Approved February 21, 2012
9-0-0
EC #17
UNIVERSITY FACULTY SENATE
EXECUTIVE COMMTTEE
February 14, 2012
3:30 p.m., HMSU 227
Present:
Ex officio:
Guests:
I.
S. Lamb, K. Bolinger, J. Conant, R. Guell, T. Hawkins, B. Kilp, J. Kuhlman, C. MacDonald,
T. Sawyer
President D. Bradley
R. Stafford
Administrative report
President Bradley:
a. The Board of Trustees meets Thursday, February 16 and Friday, February 17 where they will
discuss the Affordability Taskforce report. We will get the steering committee back together to
discuss implementation.
b. I will be in Indianapolis this week to meet with T. Lubbers regarding institutionally directed
performance metrics. I understand that other institutions are as confused as we are. We also
need to get a better idea of what the weights will be. D. McKee, Vice President, Business Affairs
is also talking to them about instructions for budget preparations.
c. The legislature is almost certain to pass a 120 rule and is leaning to making the rule effective
immediately on new programs. Provost Maynard is trying to explain the curricular process to
them regarding programs. For instance, until our Board of Trustees reduces the credit hour
requirement university-wide to 120, we cannot have the Commission reduce an individual
program to that.
d. K. Donat, Student Financial Aid Director, resigned today effective immediately. Personnel in
Enrollment Management will shift as R. Toomey, Assist. Vice President, Enrollment Management
will oversee Admissions and Financial Aid as an Associate V.P., M. Hughes will become the
Director of Admissions, and C. Baker will be the Interim Director of Financial Aid.
II. Chair report, S. Lamb: No report
III. Fifteen Minute Open Discussion:
a. J. Conant:
1)
We need a toastmaster for the Faculty Recognition banquet .
2)
We still do not have a faculty member on the space committee.
President Bradley: Provost Maynard is the chair of that committee, I am sure he will add that
faculty member.
b. J. Kuhlman: There was a letter on seats at the last men’s basketball game Saturday admonishing
students behavior (inappropriate language, etc). It was signed by R. Prettyman. Why were the
students the target for the message when they are not the majority of attendees.
1
President Bradley: It may have been at the request of the officials and is likely in response to
other institutions in the conference having issues.
IV.
MOTION TO APPROVE the Executive Committee Minutes of February 7, 2012.
R. Guell : Requested that the minutes be held over until February 21, 2012
V.
Office of Student Success, J. Schriver, Associate Vice President of Academic Affairs presented the
work being done on the Special Probation students…
Concerns/discussion/questions:
a.
J. Schriver: The Office of Student Success has agreed that
 Students would be seen at least twice a month by an academic advisor
 That there would be an initial appointment with the student very early in the term to look
over individual schedules.
 Departments will use spread sheet keeping tracks of attendance.
 All students were requested to submit a needs assessment (listing obstacle they may
encounter).
b.
R. Guell: it seems that there are a number of things that would make student reporting
far more efficient… if Banner would feed probation status to Blackboard/grade center,
that it would allow faculty/advisors to regenerate spread sheets that would go out. Even
better if advisors could acquire the data themselves…all we would have to do is say
yes…advisors could look at this…advisors could have access to all the advisees
grades/courses- that would be much more efficient. My criticism of what is being done
(referring to my participation) it seems like an uncoordinated activity. Whereas if we
thought about the structural problems of communication and how data was moved from
one place to another…it would seem a lot more effective.
c.
S. Lamb: It seem like what one needs to do is put some of the ownership activity on the
student. The student has to make contact with the instructor so the instructor becomes
aware that this student is one of his/her special concerns. I appreciate R. Guell comments
about sharing data, but I am more concerned about getting the student engaged in
his/her own process.
J. Schriver: I believe some advisors are trying to move these students in the right
direction.
S. Lamb: Do you think what is being done is motivating them to change their behavior?
Are students taking this process seriously? Do you see a pattern of behavior?
S. Schriver: There is a huge of variability - some are being responsible; others are not.
S. Lamb: You can’t have every one of these students doing 53 different things at once
even though you might need 53 different approaches to capture all the students.
R. Guell: Is a lot of this burden transfer to the academic advisors?
J. Schriver: It transfers some of this to the advisor, but we’re also expecting students to
be responsible.
2
R. Guell: I understand it is also the student’s responsibility, but if the student does badly
and is required to meet with his/her academic faculty advisor; and the student is simply
going through the motions; is that not only wasting the students time, but also the
faculty member’s time? The faculty/advisor may be expressing some bitterness as well as
assoc. deans for being so burdened.
J. Conant: I don’t understand what it means that the student is “required to” (meet
with his/her advisor)…what happens if they don’t?
J. Schriver: Nothing.
B. Kilp: It is the same with the AOPs. I’m an advisor. If I go to each student’s 991 id
number, I can find some information. But, if you have 56 students, I do not know a
student’s rank (freshman, sophomore, etc.); I do not know their grade…is there not some
way (maybe through Blackboard, whatever) where I can look at my entire class’ profile;
and if I have some students on special probation, then I know right away that I should be
watching those particular students?
R. Guell: An example would be the Athlete approach…if we could do that by
college/special probation per advisor. It would be much easier to do the instructor’s end.
S. Lamb to J. Schriver: What do you think about some of these macro /card swiping
procedures…have you seen anything come across your desk that seems like it has worked
at other institutions?
J. Schriver: We are having conversations regarding larger initiatives and have had them in
the past…also about instructors/class sizes, student success in general, especially in
dealing with freshmen.
d.
