Approved 01/20/11
29-0-0
EC # 5
FACULTY SENATE MEETING
December 16, 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, T. Hawkins,P. Hightower, C. Hoffman, N. Hopkins,
J. Hughes, K. Kincade, C. Klarner, J. Latimer, J. Kuhlman, M. Lewandowski, C. MacDonald,
W. Redmond, T. Sawyer, M. Schafer, R. Schneirov, V. Sheets, S. Shure,
G. Stachokas, L. Tinnerman, B. Yousif, and A. Solesky (P.T. Faculty Advocate)
B. Corcoran, D. Hantzis, C. Lunce, L. Kahanov, T. McDaniel, R. Osborn,
President D. Bradley, Provost J. Maynard
A. Comer, J. Gatrell, B. Sims, B. Williams, J. Murray
T. Allen, S. Buchanan, P. Carino, A. S. Chirhart, T. Derrick, R. Dolle, R. English, R. Hunter,
L. Maule, L. Sperry, R. Perrin, R. Peters, Y. Peterson, D. Yaw
I.
Memorial Resolution for Howard McMillen, read by Robert Perrin.
II.
Administrative report:
a.
The Indiana Commission for Higher Education has made its recommendation for
budgets for the next biennium. They are proposing that our budgets be reduced by $2
million each year. They mitigated it somewhat by suggesting a repair and rehabilitation
budget of about $1.7 million each year. But still any reduction of significant size is
detrimental to our being able to continue what we are doing. The way they handle that
is that they basically reduce everyone’s budget by 5% and then use some performance
metric to allocate that $61 million that resulted from that 5% reduction. In our case we
were given some additional dollars based on our efforts in the area of dual credit, low
income degrees, on-time four year degrees, total bachelor’s degrees awarded and credit
for an increase in successfully completed credit hours. It turns out that the matrix we
did the best in was on-time degrees. Without really doing anything our four-year
graduation rate has climbed from about 21% to about 23.5% over the last two years.
That particular metric resulted in about $1.8 million in each of the next two years. Of
the 5%, we got about half of it back. Some schools got their budgets cut over 5%, and
some got increases of more than 5%–we are about in the middle.
b.
Faculty positions: The provost has been authorized to do 42 searches; 14 of those
searches will be for special purpose faculty, 28 for tenure and tenure-track faculty.
Based on a meeting that we had today, I have an agreement with the deans and the
provost to allow us to begin searches very early after the start of next year.
c.
The Board of Trustees meets tomorrow (December 17). We have a number of reports.
One of them is the health insurance program and where we see it going. The premiums
are going up about 7.5%. We need to do something about our health insurance and
there will be a lot of discussion about that as we go into the next semester.
1
d.
I want to wish everyone Happy Holidays and thank you for your efforts over the past
year, particularly the efforts that allowed us to absorbed 1000 new students this fall.
You made it look easy even though I know it wasn’t. No or few complaints from students
or parents about how we handled this big increase in enrollment, so thank you for your
efforts
Provost: I join with the president in wishing you all an enjoyable and happy holiday
season. Commencement is Saturday (December 1). About 800 of our students will be
graduating. I hope that each of you can attend this event.
III.
Chair report S. Lamb:
Colleagues,
Virgil Sheets is going to share the onerous duty of the chair’s report with me, and will be
speaking as soon as I have concluded.
As you know, at the October meeting we tabled the performance evaluation model, so
that greater involvement from the faculty body could occur. Since that point, we have
had two open forums; we have established a web site for input, monitored by Bob. We
have made change after change as a result of input given. All input has been considered.
Frankly, we, the Executive Committee members, have worked continuously on this
document since that October meeting. It was our hope that if we gave most serious
consideration to the input given, that most serious consideration would be given to the
resulting product. None of the Executive Committee members believed that the
purpose of the motion to table was to stall. We did feel, and still do, that the motion
was made in order that the model could be improved. Special thanks go out to so many
Senators who reviewed and improved the document significantly. Top among them are
Robert Goldbort, Rick Schneirov, and Karl Klarner. They sent suggestions forward, or
worked with individual Executive Committee members to improve the document, as did
so many others.
Dr. Goldbort is between a rock and a hard place. He among all senators has spent
numerous hours improving this document. His massive input has been taken and largely
incorporated into the model. His Department, however, voted almost unanimously last
week to bring the process to a halt. We will hear from Dr. Perrin today.
Dr. Goldbort, in a resulting plea sent to several colleagues, asks for even more additional
time to hear from individuals and determine the best possible model. He states the
following:
“I am simply saying that, after all these years, we do have a chance with this president to
work in a partnership climate that still maintains faculty ownership and allows a
dignified evaluation/reward process. So let's give this issue the time it really needs, and
continue to hear from colleagues as we determine the best course, -----“
Regardless of the results of today’s deliberation, the Senate is indebted to Rob for the
efforts he has made. I do believe that the Executive Committee has greatly improved
the product, and I do believe that this product as it exists now does give us an excellent
chance to work in an effective manner with the president, and does allow an existing
2
dignified evaluation/reward process. While marginal improvements could always be
made, it is time to bring this round to closure.
Significant changes have been made. Among them are the following:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

