APPROVED 32-0-1
11/18/10
FS #2
INDIANA STATE UNIVERSITY
FACULTY SENATE
October 21, 2010, 3:30 p.m.
HMSU Dede III
Present:
Absent:
Ex officio:
Deans:
Guests:
S. Lamb, A. Anderson, K. Bolinger, J. Buffington, J. Conant, N. Corey,
C. Crowder, R. Dunbar, R. Goldbort, R. Guell, L. Hall, D. Hantzis, T. Hawkins,
P. Hightower, C. Hoffman, N. Hopkins, J. Hughes, L. Kahanov, K. Kincade,
C. Klarner, J. Kuhlman, J. Latimer, M. Lewandowski, C. Lunce, T. McDaniel,
R. Osborn,W. Redmond, T. Sawyer, R. Schneirov, V. Sheets, S. Shure,
G. Stachokas, B. Yousif and A. Solesky (P.T. Faculty Advocate)
B. Corcoran, J. Latimer, C. MacDonald, T. McDaniel, W. Redmond, M. Schafer,
L. Tinnerman
President D. Bradley, Provost J. Maynard
B. Balch (CE), K. Brauchle (Ext. Learning); A. Comer (Library); J. Murray (A&S);
B. Sims (CT); C. Tillery (Students); B. Williams (NHHP).
J. Brown (SGA),; N. Cobb Lippens (Music); J. Powers (EL); L. Sperry (FAC)
Students: K. Anderson-Liggett, R. Barrett, H. Bosstick, K. Cruse, T. Hardesty, Z. Jouaibi,
C. Martin, E. Roberts, J. Roldes, J. Wallace, T. Wolter (reps for Writing Center)
I.
Memorial Resolution for Robert Montgomery read by Nancy Cobb Lippens, Department of
Music.
MOVE TO ACCEPT Memorial Resolution for Robert Montgomery. Unanimous
II.
Administrative Reports
President Bradley:
a.
Budget process for the next bianum has begun. Last month I gave a presentation to
the Indiana Commission for Higher Education (ICHE), and on November 18th I will be
presenting to the State Budget Committee. The Commission has a formula that they are
requiring us to use, and it will also give us an opportunity to talk about the University. I
assume the Commission will have questions. Probably the most controversial area of
that, will be discussion about capital projects. We have two capital projects 1) the
remodeling of Normal Hall, and 2) the Phase I process of the Arena building. They both
total in the neighborhood of $50 million. It is very unlikely that they will approve very
many capital projects. Those that do get through the legislature will still have to go
through the budget committee. We will be exceedingly lucky to get any one of these
projects moving forward to the next biennium, but that will be our effort. Currently
we do not have any state remodeling/rehabilitation (R & R) dollars for our buildings and
there will be an effort made probably by all of campus to get some R & R dollars for
buildings so we can keep buildings from deteriorating like the two I previously
mentioned. This process will continue on into the new year and will culminate sometime
towards the end of the session as they give us our new budget.
1
b.
c.
Good news – our four and six year graduation percentages are up over last year. They
are not up by much but are up actually at a five or six year high.
We are well into enrollment and recruiting for next fall. We are slightly ahead of where
we were at this time last year, which is not a bad place to be. It appears that the
students who have applied are more motivated because more of them have completed
the application process as a percentage, admits are up even more. Some goals I have
given our recruiting staff is to decrease the number of AOP students by some 20% from
this year with a long term goal in the next three-four years of getting AOP’s down to
about 10% of our incoming class. For the last decade or so they have averaged between
18 and 21%. This year we’re at about the lowest level of 18%. We are also going to
expand the summer program to bring some AOP students into that, not only as an effort
to better evaluate their skills and give them a chance to show what they can do, but also
as a win a wing (?) process. The expectation is that some will not get through the
summer program either by choice or by performance. We are working on modifying the
acceptance criteria for AOP to see if we can id students within that mix that as a cohort
are exceedingly unsuccessful. Recently we found that students who do not come
directly from high school, meaning within a year, have an incredibly low retention rate
once they get here. So this is the first group that probably will not be eligible for the
AOP going forward.
d.
The provost and I met with the Commissioner, Teresa Lubbers, on Tuesday to discuss
peers and have suggested a group of 19 institutions that we would like them to consider
as our peers. We sit in the middle of those peers in terms of just about any category you
might want to imagine, and she will get back to us probably next month to give us some
feedback on this process.
e.
