INDIANA STATE UNIVERSITY
FACULTY SENATE, 2014-2015
Executive Committee
December 2, 2014
Draft Minutes
Members Present: R. Guell, S. Lamb, C. MacDonald, A. Anderson, K. Bolinger, E. Hampton, V.
Sheets, K. Yousif
Member Absent: C. Olsen
Ex-Officio Present: President D. Bradley
Ex-Officio Absent: Provost J. Maynard
Guests: R. Baker, C. Blevens, D. Hantzis, L. Maule, Y. Park, H. Tapley
1. Administrative Reports:
a. D. Bradley:
i. G. Goode and D. McKee and I met yesterday with Senator Kenley about
our legislative agenda. It was a good meeting. He expressed support for
our capital programs, and the arena build. The most optimistic thing he
said was that he feels that ISU having too high FTE funding is largely a
thing of the past, given our recent budget cuts and growth in enrollment. It
was a good meeting overall, but it will be a long way until May when we
will hear the final outcome.
ii. Tomorrow evening I am headed to Washington, D.C., where the President
and First Lady are having a Summit on Student Success, to which I was
invited thanks to J. Powers’ and L. Maule’s submission of items for the
summit proceedings.
iii. Tomorrow afternoon there is a holiday reception at Condit House for
faculty and staff. There is an enormous amount of beautiful holiday
decorations around the house, for which I can take no credit.
2. Chair Report:
a. R. Guell: No Report.
3. Approval of the Minutes of November 11, 2014: V. Sheets, E. Hampton. Vote: 8-0-0
4. Report on Whistleblower Policy: A. Anderson, K. Bolinger. Vote: 8-0-0
a. R. Guell: I invited representatives from both FAC and SAC to weigh in on this
today in response to the invocation of the Policy on Policies. This would be the
recommended response of Exec to the Senate and the Senate to the Board of
Trustees. The recommendation includes the requirement that the procedures be in
place before this is passed by the Board, and to ask them to reconsider whether
the idea of limiting Whistleblower rights to Handbook policies is a wise one. I ran
this by D. Hantzis and C. Blevens and got no response, which I took to be an
affirmative.
i. C. MacDonald: I have some minor edits, but nothing major.
5. FAC Report on Temporary Faculty
a. D. Hantzis: L. Henson presented the Temporary Faculty Advocate Report
recently, which is the first of its kind to my knowledge. The committee took it
seriously, and FAC decided to draft a motion to forward to Exec a document in
which we basically restated each point made in the report and fully endorsed them
and recommended they be pursued by the relevant body.
i. R. Guell: I believe I accomplished number five on the list already. What is
your preference in terms of how to respond to these? Break them into
individual motions or charge me with seeing to it that they be pursued by
the relevant committee?
ii. D. Hantzis: I would like to say in case you didn’t have a chance to read
this, L. Henson conducted three meetings with temporary faculty, and she
was quite stunned at the passion with which she was greeted, knowing that
she was selected to represent them but thought they would have a say in
how to select such a representative. I love how she responded beautifully
to them and wants the group to elect their representative to Senate. Some
faculty were very passionate, and they have been waiting a long time to
voice their concerns. The first recommendation about the data, FAC did
polish for them and explained how to ask about the money that was saved.
iii. D. Bradley: I think we have never indicated that the policy change was
indeed intended to save or that we actually saved any money. It says that
no one can accidentally become a full-time employee. If the dean wants
someone to be full-time benefits eligible, they have to make a request, and
it can happen if the Provost and the dean agree. In the past it has happened
by accident and there have been consequences. If someone ends up
teaching more than nine hours, we are basically in violation of the ACA
because they have no benefits. This is an internal mechanism for
controlling the hiring. It needs to be tightened up. We need to build a
database that chairs will go to to hire faculty for a certain number of
hours—to watch those who are teaching across departments and across
colleges.
iv. S. Lamb: I have had colleagues who have deliberately tried to obtain
twelve hours to obtain benefits.
v. D. Bradley: It is really intended to make sure those decisions are thought
out and approved.
vi. D. Hantzis: M. Mohran asked about this at every Senate meeting last year
as a representative. L. Henson’s report says there was money that was
spent on benefits that is no longer because the change was externally
mandated. It would be good if temporary faculty were given an
explanation.
vii. K. Bolinger: C. Barton talked about this last year about what that meant in
terms of continuing benefits and her assessment was if you tried to do it
for everyone you would break the bank. I’m looking at charge number
three and am thinking that have tackled that to some extent. Does it need
to go back to FEBC? Is that what we need to recommend?
viii. R. Guell: Largely charge number five was a task; so are one and two.
