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 have
decided 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 our
Strategic 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 that
provides rigorous degree programs with an applied professional orientation that are well grounded in the liberal arts. We will be known for not only producing exceptionally
equipped 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 pillars
will 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 framework
I 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 and
prosper 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 when
the 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 together
and 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 the
organization. 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 our
faculty 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 the
framework 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-
nary identity and autonomy in any new organizational structure as we create larger administrative structures to create efficiencies and capture savings. Striking this balance has
led 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 agree
with 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 make
decisions 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 work
yet 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 occur
in 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 think
of 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 solve
complex 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:

Provost’s Open Forum: Tuesday, Nov. 16
Strategic Planning Committee Listening Session: Wednesday, Nov. 17
Strategic 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. I
am privileged to be your Provost at this critical time. Thank you for the opportunity.

Devinder Malhotra
Provost & Vice President for Academic Affairs
 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 organizational
models 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 shared
with the campus community. The organizational framework was designed to provide a more integrated student experience that sustains flexible and supportive pathways and to
enhance 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 Framework

The proposed organizational framework organizes our current academic programs into four colleges and one free-standing school. The proposed framework uses organizational
units as defined below:

Colleges: In the proposed framework, colleges serve as an organizational superstructure that can contain schools, departments and programs. Academic programs can be
housed 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 that
provide unique degree programs but also expand opportunities to build interdisciplinary or joint degree programs with other programs in the school. Schools are lead by
an 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 Dean’s 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, academic
departments 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 the
department 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 can
exist within departments, schools or at the college level and have different leadership structures depending on their location within the organizational structure. Faculty
rostering 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 focus
and centers serve a single college or set of colleges. Both entities serve research, coordination, and outreach functions. The institutes and centers identified are organized
to 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.
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-level
programs. 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 also
to enhance interdisciplinarity and interaction among its programs and experiential learning opportunities for its students. The creation of a School of Public Affairs will allow
SCSU 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 existing
departments and programs in the areas of computing, engineering and the environment in order to leverage and better coordinate our existing expertise in these programmatic
areas 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 human
service 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 allow
for 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 and
institutes, University College is still a work in progress that will be informed by the Academic Support, Administrative & Operating Program & Service Appraisal (ASAOPSA)
process.
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 the
number 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 retirements
Unit 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 FTE
across 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 the
model. 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 to
capture 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 faculty
and 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 savings
estimate 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.
 Recommended Organizational Framework for St. Cloud State University—Presented Nov. 12, 2010
School of Health
College of & Service
College of Business College of STEM College of Education
Liberal Arts Professions

Dept of Teacher & Nursing Program

Dept of English School of Dept of Accounting School of Comp., Special Education
Public Affairs Engineer. & Environ.
Gerontology Program
Dept of Dept of Community
Communication Studies Dept of Management Electrical & Computer Psych, Human Develop.
Economics Program Engineering Program & Family Studies Social Work Program
Dept of Foreign
Languages Mechanical & Manufacturing
Political Science Program Dept of Marketing & Engineering Program Communication Sciences &
Information Systems Disorders Program
Dept of
Environmental & Technology
College-level
Mass Communications Criminal Justice Program Studies Program Programs
Dept of Finance, Kinesiology & Health Program
Insurance & Real Estate
Dept of History Geography & Community Land, Air & Water Program
Planning Program Information Media Program Medical Lab, Nuclear &
Radiological Tech Programs

Dept of Philosophy
Dept of Mathematics Human Relations Program Counseling Programs
School of the Arts & Statistics
Dept of Psychology
Ed Leadership &
Dept of Chemistry &
Music Program Physics
Administration Program College of Graduate
Dept. of Sociology & Education
Anthropology
Theatre & Film Studies Physical Education Program
Program Dept of Biology Center for Statistics &
Research Consulting
College-level
Programs Art Program
Twin Cities Graduate Center

Religious Studies Program Doctoral Center

Global, Ethnic and Gender

Studies Program School of Professional
& Continuing Studies

Institute for Innovation Institute for Global Institute for Educational Research Center for Undergraduate
Institute for Sustainability & Cultural Studies Research & Experiential Learning
& Entrepreneurship & Secondary Teaching

University College
 College of Liberal Arts

Degree Program Degree-seeking Degree Program Degree-seeking

Dept of English
School of the Arts Music, BA, , Bmus, BES 36 English, BA 77
Music, minor 3 FYE: 882 English, MA 105
Music Program Music Teaching, BS 12 Degree-seeking: 296 English, minor 18
Music, MM 15 Communication Arts & Literature, BS 55
Theatre & Film Studies Faculty lines: 30
Program Theatre, BA 19 Creative Writing, minor 22
Theatre, minor 4 Linguistics, minor 2
Art Program Film Studies, BA 54 Rhetorical & Applied Writing, minor 9
Film Studies, minor 21 TESL, minor 8
FYE: 741 Studio Art. BFA 131
Degree-seeking: 354 Art History, BA 10 Degree Program Degree-seeking
Dept of Philosophy
Faculty lines: 38 Art Education, BS 34 Philosophy, BA 28

