University of Minnesota Morris
 

 
 

 
UMM Home > Committees > Faculty Affairs > Minutes > 02-22-06

Faculty Affairs Committee Minutes (02-22-06)

Meeting: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 in the Prairie Lounge

Present: Stacey Parker Aronson, 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 23 at 9:00 at the Prairie Lounge.

The meeting was called to order by Stacey Parker-Aronson.

Stacey stated that a student representative is still being sought for the committee.

I t was brought up that the Campus Assembly voted to permit Argie Manolis, Pam Solvie and Stacey Parker Aronson to remain on the committee and to postpone any vote until next spring. Keith Brugger is going off permanently, not just for his Sabbatical term.   Campus Assembly will take care of this.

Stacey will meet with Engin to request he develop a web site for the Faculty Affairs Committee.   She asked for input regarding what links the committee thought necessary to have on this website.

Policy documents for people to reference and are relevant to agenda items

Minutes (Agendas(?))

Membership

Some conduit for people to submit their concerns on line.

Stacey thanked Sarah Mattson for the process she went through to re do the exit interviews

A committee member brought up that there should be a policy statement concerning the exit interviews.  

He did not know they were being done and was questioning how many other faculty, P&A and staff were not aware of this procedure.

He thought it was vital that the Faculty Affairs Committee sees the results of exit interviews

                        It was brought up that there should be a goal of 100% of the exit interviews be completed

Discussion was held

Faculty Affairs Committee should be involved with the results

When someone is preparing to leave they should be given the option to talk directly with the FAC-especially if they are uncomfortable with their supervisor.

Results should come out of this policy

Person leaving should be given other options to doing the exit interview

Policy procedure should look at how employees inform others of their leaving

•  Discipline Coordinator

•    Division Chair

•    formal letter

What effort, if any, is made to try and keep the employee here, administration should make an effort to retain staff.

The question was asked, how do we as a committee make a policy statement?

            It should be the will of the Campus Assembly.

A member of the committee brought up that on the Twin Cities Campus the Faculty Affairs Committee sends their recommendation to the Faculty Senate with a recommendation that says the Faculty Affairs Committee believes this is the way to proceed on this issue.

Another member mentioned that we are independent-we should craft a statement and bring it forward.

It was brought up that if we are discussing procedure, Sarah Mattson should be contacted to find out the proper procedure.

            Ideas were brought up regarding how this procedure could be implemented:

                        Telephone call to employee exiting from Human Resource office

                        Deliver questionnaire from Human resource office directly to the exiting employee

A member thought there should be a list of Rationale for the policy change

                        1. Less than 100% are completed now

                        2. More people should receive

                        3. change in who should conduct

When presenting the policy it should be stated that the Faculty Affairs Committee favors this policy.

Should the policy be drafted within a time limit of 2 weeks???

The check-off options were discussed, regarding who would be the people to see for the exit interviews.

When should the policy go into effect- when the employee contacts the Division Chair about leaving?

It was discussed that the staff should be included.

A member asked if the P&A specific exit interview is ready, should it be included with the policy statement when it goes forward to Campus Assembly?

Discussion was held on what part the exit interview from the TC should play, and who receives the exit interviews,   in the case of terminations and position elimination??

Any policy change should be referred to Sarah Mattson to avoid any conflicts with Human Resources.

The Faculty Assessment Survey from Engin was discussed; does it adequately reflect P&A interests?   Another member brought up, is this something the Faculty Affairs Committee should be designing. And why is the Faculty Development Committee when they have no P&A representation. A member questioned what are they going to do with the numbers? The member commented it is too long and without comments there is not much use. It was also thought that asking faculty to fill out one more survey does not promote faculty relations.   Another member said that assessment should be data based, the numerical based assessment gives hard fast proof of (anything). The question was asked, does the Faculty Affairs Committee want to do something about this survey?   It does not address P&A, faculty response will not be high, like Students opinion of Teachers not taken seriously? There were mixed opinions on this. A member commented that we don't know some of the information they are trying to get at, his effort merits some applause but needs editing.   The broader campus has no way of knowing about the administration complaints or comments.   It would be useful to get feedback on survey.

The Faculty Development Committee asked the Faculty Affairs Committee to invite Engin to our meeting and discuss implementing the survey. What information would be gleaned if everyone filled out the survey? There is also a question about validity, and is there a time given that it would take to fill out the survey, there is none. The survey takes too long to complete, every semester is too often for faculty opinion of administration.   A member said we should invite Engin to our meeting to hear our concerns.

A member brought up the topic of the Faculty On line Club, it is divisive in that P&A's are not allowed access, and they need Engin's permission-needs to be taken to the Faculty Development Committee for permission. It is a BLOG for faculty to discuss matters on a secure web site. A member thought this goes against whatever the campus has done.   Why isn't the Faculty Development Committee coming up with these questions? The Morris Academic Staff Association has contacted Engin about the Online Faculty Club, it was brought up that the Morris Academic Staff Association should come to the Faculty Affairs Committee and agree that we favor the On line Faculty Club be discontinued.

A member expressed concern that we are spreading ourselves too thin, we should proceed with the exit interviews, but we should alert Engin about our concerns. A member asked when the next Campus Assembly meeting was, the 30 th of March and April 26.

The next University Senate, the Faculty Affairs Committee would like to restrict the written comments to the instructor of record.   They are bringing in an expert on teaching evaluations at the Twin Cities, an expert for themselves and not coordinate campuses.   FAC would suggest this is pointless, it was brought up that only Morris dissented. Was this a unanimous endorsement?   The meeting is held on a teaching day so Janet cannot attend, the expert would back up the opinion of the Twin City Campus.  

Stacey asked if we should meet next week.

The Strategic Planning Committee is listening to input from different committees, what issues should be addressed and what is or isn't doable?

Could we ask them for an early draft of what they are drafting? Pam will send draft to Stacy. There was a question as to whether or not we should meet on the 1 st of March, if we wait til the 15 th of March can we get the exit interview to CA in time? Yes.

Semester Leave was brought up briefly, policy procedure and how it is administered was brought up.

Meeting was adjourned at 10:10 am

Submitted by Judy Van Eps