INDIANA STATE UNIVERSITY
FACULTY SENATE, 2014-2015
Executive Committee
April 28, 2015, 3:30pm, HMSU 227
Minutes
Members Present: R. Guell, S. Lamb, C. MacDonald, C. Olsen, A. Anderson, K. Bolinger, E.
Hampton, V. Sheets, K. Yousif
Ex-Officio Present: President D. Bradley, Provost J. Maynard
Guests: C. Blevens, C. Fischer, L. Maule, T. Steiger
1. Administrative Reports
a. D. Bradley:
i. K. Butwin has been made our permanent General Counsel. Everyone says
she has done well by the Executive Committee these past months. She is a
great find and will be helpful.
ii. There is also a change in title for J. Beacon and D. McKee, as well as a
change of name for her division to Administration and Finance.
iii. I have not heard anything regarding the budget at this time.
b. J. Maynard: No Report.
2. Chair Report: R. Guell
a. R. Guell:
i. We need a search committee for a new Administrative Assistant for the
Faculty Senate. The Senate term officially ends August 9, but it essentially
ends with the Board of Trustees meeting on June 11. I will ask that T.
Hawkins, C. MacDonald, and a third person join to find a new assistant.
ii. In terms of things that need pushed to next year’s agenda, we have the AllUniversity Committee on the list but worked out way through so many
things and didn’t change the Handbook language for section 270. T.
Exline has been patiently waiting.
iii. There is some concern that was expressed to me and to C. Barton about
the way certain medications are being handled. Specifically, there are two
programs that are new to us this year starting to impact employees.
Whether it’s part of fraud prevention, the step program, or
1
compounding—which affects few people—there are some changes. We
are no longer doing expensive compounding. Both A. Anderson and C.
Olsen reported that the step program affects them. Basically it is a
program whereby if you have a malady for which there is a generic, lowend drug and there is a branded, high-end expensive drug, your doctor is
not going to be able to leap to the new one quickly; they will start you on
the cheap ones or your doctor needs to turn in a certification form stating
you have a condition that requires the high-end option. The letter is very
badly stated. It’s not that it’s not covered; it is just that the procedure just
hasn’t been followed. All this has been transmitted to C. Barton. Part of
the education of faculty needs to occur in the fall because more and more
will get these letters. For whatever reason Indiana requires public
institutions to use the same prescription drug provider. C. Barton told
them this letter was inaccurate and their response was, “We won’t change
it.” We need to tell people what that letter really means.
iv. FAC met and discussed the Whistleblower procedures; they had many
concerns. Either a small group of folks need to work with K. Butwin in
May to fix these, in FAC’s view, or it needs to get pushed to fall. I will
propose to the Senate that when we need small groups of people I think
this is a reasonably good pattern. The outgoing and incoming officers will
form a committee to see this through. They want to have the procedure up
and running over the summer. I will work with C. MacDonald, J. Conant,
T. Hawkins, and S. Lamb.
v. Thank you all for a very, very effective Executive Committee this year.
You have met 23 times. I’m not sure if that’s correct; it seems like more.
We have done a lot of work.
3. Approval of April 21, 2015 Minutes: A. Anderson, E. Hampton. Vote: 9-0-0
4. Fifteen-Minute Open Discussion
a. K. Yousif: I wanted to clarify if we are still meeting on May 7.
i. R. Guell: It’s just a short Executive Session for a couple of things.
b. S. Lamb: I would just like to express our appreciation for support from
Administration in our new hires. There had to be some bargaining with some
folks, and Administration really helped us.
5. University 299 Proposal
a. R. Guell: Almost never at this level do we look at whether to approve a course. In
the passage of the CAPS manual, many courses were essentially college, and
college only, determined. Twenty years ago UNIV 101 was controversial and
went to the Senate. UNIV 201 three years ago was controversial for its use of
courses out of the Center for Public Engagement. That one was lost at the Senate
level, and the reason I brought this was because the Senate has wanted jurisdiction
2
over UNIV courses. This has a different purpose; we will let T. Steiger and C.
