INDIANA STATE UNIVERSITY
FACULTY SENATE, 2014-2015
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
January 13, 2015
3:30pm, HMSU 227
Minutes
Members Present: R. Guell, S. Lamb, C. MacDonald, A. Anderson, K. Bolinger, E. Hampton, C.
Olsen, V. Sheets, K. Yousif
Ex-Officio Present: Provost J. Maynard
Ex-Officio Absent: President D. Bradley
Guest: D. McKee
1. Administrative Reports:
a. D. Bradley: Absent
b. J. Maynard: No Report
2. Chair Report:
a. R. Guell:
i. Welcome back. Enrollment looks excellent. Exactly 10,000 FTEs as of
yesterday. I believe this is a record for a Spring term. It is certainly a postVietnam record.
ii. I’d like to promise a less intense agenda for the Spring, but I am not sure I
can.
1. We have a massive reorganization of section 305 coming to us
from FAC. It tackles weighty issues such as hiring and evaluation
for faculty of all ranks as well as tenure and promotion. It is the
section I showed you this fall and it was due to a major reexamination. It has received that from FAC. I intend to have D.
Hantzis present it to Senate next week, but plan NOT to have votes
taken until February.
2. We have the Constitutional votes to manage
3. We will be renaming a College and creating a school.
iii. The Advising Taskforce will be named and get their charge soon. Its
delivery expectation is now August.
iv. We need to consider formalizing an end of term definition. The Handbook
defines the beginning of the academic year and the calendar defines the
beginning of the term, but nowhere is the end of term defined. A
department chairperson sought (demanded might be a slight exaggeration)
a department meeting in the Wednesday after grades had to be turned in
(by the previous day at noon). When alerted to this, I pressed the case to
the Dean that this meeting time might come back to haunt him and the
department. The Chairperson ultimately cancelled the meeting.
Nevertheless, we should define the window when such meetings are
appropriate. We defined the opening of the window; I suggest we need a
similar definition of the close. Whether it is Commencement or the
moment grades are turned in, or whatever, we need clarity.
v. The Budget Committee met in December after finals and meets again next
Thursday morning. I will have more to say next week, but I want to
prepare you for the fact that the first meeting resulted in the President
requiring another $1 million in cuts. We learn what the VPs will propose
cutting next week. On this topic I want to begin by saying I greatly respect
that the President’s methods have yielded necessary realignments over the
years and those realignments have allowed us to increase salaries when
similar institutions have gone years without them. However, when I went
back over the numbers, especially the enrollment numbers upon which
these newest cuts are predicated, I came to the conclusion that they are
incredibly, and in my estimation, unwarrantedly conservative. By
knowingly, consistently, and increasingly underestimating enrollment by a
factor of 7% to 10%, we are choking the Vice Presidents of necessary
resources to serve our students. It is my intention to lay this out for you
and for the Senate as a whole in detail next week.
vi. Now for a point that I have raised in informal sessions, but I wish to be
made formally. Line allocations. I have received quite a number of
plaintive emails that read like this one:
1. “My name is XXX and I am a senior at ISU. There was a problem
with my registration/financial aid for this, my last, semester which
left me a required UDIE course short of fulfilling my degree. There
are no available openings. Your online Econ 302 course meets this
requirement, but is already full. Is there any way that you would be
able to fit one more student into this course? Any help would be
greatly appreciated.”
2. After each email, I contact the chairperson in the department, they
verify the facts, and I let the student in. I will soon be at 50 in a
course designed for 35. Many other UDIEs max out at 25 or less.
My exams are all essay. Papers have multiple drafts.
3. Once again the Social Science departments in the College of Arts
& Sciences played ball by creating UDIE courses to serve student
needs and once again the resources allocated to the College of Arts
& Sciences have been sent to departments that are well short of the
FTE and SCH goals and offer NO generally available UDIEs to the
University.
