Approved .
April 8, Minutes.
Indiana State University
Faculty Senate 2007-08
Time: 3:15 p.m.
Place: HMSU, 2007
Present: V. Sheets, Chairperson, A. M Anderson, J. Fine, H. Halpern, J. Hughes, M.
Miller, S. Pontius, D. Worley
Ex-Officio: J. Maynard
Absence: T. Sawyer
Guests: G. Bakken, R. Lotspeich, M. Miller, S. Barton, N. Hopkins, P. Bennett
I. Administrative Report (Jack Maynard)
a. Extended Leadership Learning consultants have reported to the Provost.
b. ISU may have a new U.S. Presidential candidate on campus this week. As
of now, this is not confirmed.
c. Faculty Awards Banquet - Wednesday evening, April 16th.
d. Thursday, April 17 - campus reception/dinner for President Benjamin. The reception
will held at Heritage/Tilson auditorium and will begin at 2:30 a.m.
II. Chairperson’s Report.
The next Senate meeting will be held on April 17, 2008 at approximately 3:45 p.m. (after
President Benjamin’s reception/speech). A full agenda is expected.
Welcome today. Next week, SAMy and I will be at an Accreditation Leadership Conference on
Monday and Tuesday. Thus, this is the last regular Executive Committee meeting that we will
have together this year. I want to thank each and every one of you for your diligent work this
year.
I expect to see you all at the Faculty Recognition Banquet next Wednesday, then also at the
President’s Reception and the Faculty Senate meeting next Thursday.
Some “business” things I want to report:
I have notified the Chairs of Standing Committees—as I previewed to you last week—that we
would not hold a “reporting meeting” this year due to scheduling conflicts. I have asked each to
generate a final report to be put on the Senate website.
I will ask that we begin our Senate meeting about one-half hour late next week to allow people to
attend the President’s reception. We will have a full agenda so hopefully we can move
efficiently.
The ballots for next year’s Executive Committee have gone out to the Senators. We will need to
count them this week.
The Committee Volunteer forms should go out in the next couple of days. I have added a couple
of committees (IRB and WAC) to the list as we’ve been requested. We will draw volunteers
from those lists as needed.
III. Approval of the Minutes of April 1, 2008
The minutes of the Meeting of April 1, 2008 were approved after two corrections.
(AA/DW) 7-0-1.
IV. New Business
a. T. Rathburn requested to step down from the Presidential Search Committee due to
research obligations. AAC identified an alternate, Dr. David Worley. A motion was made to
accept the nominee (DW/SP) 7-0-1.
b. Graduate Council - adding plus grades. S. Barton presented the Graduate Council’s
response to adding plus grades. A motion was made to accept the proposal. (MM/AA) 8-0-0.
c. Personnel issue – Tenure for Richard William, new Dean of Health and Human
Performance. A motion was made to accept his position at tenured full professor/ Dean status
level. (DW/SP) 8-0-0.
d. T. Mulkey and M. Miller were nominated to serve on the marketing web
committee(AA/DW) 8-0-0.
e. P. Bennett presented the SAC report regarding the recommendation on addition
of plus/minus grades. (MM/AA). 8-0-0.
f. On the basis of reports from three committees, the Executive Committee
recommends acceptance of their plus/minus grade system, creation of a working
group to address values and logistics of implementation, and to communicate
them to faculty, students and staff. (DW/JF) 7-1-0.
g. SAC Report – Motion to accept SAC’s report (SP/JF) 8-0-0.
h. R. Lotspeich gave AAC report on Faculty Count. Accepted (DW/SP) 8-0-0.
V. Old Business
a. Psychology/Sociology merger and MOU . (DW/SP) V. Sheet read a letter to the
committee in response to Tom Steiger’s report at the last meeting. V. Sheets’ letter is attached to
these minutes, as well as Tom Steiger’s statement. Proposal was accepted 6-0-2.
b. Subcommittee regarding the merger of Life Sciences and EES. V. Sheets read the
following: On Tuesday, April 1, we approved creation of a select subcommittee of the EC to
meet posthaste with the Dean of Arts & Sciences to inquire about his decision to cancel the
Departments of EOB and Life Sciences to form a provisional Department of Biology.
On April 4th 2008, the subcommittee met with Dean Sauer and Provost Maynard. During that
meeting, the Dean made available to the subcommittee lengthy confidential documentation,
going back several years. That documentation, and their discussion, led the committee to
conclude, unanimously, that Dean Sauer's actions of March 4 were not in haste, but that he
considered every possible solution before determining this course of action. Because the
situation goes far beyond just curricular issues, and impacts not only faculty but, more
importantly, students, as well as the entire university, the committee determined that faculty
primary authority was not circumvented.
The committee further notes that they were saddened that such an action by the Dean even
needed to take place, but that they understand his reasons, the necessity for action at this time,
and in this manner.
The provisional department provides a structure to allow time and effort to reattempt
negotiations toward a united program or programs in Biology. The Committee urges the
Provisional Department Chair to work quickly to establish a timeline and benchmarks and to
make this process as transparent as possible to all those directly involved and to regularly apprise
the Senate Executive Committee of the progress being made. The recommendation of the
committee was accepted, 8-0-0.
V. Sheets proceeded to ask the subcommittee members a series of questions.
Noting that much of the subcommittee’s meeting was held in closed session, he asked whether
the nature of the documents reviewed justified an executive session? The response from the
subcommittee members present was affirmative.
Was the nature of the problems presented pervasive across and among faculty in both units? The
response from the members was affirmative.
