Policy Board Minutes—6 Dec 2017
15:30
McL 250

PB members: Nola Agha, Rachel Brahinsky, Brandon Brown, Robin Buccheri, Jen Dever, Doreen Ewert, Joe Garity, Candace Harrison, Richard Johnson III, EJ Jung, Dorothy Kidd, Elliot Neaman, Mary Jane Niles, Meera Nosek, Julia Orri, Christina Purpora, Steve Roddy, Claire Sharifi, Betty Taylor, Brian Weiner

USFFA-FT members: Ja’Nina Garrett-Walker, Kathy Nasstrom, Paul Lorton, Jr., Annick Wibben, Zach Burns, Hwaji Shin

USFFA-PT—John Higgins, Sue Bae

Guests: Co-leads of the MAGIS Steering Committee: Anneliese Mauch (Office of Marketing and Communication) and Susan Prion (SONHP) https://myusf.usfca.edu/magis-project/committee

Minutes from 8 Nov were approved online

  1. Announcements
  2. Copies of the CBA booklets were distributed to PB members. All USFFA members will receive one in January.
  3. Tentative dates—March 20-21 for Spring General Meeting of the USFFA (one meeting on Tuesday and one on Wednesday), and elections for the USFFA Executive Board (all five slots) are scheduled for April. Voting will take place online from April 16-23.
  4. Zoom will be available in 2018 for PB members to attend meetings online
  5. Neaman reported that he had received data from Jeff Hamrick on how many new term hires are teaching the 4/4 load. Each case is different so one can’t just break the data down into neat categories, but a majority of the new term hires are not teaching the 4/4 load. Instead some of the teaching load has been converted to service. Neaman will send around a redacted copy of the information without names to PB members and by request to any USFFA member.
  6. Neaman also reported that Heller would be open to reinstating the budget committee, that is USFFA members with budget experience to meet regularly with the administration during the budget planning process.

  1. Open Forum
  2. Weiner raised questions regarding the two new PB sub-committees (Budget and Bylaws). (1) How many members? (2) Must they be PB members? (3) Are they appointed, elected or volunteers? (4) How long is the term? (5) Should all schools be represented? (5) Would the subcommittee meet during the spring semester, summer? PB decided to send around proposals by google doc  for the make-up and mandate of the committees for comment before calling for nominations.

 

  1. Wibben said that there was a proposal at College Council to explore the creation of a Faculty Senate. Brown said that COSEC was not in favor of establishing a faculty Senate.
  1. Higgins introduced Sue Bae—VP of USFFA-PT about inclusion of part-time members to be non-voting members of the various USFFA committees, councils etc. in the spirit of solidarity. Neaman said that this sounded right—he welcomed it, but added that the individual committees needed to address this issue as well because each committee had different rules and there may be some sensitive issues around adjuncts that can not be addressed with part-time faculty present. This item will be added to the Policy Board agenda in the spring to discuss.
  1. Shin asked about the request by the Provost to have the peer review committees write narratives along with their numerical recommendations (superior, adequate, inadequate), which is currently an option in Article 17 of the CBA but has not generally been practiced. Neaman said the Provost and Shirley McGuire met twice with current peer review members recently under the leadership of the USFFA. Neaman chaired the meeting. Neaman reported that the general sense of the peer review members was that this was not a good idea, since it would add much more work to an already laborious process and would not necessarily improve the peer review recommendations. For now the issue has been tabled, but could be taken up again if the peer review members see a need in the future.

  III. New Business

  1. Co-Leads of the MAGIS Steering Committee—Anneliese Mauch and Susan Prion. Harrison, a member of the Steering Committee, introduced Prion and Mauch. In June 2017 they were asked to lead a visioning process—look at ways to build community and eliminate redundancies. This was commissioned by the cabinet—seven Work Groups are organized around these topics: Processes & Systems, Academic Portfolios, External Relations & Global Visibility, University Services, Organization, Structure & Culture, Student Success and Physical Space Utilization, Management & Operations. Prion described the steering committee members. They were commissioned by the cabinet, but they are not a decision making body. One of the obstacles has been the perceived lack of a strategic plan. Prion explained that one goal of the MAGIS project was to clarify misconceptions about academic prioritization. The relevant data collection has now been mostly completed. It will be presented to the cabinet soon. She would like to talk more with the cabinet. One lingering question is what will happen to their recommendations?