Art, Minor 7 FYE: 481 Philosophy, minor 9

Graphic Design, minor 8 Degree-seeking: 37

Degree Program Degree-seeking Faculty lines: 12.5

Dept of History
History, BA 32
History, minor 7 Degree Program Degree-seeking
FYE: 307 Mass Communications
History, MA 25 Program
Degree-seeking: 64 Mass Communications, BS 337

Faculty lines: 12 FYE: 324 Mass Communications, minor 22

Degree-seeking: 376 Mass Communications, MS 17

Communication Studies Degree Program Degree-seeking
Faculty lines: 11
Program
Communication Studies, BA 109

FYE: 583 Communication Studies, minor 61 Foreign Languages Degree Program Degree-seeking
Degree-seeking: 218 Communication Studies: Interdep, 23 Program
German, BA, BS 6
BS
Faculty lines: 24 FYE: 212 German, minor 4
Communication Studies: Supp, BA 16
Degree-seeking: 81 French, BA, BS 6
App. Relational Conflict Mgmt, minor 2
Faculty lines: 11.5 French, minor 4
Intercultural Communication, minor 7
Spanish, BA, BS 48
Spanish, minor 13
 College of Liberal Arts

Degree Program Degree-seeking Dept of Sociology & Degree Program Degree-seeking

School of Public Anthropology
Affairs Economics, BA 42 Sociology, BA 56
Economics, minor 19 FYE: 495 Sociology, minor 24
Economics Program Business Economics, BA 63 Degree-seeking: 154 Anthropology, BA 47
Mathematical Economics, BS 3 Faculty lines: 18 Anthropology, minor 7
Political Science Program Applied Economics, MS 29 Cultural Resource Mgmt Arch, MS 20
Public & Non-profit Institutions, MS 7
Geography & Community
Planning Program Political Science, BA 65 Degree Program Degree-seeking
Dept of Psychology
Political Science, minor 20 Psychology, BA 119
Criminal Justice Program FYE: 535 Psychology, minor 76
International Relations, BA 25
International Relations, minor 4
Degree-seeking: 210 Ind./Organizational Psychology, MS 15

Geography, BA 80 Faculty lines: 12

FYE: 1607 Geography, minor 4
Degree-seeking: 973 Degree Program Degree-seeking
Geography, MS 15 College-level programs
Faculty lines: 50 Chicano/a Studies, minor 1
Travel & Tourism, BA 76
American Indian Studies, minor 3
Travel & Tourism, minor 11 Global, Ethnic & Gender
Studies Program African American Studies, minor 1
Land Surveying & Mapping Sci, BS 40
Ethnic Studies, minor 3
Geographic Info Systems, minor 16 FYE: 192
Women’s Studies, BA 21
Planning & Community Develop, BA 24 Degree-seeking: 65
Women’s Studies, minor 13
Planning & Comm. Develop., minor 5 Faculty lines: 11
Global Studies, BA 17
Criminal Justice Studies, BA 237
Religious Studies Global Studies, minor 1
Criminal Justice Studies, minor 16
Program
African Studies, minor
Criminal Justice Studies, MS 68
FYE: 27 East Asian Studies, minor 4
Public Safety Exec Leadership, MS 19
Degree-seeking: 11 Latin American Studies, minor 1
Social Studies Education, BS 85
Social Studies, minor
Faculty lines: 1
Degree Program Degree-seeking
Religious Studies, minor 11
 College of Business

Degree Program Degree-seeking Interdisciplinary Degree Program Degree-seeking

Dept. of Accounting
Programs
Accounting, BS 269 International Business, BS 28
FYE: 359 International Business, minor 10
FYE: 156
Degree-seeking: 269 Entrepreneurship, BS 23
Degree-seeking: 244
Faculty lines: 12 Entrepreneurship, minor 4
Faculty lines: N/A
MBA 179

Degree Program Degree-seeking

Dept. of Management
Management, BS 277
FYE: 392 Management, minor 31
Degree-seeking: 308
Faculty lines: 17

Dept. of Marketing & Degree Program Degree-seeking

Information Systems
Information Systems, BS 73
FYE: 654 Information Systems, minor 11
Degree-seeking: 340 Information Assurance, MS 15
Faculty lines: 22 Marketing, BS 164
Marketing, minor 64
General Business, BS 3
General Business, minor 10

Dept. of Finance, Degree Program Degree-seeking

Insurance & Real Estate
Finance, BS 239
Finance, minor 25
FYE: 266
Real Estate, BS 20
Degree-seeking: 287
Real Estate, minor 3
Faculty lines: 11
 College of Science, Technology, Engineering & Mathematics