•
•
The paragraph linking this process directly to dismissal proceedings has been
eliminated.
There is language designed to deemphasize the importance of SIR’s.
The limitations placed on the appeal process have been completely struck.
There has been a serious attempt to modify the language to create a dignified
evaluation/reward process.
There is a significant relaxation of the adherence to the 15% standard for the
number of individuals receiving the Contributing Exceptionally classification in
any period.
There has been added an introduction stating the purpose and goals of the
process.
The importance of diversity in the formation of the College Personnel
Committees has been stressed.
Pre-tenured faculty may choose to opt out of the process if they so wish.
A faculty member may forward to the college a one- page objection to the
evaluation immediately after receiving the opinion from the department
personnel committee and the chair. This objection is then incorporated into the
package as it moves forward to the dean and college committee, making this
process somewhat parallel to other evaluation processes. –thanks go to Kit
Kincade.
And finally, colleagues, there is a process by which at the end of each biennial
period, the results of the model are reviewed by FAC, which is charged with
suggesting improvements to the process. Colleagues, an Improvement process
is built into the model.
I have been informed that the Exam schedule has prohibited senators from getting to this
meeting until later. At their request, I would like to change the order of the agenda, if there
are no objections, so that this item will be dealt with immediately before the diversity
statement.
I do hope that when we get to this issue, meaningful debate is allowed. The votes taken
must be by a secret ballot. Feelings run deep. Individuals feel the need for anonymity.
Again, we seriously considered all input, and incorporated much. I do not know what more
we could have done. Colleagues, the Executive Committee does hope for your support. Your
turn, Virgil
V. Sheets:
I am concerned about the future of our profession. Anyone with any awareness
understands that education is under assault. The public perception is that they are not
getting their money’s worth; they want accountability and continue to support cutting
educational funding until they get it. They see tenure not in its role to protect academic
freedom but as a union device to protect people who are no longer held to high standards in
teaching and scholarship. Of course, we know this is wrong, and I, for one, favor any
3
evidence that we can develop to show this is wrong. To my mind, there’s no greater way to
protect tenure than to share with the public that tenure is NOT protecting “dead wood,” but
that faculty are professionals who hold each other to high performance standards. Thus, I
have no problem being evaluated, because I believe that an examination of the work that I
and my faculty colleagues do will reveal that ISU faculty continue to demonstrate high levels
of performance throughout their careers.
The proposed review system is not perfect. But then no system is. However, to me, it
meets several important criteria. First and foremost, it is simple. We are already required
by the Handbook to make an annual report of our professional activities, and I’ve always felt
that I shouldn’t need to report more than that, that if someone simply looks at a listing of
the papers I present and publish, at the committees I serve on, and at the numbers of
students I teach, there will be no doubt that I’m doing my job, and that’s basically all that’s
requested here, a 3-page description of my activities. Second, the decisions to be made are
not onerous; they should not eat up inordinate amounts of my colleagues’ time as would be
necessary to do a fine-grained analysis; nor will they generate the rancor associated ranking
each and every faculty member against each other from highest to lowest. Am I meeting
the high standards of the ISU faculty? Am I not? Or am I doing so much that my colleagues
want to express special recognition? Those are the judgments to be made. Finally, these
judgments are being made by my colleagues, rather than by an administration that is
substantially removed from my day-to-day activities.
This proposal has undergone stringent review. It has been approved by multiple layers of
FACULTY governance and has been improved by input from across campus. It has a built-in
review by FAC to address any emergent problems. It’s time to move on. Please, let’s vote
on it today. I, for one, would like to have time to do something else before my review.
IV.
Support Staff Report – R. Torrence – no report
V.
SGA report – no report
VI.
Special Purpose Advocate Report
A. Solesky: Issue – 15-hour load for Special Purpose Faculty
The issue was first brought to my attention from another SPF member on Monday 12/6.
I have been unable to find specific guidance in the University Handbook other than these
statements:
(310.1.1) Normal Teaching Load: the normal teaching load will be 12 semester credit
hours of course work per semester or 24 per academic year
(310.1.1.1)Overload: in emergency situations an extra class may be assigned and the
faculty member will be compensated at an established rate per semester credit hour
305.2.5 Special Purpose Faculty: SPF shall be assigned duties equivalent to at least a 24
hour credit hour teaching load (12 credit hour teaching load per semester)
Needing more information, I have been told by other faculty members, that there is an
“understanding” for tenure and TT faculty that they will teach 9 to 12 hours and have
research and/or service obligations that equal a 15 hour equivalent.
4
It is my understanding that the 15-hour equivalent will now extend to SPF. That those who
already have a full teaching load plus administrative and/or service obligations will not have
their teaching load increased; but those SPF that do not have administrative or service
duties will begin teaching a 15 hour load.
However, I have already heard from a SPF member who does teaching plus service that he
has been asked to teach an additional class in the spring on top of his other duties because
of this.
Without a clear policy put into writing for the 15-hour equivalent load I fear that SPF may be
taken advantage of. The information presented in the December 7 minutes is not clear.
Full time temporary faculty did receive the increase in pay to $1000.00 per credit hour to
compensate for their work contributions, but are now being told they will have to do
additional work.
Questions:

How are various service duties calculated into a faculty load?

