INDIANA STATE UNIVERSITY
FACULTY SENATE, 2014-2015
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
August 19, 2014
Minutes
Members Attending: R. Guell, S. Lamb, C. MacDonald, A. Anderson, K. Bolinger, E. Hampton, C. Olsen, V.
Sheets, K. Yousif
Ex-Officio Attending: Provost J. Maynard
Ex-Officio Absent: President D. Bradley
1. Administrative Reports:
a. Provost Maynard:
i. The President will not be here today, as he is in Indianapolis.
ii. It appears we have started off the year well. The move-in and the Convocation
went well. Dorms occupancy are where they should be, and it was the largest
Convocation group I’ve seen yet. It’s a good initial impression.
iii. Laptop scholarships are just under 1500 so far, with another 80 expected before
it’s done.
iv. As of yesterday enrollment is 3.64 percent FTE above last year. Freshmen
enrollment is up consistent with last year.
1. K. Bolinger: Last year, at the beginning of the President’s address, he
said we need to make two percent growth, but you say we are flat?
2. J. Maynard: No, it is the freshman class that has achieved approximately
the same enrollment as last year’s class. However, returning as well as
new students exceed the goal of two percent growth.
3. R. Guell: Unless something falls out entirely unexpectedly in terms of
revenue forecasts, the threshold has been met.
4. J. Maynard: Unless the Governor takes significantly more dollars away,
the machine is in place for salary increases in November or December.
v. The Honors Program has over 300 new freshmen who expressed interest. The
program is approaching 1000 students. Soon we will need resources to drive the
quality we want to keep.
2. Chair Report:
a. R. Guell:
i. On September 4 at 3:30 in HMSU Rm. 307 faculty members are invited to
present issues we may not be aware of. This meeting is for issues that any and
all faculty are concerned about. If you can be there, please go and tell them
what we’re working on and also listen to what they’re concerned about.
ii. This may have you pining for S. Lamb to return as Chair. Over the course of the
last 18 months, there have been three cases of serious, egregious, and ironclad
faculty misconduct that have resulted in negotiated and quick resignations. As
an officer I was apprised of some of the details but usually only after a decision
had been made.
I could be wrong, I have no specific knowledge, but in the two cases where the
faculty members were eligible for retirement they were allowed their 60%
retirement payoff. While I understand the desire to keep personnel matters
confidential, I want to express my view that the Faculty Dismissal Committee
and the surrounding Handbook policy exists for two purposes, not just one. The
first, obviously, is to deal appropriately and with wisdom those cases where
misconduct exists and to create separation as quickly as possible and with the
lowest cost possible. There is, though, another reason to have the formal
dismissal process reach its end. That is to demonstrate to the campus
community that faculty will do the right thing when their colleagues do a
terrible and academically unforgiveable thing. In one case, the faculty member
essentially taunted previous chairpersons and deans with their misbehavior.
Though that faculty member is now gone, there remains the legacy of damage
done to students. The message to colleagues left behind is that once you reach
age 62, you can engage in the most egregious behavior imaginable for a faculty
member and all that will happen to you is that you will get a $50,000 or more
going away present.
But what of the cost to students? Colleagues left behind get a terrible message.
Some may choose to follow in the tainted footsteps of the retired member. The
true cost of dealing with these matters quietly is much, much greater.
I am not asking for marginal cases. A few years ago Exec was presented a
dismissal case with marginal evidence and conflicting accounts. We
recommended to the Provost a mechanism short of dismissal and he took it.
Out of that, the Chair’s letter of admonishment resulted. I fear that the
administration has concluded that we would have bungled these newer cases or
failed to uphold faculty integrity in all cases, even ones of the most egregious
nature. I am also not asking for a lynching party or a public humiliation the next
time someone steps way over the line; I am asking that we be entrusted to carry
out our most solemn responsibility rather than have that responsibility taken
from us. I am asking that the university take all the costs into account.
iii. I also have a question that was sent from V. Sheets as well as to the President,
the Provost, and L. Maule: “The faculty were given a very specific criterion for
evaluating (and continuing) the success of Student Success coaching. It is my
understanding from the presentations last spring as well as this fall that the
coached group did not achieve anything close to the requisite level to achieve a
renewal of the contract, yet it’s being touted as if it was a success, and I believe
we have renewed the contract (although a portion of the tab is being picked up
by the state). Why is this? Especially given the report from SimpsonScarborough that highlighted students’ confusion and frustration with the
‘success coaching’ initiative, isn’t there a sense that we might do this better inhouse? If not, is something being changed to improve on its success?”
