Plugin-Provost's Final Recommendation Report Nov 12 2010

8/8/2019 Plugin-Provost's Final Recommendation Report Nov 12 2010

1/15

St. Cloud State University Academic Reorganization

A Final Recommendation Report by Provost Devinder Malhotra

Nov. 12, 2010

SCSU Campus Community:

We have reached a critical point in our reimagining of St. Cloud State University. Following is my recommendation for a new organizational structure for our University. I havedecided to put forward a single model for discussion because I believe we are ready to move forward with implementing our vision for SCSU that was developed through ourStrategic Action Planning process. It is our vision that five years from now, St. Cloud State University will be recognized throughout the Midwest region as an institution thatprovides rigorous degree programs with an applied professional orientation that are well grounded in the liberal arts. We will be known for not only producing exceptionallyequipped professionals but also exceptionally well educated professionals who are prepared to be leaders in their life and work. Students will seek out SCSU because they under-stand that a degree from our university means they will develop substantial knowledge and skills in the areas of global and cultural competence, sustainability and civic engage-ment. They will have opportunities throughout their education to engage in experiential learning that will help them translate their theoretical learning into action. These pillarswill be our covenant with our students, and we will be able to demonstrate to our constituents that we consistently deliver on our promise. I believe the organizational frameworkI propose is the first, critical step in moving us closer to our vision.

The organizational framework I suggest should be viewed as an intermediary step. Through reorganization, we are taking the first steps along a pathway for SCSU to grow andprosper rather than a declaration that we have achieved an endpoint. During spring semester, we will begin the transition to our new structure that will allow us to capture the

necessary savings for FY12, but the transition will not be complete by June 30. I expect it will take another year or more to complete all elements of the restructuring. Even whenthe reorganization is complete, we must make a commitment to evaluate and assess our structure and be open to change over time.

For example, a restructured SCSU will encourage the movement toward more integrated curriculum among our schools, departments and programs as we learn to work togetherand explore new, strategic opportunities that our new organizational structure affords. As programs grow and change, there will be opportunities to re-evaluate their place in theorganization. It is my hope that as we develop processes to leverage the different types of organizational structures created in the model, such as centers and institutes, new inter-disciplinary research and program opportunities will emerge and we will discover new ways of working together that lead to a more professionally fulfilling environment for ourfaculty and staff and a more integrated, rigorous experience for our students. It will take some time to live into the promise of our reimagined SCSU, but I am confident that theframework laid out in this document will provide the foundation to build our emerging academic identity.

I appreciate the thoughtful and difficult work of the Strategic Planning Committee, as we have moved from gathering general ideas and concepts to a narrowing of ideas that re-sulted in the single model presented today. I also appreciate the opportunity to hear from a number of departments and groups to learn their perspective as different structures

were presented. I have tried to integrate your thoughts into the organizational framework I am proposing. One message I heard clearly was the importance of maintaining discipli-


2/15

nary identity and autonomy in any new organizational structure as we create larger administrative structures to create efficiencies and capture savings. Striking this balance hasled to the creation of administrative units with varying size and complexity that will be resourced equitably but not equally. I recognize that not everyone on campus will agreewith the structure I have put forward. In preparing the model, I tried to balance the views and visions of our academic departments and programs with the need to position St.Cloud State University for the future. As the academic leader of our university, I have a responsibility to both listen to individual members of the campus community and makedecisions that are in the best interest of the entire organization. I believe the organizational framework I have laid out in the following pages accomplishes this task.

Finally, I want to thank the entire campus community for your thoughtful engagement in this process. Together, we have accomplished a great deal, and yet there is much workyet to be done. Soon, we will develop a transition plan that will outline the many necessary steps that will need to be completed to move successfully to our new organizational

structure. An important element of the transition plan will be a reconfiguration of space to align with our new organizational units and a discussion of how governance will occurin the new units. Included in this document are my thoughts on governance in the new model. Both items will require further discussion before moving forward. Even as I thinkof the myriad of tasks in front of us, I am confident that we will be successful in our implementation because of the tremendous ability of our campus to work together to solvecomplex problems.

I invite you to review the structure and its components with an eye to the future and the strategic position of SCSU. As always, I am open to hear your thoughts as we move to-ward a final decision. To that end, we have provided three different opportunities to provide feedback.

