UFS #8
Approved April 18, 2002.
March 28, Minutes
Indiana State University
Faculty Senate, 2001-2002
Time: 3:15 p.m.
Place: HMSU, Dede III
Present: Chairperson J. Cerny, Vice Chair S. Lamb, Secretary C. Hoffman
Senators: E. Bermudez, M. Brennan, D. Burger, G. Christianson, R. Clouse, N. Corey, P. Dutta,
B. Frank, V. French, D. Gilman, V. Gregory, M. Hamm, M. Harmon, P. Hightower, H. Hudson,
J. Jakaitis, R. Johnson, N. Lawrence, K. Liu, S. Macke, L. Maule, R. McGiverin, J. McNabb, D.
Memory, W. Moates, F. Muyumba, C. Nicol, T. Nicoletti, N. Rogers, R. Schneirov, L. Sperry, E.
Warner, W. Warren, C. Yoder
Absent: John Allen, R. Goidel, A. O'Bryan
Ex-Officio: President Benjamin, Provost Pontius
Deans: T. Foster, B. Hine, C. Ingersoll, J. Maynard, S. Nelson, B. Passmore, B. Saucier, T.
Sauer
Visitors: F. Bell, P. Engelbach, N. Hopkins, S. Loughlin, T. Sawyer, T. Sullivan
I. Memorials
A memorial was read and accepted for Stanley D. Petrulis (Brennan, Hightower 37-0-0).
II. Administrative Report
President Benjamin reported:
PPARC will meet on 4/3, agenda to include: Institutional Effectiveness Study, Budget, Human
Resource presentation.
Update on vice presidential searches: negotiating on one and close to completion on another.
A consultant will be on campus 4/2 to help solve Banner implementation problems.
Thanks to all who helped during the recent visit of the Moroccan ambassador.
Thanks to outgoing SGA President, Kristin Garing.
Budget update on status of activities at legislature.
Provost Pontius reported:
(1) The administrative response to the February actions taken by the Senate: Noted--a memorial
for Jacob Cobb, School of Business Constitution revision, two one-year replacements to the
University Promotions Committee, and informational items; Approved--CAAC
recommendations.
(2) Budget reallocation within Academic Affairs. A letter to faculty will explain reallocation
priorities. Feedback will be encouraged.
(3) Student Credit Hour Targets (SCH) letter to all faculty has been distributed. Target for
completion is two years. He noted that SCH targets: a) provide an "opportunity to become
flexible in the teaching and learning process," b) that 12 credit hour loads are common
elsewhere. c) that his goal is to increase and retain tenure/tenure-track lines and to provide a
"personal touch" between students and faculty by reducing by one-half the SCHs generated by
adjuncts. d) that "special-purpose" (non-tenure-track) faculty may be employed e) that he seeks
input from various sources on how to reach the SCH targets, and that collaboration between
departments may be one option.
(4) Sabbatical Leaves--letter of March 22 noted. Of 48 leave applications, he approved 30. In his
professional opinion, the leaves denied "would not have contributed significantly to the mission
of the institution."
(5) Dean Searches -- Business: completed
A&S: verbal agreement
In response to an inquiry, each academic dean reported on the status of faculty searches.
C. Hoffman commented that the denial of some sabbaticals on the basis of announced retirement
date appeared to be ageism.
Provost responded that sabbaticals were denied on the basis of whether or not the sabbatical
would be of sufficient value to the mission of the institution. He encouraged individuals to come
to him on a person-by-person basis if they had concerns about their specific sabbatical.
S. Lamb said he found it hard to believe that when an individual is informed that his sabbatical
application is of sufficient merit to warrant approval, but because he is too close to his retirement
date his sabbatical is denied, that that statement would not fail any age discrimination test. After
all, when younger faculty members receive sabbaticals, there is no guarantee that they will return
for a period of more than a semester or a year.
Provost referred to the University Handbook's purpose for sabbaticals and restated that
sabbaticals were denied on the basis of whether or not the sabbatical would be of sufficient value
to the mission of the institution.
D. Gilman noted that he had been given an outdated form when he applied for his sabbatical.
III. Chair Report
Chair Cerny thanked outgoing SGA President Kristin Garing for her work. Senators applauded
Ms. Garing.
Chair Cerny reported:
Thanks to the President and Provost for hosting the Faculty Senate Dinner and recognition of the
support and hard work of all the members of the Executive Committee and the Faculty Senate.