My travel schedule is starting to heat up with my alumni meetings and new student
recruitment meetings. This week I was in Indianapolis, next Evansville and after that
Northwest Indiana.
f.
We have two task force that are meeting this week - one will be evaluating the Greek
system based on an assessment that is being done by the national organizations - being
led by Jay Gatrell. The second taskforce is looking at student media, all kinds of student
media. One of the things that we want to look at is how they are connected to
academic programs and how they relate to our key institutional goals of student
engagement and community involvement. Both should complete their work early next
semester.
Provost J. Maynard:
a.
Salary adjustments and distribution play for academic year 2010-2011.
 All regular faculty who were employed prior to July 1, 2010 and have met
satisfactory performance expectations will receive the base of a 3% salary
adjustment.
 All associate professors will receive an additional $1000 base adjustment except for
newly appointed associates.
 All full professors will receive a $2000 adjustment except for the newly appointed
professors. (The reason - newly appointment professors already received their
promotion adjustments in their fall salary.)
2


These salary adjustments should be comparable to CUPA peers. We compared
every faculty member with the 94% level peer salary. If a faculty member was less
than 94% we adjusted 25% of that gap. Finally, if there is any faculty member
making less than 85% of their peer group they will receive an additional adjustment
to bring them up to 85%.
Salary adjustments will be effective November 1, 2010 and will show up in faculty
December 1 paycheck. I am pleased with this process. It has been a give and take
process with the senate leadership. It is also aligned with FEBC recommendations
given to us about a year and a half ago.
In addition to these adjustments, I am also pleased to note that all full time temporary faculty
will receive a 3% salary adjustment effective January 2, 2011. Part time temporary faculty will
have an adjustment to a minimum of $1000 per credit hour effective January 1, 2011. Part time
temporary faculty whose salary is already at $1000 will not receive a salary adjustment. Other
programs will be reviewed on an individual basis (e.g. Education programs funded by external
funds). The administration will be sending out salary adjustment letters to campus within the
next few days explaining in detail how these salary adjustments were made.
Ken Brauchle, Dean of Extended Learning
Introduced himself to the Senate.
III.
Chair report
S. Lamb:
Colleagues: The process used to develop the performance evaluation document went very well.
The FEBC product largely survived, although there were modifications. The President’s basic
concepts are still present. After receiving the quality product from FEBC, The Executive
Committee officers, who were constantly received and incorporated input from the Executive
Committee, worked effectively with the Provost who was receiving input from the Deans. By the
way, I think we have 4 people on this year’s Executive Committee that attended last year’s FEBC.
I do want you to know that both the President and the Provost compromised on many an
approach during the creation of this document. This product that is before you was found to be
acceptable to the Executive Committee body.
I am also very pleased with the input that we were able to give to this year’s disbursement of
monies. Much of our thought process that occurred over the last two years was incorporated
into the decision. Great change occurred in the Administrative Plan. Kevin Bolinger, last year’s
chair of the FEBC, has informed me that the current plan of the President’s and Provost mirror
the salary recommendations that FEBC put forward last year as a result of their survey of
faculty. Kevin has duplicate copies of those recommendations and placed them on your tables.
We did express consternation, which appears in the endorsement document brought forward
today, over the fact that temporary faculty would not be receiving benefits from this salary
increase until next fall. I do know that the administration has been working very aggressively on
this issue since that expression of concern, and I am most appreciative of the movement on that
issue.
On another matter, I need to stress that any action, any motion that comes out of the
standing committees needs to be immediately sent to the Administrative Assistant (Pat
Kennedy) with a copy to me so that it gets on the Ex. Committee agenda. It should not be buried
in the minutes, it should be sent separately to Pat and me to ensure its consideration.
3
IV.
Support Staff Report – No report.
V.
