EC#6
Approved,.
October 10, Minutes
Indiana State University
Faculty Senate 2006-07
Time: 3:15 p.m.
Place: Hulman Memorial Student Union 227
Present: Chairperson S. Lamb, Vice Chair B. Evans, Secretary C. Hoffman
A. Halpern, J. Hughes, M. Miller, T. Mulkey
Absent: S. Davis, B. Frank
Ex-Officio: Provost J. Maynard
Guests: T. O'Neill and K. Hoolehan (ISU Foundation), J. Kuhlman (Grad. School), C.
MacDonald (Grad. Council)
The agenda was reordered to accommodate guests.
I. Foundation Update
T. O'Neill (Interim President) and K. Hoolehan (Operations and Control) distributed and
explained information about recent changes in the structure and operation of the ISU Foundation.
O'Neill stated that the Foundation exists only to support the University and that he hoped to be
able to "demystify" its operations.
Until recently, the Foundation has been a low-key, relatively small operation, focusing its efforts
in two areas: Constituent Development and Athletic Development, and expending most of its
funds on scholarships. He indicated a need to expand the scope of operations, and observed that
alumni donors' first contact with the University was the faculty and that many alumni maintain
their faculty contacts long after graduation. He stressed that faculty can be a strong and positive
influence in fundraising efforts, and that "we need members of the faculty" for successful
fundraising. He noted that his staff is dedicated and hard working, and that staff morale has much
improved since the recent reorganization.
K. Hoolehan provided an analysis of funding and disbursements and answered questions.
He noted the necessity to maintain a complex, difficult balance of competing interests. He
stressed that, even though Foundation presidents and University presidents are compensated for
their service at ISU (other board members serve without compensation), O'Neill is donating his
compensation as a gift to the Foundation. A search, currently underway, will select a permanent
president.
Until recently, the number of donors had been declining, but this year is increasing –
currently up 300. He explained specifics about the total endowment ($50 M), proceeds /income,
and expenditures, noting that, for various reasons, some information must remain confidential.
Hoolehan provided the following statement summarizing recent changes:
There have been significant changes in the ISU Foundation recently. They are uniformly positive
for both the foundation and the university we support. They will position us to aggressively
pursue fundraising, particularly through our $85,000,000 comprehensive campaign.
You may be affected by these changes, so I would like to point them out rather than have
you learn from experience or the rumor mill.
First, we have eliminated the 10% gift assessment on endowments. While this remains a
common form perhaps the most common, of funding foundations like ourselves, we found it to
be both unpopular and unproductive. Effective July 1st we ceased assessing endowed gifts with
this "tax."
We reduced the assessment from 10% to 5% on all other gifts. To fund the campaign, we
instituted a 1.5% assessment against new endowments. This is a one-time-only assessment and
will be in effect only for the duration of the campaign. It has no effect on existing endowments.
The other strategy employed to fund the campaign, and the strategy that may impact you,
is the reduction of the payout from endowments that happens each year. The foundation has
designated 5% as its 'spending rate' for all of its history. In recent years this has become the
exception, not the rule. The average spending rate for public-university-affiliated foundations is
4.4%
Maintaining such a high rate made it difficult for our endowments to grow over time. So
part of our goal has been to reduce our spending rate and review it regularly thereafter.
Simultaneously, we have the need to fund the campaign, to the tune of almost $500,000
annually. The additional costs are a result of staffing requirements, communication costs, and
campaign-related travel and events. In trying to develop a least-pain approach to funding the
campaign, we will probably make adjustments to our spending policies which . will direct a
portion of the income from endowments toward the campaign. We are working with the
controller's office to get this done.
When the campaign is done, this funding strategy is done. The spending rate will be
reviewed each year and adjusted based on investment performance. The campaign will transform
our university. It will transform the foundation. An investment is required, but it is one which
will be returned perhaps 50 times over. It is literally an investment we cannot afford not to make.
And we are off to a great start.