Agha asked if the presentations of the findings were open to general comment. Prion said no but they will consider that. Mauch said that the proposed timeline initially could not be fulfilled. Ewert was concerned that the work groups were collecting data at the same time that academic prioritization in Arts and Sciences took place. Kidd thanked Prion and Mauch for coming. She asked if they were looking at the budget, whether their review considered the Cabinet, and what were their criteria? Prion explained the draft criteria. There were 4 “pain” points. Mauch said that they presented these before the Leadership Team. More communication with the entire USF community would be welcome, but they feel confident they had a productive meeting.

Buccheri said that she had received a survey from MAGIS without an explanation of the goals, purpose etc. Prion explained that all work groups were digging into issues. She added that campus planning was also addressed.

Brown said that UCSF has a similar structure called Operation Excellence. He asked them what they had learned so far. Mauch said that the timeline was not factored in. Prion added that this has taken on a personal mission—she was unsure if everything they heard was true. She wants to make this project as successful as possible.

Wibben asked about previous task forces—are these playing a role? Mauch said that each individual working group does research which include previous reports—they can’t capture everything. Mauch is hopeful that the cabinet is looking forward to the report.

Higgins asked if all USF faculty received surveys. Mauch said that everyone received an email to input ideas and suggestions. Roddy asked about the scope of the data being collected – what is the orientation point? Mauch answered that USF 2028 is the strategic guide. Taylor asked, in regard to USF 2028, who is the decision making body here? Prion answered the President’s Cabinet. Kidd opined that we need to have confidence in the final phase, in which everyone reviews the documents and discusses best steps for an action plan.

We thanked Prion and Mauch for their time. 

  1.     Organizational chart for USFFA—Agha. Agha created a USFFA org chart at the request of Arts Council based on discussion from last year on how they fit in. (seehttp://www.usffa.net/wp-content/uploads/USFFA-Org-Chart-and-Description.pdf) Agha read through the by-laws and created the chart to reflect the governing structure. Every faculty member is a member of one of the divisions (SOE, SOM, SONHP, Library, Arts, or Science). Each member communicates up through department chairs who are the members of each division’s governing council (e.g. “Art Council” in the Arts Division, or the “Faculty Governance Council” in SOM). Each of these governing council chairs works with Deans and Associate Deans in their school/division. This is the USFFA’s system of self governance within each school/division. Arts and Science are different in that they are two schools inside a larger college so they have an additional structure called the CAS, or College Council. (CC currently does not have by-laws. It is functioning on past practice. A potential task for the new Bylaws committee would be to assist Arts and Science in creating by-laws). The members of each division elect a number of Policy Board representatives (determined by the size of the division) that represent that division on the Policy Board. From that perspective, Policy Board is similar to a faculty House of Representatives instead of a faculty senate. The membership of the entire USFFA elects the Executive Board to run and manage the union. Agha further explained the org chart can be helpful given talk of a faculty senate in College Council and given that one of the Magis subgroups is related to Organization. She wanted all members to understand the structure of the union. Neaman and others thanked her for her efforts. He added that this is an opportunity to communicate to our members how the union works in relation to other governing bodies.

  1. Preparation for visit to PB from Provost Heller on Jan. 24, 2018. Neaman said that the Provost will attend for the entire meeting if needed. PB has prepared questions for his visit. He will be sent the questions beforehand. Neaman said that he would organize them into categories and distribute to PB in a google doc for comments.

Ewert suggested that perhaps Heller should provide a written response to each question before we meet. There was a discussion about the tone of the questions and that some sounded combative. Neaman said that he will put the questions in a logical order, make the tone consistent, and leave the questions open until the New Year. Nasstrom said that getting answers in writing would be good. Dever added that limiting the number to around 10 questions would also be good. Wibben asked about the structure of the meeting—we should have the most amount of time to pose questions. Neaman said that he hoped and thought there would be enough time both for us to ask questions and for the Provost to respond.

The meeting was adjourned at 16:57
Submitted by Julia Orri
USFFA Secretary