Fischer explain. It’s coming through University College. I will ask after we deal
with this on a procedural matter whether we will recognize the ability to create
courses under the UNIV moniker. Motion to approve: C. Olsen, A. Anderson.
Vote: 8-0-0
i. T. Steiger: At its heart, it’s a compliance matter. We have at ISU now,
going on ten years, a research experience for undergraduates in the
summer. It’s nothing unusual; similar programs run all over the United
States. Essentially they are paying students a stipend to do an internship in
a lab or under close mentorship from a faculty member. The Arts have five
students doing a creative experience. At ISU, the history of paying those
students started by paying them out of wages, which meant they were
essentially treated as employees. The university responded to the
Affordable Care Act last summer by saying that no student could work
more than 27 hours. This is more like a 40 plus-hour per week experience.
We had a meeting last year and we had things vetted and determined that
what we are doing is not employment—that is does not meet the definition
of an employment relationship. They are internships, so we moved to give
them a scholarship. They were paid every two weeks and it looked like an
employee relationship. I was called out at the beginning of this year. We
looked and said we need to pay them like a scholarship up front--$30003500 tax free at the beginning of the summer—and it would look
legitimate if they were enrolled in a course. Many times internships have a
course with them. If it is credit-bearing, there are increased costs to the
university. If we charge students it reduces the attraction.. Non-graded,
non-credit courses became okay. We first wondered about UNIV 101 but
didn’t have a non-credit option. We ended up with 299. We had to; the
Center for Student Research and Creativity could not be a home for it, we
didn’t want to have to carve out one in each college, and we wanted it to
have a pass/fail option.
1. C. Fischer: We added a few changes—to make it repeatable and
add the proviso that UCC Exec would look at any new syllabi. The
one on the proposal was a little thin. It needed some control.
2. R. Guell: This has sort of an unusual birth and unusual review
process. So unusual that it was not approved by CAAC until just a
few minutes ago at today’s meeting. The credits available were
changed from 0-6 to 0-3 at that meeting.
3. C. Fischer: UCC did that.
4. C. MacDonald: It’s not clear—it’s different in a couple of places.
5. C. Fischer: Part of the problem was that it wasn’t in Curriculog.
3
6. R. Guell: UNIV can’t be a prefix in Curriculog.
7. C. Fischer: UC can’t be the originating department.
8. J. Maynard: The student pays tuition. They get up to three hours
credit.
9. R. Guell: If they enroll in zero credit hours there is no money
going in either direction.
10. L. Maule: This summer, there will only be zero credit options. For
now, this summer, there would be zero hours available.
11. S. Lamb: I thought T. Steiger said historically they had been zero
credits.
12. T. Steiger: There have never been any credits assigned with them.
That has never been the goal. Faculty are relieved from the burden
of having to grade. Students are relieved from the impact on their
GPA.
13. K. Yousif: Can you explain, if they take it for credit, would they
pay tuition? It’s primarily for zero credits, but why do we need the
option?
14. C. Fischer: S. Powers explained today that there are a small
handful of students who will want to do this and get full-time
status.
15. K. Yousif: Established as credit-free exceptions?
16. D. Bradley: The rationale is just so that it will pass the test for
scholarship.
17. C. Fischer: Not formal internship, not formal employment.
18. K. Yousif: Any reason why the logic about 200-level and not 300level? Some research you presented in the syllabus was more
upper-division.
19. T. Steiger: Most are lower-division students. The number doesn’t
matter. We just need this for compliance reasons.
20. L. Maule: This is a good question. The one directive is originally
they proposed it as UNIV 199 and we didn’t want that because we
are considering courses at the 100 level for freshmen. No one
would be opposed to moving it up. It just couldn’t be 100-level for
that reason.
21. T. Steiger: Most students participating this summer will be rising
sophomores.
22. K. Yousif: This is open to all disciplines? How would you get this
on the schedule?
23. L. Maule: Although we’re doing it to help students, all
administrative aspects will come from University College.
4
24. K. Yousif: A student who wants to do this will go through UC?
25. T. Steiger: I’m trying to reduce the amount of work for faculty. We
can do this at UC and have a one-stop shop. They will be batchenrolled through UC.
