Faculty Organization Executive Committee Meeting
Minutes
January 7, 2011
12:00-2:00 p.m.
Library 140A
Attendance: Bandyopadhyay, Bodmer, Caucci, Delunas, Flint, Gallmeier, Kini,
Montalbano, Stevens, and Szarleta
Guests: Chancellor Lowe, IEVCAA David Malik, Professor Alan Barr, Chair, Faculty
Affairs Committee, John Novak, AVCAR
President Gallmeier called the meeting to order at 12:08 p.m.
1. Approval of the minutes of November 5, 2010: A motion to approve the
minutes of the November 5, 2010 meeting was made, seconded, and
approved unanimously.
2. Approval of the minutes of December 13, 2010 meeting: Chuck asked the
Exec committee members if we approve Dec 13 minutes today because the
Dec 13 meeting was about the controversial LEAP initiative. Chuck is of the
opinion that we wait till UFC discusses the LEAP initiative because all
campuses are not yet on board. In particular, several campuses expressed
reservations about the 3rd paragraph of the resolution which spelt out the
transfer policy of credit hours from other institutions such as Ivy Tech. Linda
and Sam felt that there is no harm in having a discussion at the Faculty
Organization meeting before the next meeting of UFC. Chuck agreed to bring
up the LEAP resolutions at the Jan 21 Faculty Organization only for
discussions.
3. President’s Announcements:
a) VP Election in January: Jean Poulard and Erin Argyilan will contest the
election for the Fac. Org. VP position. Ballots will be sent out soon.
b) Board of Review election. Chuck needs at least 7 for electing 5 members of
the new FRB. However, the existing FRB will continue to deal with one
ongoing case.
c) Need Faculty Names for Review of SOE Dean: EVCAA Malik will outline the
process to be followed for the review of SOE Dean (and other Deans in
future)
4. Incomplete policy:
There is confusion if the university has an existing policy for granting “incomplete”
grades. It was agreed that we discuss the policies on this issue at the Faculty Org.
meeting on January 21, 2011.
At this point, Chancellor Bill Lowe joined the meeting and took part in the discussion.
5. Chancellor Bill Lowe (12:40 pm -1:00 pm)
Chancellor asked if there were any issues we would like to discuss with him. Exec
committee members brought up a number of issues:
Q: What is the purpose of the Stakeholder survey recently sent out to faculty
members (Bodmer)?
A: The survey is part of the benchmarking study and is administered across the
system by IU.
Q: What will be cost structure of the revamped CURE? Will it cost as much as the old
CURE?
EVCAA David Malik joins the meeting at this time and the Chancellor referred the
question to him.
EVCAA DM: There is no preconceived notion about what should be the objective, the
structure and the budget of the Center. All issues are open. A group has been put in
charge to discuss these issues and make recommendations about the restructuring of
CURE.
It was expected the center would bring in more funds but it did not materialize. It is
hoped that the Director of the redesigned CURE will be a faculty member.
Q: Is there is any budget left from the Lilly grant (Sam)?
EVCAA: A new round of CFP for faculty project is forthcoming.
Q: Will the group being formed solicit opinion from their colleagues?
EVCAA: It will be entirely up to the group to decide how and from whom they will seek
input.
Chancellor Lowe: Metropolitan State University has a similar center. It is called the
Office of Community Based Learning. He feels that such an office does not work well if
it does not have a direct involvement from the Faculty. Also, a center like CURE goes a
long way to meet the expectation of the larger community. CURE does have some
recognition at the community. We need to maintain this. People from the community has
been asking about IUN’s plans for community involvement . CURE will help in
communicating our plans to the community.
Chancellor Lowe the outlined the following activities of his office:





Planning process at IUN. The new planning process will be set in motion very
soon. The IUN Council will discuss how to initiate the process in its next
meeting. The Chancellor is in favor of organizing a Town Hall meeting
(tentatively on Jan 21, 2011 preceding the Faculty Organization meeting at 10
am). The meeting is not yet announced. What does the Exec Committee
think? Members are generally positive about the idea.
The next planning process will be aligned with the ongoing blueprint project.
Local reps from the sub-committees will meet on Jan 24 to discuss how to
disseminate the information to the campus community. More ideas can be
picked up from the proposed Town Hall meeting on Jan 21, 2011.
