#1
INDIANA STATE UNIVERSITY
FACULTY SENATE, 2015-2016
August, 27th, 2015, Dede III, 3:30pm
Final Minutes
Members Present: SAMy Anderson, C. Ball, K. Berlin, K. Bolinger, P. Bro, L. Brown, B.
Bunnett, J. Conant, B. Corcoran, T. Foster, E. Gallatin, N. Goswami, R. Guell, E. Hampton, D.
Hantzis, T. Hawkins, J. Kinne, J. Kuhlman, A. Kummerow, S. Lamb, I. Land, K. Lee, C.
MacDonald, D. Malooley, S. McCaskey, C. Paterson, L. Phillips, J. Pommier, V. Sheets, E.
Southard, S. Stofferahn, H. Tapley
Members Absent: M. Harmon, M. Sterling
Ex-Officio Present:
Ex-Officio Absent: D. Bradley, M. Licari
Guests: K. Lawson, R. Lotspeich, C. Otts, S. Powers, L. Spence
1. Administrative Reports:
a. D. Bradley: none.
b. M. Licari: none.
2. Chair Report:
a. C. MacDonald: Welcome Back! I wish to give a special welcome to two new
people—Provost Mike Licari and our new Faculty Senate administrative assistant,
Shelby McConnaughey. Shelby has been hard at work updating the FS website.
b. The Board of Trustees are currently meeting. This may delay our administrative
reports. I can state for the record that I have just learned that ISU enrolled 13,584
students this semester, which is the highest since 1970, and a new all-time record.
c. The former Senate chairperson, Bob Guell, sought to address a long list of content
changes to the Handbook. My agenda is more focused on process, specifically at
increasing transparency and communication in faculty governance. To that end,
I created the Overview of Faculty Governance at ISU document, which is posted
on the University Faculty Blackboard website – I hope you have downloaded it
and read it. It is intended to give both the big picture and to explain some details
of operation.
d. I hope to create and maintain a spreadsheet of charges to the Standing
Committees which we will post on the Faculty Blackboard page. This will allow
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
us to more easily track progress. I will be posting Senate agendas on that site as
well.
We will be dealing with a pair of Constitutional changes today – this will serve as
a first reading for them. We will not be voting on them today, but at the next
Senate meeting in September. If they are approved by 2/3 of those present, we
will need to create a Qualtrics survey within two weeks so that all Regular Faculty
can vote on them. They will have two weeks in which to vote. To pass, the
proposals will need to be approved by a majority of those voting AND at least
40% of the total number of the Regular Faculty.
You will have received notice about the On the Way to Wellness Health
Screenings. Participation in the screenings will entitle employees to a $30 per
month discount on health premiums. Employees will receive a $50 per month
discount on health premiums for Employee/Spouse or Full Family coverage if
BOTH the employee and Spouse/Partner participate in the screenings. You need
to take a quick health survey before you will be allowed to sign up for your
appointment. Let me encourage you to take the survey and get signed up, so you
can focus on more important things.
You have received notice about the It’s on Blue Training. I took mine last week,
and it took about 45 minutes. You can stop at any point and pick up where you
left off. It is mandatory for all faculty, so do it soon.
In regards to Title IX Committee Nominations, the Office of Equal Opportunity is
seeking qualified candidates for appointment to the Title IX Committee. The Title
IX Committee is comprised of twelve (12) representatives of ISU faculty and
staff. Title IX Committee members – working in panels of three - are responsible
for reviewing cases involving alleged violations of ISU’s Policy Prohibiting
Sexual Misconduct, Intimate Partner Violence, and Stalking where a student is the
respondent. Title IX Committee members must participate in an initial training
session and additional training sessions throughout the academic year. Please use
this link to nominate a colleague or yourself:
https://indstate.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_byCdreXmqYITDMh. Nominations
must be submitted by Sunday, August 31st, 2015.