26. L. Maule: The point is astute because this is a shell. I appreciate
that you understand that it’s not just for specific areas. We will
have to talk protocol to make this as easy as possible. We can put
specifics in all the titles.
27. T. Steiger: It puts experience on the academic transcript.
28. E. Hampton: Are instructors assigned to these sections?
29. T. Steiger: Every student has a mentor. They essentially will be
instructors.
30. E. Hampton: Are they compensated?
31. T. Steiger: No.
32. C. Olsen: Almost everyone takes this for zero credits? Even if they
take it for credit, would it have to go through faculty?
33. V. Sheets: Count as elective credit?
34. T. Steiger: E. Glendening will probably have four students this
summer.
35. V. Sheets: For every section there will be a faculty mentor?
36. L. Maule: The credit will go to the faculty member assigned to it.
37. R. Guell: Is it a practical matter if a student is enrolled in a zerocredit course during the summer that they are compelled to pay for
the Rec Center and other associated fees?
38. J. Maynard: They have the option but are not compelled.
39. D. Bradley: It’s tied to credit hours.
40. L. Maule: They’re not a full-time student.
41. D. Bradley: Part-time students are volunteering to do so now.
42. J. Maynard: We will have to check.
43. L. Maule: Full-time students had to pay $50 during the summer.
b. Discussion re: treating University College as equal to other colleges
i. R. Guell: The University College’s ability to be treated as a college equal
to the others that offer courses, and the presumption that their courses
have gone through the council, are the same in terms of legitimacy. I
would at this point like to make a motion that they be treated that way
from here on. My point is that we created an apparatus to call the UC a
college and give it the equality and standing and recognition of other
colleges. We never question the Scott College of Business or Arts &
Sciences about the creation of a course. It doesn’t even make it to CAAC.
5
Should we ask CAAC to revise procedures to make it the default position?
Motion: R. Guell, C. Olsen. Vote: 8-0-1
1. S. Lamb: Explain the materials flow – do they go through CAAC?
2. R. Guell: Not actually, if I offer a new course. It goes to the
curricular body, gets published in Academic Notes, and CAAC can
get paperwork. It not only doesn’t go to Senate, it doesn’t go to
CAAC.
3. S. Lamb: It confuses me that the other colleges have identifiable
disciplines, majors, etc., and faculty are championing the creation
of those courses or not, and they have a faculty body with
disciplinary knowledge ruling on those issues.
4. L. Maule: We do have a governing body—the University College
Council. These faculty are selected because they represent
Foundational Studies. They have disciplinary knowledge and
knowledge of teaching and best practices. Course proposals would
come out of a curricular subcommittee and go to University
College Council.
5. R. Guell: It is my position that this is the last mechanism by which
we treat University College as the redheaded stepchild that needs
supervision. It is not warranted at this point, and we should get rid
of that.
6. L. Maule: Because we just had this discussion, I want to be very
frank so you’re aware. There is concern, if not be CAAC, by at
least the college, about what is happening in UC, and it’s not
connected to UNIV 299, though it happened today. We got
sidetracked and questioned about the 102 we are planning to put
forward for probationary students—from the College of
Technology that we are required to whom we advise to take this
class, and they are not certain we have the authority to do that,
though we decide a student’s academic standing. There was a lot of
discussion about that and none about UNIV 299. It was critical that
299 get passed and I separated it and I said that we would. If they
approve 299 they were giving tacit approval to what you are
talking about now. I said we would bring 102 and 103 to them and
do this again. We had to solve the problem for 299 students. It is
completely separate. I will tell you, as the dean, I absolutely
believe we have the purview and the jurisdiction; that we have met
the requirements and addressed the concerns. We have faculty
oversight, and good faculty oversight.
6
7. R. Guell: I don’t think it’s appropriate for you to have to submit
102 and 103 up the line. If someone at CAAC in the fall wants to
read Academic Notes carefully enough and call it in the
jurisdiction that is their prerogative, but the default position should
be that they UC is a fully-authorized college. To treat courses this
way flies in the face.
8. V. Sheets: You are proposing that we make a resolution to that
effect?
