Approved 8-0-0
4/17/12
EC #24
UNIVERSITY FACULTY SENATE
EXECUTIVE COMMTTEE
April 10, 2012
3:30 p.m. HMSU 227
Present:
Ex officio:
Guests:
I.
S. Lamb, K. Bolinger, J. Conant, R. Guell, T. Hawkins, B. Kilp, J. Kuhlman, C. MacDonald,
T. Sawyer
Provost J. Maynard, President D. Bradley
E. Acree, E. Bermudez
Administrative reports
President Bradley:
a. The Foundation is putting together a search committee for a new President. They are asking us
to provide a student, a member of the administrative staff, and a cabinet member. They meet
Friday where they will formalize interim leadership. Though Beeler is the current interim, it may
not be his desire to put in the time required until a new President is named. Because there have
been other recent resignations at the Foundation, significant time will be required by the interim
President and with that there will have to be compensation.
Provost Maynard: No report
II. Chair report, S. Lamb:
Plea to President: Dr. Bradley, We are blessed to have your leadership but…. The speed you are
going is too fast. We understand that your mission is to make the institution viable as quickly as
possible so that it can survive the current environment. We understand that the specifics on
your agenda are designed to work to that goal. However, we urge caution regarding the pace.
Your pace is such that the pressure created is now running the risk of slowing progress. Errors
are being made. Constant and unrelenting pressure will slow progress.
III. Fifteen Minute Open Discussion:
a. T. Hawkins: Those that I have talked to have a positive view of a University College. They are,
however, sensitive to the degree to which faculty lines will be lost to administration.
President Bradley: I don’t see that there will be a lot of new administrative lines. There may be
Coordinator positions that are part time. The Coordinator of Foundation Studies role will be filled
by this Dean. If there are any significant new non-faculty hires, it will be in advising. Even then it
will only be because the Faculty (as a body) decides they do not want the job of advising new
students. We also understand that there is unease by the lack of detail in our proposal. This is not
because we don’t have ideas. We believe that the detail needs to grow through discussion with
Dean in place. We also believe that there will be a period of trial and error but that this is better
than the delay associated with trying to design the perfect system. I would rather make small
mistakes going forward than mistakes by inaction.
1
b. B. Kilp: The change in registration dates for juniors will create problems. In Music we have
advisees needing to meet with us, get their schedules in order and register and if sophomores are
able to register before juniors have their meetings it can create bottlenecks with high-demand,
highly sequenced classes.
President Bradley: The problem is that freshmen were not finished registering until last day of
semester. They were gone, and it is impossible to connect with them after that. We needed to
create more space between the end of the semester and when they finished registering.
Tomorrow is the first day things are different.
c. J. Conant: This hasn’t always been the schedule.
R. Guell: It has been this way for a while.
President Bradley: One concern we have heard is that by registering early, they get a bill earlier
and that the bill is owed earlier. I have asked D. McKee to address this.
J. Kuhlman: To what degree are financial holds creating an issue?
Provost Maynard: Any obligation below $300 will not result in a hold.
d. R. Guell: I would echo the caution on pace noted by Chairperson Lamb. You (the President) are
alienating the very people you need to have a successful presidency. While there is grumbling
from those who are always quick to judge any administrator on any issue, you have created a
backlash now among the group of faculty who tend to give you the benefit of the doubt. If you
continue to push on all fronts as hard as you have pushed, you will damage your ability to have
success on any of them.
With regard to the University College, I was at CAAC today and there was a concern about the lack
of specificity in the proposal. To many you are asking for a “blank check.” Now, taking your
assurances from earlier that this will be a process that greatly involves governance, that will
provide some reassurance, but you do need to appreciate that those that vote for this will be
doing so with significant concerns about the details.
e. S. Lamb: We will be postponing the Faculty Senate meeting (from April 19 to April 26) to allow
one more week of deliberations on this topic at CAAC.
IV. MOTION TO APPROVE the Minutes of March 27, 2012 (T. Sawyer, C. MacDonald; vote: 9-0-0)
V. Discussion of the University College Proposal:
a. S. Lamb: J. Conant and I expressed concerns about the University College proposal at the informal
meeting at which it was introduced. An apoplectic J. Conant made changes, and it is fair to say
that some, but not all of those changes were accepted by the administration. The officers
continued this discussion of the erosion of chairperson scheduling authority implied by the
proposal when we met with the Provost on Monday. It seems that we are going to have to live
with the ambiguity in the language.
b. T. Sawyer: CAAC discussed this for an hour today. R. Guell and L. Maule were both in attendance.