1. J. Maynard: The President will be prepared on September 4 to give a
detailed response to that.
iv. I have asked Lori Henson to serve as the Part-Time/Temporary Faculty
Advocate. She is full-time, one year faculty. She is committed to communicating
with them actively. K. Bolinger, A. Anderson. Vote: 9-0-0
1. V. Sheets: She has taught here before?
2. R. Guell: Yes. I put out emails in June to all department chairs who had a
substantial number of lecturers. M. Kahl recommended her highly.
3. Approval of the Minutes of August 12, 2014: A. Anderson, K. Yousif. Vote: 8-0-1
4. AAUP Report: R. Lotspeich for R. Schneirov
a. R. Lotspeich: AAUP is currently discussing four issues, including:
i. A desire for more direct communication between the Board of Trustees and the
faculty, rather than relying only on the President and Provost. In its most recent
Bulletin, the national AAUP office has issued a statement supporting that kind of
relationship between faculty and governing boards as recommended best
practice in the governance of higher education (Faculty Communication with
Governing Boards: Best Practices, Academe, July/August 2014, pp. 57-61).
ii. A faculty member’s run-in with the textbook policy which has raised questions
about academic freedom.
iii. The improvement plan given one department, which AAUP views as conveying
excessive authority to the chairperson and diminishing the role of the faculty in
areas of faculty primary authority, and
iv. A faculty member’s 4th year review which highlighted a number of problems
with Handbook language around the review process.
v. R. Guell: Other than your first point, regular communication with the officers of
last year were aware of each of the three cases, and share many of the AAUP’s
concerns. Many are addressed in the charges to the standing committees.
vi. S. Lamb: What was the nature of the textbook dispute? The instructor wanted
to use his/her own text?
vii. R. Lotspeich: Yes, for a course. The chair wanted a different text. Basically the
chair made the choice for them.
viii. S. Lamb: Does this course have multiple sections?
ix. R. Guell: Multiple sections and multiple instructors.
x. R. Lotspeich: They have taught this course consistently and were not part of the
process of choice. Collective vs. individual authority is at question here. Who
should that authority comprise of?
xi. R. Guell: Policy requires that people regularly teaching a course be used in the
text selection process. If they were excluded from the committee, it is my view
it is a violation of the existing policy. That is clause eight. Clause nine deals with
faculty-authored texts and that basically reads “you can use them unless the
chair and the dean certify that the book is either the only one available for use
on the topic or is deemed the most appropriate.” I think in that regard we might
have a discussion and facts review of the textbook policy on whether that is an
authority that should sit with the chair or some other body.
xii. S. Lamb: Is it the case that the entire group has to settle on one text?
xiii. C. Olsen: It’s encouraged but not required.
xiv. R. Guell: The department may require a single textbook, but the policy requires
everyone who teaches the course to be allowed to participate in the decision.
xv. J. Maynard: The policy actually says “should.” It doesn’t say “shall” or “must.”
xvi. R. Lotspeich: Dr. Guell’s representation of clause nine is somewhat specious. If a
faculty member has authored it, it needs to go through the process. If there are
no economic benefits to the faculty member the whole clause would not apply.
Had this faculty member said they would, say, donate royalties to the
Foundation or give a free electronic form to the students, it would be different.
xvii. C. Olsen: The other issue is cost. This was my main objection to this last year.
We never defined whose cost it would be. If a faculty member chooses another
text it should be cheaper or equal to the chosen text, but it isn’t clear what the
standard for “cost” is—the Bookstore’s? Amazon’s?
xviii. R. Guell: One charge to FAC is to review the textbook policy and this particular
case informs that charge.