Committee members suggested: 1) better follow up with donors (thank-you letters,
personal contacts), and 2) that a structured means of regular communication and feedback
between the Foundation and various constituencies, including the ISU faculty, should be
established and maintained.
S. Lamb thanked the guests for their presentation. He noted that this had been a very
positive meeting and is an important "first step" in mutually-beneficial contact between faculty
and the Foundation.
II. Graduate Faculty Membership
J. Kuhlman and C. MacDonald were invited to the table and explained the proposed
revision in procedures for granting graduate faculty status, noting that this revision was "more
efficient" than existing policy. Opening paragraph of proposed Handbook language:
All tenure-track faculty with terminal degrees are granted graduate faculty status at the time of
appointment (effective for all faculty appointed Fall 2006 or after). Faculty appointed prior to
Fall 2006 who are not members of the graduate faculty must apply no later than January 2008
using the standards in place prior to Fall 2006.
….
Considerable discussion addressed:
1) Procedures and grounds for revocation of status – reasons for revocation of status lack
specificity
2) Qualifications for chairing dissertations too vague – each department sets its own
3) No requirement for "currency" in the field – each department would determine criteria
4) Faculty annoyance at having to reapply at intervals – many do not renew; some
continue teaching
5) No "gatekeeper" oversight by Graduate School – decisions made at department level
MOTION FAILED (Hughes, Miller 2-4-0): Concerns will be forwarded to Graduate Council
III. Chair Report – S. Lamb:
"I need to inform you that Blanche Evans and I will be meeting with President Benjamin, Board
Chairperson Trustee Mike Alley, and Trustee Ron Carpenter on October 19th, at 1:00 pm in
Condit House. The Provost will also be in attendance. Any direction that you would like to give
to Blanche or me would be appreciated.
I have enjoyed reading responses to my request for senators to complete the sentences:
'A leader should -----------'
'A leader should not --------'
The following response is from one thoughtful senator:
'A leader should ---- value input from all organizational stakeholders by expanding and
opening lines of communication throughout the organizational system; constantly update his/her
knowledge about the organization by communicating with individuals, groups, units (not simply
with his/her immediate subordinate); show compassion by listening to and understanding (with
empathy) the lives of others; show integrity by making the organizational system matter more
than his/her own interests.
'A leader should not ----- insulate him/herself from others; narrow lines of
communication; act only in his/her own interests; mandate policies and procedures without
adequate collaboration with those who will have to implement and enact the policies; ignore
critical issues in the lives of others; compromise his/her integrity through arrogance and denial of
responsibility.'
"On another matter: The chair of the Arts and Sciences Faculty Council is asking for help
in finding an Arts and Sciences senator who would be willing to serve as the liaison between the
Faculty Council and the University Faculty Senate. This position is specified in the Handbook.
"TAFFY and the Provost are investigating the possibility of forming a University College. This
domain would apparently bring together several areas that function for the welfare of students
under one house.
Also, TAFFY wants to investigate the reform of first-year advising. I have asked Dr.
Guell to form substantive charges associated with these concepts and bring them forward to the
Exec. Committee so that we may place them with the proper standing committee.
That will be occurring."
IV. Faculty Awards – Proposed Revision
Sent to FAC for consideration (Hoffman, Hughes 6-0-0)
V. Minutes # 5 (9-26-06) – APPROVED (Mulkey, Lamb 6-0-0)
VI. Other Discussion:
1) Prioritization – Report currently is with the Provost, will go next to the Exec. Comm.
and then to the appropriate standing committee(s).
2) Distribution of $1.5M in one-time compensation – T. Mulkey and L. Maule (Chair
FEBC)
attended the meeting of the Support Staff Council which discussed three options and
apparently forwarded its input. Lamb stated that he would forward all portions of Exec.
Comm. and Senate minutes which concerned the $1.5M to G. Floyd and J. Maynard.
VII. Old Business – none
VIII. New Business – none
The meeting adjourned at 5:38 p.m. (Halpern, Evans 6-0-0).
Respectfully submitted,
C. Hoffman, Secretary