Approved 7-0-1
April 5, 2011
EC #25
UNIVERSITY FACULTY SENATE
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
March 22, 2011, 3:30 pm.
HMSU 227
Present:
S. Lamb, A. Anderson, K. Bolinger, J. Conant, R. Guell, C. Hoffman, J. Kuhlman, V. Sheets
Absent:
R. Dunbar
Ex office:
Provost J. Maynard
Guests:
Dean B. Williams, M. Miller (CNHHS), E. Bermudez and Y. Peterson (Applied Health
Sciences)
I.
Administrative report
Provost Maynard:
 I have been away from campus most of last week at Financial Institute summit, a well
attended, well orchestrated event.
 The president is on a development trip out west. He will be away from campus most of the
week.
S. Lamb: When new hires are hired do you have a 12 hour load specified in the letters sent out to
them?
Provost: I do not. We do not need to discuss production by the units. The bottom line is
production must be up. We are not counting courses right now.
S. Lamb: The emphasis continues to be satisfying student demand then?
Provost: The deans and I are working on productivity models and how they reflect student credit
hours, etc.
S. Lamb: I continue to meet with deans and remind them to adhere to the Handbook, and when a
faculty member has an active research agenda, to allow that faculty member to pursue that
agenda (9 hour teaching load).
Provost: I do not want to get into that. A faculty member may have another agenda that is just as
important.
S. Lamb: I don’t disagree.
V. Sheets: So the letters have not changed?
Provost: Not to my knowledge.
 Provost: We are receiving a national award for our work with the SENCER project (Science
Education for New Civic Engagements and Responsibilities program - J Speer and L. Tinnerman)
for engaging students in science and civic engagement (William Bennett Award).
 Provost: Fall break (Thanksgiving) – Working on calendar change to include the whole week,
which may require changing the semester starting date in August. Details are being worked out.
1
II.
Chair report
S. Lamb: – no formal report (discussed ISU’s recent basketball games and appreciated student
effort)
III.
Fifteen Minute Open
a.
C. Hoffman: What did ISU gain for attending athletic playoff? Do we make any money?
Provost: Probably not. NCAA covers some expenses, and the conference gets some small
amount of money, but what the actual dollar amount is – not sure exactly how much.
J. Kuhlman: NCAA pays for the expenses of 75-80 to travel, covers transportation and the
lodging.
R. Guell: So that covers the team, cheerleaders, marchers, band, and senior
administrators. And the rest of it, any money that is going to accrue to ISU for
participating in any athletic championship – is the Missouri Valley divided equally among
participants and non-participants?
J. Kuhlman: I do not believe it is divided; I believe the team that participates gets a little
bit more money, but it is not a lot.
R. Guell: Essentially for the last 10 years ISU has been getting a small portion of monies
but contributing nothing to it. Now we are contributing and getting nothing from it.
S. Lamb: I was pleased with the coverage ISU received from the commentators. We were
treated very well. Comments were all very positive, which has to translate into good PR.
R. Guell: What I personally liked about the men’s and women’s basketball teams is that
there is an appeal about having athletes from Marshall and other towns surrounding us to
play and be successful. I have had 4 of the women players in my classroom and 5 of the
men, and I do not think there is a “B” in the bunch. They are all very solid and good
students.
Provost: Our coach is trying to build a base of support in our community.
S. Lamb: Holding the event at the Rec Center was a very positive step.
J. Conant responding to R. Guell’s comment: We received the academic report on the
athletes from the University Athletic Commission and the GPA was superb– we’re
creating good students who are also good athletes, so this was very good news.
J. Kuhlman: They also speak well of us at press conferences – that our athletes have good
intellect, are well-groomed, and are just good, wholesome kids.
b.
R. Guell’s statement:
I believe that new lines promising new enrollments, such as the one before us
today, need to be viewed as an advance against future enrollments. That is, as
enrollment targets are hit, the lines pays for themselves; therefore, they need not be
paid back because they are paid for. The advance lines must be new to the
university and not from re-allocations, which in my opinion, out of every
reasonable proportion came from Arts & Sciences in the last 20 years.
Additionally, if those enrollments do not ensue, that those lines must be paid back
2
to Academic Affairs in the form of future lost replacements, retirees/terminations
from that College.
