EC#3
Approved September 13, 2005.
September 06, Minutes
Indiana State University
Faculty Senate 2005-06
Time: 3:15 p.m.
Place: Hulman Memorial Student Union 227
Present: Chairperson S. Lamb, Vice Chair V. Sheets, Secretary Sr. A. Anderson
V. Anderson, B. Evans, B. Frank, C. Hoffman, J. Hughes, S. Shure
Ex-Officio: Provost Maynard
Guests: L. Sperry
I. Administrative Report
Provost Maynard addressed:
1) visitors to the campus are working with the College of Nursing on a plan to help train nurses
for India;
2) official enrollment data is now being analyzed; budget implications are being considered;
there is an enrollment reduction in the Corrections Guards National Program training—lower new hires;
retention rate is status quo; graduate enrollment has increased—signifies quality perception; loss of
Hoosier enrollment—down 700—increases the institution’s cost per FTE; no gain in transfer students.
Admission standards will not be lowered—the goal to be an institution of choice for high achieving
students will remain; marketing emphasis is still at the institution level;
3) an Enrollment Management Taskforce is being constructed to address enrollment management
issues; letters are to be mailed tomorrow;
4) the first meeting of the full Taskforce on the First Year and eleven-member steering
committee will occur next week; the taskforce will work with the Policy Center on the First-Year of
College’s Foundations of Excellence program; Bob Guell is the University’s Liaison to the Policy
Center.
II. Chair Report
Chairperson Lamb report:
“Much praise has been offered to the grounds keepers for the beauty of the campus, especially during
the heart of the summer when conditions were miserable. They truly have kept this campus in
remarkable shape.
I have heard that no longer will Lilly money be used to match individual contributions to a
department, unless those funds are going to an endowment. My word is that the President’s cabinet has
decided that only if money goes to endowments, will Lilly money be used to match the gift. If monies
are just going directly to a department for expenditures, it will not be matched. This word needs to get to
the departments.”
Provost Maynard clarified that the Lilly Endowment Matching Program will support two major categories of
projects: 1) Support for the Student Recreation Center. The University has committed to raise 25% of the cost
of the center thru private dollars. 2) Support for the University Endowment to primarily support student
scholarships. Every academic unit in the University has the potential to leverage this to secure funds to support
students in the unit.
Chair Lamb continued, “Dr. Susan Moncada states that she has been very pleased working with
the folks from Principal Financial Group, who now administer our health insurance. She has felt like she
is dealing with an organization that truly cares
about the health of their customers. Susan further states that personnel within Staff Benefits have been
very helpful.
Also hearing from faculty concerned about the VEBA trust—money invested to give some sound
financial backing to our retirement benefits program. It is gathering interest. I am not quite sure if it
comes out of individuals pay checks, or that it has been coming directly out of the University funds,
before it ever gets to individuals pay checks.
A number of faculty are fearful that the VEBA funds are going to be used as a means to deal with the
current budget shortfall.
Provost Maynard said that accounting principles, regulated by law, would prohibit use of the VEBA funds for
any purpose other than the originally designated one.
Chair Lamb continued by distributing some data on freshmen enrollment. The following information is
taken from the website: http://irt2.indstate.edu/home/stats/stats.htm#roll
(click on common data sets by year. However, year 2005 is informed guess work.)
Freshmen
Full-Time
Plus
Year Full-Time Part-Time
2005 2,916 3,078 (This line is guess work)
2004 3,116 3,284
2003 3,656 3,934
2002 3,923 4,259
2001 4,091 4,458
First, ignoring 2005 data, since 2001, the number of full time Freshmen have
decreased by 975 or by 24%; and the number of total freshmen (full time and part
time) have decreased by 1174 or by 26%.
Next, incorporating 2005 data, since 2001, the number of full time Freshmen has
decreased by 1,175 students or by 29%; and the number of total freshmen (full time
and part time) has decreased by 1,380 students or by 31%.
My 2005 data is not from an ISU website; it is from my understanding of newspaper
accounts. I would appreciate corrections to that line of data.
One side-bar. It seems apparent that the marketing campaign has not yet yielded the success
hoped for. And right now, chairs are being asked to report on those classes that have low enrollments,
with some levels of criticism felt. I understand that the purpose is to make sure that adjuncts are not
being extensively used when regular faculty could be used. But, it does seem a little ironic. It is similar
(not identical) to not giving a tree sufficient water, and then criticizing the branches for not producing
enough leaves. Something is amiss.
Regardless, the University as a whole needs to recognize that this is as close to an emergency as
we have come. I do believe that at the next Faculty Senate meeting, we need to have a general
discussion about the enrollment/budget picture. The institution is under tremendous strain.