4. Here is an obvious case where a Dean is making allo0cation
decisions based on criteria known but to him to the detriment of
students’ ability to graduate on time. My chairperson is unhappy
with me for letting these students in. these students would make for
a nice march on Condit House to force the issue, and perhaps that’s
his goal, but until my chair cuts me off I won’t let someone not
graduate simply because of irresponsible Dean resource allocation
decisions. But I also won’t be quiet about it.
vii. S. Lamb: Colleagues, our enrollment numbers have gone up for the last
several years. What the Administration has done is used a three-year
moving average and extrapolated that forward. The enrollment estimate is
short of actual enrollment numbers. There is no trend analysis. The threeyear moving average ignores the trend and extrapolates that forward. The
forecasted value is coming from that figure. D. McKee did say so last year
but there are arguments for having a nice reserve—but those arguments
seem to have played a major role in faculty governance rather than to help
shape the budget. We are told a set of assumptions. The most important of
these is what should the size of the reserve be? What do we have to
prepare for? Instead of having debate and discussion we are told we need
to cut X dollars. It’s not shared governance, it’s being involved in the last
detail.
1. E. Hampton: Doesn’t the trend analysis model assume the progress
has to be linear?
2. S. Lamb: Yes, and whatever it is, the one failure of a moving
average is that it ignores trend. It is recognized there has been a
healthy trend and in the last two to three years it has been ignored.
Deans have been telling us that they are shaking their heads at the
resources the figures that are coming from enrollment. They aren’t
accurate. I think there is an admission up front that they are greatly
underestimated for conservative reasons because of fear. That is all
rational but there is where the discussion should be held.
3. R. Guell: I encourage each of you to go to the October 10 Board of
Trustees minutes and look at revenues for the 2013-2014 fiscal
year on the tuition side. Tuition was budgeted at $60 million and
ended up being something like $70 million. Missing tuition by that
much is not estimation.
4. K. Bolinger: Is this a possible catalyst to recall for the Budget
Committee?
5. R. Guell: It didn’t get transferred because the President doesn’t
wish to deal with governance on that topic in that way and we
can’t compel him to deal with us in that way—unlike previous
budget discussions in which we nodded our heads and said, “Do
what’s best,” I will not be quiet this time around.
3. Approval of the Minutes of December 2, 2014: A. Anderson, K. Bolinger. Vote: 7-0-1
4. Update on Provost Search: D. McKee
a. D. McKee: We had a total of 39 candidates who submitted materials. Last
Thursday the committee met and selected nine for airport interviews on the 29th
and 30th. We also identified alternates in case some of the original nine could not
participate. The candidate pool itself as well as the ones we selected for interview
really are very well-diversified in terms of academic discipline. Some are
currently serving as Dean of Liberal Arts, Health and Human Services, Education,
etc. Four are minority candidates and three are female. We have a very diverse
pool. We may have to Skype with some of them to accommodate schedules. It is
not preferable, but they are also involved in other searches. We may be
interviewing alternates as well. Before we leave the airport on the 30th the
committee will determine the three to five candidates we will invite to campus.
Those interviews will be from February 11-13, 15-17, 17-19, 22-24, and 25-27.
Once the schedule is finalized materials will be made available for review. Two
years ago there was an opportunity for this group to have a meeting with the
candidates and we will put that in as well as Open Forums. One difference is we
didn’t ask past candidates to do any sort of presentation. This time around we will
be asking them to do a presentation on a topic. We thought it important to have
them do this.
i. K. Bolinger: Who will be the audience for these presentations?
ii. D. McKee: Maybe in the faculty group.
iii. R. Guell: In terms of the calendar, are there any meals that I need to make
individual faculty available for from this group?
iv. D. McKee: At this point no. the search committee will be having at least
one meal with each candidate. They will also have breakfast with the
candidate on the first day. They have lunch with Deans and Associate
Vice Presidents in the Provost’s office, as well as breakfast the following
day with the Cabinet. The search committee will meet with them at the
conclusion of the second day.
v. R. Guell: Does anyone else have any specific questions for D. McKee?
vi. D. McKee: The committee is very good. Thank you for the nominations.