In the It’s on Blue Training, it was recommended that we have a statement in our
syllabi for students. Now we have one – it has just gone out to Deans, so I
suspect they will be forwarding it shortly to you, if they haven’t done so already:
i. RECOMMENDED BLACKBOARD/ SYLLABUS STATEMENT
REGARDING STUDENT DISCLOSURES OF SEXUAL
MISCONDUCT
Indiana State University fosters a campus free of sexual misconduct
including sexual harassment, sexual violence, intimate partner violence, and
stalking and/or any form of sex or gender discrimination. If you disclose a
potential violation of the sexual misconduct policy I will need to notify the
Title IX Coordinator. Students who have experienced sexual misconduct
are encouraged to contact confidential resources listed below. To make a
report or the Title IX Coordinator, visit the Equal Opportunity and Title IX
website: http://www.indstate.edu/equalopportunity-titleix/titleix
The ISU Student Counseling Center – HMSU 7th Floor; 812-237-3939
www.indstate.edu/cns
The ISU Victim Advocate – Trista Gibbons; HMSU 7th Floor; 812-237-3939
(office), 812-230-3803 (cell); trista.gibbons@indstate.edu
Campus Ministries - http://www2.indstate.edu/sao/campusinistries.htm;
United Campus Ministries 812-232-0186
www.unitedcampusministries.org
ucmminister2@gmail.com
321 N 7th St., Terre Haute, IN 47807
For more information on your rights and available resources:
http://www.indstate.edu/equalopportunity-titleix/titleix
*Optional additional statement – Please see me if you want more information
about the confidential resources.
3. Support Staff Report: none.
4. SGA Report: none.
5. Temporary Faculty Advocate:
a. M. Morahn: I had no notice of being re-appointed, but I came because my name is
on the agenda. I agreed to serve last year until the appointment of a new
advocate. I was told there was going to be some kind of call-out meeting or
notice to try to recruit more people to that position. I never heard anything. I will
continue to serve, but if the Senate and administration are serious about this
position something needs to be done.
i. C. MacDonald: I will talk with M. Licari and get this straightened out.
6. Approval of April 30, 2015 Minutes
a. Motion to approve (A. Anderson, C. Paterson) Vote: 27-0-5
b. P. Bro: I would like to note that I was in attendance.
c. D. Hantzis: I e-mailed Chris and Shelby typo corrections.
d. S. Stofferahn: I noticed that the minutes for the EC meeting of 4-30 showed that
Exec was meeting at the same time. Is this correct?
i. C. MacDonald: I will double check the date and time. I will check the
calendar because there were two meetings at some time towards the end.
ii. C. Paterson: I just checked, and there were meetings on the [April] 16th
and 23rd.
iii. C. MacDonald: Thank you, I will get it corrected before posting it.
7. Fifteen Minute Open Discussion
a. S. Lamb: Thank you, I did want to mention that I am the only faculty member
present who was here in 1970. Our enrollment has gone down for years, but it is
finally turning around.
b. S. Lamb: It is my responsibility (and I was requested to do so) to inform you of
the outcome of a grievance that was filed in the summer months. But first I need
to inform you that last Spring two students filed grievances against faculty in the
College of Health and Human Services. The College of Health and Human
Services policy for adjudicating student grievances was not followed properly and
in the process that was followed faculty due process rights were violated.
i. In the summer Senate Chairperson Guell took the extraordinary step of
filing a Grievance on behalf of all ISU faculty against those administrators
and faculty who violated either the College of Health and Human Services
policy or the due process rights of the faculty. Understand that the two
faculty were not upset about the outcome of either grievance, as far as I
know, but they were disturbed about the irregularities associated with the
process. Frankly, one of them suffered much angst, much trauma due to
the irregularities associated with the process. Bob took this banner up for
them and for the entire faculty. As Vice Chair, I was required to convene
the 14-15 Exec and manage the grievance process in the role of Chair
through the summer months. I was also asked by the former chair, Dr.
Guell and by the existing chair, Dr. MacDonald, of the Faculty Senate to
attempt to settle this issue through mediation.
ii. In August, the President stipulated to the violations of policy and due
process in a letter to the members of this and last year’s Exec and the
2015-16 officers have, in turn, agreed to pursue a workable universitywide student grievance process. In all my years of serving on the
Executive Committee I have never seen a grievance that had been filed
settled by mediation. I had next to nothing to do with that
accomplishment. I was extremely pleased, extremely pleased, with the
President’s cooperation, as well as with Bob’s attitude. The president
badly wants to address and correct the student grievance process and
ensure that all have equitable rights. He wants due process followed. He is
on the same page as Robert. The process will be greatly improved and
will be followed.
iii. Now, on the other hand, the president thought it was most improper to
extract public blood, as was initially requested by Bob’s grievance, from
those who inadvertently may have given improper advice as to process.