Three and four are charges.
ix. D. Hantzis: Number two was apparently, according to L. Henson’s
conversation with temporary faculty, about the idea was that some were
allowed to continue being benefits eligible and some are not. No one was
asked if they were willing to go to nine hours while someone else went to
twelve. No one talked to temporary faculty.
x. D. Bradley: My understanding is when someone goes to twelve hours we
put them on contract as opposed to an hourly. My goal is that these oneyear appointments will be one-year appointments, not fifteen years in a
row. If a position requires an Instructor we need to give them a three-year
and continue. We have 21 people on one-year contracts right now. My
earnest push to J. Maynard and M. Green is to substantially reduce that for
next year. Actually, if we have no one resigning or retiring next year we
would have close to the 70-15-15 ratio we were talking about.
xi. S. Lamb: I know very well that push was real, and in the College of
Business we have all our one-year contracts that we felt we wanted to
retain asked to change to a three-year and they were, which creates great
stability for them and us too. It has been a positive situation.
xii. R. Guell: Part of my own personal database is how much of a pain it is in
Business Affairs to give someone benefits for a term and not for the next
term. Fifteen hours in the fall and nine hours in the spring is problematic.
xiii. D. Bradley: I think the ACA overrules that.
xiv. K. Bolinger: Before the employee mandate we did this one year early. C.
Barton was afraid there would be a lookback…
xv. D. Bradley: Once it’s mandated they don’t want students to work full-time
in summer, for instance.
xvi. R. Guell: Someone decided that students working full-time in summer
counts? This could destroy summer orientation.
xvii. D. Bradley: They haven’t officially stated that students count, they simply
say that all employees count. For the last two years we have said that
students can only work 27 hours per week.
xviii. K. Yousif: The majority of these charges I like because they’re forwardthinking instead of arguing about the past. The rest of the charges are very
forward-thinking. I like the direction of the recommendations. We need to
go forward with advocacy and a voice for them rather than argue about
what did or didn’t happen.
xix. D. Hantzis: This number two, what happened in the College of Business,
didn’t happen everywhere. People don’t know why some moved to fulltime and others didn’t. Someone needs to say something to all of them
instead of just one person. As far as number three, it’s not already handled.
xx. K. Bolinger: FEBC was at least on the front end of it at one time.
xxi. R. Guell: I think I would like to take the December and January break and
try to take this myself, to line out some specific actionable items to farm
out to specific standing committees or as tasks to people to put together a
document and being it in for the January meeting as a plan.
xxii. S. Lamb: I would like to ask about 3c—I am assuming you mean
Lecturers?
xxiii. D. Hantzis: Temporary faculty.
xxiv. S. Lamb: So it is my understanding that regular faculty, be they contract or
tenure track, are required or expected to participate in university service.
xxv. D. Hantzis: Instructors are notrequired across the board to attend or
participate. Some but some are required and some are not required to
attend or participate. In some areas they are required, and I suspect that
issue will rise as well. Some are being given administrative assignments in
addition to their teaching loads. This was documented in L. Henson’s
report. They are not compensated.
xxvi. D. Bradley: Full-time?
xxvii. D. Hantzis: Not only full-time. FAC, as you know, is tackling 305 and is
interested in adding a section that reads that any Lecturer who receives
three positive reviews be promoted to Instructor. If you’re evaluated
yearly, that’s six consecutive semesters.
xxviii. V. Sheets: Putting my Pharmacology lecturer, who teaches three hours per
semester up for appointment to Instructor, makes no sense.
xxix. R. Guell: I will also ask you to examine the controversy in the College of
Arts & Sciences regarding reappointment for Instructors. The Provost and
Dean of Arts & Sciences wants the possibility of an Instructor in his or her
first or second year to receive “conditional reappointment.” This would
not be an option for those in their third year, or in their second contract or
beyond.
xxx. K. Yousif: It’s not in the Handbook?
xxxi. R. Guell: It reads either reappointment or nonreappointment.
xxxii. D. Hantzis: Do we know if all colleges have a standard of evaluation for
Instructors?
xxxiii. R. Guell: Item 12 on our agenda is a charge to PTOC to do that evaluation
in the hopes of revealing the answer to that.