5. Draft Charges
a. FAC
i. R. Guell: The first and second charges have already been sent. The third results
from our discussion last week about what the other task forces will do. The
fourth is associated with the things we got in the informational items last
week—but those are going to end up in those two mini task forces. Number five
is from Teresa Exline, who wants Section 270 to be more accurately defined and
given parallel construction. Six and seven go along with the President’s desire
and my personal embracing of the elevated role of Instructors on this campus.
We have done something remarkable here in defining what we do on this
campus. The President would like an aspirational title for Instructors, starting
with their third three-year term so they would be eligible for “Senior Instructor”
or a similar title, or perhaps a pay bump; also possibly include a teaching award
parallel to Caleb Mills.
1. J. Maynard: Seniority but not quality? The way it reads is seniority. You
could just be doing a good job, but some are absolutely stars.
2. S. Lamb: Repeatedly renewed and recognized for quality instruction.
3. K. Yousif: One of the items for the task force is to institute two new
awards. That will coordinate with this.
4. R. Guell: The eighth one, the Whistleblower, was passed by the Board of
Trustees eighteen months ago with procedures to be made later. The
university attorney is crafting these this fall and FAC would be
responsible for dealing with it.
5. K. Bolinger: M. Sacopulos will craft them and FAC will react to it?
6. R. Guell: As I understand it they are starting from an administrative
initial crafting.
7. R. Guell: The Amorous Relations charge has gone back and forth and I
don’t know where the administration is on this topic, but essentially this
charge is to react to proposed changes in the Handbook. One of the
motivations is neither M. Sacopulos of D. McKee are comfortable
checking the box that says “Do we have a policy that prevents
relationships between teachers and students?” Regarding number ten, I
think we all reacted very quickly and well to SGA’s request for Syllabus
requirements, but we weren’t thinking about dissertations and theses
so that will go back to FAC. The overarching Textbook policy motivates
number eleven. Twelve is motivated by the extraordinary grace with
which Steve has allowed me to step into the role of Chair this summer. I
think I made a lot of use of that and I think whomever succeeds me will
want to make use of the summer with authority of the chairperson.
8. C. MacDonald: I would suggest just a bit of editing so that it reads that
the term of service begins June 1 rather than at the beginning of the
academic year.
9. R. Guell: The rest are obvious permanent changes. Any concerns or
changes?
10. C. MacDonald: One more thing: all these committees are supposed to
write an annual report. They are intermittently charged and submitted.
11. R. Guell: We will add that across the board.
12. S. Lamb: I think there are a lot of worthwhile charges here. I note that
the rub will come when we deal with the specifics. We will have to sort
through them very carefully.
b. AAC
i. R. Guell: Obviously we have to have a Provost search and we need to create a
slate. I think it’s the 2016-2017 calendar they are set to work on. There is an
annual report that AAC is supposed to submit with D. McKee that outlines the
trends in FTE faculty, professional staff, support staff, executive staff, and
salaries. That report is a regular expectation of AAC.
1. A. Anderson: Should we put a date for number one?
2. R. Guell: N. Hopkins, who is the elected chair of AAC—and by the way,
all the committees have met, which is about three weeks ahead of last
3.
4.
5.
6.
year—said they would have no problem coming up with something on
Labor Day. I think you know D. McKee is chairing that search. K. HillClarke is Dean and N. Rogers will also serve.
S. Lamb: AAC has, sometimes when asked to commented on the
administration’s reorganization. They have sent comments to the
administrators involved and not this body. I think it’s important we
specify that we receive those reports so we have input as well.
J. Maynard: On 5A, on the academic calendar, I will go ahead and bring
some folks together from the registrar’s office, etc. to discuss the issue
brought up about the starting date. It’s also important to bring up
having the Fall Break around Thanksgiving. Does it make sense to
continue in that manner? There will be representatives from faculty
there as well.