SGA Report
Jaden Brown:
Constitution
 At the last board meeting our new Constitution was passed
 Currently working on revising other governing documents
Blue Crew
 Continue to work with John Sherman and athletics towards getting students out to the
athletic games and increasing our community involvement
 Giving our free promotional items to the students such as SGA wrist bands, key tags,
sunglasses
 Met with Men and Women’s Basketball coaches to discuss how we can work together to
build the relationship between the teams and student body
Voter’s Forum
 SGA is holding a voters Forum for local candidates to come speak and present their beliefs
on different topics in the community
 Open to all of campus and the community with a focus on students so they can be informed
on the communities issues before they vote
 The Voters Forum will take place on Monday October 25th Dede 1 @ 6:30pm
Diversity Week
 Diversity Week will take place starting Monday Nov 1st and run through Saturday Nov 6
 Each day of the week everyone will be encouraged to wear a certain color which represents
a specific diversity group
Freshman Council
 SGA Freshman Council is complete and they have just recently elected their officers
 This past Tuesday SGA held an etiquette dinner with them, University Vice Presidents also
attended
SGA Awareness
 Lastly our SGA Awareness Campaign has proved to be very beneficial as we have seen an
increase in SGA awareness; we are going to use this as motivation to continue to work with
the student body.
VI.
Special Purpose Advocate Report
Amanda Solesky:
In response to the Provost’s statement, I will not read my prepared report. I wish to extend my
thanks on behalf of special purpose and adjunct faculty for the decision to move compensation
up from next fall to January. We are grateful for the change. To summarize my report. Special
purpose and adjunct faculty were frustrated and resigned that once again we were left out. The
prevailing question was why the delay? Why were we being asked to wait a year longer to
receive a salary adjustment than the rest of the university faculty and staff? Referring to
President Bradley’s email update on 10/8/10- “An important component to attracting and
retaining great faculty and staff is to provide competitive salaries”. We have great special
purpose and adjunct faculty at Indiana State University. The original salary proposal was not
4
supportive of the mission to attract and maintain great faculty and staff at all levels and did not
show that this faculty group is valued.
Again I want to thank the Provost for his response to feedback and decision to include this group
of faculty in salary compensation in January.
Dependent Fee Waivers for Special Purpose Faculty (SPF): This is an issue that means a lot to
me and other SPF at the university. I have been bringing up this topic with anyone who will
listen for years. I was pleased to see the issue has come before the executive committee. I have
been here for 12 years teaching, supervising, and coordinating the Rowe Center Clinic in the
COE. My oldest son is deciding on colleges now. Whether I could be granted a dependent fee
waiver will weigh heavily on where he goes. It is not fair when staff member’s dependents are
eligible, but a full time faculty member’s dependents aren’t. Any progress on this matter is
greatly appreciated.
S. Lamb: Your concern regarding fee waivers for special purpose faculty has been brought to a
recent Executive Committee meeting, and it is our concern as well. We will carry it forward.
VII.
Writing Center – Statement of Concerns - Presented by Harold Bosstick
President Bradley, Provost Maynard, Deans, Chairs, and distinguished members of the Faculty Senate, we
have come to this body to request your assistance. Many of you know me as the editor in chief of The
Indiana Statesman, Harold Bosstick. However today I am not here as a representative of the student
newspaper, but as a member of a group of Writing Center employees who are concerned for the future of
the Writing Center and with the direction the Writing Center is being taken. For over thirty years, since its
inception in 1978, the Writing Center has been an integral part of student success at Indiana State
University. In the fall of 2007, the Writing Center expanded to include a location in Cunningham Memorial
Library, but make no mistake about it; it was THE Writing Center at Indiana State University, and under
the purview of the Department of English.
Now, however, that proud heritage of offering top notch assistance to all students—from Interlink and
ESL students, to students enrolled in English 101 all the way to Ph.D candidates polishing a dissertation—
is jeopardized by a move orchestrated to place complete control of the Writing Center under the Library,
and we feel that is wrong for Indiana State University, wrong for the Writing Center, but most
importantly, is wrong for the success of the students of this campus. The search for a new Writing Center
Coordinator—which is a created EAP position, limited only to internal applicants and thereby greatly
narrowing the pool of potential qualified candidates and complete with a new budget line—revealed how
little the personnel in the Library understand what we do in the Writing Center to assist our fellow
students in their quest for academic success. The job search required that eligible persons have an “MA in
English, experience in a supervisory capacity, and 1 – 2 years experience in a Writing Center or 1 – 2 years
experience in publication and editing.” Anyone who has ever heard a Writing Center consultant present to
a class on the services offered in the Writing Center knows that we do not edit in the Writing Center. Our
standard line for what we do in the Writing Center is that we don’t work to make the writing better, we
work to make the writer better, however clichéd that may sound. It is the old adage of teach a man to
fish…
Prior to this fall, there were high standards for the hiring of student consultants, including a mandatory
cumulative GPA for those seeking employment as a Writing Center consultant. Those standards have
seemingly been placed by the wayside in order to fill open consultant positions in Cunningham Memorial
Library. Those Library staff most closely affiliated with the Writing Center have stated an emphatic lack of
understanding and, more unsettling, a lack of interest in learning what it is that we do in the Writing
Center and how we do it. How can the students coming to us for assistance have any confidence in our
writing expertise if those in a supervisory role in the Library have no desire to even begin to understand
5
how we work with our fellow students and if those who are consultants are not required to be at the
pinnacle of academic achievement?