This has been a very good committee to work with.
vii. V. Sheets: What is the likely time the faculty will be informed?
viii. D. McKee: If you have times that work best on the middle day please let
me know.
ix. J. Maynard: As soon as you pick out finalists I will have them go through
colleges so the President can move forward in a quick manner.
x. D. McKee: We also want them to be able to meet with the department they
would tenure in. In reviewing the materials we are looking to see
involvement with student success initiatives, first generation students,
etc.—whether they would be a fit with our institution. That is what the
committee will be focused on.
xi. R. Guell: Have any of the candidates in their past experienced a vote of
No Confidence?
xii. D. McKee: No. The search consultants do a media check and none of the
individuals that we selected have had that. There may have been three or
four out of the initial 39 who had generated some media. They are not part
of this candidate pool.
xiii. C. Olsen: Are any from here?
xiv. D. McKee: There are no internal candidates.
xv. R. Guell: Are you comfortable with the President, Provost, and I
summarizing this to the general faculty, or would you rather do it
yourself?
xvi. D. McKee: I would be happy to do it for you.
5. Fifteen-Minute Open Discussion:
a. E. Hampton: Something came to my attention recently. Near the end of last
semester I got an email that had been forwarded from IOTA that had sent
something to S. Powers. A student had requested to make a comment about an
instructor. They wrote complaining about the course. S. Powers copied the Chair
and Dean of the college. This struck me as not what we signed up for. These are
anonymous complaints. I wouldn’t want them to become a file in S. Powers’ or
the Dean’s office. It was about an adjunct instructor.
i. R. Guell: Wasn’t there a mechanism within IOTA to make comments?
ii. K. Yousif: It had to be requested.
iii. E. Hampton: The faculty doesn’t see this, and I found it strange.
iv. C. Olsen: Our department has place for comment. Unless it’s in place for
all, I would hate to see them have it here and there.
v. A. Anderson: When we got the report we just got percentage of responses
but no specific feedback. There’s no way to work with that.
vi. K. Yousif: You have to click on each question and it will come up.
vii.
viii.
ix.
x.
A. Anderson: It was in the email. There was no place to do so.
V. Sheets: Finding the open-ended comments took me some time.
K. Yousif: None of us could find that.
C. MacDonald: Training for faculty on how to access the feedback would
be helpful.
xi. S. Lamb: I thought we weren’t using these this time around, but in my
department I got everyone’s numbers.
xii. V. Sheets: You can see every question for everyone.
xiii. S. Lamb: I thought I would only be privy to my own information and at
this time have access to no one else’s information.
xiv. V. Sheets: My understanding was that we are not using it for evaluative
purposes this time but it was a trial run of the system.
xv. R. Guell: I know many of you have a visceral reaction to reviews, but we
all need to understand what the system does. If you don’t know how to
navigate it you can break it down.
xvi. A. Anderson: All I had was an email.
xvii. R. Guell: Click the place next to the course and find more details. It tells
you to login to the website. I agree that we need training on navigation. I
hope, as much as we dislike individual course evaluations and/or their
implementation, that we all commit to an honest utilization of this device.
xviii. S. Lamb: How was the percentage of responses?
xix. R. Guell: J. Maynard, can you help with that? We had a conversation with
S. Powers. She said the response rates for the aggregate institution—that
is, that percentage of all 50,000 (approximate) course takings that could
have been reviewable—that more reviews have been done this time
around than in the past.
xx. V. Sheets: More than with SIRs?
xxi. R. Guell: Yes, but almost entirely the result of faculty having it out of their
control getting reviews who have never done it. For example, faculty who
get 30 percent response rates who had previously gotten zero percent. You
could argue both sides as to whether the response rate was higher or lower.
xxii. K. Bolinger: My assumption would be that our aggregate would be lower
because of people who wanted to opt out for some reason. We used to get
a college average for SIRs, and I’m curious, is there a dip?
xxiii. R. Guell: It is one of FAC’s charges to review the system.
6. AAUP Report: Absent
7. Discussion Items
a. Process of Considering Student Evaluation Questions
i. R. Guell: If you would all look at the suggested questions—E. Hampton,
C. Olsen, would you tell us what you came up with and why?
1. E. Hampton: Each of us met and looked at all the proposed
questions and broke them into constructs. We then figured out
which needed to be there and found a standard way of expressing
them.
2. R. Guell: These are not word-for-word from the pool, but altered?
In a minimally invasive way?
3. C. Olsen: What we changed was the verb tense in several cases.
It’s closest to FAC’s version.
4. R. Guell: Was there any significant dissent on any question?
5. E. Hampton: We had a larger conversation on the last one. Should
it be there? Should it not be there? We couldn’t figure out how it
translated into online instruction, depending on how the student
reads “enthusiasm.” It may not be obvious.
