Approved: 6-0-2
01/11/11
EC 15
UNIVERSITY FACULTY SENATE
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
December 14, 2010, 3:30 p.m.
HMSU 227
Present:
Absent:
Ex officio:
Guests:
S. Lamb, K. Bolinger, J. Conant, R. Guell, C. Hoffman, , J. Kuhlman, V. Sheets
A. Anderson, R. Dunbar
President D. Bradley, Provost J. Maynard
J. Gatrell, Dean, College of Graduate and Professional Studies, T. Demchak, Athletic
Training
I.
Administrative Report
President Bradley:
a.
Commission of Higher Education announced their proposal for funding. There
has been a reduction in our base appropriation of approximately $2 million per
year. It may be subject to change based on future data. Basically everyone’s
budget was reduced by 6.1%. The Commission took 1.1% and distributed it to
other institutions that were disproportionally disadvantaged in the last round of
budget cuts and allocated 5%. The data used is based on 2008-09 academic
year. That means that data the Commission will use for the next biennium is
already three quarters of way done; we have very little ability to impact this
data. One area where we were ahead is on-time degree completion. (In Indiana
on-time degree completion means four years; it is the only number that the
commission is tracking. The Commission wants to know how many on-time
degrees we have as well as the total degrees we have.)
S. Lamb: Is there an opportunity for data criticism?
President: There is, but I think it has to be done in a constructive manner.
The State is coming out with its revenue forecast for the next biennium this
Friday (December 17.)
S. Lamb: You are saying there will be a $2 million dollar reduction, and $2
million is going into repair and rehabilitation (R&R) of facilities.
President: $1.7 million is going into repair and rehabilitation of facilities. I am
not sure how this will impact us. We will soon see the revenue forecast.
Provost Maynard:
a.
Board of Trustees will meet on Friday (December 17). Will attend some
seminars prior to the Board meeting, one on Scholarships and another on
Athletics.
Diann Mc Kee also plans to speak at the Board meeting Friday on Heath
Benefits.
b.
Commencement is on Saturday. We have about 600 students going through the
graduation ceremony.
1
II.
Chair Report
S. Lamb: The Performance Evaluation process will be discussed and voted on at this
Thursday’s Faculty Senate meeting (December 16.) Every one of us had a hand in its
construction, and I hope all of you speak very positively to it. I really want shared
responsibility on this; and am hoping all of you will partake in this discussion. Also, I
would appreciate the president and provost’s support as well.
III.
Fifteen Minute Open Discussion
a.
R. Guell to president: I believe the Faculty Senate meeting Thursday would go
better if you would commit letting the document (Performance Evaluation) go
through a one two-year evaluation cycle before making any changes. I know it
was stated S. Lamb that no changes would be made to the document without
consulting with Executive Committee members, but I believe it would be better
to let it go through one cycle. If the evaluation is not performing to the way EC
members, the president, and the administration expect, areas that need to be
changed can be rectified. This would be better than forcing a vote on Thursday;
it would be really helpful if the faculty senators knew what they were actually
voting on.
President: I have no issues with the document. The only thing that I find
problematic is in the pay portion section where it states that those getting
exceptional ratings would get equal share. The intent of the writer was that that
would mean equal dollars. If that is equal percentage…
S. Lamb: No it is not an equal percentage, it is an equal dollar amount.
President: Well, it needs to be equal percentage.
R. Guell: To me that is one issue, but there will not be enough money to
jeopardize the politics of the vote. If you found that objectionable two years
from now, I believe that would become an issue for a reasonable amendment.
S. Lamb: It is the case that the faculty has long argued that those who deserve
merit should be treated equally. It should not be a function of one’s base. This
argument has been a passionate one. But, (to the president) there are always
other mechanisms. The president is always moving monies toward market
anyway, that was one of his goals. It is very important to the faculty and to the
passage of this document that when one receives merit, it is an equal dollar
amount.
President: On another matter, when it speaks of the 5-15%, which really needs
to be guided more towards the 15% as long as that guidance…
R. Guell: On both of these issues, I can’t imagine that that would be largely at
odds with what the president wants to do anyway. I believe that this is a
powerful commitment that the president can express at the Faculty Senate
meeting on Thursday. I may have reservations about this document, but I am
willing to let it go as it is – one cycle – the president will also be part of that reevaluation process.
President: The other piece I would like to mention is that there is no mention of
equity. I believe we need to continue with equity adjustments.
S. Lamb: The 5-15% that you mentioned - the only reason that we broadened it
was for flexibility. That was to ensure that we would have the wherewithal to
2
achieve consistency in the dollar amount associated with merit regardless of the
total amount of monies available.
President: Reflecting on long term – if we should miss a cycle or two of pay
raises, you could end up with 30% of people who would be in the exceptional
category because of accumulated exceptional rates. What I want to stress is that
I hope the faculty in general, particularly, the Executive Committee members,
understand the responsibility that the faculty are taking on themselves. You
said that you want to be in charge and are going to take responsibility and
carry it out at a very professional level. The place where I find this most
obvious is at the deans’ level, not having authority.
R. Guell: The president is on point when he says that the faculty wants to own
this process. But in two years, if the faculty has not owned the process, then
part of the evaluation will be in the collective judgment of the deans that you
have done your part.
President: Just to follow up – I believe that if the deans see a miscarriage with
an individual, they have the responsibility to write a response to the provost.
R. Guell: There is nothing about this process that - if there was a miscarriage –
there is nothing that prevents a dean from responding independently of the pay
process.
President: If someone is not meeting expectations and their colleagues are not
willing to face up to this, then the deans need to get involved.
R. Guell: The deans cannot put someone in a “not contributing“ category. They
can put something in writing, but it cannot go in a file intended for biennial
evaluation.
President: Yes, but it could be the first step in the provost investigating that
faculty member’s performance.
S. Lamb: This will not be eliminating any of the possibilities that were previously
in existence.
President: Are you willing to tolerate someone in your midst who is fully
engaged in teaching a full load, and yet, time after time gets a less than
adequate teaching score?
R. Guell: That would be part of the big picture.
President: It can wait two years, but you don’t want to wait until it happens.
R. Guell: I understand that but what you want to do is to make this document
better, and I believe sincerely that there is nothing that you can do right now
that would make it politically more powerful, that leaving it alone for now is the
best thing you can do.
K. Bolinger: We have triggers in place to deal with bad teaching/service as one
goes through the evaluation process.
S. Lamb: Yes, chairs deals with this all the time.
b.
R. Guell - Recently distributed document: Attendance Guidelines - It is unclear
to me whether or not this document applies to faculty.
President: I have asked Diann Mc Kee to form a committee to look at the
comments that have come in. Linda Maule and Nancy Rogers will be suggesting
changes.
3
S. Lamb: The Library staff is very demoralized by this. I am sure that there are
areas in which there has been a gross misused of the attendance policy, but I do
not like to see a global policy in effect, especially, when I have seen that
problems are largely confined to a specific domain. I encourage the president to
be worried about the demoralization that will occur. This is something that the
chairs have been assigned to deal with. I do not see this policy as being anything
but demoralizing, particularly, at this time when things seem to be going well.
President: There are problems with attendance that many administrators have
had to deal with. It is not fair to the employees not to tell them what our
expectations are. We need to convey this to new administrators as well so they
may determine at what point they need to take action. The goal of this policy is
to deal with the stress levels associated with poor attendance.
c.
C. Hoffman: Has there been any process made related to the issues of the
Writing Center?
Provost: The issues are currently being dealt with and are being
administratively coordinated by A. Comer, Dean of the Library, and others. I
have attended two meetings related to this. The target date for getting a
director will be the spring semester. I am waiting for them to come back with a
final recommendation of candidates.
IV.
Approval of the Executive Committee Minutes of November 30, 2010.
C. Hoffman rewrote section on Foundational Studies which will be incorporated in these
minutes. R. Guell/C. Hoffman 7-0-0
Approval of the Executive Committee minutes of December 7, 2010.
R. Guell/J. Kuhlman 7-0-0
V.
FEBC