R. Guell: Enrollment management has a strong, strong interest in having
at least one weekend day be part of move-in. we as faculty lose a
Tuesday of instruction this fall relative to previous falls, and N. Hopkins
has expressed that frustration. I want you to know at this point that it is
no slam dunk that we will find a solution that will make everyone
happy, but we need to try.
S. Lamb: On number six can you add it “as specified in the Handbook?”
The committees don’t have complete freedom regarding this. This lack
of freedom should also be noted in charge number seven.
c. FEBC:
i. R. Guell: Number one, we have passed new policies. We just need to make sure
they are executed without flaws. One thing that has trouble our colleagues is
the “morning of day three” rule. S. Powers will pull enrollment on day three and
that will become the official enrollment number. The overarching issue will
probably be from administration’s perspective whether that costs them money
they didn’t imagine or think of. One thing that was problematic is that one of
the clauses was largely ignored by department chairs. You can’t bust up a
department to separate pay. They were teetering on the edge of reason by
having odd sections to give more people more money. We will have to respect
financial administrative concerns as well as our own.
1. S. Lamb: There are different rules for the undergraduate courses and
the graduate courses. I was told by the Provost’s office that as long as
any graduate student was enrolled in a dual level course, I could use the
categories associated with the graduate course. This should be
announced.
2. J. Maynard: The President has assigned K. Brauchle to oversee summer
school scheduling. I have seen reports where one person gained a
significant amount of pay this summer. We had people who were paying
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
themselves to simply sign off on internships. No work is done; they just
sign a piece of paper.
R. Guell: Number two was a concern expressed by a faculty member
regarding what the salary equity model has done for us compared to
other places. I have already done it. They needed to be able to compare
salaries in 2009 to those in 2014. I will share the analysis with FEBC as it
was requested.
V. Sheets: The analysis will be shared with FEBC but not the data itself?
R. Guell: FEBC will not get the actual data; just the gist of the results.
Continual regular reports on salaries, and wellness changes. C. Barton
will come on Thursday’s meeting to discuss changes to the Wellness
Initiative. For example, now, if your spouse smoked, you will have to ask
them to attend a wellness exam and have their mouth swabbed to
make sure they are no longer smoking. In order to get the tobacco
discount spouses will have to come to the wellness screening.
K. Bolinger: Anyone that claims not to be a smoker has to be swabbed?
R. Guell: You’re not going to get the benefit from having a nonsmoking
spouse if the policyholder smokes. University claims are up 18 percent.
This is not a tiny thing; it’s a big deal. If the Board goes to 67/33 and
there’s an eighteen percent change in claims, our premium increases
could be enormous.
J. Maynard: Deductions will go up. Copays will go up. Three hundred
people have made seventy percent of the claims.
d. SAC
i. R. Guell: The Taskforce has a recommendation regarding the universality of
student evaluations. We will get their recommendation. Number four I added
this week. I don’t know if you’ve been following the sexual violence discussions
regarding college campuses. There’s a new movement in the world that says,
“yes means yes.” You need an affirmative response from the person you’re
having relations with. The absence of “no” is not a “yes.” The Student Code of
Conduct nearly got sent to the Board with no faculty input last year. I sent this
to N. Davis and A. Janssen-Robinson as a heads-up. We very much want to
review it. The academic coaching, the question V. Sheets received, is there.
Numbers five and six we always ask for. Seven I think we can scratch, as it has
largely been dealt with. They have already investigated fast-tracking
administering the Faculty Scholarship.
e. GC
i. J. Maynard: For item two, please take out “release time.” It’s credit assigned for
work they do.
ii. C. MacDonald: The question is how do departments handle that?
iii. J. Maynard: It’s a fair question but don’t think of it as release time.
iv. K. Bolinger: Actually you want to find out how those hours are accounted for.
They didn’t appear on anyone’s SCH’s but they’re out there.
v. R. Guell: Any additions to Grad Council? The thesis committee section of the
Handbook will be added according to C. MacDonald’s request.
vi. E. Hampton: Should we add to continue evaluation program review as already
scheduled?
vii. R. Guell: Yes. Can we also add a clause to their work to draft enforcement
mechanisms as necessary regarding program review?
f. CAAC
i. R. Guell: They have their work cut out for them regarding the long program
policy. Any additions or questions?
