INDIANA STATE UNIVERSITY
FACULTY SENATE, 2014-2015
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
August 12, 2014
3:15pm, HMSU 227
Minutes
Present: R. Guell, C. MacDonald, A. Anderson, K. Bolinger, E. Hampton, C. Olsen, V. Sheets, K. Yousif
Absent: S. Lamb
Ex-Officio Present: D. Bradley, J. Maynard
1. Administrative Reports:
a. D. Bradley:
i. We have the All-Campus Fiesta this Thursday (August 14). I would ask that you
all come and bring a friend with you. This is the only all-campus event we have.
It’s an opportunity for faculty, administrators, and staff to show some
collegiality and camaraderie. Come and have a free lunch and talk with the
people you may not see that often.
ii. The Convocation will be Sunday (August 17). This is an opportunity to show our
enthusiasm to our students and tell them we’re happy they’re here. They will
hear some words from Kandi Hill-Clarke and R. Guell and myself as well as
others who want them to be successful. Having faculty there is an important
gesture.
iii. I looked at the enrollment numbers yesterday and they were up by just under
four percent. Probably two-thirds of that is due to returning students and onethird is due to new. The numbers look good in all areas but transfers. We are
already working with that. Our transfer future is in extended studies, not day
students. Ken Brauchle needs more responsibilities and more resources over the
next several years in regards to this. Good marketing effort is needed. The rest
are up in the three-to-five percent range, including graduate school.
iv. Bob Baesler is the new Board of Trustees Chair. They have recently made the
decision that chairs will have their term renewed once, so Bob will likely be
there the next two years.
v. The Chairs Retreat went well. Several of you were there. I at times thought it
could go more in depth, but there were many people there. The one major issue
I would like solved is getting these Biennial Review ground rules agreed to very
quickly—hopefully before October 1—and begin implementation of some of the
Task Force’s recommendations.
vi. I want to apologize about the construction around campus. The issues causing
current problems are coming from the City of Terre Haute, Indiana American
Water, Duke Energy, etc. All these projects were supposed to be done before
New Student Orientation, and with the exception of the Indiana American
Water project, supposed to be done at night. We did not know they were going
to lay pipe in Fifth Street. For the next two years, Fourth and Fifth Streets may
be somewhat problematic.
vii. Regarding the Provost search, I would like Diann McKee to chair again, and I
would like Nancy Rogers and Kandi Hill-Clarke to be involved. I will select others
over the next few weeks. We will likely use the same search firm and try to kick
that off October 1.
1. R. Guell: What about the Student Affairs search?
2. D. Bradley: We have D. McKee putting out an RFP for a search firm and I
have not actually thought about it much in terms of who will chair.
3. R. Guell: Will the faculty have lines on this?
4. D. Bradley: I would ask for faculty, and that the Executive Committee
choose them with a significantly less complex process than for the
Provost.
viii. We are also, because of recent events, looking for a new women’s basketball
coach. Ron Prettyman went to Costa Rica to be with the team at this time.
1. R. Guell: Is Coach Moran taking her assistants with her?
2. D. Bradley: I don’t know. I would guess she has that option from IU’s
point of view.
b. Provost Maynard:
i. I don’t have a lot to report. I am coming back on board and catching up on old
projects as well as moving forward with new ones.
2. Chair Report: R. Guell
a. R. Guell: As you know I have been working on reorganizing the agenda. This is a work in
progress. If things seem to be more important and a different order is needed, we will
make that change. I have also asked the AAUP chapter to provide a report once a
month, mostly because they tend to monitor things that are off our radar. Their first
update will be next week.
b. We have a number of tasks from Administration. The previous Provost and the
President have asked that we get the Task Force recommendations in place for the
October Board of Trustees meeting. Much has been passed in their meeting today and
more hopefully is to come soon.
i. V. Sheets: Several items have passed today regarding supporting faculty in their
endeavors. The documents related to the role of chairs will be sent to the
Dean’s Task Force to provide a starting point to work from when it is sent back.
