Approved 10/19/19
9-0-0
EC #7
INDIANA STATE UNIVERSITY
FACULTY SENATE
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
October 12, 2010, 3:30 p.m.
HMSU 227
Present:
Ex officio:
Guests:
I.
S. Lamb, A. Anderson, K. Bolinger, J. Conant, R. Dunbar, C. Hoffman, R. Guell, J. Kuhlman,
V. Sheets
President D. Bradley, Provost J. Maynard
L. Elkins, H. Hudson, D. McKee, B. Mercier, Mike Martindill, Vicky Gagliano (Tim Haahs
and Associates)
Administrative Report
President Bradley:
a.
Last weekend’s Homecoming events went very well. A large number of alumni were
present, and were very happy about how they viewed the campus.
b.
Pay raises are ready to be processed. Monthly people will start accruing their pay raise
on November 1 and should see their pay increase on December 1 check. Hourly staff will
start accruing their pay raises on October 30 and should see pay increase on November
19 check.
C. Hoffman: What about the “fixed term faculty” (Lecturers, I, II and Special Purpose)?
President: I will let the provost address this issue.
c.
I have been having introductory conversations with D. McKee and the provost about
how we might be able to develop an incentive system for both academic and
nonacademic departments to collectively get on the band wagon for objectives like
retention, civic and campus engagement, and those sorts of things and how all of this
will come about. We will be having conversations with Executive Committee members
regarding this in the near future.
Provost J. Maynard: No formal administrative report.
Questions:
C. Hoffman: Who is getting what raises when? There seems to be some confusion on campus
regarding this matter.
Provost: November 1 all regular employees, staff and faculty will be accruing pay raises.
C. Hoffman: Does that include what I call “fixed term faculty”?
Provost: Those people who are special purpose faculty or temporary faculty will see no
adjustments until fall (August) 2011 if one meets satisfactory performance.
R. Guell: Someone who signed a contract for a year, but signed it before June 30 will they get
pay raise?
Provost: It’s not the contract but when it starts. We could have hired someone in the spring, but
they don’t start until fall.
1
R. Guell: The memo from the president said if they signed on or before June 30 that their
initial…
Provost: We have always used July 1 for both staff and faculty employees, but some employees
signed contract months in advance. We use that start date when they are actually doing the
work.
II.
Chair Report
S. Lamb:
a.
The performance evaluation process has gone very well. The FEBC product largely
survived. The President’s basic concepts are present. The Provost worked very
effectively with the Executive Committee officers who constantly received and
incorporated input from the Executive Committee. The Provost was receiving input from
the Deans. This product has been found to be acceptable to this body.
I am also very pleased with the input that we were able to give to this year’s
disbursement monies, and that FEBC had time to give a reaction. I am also pleased that
much of our thought process over the last two years was incorporated into the decision.
While it is largely accomplished, I will bring it to the Faculty Senate for their discussion
and possible endorsement.
III.
Fifteen Minute Open Discussion
a.
K. Bolinger: Would it be possible for faculty to receive more detail regarding their pay
adjustments and target salary? I do not believe target salary was included.
President: I don’t think there would be a problem including target salary in letters
concerning pay raises.
D. McKee: In fact, I know that we included pay range for staff so we should be able to
do same for faculty. We have not finalized the staff or faculty letters at this time. We
can try and put as much information in these letters as possible of what accounted for
which part of one’s raise.
President: D. McKee will do her best to determine how the pay raises were calculated in
individual letters to staff and faculty.
b.
R. Guell: Concern related to an accusation that was made by Dr. L. Maule at a
Foundational Studies council meeting. At that meeting she asserted, but did not have
data to support, that two colleges had routinely waived the general education capstone
requirement for all of their students. If that is the case, I would like your commitment to
follow up on the data to verify this. And, if this is the case, I believe that it is a serious
breach of authority of the dean to waive an academic requirement.
IV.
Approval of the Executive Committee Minutes of October 5, 2010. C. Hoffman/J. Kuhlman
9-0-0.
V
Input to the Parking Consultants regarding ISU campus parking plan.
President: Lower parking fees and closer parking only two issues.