Opportunities for feedback:

Provosts Open Forum: Tuesday, Nov. 16Strategic Planning Committee Listening Session: Wednesday, Nov. 17Strategic Planning Committee Survey: Wednesday, Nov. 17-Sunday, Nov. 21

Additional information will be forthcoming on each of these opportunities. I look forward to our continuing conversation about the exciting future of St. Cloud State University. Iam privileged to be your Provost at this critical time. Thank you for the opportunity.

Devinder MalhotraProvost & Vice President for Academic Affairs


3/15

A Proposed Organizational Framework for St. Cloud State University

The following organizational framework is the recommended organizational structure for St. Cloud State University. It was developed after receiving the revised organizationalmodels prepared by the Strategic Planning Committee and presented to the Provost on Oct. 25, 2010 and additional comments he received after the revised models were sharedwith the campus community. The organizational framework was designed to provide a more integrated student experience that sustains flexible and supportive pathways and toenhance the rigor and relevance of our academic programs. Consistent with the reorganization outcomes identified at the beginning of the reorganization process, the organiza-tional framework should:

Improve organizational connectedness by breaking down silos so we can more easily share information;

Better facilitate inter- and multidisciplinary work and innovation by providing institutional structures and systems to help emerging programs thrive;Embed flexibility and feedback loops into our systems and structures;Decrease administrative overhead so that we can preserve and focus our resources in the classroom and on serving students.

Elements of the Organizational FrameworkThe proposed organizational framework organizes our current academic programs into four colleges and one free-standing school. The proposed framework uses organizationalunits as defined below:

Colleges: In the proposed framework, colleges serve as an organizational superstructure that can contain schools, departments and programs. Academic programs can behoused in schools, departments or as free-standing college-level programs. Colleges are lead by an academic dean.

Schools and programs: Schools are more narrowly focused academic structures that bring together closely aligned disciplines around a particular thematic focus. In the pro-posed framework, schools occur as organizational units within colleges or as a free-standing organizational unit. Schools contain autonomous disciplinary programs thatprovide unique degree programs but also expand opportunities to build interdisciplinary or joint degree programs with other programs in the school. Schools are lead byan academic Associate Dean/Executive Director. School programs are lead by a chair with chair reassigned time as outlined in the IFO Master Agreement.

College-level programs: College-level programs are currently small academic programs that do not appropriately combine with other academic units to form a larger admin-istrative unit but have the opportunity and potential to grow over time. The college-level programs are organized under and will receive support from the Deans office.College-level programs are led by a chair with chair reassigned time as outlined in the IFO Master Agreement.

Departments: Departments are even more narrowly focused academic structures that house a unique or small collection of unique disciplines. Whenever possible, academicdepartments were organized to create a consistent department size of 16 or greater faculty. In addition to faculty size, number of degree-seeking students assigned to thedepartment also was considered. When a department had greater than 15 faculty or 300 degree-seeking students, it was assigned its own support staff. Academic depart-ments with fewer than 15 faculty or 300 degree-seeking students were assigned shared support staff. Departments are lead by a chair with chair reassigned time as out-lined in the IFO Master Agreement.

Programs: Programs represent an even more narrowly focused academic structure organized around a degree program or closely affiliated degree programs. Programs canexist within departments, schools or at the college level and have different leadership structures depending on their location within the organizational structure. Facultyrostering will occur by program.

Institutes and Centers: The operational frame for institutes and centers has yet to be finalized but in general terms, institutes have an institution-wide importance or focusand centers serve a single college or set of colleges. Both entities serve research, coordination, and outreach functions. The institutes and centers identified are organizedto further our strategic pillars of global and cultural competence, sustainability, civic engagement and experiential learning. Institutes and centers would be led by a di-rector or coordinator, depending on their size and scale of operation. It is expected that institutes would have some revenue-generating activity. As currently conceived,the proposed centers do not contain degree programs but could potentially house degree programs in the future.


4/15

Organizational Framework Description

College of Liberal Arts: The College of Liberal Arts contains two schools, School of the Arts and School of Public Affairs, eight academic departments and two college-levelprograms. The College brings together departments and programs from our existing College of Fine Arts & Humanities and College of Social Sciences into a single entity fo-cused on the fine arts, humanities and social sciences. The School of the Arts unites the visual and performing arts in a structure that allows the individual arts to thrive and alsoto enhance interdisciplinarity and interaction among its programs and experiential learning opportunities for its students. The creation of a School of Public Affairs will allowSCSU to build an identity for and expand our programmatic offerings in areas of public administration, planning, international relations, criminal justice and public affairs leader-ship. Along with excellent programmatic offerings in economics, political science, geography, community planning and criminal justice, it will be the home for a new Masters in

Public Administration and other future interdisciplinary programs.