Does the pay difference between a SPF member and a full time lecturer differ enough
for what the SPF is asked to do?
Provost’s response: We are appointing a task force about how we classify our faculty, including
Special Purpose faculty. A. Solesky will be a member of that group and be asked to addresses
the above-stated issues and others. We asked Dean Balch and Mark Green to co-chair that
group. I would ask S. Lamb and the Faculty Senate to recommend some faculty who could also
represent this group. I would like to get this group started by the beginning of the New Year.
VII.
Approval of Faculty Senate Minutes of November 18, 2010 subject to edits (per Chair report) P.
Hightower/N. Hopkins 30-0-0
VIII.
Fifteen Minute Open discussion:
a.
R. Hunter: My name is Robert Hunter, and I am a Professor of History. I come before
you today to speak to the issue of the change in the rule of eligibility for Emeritus status
from 10 years of service at ISU to the current 15. And I am here to request that you find
some way of accommodating faculty with problems similar to mine.
I am in my 12th year as a full-time faculty member. I arrived in 1999 from Tulane
University to become Chairperson of the History Department. This was a late career
change, not terribly unusual these days. I served as History Chair for four years, and
have been Professor of History since then. During my time here, I have taught my share
of students, met my committee responsibilities, carried out research, presented
conference papers, and published – in a word, I have been a good academic citizen.
On May 31, 2011, I will be retiring from ISU. One of the reasons for my decision was to
free up times to complete two, book-length research projects. The decision to retire
was made almost a year ago. I took it for granted that I would be eligible for and be
5
able to receive Emeritus status. One of my projects is a history of the Syrian community
of Terre Haute, of whom the most visible public representative today is Mr. Dan Tanoos,
Vigo County School Superintendent. The Syrians are an important ethnic group that
contributed significantly to TH and Indiana as educators, lawyers, businessmen, and civic
leaders. The other project is a history of Western tourism in Morocco and Egypt. I have
been researching this for the last eight years, and have one research gap left to fill,
which requires me to spend five months in Morocco at an archive in Tangiers.
To complete these projects, I need the academic standing that the title of Professor
Emeritus confers. The granting agency for Morocco informed me last year that in order
to apply for future funding, I would need an academic affiliation. The same is true of my
research on the Syrians. It would be difficult, if not impossible, to visit state archives
and libraries, and to interview priests at orthodox churches without the academic
credentials that the status of Emeritus carries. I also intend to remain active in my field,
as a book reviewer and reviewer of manuscripts for journals. One has to have an
academic affiliation in order to be invited to do these things.
To conclude, this coming May I give up my academic tenure and cut my ties with ISU. I
will become an adjunct instructor in History, and, hopefully, spend the next two years
finishing up my projects. I need the Emeritus title to do this. Would it be possible, for
example to make provision for an exemption from the new rule? Or simply to
grandfather in people like me, who have put in more than 10 years but less than 15?
Thank you for your time and attention.
b.
A. Short Chirhart:
Thank you for allowing me to address you. I am Ann Short Chirhart, associate professor
in the Department of History. Like Bob Hunter, I came to ISU in 1999 and share a similar
problem with the proposed changes for eligibility for Emeritus status from 10-15 years.
I changed careers later in my life and completed my PhD in American History from
Emory University in 1997.
During my years at ISU, I published two books, wrote five articles, reviewed dozens of
books (15) and manuscripts (33 journals, 4 textbooks) for journals and academic
presses, and presented at least ten conference papers at the major historical
associations conferences. My third book is under contract with the University of
Georgia Press and will be sent to the press in May 2011. My fifth and sixth articles will
be published in 2011. I have taught thousands of students, served on numerous
committees at the department, college and University level, teach courses in African
American History and am affiliated with Women’s Studies, and am currently the faculty
advisor for the student chapter of the NAACP, the National Association for the
Advancement of Colored People. I have chaired and served as a committee member on
at least fifteen masters’ committees. Every time I present a conference paper, every
time I publish a book, a review, or an article, ISU’s academic reputation is enhanced
because underneath my name is the name of Indiana State University.
6
In the past year, I realized that because of my family circumstances, it might be
necessary for me to retire prior to the fifteen-year mark. I thought that this would still
permit me to complete other research projects that I am beginning, including a fulllength biography of Mary McLeod Bethune the proposal for which is under
consideration by several academic presses, and continue to review books and
manuscripts for journals and academic presses. The proposed changes mean that I can
no longer use the name of ISU because I will have no academic affiliation. Nor will I be
able to complete much of the work I plan to do on my current projects because of the
lack of an academic affiliation.
Most of my research relied on access to archives in the South or in Washington, D.C.
Each time I go to an archive, I am asked for a university affiliation and proposed project.
I certainly plan to continue research and publication when I leave ISU, and I would like
to credit this university for this work. If the Senate includes an exemption for individuals
like Bob Hunter and I for emeritus status, I can continue to name ISU in my work, a fact
that clearly reflects favorable on this university.
I ask for the possibility of an exemption to the changes in Emeritus Status or possibly a
clause inserted in the policy that will allow me to claim Emeritus status as a scholar for
ISU. Thank you for your time.
c.
R. Perrin – Statement on behalf of Department of English regarding the Faculty
Performance Evaluation model:
A RECOMMENDATION TO THE FACULTY SENATE FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH REGARDING THE
PROPOSED FACULTY PERFORMANCE EVALUATION MODEL
Whereas, no evidence has been presented of a problem with faculty performance at
ISU;
Whereas, no evidence has been presented showing that post-tenure performance
reviews result in improved teaching or research/publication;
Whereas, no evidence has been presented of the success of post-tenure reviews at our
peer institutions;
Whereas, the AAUP has determined that post-tenure review results in faculty
competition and division, not collaboration and collegiality;
Whereas, means are already in place by which ISU can “assess and acknowledge the
work of its faculty” and achieve the other objectives stated under “Purpose”;
Whereas, limiting the number of faculty who can be found “Contributing Exceptionally”
to 15% is insulting and unfair;
Whereas, predetermining the results of a study, predicting that a given percent of the
subjects will fall into any given category, is bad science;
Whereas, a biennial period of evaluation may discourage faculty from undertaking
significant projects that may take years to complete before showing truly significant
results;
Whereas, a biennial evaluation during the Fall semester will overburden personnel
committees and chairs who already must evaluate all adjunct faculty, pre-tenured
faculty, promotion applications, and sabbatical applications during that period;
Whereas, department chairs are already evaluated every three years and should not be
7
submitted to an additional biennial evaluation;
Whereas, the amount of time, energy, and emotion that faculty would have to put into
this process would be better invested in teaching and publication;
Whereas, tenure is a vote of confidence from the University to a faculty member,
earned after a rigorous six-year evaluation process that eliminates the need for frequent