I intend to invite the Director of Admissions, Richard Toomey, to our next Executive Committee
meeting in order to get his sense of the reasons given by students to choose other than ISU. He is on the
front line. And he probably has a better sense of the obstacles than almost anyone else.
I intend to invite Vice President Gregg Floyd, to the Executive Committee meeting after that for
him to translate the enrollment challenges into budget challenges.
Then, at our next Faculty Senate meeting, I would like both present to make a presentation and to
field questions on the enrollment/budget picture.
At our last scheduled meeting with Provost Maynard, we discussed a number of personnel issues.
We discussed the Executive Committee officers’ compensation package, an issue first introduced for
discussion by past Senate Chair, Harriet Hudson. No change in that package has occurred in 12 years.
And we discussed the future role of the Compensation Committee.
III. Fifteen Minute Open Discussion
1) Concern that the change in admission standards will not raise retention.
2) Suggestion that program marketing might benefit enrollment.
3) Observation that the academic calendar and administrative calendar are out of sync.
4) An update on program prioritization is needed.
5) Concern that the expenses for two campus initiatives will impact enrollment—Recreation Center and
Notebook Initiative.
6) Statement that the University has not finalized “what it wants to be”.
7) Concern that the decision to eliminate the modem pool did not include faculty consultation—hope that
instructional use could be subsidized.
8) Structural remodeling in the Library—who approved, who is funding, is the academic mission suffering for
facility comforts?
IV. Approval of the Minutes
Minutes of the August 23, 2005 meeting were approved. (Evans, Hoffman 8-0-1)
V. Old Business
Faculty Dismissal Hearing Committee
William Clyburn was approved by consensus for service.
FAC Replacements
Approved, by consensus, Yasenka Peterson for service and Thomas Potter as alternate.
FAC Recommendation: Handbook Language Related to University Initiatives
Guest was invited to the table. (Hoffman, Evans 8-0-1)
Further discussion ensued regarding the dimensions of scholarship.
Approved as amended (A. Anderson, Shure 9-0-0):
Faculty appointments and annual reviews shall be founded on the disciplines and missions of the academic units
and the University. The assignment of academic rank and the award of tenure shall be based on faculty
achievements in the interrelated activities of teaching or librarianship; research, scholarship, or creativity; and
service.
Faculty engaged in the challenging work involved in teaching and facilitating learning need to be active in the
profession and provide instruction based on current scholarship as well as advising students where appropriate.
Faculty are expected to engage in research, scholarship or creativity that may include original work focused on
discovery and integration;
and/or scholarship focused on teaching and learning; and/or scholarship that applies methods and theories of
their disciplines to address substantial problems. Each academic unit (normally the department) will be
responsible for determining the relative importance of these research domains within the unit.
Service may consist of service to the University, to the discipline, or to the community. Community service, as
defined here and elsewhere in these policies, refers to service in which the faculty member offers disciplinerelated expertise to an external agency, company, or non-profit organization.
FAC Recommendation: Handbook Language re: Faculty Enrollment in Courses at ISU
Motion to send back to the FAC with comments (Sheets, Hoffman 8-0-1):
Enrollment by faculty members in courses should not conflict with assigned
duties in the University. A faculty member may not enroll in a
course in his/her own department. A faculty member who desires to take a graduate
course at Indiana State University must first confer with the Dean of the College of
Graduate Studies. Prior approval of the department chairperson, the appropriate
academic dean, and the graduate professor scheduled to teach the course are required.
A member of the faculty above the rank of instructor may not work toward a
degree at this University. Exceptions to this policy may be granted through petition of
the Dean of the College of Graduate Studies and the Provost. If tenured, a faculty
member must resign his/her position upon entering a program leading to an ISU
graduate degree.
A faculty member may enroll for no more than twelve (12) semester hours of
work during a regular academic year. If a faculty member holds a teaching
assignment during a summer term, he/she may enroll in courses but the total activity,
teaching and personal course enrollment, may not exceed six (6) hours in any summer
term.
Faculty members enrolling in courses at Indiana State University are expected to
follow normal enrollment and registration procedures.
V. Sheets summarized supportive comments for allowing faculty to take courses and C. Hoffman summarized
objections to accompany the document upon its return to FAC.
Non-supportive comments:
“The Handbook prohibition on faculty enrollment in ISU degree programs should be retained
(perhaps even strengthened). The existing policy is desirable from a number of perspectives:
DEGREE-SEEKING FACULTY – One goal and hallmark of a true university is the availability and
clash of a variety of backgrounds and perceptions. If faculty earn in-house degrees/certificates, they do
not gain the necessary outside exposure and expertise and cannot, therefore, make it available to their
colleagues and students. Their preparation will be restricted to emulation and propagation of points of
view already available which, in the long run, serves neither the faculty member nor the institution.