9. R. Guell: To take to Senate. It would be an CAPS manual altering
statement.
10. L. Maule: And be in Curriculog too. I do want, for the record—so
no one thinks I was disingenuous at CAAC, that I raised the issue.
11. R. Guell: L. Maule and I didn’t discuss this in any way.
12. K. Yousif: I support the resolution. I would argue that it would be
easy to pass because you have always allowed Foundational
Studies faculty to participate in decision making even when they
are not on the Council. I am in the loop, and my feedback is asked
for and given. I guess that I would ask that the inclusive
commitment continue. Every decision we make affects the campus.
13. L. Maule: What I did today was that it is incumbent upon me to
make sure we share things. If some information needs to be shared,
if I hear people need more information, I will do that. We will
continue to be inclusive.
14. A. Anderson: Just a parallel here. Way back in the days when UC
was just a glimmer in someone’s eye, there was concern that they
would set up their own curriculum, and it would be
counterproductive and keep going up the line to sophomores,
juniors, etc. There needs to be some assurance that you won’t write
a whole curriculum because there will be people who react to that.
15. R. Guell: It is a valid concern that you might have; that University
College Council could change Foundational Studies in a
substantive way of its own authority.
16. L. Maule: Foundational Studies changes always go through
CAAC.
17. R. Guell: Any program that affects every student is by definition a
major change and would have to go all the way through Senate.
Every technical adjustment that Foundational Studies has ever had
has always gone all the way through. From a programmatic
perspective that should always be true.
7
18. S. Lamb: What I enjoy hearing is that this is an academic unit
rather than administrative. In the College of Business where we
have a set of courses that are not housed in a discipline they are
under the BUS prefix and there seems to be a lack of input from
faculty. Major input seems to come from administrative units
outside of departments, so when I hear it cannot be just a function
of L. Maule’s goodwill, it has to be known to be a function of the
office as well. It is an academic unit and therefore is subject to
faculty input.
19. L. Maule: Our constitution speaks very much to that. The faculty
not on the Council are part of our voting faculty. We ensured when
we created it there would be more than enough faculty input.
20. S. Lamb: I don’t want to appear to be aggressive here but what I do
enjoy is hearing my colleagues speak to the caliber of that which is
going on in UC. That reassures me, as well as its insistence we do
it in a certain fashion.
21. K. Bolinger: This is probably unrelated, but I wanted to ask L.
Maule whether the decision not to use faculty in freshman
orientation was a financial one but really the key to the success of
the program was meeting the new faculty when they came on.
22. L. Maule: There are still faculty as part of it, but there are only
certain areas where they are needed.
6. Conflict of Interest Policy: E. Hampton, K. Yousif. Vote: 9-0-0
a. R. Guell: We have the latest. I would like to transmit AAC and FAC’s desire that
if you take this document and turn it to the second page, the last sentence under
912.3 which states “Further, a consensual romantic or sexual relationship that
involves significant power disparities may make the consensual nature of the
relationship questionable” Both AAC and FAC would like it struck. Their
argument for striking the sentence is that there are really no policy implications; it
is merely a piece of advice. AAC argues that it muddies the waters regarding
other items defined as “conflict of interest.” FAC’s argument is that it is, at least
in background, could be read as a misogynistic sentence. Motion on behalf of
AAC and FAC to recommend this sentence struck. Essentially the argument here
is we have almost complete authority over section 245, the Constitution, 246,
most of 300, but only advisory authority over the rest, and this is clearly outside
our primary authority. I know K. Butwin has defended the sentence to FAC and
they have a difference of opinion. If we recommend that it be struck, the
administration could present it to the Board of Trustees and it wouldn’t be out of
character. R. Guell, K. Yousif. Vote: 7-2-0.