College of Business: The College of Business maintains its current organizational structure.

College of Science, Technology, Engineering & Mathematics: The College of Science, Technology, Engineering & Mathematics (STEM) contains one school and three depart-ments that focus on the applied and basic sciences. The more narrowly defined STEM college will allow SCSU to expand our reputation as a science powerhouse, while organiz-ing our resources to serve the increasing public demand for graduates in STEM related fields. The School of Computing, Engineering & the Environment brings together existingdepartments and programs in the areas of computing, engineering and the environment in order to leverage and better coordinate our existing expertise in these programmaticareas and build additional capacity for future growth and programmatic development and distinction.

College of Education: The College of Education contains two departments and three college-level programs in an organizational structure more focused on the education field.The proposed framework should be seen as a transitional structure as we await the outcome of the Teacher Preparation Initiative. There also are additional conversations that need

to occur related to the placement of the Center for Information Media and the role of instructional technology expertise and programming across the campus.

School of Health & Service Professions: The School of Health & Service Professions is a free-standing unit that organizes our degree programs that prepare health and humanservice professionals into a single school. The unit brings together degree programs and departments that were scattered across four of the five existing colleges into a more cohe-sive unit that will allow SCSU to expand our reputation for preparing graduates to meet the emergent needs in these professions. More closely aligning these programs will allowfor greater collaboration, additional real-world experiences for our students and the opportunity to expand programs in this area.

University College: The University College presented in the model represents a possible organizational unit that will support our undergraduate experience. Similar to centers andinstitutes, University College is still a work in progress that will be informed by the Academic Support, Administrative & Operating Program & Service Appraisal (ASAOPSA)process.


5/15

Data definitions:The organizational framework includes information on programs and scale of activity within each of the proposed units. The model attempts, whenever possible, to balance thenumber of faculty and supervisory structures. It also takes into account the number served, both FYE and degree-seeking. Both factors will be important in determining appropri-ate levels of unit support. The data that appears in the tables is defined as follows:

Estimated faculty lines: Permanent lines as of Nov. 1 IFO Seniority Roster, including an estimation of impact of BESI and retirementsUnit FYE: Student FYE generated by listed departments and/or programs for FY 2010 (includes Summer 2009, Fall 2010, Spring 2010 semesters)Degree-seeking students: Active enrolled students who have declared major, minor or graduate programs for Fall 2010

Estimated savings:An initial cost estimation of the proposed model indicates that the administrative expense for the five academic colleges and schools (Liberal Arts, Business, STEM, Education,and Health and Service Professions) plus the five proposed centers and institutes (Innovation & Entrepreneurship, Sustainability, Global & Cultural Studies, Undergraduate Re-search & Experiential Learning and Educational Research & Secondary Teaching) would be reduced by approximately $4.3 million and a reduction of approximately 49 FTEacross all position assignment types.

The calculations are based on computing average salaries for each position type (Dean, Associate Dean, Chair, Director, OAS, etc.) and re-allocating those positions across themodel. The total for the new structure ($9.3 million) was then compared to the administrative cost of the existing structure ($13.6 million). It is clear that we will not be able tocapture all of these savings and can anticipate that up to 50 percent of the salary savings and FTE will need to be invested back into the new structure to provide adequate facultyand student support. As we begin implementation during spring semester, we will develop a clearer sense of where that reinvestment will need to occur and will refine the savingsestimate as that work progresses.

Governance:Draft documents describing an approach to faculty governance for the proposed organizational framework is included at the end of this document.


6/15

College ofLiberal Arts

College of Business College of STEM College of Education

School of the Arts

Music Program

Theatre & Film StudiesProgram

Art Program

Dept ofMass Communications

Dept of History

Dept of Philosophy

Dept of English

Dept ofCommunication Studies

Dept of ForeignLanguages

School ofPublic Affairs

Economics Program

Political Science Program

Criminal Justice Program

Geography & CommunityPlanning Program

Dept. of Sociology &Anthropology

Dept of Accounting

Dept of Management

Dept of Marketing &Information Systems

Dept of Finance,Insurance & Real Estate

School of Health& Service

Professions

Nursing Program

Gerontology Program

Social Work Program

Communication Sciences &Disorders Program

Kinesiology & Health Program

Medical Lab, Nuclear &Radiological Tech Programs

School of Comp.,Engineer. & Environ.