Dr. Guell came to the same conclusion, about the use of punishment
stockades or scarlet letters. In fact, he stated that he would think poorly of
any president who would bow to such pressure. However, the president
has passed the word down that we must be extremely diligent about
following due process. He understands that all parties to a grievance have
great angst and that angst is magnified when stated policy is not followed.
iv. I cannot thank my two colleagues enough. Grievances absorb so much of
the faculty and administrators’ time, and usually little is accomplished. We
must have the grievance process available, but when the grievance is
mediated we are all usually much better off.
c. R. Lotspeich: I remain troubled by aspects of the student grievance cases that
seem not to be adequately addressed in President Bradley’s response to the
grievance filed by Professor Guell. I have four main points. Most of you do not
know much about the cases, and this lack of context may make my comments
difficult to understand. This is not the appropriate place to provide all the details,
but I am willing to discuss them elsewhere with any of the Senators who may be
interested.
i. First, President Bradley’s letter focuses attention on the grievance policy
itself and members of the hearing committee. Yet the most egregious
behaviors in these episodes were those of the administrators and
professionals who were engaged in behaviors that are not mentioned in the
letter. Part of what led Professor Guell to rescind his petition for a
grievance is an understanding that President Bradley will speak with the
administrators and professional personnel privately toward correcting
these behaviors. We can hope that those conversations will have the
desired corrective results, but I have reason to be skeptical.
ii. Second, President Bradley’s letter deflects criticism of the proceedings of
last spring and early summer by asserting that findings of the Student
Grievance Committee were not challenged. While this is true, it ignores
the fact that both faculty members involved challenged the legitimacy of
the entire process that unfolded in each of their cases.
iii. Third, the letter implies that since no sanctions were imposed on the
faculty members, there were no consequences and the only important
result is that we devise better procedures. As an advisor in both cases, I
can authoritatively inform you that they caused a great deal of anxiety for
the faculty members and have also degraded the reputation of ISU as a
place to pursue professional academic careers.
iv. Fourth, the resolution of this grievance fails to address an important
feature of the bureaucratic–academic culture at the core of these incidents.
This is a culture in which student complaints about faculty members are
given maximal credence and support by administrators, while the accused
faculty members are attacked or otherwise left unsupported. Outside legal
counsel retained in one of these grievance cases correctly characterized the
response of the ISU administration as “throwing the faculty member under
the bus.”
v. As an advisor to faculty, I have seen this attitude in other cases and have
come to expect it. It is a part of ISU culture. This is not healthy for the
academic environment and, if not addressed, it will insidiously degrade the
quality of ISU’s product over the long run.
d. D. Hantzis: I wanted to mention recent interactions with the Title IX Office. You
know I am a big supporter of this policy. Following conversations with a
concerned faculty member, today alone I had three calls to the office go
unanswered. My fourth call was answered by someone who promised to get my
message to A. Janssen-Robinson, the Title IX coordinator. We finally tracked her
down, and she informed me that her phone is not connected. The website still has
her predecessor’s email. Aimee proved to be a great resource. I am, however,
very concerned that we only have one victim’s advocate and an office with few
staff. Things are very slow.
i. C. MacDonald: I will push the Administration on this matter.
e. B. Bunnett: I have a procedural question. I was confused about it last year, and I
would like it clarified. During the “Fifteen Minute Discussion,” are we only to
bring up issues we wish to air with the administration or is it a time to bring up
anything at all?
i. C. MacDonald: I would hesitate to bring up “anything at all.” Questions
are often directed towards the administration. D. Hantzis’ comments are a
good example. University concerns are typically brought up. This does
not include “my chair didn’t do x” type of questions. They should be
issues of broad concern to the university community.
ii. B. Bunnett: University concerns…?
iii. C. MacDonald: Is there something you wish to ask?