6. Nomination of ICHE Faculty Representative. R. Guell, S. Lamb. Vote: 8-0-0
a. R. Guell: I nominate J. Conant for representative.
7. CAAC Items:
a. Early Intervention Minor: A. Anderson, S. Lamb. Vote: 8-0-0
i. J. Park: This is a new program that we will use six already existing
courses. Four are from Elementary and Early Education and two are from
Special Education. We cover infants and toddlers with developmental
delays. We thought about this because the students wanted to know what
to expect in the field. Nurses asked about Special Education courses as
well because of state guidelines on early intervention. It makes sense to
combine the Early and Special Education. Some universities have
programs such as these. We have many of these courses which align. We
thought it would be good for our department majors and our
Communication Disorders students. It is very marketable and gives more
options for students.
b. Unmanned Systems Major: S. Lamb, V. Sheets. Vote: 8-0-0
i. R. Baker: Three years ago we started the Unmanned Systems Minor, and it
has grown quite a bit—we anticipated 50-60 students by now, and we
have 151 current students with 68 already graduated. Students come to
ISU hoping to graduate after the major will be implemented. We will be
the fourth university in the country to have this major, and the first in
Indiana. As we grow we will also ask the Aviation program to add
aerospace components to it to give a strong B.S. It also encourages each
student to pick a strong minor.
ii. K. Bolinger: Are there separate jobs open to students with this major as
opposed to the already existing minor? Grads get jobs related to their
minor?
iii. R. Baker: The B.S. will put them more in the industry as opposed to just
using the technology. We already have 11 different majors in the minor
program.
iv. K. Yousif: You actually have enough to need more faculty here. I couldn’t
find in here where you are asking for more resources.
v. R. Baker: We’re not right now. We think that over time as the student
body grows the need will grow over time.
vi. K. Yousif: Are you tweaking what you have now?
vii. R. Baker: Yes.
8. GC Item: Doctor of Physical Therapy: A. Anderson, C. MacDonald. Vote: 8-0-0
a. H. Tapley: The changes to this program are completely and totally necessary. The
program tried to get off the ground in 2011. The majority of changes to this
proposal are a result of the accrediting body’s feedback. We have many new
faculty, including myself, and many changes were made. Ninety percent of the
changes were based on feedback from the accrediting body. Many changes were
made to course numbers, and prerequisites had to change as well. We also created
new courses. We need these to go through, for we finished the application for
candidacy yesterday. The feedback has been positive. We have been working with
a consultant from a program at a Texas university, and she has approved this as
well. These changes give us a good shot at success this time.
i. K. Bolinger: Is this a post-Baccalaureate degree?
ii. H. Tapley: Yes. Not a post-professional degree. The entry level for
physical therapy used to be a Bachelor’s degree. Then it became a
Masters. Now it is an entry-level Doctorate.
iii. S. Lamb: Can you tell us about demand?
iv. H. Tapley: It’s tremendous. For years I didn’t answer my phone due to
calls from recruiters. In Indiana the demand is even higher; rural areas
have even greater demand. When the required education went to a
Doctorate it became more difficult. With Baby Boomers retiring the
anticipation will be even greater for therapists. It will help with prestige
for ISU. Every college wants a DPT program. They bring money for the
university. The employment rate is 100 percent. Many will be hired before
they graduate. In the nineties, most people had their Doctoral programs
paid for by their future employer. Students pay a program fee above their
regular tuition. We will not use any departmental funds for the program
and we will be self-sufficient.
9. Cleanup on 350: K. Bolinger, E. Hampton. Vote: 8-0-0
a. R. Guell: The file you have indicates the changes that were suggested as a result
of R. Perrin’s work. “Fundraising” is in parentheses next to “development,” and
we get rid of the notion of a conduit.