Understand that it will not be the final version that is sent to FAC, but a working
version.
c. R. Guell: Another thing we’re committed to is a Biennial Review discussion and having a
system in place by October 1. I have asked Chris MacDonald and Chris Olsen to work
together on that report and work up the basis to start negotiations here, to hopefully
result in an end of September vote from faculty.
d. We will get some form of reorganization of Handbook section 270 from Teresa Exline
regarding the All-University Committees. We will also review three recommendations
from the university attorney: the whistleblower, civility, and amorous relations policies.
Over the summer I tackled the 305 section and you have it before you.
e. It is my intention to nominate Chris Olsen for Parliamentarian and Don Richards for the
Health Benefits Review Committee.
f. Due to differences in availability and various absences we are looking at the end of
September for the Executive Committee photo.
g. As part of my report, I will ask the President a question that was submitted to me: Could
you delineate for us the roles of the Departmental Success Task Force, and those task
forces that the Deans announced at the retreat?
i. D. Bradley: The simplest way to explain is that those groups would provide input
on specific items to the Departmental Success Task Force.
ii. R. Guell: They would be subordinate to them?
iii. D. Bradley: Yes, and feed recommendations to the Task Force. I would expect
their recommendations would be public.
iv. R. Guell: And recommendations would go through the proper governance
channels?
v. D. Bradley: Yes.
3. Approval of April 15, 2014 Executive Committee Minutes A. Anderson, K. Yousif Vote: 5-0-3
4. Selection of Parliamentarian: Chris Olsen: R. Guell, V. Sheets. Vote: 8-0-0
5. Selection of the ISU Faculty Member to the Faculty Screening Committee for ICHE:
a. R. Guell: This Screening Committee Member cannot be nominated to be the faculty
representative. This will be starting next August.
b. D. Bradley: That committee will serve to find a candidate for next year.
c. R. Guell: V. Sheets was the representative last time, and J. Conant before that.
d. K. Yousif: What is it?
e. R. Guell: There is a screening committee composed of one faculty member from each of
the state public universities. This committee serves to select the faculty member to
serve on ICHE for the year.
f. Sheets: Last year, most of the screening committee meetings were done by phone. We
reviewed about 40 applications, recommended three people, and the Governor chose
one from that short list.
g. R. Guell: The only hesitation I have in recommending J. Conant is that he may be the
University candidate. Is there anyone who would do this?
h. A. Anderson: I volunteer for that.
6.
7.
8.
9.
i. R. Guell: I nominate A. Anderson. Any other comments or nominations?
Protocol for Posting Meeting Minutes
a. R. Guell: Rather than clog up all of our inboxes with copies of the minutes, we will post
them on the Senate website within 48 hours of approval.
All-University Committee Assignments: J. Harper, R. Gonser, J. Kuhlmann. Vote for entire slate:80-0
a. R. Guell: We have two to repair, both in Athletics. What we have is an expired term for
the College of Business member, an expired term for the College of Technology
member, an expired term for the At-Large member, and a vacant spot for Graduate
Studies. J. Harper could go to the College of Business, P. Appiah-Kubi for the College of
Technology, and we don’t have nominees for the At-Large and Graduate Studies slots.
Volunteers for the Graduate Studies slot include R. Gonser and J. Pommier. The Faculty
At-Large spot, in terms of volunteers, include J. Kuhlmann and V. Muyumba. Any
recommendations?
b. K. Bolinger: I nominate R. Gonser for Graduate Studies.
c. A. Anderson: I nominate V. Muyumba for At-Large.
d. K. Yousif: I nominate J. Kuhlmann for At-Large.
e. (Vote 5-3-0 in favor of Kuhlmann.)
Immediate Charges: 305 Reorganization; 310 Changes from Task Force; Create Slate for Provost
Search
a. R. Guell: We will have many charges to work through for a while; I just wanted to get
these going. Are there any questions about what you see in front of you?
i. K. Bolinger: I assume these came out of questions from Senate Exec?
ii. R. Guell: We will look at those charges next week.
iii. A. Anderson: There’s a 305.1..1 in there…I have a question about the
numbering, and the last word here didn’t get finished.
iv. V. Sheets: There is also one place where a line is missing.
v. R. Guell: Please send those to me before I send that to FAC.