iv. B. Bunnett: Maybe not about the Administration, but the inner workings
of the Senate. Is that the right time to bring up such things?
v. C. MacDonald: You certainly may, if it would benefit the group.
f. T. Foster: I printed out my FAD report. I know the policy, as I helped craft it. I
find myself in a dilemma. I don’t like how it prints out, and I don’t like taking the
time to edit it at the busiest time of the year. It took the system six pages to print
my course information. What am I to do?
i. C. MacDonald: Those do not do anything to your page totals. Your list of
teaching and advising do not count toward the page totals. Also, you can
edit your pages down.
ii. E. Gallatin: Has that been communicated?
iii. C. MacDonald: We are putting together a FAQ.
iv. Susan: Chairs and deans have been notified.
v. S. Lamb: I have the same issue, but I was able to narrow everything down
to five lines. If you have six sections of TECH 422, I would simply say I
taught six sections. I would collapse them. Then rather than reporting I
had ten advisees this semester…I would just put down that I had a number
of advisees per semester.
vi. T. Foster: I think it should be brought up.
vii. C. MacDonald: It is in the documents.
viii. T. Foster: Faculty are being told to use the system. Well, the system is
printing six pages.
g. C. Ball: I have a procedural question about standing committees. How are
committee members notified? As I’m trying to convene one, I am hearing: “I
didn’t know I was selected.” In the interest of transparency, perhaps we can try to
let people know.
i. C. MacDonald: We will be doing so in the spring when the new
committees are formed.
ii. B. Guell: I would like to apologize about that. That is my fault for not
doing so last Spring.
8. Curriculog Training
a. C. Otts: We have created a presentation in case you have not yet used Curriculog.
I’m sure some of you have used Curriculog in your roles. We will walk you
through the process. Curriculog was implemented in November of last year. All
course proposals are listed, and the Senate could be reviewing program proposals
and programs that are suspended. Accounts have been set up for everyone, and
you can access them in many ways. Most often, Curriculog will send an e-mail
reminder any time something comes up that needs to be reviewed by Senate.
These can be seen via a direct link, or you can also wait until a later time.
i. Access: Academic Affairs: Curriculog link. Refer to the sheet provided for
direct link. The initial link will show in progress proposals. You do not
have to be a part of the committee. To make a decision, you will need to
be logged in. Use your full e-mail address. The initial password:
curriculog. You should rest this to something else. R&R can reset it if
you forget the password. You can also determine how often you want to
receive reminders: weekly or more frequently. Weekly e-mails are
delivered Sunday evenings.
ii. Once you are logged in, click on direct link to view a proposal. “My tasks”
is where you want to work from (orange line, take action and green line
means you submitted). To access proposal: click anywhere on the
proposal. Click the second icon for viewing the full proposal. User
tracking: any changes are tracked. In the curriculum section, click the
preview curriculum icon on the far left. It will bring up view in catalog.
Click the red pencil on top right to see all of the changes. Check mark on
top: decisions, but it has to be on your decision to make the changes, such
as approve the proposal. Then, it will move forward.
b. C. MacDonald: When we have this for Senate meetings, we will have the official
vote in the Senate meeting. Once we have that, I will go into Curriculog and enter
the final decision.
i. K. Bolinger: Is there any departure then from what we’ve done in the past?
Do we go in and approve? I don’t want anything to happen before a vote.
ii. C. MacDonald: Basically, you can register it in the system. But the official
vote is in the Senate. You use the site to review a program.
iii. D. Hantzis: Old accounts are not overridden, correct? With the paper
forms, there was a line for faculty votes. Is there a summative vote that
we can see? We really need that.
iv. C. Otts: The Chair records the decision. We are working to update the
software.
v. J. Kinne: In the time being, someone should be checking up on that.
vi. C. MacDonald: If something did come through without a recorded vote, a
representative from the committee would be here to answer questions.
c. D. Malooley: When a curriculum change occurs, how does that disseminate to
everyone who uses the course? How does it get in the Catalog? We need to
watch the prefixes carefully. Sometimes the courses get deleted.
i. C. Otts: If you could send me your examples, I will see what can be done.
