Approved 30-0-0
12/08/11
FS #4
UNIVERSITY FACULTY SENATE
NOVEMBER 17, 2011
HMSU DEDE III, 3:30 p.m.
Present:
Absent:
Ex officio:
Deans:
SGA:
Guests:
S. Lamb, R. Baker, K. Bolinger, S. Buchanan, J. Buffington, P. Cochrane, J. Conant,
N. Corey, B. El Mansour, C. Fischer, E. Glendening, R. Goldbort, R. Guell, L. Hall, M. Haque,
D. Hantzis, T. Hawkins, N. Hopkins, J, Hughes, L. Kahanov, B. Kilp, K. Kincade, J. Kuhlman,
C. MacDonald, C. Olsen, G. Stachokas, L. Walton, B. Yousif, K. Yousif
Special Purpose Advocate: A. Solesky
R. Goldbort, T, A. Morales, R. Osborn, T. Sawyer, Schneirov
Provost J. Maynard
M. Miller, J. Murray, B. Sims
N. Utterback, SGA President and J. Wachala
A.M. Anderson, C. Barton, E. Bermudez, L. Eberman, C. Hoffman, Y. Peterson
I.
Memorials: None
II.
Administrative reports:
Provost Maynard:
a.
President Bradley sends his regrets. He is conducting the mid-year update on the Strategic
Plan. We have concluded one and a half days of meetings discussing what has worked
and what hasn’t. We have received UP committee recommendations from the faculty
committee, the committee of Deans as well as the outside review panel. The President
and I are working on it and will announce our decisions during the first week in
December. It is clear that there is a lot of energy on this campus, and I am sure we will
have some present results from that.
b.
S. Lamb: We do need to appoint a parliamentarian for the day. I hereby suggest the
name of Tim Hawkins.
III.
Chair report, S. Lamb:
Dear Colleagues;
As the Officer Musings indicate, the feedback concerning a wholesale reversing of the plus
minus system to the former system, which involved pluses (that were worth half a letter grade) is
not palatable to the faculty in general. Faculty feel that the present system of introducing minuses
into the system, and altering the value of a plus grade to 3/10 of a unit above the host grade,
rather than .5 unit above the host grade is far superior method of grading. When we changed
from the old system to the new, we introduced or modified a total of seven values, the four minus
grades, and the modified values of the three plus grades.
While some alterations of this system may be palatable, the faculty in general desire that
solutions to the retention problem be sought elsewhere. Faculty, in general, understand the
seriousness of this retention problem. There seems to be a good deal of consensus endorsing the
1
concept of modifying the 1.0 GPA rule associated with first semester freshman, as well as
addressing other rules associated with entry or barriers.
There is also a growing sense that we must redesign the manner in which we prepare our
freshman students to the transition to a University environment. Courses and instructors need to
be chosen carefully. All of us are aware of colleagues that would be ill-suited to deal with first
semester freshman and conversely we are aware of colleagues that do have the temperament,
the patience and the skill set needed to motivate and reach these young people. Of course,
regardless of what is done, some will not be motivated to embark upon a college experience. But
we still must recognize that there are among us, individuals that are more capable of capturing
and retaining the attention of these first year students, than others. Let us use their gifts to help
retain a greater portion of these freshmen. I want to encourage this approach.
We have received much input, we will receive more. Hopefully we will have a new and improved
motion before you concerning this issue at the next Senate meeting.
IV.
Support Staff report. No report
V.
SGA report, N. Utterback:
Thank you Chair Person Lamb. Good afternoon President Bradley, Provost Maynard, Faculty
Senate, and all others in attendance today. With Thanksgiving break just around the corner, it is a
reminder of how time flies by quickly. It is also a reminder to start checking off items on the “to
do” list and that is exactly what SGA is doing. I would like to remind you of the important
decisions being made around campus regarding student interest, and it is up to all of us to find
solutions as quickly and efficiently as possible. Thank you for everything you do for this
university and I hope you continue your efforts to strengthen the ISU community. There are many
athletic events coming up in these next few days and I encourage you to show your sycamore
spirit at all of them. The men’s basketball team looks to go 3-0 and will be playing this Friday at
5:00 P.M. SGA and Blue Crew will be there passing out promotional items to all ISU students,
faculty, and staff. I encourage you to make your way to the student section and get in touch with
the student spirit that lives down there. The football team is looking to make it into the FCS
playoffs for the first time in a great while, and it is up to the ISU community to show their support.