Electrical & ComputerEngineering Program

Mechanical & ManufacturingEngineering Program

Environmental & TechnologyStudies Program

Land, Air & Water Program

Dept of Mathematics& Statistics

Dept of Chemistry &Physics

Dept of Biology

Dept of Teacher &Special Education

Dept of Psychology

College-levelPrograms

Religious Studies Program

Global, Ethnic and GenderStudies Program

Institute for SustainabilityInstitute for Innovation

& Entrepreneurship

Institute for Global& Cultural Studies

University College

Center for UndergraduateResearch & Experiential Learning

College of GraduateEducation

Center for Statistics &Research Consulting

Twin Cities Graduate Center

School of Professional& Continuing Studies

Doctoral Center

Dept of CommunityPsych, Human Develop.

& Family Studies

Counseling ProgramsHuman Relations Program

Information Media Program

Ed Leadership &Administration Program


Physical Education Program

Institute for Educational Research& Secondary Teaching

Recommended Organizational Framework for St. Cloud State UniversityPresented Nov. 12, 2010


7/15

College of Liberal Arts

School of the Arts

Music Program

Theatre & Film StudiesProgram

Art Program

Dept of History

Degree Program Degree-seeking

Music, BA, , Bmus, BES 36

Music, minor 3

Music Teaching, BS 12

Music, MM 15

Theatre, BA 19

Theatre, minor 4

Film Studies, BA 54

Film Studies, minor 21

Studio Art. BFA 131

Art History, BA 10

Art Education, BS 34

Art, Minor 7

Graphic Design, minor 8


History, BA 32

History, minor 7

History, MA 25

FYE: 741

Degree-seeking: 354

Faculty lines: 38

FYE: 307

Degree-seeking: 64

Faculty lines: 12

Dept of PhilosophyDegree Program Degree-seeking

Philosophy, BA 28

Philosophy, minor 9FYE: 481

Degree-seeking: 37

Faculty lines: 12.5


English, BA 77

English, MA 105

English, minor 18

Communication Arts & Literature, BS 55

Creative Writing, minor 22

Linguistics, minor 2

Rhetorical & Applied Writing, minor 9

TESL, minor 8

Dept of English

Communication StudiesProgram

Mass CommunicationsProgram

Foreign LanguagesProgram

FYE: 882

Degree-seeking: 296Faculty lines: 30


Communication Studies, BA 109

Communication Studies, minor 61

Communication Studies: Interdep,BS

23

Communication Studies: Supp, BA 16

App. Relational Conflict Mgmt, minor 2

Intercultu ral Communication, minor 7


Mass Communications, BS 337

Mass Communications, minor 22

Mass Communications, MS 17


German, BA, BS 6

German, minor 4

French, BA, BS 6

French, minor 4

Spanish, BA, BS 48

Spanish, minor 13

FYE: 583

Degree-seeking: 218

Faculty lines: 24

FYE: 324

Degree-seeking: 376

Faculty lines: 11

FYE: 212

Degree-seeking: 81

Faculty lines: 11.5


8/15

College of Liberal Arts

Economics Program


Economics, BA 42

Economics, minor 19

Business Economics, BA 63

Mathematical Economics, BS 3

Applied Economics, MS 29

Public & Non-profit Institutions, MS 7

Political Science, BA 65

Political Science, minor 20

Internationa l Relations, BA 25

Internationa l Relations, minor 4

Geography, BA 80

Geography, minor 4

Geography, MS 15

Travel & Tourism, BA 76

Travel & Tourism, minor 11

Land Surveying & Mapping Sci, BS 40

Geographic Info Systems, minor 16

Planning & Community Develop, BA 24

Planning & Comm. Develop., minor 5

Criminal Justice Studies, BA 237

Criminal Justice Studies, minor 16

Criminal Justice Studies, MS 68

Public Safety Exec Leadership, MS 19

Social Studies Education, BS 85

Social Studies, minor

FYE: 1607

Degree-seeking: 973

Faculty lines: 50

Political Science Program

Criminal Justice Program

Geography & CommunityPlanning Program

College-level programsDegree Program Degree-seeking

Chicano/a Studies, minor 1