performance reviews thereafter;
Whereas, the format of the three-page electronic report required from each faculty
member has yet to be developed;
Whereas, the “evidence of teaching effectiveness” that faculty must submit is
undefined;
Whereas, tying compensation to performance based on a self-promoting or selfincriminating report invites subjectivity, favoritism, and dishonesty;
Whereas, the amount of time, energy, and emotion spent by faculty members,
personnel committees, and chairs determining weight percentages, performance
expectations, and actual performance is not justified by relatively small and uncertain
performance-based salary adjustments;
Therefore, in agreement with the Faculty Council of the College of Arts and Sciences,
we, the Department of English, urge the Faculty Senate to vote either to table this
proposed policy indefinitely or to “reject it out of hand.”
Approved December 6, 2010, by a vote of 16-0-1
d.
Stan Buchanan, Vice Chair, CAS Faculty Council:
I am here to comment on the Faculty Performance Evaluation Model now under
consideration. I’m here in the main to read a CAS Faculty Council resolution against the
Senate’s adopting that model. But I do have a few, very few comments of my own.
I think this rule is ill-timed, ill-conceived, and unneeded. It’s weak, it won’t accomplish
its objectives, and it will promote unnecessary rancor among faculty.
My main objection, though, is that the proposed rule is a product of a dishonest
process. It obscures the real question. The real question is not whether we want an
evaluation system. That’s just the loss leader in this debate. To me, the real question is,
does this faculty want to turn itself into a different kind of organization? If we do truly
want to debate that issue, let’s do it openly and publicly and let’s take our time about it.
And let’s not rush through weak half-measures, like the one before the Senate today.
Let’s go at it with a will. And if we decide to abandon the collegiate form, and turn
ourselves into just another top-down bureaucracy, let’s make sure we’re a good one.
I close my own remarks by stating my categorical support for the resolution on this
matter adopted by the faculty of the Department of English earlier this month.
What follows is the text of the CAS Faculty Council’s resolution. The resolution was
adopted by the Council during its last meeting on December 1.
8
Whereas, the faculty senate is considering a faculty evaluation process which would
constrain each tenured faculty member to undergo an “evaluation” every two years.
Whereas , this and any such a post-tenure review process is contrary to the spirit and
the practice of academic freedom.
Whereas, the university and especially its faculty, in its present state, already possess
the capacity to acknowledge and reward outstanding performance, uphold the dignity
of our profession, and support the faltering among us.
Whereas, the process under review would alter the traditional relationship between
faculty members, department chairs, and the university administration in a manner
offensive to collegiality
It is therefore the sense of the Faculty Council of the College of Arts and Sciences of
Indiana State University that any proposed modifications of the rules and regulations of
this university touching on post-tenure evaluations be rejected out of hand, or at the
very least, be tabled to be considered only at a much later date, after the matter has
undergone a much longer and more formal process through the policy-making bodies
of the colleges. (6-4-0)
e.
Turning down thermostats in building during the cold temperatures – 68 degrees – too
hot. President: I will be happy to pass this information to Physical Plant. I am sure they
do their best, but some building on campus are difficult to maintain even heat. To lower
it in Nora’s office it may be ok, but to lower the temperature across the building may be
more difficult.
f.
Question to the provost: What is your idea of faculty teaching ratio? 17-1 student
faculty ratio – do we need to increase this? It is presently less than 17-1 ratio.
Provost: The ratios vary greatly across academic disciplines. As an institution we need
to increase our productivity. There will be great variations across campus (e.g. clinical
programs, etc.) We need to move to 19-1 or 20-1 ratios in order to maintain high
quality programs. A number of institutions are already doing this.
T. Hawkins: The president stated previously that the worst thing we could do was to
increase the faculty load for faculty – maintain a 9 hr. teaching load – I just need
confirmation that the 9 hr. teaching is the ideal and what we are working towards.
President: In my role as president, I believe the overall ratios are what I am looking at.
Teaching loads, and the size of course sections, have to be made at the department
level. I clearly support the role of ISU faculty to be involved in research. There are
multiple ways to get to where we want to be in terms of the overall faculty/student
ratio. One way would be to increase the number of course sections faculty teach by
15%, and you’d be there. That’s a pretty foolish way to do it. We need to look at
eliminating courses/sections that we don’t need; increasing the size of some classes,
some more dramatically in terms of going to larger lecture room sections for certain
courses. These are decisions that need to be made at the college/department level.
Basically, it is a matter of where we are now because of our funding levels, and what
funding levels we will have in the future.
9
S. Lamb: It has always been my desire that deans will allow their chairs to satisfy the
student demands that exist and also be sufficiently creative to protect the 9 hr. teaching
load as well as to give those who have a viable research component an opportunity to
do so.
N. Hopkins: Regarding faculty/student ratio being 17-1, are you taking into account our
increased enrollment this fall?
President: Yes. If we review the last 10 years, we were down to 16-1. Because of
enrollment increases we are up to right around 17 this year.
C. Hoffman: Does that include the non-tenured faculty? President – yes, but not the
Library faculty.
g.
J. Hughes: Grade submission forms – difficulty getting students’ last day of attendance
and doing this simultaneously when submitting grades. If faculty forget to put in date of
student attendance, it blanks out the whole sheet.
R. Guell: Dr. Hughes is correct about this and it is likely to be very frustrating to faculty.
The need to enter last day of attendance cannot be disputed because the Federal
government requires that we do so to prevent financial aid fraud, but this means of
enforcement has the potential of being very bad. Furthermore, when students never
attended, the system does not offer you that option even when you indicated that the
student never attended during the 3-week attendance report. Faculty such as Dr.
Hughes and I, with hundreds of grades to enter, will be significantly affected by this.
Provost: Will have April Hay look into this.
IX.
Handbook Changes:
Discussion/review:
Constitutional changes, Bob Guell championed: nothing substantive – to update
language to conform to present University structure.
MOTION TO APPROVE #s 1-9 (#8 withdrawn) P. Hightower/C. MacDonald 29-0-0
Constitutional changes, FAC championed, L. Sperry
MOTION TO APPROVE 10 through 13. C. MacDonald/ J. Kuhlman 29-0-0
Constitutional change, Attendance Policy
MOTION TO APPROVE (with addition of: “The Senate Chair shall inform the college
governing body”). N. Hopkins/P. Hightower 29-0-0
Note: V. Sheets stated that he reported earlier to Chair, Lamb that the Constitutional
change involving attendance policy was not included in the ballots already sent out.
Rather than send another ballot out right away, we could wait when we do spring
semester voting in a few months. Being that the Senate is comfortable with that, I will
include it on the spring ballot.
10
All-faculty voting will began on January 11 and last through January 18.
X.
Experiential Learning and Community Engagement, P & T documents
Review/discussion
MOTION TO ACCEPT B. Guell/C. Hoffman 29-0-0
XI.
Emeritus/Emerita: an honorarium designation
Tabled. Amended: Change minimum years of service from 15 to 10. Discussion of
possibility of allowing for exceptions. (N. Hopkins/J. Hughes 23-5-2).
XII.
Performance Evaluation
Review/comments/discussion:



R. Goldbort: Regarding Performance Policy - I believe it is not for academics. It has
become a better document, but I also believe it is not ready to be voted on. I believe we
need a few more months of research – an opportunity for departments to discuss it
more and to make the document less divisive and less contentious and more complete.
What I am proposing is a system of awards, I call them achievement awards – but I really
feel that an award system is the simplest way to go. Each department could pick
between one to three people or even zero for people they feel who are exceptional. It
would not be contentious – choosing people who are the highest achievers for that
period.
T. Hawkins: Expressed his concern that we are creating a mechanism for performance
evaluation that will require the participation of every member of the university faculty,
even though the proposed process has implications (and even those are limited) for only
a small percentage of the faculty: those who are deemed to be exceeding expectations
and those who are rated “below expectations.” We should instead create a streamlined
process that more narrowly targets those two groups and that builds upon current
departmental evaluation mechanisms. Dr. Bradley noted that he has problems
answering the questions of outside interest groups about performance evaluation at
ISU. The University has a very effective evaluation process for pre-tenured faculty: the
tenure process, itself. Concerns about the minority of tenured faculty who are
perceived to be underperforming should not result in the all-inclusive evaluation
mechanism proposed today.
M. Lewdowski’s statement: I have no problem with tenure reviews. Professors should
remain active in their field. EC told us how post tenure review should be implemented
rather than why it should be implemented. To make matters worse the Executive
Committee (EC) attempted to shove the first version of the documents down our
throats. Some weeks later Dr. Lamb and other members of the EC tried to contact us to
gather support for the document. It is still not clear to me why this was rushed through.
The only reason why I feel we are now discussing this document at Senate is because
President Bradley wants this. Because of this, it is hard to look at the EC and take it
seriously, and I have lost confidence in it. I believe the document is representing what
the president wants and not the Faculty Senate. If we decide to vote for this document,
it is because it is what the Faculty Senate really wants.
11
S. Lamb: I do take exception to what was said.