SGA will be doing their part by tailgating before the game and offering free food to the first few
hundred students who arrive at the stadium. I hope to see you at both of these events.
Blue Friday’s are continuing to do well even when entering the colder months. If only SGA could
free ISU sweatshirts for all students then we would continue to see the blue movement push
through the winter. Please always encourage your colleagues and students to show their
sycamore pride by wearing ISU clothing on Fridays. The best way to lead is by example and SGA
needs you to display this leadership. Thank you again for everything you do for the university and
good luck heading into study and finals week. If you ever need anything on my end or would
simply like a free t-shirt please stop by my office in HMSU 621. Thank you.
VI.
Special Purpose, A. Solesky
With regard to pay increases: It is my understanding that the pay increase to multi-year-contract
faculty in January was to equate to the pay increase regular T/T track faculty received in fall of
2010. The pay increase that occurred this November 2011, was extended to multi-year-contract
faculty who were reappointed to the 2nd or 3rd year (or in the middle of their contract period) of
their contract. Those who were appointed to a new multi-year contract this fall, even if they had a
previous multi-year contract that ended last spring, were left out of this pay increase.
Could you please explain the reasoning for this exclusion?
2
J. Maynard: That is correct. New faculty, whether or not they were instructors or tenure-track, did
not get raises, so in that sense, all faculty were treated the same with regard to raises. Please
remember that everyone in this class did see a significant increase in benefits in that we added
educational benefits and retirement in August. This represented a large increase in their total
compensation.
S. Lamb: I do believe it is a legitimate question, Amanda and a legitimate concern.
R. Guell to provost Were tenure track faculty in their first year given raises?
Provost: No. The negotiated – new appointment was not adjusted – someone appointed
effective August 2011 was not given adjustment to their contract…
R. Guell: So in that sense tenure and tenured track and multi-year instructors were treated the
same?
Provost: Yes, they were treated the same.
S. Lamb: My point is…it is the degree to which one bargained…new faculty were able to bargain,
however, I doubt if the same could be said for one year faculty or faculty who are just getting a
new contract. I think there is a difference.
Provost: The other piece that is factored into the logic is that we expended the package to all of
the multi-year contract faculty who went from just receiving retirement (essence of 10% salary
increase) also adding full educational benefits for employee and children – the same which we
added to all regular faculty. So there was a significant investment added to the contract.
VII.
MOTION TO APPROVE (N. Hopkins, K. Bolinger) Vote: unanimous Faculty Senate Minutes of
October 27, 2011 as corrected.
VIII.
15 Minute Open Discussion:
a.
b.
J. Buffington: The Student Affairs Committee Scholarship Subcommittee will be sending
you all an e-letter within the next week or so requesting your contributions to the Faculty
Scholarship fund. Last year 30 faculty generously donated more than $3,500 to the fund
and that endowment now stands at $30,000. I am hoping that it will be even better this
year. Please note if you file a joint tax return you can deduct 50% of your contribution up
to $400 from you Indiana State tax. You can make donations on line at the Foundation
website; but do be careful because there are a number of boxes to be check to where this
donation could be going to; and there is no box currently for Faculty Scholarship. Need to
check the Other box and then type in Faculty Scholarship Fund. And, I would request
everyone here to notify your colleagues; program area or department/college because I
think a note from you encouraging them to donate will be more meaningful than from
S. Lamb or me. Thank you.
N. Hopkins to the Provost: 1) About position requests: Having delayed this as long as
this has been delayed, you are guaranteeing that departments will not be able to hire as
good a faculty as they would have been able to if you have done this in a timely fashion.
2) Delaying as long as you have delayed makes you and the president look like
incompetent buffoons.
3
c.
Provost: Appreciate your comments…laughter.
