Approved 2-14-13
29-0-1
FS #4
UNIVERSITY FACULTY SENATE
2012-2013
December 06, 2012
3:30 p.m., HMSU Dede III
Present:
Absent:
Ex officio:
Deans:
V. Sheets, A. Anderson, R. Baker, C. Ball, Scott Buchanan, Stan Buchanan, J.
Buffington, J. Conant, R. Fairchild, C. Fischer, E. Glendening, A. Gurovich, D.
Hantzis, M. Haque, E. Hampton, M. Harmon, T. Hawkins, N. Hopkins, R. Johnson,
B. Kilp, E. Lorensen, M. Miller, C. Paterson, T. Sawyer, E. Strigas, C. Tucker, B.
Yousif, K. Yousif
P. Cochrane, J. Kulhman, A, Morales, C. Olsen, C. Paterson, R. Peters
President Bradley, Provost J. Maynard
K. Brauchle (Ext Learning), A. Comer (Library); L. Maule (Univ. College); S. Lamb
(SCOB), J. Murray (A&S), B. Sims (COT), C. Tillery (Dean of Students)
Staff Council Rep: No report
SGA: Jacoby Waldron
Special Purpose Faculty: No report
Guests:
I.
D. Ballard, L. Benjamin, E. Bermudas, B. Coldren, A. Hay, N. Cobb-Lippens, J.
Powers, S. Powers, J. Jakaitis, C. Wallace
Administrative report
Provost Maynard:
Alumni speaker Craig McKee
Board here next Friday with three seminars prior to the Board meeting
New flight school
Policy on minors
Gun policy
II.
Chair report, V. Sheets:
Welcome all. Thank you for being here today. I know it’s only been three weeks
since our last meeting, but we moved the Dec meeting up this year because it’s always
difficult for us to get a quorum during finals week.
I’m sure we’re all the same in feeling how great it is to get to the end of the semester.
1
I hope to see everyone at commencement next week. Like many others, I give my last
final on Friday, but will take time out from grading to watch our students walk across
the stage on Saturday. Though I never participated in any of my own graduations, it is
an important event in the lives of our students and their families.
At the last meeting, we had a number of passionate expressions of concern about the
Policy on Policies. I appreciated everyone’s comments. I think we were right to raise our
voices on that matter. Based on the points raised, the Senate Officers have drafted a
new version and shared with the President, whose response was favorable. In the new
draft, we articulate a clear role for governance in responding to all proposals impacting
our primary authority over academic matters, but at the same time, provide a route for
the BOT to ask for our response within timelines that recognize the rhythms of the
academic calendar and the nature of the policy concern.
I further want to share that the officers have concluded our search for a new Senate
Associate to replace Pat Kennedy. Our top candidate has accepted our offer and will
begin work January 2nd. For the time being, you should send any materials (like
committee minutes) to Tom and I, but we would ask your patience in responding during
this transition.
We’ve got a lot of business, so I’ll close my report by wishing everyone a merry holiday
season, whether you celebrate Christmas, Hanukkah, Kwanzaa, or the Winter Solstice.
III.
Support Staff report: No report
IV.
SGA report: We are now in the process of hiring three new executive assistants and
training the new Chief of Staff.
V.
Special Purpose Advocate report: No report
VI.
15 Minute Open Discussion:
Josh Powers announced that the Student Enrollment Management report is out as well as
a report on the University Strategic Plan Goal One.
J. Buffington gave an update on the faculty scholarship fund.
Charlotte Zietlow Faculty Research Award selection committee has established February
11, 2013, as the due date for proposals for grants this year. The committee asks that
faculty, chairs, and deans begin now to encourage their pre-tenure women colleagues to
submit proposals for this special award. January 16th The Zietlow committee will offer a
2
workshop led by Professor Latimer focused on creating effective proposals. The proposal
form and information will be available soon through the Interdisciplinary Program
website; a global email announcement is forthcoming.
Bakerman Library Research Award-Marsha Miller commented that faculty play a vital part
because they nominate students with the best paper/s in their courses and also receive a
monetary award. Remember that papers come from the calendar year 2012 courses and
that the deadline is January 18.
VII.
Business items:
a.
Approval of the Minutes of November 15, 2012
MOTION TO APPROVE the minutes of November 15, 2012 with corrections (E.
Hampton/A. Anderson; Vote: 27-0-0)
b.
120-hour exemption requests
Science Education, Art, B.S. Music Education, Bio-MLS
Proposal was approved unanimously by EC at the 12/4/12 meeting.
Are these students to graduate in four years with 148 credits? Response-Probably
not possible. We put out 4 ½ year plans. And so, our programs are not eligible for
a 4 year guarantee.