D. McKee’s Introduction: The last long term parking plan that the University had was adopted in
1994 and last survey done was in 2004. Other than that, we have not had a plan for parking on
this campus. Many things changed since 1994, as we all know, particularly now with the
completion of the campus master plan. We felt that it was important to develop a 10 year plan
for parking. Many individuals feel that we don’t have adequate or convenient parking and a host
2
of other things. So we retained the services of a consulting firm. They work with many
institutions of our size…looking at a number of things…lot designation, how effectively are we
using the spaces we currently have available, how can we better use them, etc.
Lori Elkins from Public Safety introduced parking consultants who discussed previously
completed surveys and requested feedback.
Discussion and review of parking facilities on campus took place. Executive Committee members
expressed their concerns/opinions and offered their suggestions.
D. McKee: Please email Bill Mercier, Lori Elkins or me if you have any more concerns/ideas, and
we will get back to you. We hope to have a report by January 2011, and will make that available
to all of you as well.
S. Lamb: Thanked all consultants, D. McKee, L. Elkins and B. Mercier for coming to the meeting
and providing us with parking information and refreshments. He also thanked them for the
opportunity to give input.
VI.
CAAC item:
Elimination of the Pre-Theology Major- Contact Person: Harriet Hudson.
H. Hudson: Only reason that EC members are asked to vote on this at all is that when a code is
being eliminated, and it is the only one in that CIP code, it has to go to the Senate (CAPs
manual.) Where there are other ones under the CIP code - they can be published in academic
notes and be done with. We’re talking about others courses here that are not in the catalog,
there are no students in it, and it is not offered. The code continues to exist in the Registrar's
office.
S. Lamb: H. Hudson explained previously to me that minors that are a subset of another code,
once eliminated, need not go through a whole process.
MOVE TO APPROVE ELIMNATION OF THE PRE-THEOLOGY MAJOR A. Anderson/C. Hoffman
7-0-2.
VII.
Charge for CAAC - Necessary level for approval of curricular item:
Harriet Hudson presented.
I am part of a small subcommittee. Our group has come to see that the curriculum approval
process is often too long/complex (e.g. codes/functions). Why should the Senate vote on
elimination of code? What value added? Practice has gotten away from the fact that bylaws
recognized that academic units of the University have their own committees governing
curriculum, and that CAAC should concern itself chiefly with matters that concern the entire
University, or more than one academic unit. Other proposals for minor revisions of existing
curriculums or new programs must be examined by the committee. It would not be limited to
editing the CAPs manual and making forms.
K. Bolinger: Can we ask CAAC to operationalize the language of minors? We make a lot of
minor changes, and it would help to have a definition of what minor changes are.
MOTION TO SEND the following CHARGE TO CAAC:
In the interest of timely review of curriculum proposals, and in respect for the autonomy of
colleges and the value of faculty time, CAAC is requested to review the curriculum review
process as outlined in the CAPS Manual and recommend revisions that would simplify the
procedures and the associated forms while upholding faculty primary authority for curricula
as stated in the Faculty Constitution.
3
In particular, CAAC is directed to consider the levels of approval necessary for elimination of
programs and for revisions to existing programs, especially those which do not affect more
than one department or college. J.Kuhlman/K. Bolinger 9-0-0.
VIII.
Distribution of Salary, and Equity Monies during this academic year.
MOTION TO ENDORSE MODEL FOR DISTRIBUTION OF SALARY, AND EQUITY MONIES. A.
Anderson/K. Bolinger 9-0-0 with friendly amendment added.
C. Hoffman: Sees this as inequitable – that everyone is not treated equally across the board. K.
Bolinger: Will make comments at next Faculty Senate meeting on October 21 related to FEBC
survey. J. Conant and C. Hoffman can also speak (bring their concerns) to Senate regarding this
issue.
MOTION TO INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING FRIENDLY AMENDMENT: "While we are appreciative of
the Distribution of Salary and Equity Monies during the academic year and endorse it generally,
we are disappointed that the temporary faculty will have to wait until fall 2011 to receive any
increase as a result of it."
IX.
Personnel Evaluation Document discussed.
Additional changes were made. Revisions will be incorporated by S. Lamb into the document
before being sent to the Senate.
Meeting adjourned at 5:14 p.m.
4