R. Guell statement: The following may seem like flailing about, but I have a couple of
bones to pick with both sides of this discussion as I have heard it and participated in it so
far. Let me start with the problem I have with President Bradley’s position. He maintains
that 58% retention is a crisis, that student success is job one, and that though our
freshman quality indicators (as produced by Institutional Research) show that our
unconditionally admitted populations’ SATs have fallen 44 points in only a few years, this
is relatively unimportant. I agree that 58% is embarrassing, and it is a crisis, but it is also,
at least partially, a consequence of our students being less well prepared. The correlation
coefficient between our cohorts of unconditionally admitted students’ SATs and that
cohort’s retention rate is .57, indicating a VERY high level of correlation. My analysis of
the effect of the + - grading system, showed that about 2 percentage points of the
reduction in retention since 2008 was as a result of the grading system. My analysis of the
effect of the reduction in SATs suggests that it explains another 4 percentage points of the
reduction in retention.
The President wishes to ignore the SAT effect and fixate on the +
- and 1.0 effect but
some of my colleagues wish to ignore the + - effect and fixate on the SAT effect. If we
are to take this crisis seriously, we need to acknowledge both.
I put the following to my colleagues: if we were physicians and we noticed that our
patients were getting fatter and were drinking and smoking more, we would not find it
professionally acceptable to treat them exactly the same way as we did when they were
more physically fit. We would try to find ways to reach them and move them to be
healthier, work out more, quit smoking and moderate their drinking. We would not
merely be dismissive of our higher mortality rates. We would understand that those rates
were higher as a consequence of our patients’ behaviors, but we would endeavor to
change those behaviors as well. As academics, when faced with students of poorer
academic preparation, we should understand that is the case, and reconsider our
pedagogical response in light of it. Just as it is the physician’s responsibility to treat their
patients as they find them rather than as they wish they might be, it is our responsibility
to teach our students where they are rather than where we might wish they be. Bob
Goldbort castigated the Musings this week as being demeaning in that what he heard was
the officers saying we need to teach better. As the original draft’s author, my intent was
not to demean but to get us to think about teaching differently because our students are
different.
So, I put the following to the administration: given that we agree this is a crisis, we need
policies and funds to catch up to that fact. We need to hear about reorganizations of
advising strategies so as to not allow first-semester freshmen to have three 100+ seat
lectures in HH102 and HH103, as Andrew Matos a first year exercise science major is
faced with this semester. We need hear about changing admissions goals so that they are
more than just about numbers of bodies. We need to see development opportunities. We
need to hear about funds being available to purchase “clickers” for students and training
being made available to faculty that will allow them to garner the frequent interaction in
their larger classes that they seek. We need to hear about the TAFFY report being
implemented rather than hear those bemoan its dust collection qualities. We need to see
reversals of policies such as the one that moved June’s orientation program out of
academic affairs and to enrollment management when we know that their “yield” focus
4
was carved out of the academic advising focus that had preceded it. We need to hear
about funds being made available to motivate innovative pedagogies.
S. Lamb: Thank you Bob. Comments?
e.
IX.
N. Hopkins: I do not know if 58% is a crisis or not, but I am not happy about it. Now I do
agree that that there are faculty here that do not realize that the GPA equivalent to
various grades has changed. Those faculty need to be made aware, I certainly agree with
that, but I also think that given that their SATs scores are down; I think that many faculty
have been adapting to that change in those circumstances, and they should be
congratulated for it rather than castigated for the fact that so many of our students are
not performing where we want them to.
CAAC Items, Memo from CAAC,

MOTION TO APPROVE NEW CONCENTRATION (HEALTH PSYCHOLOGY) IN HEATH
SCIENCE MAJOR (N. Hopkins/C. MacDonald 29-0-0)
S. Lamb: This is a new concentration in Health Psychology in Health Science major. This is a
collaboration between the departments of Applied Health Sciences and Psychology.
Y. Peterson will you please address this issue.
Y. Peterson presented rationale for the Health Science Major.
N. Hopkins: Looking at the catalogue regarding this major – it does not say in the catalog copy
that one has to choose a concentration. Do you have to pick a concentration?
Y. Peterson: Yes.

MOTION TO APPROVE MINOR IN MASSAGE THERAPY In Department of Applied
Medicine and Rehabilitation (C. MacDonald/J. Kuhlman Vote 27-0-2)
L. Eberman presented rationale for the minor.
N. Hopkins: Can someone major in English and minor in Massage Therapy?
L. Eberman: Yes, as long as one completes she 23 credits.
N. Hopkins: Regarding the fee… I am not asking what the supplies are for - what I am asking is
Are you proposing to charge a $400 fee?