American Indian Studies, minor 3

African American Studies, minor 1

Ethnic Studies, minor 3

Womens Studies, BA 21

Womens Studies, minor 13

Global Studies, BA 17Global Studies, minor 1

African Studies, minor

East Asian Studies, minor 4

Latin American Studies, minor 1


Religious Studies, minor 11

FYE: 192

Degree-seeking: 65

Faculty lines: 11

School of PublicAffairs

Global, Ethnic & GenderStudies Program

Religious StudiesProgram

Dept of Sociology &Anthropology


Sociology, BA 56

Sociology, minor 24

Anthropology, BA 47

Anthropology, minor 7

Cultural Resource Mgmt Arch, MS 20

FYE: 495

Degree-seeking: 154

Faculty lines: 18


Psychology, BA 119

Psychology, minor 76

Ind./Organizational Psychology, MS 15

Dept of Psychology

FYE: 535

Degree-seeking: 210

Faculty lines: 12

FYE: 27

Degree-seeking: 11

Faculty lines: 1


9/15

College of Business

Dept. of AccountingDegree Program Degree-seeking

Accounting, BS 269

FYE: 359

Degree-seeking: 269

Faculty lines: 12

Dept. of ManagementDegree Program Degree-seeking

Management, BS 277

Management, minor 31FYE: 392

Degree-seeking: 308

Faculty lines: 17

Dept. of Marketing &Information Systems


Information Systems, BS 73

Information Systems, minor 11

Information Assurance, MS 15

Marketing, BS 164

Marketing, minor 64

General Business, BS 3

General Business, minor 10

FYE: 654

Degree-seeking: 340

Faculty lines: 22

Dept. of Finance,Insurance & Real Estate


Finance, BS 239

Finance, minor 25

Real Estate, BS 20

Real Estate, minor 3

FYE: 266

Degree-seeking: 287

Faculty lines: 11

InterdisciplinaryPrograms


International Business, BS 28

International Business, minor 10

Entrepreneurship, BS 23Entrepreneurship, minor 4

MBA 179

FYE: 156

Degree-seeking: 244

Faculty lines: N/A


10/15

College of Science, Technology, Engineering & Mathematics


Applied Computer Science, BS 6

Computer Science, BS 42

Computer Science, minor 2Computer Science, MS 31

Computer Engineering, BS 8

Network Info. Security Sys., BS 42*

Network Info. Security Sys., minor

Data Communications, minor

Computer Algorithmics, minor

Computer Organization & Prog, minor

Computer Networking & App., minor 1

Electrical Engineering, BS 59

Electrical Engineering, MS 14

Manufacturing Engineering, BS 6

Mechanical Engineering, BS 78

Engineering Management, MEM 105

Technology Management, BS 23

Technology Education, BS 15

Environmental & Tech. Studies, BS 0

Environmental & Tech. Studies, MS 9

Technology Studies, minor 0

Environmental Studies, BS 42

Environmental Studies, minor 5

Environmental Science, BS 10

Regulatory Affairs & Services, MS 40

Applied Clinical Research, MS 7


Meteorology, BS 22

Meteorology, minor 2

Geology, minor 4Hydrology, BS 16

Hydrology, minor 9

Earth Sciences, BA 2

Earth Sciences, minor 1

Earth & Space Science Teaching BS 7

School ofComputing,Engineering

& Technology

Electrical & ComputerEngineering Program

Mechanical & ManufacturingEngineering Program

Environment & TechnologyProgram

FYE: 924

Degree-seeking: 608

Faculty lines: 48

Land, Water & Air Program


11/15

College of Science, Technology, Engineering & Mathematics

Dept of Mathematics &Statistics


Mathematics, BA 12

Mathematics, minor 26

Mathematics Teaching, BS 4Statistics, BS 31

Statistics, minor 2

Applied Statistics, MS 16

FYE: 724

Degree-seeking: 91

Faculty lines: 30

Dept of Chemistry &Physics


Chemistry-ACS Approved, BS 23

Chemistry, minor 9

Chemistry Teaching, BS 8

Physics, BS 11

Physics Teaching, BS 1

Physics, minor 1

Optics, minor 3

Biochemistry , BS 32

Forensic Science, minor 16

FYE: 777

Degree-seeking: 104

Faculty lines: 23

Dept of BiologyDegree Program Degree-seeking

