what can they do with the info? Do they keep records (over a 5 year period what is reason for exit?)

            Strategic Planning

            Vice Chancellors

           

            Annually share the information with the Faculty Affairs Committee. Do the Division Chairs share the information with department coordinators, could certain people be bypassed if so desired by the exiting employee?   The Dean needs to see the form to deal with the reason for leaving. Sarah said she likes to go to Division Chairs so they are accountable to their staff-they need this info-she would like to keep them in the loop.   The meeting with the Division Chair should be optional for the exiting employee. The Faculty Affairs Committee feels they can affect policy changes where Division Chairs don't have as much control over work environment.   The Division Chairs are sandwiched between the administration and the faculty?not able to facilitate change.   Sarah will update the Division Chairs on information so they stay in the loop.

A question was brought up by a committee member concerning reasons for leaving the UMM; by the time the appropriate people learn of the reasons for leaving have we missed the boat?   In other words could there be a way to deal with some of these reasons so that people wouldn't feel the need to leave?

Another concern was expressed: Have practices been changed because of the Exit Interview?

            One area that has improved is spousal/partner job opportunities

Sarah asked if there were any other questions the Faculty Affairs Committee would like her to put on the form

            1.   What Opportunities have you taken advantage of? i.e. mentoring-grants and other professional development programs

                   Have they been made aware of these opportunities or chose not to participate?

•  Are work load issues and related balance of work loads a reason for leaving?

•  U climate? i.e. ethnic, color or sexual orientation

•  Recognition of contributions?

•  May not want to put reason down

When should the form be sent out?   And should it be sent to people who are asked to leave for disciplinary reasons or terminated for cause?

The form is sent to those whose position has been eliminated.

Do they get one if they have not made tenure, so they know why they didn't make tenure?

Do they get one if they are here for a one year position and don't get hired again?

The form could be used to give the exiting person an outlet with which to express him/her self.

Should there be some response made to the person exiting?

Sarah will put a draft together and email to Stacey Parker Aronson.

Sarah said she would like to start tracking the forms with numbers and possibly get to a 90% to 95% completion rate.

The Faculty Affairs Committee would like to be an option for the exit interview (one person on the committee not the whole committee). A structured interview would have to be followed, using the questionnaire, according to Sarah.

The Faculty Affairs Committee was formed to deal with faculty and is in the best position to advocate for our institution. It was brought up that there should be two forms one for Faculty and P&As and one for other staff.

It was brought up that we will continue prioritizing the agenda at the next meeting, February 22, 2006.

Respectfully submitted by Judy Van Eps