L. Eberman: Yes. They will cover supplies (oils, a table, etc.) and the adjunct instructor.
J. Maynard: We will have to pick up the cost of the instructor through regular tuition.
R. Guell: We are not at this point examining the legitimacy of the fee; we are examining the
legitimacy of the curriculum. I believe and the president and provost agree that the concern on
fees is legitimate and concerns and clean up on this program will be addressed by the
Commission. This is not our job.
D. Hantzis: The Instructional Costs subcommittee of the Affordability Taskforce has been
discussing the proliferation of course fees. Is this in competition with the IvyTech program?
5
L. Eberman: No
S. Lamb: We were assured that this costs would be absorbed by the College.
L . Kahanov: The same instructor will be used but it will be a different set of students. Theirs will
be only those that want that whereas ours will be students who want the minor as part of a fouryear degree.
X.
Making Necessary Changes to the Handbook

MOTION TO ACCEPT Changes to the Handbook in light of the New Board Approved
Definition of the term “Regular“ Faculty (D. Hantzis/C. MacDonald Vote 29-0-0)
1
270.9 University Athletic Committee.
270.9.2 Membership. The Committee consists of 16 voting members appointed by the President
of the University, being mindful of maintaining cultural diversity and gender balance. Seven (7)
are members of the regular, full-time teaching tenured or tenure-track faculty, including the
faculty representative to the NCAA; three (3) are administrators
(representing the Vice President for Student Affairs, Vice President for University Enrollment
Marketing and Communications, University Treasurer); four (4) are students; one (1) is a
member of the Support Staff Council; and one (1) is a graduate of the University.
2
305.2 Faculty Appointment Classifications.
305.2.4 Regular Faculty. Regular Faculty shall include tenured and tenure-track faculty, and shall
also include instructors who perform at least 15 hours of instruction, or equivalent, and who
work pursuant to a 2-5 year or a rolling contract. Initial appointments are made at the rank of
assistant professor/librarian, associate professor/librarian, or professor/librarian. These ranks
are for full-time faculty beginning a probationary period leading to eligibility for tenure.
3
305.5 Policy Regarding Awarding of Tenure.
305.5.2 General Time Requirements for Consideration of Tenure. Regular Tenure-track faculty
members become eligible for continuous appointment (award of tenure) after satisfactorily
completing a probationary period with annual reviews and six (6) years of full-time service in
accredited institutions, at least four (4) of which must have been served under a tenure-track
appointment at Indiana State University, except as cited below.
305.5.6 Eligibility for Tenure. Individuals beginning their probationary periods at the rank of
assistant professor/librarian become eligible to apply for an award of tenure during the sixth year
of continuing faculty achievements under a regular Tenure-track faculty appointment in
accredited institutions, at least four (4) years of which must have been served under a regular
Tenure-track faculty appointment at Indiana State University.
305.8.4.1 Negative Recommendation. If the Committee's recommendation is negative, the
candidate may elect to a) terminate the appeal process, or b) prepare a written response, which is
forwarded with his/her materials to the University President. In choosing to terminate the
6
process, except in cases of early consideration, a candidate for tenure also withdraws from
consideration for further regular tenured or tenure-track faculty appointment at Indiana State
University beyond one (1) academic year following the year of the process. A tenured candidate
for promotion who terminates the appeal process may later apply for promotion without
prejudice.
4
310.1.1.4 Time for Teaching Assignment. Regular full-time teaching faculty are expected to be
available for assignment at any hour between 8 a.m. (7:30 a.m. during summer sessions) and the
close of the academic day and also expected to be available for assignment each of the five (5)
days of the academic week (Monday through Friday) and on Saturday when mutually agreed to by
the department chairperson and the faculty member involved.
5
335.2.1 Regular Faculty Members. A tenured or tenure-track faculty member is eligible for a
sabbatical leave after completion of twelve (12) semesters of full-time service subsequent to the
date of appointment or since the end of the previous sabbatical leave.