After both noted a likely intention to apply (so as to provide full disclosure) they answered
questions about the concept and the TAFFY report. After discussing it and expressing concern
over the lack of detail they came to the conclusion that there were essentially asked to approve
the concept. Support for the concept solidified when it was agreed that if the detail would be
created through a group of faculty, in a fashion consistent with the taskforce that produced the
Foundational Studies program and if a formal advisory group were to come with it, that would
work.
c. D. Malooley: The CAAC motion on the table is “to endorse the concept of a University College and
expect that those responsible to develop the infrastructure carefully weigh the concerns of CAAC
and the Faculty at large including costs, logistics, locus of control, etc. It is proposed that the
2
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
k.
l.
development should be carried out by a blue ribbon Task Force, much like the General Education
Task Force, to create this college. This Task Force would involve campus wide participation
(including membership from each College and pertinent committee) and ultimately, creation of an
advisory council (like F.S. Council) that will have oversight.”
The previous memo has created issues and there are questions about ultimate authority on class
size, pedagogy, etc. If there is an assurance that there is not a removing of existing chairperson
authority but these decisions will be made together, there is support.
President Bradley: Is the intent of the motion that this endorses hiring a Dean?
D. Malooley: Yes.
K. Bolinger: Specific language could allay fears.
J. Conant: Under this a precedent is created with a Dean sitting at head of faculty committee.
C. MacDonald: This is parallel to the Graduate Council and their Dean.
J. Conant: There was no document like this in that circumstance.
T. Sawyer: The real issue is whether we can trust the administration that they will consult faculty
in the creation of the details.
Conant: Still, the language is very different from the Handbook on authority
B. Kilp: Is it your intention to give the University Committee (U.C.) dean the ultimate authority.
President Bradley: This Dean will have some authority that is now indisputably the chairs. At
minimum the U.C. Dean will be able to study issue, discuss the issue with the Chair, and if
necessary, go to Provost to report a repeated refusal of the Chair to recognize the scheduling
issue. We are asking chairs to focus their energy on getting Sophomores through Seniors “across
the stage” and to give up some their authority over first-year students.
S. Lamb: The only parallel situation in my mind is the Nancy Rogers position. She doesn’t have
authority on certain things, but because she is AVP she has significant influence. Your description
may be more than sufficient.
President Bradley: When a Chair and the new Dean have a disagreement that cannot be resolved,
it will end up in the lap of the Provost Chairs have so many issues from so many domains. We hear
“we must have the best teachers in this domain” about every domain. You have to make
balance.
J. Conant: I have no problems with the examples you have provided. I do want to make it clear
that this is a matter of principle. The roles and responsibilities of Chairpersons not be changed in
memos.
VI. Graduate Council Recommendations for Proposals for Curricular Collaboration and/or Alt Modes of
Delivery
Guidelines for Proposals for Innovative Curricular Collaborations and/or
Alternate Modes of Delivery of Graduate Programs
The following principles should be considered when investigating and implementing innovative
curricular collaborations and/or alternate modes of program delivery:
1. Existing policies of the Graduate Catalog should be adhered to in all cases;
2. Faculty within the proposing department have primary authority and approval is required; and
3. All proposing units will consult the Dean of the College of Graduate and Professional Studies to
determine if formal approval by the Graduate Council may be necessary.
When and where proposals for the alternate delivery of existing programs may deviate from any
existing policy of the Graduate Catalog, the Graduate Council will review and approve extra-ordinary
3
proposals. Graduate Council review may include review by the Program Development Committee.
In cases where proposals are fully consistent with existing policies or practices, the approval of the
academic department documented via a memorandum and appropriate dean is all that is required.
This policy applies only to the delivery of existing programs and not individual courses, workshops,
or other course-specific examples. Examples include the off-site delivery of existing programs using
alternate formats, the transition of an existing program to distance delivery, and/or joint programs
with third party organizations or institutions.
S. Buchanan: Actually these are a set of guidelines that don’t apply to individual courses. The
programs we (Grad Council) would review would have to be extraordinary programs or programs
that fall outside the established catalog policy. So, I want to stress that these are guidelines.

MOTION TO ACCEPT GUIDELINES Recommendations for Curricular Collaboration(T. Sawyer,
J. Kuhlman; (Item was eventually tabled)
Comments/discussion:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
Provost Maynard: The University has to report to NCA and ICHE issues that pertain to
this. Programs that are 50% or more from distance delivery require approvals
from one or both - when does “significant” hit.
S. Buchanan: That is up to J. Gatrell. There wasn’t any…I don’t recall anyone saying if it
was 50% extraordinary…
Provost: This way you can say that this (program) was discussed/approved by the
faculty and the Graduate Council – this way there would be consistent standard.