School of Degree Program Degree-seeking Degree Program Degree-seeking

Computing, Applied Computer Science, BS 6 Meteorology, BS 22
Engineering
& Technology Computer Science, BS 42 Meteorology, minor 2
Computer Science, minor 2 Geology, minor 4
Electrical & Computer
Engineering Program Computer Science, MS 31 Hydrology, BS 16
Computer Engineering, BS 8 Hydrology, minor 9
Mechanical & Manufacturing
Engineering Program Network Info. Security Sys., BS 42* Earth Sciences, BA 2

Environment & Technology Network Info. Security Sys., minor Earth Sciences, minor 1
Program Data Communications, minor Earth & Space Science Teaching BS 7
Computer Algorithmics, minor
Land, Water & Air Program
Computer Organization & Prog, minor
FYE: 924 Computer Networking & App., minor 1
Degree-seeking: 608 Electrical Engineering, BS 59
Faculty lines: 48 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
 College of Science, Technology, Engineering & Mathematics

Dept of Mathematics & Degree Program Degree-seeking

Statistics
Mathematics, BA 12

FYE: 724 Mathematics, minor 26

Mathematics Teaching, BS 4
Degree-seeking: 91
Statistics, BS 31
Faculty lines: 30
Statistics, minor 2
Applied Statistics, MS 16

Dept of Chemistry & Degree Program Degree-seeking

Physics
Chemistry-ACS Approved, BS 23
FYE: 777 Chemistry, minor 9
Degree-seeking: 104 Chemistry Teaching, BS 8
Faculty lines: 23 Physics, BS 11
Physics Teaching, BS 1
Physics, minor 1
Optics, minor 3
Biochemistry, BS 32
Forensic Science, minor 16

Degree Program Degree-seeking

Dept of Biology
General Biology, BS 47
FYE: 821 Biology, BES 10
Degree-seeking: 261 Biological Sciences, MA/MS 24
Faculty lines: 22 Biology Teaching, BS 16
Biology, Minor 29
Biomedical Sciences, BS 99
Ecology & Field Biology, BS 30
Biotechnology, BS 6
 College of Education

Dept of Teacher & Degree Program Degree-seeking

Special Education College-level
Elementary/K-8 Education, BS 231 Programs
FYE: 645 Curriculum & Instruction, MS 16
Degree-seeking: 518 Reading Teacher K-12, GC 1 Degree Program Degree-seeking
Human Relations Program
Faculty lines: 26 Teacher Leader, GC 4 Human Relations, minor 58
Special Education, BS 76 FYE: 271 Social Responsibility, MS 31
Special Education, MS 57 Degree-seeking: 89
Special Education, minor 39
Faculty lines: 7
Emotional/Behavioral Disorders, GC 37
Learning Disabilities, GC 33
Ed Leadership & Degree Program Degree-seeking
Developmental Disabilities, GC 14 Administration
Ed Admin & Leadership, MS 16
Autism, GC 10
FYE: 110 Ed Admin, 6th Year 49
Degree-se Ed Admin & Leadership, EdD 28
Dept of Community Degree Program Degree-seeking king: 175
Higher Ed Administration, MS 40
Psych, Human Develop.
Early Childhood, BS 62 Faculty lines: 4
& Family Studies Higher Ed Administration, EdD 42
Early Childhood, minor 15
FYE: 845
Family Studies, MS 36 Degree Program Degree-seeking
Degree-seeking: 458 Information Media Program
Community Psychology, BS 199 Information Media, MS 38
Faculty lines: 22
Community Counseling, MS 32 FYE: 150 Instructional Technology, GC 11
Community Psychology, minor 8 Degree-seeking: 61 Design for E-learning, GC 5
Counseling Psychology, MS 68 Library Media Specialist, GC 7
Faculty lines:
College Counsel. & Student Dev, MS 38

Degree Program Degree-seeking

Physical Education Program
Physical Education, BS 23
FYE: 276 Athletic Coaching, minor 28
Degree-seeking: 68 Health & Physical Education, BS 17

Faculty lines: 5
 School of Health & Service Professions

Degree Program Degree-seeking

Nursing Program
Nursing, BS 175

Gerontology Program Nursing, MS

Medical Technology, BS 32*
Social Work Program Radiologic Technology, BS 46
Nuclear Medicine Technology, BS 7
Communication Sciences
& Disorders Program Comm. Sci. & Disorders, BS 18*
Comm. Sci. & Disorders, MS 35
Kinesiology & Health
Program Comm. Sci. & Disorders, minor

Medical Lab, Nuclear & Medical Lab Science, BS 15

Rad. Tech. Programs Social Work, BS 123
FYE: 720 Social Work, MSW 30

Degree-seeking: 862 Gerontology, minor 14

Faculty lines: 53.5 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
 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 Agreement’s 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 committee’s work and would not remove the faculty member’s 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 faculty’s recommendation will be given preferenced consideration since the program faculty are best situated
to make an informed recommendation relating to their program.
 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 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 Agreement’s 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 committee’s work and would not remove the faculty member’s 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.