General Biology, BS 47

Biology, BES 10

Biological Sciences, MA/MS 24

Biology Teaching, BS 16

Biology, Minor 29

Biomedical Sciences, BS 99

Ecology & Field Biology, BS 30

Biotechnology, BS 6

FYE: 821Degree-seeking: 261

Faculty lines: 22


12/15

College of Education


Information Media, MS 38

Instructional Technology, GC 11

Design for E-learning, GC 5

Library Media Specialist, GC 7


Human Relations, minor 58

Social Responsibility, MS 31

Human Relations Program

Information Media Program

Ed Leadership &Administration

Dept of CommunityPsych, Human Develop.

& Family Studies


Dept of Teacher &Special Education


Elementary/K-8 Education, BS 231

Curriculum & Instruction, MS 16

Reading Teacher K-12, GC 1Teacher Leader, GC 4

Special Education, BS 76

Special Education, MS 57

Special Education, minor 39

Emotional/Behavioral Disorders, GC 37

Learning Disabilities, GC 33

Developmental Disabilities, GC 14

Autism, GC 10

FYE: 645

Degree-seeking: 518

Faculty lines: 26

FYE: 845

Degree-seeking: 458

Faculty lines: 22


Early Childhood, BS 62

Early Childhood, minor 15

Family Studies, MS 36

Community Psychology, BS 199

Community Counseling, MS 32

Community Psychology, minor 8

Counseling Psychology, MS 68

College Counsel. & Student Dev, MS 38


Ed Admin & Leadership, MS 16

Ed Admin, 6th Year 49

Ed Admin & Leadership, EdD 28

Higher Ed Administrati on, MS 40

Higher Ed Administrati on, EdD 42

FYE: 271

Degree-seeking: 89

Faculty lines: 7

FYE: 150

Degree-seeking: 61

Faculty lines:

FYE: 110

Degree-seking: 175

Faculty lines: 4


Physical Education, BS 23

Athletic Coaching, minor 28

Health & Physical Education, BS 17

Physical Education Program

FYE: 276

Degree-seeking: 68

Faculty lines: 5


13/15

School of Health & Service Professions

Nursing ProgramDegree Program Degree-seeking

Nursing, BS 175

Nursing, MS

Medical Technology, BS 32*

Radiologic Technology, BS 46

Nuclear Medicine Technology, BS 7

Comm. Sci. & Disorders, BS 18*

Comm. Sci. & Disorders, MS 35

Comm. Sci. & Disorders, minor

Medical Lab Science, BS 15

Social Work, BS 123

Social Work, MSW 30

Gerontology, minor 14

Gerontology, MS 16

Develop Adaptive Phy Ed, minor 14

Athletic Training, BS 29

Recreation & Sports Mgmt, BS 43

Sports Management, MS 38

Community Health, BS 36

Community Health, minor 3

Exercise Science, MS 6

Marriage & Family Therapy, MS 41

Marriage & Family Therapy, GC 3

Chemical Dependency, BS 30

Chemical Dependency, GC 11

Behavior Analysis, MS 97

FYE: 720

Degree-seeking: 862

Faculty lines: 53.5

Gerontology Program

Social Work Program

Communication Sciences& Disorders Program

Kinesiology & HealthProgram

Medical Lab, Nuclear &Rad. Tech. Programs


14/15

Guidelines for Article 20 Actions Regarding:

Policies and Procedures

Teaching and Work Schedules

Budgetary Matters

Curriculum

for St. Cloud State University (SCSU)

Academic Units with Multiple Programs

Prepared by

John W. Palmer, Interim Associate Provost

November 12, 2010 Draft

The IFO MnSCU Master Agreement (Agreement) requires that each member of the bargaining group shall be a member of at least one (1) department/

administrative unit. (Article 20 Section A. Subd. 2 of the Agreement) Within the Agreement the scope and method for doing department/administrative unit

work is defined in Article 20, Section A. Subd. 3. These guidelines are designed to be consistent with the provisions of the Agreement and thus the final deci-

sions regarding the exact method to employ in fulfilling the Agreements department/administrative unit obligations is reserved for the department/

administrative unit within the standards of law, the Agreement, and university policy.