6. For Passage on to Senate
a. Curriculum
i. NonProfit Leadership: S. Smidley for N. Schaumleffel. Vote: 8-0-1. The minor is
evolved from the original American Humanics certification program. The name
has been changed to “NonProfit Leadership Alliance.” It provides certification.
When we had the opportunity to revise curriculum and pull NonProfit
Leadership out we took it, primarily because there was such a large number of
students in the program. Dr. Schaumleffel had a full advisory load in our
department, plus our students that took advantage of accreditation certification
as well as other disciplines across campus. We saw it as a way to create
significant peace within our curriculum. More than once the chapter has been
named outstanding chapter in the nation, something he is very proud of and
worked very hard to obtain. Other than the fact it was just an opportunity to
raise that certification to a level of minor we did that. There is huge interest on
campus.
1. K. Bolinger: It is a big minor. How many of these courses would dovetail
with Recreation and Sport Management and double count?
2. S. Smidley: It’s a standard minor and our majors would not be allowed
to take that minor.
3. K. Bolinger: It’s not geared toward Recreation and Sport Management
majors?
4. J. Maynard: They already have a similar track. N. Schaumleffel is very
sharp. It’s a large matter.
5. K. Bolinger: This is tied to that CNP, so each class is necessary to meet
standards?
6. S. Smidley: The national database holds the resume of the student as
we go forward.
7. K. Yousif: Were there any concerns brought up at CAAC?
8. R. Guell: No.
9. C. MacDonald: Since it seems like this converts a certificate program
into a minor, is the certificate going to go away?
10. S. Smidley: The certification is a national program. The student’s online
dossier will be upgraded. When they complete requirements they will
receive a certification. We’re not administering the certification
program. We’re trying to beef up the courses on campus.
11. K. Yousif: I noticed there’s an extensive list of internship courses from
other departments. Have any of these departments been notified they
may be used in that way?
12. S. Smidley: If there’s an internship requirement in another department,
that course number is used on the certification so the student gets
credit for the internship within this minor.
13. K. Yousif: We don’t have an internship requirement and I see our course
on here. It would be a big surprise to have that involvement from that
group of students. Has there been communication between the
departments?
14. V. Sheets: It’s only Psych majors who are doing that who would take our
internship class. They want to make sure they do the internship in the
nonprofit setting.
15. S. Lamb: They would have to be a major in the area to qualify for the
internship.
16. S. Smidley: Yes, they would have to do the internship for their major in a
nonprofit setting.
17. K. Yousif: I would ask that somehow these departments would be
notified.
18. S. Smidley: It would be public in the catalog. The overriding piece is N.
Schaumleffel would be connected with every department. He has gone
to introductory courses in Social Work and a few other courses to
present this certification possibility to its students.
19. R. Guell: Are you uncomfortable here to let this go on? If we pass it here
I will hold it and have a conversation with N. Schaumleffel about
notification so when it gets to Senate in September it would be
answered.
20. S. Lamb: It’s important to explain that the only ones who would be
taking one of the specific internships would be majoring in the area.
There is not a hardship being imposed here.
ii. Outdoor Recreation Leadership: S. Lamb, A. Anderson. Vote: 7-1-1
1. S. Smidley: As we looked at revising curriculum we have a number of
our rec students that have outdoor interests, and a number of them do
their internships in outdoor settings. We only offered two courses in
Outdoor Leadership. It’s a great opportunity to move forward with a
number of courses that have been in the catalog but haven’t taught
because they weren’t in the curriculum. We would be able to do better
service and better certification in Outdoor Leadership by using this
minor and using courses we haven’t offered in a while.
a. K. Bolinger: A concentration?