10. Constitutional Changes:
a. Strike 245.8.5 from Handbook. K. Yousif, V. Sheets. Vote: 8-0-0
b. Strike 245.8.6 from Handbook. S. Lamb, V. Sheets. Vote: 8-0-0
c. Revise 245.3.4 Regarding the Election of the Parliamentarian. K. Bolinger, K.
Yousif. Vote: 8-0-0
d. Create 245.3.3.4 Attendance Policy (and renumber accordingly) K. Yousif, V.
Sheets. Vote: 8-0-0
e. Create 245.9.1.4 Authorization to Make Minor Changes S. Lamb, E. Hampton.
Vote: 8-0-0
i. R. Guell: 245.8.5 and 245.8.6 are about the liaisons to governance. These
will be eliminated. Also, we passed language last year that brought the
Constitution language current with regard to election of the
Parliamentarian (245.3.4). We had passed, several years ago, an
attendance policy that if you missed two meetings you would be reminded,
and then after the third you would lose your seat. I ask that they be read at
Senate with no action taken. They would be read at the January meeting
and sent out to the faculty at large. In terms of procedure, I have been the
electioneer when I wasn’t chair, and I am happy to continue in that role.
We will need to elect one for this year. The way it works is the chair of
FAC and the electioneer work together on an electronic election. If you
wish to nominate another I am happy to show them, or you may select V.
Sheets, who has done this before. 245.9.1.4 we have talked about for a
very long time; we are just changing a semicolon to a comma. I need to
make a change in this before it gets to the Senate. It would be a referenced
“position or office.”
11. Foundational Studies: New UDIE Rule Requiring 45 Hours: S. Lamb, K. Yousif. Vote:
8-0-0
a. R. Guell: You may have seen this before—this is the new University College
policy on UDIE. That is to add in a requirement that students have earned 45
hours prior to registration.
i. L. Maule: The reason is for those who have taught UDIE is that if you
don’t have such a prerequisite you end up with sophomores in those
classes, and they are at a disadvantage. The purpose is for these to be a
cumulative experience and we who teach these courses expect that
students have most of their courses done—at least their composition
courses—and their critical thinking should be at a better level.
Sophomores tend not to do as well as juniors and seniors, and we need to
be able to assess where our students are at after Foundational Studies and
major courses. The other thing is, it’s a management issue in terms of
Foundational Studies courses. Limiting it to those students who have
completed 45 credits ensures that there are enough seats for our juniors
and seniors. As we encourage more and more transfer students to come,
we need to keep those seats open.
ii. R. Guell: Was consideration given to junior level composition class,
effectively making it 60 hours so you can count on the students’ ability?
iii. D. Hantzis: It wasn’t ignored frivolously. There are reasonable
expectations. A writing-intensive course could be taken concurrently.
iv. L. Maule: Having had the opportunity to look at every single plan for
every major and seeing where junior level composition is placed, I am
concerned about bottlenecks. We are at risk of not being able to not offer
enough junior level composition courses as is. Those students will have to
complete their composition course later and that would push students out a
semester.
v. D. Bradley: Can Banner be altered to handle a requirement of 45 hours?
vi. D. Hantzis: Yes.
vii. L. Maule: One thing we are allowing is we will, among departments who
already have their course approved, let them withdraw if they wish to
complete a more stringent prerequisite. Some already require 60 credits.
viii. K. Bolinger: Have you dropped ELED 457 off the list?
ix. L. Maule: Not on purpose.
x. K. Bolinger: Is it a typo? I wouldn’t want this to go through as catalog
copy. It has always been on A in the past. All ELED majors did student
teaching, and it took care of the UDIE.
xi. L. Maule: It took care of the category 1 UDIE. They take it for category 1,
not 2.
xii. K. Bolinger: They don’t need ELED 457 with C.
xiii. L. Maule: They need 457 and C. It does need to be on the list. It has been
forever.
xiv. C. MacDonald: I think we are missing more than one, because EPSY 401
is also missing.