The existence of department/administrative units containing multiple programs is not new to SCSU. What is new is the possibility that seniority rosters will

change from department based to program based and more administrative units will contain multiple programs and thus multiple seniority rosters. Having

multiple programs housed in large departments means that conducting department business may become more complicated, in part, do to the complexity re-

sulting from differences between the academic and scholarly standards of discipline based programs.

One way to address these problems is to delegate tasks to sub-committees of faculty members by program. This delegation would not mean the department

would be absolved of the responsibility to take action on the sub committees work and would not remove the faculty members right to make his or her own

recommendations. However, it should be a rare occurrence, to have the work of program based sub-committees reversed by the department when the matter

at hand is directly related to a specific program faculty assigned to that program whom are best situated to understand the nature of academic and scholarly

work within the discipline(s) encompassed by the program.

In order to be objective and consistent in application of Article 20 it is important that program based sub-committees initiate the recommendations to be

made. When the dean, vice president, and president review departmental recommendations regarding: Policies and Procedures; Teaching and Work; Sched-

ules; Budgetary Matters; Curriculum the program facultys recommendation will be given preferenced consideration since the program faculty are best situated

to make an informed recommendation relating to their program.


15/15

Guidelines for Article 22 and 25 Practices

for St. Cloud State University (SCSU) Academic Units with Multiple Programs

Prepared by

John W. Palmer, Interim Associate Provost

November 12, 2010 Draft

The IFO MnSCU Master Agreement (Agreement) requires that each member of the bargaining group shall be a member of at least one (1) department/

administrative unit. (Article 20 Section A. Subd. 2 of the Agreement) Within the Agreement the scope and method for doing department/administrative unitwork is defined in Article 20, Section A. subd. 3. These guidelines are designed to be consistent with the provisions of the Agreement and thus the final deci-

sions regarding the exact method to employ in fulfilling the Agreements department/administrative unit obligations is reserved for the department/

administrative unit within the standards of law, the Agreement, and university policy.

The existence of department/administrative units containing multiple programs is not new to SCSU. What is new is the possibility that seniority rosters will

change from department based to program based and more administrative units will contain multiple programs and thus multiple seniority rosters. Having

multiple programs housed in large departments means that conducting department business may become more complicated due to parochialism and misun-

derstandings based on differences between the academic and scholarly standards of discipline based programs. One way to address these problems is to dele-

gate tasks to sub-committees of faculty members based on participation in the various programs in the department. This delegation would not mean the de-

partment would fail to take action on the sub committees work and would not remove the faculty members right to make his or her own recommendations.

However, it should be a rare, to have the work of program based sub-committees reversed by the department when the matter at hand is personnel recom-

mendations on tenure, promotion, and non renewal since the faculty teaching in a program are best situated to understand the nature of academic and schol-

arly work within the discipline(s) encompassed by the program.

The administration of SCSU believes that delegation to program based sub-committees is in the best interest of the university, the program, department and

individual faculty member when personnel recommendations are to be made. When the dean, vice president, and president reviews applications for promo-

tion and/or tenure evidence that program faculty have had a primary voice in determining the departmental/unit recommendation should be provided. Fur-

ther the more grounded in specific standards (based on the 5 criteria described in Article 22) that define how a faculty member can receive a favorable recom-

mendation on tenure and promotion, the greater value will be given to standards based recommendations than to recommendations not based on published

and agreed upon standards. Evidence that the provisions of Article 22 regarding individual faculty comments designed to assist their colleagues in securing a

favorable recommendation on tenure or promotion will strengthen departmental recommendations. Further, evidence that the supervisor has had an oppor-tunity to provide individual faculty, program faculty, and the full department feedback on the appropriateness of the standards used by in making personnel

recommendations will also be given more weight than recommendations coming from units that acted without affording the supervisor the opportunity to pro-

vide feedback. It should be remembered that the purpose of these guidelines is to assist individual faculty and groups of faculty in giving standards based di-

rection to faculty concerning tenure and promotion. By using the approach outline by these guidelines the individual faculty being evaluated and the various

evaluators will have a structure for the making personnel recommendations that is transparent and predictable in a manner that anxiety is reduced and profes-

sional development becomes the primary purpose of Article 22 and 25 processes.

Documents

Plugin-Provost's Final Recommendation Report Nov 12 2010