While we have never had a problem with the Writing Center being housed within the library, and actually
consider it beneficial to the students on this campus because of the high traffic, visibility, and additional
hours offered in that location, we are deeply concerned with the Library controlling the Writing Center. If
the Library has control and supervision of the Writing Center, it will set a precedent in that Indiana State
will be the ONLY university, four year college, or junior college in the country where that entity’s Writing
Center is not under the purview of that institution’s Department of English—regardless of the actual
physical location of the Writing Center. Contrary to what some have heard on this campus, Dean Comer
requested of Provost Maynard that the Library assume control of the Writing Center and control of the
budget for the Writing Center, a request that was granted. The Department of English did not “give” the
Writing Center away, and Dr. Perrin is not “relieved to no longer have to worry about the Writing Center.”
We have been told that the Writing Center consultants who work through the budget in the Department
of English will have positions in January in the Library. However, several of us have been told that no more
hours can be offered because the budget is running that tight. While both Dean Comer and Provost
Maynard acknowledge that the Writing Center location in the library has a budget of $30,000, an amount
that Dean Comer has stated is for the Writing Center and Provost Maynard has stated is for the Library’s
operating budget, when one consultant worked an hour over her scheduled time, she “jeopardized the
Library’s budget for the Writing Center.” If one hour will “break the budget,” how will the Library be able
to enfold the hours and wages of the Root Hall location of the Writing Center into the Library’s budget?
Aside from the questionable available positions for the current Writing Center consultants in Root Hall,
these same consultants were not informed of the available positions until two weeks after a meeting with
Rolland McGiverin, when it was announced that the consultants in Root Hall would be rehired through the
Library’s budget. This meeting with McGiverin was attended by Writing Center consultants on the
Library’s budget, the interim Writing Center Coordinator, and Lynda Cox, the Writing Center secretary,
who was not originally invited to the meeting. The Writing Center consultants from Root Hall were not
even informed of the meeting.
Dean Comer stated in the article which ran in The Indiana Statesman that there has been and will
continue to be cooperation between the Library and the Department of English regarding the Writing
Center, yet the meeting of the Writing Center consultants hired by the Library to the exclusion of the
consultants in Root Hall is just one instance of a failure to communicate and cooperate with the
Department of English. Consultants in the Library have been told they are not allowed to discuss what
happens in the Library’s location of the Writing Center with people in Root Hall. Consultants in the Library
are continually encouraged to schedule students only in the Library’s location, turning away students who
need assistance, without mentioning that there are open appointments in the Root Hall location. Three
students from an English 101 class were told that there were no appointments available, when there were
more than five slots open that afternoon and the next day in Root Hall.
In summation, we consultants cannot stand by and watch a valuable asset to student success, one that
has helped students improve from day one, become a place that only fixes surface errors without delving
into the deeper, global issues within a student’s writing. The Writing Center needs to stand as a point of
light for students struggling with the nuances and intricacies of the English language where those students
can find guidance, assistance, and understanding. Fixing surface errors will never assist a student to
express his or her ideas in class, in writing, on the job, or in life.
Therefore, we are asking you—the members of the Faculty Senate, and anyone who is willing to take up
this cause, including any outside resources—to aid not only the Writing Center, but each and every
student on this campus who has ever or will ever have need of our assistance. Please take a stand to keep
the Writing Center under the purview of those who study and teach writing on a daily basis, rather than
allowing the Writing Center to wander aimlessly in the stacks with a red pen.
6
S. Lamb: Thank you Harold. (Applause noted.)
VIII.
APPROVAL OF THE FACULTY SENATE MINUTES of August 26th, 2010 as corrected – P.
Hightower/C. Lunce 26-0-2.
IX.
15 minute Open Discussion
a.