9. Selection of Parliamentarian
a. Motion to approve (C. MacDonald, D. Hantzis) Vote: 32-0-0
b. C. MacDonald: I nominate E. Hampton
10. Approval of Handbook language 246.2.2.2
a. C. MacDonald: This is an item held over from last year. The goal of this revision
is to preserve the role AAC has in putting together slates of faculty nominees for
administrative search committees, while at the same time ensuring that the
process does not return to AAC in the event of challenges down the line. Exec
can recommend one of the AAC slates or suggest an alternative slate from the
faculty pool. In the end, the Senate makes the final decision and may consider a
third slate. The ultimate power rests with the Senate.
b. Motion to approve (C. Paterson, A. Kummerow) Vote as amended: 32-0-0
i. C. Ball: By more than one slate, does this mean that both came forward?
It sounds like we are voting two separate times.
ii. C. MacDonald: It will be an up or down vote. It needs to be one vote.
iii. S. Lamb: We will be voting be between two slates.
iv. C. MacDonald: Yes, that is the intent.
v. C. Ball: May I propose an amendment? If EC has recommended more
than one slate, an immediate single vote will be held between the two
slates.
vi. C. MacDonald: I request unanimous consent to revise the language.
11. Review of Constitutional Changes
a. C. MacDonald: We are not voting on these today. This is simply an initial
reading. We will vote on these proposals in September.
b. C. MacDonald: the first proposed change acknowledges that we have a University
College and that the UC does not have Senate representation because they do not
have an independent faculty at this point in time. This may change in the future,
however. The language here parallels what was written for the Graduate College.
c. C. MacDonald: The second is a proposed change in the term of service for Exec.
We have found that in practice it makes more sense for those who will serve in
the fall to be in their seats earlier in the summer. This will ensure that the new
Exec is empowered by the time of the final meeting of the Board of Trustees. The
timing of this meeting was addressed at Exec. It is important that the outgoing
chair be allowed to participate in that meeting, whether it occurs in May or June.
We agreed this can best be handled as a matter of courtesy rather than policy.
d. B. Guell: Exec should take into consideration that standing committee terms of
service might overlap now.
i. C. MacDonald: We did have that discussion. Having standing committees
start in the summer is a terrible idea.
ii. B. Guell: Yes, it is a terrible idea. But, part of the concern is that people
might find themselves serving on both a standing committee and Exec and
then dealing with the same issue.
iii. C. MacDonald: This was discussed. The consensus is that those are very
rare events.
12. Informational AAC Item: Staffing Report
a. L. Spence: I am here to talk about the process, not the content.
b. The SR is developed by AAC based on input from data received from the
University as of October 1. We work from a spreadsheet developed by R.
Lotspeich. Every year when the new data comes in, we add a column. The
information comes from Human Resources and Institutional Research. Since the
Handbook has specific language about instructional hours and faculty categories,
we focus on this issue. AAC reviews the data, updates the spreadsheets, makes
conclusions, writes a report, and sends it to the Senate.
i. C. MacDonald: Because it is an intense process, it would be appropriate to
charge the AAC to work with IR to generate this report. AAC should not
have to do so much.
c. B. Guell: I would hope that some effort would be made to examine the
consequence of changing the advising model for freshmen. Admins were hired as
part of a process that faculty consented to. This should not be considered part of
the trend of increasing administrative hires. The data suggests that the old trend
of moving money out of faculty lines to administrative positions, which appeared
to have stopped early in President Bradley’s tenure, has returned. This is my
impression at least.
i. C. MacDonald: We will need to ask those questions.
ii. J. Kinne: I am interested in the breakdown of instructional hours. I would
also like to know more about FTEs.
d. D. Hantzis: I wanted to mention something we discussed at EC. Some parts of
this are unsettling. We as faculty need access to a much more robust database, one
that is more consciously written for us. What else do we need to know about our
faculty? What is happening with workload and salaries? Where do categories
like gender fit? We have questions about support staff. We agreed that these
categories need to be disaggregated a lot more, so we know who we are and how
we talk about ourselves.
e. K. Bolinger: FEBC typically does a salary report each year, but theirs focuses
more on equity between colleges. Coordination between AAC and FEBC would
be very helpful.
13. Adjournment: 4:43pm