For Passage on to Senate
a. R. Guell: FAC’s recommendation on the Emeriti Policy is something we want to move to
the Senate a week from now. Motion to Approve: V. Sheets, A. Anderson 8-0-0
i. R. Guell: What this is designed to do is twofold. The first is to, in some sense,
remove the retirement requirement from the Emeriti Policy for those who had
served a particular length of it. Retirement has a legal connotation of benefits,
and at least one faculty member recently was told they would not have been
eligible for benefits by age 62, but didn’t want them and wanted to maintain his
research agenda. This resolves that. The second part helps us to utilize the
tenure status revocation process to revoke Emeriti status. We have had
instances in the past where people who had done bad things have left and could
have claimed Emeriti status.
1. D. Bradley: One suggestion, as opposed to removing retirement, is to
include language such as the language in my contract where you
become Emeritus if you don’t take a like position.
2. R. Guell: That’s already in there, in another place. Any questions,
concerns?
10. Informational
a. SAC Response to Charge on Student Quality
i. A. Anderson: I feel it’s self-explanatory, what SAC came up with.
ii. R. Guell: It’s okay that we recruit and accept who we recruit, but the language
that we tell ourselves regarding their quality—regarding their admissions—is a
complete smokescreen. Average high school GPA has risen less quickly than
overall grade inflation and our SAT’s have demonstrably plummeted. Last year’s
average was 913. The high at one time was 959. I don’t want to reverse our
enrollment trends in any way, but I want to stop lying to ourselves that today’s
students aren’t more challenging than the previous population.
iii. D. Bradley: I don’t think anyone would say students today aren’t more
challenging. They probably need to remark on increases in GPA. Whether they
remark on SAT scores…I don’t think anyone underestimates the challenge of
dealing with not only the twenty-first century student, but those who come to
us with differences largely related to race and culture as well as preparation.
iv. R. Guell: Preparation, income, culture, race—there are a whole host of things
that the student body deal with.
v. K. Bolinger: I look at the students coming in, and GPA is the sole determinant of
whether you need to go through the LEAP program. Students with a 3.0
sometimes need the program as much as the bottom ten percent. I think LEAP
does help prep them for college.
vi. D. Bradley: I think we do have a new tool we hope to be able to bring to bear in
fall of 2015 or 2016. We are now getting digital transcripts from almost all of the
high schools in Indiana. We will be able to do some data mining and look at
more than just cumulative GPA, but individual subjects and sets of subjects as
well. I have asked K. Burgher to look at what data we have this year. There are
ongoing efforts in the works for choosing a better class. High school GPA is still
the best indicator for success. There’s not a whole lot of data that says grade
inflation makes the difference. It’s like when we look at these conditionally
admitted students we have. A significant fraction are going to be 3.0 that first
semester. They never had that before. The middle- to bottom-end students who
come here, there are no good predictors of their success. It’s difficult to find out
who will be successful.
vii. R. Guell: Getting something to be practically significant as well as statistically
significant is difficult.
viii. D. Bradley: We will continue to struggle. I understand that these students
struggle.
ix. C. Olsen: I think for me, after fifteen years here, it’s the change in their reading
ability. It’s dramatically lower. We have small freshman classes for writing,
composition, and math. We still need to think about reading-intensive classes
that are small. We need to teach them to read things in a meaningful way and
interpret them in a meaningful way.
x. K. Bolinger: University 101 could focus on that.
xi. C. Olsen: L. Maule and I are trying this year not to put ENG 101 students in
historical studies for this fall.
xii. K. Yousif: If they have not met ENG 101 they should also not do a language; but
there will be fewer courses for those students to take in the fall.
xiii. C. Olsen: There are apparently enough classes to meet the requirement.
xiv. D. Bradley: We should be pushing more writing and reading into classes.
xv. R. Guell: It also feeds off the expense issue. If the students don’t have the
money, they won’t buy the book.
xvi. D. Bradley: They should read something. There is a lot just in here (gestures to
cell phone). We need to provide faculty with software tools that will help
evaluate writing from a technical basis. There has to be software out there that
will be of significant help in writing.
xvii. C. MacDonald: We would have to find the right tool first.
xviii. D. Bradley: They will be quicker and better than what we do on our own.
xix. K. Bolinger: We already have that in the bookstore. My Foundations Lab. The
teachers exam requires it for writing, math, and reading. Many are not passing
the CSA exam.
xx. D. Bradley: Does it do it from an instant point of view?