6. C. Olsen: We struggled with the next to last question as well. We
struggled with the idea of “engagement.” Part of the faculty
member’s job is to engage the student, so we came up with
“engaged in the course.”
7. S. Lamb: Though I don’t see a direct question about sussing out
instructor ability or expertise, was that debated?
8. C. Olsen: We thought that fell under “My Instructor was prepared
for the class.” That should show up in some way.
9. R. Guell: If we can move out of specific questions and find out
what to do from here…did we promise FAC and SAC they would
be able to take another swing at these results? This is not our
regular behavior. I don’t remember whether we promised that
they’d get another shot at this.
10. S. Lamb: I don’t recall that being said.
11. K. Yousif: The promise was that the Senate would follow standard
procedure.
12. R. Guell: Are you comfortable with this being on the agenda next
week for discussion and vote in February without going back to
FAC and SAC?
13. K. Yousif: FAC and SAC chairs are already on the working
committee.
14. V. Sheets: Regarding the open-ended questions, when my
department came up with questions assuming the ability to include
them…do we want to put a couple of those on there just to make
that standard so there’s not misperception? People assume there’s a
way around the number rating. That could solve the issue E.
Hampton brought up.
15. R. Guell: Such as, “Are there any other comments you wish to
offer?”
16. V. Sheets: Or, “What were the best things about this course?” and
“What would have helped you learn better?” That gives us a lot of
information.
17. S. Lamb: The possibility of adding additional questions as you
suggest here…do they go into the score, the single score? If, for
example, I were to add “My instructor demonstrated enthusiasm
for the course content” would that go into my single score?
18. R. Guell: I don’t know and I hope no one tries to create a
univariate item.
19. S. Lamb: Why do we have a univariate score?
20. R. Guell: I went to the individual items like I always do.
21. J. Maynard: I like V. Sheets’ suggestion. The best and worst
aspects of the course can be very helpful. They don’t push one way
or the other. That can be considered universal.
22. V. Sheets: I went through them with my grad students who teach,
and those comments were so much more helpful. The numbers
don’t give me that. They are better for the long run.
23. J. Maynard: They don’t give details of what’s going on. It’s more
for the individual faculty member, rather than being evaluative.
24. C. Olsen: My department has used open-ended questions, and I am
in favor of them. There is a question about reporting comments. I
think we can do this in any kind of anonymous, protected way.
This would be a hard sell. I am in favor. We just thought we should
encourage people to do this.
25. R. Guell: If they got typed into this database, S. Powers doesn’t
think they could remain anonymous.
26. C. Olsen: We talked about that and decided they should be
somewhere.
27. R. Guell: I will consult with S. Powers regarding the issues with
open-ended questions, and if you would formally offer an
amendment when this is a motion next week in Exec and take it to
Senate—we would like to vote in February.
28. C. Olsen: I am in favor of open-ended questions, but I am
concerned it might need to go back to SAC and FAC. This hasn’t
come up in any of our discussions.
b. AAC Rejection of the Officer and Administration Suggested Change to 246.2.2.2
i. R. Guell: AAC took the suggestion and told us no. I would like to simply
refer that to the “Kernan-Shepard Commission” of ISU to think about
language that would simplify it. They didn’t do anything to satisfy the
President’s desire to the risk of having to go back to the committee. That
is the President’s biggest concern. The slate may have had to go back to a
committee and we will be a month behind.
ii. J. Maynard: What you have here is their response?
iii. R. Guell: Yes. Their response was, “No, we’re not interested in giving that
power to the Executive Committee.”
iv. J. Maynard: Do you have the right to take it to the floor of the Senate and
put it to a vote?
v. R. Guell: I don’t think that’s a wise move at this moment.
vi. J. Maynard: I thought you have the right to do that.
vii. R. Guell: I have that right, but I don’t think I would get a favorable
response right not to that parliamentary tactic, especially since there is no
need to push this right now.
c. Elections
i. Electioneer Nomination: V. Sheets. R. Guell, S. Lamb. Vote: 9-0-0
ii. Statistics to Consider
1. R. Guell: I received a phone call from a Senator early in the term
who produced the following data on the Senates from 2003-2004
to 2014-2015, and even before he handed it to me I knew the result
because I have been here with the same faces for a very long time.