12. Request of Academic Affairs and Charge to PTOC. Vote: 8-0-0
a. R. Guell: What you have before you is a letter J. Maynard and I are working on to
charge the Promotion and Tenure Oversight Committee (PTOC) with a thorough
review of procedures at the department and college levels to ensure compliance,
specifically with regard to Lecturers and Instructors, and specifically involving
the use of peer review committees at all levels of hiring, renewal, and so forth as
specified in section 305. This is a charge and I can send it out…
i. K. Yousif: Are you hoping to send it out soon? April 1 seems like a very
quick turnaround.
ii. R. Guell: It may be quick, but we need in my mind to be able to use the
April Senate meeting to say something about departments who have not
done this and pushed it off for another academic year.
iii. D. Hantzis: Since this matter arose at FAC and S. Powers endorsed this
when PTOC is already charged…in some ways you are expanding it at the
department level. In terms of speed of turnaround, it could probably take
two weeks to find out who has these and how many people have actually
written and approved them. One would be an audit right away without
equivocation and look toward April 1 as a remediation deadline and report
status of development.
iv. R. Guell: It is my intention to drag D. Hantzis to PTOC to lay out a
suggested plan of action to carry this out.
v. K. Bolinger: Overall I agree, but there is some urgency, particularly on the
Instructors’ side. As chair I had many Instructors, and asked how they
were previously evaluated, and they said they put together a “brag book.”
They are encouraged to do work outside their specialty. There should be
some urgency on how we evaluate instructors. They are serving on
multiple committees, etc. in order to serve like other faculty members.
vi. D. Bradley: This is another example of why we need default policies.
There should be a policy that states that any department that doesn’t have
a policy defaults to the college or university policy. I think this is an
example where departments could have a policy, but there is a college
policy to fall back on. This is serious and needs to be dealt with.
vii. S. Lamb: That is easy to accomplish at the college level.
13. Fifteen-Minute Open Discussion
a. K. Bolinger: R. Guell sent me an email earlier, regarding trying to include
suspension as a means between lack of pay raise and losing tenure. One concern
was whether that would be protected by the same due process procedures. The
current language is probably not sufficient to put “dismissal/suspension.” The
only question I have, which probably would be a better question for J. Maynard
because he mentioned he has used suspension with pay, is I was curious to know
what kinds of conditions would lead to suspension with pay but not termination?
i. D. Bradley: Termination is usually a negotiated deal. The parties agree
separation is a good thing. A suspension with pay would be when you
can’t negotiate that sort of thing quickly. In my seven years here we have
never gone through the process of breaking tenure.
ii. V. Sheets: The suspension with pay was used to contemplate.
iii. K. Bolinger: Is there a reason to investigate this, if due process was in
place, as an option and not simply a step towards termination?
iv. D. Bradley: I think it’s worthwhile to have first laid out, as a possibility
for bad behavior, a suspension without pay. It wouldn’t be used all that
often but there may be a time when a person could use more than a stern
talking-to but we don’t want to fire them so let them sit out a semester.
v. R. Guell: D. Hantzis, do you think this issue of inserting suspension
procedurally should go back to FAC if K. Bolinger presents this to us as a
formal idea?
vi. D. Hantzis: Until we actually draw up a procedure, I don’t see why. FAC
endorsed the notion of a progressive response. One thing we were very
concerned about is that either the procedures are not written or they are
not being followed. We do need to make sure implementation is followed
through.
vii. V. Sheets: I spoke against it at Senate, and it will be hard to convince me
with faculty in a unique position or teaching classes. A staff member you
can send home for a couple of weeks. Faculty will have to be pulled out
for the semester. That’s the economic equivalent of termination. I have far
less issues with suspension with pay.
viii. K. Bolinger: Suspension with pay is there.
ix. V. Sheets: Then it becomes in the administration’s interest to move it
forward. A semester suspension without pay—there’s nothing that makes
administration interested in solving that issue. If they aren’t being paid
there is no motivation to quickly bring it to resolution.
x. D. Bradley: I think suspension without pay would only happen as part of
an adjudication process.
xi. R. Guell: I said to K. Bolinger, I took dismissal and put “suspension” in
front of it. It would be prior due process. Why would Administration ever
want to go through suspension if dismissal is where they were headed?
xii. D. Bradley: I am only arguing for it as a possible result of adjudication.
You may think it is functionally equivalent to termination. Losing a job is
a far bigger thing.
xiii. S. Lamb: I am not hearing sufficient talk about when suspension is used to
protect the university.
xiv. R. Guell: The Board of Trustees will charge us with that issue. The
extraordinary action is going to the board in a week and a half.
xv. S. Lamb: That does belong in the Handbook.