Minutes for Restructuring Conversation Team

11 September 2000

3:30 pm  Serna Conference Room

Present: 

1. The group decided to change the meeting time to begin at 3:00 on the appointed days since Mike Metcalf has a 4:00 pm class.
   
   
2. The team read and discussed the charge for the group to be sure we understood it.  Some discussion ensued in regard to what kind of assessment of different suggestions was expected.  Faye Vowell indicated that the team was encouraged to do any kind of assessment it wished.  The team also discussed the meaning of  “recommendations.”  Vowell also emphasized the need to examine the philosophical underpinnings of any organization as addressed in the charge.
   
   
3. Faye Vowell handed out four suggestions about restructuring.  These will be posted on the Restructuring Conversation page on the web.  The University community is encouraged to comment on the different visions.
   
   
4. The team wanted to know how other universities of our size are structured.  Vowell said she would contact the American Association of State Colleges and Universities  (AASCU) and ask for a list of schools with a similar number of students, faculty, and staff in a rural setting with a normal school background.  She will share this information with the team via e-mail.  Katherine Woodard said she would contact schools where she knew someone to find out how that school was structured; Michael Mann also volunteered to do so.
   
   
5. The team also asked to have a list of salary ranges and job descriptions of the secretaries on campus.
   
   
6. There was general discussion of how multi-disciplinary units such as Education and Business functioned and how a former organization with deans and chairs functioned or did not function.  Linda Baldwin mentioned matrix management as similar to an area studies kind of structure.  She agreed to send the team some more information on matrix management.  Vowell urged the team to be as creative as they desired in approaching restructuring.
7. The team suggested that a couple of questions needed to addressed by the campus community first.  Is there a reason to change?  If so,  how and at what rate—all at once or a little at a time?
   
   
8. Vowell agreed to draft that question with a bit of context and send it to the team for approval.
   
   
9. The conversation turned to how to involve the entire campus in the restructuring conversation.  Jack Ellis suggested we use a chat room.  Michael Mann suggested that each team member take the discussion back to his or her department or group for discussion.  Katherine Woodard suggested taking the discussion to Faculty Senate and to C&I.  Linda Baldwin suggested that a Restructuring Conversation Team (RCT) listserv be established.  Greg Rolfe agreed to do that.  The group also wondered how to elicit anonymous comments.
   
   
10. The team decided to wait to see the response to the posting of the 4 different visions on the web and what kind of participation there was in the web discussion of the reasons for reorganization before deciding on how to organize further meetings to give people a chance for comment.

This page has been visited times since 10/19/2000.