How does this compare to other institutions? Response-We are not at a
competitive disadvantage to have an extra semester.
Art-currently offers 2 degrees at 120hrs. This would be considered a professional
degree in art.
All 4 proposals came through CAAC and EC.
What happens if the commission turns down the request? Response-Cross that
when/if it happens. We have done our due diligence with conversation and
contact with peers. Actions are consistent with our peers. We do not anticipate
any problems.
I would complement the proposals. I appreciate the inclusion of the “what if”
options, what was considered, what was rejected, detail and comparative
information.
MOTION TO APPROVE the 120 – hour exemption requests for Science Education,
Art, B.S. Music Education, and Bio-MLS (A. Anderson/M. Harmon; vote: 26-0-1)
c.
Prior credit for tenure proposal (option for prior service credit)
3
Brings parallel the option for prior service credit for faculty hired at the associate
level to faculty hired at the professional level. This mandates nothing but opens
the window wider for those hired at the associate level meaning they can seek
tenure as early as their first year.
Giving 5 years toward tenure is dumb. Tenure decisions within departments will
have to be made in October of their very first year. How can you gather any more
info about whether someone is tenure material or not in the space of 2 months?
Maybe they should be given up to 4 years or just tenure them.
The idea of not having those proposed for tenure at hire, have that approved by
EC is very troubling. Response-That is a separate motion.
Nobody, including full professors, should come in with tenure. If issue is job
security, give them a 5 or 7 year contract.
Is this only for associate professors, not assistant? Response-Correct.
Normally, these decisions aren’t made by a faculty committee but at the Dean’s
level.
Was there comparison with peer institutions? Response-Not a lot of comparison,
but we are pretty strict here. We need to give ourselves the best chance to
compete for the best faculty, most flexibility. It seems the policy as it stands now
has been a disincentive for many new hires.
Nothing mandates 5 years-could be given the minimum. Due diligence is key.
Don’t make dumb decisions.
MOTION TO APPROVE the prior credit for tenure proposal (A. Anderson/S.
Buchanan; Vote: 24-3-0)
d.
Tenure at hire proposal
Revisions do a few things:
1. Extend waiver of the probationary period to candidates that have
earned the rank of associate professor with tenure at their prior
institution.
2. Recommendation for tenure at hire would be submitted
simultaneously with the request to hire.
3. Removes the requirement that the president and provost consult
with EC; EC issue a recommendation.
4. Address the effective date for tenure.
MOTION TO APPROVE (B. Kilp/A. Anderson; Vote: 25-2-0)
e.
WP/WF grade change proposal
4
Peer institutes were looked at concerning withdrawal policies. None of the other
Indiana institutes looked at use anything but W. We are out-of-sync with peers.
Also, there is inconsistency within our institution. The committee recommends
assigning only a W grade that will not affect GPA but will appear on the transcript.
Will this be inclusive of all terms? Response-Yes, but it will not be retroactive.
The committee does make it clear this is neither an incentive nor disincentive to
withdraw.
I can foresee a student doing very poorly in their classes and going to their Dean
during the 9th week of classes and saying I want to withdraw. What is the process
by which a student is allowed to withdraw or is it just automatic? Response-There
is a form they have to fill out and submit to the registrar’s office and supply
reasons.
Who makes the decision whether to grant them the withdraw or not? ResponseStudents are not required to re-enroll, period.
It is not as if there aren’t consequences for the student. A student that withdraws
after the 10th week is going to pay back their complete tuition. They will be at risk
of not being at satisfactory academic progress with financial aid. So, they have
already put themselves in the position that if they don’t get back on track very
quickly, they will lose their financial aid. It would be a very unwise student who
did this.
MOTION TO APPROVE the WP/WF grade change proposal (D. Hantzis/E.
Hampton; vote: 25-0-2)
f.
University Budget Committee proposal
MOTION TO APPROVE the University Budget Committee proposal (A.
Anderson/B. Kilp; Vote: 26-1-0)
VIII.
Standing Committee Reports (insert verbal reports)
a. Administrative Affairs-No report.
b. Arts endowment-Seven proposals reviewed.
c. Curriculum and Academic Affairs-The committee was disturbed that during the
summer, 4 task forces were established to deal with certain issues. They were told to
act very quickly. The 4 sub-committees acted quickly and submitted their findings to
be reviewed. Something seems to have happened to the need for expediency.
d. Faculty Affairs-Met last week. Concluded and acted on all charges.
5
e.
Faculty Economic Benefits-Just about completed recommendations for a variable
summer pay schedule allowing for more flexibility.
f.
Graduate Council-No report.
g. Student Affairs-On track with all charges.
h. University Research-Has not met since last Senate meeting.
IX.
Meeting adjourned at 4:47 p.m.
6