b. S. Smidley: It’s a minor. What we had been doing with some
concentrations is that we left the student with a good skill base
and reasonable experience but no true certifications or
legitimate credentials that were accepted in the athletic
community. Expedition leadership certifications, wilderness first
aid, first responders, search and rescue—we wanted to build
those certifications into our programs in a way that one or two
faculty wouldn’t have to hold those certifications but use the
bodies to do that and give course credit for the time and effort
it took to get them. They would independently enroll in a
certification program and bring it back to receive credit. We
have a long history of outdoor recreation courses and we
wanted to keep that.
c. K. Bolinger: They have right now four choices of concentrations,
and so they would not take a concentration in that major if they
selected a minor?
d. S. Smidley: Concentrations are 18 hours.
e. K. Yousif: You said you were unbanking courses?
f. S. Smidley: We are bringing back courses that have not been
offered in a while.
g. K. Yousif: Yet you had stated “no new resources?” How are you
going to staff these courses?
h. S. Smidley: With the same people who help out with the
Sycamore Rec Center, the Field Campus, etc.
i. J. Maynard: What is the demand for the program? What are the
numbers who want this?
j. S. Smidley: That depends on our recruiting efforts. We have not
done them at this point because we don’t have the
programming. We have several program classes for outdoor
training. Within those courses we probably have about twenty
students actively taking that course load. Those are not Outdoor
Recreation concentration students but mostly Recreation
Management and Youth Leadership.
k. V. Sheets: Is it required as part of their program?
l. S. Smidley: They will not be required in the new curriculum.
Students can cross over and take it if they have an interest. The
requirement is to take either Outdoor Living Skills or Outdoor
Living Consortium the week before Summer I begins and the
363 course with the lab which is the standalone elective.
m. J. Maynard: It does take resources. The question has got to be
answered; there are resource implications. Demand is also
driven by jobs out there. Are graduates going to be more
employable? There should be information that says this is a
growing area. We got ourselves in bad shape years ago by
adding programs and teaching more and more with fewer
resources.
n. K. Bolinger: I had the same concern. What jobs would that
prepare you for?
o. S. Smidley: Working in camp settings—not just Boy and Girl
Scouts but private and adventure camps, Outward Bound, the
National Mountain Leadership Program, and a number of those
working in administration with places like the Appalachian Trail
Conference. Programs like the National Park Service and private
outfitters. We haven’t done any formal research.
p. R. Guell: This doesn’t have to go to commission, does it?
q. J. Maynard: We may have to inform them.
r. C. Olsen: It may be informational for a minor because it doesn’t
have a code.
s. S. Lamb: In the long run all these minors may have to prove
themselves via demand. Chairpersons do a lot of inspection of
our data. If the demand doesn’t show up resources certainly do
not follow. We will always have to have demand justifying what
we are creating.
t. S. Smidley: It’s eighteen hours stretched across four years. The
opportunity to hire additional faculty could be absorbed. We
could take the three we have now and spread them across that
period of time. I don’t know how the numbers could work out. I
don’t have that data.
u. C. Olsen: We need to say there’s no new resources. I think if we
support something that says it needs no new resources we need
to mention that.
v. K. Yousif: Will we see more curriculum revisions from you? We
usually can’t create anything until we eliminate things. Are you
shifting things out and revising other things?
w. S. Smidley: The total package that went through in Recreation
and Sports Management is we clumped three courses together
as a core. There are three cores that we expect to stay intact for
a long time.
iii. Property Casualty Insurance Certificate: J. Park. Vote: 9-0-0
1. J. Park: We have a very strong insurance program that is nationally
recognized. This certification is to reach out to young professionals
already in the insurance and risk management fields, specifically in the
Indianapolis area. We have very strong resources. We just need a little
more effort in online program reach. We’re not going to have separate
classes for them but they will have the opportunity to network. It
requires four courses through the insurance program—no prerequisites.
Our preferred target is young professionals with an existing degree.
a. V. Sheets: I think the target is good and your approach is good.