N. Hopkins: Question concerning the electronic method for reporting our activities – I
have been told that we will no longer be using Digital Measures, which I think is very
good, but my question is have we decided on what we will be using? If not, what is the
process by which we are going to be using it; and what would the faculty involvement
be in using it?
J. Maynard: Kelly Wilkinson is Chair and CRT is working with faculty on several options
to create a model that will be flexible enough to meet the needs of all faculty. Yes, we
are moving away from Digital Measures. We are trying to find something that will not be
so restrictive that it would limit the creativity of the faculty. We will have something
available by the beginning of next semester.
b.
J. Buffington: You will all, along with all faculty, be receiving a letter sometime within
the next two weeks encouraging you to donate to the Faculty Scholarship Fund. Last
year we had $3,259 in donations from 30 donors. That is an average of about $5.40 per
full time faculty member, and we are hoping to increase that amount. Thank you.
c.
R. Dunbar – Question to Provost
I know that the provost was intending on putting out a letter regarding the
diversity/opportunity hires where are we on this?
J. Maynard: I’ve check with the deans regarding this. It is my hope that the letter will be
going out next week.
VIII.
Handbook Revisions (generally minor in nature), - Outside the Constitutions 1-16 with exclusion
of Motion 15(s) to
Review/discussion
R. Guell presented explanations for changes.
MOTIONTO APPROVE MINOR CHANGES TO HANDBOOK to Handbook (items 1-16 amending
portions of the Handbook that can be amended with a simple Faculty Senate vote.) R. Guell/N.
Hopkins 28-0-1. (Not voted on today.)
S. Lamb: The Senate thanks R. Guell for his hard work on Handbook revisions.
Motion 8 charge of the Senate could cancel a meeting after he has told the Senators to see
whether or not they want to have a meeting. Good sense to cancel a meeting
R. Guell I would say it is good practice, and he did at least call every EC members.
C. Hoffman – moving calendar year to academic year. Strip motion 15 add friendly amendment –
yes.
Exclusion of motion 15
IX.
Two-Year Initial Contract for Tenure Track Faculty, Motion to Approve
L. Sperry presented
Review/discussion.
7
MOTION TO APPROVE Two-Year Initial Contract for Tenure Faculty, P. Hightower/J. Kuhlman
29-0-0.
X.
Suggested Handbook Language modifications to accompany the Two-Year Contract.
Review/discussion
MOTION TO ENDORSE Language modifications to accompany the Two-year Contract with
additional comment added that “each department shall have their developmental review
transferred to the dean.) R. Guell/P. Hightower 29-0-0.
XI.
Performance Evaluation Process
Review/discussion
MOTION TO APPROVE THE DOCUMENT EXCLUDING THE VERY LAST SECTION ENTILED TYING
COMPENSATION TO PEFORMANCE. J. Kuhlman/K. Bolinger
MOTION TO APPROVE THE VERY LAST SECTION ENTITLED TYING COMPENSATION TO
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION.
Comments/Discussion related to Performance Review Evaluation:
a.
N. Hopkins: Problem is with faculty buy in – mainly imposed by the president.
S. Lamb: This document was created by FEBC in an open meeting.
K. Bolinger: It is a model viewed university-wide. Faculty decisions will be made on the
expectations of each department who will have their own instruments (means) to
evaluate faculty.
S. Lamb: It is the case in each domain: teaching, scholarship and service that there is an
attempt to define “does not meet expectations.” I believe the intent of this document is
twofold 1) to identify those individuals who are exceptional performers as defined by
the department, and 2) to identify those who do not meet expectations. You have to
distinguish yourself per category. One would have to make a concerted effort “not to
meet expectations.” Nonetheless, I believe this document will help the University in the
long run to identify some people among us who are most problematic.
N. Hopkins: Many faculty believe the Executive Committee and the Faculty Senate
approve things without sufficient opportunity for faculty to give feedback (only talking
about practical politics here). Most faculty would agree that this is a good document,
but they have not had a sufficient chance to review it.
K. Bolinger – I believe that FEBC was extremely sensitive to any potential threat to
faculty; it was foremost on our mind. We have made extensive protections. However,
one would have to acknowledge the possibility that there are at least one or two
underperforming faculty at this University? So given that possibility, we made it almost
a deliberate act that should someone be so identified that he/she would get another
year of mediation, then two years making it a five year process. We wanted to put in
every protection for faculty.