R. Guell: We already have a performance evaluation system in place. It was put in place
under President John Moore and was never rescinded. For a number of years we have
not had the money to give salary increases. The system that we have up for
consideration today I believe is a vast improvement than what was put in place under
John Moore. I do not think that there is anything going on behind the scenes with the
EC. I’ve known people on the EC for a long time, and I believe they are trying to do the
best they can do.
The time has come to demonstrate that the faculty of Indiana State University, and
specifically its Faculty Senate, is prepared to respond to the reality of shared governance
with proposals that are workable. In the summer of 2008, the Board of Trustees gave a
real and reasonable charge to the president: regularly evaluate every employee. The
Board has shown patience with the President and the President with the Faculty Senate
as we have worked through this charge.

V. Sheets: The Board of Trustees said in 2008 that all University employees need to be
evaluated. The EC responded to this as it normally does to other charges. S. Lamb: The
charge for this was sent down to FEBC by EC.
S. Lamb: Before that the deans had developed a performance - based evaluation
system. The EC felt that it did not have adequate buy-in from the faculty, or adequate
faculty input. We wanted a system that came from the bottom, came from personnel
committees. N. Hopkins is correct that we had a system under President Moore that it
also started from personnel committees and at the deans’ discretion. And, there were
continuous evaluations; there were small differentials in pay (e.g. faculty could get $50
more than their colleagues) and that became extremely divisive and offensive. So yes,
we have had that system, and still do. President Benjamin never did encourage
performance based pay so the system died. A couple of times it was instituted rather
facetiously, I must say. This evaluation now meets the same scrutiny.

Should FEBC really have done this document? It is not an economic issue.
S. Lamb: It should have been done by Faculty Affairs Committee (FAC)
The administration’s first offering in Fall 2008 was not to the faculty’s liking. Last year
Chairperson Lamb gave that charge to FEBC and it responded with a proposal. This
year’s Exec modified the document, and when concerns were raised at the October
Senate meeting, agreed to an unprecedented series of meetings, discussions, and
deliberations.
I have no rebuttal for those of you who remain opposed to this document because you
believe that earning tenure is not merely a lifetime guarantee of the academic freedom
to conduct your research and engage in the pedagogy of your choosing, but also the
guarantee that you will never again have to be evaluated. I also would have had no
rebuttal to a Titanic captain claiming his ship was unsinkable despite all evidence to the
contrary.
12
On the other side, there are some who believe in regular review and perhaps even in a
more consequential review than this one. I hope you will support this modest move
toward internal accountability. Perfect should not be the enemy of the good. “Better”
has been a friend of the good. For instance, FAC’s role to evaluate the whole process
after each complete cycle and the impetus behind the process development evaluation
review were offered by Senator MacDonald and the faculty of her department.
I think everyone who touched this document now believes it is better than it was. They
may also believe that it could be changed in a way that would make it more to their
liking, but I know of no one who can demonstrate that any changes would be to
everyone’s liking. We have heard from several dozen faculty requesting specific changes
and/or broad reconsiderations. Every one of them was considered. This is the best your
elected Executive committee could come up with and so now is the time for an up or
down vote. Before we vote we should take note of the consequences of what we do.
With an affirmative vote you are setting us on a course toward continued and
consequential dialogue with the administration. The patience shown by the Board and
by the President and the respect for the process will have been shown to have borne
fruit. The President will be able to deliver to the Board not just a specific proposal on a
specific topic, but evidence that patient, inclusive conversation is more productive in the
long run than imposed solutions. With an affirmative vote we can move toward a
deliberative discussion about Special Purpose faculty, their role, their compensation,
and their relative size among the faculty. With an affirmative vote we can have a
deliberative discussion of the importance of sabbatical leaves and find a way to fund
them appropriately. With an affirmative vote we have reason to believe that the
President will continue to side with those favoring a quick alignment of our salaries with
competitive levels.
This document may be imperfect but it is better than the realistic alternative that we
face if we show the Board that their patience was not justified. If we cast this aside, it
will take years before they give us the time to do something like this again.
Questions addressed to President Bradley:

Executive Committee struck tying performance evaluation with dismissal. Are
you OK with that?
President: My thought is that there are other parts of the Handbook that deal with that.
If someone is on a performance improvement plan and fails to improve, then I would
think that those other sections of the Handbook would come into play.

Regarding a biennial evaluation process – would this mean that we would get
pay increases only every other year?
President: I would hope that more often than that would be the norm. There would not
be a relationship between when evaluations occur and whether there is a pay increase
that year, in my mind.

So for the off years that we have not done the evaluation yet, do you have a
13
process in mind for giving out pay increases?
President: As we discussed in the document, the last evaluation is in the one that holds.

So in other words pay increases would be given out twice assuming that there is
funding?
President: Yes.

Please clarify the relationship between this document and dismissal
proceedings. A decision was made by the EC and the Senate not to tie the
performance evaluation to dismissal proceedings. Did I hear you correctly that
they would be tied to dismissal proceedings?
President: No. I said if one is found to be wanting in the evaluation, that a performance
improvement plan would be developed by the faculty member and his/her peers. This
would determine whether there is any further personnel action. It is a connection that
already exists.
K. Bolinger: I disagree with the statement made by the English Department in that after
six years you have been vested for life, so to speak. I think we would have to agree that
there are under performing faculty among us, so accepting some form of evaluation that
allows us to look at our policies and to get formative feedback, I believe, philosophically,
is not a bad idea. The model probably could be improved (it’s not perfect), but we need
to look at the model, see what parts are valid, and without consequence, move forward
and perhaps create something better within the next two or three years.
President: Not having a performance evaluation document makes my job a lot more
difficult when dealing with the Board of Trustees and the Legislature in trying to
negotiate for adequate funds to give pay raises. When I talk about pay raises to
Legislature and to the Trustees, almost invariably they will ask “do you evaluate your
faculty, and does anyone fail that evaluation?” It is, I believe, important that we have
an evaluation process, simply, if for no other reason, to answer these questions. It
becomes more difficult to get the resources we need if we do not have these
evaluations. My recollection is that this process of evaluating actually got started in the
semester prior to my arrival, even though I encourage its development.
•
Pay for performance has to be above the cost of living increases, otherwise what you
are saying to faculty doing a good job is “you are going to get a pay cut above standard
faculty.” We should have something to that effect in the document.
N. Hopkins: Page 2 of Performance Evaluation document (item 7) reference to “loads
over the evaluation period may reduce weights for scholarship and service to 10% – is it
under 10% each or 10 % total?
S. Lamb: 10% each
N. Hopkins: If the department and deans disagree, who decides?
S. Lamb: They hammer it out or it defaults to “meets expectations.”
14
How would raises be determined?
R. Guell: It would be formulated. There would be no exceptionals (except for a
traditional appointment as assistant professor.)
R. Schneirov: The performance evaluation model is not to be used to drive the faculty
dismissal process. I am asking for unanimous consent. It cannot be the sole means for
dismissal – that would violate the Handbook.
The president and provost can go to EC and ask for a dismissal hearing. My view
without a section on hearings in here is that whatever comes out of the evaluation
could be brought to EC as evidence, and the EC would still have the role that the
evidence presented to them could be brought forward for dismissal.
S. Lamb: That is correct.
V. Sheet: The Administration is free to reject the EC recommendation and set up a
panel following the procedure, but it is not as strong.
S. Lamb: The Constitution sets up the process if there is a problem with a particular
faculty member. Then the provost and that faculty member meet, and there is
discussion on how to resolve; then the process is completed. The Chair of the Faculty
Senate becomes the advocate for the faculty member.

We should be informing others what we are spending our time on.