Wouldn’t the target audience already have exposure to this?
b. J. Park: They prefer the work experience rather than the class
experience.
c. V. Sheets: They wouldn’t have to have this already?
d. J. Park: Insurance professionals usually already have degrees in
something other than business. They may have to have special
knowledge in building structure, engineering, etc., and they are
usually trained in-house. Companies like State Farm have strong
in-house training programs but small agencies or brokerage
firms may not have that. Reports are coming in that there are a
lot of young professionals in these fields leaving their current
employers because they are dissatisfied with a lack of in-house
programs. By providing this for them we are doing what small
employers are not able to do.
e. K. Bolinger: What is the value of the certification? It doesn’t rise
to the level of these other designations. How close does it
come?
f. J. Park: In order to be CPCU they have to pass eight exams. Our
proposed certification program includes three of those eight
courses. We use the textbook, not CPCU material. Students are
taking courses and working with CPCU materials.
g. K. Bolinger: What I want to know from the employer’s
perspective is what is the value of the certificate?
h. J. Park: It’s a supportive certificate. It’s showing how devoted
they are to this field. It will help them to pass those exams as
well.
7. Informational Only: Departmental Taskforce Recommendations Moving to Small Taskforces of
Chairs and Deans
a. R. Guell: This is simply from the mini task force that is going to FAC
i. V. Sheets: Number two is going to the mini task force; numbers one and three
are going to FAC.
8. Advisement of Conveners/Chairs of Standing Committees
a. C. MacDonald: Basically this came out of conversations over the last few years from
standing committees that are uneducated. It’s an informational page drafted regulating
what standing committees are, obligations of regular members, the job of a convener,
what happens at the first meeting, what the duties of officers are, etc.
i. R. Guell: C. MacDonald and I have had questions already from the CAAC
convener where someone is ready to bow out and it just so happened that the
two who dropped were not from the College of Technology but both alternates
were from Technology. That would give CAAC five faculty from Technology.
Availability is also a concern within committees. I think we need to give our
conveners some power to go down the alternate list and create some
expectation when they volunteer.
ii. K. Bolinger: This could be slippery.
iii. C. MacDonald: It needs to be made clear that the Senate chair needs to come in
at that point.
iv. R. Guell: C. MacDonald will draft that language.
v. C. MacDonald: I am writing Handbook language that runs parallel to that as well,
which will go to FAC.
vi. S. Lamb: We need to include the statement that the secretary role should not
rotate.
vii. A. Anderson: Some people who are on a committee never come to meetings.
They almost don’t intend to come but don’t inform the committee so there’s a
vacancy and no one knows what to do about it.
viii. R. Guell: We need an absence policy.
ix. S. Lamb: Including that the Senate Chair has discretionary authority is a good
idea.
9. Fifteen-Minute Open Discussion
a. J. Maynard: Leadership ISU is in its fifth year. I learned last week that we have done no
planning for programming for 2014-2015. We identified a potential class of individuals. I
have suspended the program for a year. I will ask that a committee come together and
see if the program is meeting its goals. These individuals who are identified will have an
opportunity to be on it for next year. It was designed in the hope that faculty would be a
big part of it but only one out of six are faculty. It will require a major overhaul.
b. C. Olsen: I asked R. Williams last year if he would look into faculty travel budgets. Arts &
Sciences’ budget hasn’t changed in sixteen years.
i. J. Maynard: How much of the budget has been distributed?
ii. K. Bolinger: Why does it vary between departments?
iii. J. Maynard: We had departments who would give their travel budgets up. That
occurred during this past decade. People will give it up.
c. R. Guell: J. Maynard received an email at 2:00 pm which also went to D. Bradley and J.
Powers. He had occasion to be in a meeting with residence hall staff who may have
been uninformed, but believed that once the four towers are refurbished they would
have pricing equal to Hines, Jones, Sandison, Burford, and Pickerl. That raised my
hackles because we were promised in the cost containment policy options that there
would always be “cost effective” options. D. Bradley has responded with another “we’ll
take this up when I get back.” I do get aggravated, personally aggravated, when we clip
the academic freedom of individual faculty for marginal monies on textbook policies,
and if they are going to take away cheaper housing options, I am more than aggravated.
10. Adjournment 5:15pm