xxi. K. Bolinger: Yes. It’s module-based. You do through the modules until you reach
some level of proficiency.
xxii. D. Bradley: I would be interested in doing something like that as a way to
increase the amount of writing in their classes.
xxiii. C. Olsen: Reading is almost harder to work on with students than writing. The
bigger the class size, the harder it gets, harder even than writing. You have to go
through it with them, and it’s a group dynamic.
xxiv. E. Hampton: Is the issue reading ability or the ability to gather information from
an arcane text rather than a computer source?
xxv. K. Bolinger: They can do general comprehension, but can’t answer questions
like, “What’s the author’s bias?” Critical reading is where they struggle.
xxvi. D. Bradley: Faculty have been paid for years to teach facts. The big change that
we have to do is we need to be teaching at a higher level. Faculty at all levels
have struggled making that transition.
b. FAC Response to the Biennial Review
i. R. Guell: I think last year’s Executive Committee saw this, but if you want to take
this opportunity to ask about anything in particular to convey to C. MacDonald
and C. Olsen, who will assemble a faculty response…
ii. K. Yousif: I know it’s been debated ad nauseam but I would like to revise the
existing system rather than start from the beginning. I know a lot of work went
into that, and it’s easier to improve something that exists.
iii. R. Guell: My instructions to C. MacDonald and C. Olsen was to tweak the
existing, because that’s as far as the President is willing to go. There are other
underlying suggestions, one coming out of the Task Force. If you fail teaching,
you fail. I have suggested a fourth category of “Marginally Meeting
Expectations.”
iv. D. Bradley: Is that like a D minus?
v. R. Guell: In soccer parlance, it’s the first of two yellow cards.
vi. D. Bradley: Isn’t the first a warning now?
vii. R. Guell: We set the bar so low that it didn’t scoop up the people we imagined it
should, and we were unwilling as a community to put those people in that
group. If you have a level slightly above that there would be an improvement
plan required with no immediate financial impact.
viii. K. Bolinger: I argued against it anyway. There are two ways to go. You’re
constricting possible contributions from the first option. I am moving toward
showing exemplars. There just wasn’t enough to indicate where one should be
in a category. If there’s a checklist, you pretty much have to go with it.
ix. R. Guell: My instructions to C. MacDonald and C. Olsen are to come up with a
system. We need to have something in place over the next three weeks so we
can pass it through the Senate in September and have it for the Board of
Trustees in October.
x. D. Bradley: One of the things that comes out to me is that people are involved.
People are always going to be involved. Having a meeting or two with chairs,
focusing on making it work. I agree with giving examples. It’s important that
people own who they are and their performances, unless we want K12 to come
in and tell us how to do it. When the state results came in one percent were not
meeting expectations. We know these people are not willing to evaluate
themselves. I think we did well for the first time around. We just need to do
better this time.
xi. K. Yousif: We are also saying that chairs have to share information about
unsatisfactory behaviors. Personnel committees had no way to know about this
stuff when material was submitted only by a faculty member.
xii. D. Bradley: I am willing to think about taking the fifteen percent and breaking it
down so departments know what their number is. It’s never going to be perfect
but we could restrict it—have another group look at reviews that are
problematic. Let’s come up with a number for each department.
xiii. K. Bolinger: Why assume the distribution would be equal among departments?
xiv. D. Bradley: I’m not, because we’re dealing with people.
xv. C. Olsen: It should be at the department level. Departments that submit every
member for “Exceptional,” that’s dereliction of duty.
xvi. D. Bradley: Practically, trying to tease out every part of the process won’t work.
11. Fifteen-Minute Open Discussion
a. R. Guell: A. Anderson had indicated that there was an article in the Indianapolis Star
about The College Network, which has purchased research from ISU faculty. They were
paid through ISU with an agreement with the network to produce materials that would
get a student theoretically prepared for entry into a nursing program.
i. J. Maynard: The packets are, of course, specific. They could test out of Nursing
101, for example. There is no guarantee of getting into the program by going
through TCN. They misrepresented this relationship.
ii. R. Guell: There is an IndyStar article that points to ISU and Purdue as being
beneficiaries of this seemingly underhanded activity.
iii. K. Yousif: To accelerate?