It was reinforced when I called everyone on the ISU faculty who
had been an officer, and it was S. Lamb, V. Sheets, J. Conant, A.
Anderson, C. MacDonald, and me. We barely filled a table.
2. V. Sheets: A few have retired.
3. R. Guell: Yes, but when the three of us changed chairs last year,
that’s not the first time in Senate history. We are going to run a
Senate election in March and Exec shortly after, and I have told
many of you I will not run for Chair. I don’t know that I will sit for
Exec. I will probably run for Senate. I hope over the course of the
next month we all encourage the faculty to understand that we
really do hope this is a new era in which we simply don’t rotate
two people into the same office. This is a representative group and
we balance new blood with experience. I think at times we have
overloaded on the experience.
4. C. MacDonald: And having been one who had rotated chairs, and
hopes to rotate once more, this has been a very useful
apprenticeship. I would totally agree with what R. Guell is saying,
and if I am elected Chair, I won’t run the next year. At the same
time I find that it is extraordinarily helpful to have served on
Senate before the Executive Committee, and on Exec before
becoming an officer. The experience has been very helpful. I
would like to encourage people to run for spots to gain experience
in the same way I have.
5. R. Guell: Now, and perhaps in the near future, those of you who
are very well-qualified to run are encouraged to do so.
6. J. Maynard: There is also something about continuity that is
valuable as we go through this review of governance. The officers
should have some continuity. You’re still bringing in new blood,
but you build a better Senate with the experience. There is a lot to
learn being around anyone who serves as Chair; the experience is
indeed valuable.
7. V. Sheets: We also might consider a staggered two-year term on
Exec so there is continuity, because there is a lot of value in being
able to deal with issues from one year to the next. There is value in
new blood as well. There are so many times in conversations with
others on campus where it is brought home to me that there is no
appreciation for the constraints the institution is under. You get
that experience from participating in governance.
8. S. Lamb: I have served as Chair eight times, and I have some
words to that.
9. R. Guell: Let me say first that I believed you saved this institution
at a time when no other being on campus could have done it. It is
about the next generation of leadership.
10. S. Lamb: I think it’s very important for individuals to serve on
Standing Committees as well. If you come directly to Exec without
having done your homework on one of our hardworking
committees, you don’t know that 80 to 90 percent of the work is
done at that level, and the importance of experience is there as
well. I have seen a large number of Exec members who don’t
understand the role of the Standing Committees. I certainly do also
have a strong belief in bringing up youngsters. V. Sheets was one
of them that I brought up. It is also the case that 90 percent of the
battles you go through, the institution has gone through them
before. It’s good to know the ropes and the arguments. It does
allow you also to digest new arguments. When you haven’t had
that experience, that can be dangerous. Put new people on Exec
and give them time to learn the ropes. So many wonderful faculty
members have done well. They have been stars, and their concerns
consistent. I do go heavy on experience, and I also go heavy on the
small subset of individuals who are willing.
11. K. Bolinger: We should collectively take the time to nominate
some people. Some of the younger members of the Senate see us
as the Cabal of this unit that governs, and from some of them, I
think we have seen hostility at times. Exec, at times, seems
separate from the Senate.
12. S. Lamb: That’s absolutely correct. There can be resentment.
Awareness of the issues is important. Know that this is while we
speak to serving the benefit of the entire university, but we are also
the arm of the faculty. We have to carry forward their viewpoint
aggressively. We are representative of that group and other groups
do have their forums. We have a certain perspective and certain
viewpoints about the institution.
8. Position Replacements
a. Assessment Council: Replace K. Butwin with B. Bunnett. R. Guell, K. Bolinger.
Vote: 9-0-0
i. R. Guell: I would like to nominate B. Bunnett to replace K. Butwin. B.
Bunnett, for whatever reason, had not filled out the preference sheet and
he had contacted me and asked to fill in where he could.
b. FAC Resignation: Replacement: T. Hawkins. R. Guell, K. Bolinger. Vote: 9-0-0
i. R. Guell: FAC also had another resignation. I nominate T. Hawkins.
9. Adjournment: 4:35pm