6
350 ACADEMIC DEPARTMENT CHAIRPERSONS
350.5.3 Vacancy. Whenever a vacancy occurs in the position of chairperson of an existing
academic department or one which is scheduled to exist as determined by the appropriate
academic dean or his/her superior, the appropriate academic dean will so advise the department
faculty members.
350.5.3.1 Nominating Committee. The full-time regular tenured and tenure-track faculty
members of the department should then proceed to elect a nominating committee composed of
at least five (5) but not more than seven (7) full-time regular tenured and tenure-track faculty
members who shall conduct a search for candidates.
350.5.3.1.2 Additional Member. If five (5) department members having full-time appointments
are not available, the members of the department may, with approval from the appropriate
academic dean, select one (1) or more full-time regular tenured or tenure-track faculty members
from closely-associated academic disciplines to serve on the committee.
350.5.3.1.4 Candidate Nominations. The nominating committee shall recommend to the
appropriate academic dean possible candidates who, if not on campus, should be invited to the
University for interview. The dean shall approve or disapprove such visits. The nominating
committee shall obtain evaluations from each full-time regular tenured or tenure-track faculty
member, or as many as interviewed each candidate.
7
350.5.4 Removal.
350.5.4.1 Departmental Faculty Communication. After serving at least one (1) academic year as
chairperson, a chairperson may be relieved of his/her administrative post provided at least 50 per
cent of the full-time regular tenured or tenure-track faculty members of the department endorse
a written communication to the appropriate academic dean giving support of such action.
7
350.5.4.2 Investigation. The academic dean shall conduct an investigation and convey his/her
observations and recommendations to the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs.
8
350.5.4.4 Acting Chairperson.
350.5.4.4.1 Nominations. The dean of the school or college within which the vacancy occurs shall
invite nominations for acting chairperson from all full-time regular members of the department,
to which list the dean may add other nominees. The dean shall then determine, by a poll of the
fulltime regular tenured or tenure-track faculty members of the department, the degree of
support for each nominee.
9
380.2 Research/Creativity Awards.
380.2.1 Requirements. Candidates for the award must be regular tenured or tenure-track fulltime members of the Indiana State University faculty. In addition, their work must meet the
following requirements:
A. Research/creativity other than that completed to satisfy advanced degree requirements.
B. Research/creativity substantially completed while the candidate was a regular tenured or
tenure-track full-time member of the Indiana State University faculty.
C. Research/creativity representing a single major contribution completed within the four (4)
years immediately prior to application, or outstanding contributions that have characterized one’s
professional life.
D. Research/creativity which represents a contribution of national significance to a candidate’s
field of specialization.
380.2.2 Nomination Process. Forms may be obtained from the College of Graduate and
Professional Studies. Any regular tenured or tenure-track full-time faculty member may nominate
himself/herself. Faculty, department chairpersons, and deans are encouraged to nominate faculty
colleagues.

a.
MOTION TO ACCEPT HEALTH CARE CHANGES (C. MacDonald/M. Haque Vote 28-1-0)
2012 Proposed Changes:
1)
There is a 7.5% premium increase that results from the Board of Trustees
mandate that total expenses not grow faster than 5% and that the plan moves
from 75-25 (University to Employee) cost sharing to 67-33. That means a 1.67%
per year movement over a 5 year period which means that there is a 6.4% per y
ear increase even if there is no inflation in health care costs.
2)
The three tiers remain. A $100 salary increase was included in addition to the 3%
increase so that the health premium increases would not completely overwhelm
salary increases for those in the bottom tier.
8
b.
Prescription Changes:
1)
There are three important changes. Coverage management will have MEDCO
review prescriptions for dosages that are over FDA recommendations. Those
conversations will occur between MEDCO and the physician. If the physician
wants a patient to take the drug at the higher level, that will be the result.
2)
There will be an examination by MEDCO for concurrent drug use, interactions,
duplications, and allergies. When a patient is taking two or more drugs for the
same issue, MEDCO will contact the physicians.
3)
We will go to a formulary-based co-pay system. We currently have an open
formulary which means that every branded drug and every generic drug are
treated the same. We will have a co-pay tier in the formulary. In 2012, for
generics it will remain $10+10%; for branded drug drugs in the formulary it will be
$20+20%; and for those not in the formulary it will be $20 + 50%.
This will save $400,000.
Meeting adjourned 4:40 p.m.
9