iv. J. Maynard: Yes, usually for already working nurses, LPNs, etc. These programs
are used all over the country. We’re not the only institution they partner with in
nursing.
v. R. Guell: are you satisfied that our participation is entirely ethical?
vi. K. Bolinger: Don’t we take some two hundred freshmen for sixty slots?
vii. J. Maynard: There are three different programs. A limited number are tracked
into one program. The degree program is different. With these students, their
clinicals are done and they’re already working. I worry about the relationship
because there are points in time that TCN has misrepresented things to us. The
faculty did legitimate work. They received compensation. We’ve received over
almost ten years some $1.3 million from TCN. That money has gone to faculty
and a variety of NHHS missions. At the time we got into it there were not a lot
doing this extra work. They marketed ISU for us at that time. We have had
conversations for several years regarding whether we should get out of it. We
would have to build up our backbone. We are getting that output in place. This
latest set of inquiries, IndyStar, Chronicle of Higher Education, the Attorney
General…there will be a review that will present us with an opportunity to look
into that.
viii. D. Bradley: I would like a report put together about students accepted into the
program each year and how well they do. That’s a testament to how well we do.
Were they successful in the program? It appears likely that at a minimum TCN is
being much too obliging, meaning they’re not making any effort to find who has
the financial, emotional, or academic resources for being successful. They start
the program but don’t have the ability to complete it.
ix. J. Maynard: It’s like having the Fuller Brush Man coming to your house and
giving you the hard sell.
x. A. Anderson: The implication was that some people felt that if they completed
what they recommended, they’re automatically in the program.
xi. J. Maynard: That’s not the first time this has happened. I can’t tell you how
many meetings we have with TCN about this.
xii. R. Guell: So they sell it and tell them the government will pay for it?
xiii. D. Bradley: It’s not eligible for Title IV. It’s privately loaned. Many of these
students would not have been able to get into the program without that
support but we will do due diligence. J. Maynard has been involved from the
beginning.
xiv. J. Maynard: I have been here for the life of this.
xv. D. Bradley: Based on revenue we are working on one-third of the level of five
years ago.
xvi. J. Maynard: California’s board of nursing’s decision changed things.
xvii. D. Bradley: I don’t know if there’s anything that brings together all the
complaints locally, but California decided they didn’t want out-of-state schools
teaching nursing. We actually paid students to fly here and do their practicums
in Indiana. We have gone above and beyond what we should do to make up for
it.
xviii. J. Maynard: There are literally 1000 people who purchased this package under a
set of assumptions.
xix. R. Guell: Do we have the ability to shut off new sales?
xx. J. Maynard: That material generated now belongs to TCN. They paid people to
write it.
b. A. Anderson: I was following the rise and fall of the derrick. What is the progress?
i. D. Bradley: They drilled one more well and they wanted it to end up somewhere
around Sixth and Cherry. They have permission from IDNR to dig a total of four
wells from that location. They were going to drill a third one right away but
decided not to. It may be related to the one they drilled on Wolf Field. The
attorneys haven’t assured themselves they have a clear understanding of the
mineral rights from land purchases made over the last 150 years.
ii. R. Guell: So for an old house we bought on Sixth Street seventy-five years ago—
the rights were retained by the previous owner?
iii. J. Maynard: They likely retained mineral rights.
iv. D. Bradley: That kind of thing is usually widespread, especially in southern parts
of the state.
c. R. Guell: V. Sheets sent me a concern about textbooks I routed through D. McKee. I
would like the grousing about texts to flow through me with only one member of
administration for convenience. It was predicated on the assumption that we were
doing something wrong. A lot of the grousing by faculty was under the assumption that
the bookstore was doing something wrong. I would like communication to go through
one person.
i. J. Maynard: It will likely be Susan Powers.
ii. C. Olsen: I spoke with the Barnes and Noble people, and they have a different
understanding of how orders are placed, and I learned a lot. The default order
was interesting in that they are not ordering any books. They had not heard of a
default policy. They said it doesn’t matter because they don’t order and keep
any books.
iii. D. Bradley: The default order was more for the chairs.
iv. C. Olsen: They said there is not cost incentive to order and keep them. The
number of missing orders entirely has decreased considerably.
12. Motion to Adjourn 4:37pm