Was Biology “in extremis?” The response was that “in extremis” may or may not be the
appropriate term, but that it was clear that action was necessary and appropriate to protect the
greater good of the university, its faculty and students.
Was the evidence persuasive of the need for the Dean to act outside of Governance? The
response was affirmative.
Discussion ensued. The question was raised as to how the subcommittee could reach its
conclusion without having heard from members on the other side, who had been affected by the
action. A response was given that members from the other side had presented their case, both in
documents and presentations at the meetings, and that their perspectives were represented within
the documents presented to them by the Dean.
c. Nursing Program Report. New post Masters in Nursing Education and a Family
certification program was presented by M. Miller, and accepted, 8-0-0.
VI. 15 Minute Discussion
a. Health Benefits review committee. J. Maynard responded that he will make a
recommendation to Will Downs to create a website.
b. First open forum for Gen. Ed will be 2:00-5:00 next Thursday at Clabber
Girl…check website.
c. Structure of NHHP needs to go to both the Executive Committee and the
Senate after CAAC completes its review.
d. Merging of Life Sciences/EOB. R. Lotspeich read a statement (see below).
Merger of Sociology with Psychology. It was noted that a policy/procedure
related to mergers is needed and that this might be a good committee charge for next year.
Statement:
Dr. Sheets just commented that it is appropriate for controversial issues in the College of Arts
and Sciences to be addressed by governance bodies at the college level, and that the Senate
should seek resolutions first at this level. Well, the Faculty Council of the College did address
the matter of Dean Sauer’s recommendations as laid out in his memorandum of 4 March 2008.
Two motions were passed opposing his recommendations in our meeting of 19 March. What the
Senate Executive Committee is proposing now, unconditional support for the actions of Dean
Sauer, is counter to the will of the College faculty. So it seems strange to suggest at the same
time that college issues should be addressed by college-level governance. The more consistent
decision would be to support the actions taken by the Faculty Council.
Members of the Select Committee that interviewed Dean Sauer about his recommendations
claim to have exhaustively reviewed the documentation pertaining to the splitting of the former
Department of Life Sciences into the current two groups as well as the persistent issues of
conflict between them. You have concluded on the basis of this review as well as information
presented by Dean Sauer in a secret session with you that there was no alternative to this
recommended direction. Yet you have not demonstrated any valid basis for this conclusion. The
only rationale offered is that “something had to be done” to end the conflict. Well, there are a
number of other ways to address the conflict that are not as destructive as the path chosen by the
Dean.
In my own conversations with faculty members from both biology groups (including the former
chairpersons of each) I have never heard an opinion supporting Dean Sauer’s recommendation.
Both chairpersons told me that their colleagues do not want to pursue a recombination of the two
groups into a single Department of Biology. Thus the Dean’s recommendations are directly
opposed to the will of twenty-five faculty members of the College. Moreover, there is little or no
demonstrable gain from his recommended changes. I ask the Select Committee: In your
exhaustive review of communications among the biologists and between the biology groups and
Dean Sauer, did you ever find a single expression of support for recombining the two groups?
[For the record, the answer was, “No.”]
Members of the Committee have asked us: if the affected faculty members are so concerned
about this matter, then why are they not attending this meeting? First, I point out that the groups
do have representatives in attendance, and they will provide the faculty members with a report of
what happened in the meeting. Second, these faculty members are engaged in the work of the
University, they are people with busy schedules and other demands on their time.
The administration is rushing this decision. Yet there is nothing compelling in the current
situation that justifies such fast action. The claim that biology is “in extremis” is simply untrue.
This claim is a construction that Dean Sauer is using as a justification for acting outside the
normal procedures of shared governance, and it has no basis in fact. The biology programs are
functioning and nowhere near the dire circumstances that Dean Sauer claims. Due deliberation
on the matter by the Faculty Senate is appropriate, and it would not constrain normal
management of the biology programs. I interpret the rush to a decision as a tactic designed to
avoid organized faculty opposition to the recommendation.
I find myself in agreement with Dr. Hughes, who recommends that the Senate Executive
Committee should hear statements from members of both biology groups before pursuing any
action on the matter. The resistance of the Committee to this suggestion leads me to believe that
you intend to support the Dean regardless of whatever evidence might be brought to light. Given
that outlook, it is indeed a waste of time to listen to the opinions and facts that affected faculty
members might bring to the discussion.
Finally, as stated in my previous communication with the Senate Executive Committee, I find it
very strange that such a change in academic structure and programs would be motivated by
delicate personnel matters that are purportedly the essential rationale for the Select Committee’s
support of the Dean’s recommendations. Almost all e-mail communications contain a statement
of confidentiality as a standard clause, even when the content of the message does not require it.
To use these standard clauses alone as justification for not revealing their content is not
appropriate for such an investigation. To my mind the Select Committee’s claim suggests that
you cannot justify your position on the basis of objective evidence that is appropriate to such
structural changes. Rather you ask us to believe that the secret information presented to you in
Executive Session (but which you cannot reveal) is a valid reason for supporting the Dean’s
recommendation. I find this unacceptable.
VII. Committee Reports
a. AAC - 2010-11 calendar will be going to next Senate.
b. CAAC - Discussion on proposal of Schools within NHSS - tabled for
further information. CAAC will set up task force on establishment of Schools.
c. English as a new language certificate agreement to make it a minor. Will
be published in Academic Notes.
d. FEBC sending out surveys on salary; later one requesting more information
from faculty.
e. Grad Council. No report
f. Student Affairs - proposal for faculty evaluations and letters will be sent to
the Senate.
Meeting adjourned at 5:12 p.m.