8
i. D. Bradley: I don’t mind striking it because it’s the exception to the rule
that there is a power disparity. We are planning to come up with a
simplified version of at least some section of the Handbook that would
include advisory language. Something akin to this might be appropriate in
there but not here.
ii. K. Butwin: My plans for the policy site are to link important information
to the policy, so I think we can handle some of that guidance. I’m okay as
long as people understand that there is the potential for a sexual
harassment claim.
iii. E. Hampton: Could you explain more of the argument made to remove it?
iv. R. Guell: It doesn’t have any policy implications. It’s essentially a sidebar
saying “this is something you ought not do” rather than a policy. That is,
“if you have a child in your class, this is who you have to tell and this is
where the report goes” is policy. This is “don’t step in the quicksand of a
power relationship because people won’t understand.”
v. E. Hampton: Wouldn’t it provide necessary context to 912.3.2? If that is
part of the policy then this statement talks about where that may be
questionable. Wouldn’t it be necessary?
vi. R. Guell: That is very much the counterargument—to provide context.
There is a lot of context you could add. This is one of the last pieces of
context that has remained.
vii. S. Lamb: I also appreciate the appearance of this sentence. I think that
those of us in chair roles might be able to raise our eyebrows effectively to
faculty members if this sentence were present. I don’t know if this
sentence used to exist in the Handbook. We always assumed that the
relationships that involve power disparities were to be discouraged. I
thought it was always in the Handbook, and to pull it in this day and age
seems to be going in the wrong direction.
viii. K. Butwin: Most of the time these statements occur in the sexual
harassment policies. That may be what you are remembering.
ix. C. Olsen: I am in favor of removal. I know it provided context, but I
question its usefulness. There are so many words open to so many
interpretations it’s counterproductive.
x. J. Maynard: It’s consistent with most of our policies. We leave judgmental
decisions. We avoid the black and white. I think it needs to stay but needs
a second sentence in 912.3.2 that says, “yeah, it can happen.”
xi. D. Bradley: The big reason to take it out is that this policy is not about
sexual harassment or misconduct. It is about telling you if you have a
conflict of interest you need to disclose it. Those are different things.
Looking at it from that perspective, it is out of place.
9
xii. K. Bolinger: I would like to argue against removal. When most of us read
this it is vague, but we build our own preconceptions right into that. I can
see, for instance, if I was to date an AVP, would people assume he doesn’t
have the ability to give consent? When you say “it’s like being drunk,” I
think it implies a question of consent in power disparities. There is a
broader context.
xiii. E. Hampton: There needs to be a second sentence because otherwise the
sentence is factually incorrect. It needs to be there to be accurate.
xiv. R. Guell: I will have a vote on the question to strike and, pass or fail, we
will have a submotion.
xv. E. Hampton: Motion to insert sentence in 912.3.2 E. Hampton, A.
Anderson. Vote: 3-6-0
xvi. K. Bolinger: It doesn’t change by implying that the disparity in rank is
questionable.
xvii. E. Hampton: It’s not an issue of rank, but of power. If you are in a
relationship with someone who has power over you, it’s a question of
consent.
xviii. K. Bolinger: My relationship with an AVP would be a significant power
disparity. Due to the exertion of power, maybe you would question
consent.
xix. E. Hampton: There’s a power differential. The relationship involves the
potential misuse of the power.
xx. S. Lamb: Call the question.
xxi. K. Butwin: This sentence is watered down heavily. This was two
paragraphs and was previously under 912.3.2.
xxii. R. Guell: This sentence had been part of the section where you want to put
it back. Part of the compromise had been to put it in the preamble.
xxiii. V. Sheets: I’m wondering, by putting it back in, wouldn’t that therefore
imply that you must report any relationship with a power differential
because that will be questionable and you don’t want to be found in
violation of not disclosing? It changes the default response.
xxiv. C. MacDonald: I read it almost exactly opposite of that. Relationships
with power disparities are not consensual, and therefore would not have to
be reported.
xxv. R. Guell: Any other comments on any other aspect of 912?
7. All-University Committees: V. Sheets, K. Bolinger. Vote: 9-0-0
a. R. Guell: These are the recommendations. It largely puts people back where they
were. Several committees are dealt with by college councils and C. MacDonald
will need to wrangle them in the fall; so that, for instance, the University College
Council is populated the correct way.
10
8. Enter Executive Session 4:30pm
9. Exit Executive Session 4:34pm
10. Adjourn 4:34pm
11