T. Sawyer: Regarding faculty/advisors…we have had no previous input on procedures
forthcoming. I think if you are going to do these kinds of things; you should get the
cooperation of the faculty. If you want our cooperation…we need to have some
forewarning…not just to be told to do this. I would like to be involved in the decisions that
are going to take up my time. There would be less frustration on the side of faculty.
J. Schriver: Every college approaches this differently. There is money available for
advising.
T. Sawyer: I understand the concept of letting each college do their own thing, but I
believe it causes dissention among faculty who do not understand why it is being done.
(For example, the College of Arts & Sciences vs. College of Business, etc.)
J. Schriver: They all agree to a common platform…in terms of who is going to do it…we
left this up to the individual colleges.
R. Guell: Arts & Sciences according to the provost could have gotten a disproportionate
amount of monies for advising because they did not have the professional advisors that
say the College of Business has.
J. Schriver: Each advisor was given a per head stipend (per student) to make it fair.
3
e.
J. Conant: In terms of input, is there an advisory council or some infra structure of
advising (e.g. if we want to discuss curriculum, etc.)? Advisors don’t seem to be given the
appropriate amount of development…it ‘s just someone telling us what we are suppose to
do.
J. Schriver: We have had a series of development meetings in the last couple of years for
advisors, but we do not have an advisory board. This, however, seems like a good idea…to
have representatives from each college coming together…we really don’t have that.
f.
B. Kilp: Deans were at one time told that they had 4 days (before Christmas break) to find
advisors/tell them what they needed to do; make their decision about what students you
were going to bring back, which ones you were not; with no guidelines except to move
the sliding scale down lower…pay advisors the money, etc. Some students’ schedules
were changed at the last minute, etc. No criticism against J. Schriver – it’s just that what
she is saying does not always agree with what faculty are hearing.
S. Lamb: Is there any possibility that ISU is trying to market the institution to a different
set of students?
J. Schriver: We try to set a bar, so to speak…(e.g. raise the bar on Admissions 2.0 to 2.2,
etc.)
S. Lamb: Is SAT part of that criteria?
J. Schriver: I’m not sure.
S. Lamb: I do know at the Faculty Senate it was discussed…to raise the SAT score…I just
hope this translates to a change in policies. I understand the source of ISU’s monies is the
student body. We are stuck between two rocks but the repercussions – the
suffering…what we are all feeling. I know that K. Bollinger’s concept is that this is a new
millennium of students, etc. etc. with new approaches, or whether it is, because the
quality of our students has suffered. I know that each and every one of us lives for a
classroom where we have captured our students where they are engaged with us. This is
just a fantastic experience, and it is becoming harder and harder for each of us to achieve
this. It is a level of frustration that I have not experienced before that is being felt by a
large number of faculty.
J. Schriver: Some of it might be just motivation.
g.
R. Guell: Are the AOP admits up for next fall?
J. Schriver: Yes.
R. Guell: Can we imagine a future where AOP’s go through a process like this?
J. Schriver: Yes. The goal for this year is about 300 AOP students…all part of our
conversation.
h.
J. Conant: Faculty are the best determiners of student success.
T. Sawyer: It is expected that faculty does advising and central administration needs to
consult more with faculty.
J. Schriver: There is a lot of randomness among which students will be successful or not.
4
i.
S. Lamb: Do you see a difference in that which occurs at ISU and other comparable
institutions?
S. Schriver: According to the data we are not at the bottom. But we are not even at the
middle. We do many of the things that they do…it is at times frustrating.
j.
S. Lamb: Do you seem to be getting the funding when there is an idea that wants to be
explored?
J. Schriver: The support seems to be there.
l.
T. Hawkins: What are we doing to support students on the other end of the spectrum;
those who are doing well? What are we doing to ensure their retention?
J. Schriver: There is no distinct effort for these students and there should be. We know
that good students who are in the Honor’s program have a very high retention rate and
that equally good students who are, for whatever reason, not part of that program have
retention rates that are much lower.
Dr. Lamb: Thank J. Schriver for attending today’s meeting and for her passed contributions
especially during the time when ISU was going through some difficult times.
VI.
MOTION TO APPROVE the Elimination of the Geography Program for Teacher Licensure (R.
Guell/C. MacDonald; vote: 9-0-0)
R. Stafford, Chair, Earth & Environmental Systems presented rational for the elimination.

VII.
This program was banked in 2005 and there is no departmental memory for why.
There are licensure changes, no prospective students, and no faculty with time to
regenerate the program.
MOTION TO APPROVE the Elimination of the Master of Arts in Special Education (B. Kilp/ C.
MacDonald; vote: 9-0-0).
K. Bolinger presented rational for the elimination. There are no students interested in this
program.
VIII.
Freshman retention pilot fleshed out:
K. Bolinger presented his pilot project for two sets of linked courses (2 cohorts of 25 students in 4
linked courses)
IX.
SAC Endorsement of the 120/48 Recommendation of the Barriers to Graduation Taskforce
R. Guell: SAC endorsed the reduction of credit hours required for an undergraduate degree to
120 and the reduction of the 3/400 level credit hour requirement from its current level (50) to 4
5
MOTION TO APPROVE the Theodore Dreiser Committee Nominees (K. Bolinger/ S. Lamb vote:
unanimous).
X.
MOTION TO MOVE INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION at 5:16 p.m. (J. Conant/C. MacDonald
unanimous).
MOTION TO MOVE OUT OF EXECUTIVE SESSION at 5:45 p.m. (T. Sawyer/C. MacDonald,
unanimous).
XI.
MOTION TO APPROVE the statement on a Grievance (R. Guell/ T. Sawyer ; vote: unanimous)
a.
Ask the faculty member to resubmit Grievance Form A and supporting statement with
the proper identity of the respondent.
Meeting adjourned. 6:00 p.m.
6