Question: J. Hughes – there were a number of areas in the document where it wasn’t
clear that departments would have the flexibility “to do their thing” or what they
needed to do (e.g. what’s 80% teaching…60% teaching, quality of scholarship, etc?)
S. Lamb: That was a concern – faculty taking administrative assignment…faculty
teaching large sections, etc. But, it has been debated and roundly endorsed.
The Personal committee in department will have to evaluate the work.
J. Hughes: Personal Committee? What does it mean that a department has some
flexibility?
8
S. Lamb: The main goal is to identify people in two groups: 1) those who are not
performing, and 2) those who are performing way above that which we typically call
standard.
R. Goldbort-Question: What would constitute, say 60% of “a passing grade”?
R. Guell: Answer: If you are not meeting expectations in one or the other categories
faculty overall performance may be rated substandard.
S. Lamb: If an individual had met 9 hrs. in teaching (course work) and in other areas no
research…(one would have to be not in attendance and not contributing in any matter
to departmental function or to the University/College functions.) So again, there was
good discussion around this, but there also has to be a reasonable commitment to those
links. If there is no reasonable commitment, one still may move forward. It would have
to be a demonstrated commitment. So there is flexibility.
J. Maynard: I have been working with the deans to establish what it means to have
appropriate expectations, and there will have to be reasonable expectations per
department. People do all kinds of valuable work for us, research, etc. So it will be
flexibility enough, but expectations will be defined by deans.
S. Lamb: And at same time, there is a level of difference here between the provost’s
position and faculty position. I think it will always be my status that we protect the 9 hr.
teaching load. Student needs have to be met, but there also has to be some flexibility.
All faculty are suppose to be moving towards a 12 hr. load as stated in the Handbook.
But, the Handbook also states there are expectations of release for research and other
activities.
Provost: The pressures on all of us now are a fact of life, particularly in higher
education, because of state budget decreases, etc. I have been working with the deans
to determine accountability expectations, but they are not as simple in as saying that
one teaches 12 hours. There will have to be reasonable expectations in place for each
department. The chairs and deans will decide working together on this, but there is no
simple formula. People vary and are different in the work they do. Productivity
expectations will be defined.
S. Lamb: At the same time, there is a difference here between the provost’ position and
the faculty governance’s position. It will always be my stance to protect the 9 hour
teaching load. It should be protected for those that have demonstrated a high level of
productivity in various venues. And, it also should be the case, that student needs
should be protected.
C. Lunce – Question: Maybe it could be possible for comments to be put into some kind
of survey where faculty could make suggestions.
S. Lamb: This is first time this document has been presented. All the others were drafts.
I imagine there are at least 60 current drafts of this. We want people to respond to this
current draft with N. Hopkins corrections.
C. Karlnar: We should create a discussion forum so every faculty member will have a
chance to give feedback. It will also help to make comments anonymously.
N. Hopkins: Two things to do with time lines: First, the two year period, I assume will
start next fall so no one would be evaluated under this?
S. Lamb: That is correct and that is an important component of this.
N. Hopkins: Related to individual faculty members: when we are to submit our activity
report. I understand what is intended here about when we are to submit our activity
reported, etc., but it doesn’t read quite the way you mean it. For example: process
should be completed no later than November 15 of year two. Year two starts in August
9
right after year one so November 15 is year two - less than two years after the two year
period. This is a problem. What you really mean - is completed November 1 after the
conclusion of year two. This needs to be a friendly Amendment “when the faculty
member completes his/her report. R. Goldbort/R. Guell 27-0-0.
MOTION TO TABLE BOTH MOTIONS R. Goldbort/K. Kincaid 15-12-0.
XII.
MOTION TO ACCEPT EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE’S RECOMMENDATIONS Concerning Faculty
Raises and Equity Adjustments. We are appreciative of the Distribution of Salary and
Equity Monies during the academic year and endorse it generally. We are especially
appreciative that the administration has moved to increase the salaries of the temporary
faculty earlier than had been previously proposed. R. Guell/N. Hopkins 26-0-0.
Note: K. Bolinger also distributed copies of Recommendation from FEBC concerning faculty
compensation and highlighted Question 4 of the document (how to allocate $100,000 of new
salary money to faculty across the board)
XIII.
Presentation by Josh Powers on Diversity Initiatives & Institutional Distinctiveness (distributed
handout).
Meeting adjourned 5:40 pm.
10