J. Kuhlman: Portion needs to be rewritten (note: last paragraph “Programs that
delivery online programs only…”)
K. Bolinger: Problems with the 50% rule (Masters in Elementary Education)
Provost Maynard: Programs have evolved over the years, and now we are at a point
where there are a number of programs…
S. Buchannan If all of your are talking about online delivery, the discussion at Graduate
Council was that online delivery doesn’t anymore constitute an online delivery program
that language didn’t defined itself here.
C. MacDonald: I think the concern is that you had some existing programs that now
now want to switch to an online format or something to that effect. And, according to
the documentation that we have now, they would not have to go through the approval
process if we want to create some kind of watch dog for these situations.
Provost Maynard: This is at both levels…the program we just approved (Technology)
last month was sent forward to both distant and traditional delivery and
was approved for traditional delivery only. It is still being discussed. They had a standard
that was different from NCA.
President Bradley: Needs to be a different memo or this one needs to be modified.
S. Buchanan: We could state that we are not particularly looking at online programs and
create additional guidelines for online programs.
President Bradley: The provost and I received a letter from the Department of
Education…the money side is going to be easy, but some of the regulatory stuff, things
will be much harder. We are going to need something like this that is more than a
guideline…we need documentation that the faculty has reviewed and approved it. What
would not trigger a review/report by the NCA? (an alternate plan of delivery).
4

MOTION TO TABLE Recommendations for Curricular Collaboration (T. Sawyer/J. Conant;
Vote: 9-0-0).
S. Lamb: Requested that the President and the Provost send their concerns directly to S.
Buchanan (Grad Council).
VII. Recommendation from AAC concerning Professorial Rank and Tenure for Administrators; E. Acree; E.
Bermudez presented rational.
 Concerns: There is no timetable for decision-making processes and when an internal
candidate is not hired for a position for which there is an external search there should be a
conflict of interest prohibition on the person who applied providing input and/or voting on
the tenure and rank of the newly hired person.
 Statement: AAC sees no need for new Handbook language regarding the process of hiring
faculty at rank and with tenure.
a. S. Lamb: We will ask the administration to think about these concerns.
b. K. Bolinger: We need official language on the conflict of interest section.
c. President Bradley: I would like us also to consider adding in a delay in the final signature
granting tenure so we do not get stuck with someone.
R. Guell: That is not a small change.
President Bradley: I understand both issues described above are important, but I am worried
about getting this delay mechanism installed.
d. S. Lamb: This should be held over for FAC next year. For now the Administration has agreed to
deal with the two concerns and we will transmit a recommendation to FAC to study the
President’s desire for a delayed tenure trigger for new externally hired Chairs and
administrators. They also agree to bring an overriding conflict of interest policy
recommendation next year.
Statement
The policy adequately expresses the intent of the faculty and is clear enough on the
conditions that must be met for granting the rank of Professor and award tenure to new
hires. Members of the Academic Affairs Committee expressed the following concerns:
1. While the process is clear, the time it takes to work through the process is a
concern, candidates can be lost while they are waiting for a decision. The
process can take up to three months if holidays are included.
a. Possible solutions:
i. Decision making at each level could take place
simultaneously. (One level does not have to wait for the
other to make a decision)
ii. Establish a specific time line for the decision making
process. The whole decision making process should not take
longer than three weeks.
2. The policy does not address what will happen if one or more of the people
involved in the decision making process are or were also interested in the
same administrative position.
5
a. Possible solution:
i. Make clear that any person who was interested in the same
administrative position should not take part in the decision
making process for granting the rank of Professor and
award tenure to a new hire.
Items of Agreement
 The Administration will draft implementation language (to be submitted to FAC next year)
regarding timetable for decision-making regarding the hiring of new faculty with rank and
tenure.
 The Administration will draft language (to be submitted to FAC next year) regarding
o conflicts of interest when an internal applicants for a position are also in a position
to judge the rank and tenure of external applicants for that same position.
o The end process whereby new faculty hired with rank and tenure would have the
rank apply immediately, would have decisions and votes cast by the required
committees, chairpersons, and administrators, but where the final Presidential
signature would be withheld until a year had passed.
 The Senate will consider the Administration’s drafts expeditiously in the Fall.

VIII.
MOTION TO ENDORSE the AAC statement, the Items of Agreement, and to Charge FAC next
year (T. Sawyer/J. Kuhlman; Vote: 9-0-0)
MOTION TO MOVE INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION 4:50 p.m. (R. Guell/ K. Bolinger; Vote: unanimous)
MOTION TO MOVE OUT OF EXECUTIVE SESSION 5:42 p.m. (R. Guell/J. Conant; Vote:
unanimous)
Meeting adjourned: 5:43 p.m.
6