FACULTY TEACHING COURSES in which other faculty are enrolled for credit will always be aware
that they are grading a colleague and are responsible in some respect for that colleague's professional
future. A personal relationship may already exist, especially within departments. All will try, of course,
to be objective, but is that possible under the circumstances? No member of the faculty should be put in
a position in which his/her judgment/objectivity/professionalism may reasonably be questioned.
ENROLLED STUDENTS -How will other students enrolled in the course react? All the explanation in the world will not remove
the perception that the enrolled faculty member has an "edge." Such perception will work to the
detriment of all. Even the perception of the possibility of favoritism harms all.
THE UNIVERSITY – An additional problem is one of perception outside ISU. The reputation of the
institution will be compromised by "inbreeding." Even with safeguards and oversight to prevent abuse,
the possibility and perception will remain. At a time when ISU is trying to market itself as a "firstchoice" "research-intensive" "cutting-edge" school, the "inbreeding" will be especially troublesome,
both among scholars and the public.
“Relaxing” the current prohibition will likely be tantamount to a blanket endorsement. It would be very
difficult to approve one case and deny the next. All faculty members can reasonably claim career
enhancement, financial hardship, access to courses, etc. Vague
language in the Handbook that suggests case-by-case decisions will not be adequate for denying any
request.
All of the above argue against relaxing the existing policy. For the little to be gained, we cannot afford
the risks.”
Supportive comments:
“The Handbook prohibition on faculty enrollment in ISU degree programs should be relaxed. Although
it is important that our policies avoid the appearance of nepotism and cronyism, a blanket prohibition on
faculty enrollment in ISU degree programs seems unduly restrictive. Many of the concerns people hold
about faculty taking courses at ISU are (or could be) dealt with in other ways, and there are instances in
which both a faculty member and the institution may benefit from enabling faculty to enroll in ISU
programs.
First, faculty members may find that their research goals are enhanced by a second degree. For instance,
faculty working in an interdisciplinary area of research may find that their ability to seek and sustain
external funding to carry out specific projects may be improved by formalized training in a substantive
area outside of their original degree area.
Second, faculty may find that their expanded credentials give them validity to teach new courses or
supplement their current courses. Someone in psychology, for instance, might like to complete an MBA
program that would improve ability to teach about issues relating to running a professional practice,
impacts of changes in insurance procedures on practice, or even marketing issues for professionals.
Third, faculty in many accredited programs need to engage in Continuing Education in order to retain
licensure, and it is unfortunate that our faculty must go elsewhere (and pay) for these opportunities.
Fourth, the University may benefit from enabling faculty to get “cross-trained” in a second area,
particularly if that is an area in which we’ve had difficulty recruiting or retaining good faculty; such
cross-training of our own people would enable such faculty to step-in when another faculty member
leaves the institution or goes on sabbatical.
Finally, the university may also benefit by its ability to “cherry-pick” some of its most promising
graduate students by hiring them before they’ve completed their doctoral work.
Rebuttal of Opposing-viewpoint:
1. Although a research university in clearly distinguished by its orientation toward the generation of new
knowledge, even ISU has some courses of study that are skill- rather than knowledge-based. Such
programs-of-study are less likely to suffer an accusation about the propagation and emulation of a single
“departmental” view as is feared by a more open policy. It also seems unlikely that this fear would be
borne out if faculty use the policy primarily to take a second graduate degree (i.e., to supplement their
current work rather than to change departments).
2. Although faculty are expected to evaluate each other in many contexts, usually such evaluations are
made as part of a larger group (e.g., as a member of a Personnel Committee) rather than individually.
However, this issue may be dealt with in ways other
than completely restricting faculty from taking each other’s classes (e.g., restricting faculty from courses
in their own department; requiring external oversight, etc). Similarly, the issue of “other students”
perceiving things as unfair could be dealt with by honestly sharing information about mechanisms for
oversight.
3. The university currently has policy regarding the numbers of faculty that can come from its own ranks
that should protect against the perception of “inbreeding.” Perhaps policies at other institutions—those
we are trying to emulate—should be examined.”
Executive Committee members were polled on their sentiments for the document. L. Sperry was asked
to convey these feelings back to this year’s FAC.
VI. Handbook Issues
Chair Lamb distributed an updated list of material/documents intended for the University Handbook.
Current status of all the material is still being explored.
VII. AAC Charge
Approved (Evans, A. Anderson 8-0-1).
“EMG has done a follow up on the ISU Branding Campaign. Review that study, and comment on both
the quality of the study, as well as provide comment on the effectiveness of the existing branding efforts.”
VIII. Executive Session
Moved into executive session. (Hoffman, Anderson 8-0-1)
Moved out of executive session. (Sheets, Hoffman 8-0-1)
The meeting adjourned at 5:55p.m.