The planning and budgeting process will be going on through this semester.
The plan should reflect our priorities. They may include continuation of
ongoing activities such ad WIGS and new ones such as the restructured
CURE.
Premise of growth: the entire planning process will be based on the premise
of growth. One element of growth we are already working with is the
enrollment growth. Besides enrollment, where else we can grow?
Recommendation from salary study group: This group has made its
recommendations. These will be discussed at the NW Council. The group
recommends the formation of an academic salary review group. The
Chancellor will prefer co-chair: one academic member and the other a senior
administrator.
Several Exec Committee members asked questions at this point:
Q: Do we consider student residences as a means of growth? (Ranjan)
Chancellor Lowe: It is not ruled out. Nothing is off the table at this point.
Q: What is the status of the Tamarack Hall reconstruction project?
Chancellor: All folks are being evacuated from Tamarack. The new building plan is still
on hold. It has to be approved by ICHE and the Govt. budget committee. A major donor
will be of help but so far we do not have any.
6. AVCAR John Novak (1:00-1:20 pm)
He urged the faculty members to respond to the online survey on trend. His office
wants to document what IUN folks identify external trends that will impact us in the
next 3-5 years. John talked about the different types of trends that may impact IUN.
Chuck: could some trends be blimps?
John: this is quite possible. We may focus on 6-10 trends that are critical to IUN in the
next 3-5 years.
Chuck: longer plans may be counterproductive. John mentioned that we can have
shorter operational plans.
Chancellor Lowe: Our planning timeline will reflect the governance calendar. The
template of the plan will be ready by end of the semester. Can Exec Committee meet
during summer?
Chuck: It is possible to meet during Summer if urgent issues need to be addressed.
7. EVCAA David Malik (1:20-1:45 pm)
EVCAA provided the committee with a handout outlining the following issues:
CL wants to meet different depts. We will hear more about it. Chuck felt it is a good
idea.
 Routine review of SOE Dean: EVCAA needs 6-7 faculty names from the Exec
Committee to consider for the review team by Jan 21.
 External funding: we exceeded other regional campuses. We need more external
funding for academic research.
 Concurrent credit program: 43 students from East Chicago HS are in the campus
this semester. This could be a potential revenue stream.
 Online delivery options: Bala Arshanapalli will be a Fellow in the Academic
Affairs during Spring and Summer semesters to explore enhancing our
capabilities, options and infrastructure.
 Enrollment: we expect to meet the budgeted amount. We are up 10 percent from
last Spring at this point of time.
 Retention: we all need to think about how to do a good job in retention.
 AACRAO Review: They will do an onsite review of Admissions, registrat,
Financial Aid, and Bursar operations with a view to rethink how effectively we
operate and how we might redo first floor Hawthorn to make more student
friendly. We have seen how the student-friendly design of the library commons
increased student usage of the facility.
Several members asked questions at this point:
Q: Can we have a completely online admission process? (Sam)
EVCAA: This is possible if the high schools work with the IUN admissions. Also, many
adult and non-traditional students still prefer paper bulletins. So we still need both types
of admission documents.
8. Alan Barr, Chair, Faculty Affairs Committee
Alan provided an overview of the ongoing process of revising the P and T
guidelines. A copy of the revised document was distributed to the Exec Committee
members. Discussion followed.
Q: when do we need this document to be ready for discussion at the Faculty Org
meeting? (Alan)
Chuck: preferably in Feb but can wait till March.
Alan: it may take two months to revise and approve. Will there be enough time for to get
the document to the applicants for P & T in May, 2011?
EVCAA emphasized that the Faculty Affairs committee addresses the following issues:
(1) What should be the sequence in the document?
(2) What applicants have to do increase the visibility of their work?
Ranjan: should be it be effective only for new faculty or also for existing faculty?
Bodmer: There are no major changes from the existing Goldenrod. Hence it should not
pose problem for existing faculties.
Alan Barr: The only major change is that the dossier has to be shortened as per IU
guidelines.
Linda: According to the P & T Guidelines, the candidate has the option to opt for the
original document if it is changed midstream.
Chuck suggested that all of us look at the document and discuss it in the February Exec
Committee meeting.
9. New Business – We have no new business at this time
10. Old Business – We have no old business to discuss at this time.
11. Adjournment – The meeting was adjourned at 2:10 pm.