K. Bolinger: Whereas we have not achieved horizontal equity (people doing similar
work of similar quality getting similar pay), we would be reinforcing vertical equity
(people of greater worth getting greater pay). It is irresponsible and demoralizing to
incentivize vertical equity before achieving horizontal equity. I would recommend
that not until all faculty adequately performing are at 95% of market should we
consider diffusing compensation with pay for performance. I further noted that
studies show that in a pay for performance incentive system over time, extremely
high and moderately low performers stay, and moderately high and extremely low
leave. Since we can deal with the extremely low through the performance evaluation
system, why should we demoralize the moderately high (which I would argue is a
greater number than either the extremely high or moderately low), with a pay for
performance scheme? My final point is that this system only rewards a select few,
which puts faculty in competition with one another and discourages collaborative
work, since the colleagues that I would be collaborating with are in competition with
me for a limited amount of "bonus" incentive. If we wish to incentivize performance
then make it available to everyone who reaches established benchmarks.
President: Currently the model we use is 90% (trying to get everyone up to 90 %.) I
believe that that is a doable goal, and it will reflect where we should be. The 90-95% is
arbitrary. I think we need more discussion on that. The cost of living argument is a
tougher one in the sense in that how does one define it? This year the cost of living
would be a negative 1%. We have a very robust system here, and I expect that that will
continue. I am always interested in faculty input, particularly from the Senate.
15
I also would like to state that equity is going to be a significant concern of mine. I also
want to state that it would be grossly unfair for someone to be considered not
contributing at an adequate level and still get a pay raise.
J. Conant’s statement: I realize that this document is not perfect. In fact, there is no
possible performance document that will please everyone. The current document is, in
my opinion, the best we can do. Yes, some people will be unhappy with the evaluation
process. But someone will be unhappy with any changes we make. I believe that this
process is a great improvement over the existing process, and in fact over the several
evaluation processes we have had in my 30 years at ISU. As a result, I urge you to give
your support to this recommended performance evaluation process.
V. Sheets’ motion: I would like to move approval of the Performance Evaluation Document
(excluding the section that ties compensation to performance), subject to an
implementation plan specified below:
1. No consequential review shall occur prior to Fall 2013
2. An individual and process development review shall be undertaken in Fall 2011. This
review will be conducted to ensure that the process works as intended and to identify any
unanticipated problems.
A. This review will inform faculty of their current “standing” but shall NOT be used to affect
the faculty member’s salary or in any other personnel-related matter and no
improvement plans shall be written as a result of it.
B. The only copy of the individual faculty member’s evaluation shall be the sole property of
the faculty member.
C. The Faculty Affairs Committee of the Faculty Senate will be charged in the Spring 2012
semester with conducting a review of the process and with recommending improvements.
V. Sheets’ Primary Motion to Approve Performance Evaluation Model, Excluding
Compensation, Subject to the Implementation Plan, as given above, V. Sheets/B. Guell
MOTION TO Amend V. Sheets’ primary motion: “The performance evaluation model
process should not be used to trigger the faculty dismissal process.” (R. Schneirov/R.
Guell) Approved, unanimous
The Vote Concerning the Approval of V Sheets’ primary motion “the Performance
Evaluation Document (excluding the section that ties compensation to performance),
subject to the implementation plan as specified and incorporating the above Schneirov
amendment immediately preceding. Approved 20-9-1
B. Guell’s Primary Motion to Approve Tying Compensation to Performance as stated in the
document, B. Guell/N. Hopkins
MOTION TO Amend Guell’s primary motion: “The framework for Pay for Performance
will go into effect only when the average compensation available for standard
contributing faculty meets or exceed the costs of living increase during the previous pay
period.” R. Schneirov /S. Lamb. Approved, 21-5-2
16
MOTION TO APPROVE Guell’s Primary Motion Tying Compensation to Performance as
amended by the Schneirov motion immediately preceding. Approved, 17-11-0
XIII.
CAAC Items: R. Peters

Move of Safety Management Department from the College of Nursing, Health and Human
Services to the College of Technology
Y. Peterson presented
MOTION TO APPROVE moving Safety Management Department from College of Nursing, Health
and Human Services to the College of Technology. APPROVED (VOICE VOTE)

Foundational Studies Program, concerning the AS/AA vs. AAS transfer degree
Requirement
L. Maule presented rationale.
MOTION TO APPROVE Foundational Studies Program change: 28-0-0.

MS in Aviation Sciences (new program)
T. Allen presented rationale
MOTION TO APPROVE MS in Aviation APPROVED (VOICE VOTE)
XIV.
Staffing Analysis; Dorothy Yaw
MOTION TO ACCEPT Staffing Analysis data. APPROVED (VOICE VOTE)
R. Guell: When will the data be available? (Last year’s personnel shift)
D. Yaw: We have already received that information from D. Mc Kee.
XV.
Endorsement of Diversity Statement
Josh Powers presented:
MOTION TO ENDORSE Diversity Statement - R. Guell/V. Sheets - Unanimous
Meeting adjourned: 5:45 p.m.
17