I have decided that, in my view, these draconian re-allocations now blur the line
between the traditional roles of faculty performing curricular review and the
administration resourcing the curriculum. I now feel compelled to exam new
programs, not just against the standard which asks is this program worthy of ISU,
but against the following: Is this program better than the one that it will make
worse as the resources of existing programs are removed to pay for new ones?
K. Bolinger: One department’s staffing gain is another’s loss. We are not restrictive – we
are reallocating positions where there were none before. Is it always a zero sum gain?
Provost: For the past few years it’s been a sum… – R. Guell – it’s been a negative sum!
Provost: We need to determine how much goes for each track.
S. Lamb: It does seem like we need to look more carefully at existing programs. We do
need to continue our program review processes. If there are programs that suffer from
low enrollment and don’t have a distinct nature or value to them - we do need to look at
them.
R. Guell: Absolutely – and that is the strategic way of finding the resources.
V. Sheets: It’s not been happening or done – and a simple way would be for the faculty to
take it upon themselves since it is in our domain.
R. Guell: Yes. But what we said to the provost and what he said back – what he is telling
us - is that we need to do program reviews and that those program reviews would be
consequential. That it would be an on-going rotation of programs through that filter. I
think the provost can identify those programs that you feel resources can be pulled from,
and based on the initial look at the economics of a particular program that it would need
to be front and center in 2011-2012 in program review. That should be the way to do it.
And, at the end of the process, that would free up resources.
c.
I was reading the Student Affairs minutes and noticed that the enrollments were down
which surprised me. Are we worried that enrollments will be down in the fall?
Provost: I have heard nothing to suggest that in relation to the numbers.
R. Guell: According to the minutes – it just said financial aid numbers are down. I don’t
know if that means Pell grants are down, or SASSI funds are down. I am just trying to be in
attuned to enrollment.
Provost: The only losses we had were associated with the Corrections program.
3
d.
R. Guell: As you know I have already voiced my objections to the University’s
consideration on purchasing the parking garage at 7th and Cherry - when will we know if
the University will pursue the purchase?
Provost: I have heard nothing to suggest that they are not pursuing it.
J. Conant: There will be an Administrative Affairs Committee meeting April 1, and the
purchase of the garage will be on the agenda.
e.
J. Conant: I would like to ask about the Opportunity Hires process – I had a number of
people express concerns to me – that they are being asked to make proposals and
recommend hiring without going through the normal existing processes for candidates without seeing the individuals teach or evaluate their research. If we do this again,
shouldn’t we have definite procedures?
Provost: This does not have to occur! We have places to bring them where faculty are
teaching, evaluating research etc. If something different is occurring, it is occurring at the
department level. I am asking deans to present only the strongest candidates. There are
no timelines where we say you have to hire by such and such a date (e.g. April) but when
the opportunity presents itself. We have two offers out right now; both people were fully
examined in a very typical way – and I know I have four more candidates I will need to
review.
S. Lamb to J. Conant: I know that in the COB we had an opportunity to hire a candidate
who presented a research paper, visited with faculty and dean, etc. – she went through
the entire process – nothing was missing – it was a true opportunity for hire.
J. Kuhlman: If there is a position that has already been advertised and a minority
candidate comes into the pool – can that person be hired outside the normal process?
Provost: Yes.
IV.
Approval of the Executive Committee Minutes of March 15, 2011 as amended. (J. Kuhlman/
V. Sheets 8-0-0).
V.
Graduate Council item, PhD in Health Sciences; E. Bermundez, Dean B. Williams
Overview of programs - Dean Williams presented
Discussions M. Miller and Y. Peterson
E. Bermundez – presented overview of the actual program as well as distributed copies of a
written overview and related chart.
R. Guell: Question addressed to Dean Williams and Y. Peterson to be raised at Faculty Senate this
Thursday, March 24, 2011 related to teaching loads.
Discussion addressed current individual teaching loads in Heath Sciences.
Will the faculty teaching in the program have teaching loads consistent with what you understand
is necessary to teach in a PhD program, conduct the research consistent with maintaining the
4
highest level of activity and currency in their fields, while also supervising dissertations? Yes. If so,
what is that teaching load? Is that figured into the financial tables provided and how? Yes.
MOTION TO APPROVE PhD in Health Sciences proposal (V. Sheets/J. Kuhlman 6-1-1).
R. Guell Note: My objection is as per my previous statement and not a reflection of the quality of
this particular program.
Meeting adjourned at 4:50 p.m.
5