Motions

Two motions for consideration, Linda Maule
Eliminate cap on summer pay (elimination of 30% rule), as well as cap on
academic year pay (elimination of 20% rule). T. Mulkey and L. Maule
(seconded) 6-1-0
i. Question raised about origins of the 30% rule
ii. Question raised about whether eliminating the “cap” rules would
encourage faculty to spend their energy on contract work rather than on
work outside of the university.
TIACREF pay for all compensation T. Mulkey and L. Maule (seconded) 7-0-0
4
Under Section 500 Employment - 505 Compensation in Handbook (30 Rule)
505.12.3 Cap on Summer Term Pay. The maximum salary that can be earned during the
summer terms is 30 per cent of the previous academic year base appointment salary of
the faculty member.
Under Section III – Faculty & Academics Policies: (20% Rule)
1. Time spent on contract research or sponsored instructional activities will be reimbursed to the
University out of contract funds, and the faculty member will normally be paid no more than the
amount of his/her established University salary during the academic year, and in no case more
than 120 percent of this salary when participation in such research or instructional assignment is
added to the regular academic assignment. During the summer, a faculty member may earn no
more than 30 percent of his/her academic year salary.

Revision to membership of FEBC, Constitutional language
MOTION TO STRIKE 30% AND 20% Rules (revise language) from the University Handbook (V. Sheets/C.
Hoffman) 7-0-0.
S. Lamb: The above-mention motion will not immediately go to the Senate. I would like greater clarity
before they do.
VI.
Charge for FAC, COB Constitution revision
Review/discussion
MOVED TO SEND DOWN TO FAC to make sure College of Business Revisions are not in
violation of the University Handbook. R. Guell/C. Hoffman 7-0-0
VII.
GC Item – Quality of Thesis – Tim Demchak and Dean Jay Gatrell presented
MOTION TO ACCEPT observations and rationale made by Graduate Council
Ad Hoc Committee charges to address thesis/dissertation quality V. Sheets/J. Conant
6-0-1.
MOTION TO ACCEPT proposed change #1 Requirements for Earning Doctor of
Philosophy (PhD) degrees. S. Lamb/J. Kuhlman 7-0-0
MOTION TO ACCEPT proposed change #2 Requirements for Earning a Master’s degree
J. Kuhlman/K. Bolinger 6-0-1
MOTION TO ACCEPT PROPOSED CHANGE #3 Requirement for Earning Doctor of
Philosophy (PhD) degrees. (PH.D.) DEGREES J. Kuhlman/V. Sheets 6-1-0.
MOTION TO ACCEPT PROPOSED CHANGE #4 Requirement for Earning the Doctor of
Psychology (PSY.D) degree V. Sheets/C. Hoffman 6-1-0
5
MOTION TO ACCEPT CHANGE #5 Preparation of Thesis/Dissertations V. Sheets/J.
Kuhlman 6-1-0.
Statement on the Quality of Thesis and Dissertations
MOTION TO ACCEPT Draft v1.1 Statement on the Quality of Thesis and Dissertations
K. Bollinger/C. Hoffman 5-1-1.
VIII.
Old Business –
 R. Guell: Requiring Senate Chair to inform College Body when Attendance warning
given.

R. Guell – FAC re reconstructing Sabbatical motion.
Suggestion made for no Faculty Senate meetings during Finals week in December but instead
schedule them the week before (Study week).
Adjourned: 5:05 pm.
`
6