A group of campus leaders will represent ISU at the Indiana Commission for Higher Education
forum on campus issues on April 4.
The administration has accepted the Senate's proposal to facilitate AAC, CAAC, and FAC
scheduling two summer-time meeting
The Executive Committee will meet on April 2 for a special meeting to work on the proposed
Faculty Workload Policy. Senators were encouraged to attend.
The next Board of Trustees meeting is scheduled for April 26. He noted his comments at the
February meeting that had been in Senate packets.
The next session for training of mediators will be April 13. Faculty will be compensated for
completing the training.
The AAUP Spring event is scheduled for April 10.
The Sociology Department is sponsoring a lecture and presentation dealing with Human
Relations on April 12.
The Annual Retirement Tea is planned for April 17.
The last scheduled Senate meeting is April 18.
The Bookstore manager has reported that only about 50% of expected book orders for the fall
and summer have been submitted. This delay could affect the ability of the Bookstore to buy
back textbooks this semester. He asked Senators to encourage colleagues to submit their book
orders.
The Bookstore will accept orders and waive any late fee for academic apparel through April 4th.
IV. SGA Report
The new SGA President, Kelly Thomas was introduced along with the other officers.
V. Senator Robert Clouse Recognition
Chair Cerny presented a Certification of Appreciation to Senator R. Clouse for his 26 years of
service in Faculty Government.
Senators responded with a standing ovation.
VI. Fifteen Minute Open Discussion
Items addressed:
1) J. McNabb made the following announcement:
I have been asked by my colleagues in the School of Technology to make the following
announcement during this open session:
There will be a university-wide forum for faculty, chairs, and deans who have concerns about the
sabbatical approval process. The meeting will be Thursday, April 4 in room 101E in the new
Technology Building at 1:00 p.m.
2) FAC Statement to the Senate via R. Schneirov, FAC Chair:
FAC wishes to convey to the administration its unqualified support for continuing to grant leaves
regardless of budgetary fluctuations.
Leaves are essential for faculty professional development relating to teaching and research, as
well as to attracting and retaining qualified faculty.
The administration's decision whether or not to grant leaves will send a powerful message to the
faculty about administrative priorities.
3) Address to Faculty Senate by R. Schneirov:
Today, I want to sound an alarm bell. We, here at Indiana State University, are living through a
crisis in microcosm--the crisis of the American university.
At risk in this crisis is the future of the research professor. Since the late nineteenth century the
American university has been predicated on the existence of professors who combine in their
person the ability to do three things: 1) do original research within the context of a disciplinary
community of scholars thus contributing to the creation of new knowledge; 2) impart the
substance of that discipline to aspiring scholars in the classrooms of higher education; and 3)
help govern an interdisciplinary academic community in such a way as to uphold these values.
These, of course, are our well-known three major tasks as faculty: scholarship and creativity;
teaching; and service. But, as you perhaps noticed in my formulation of these tasks, they are in
critical ways interdependent. One cannot adequately impart one’s discipline to students in the
process of teaching unless one is a functioning member of that discipline. All the latest and most
effective pedagogical methods will be to no avail unless the faculty member is active and
familiar with one’s discipline. Likewise, one cannot have an understanding of the values of free
and open inquiry to be upheld in an academic community unless those values are a very intimate
part of one’s work life.
The sad truth is that this model of the university is presently in crisis at Indiana State University.
In my view, the threat comes from the application to the university of managerial techniques that
originated in large manufacturing corporations. There are two principles at work here. One is the
breaking up of the process of labor into its simplest parts. In 1832, Charles Babbage, the English
economist first articulated the principle that dividing the labor process into its parts resulted in a
cheapening of the overall labor cost to the employer. The simpler parts of a job can be paid at
piecework wages, while those parts of the original work that still require skill can be reduced to
the minimum. But, it is not only cost that is aimed at. The division of labor also results in a
dramatic shift in power upward from skilled and knowledgeable employees to management and
administration.
These principles have become so ingrained in our managerial culture that when the budget crisis
hit in the 1970s and 80s, it was applied unthinkingly to universities nationally. Academic
managers separated out the teaching task from the unified labor of the research professor and
began paying adjunct teachers by the piece, typically less than two thousand dollars per course in
today’s dollars. Adjuncts are not asked to do research; and they are not included in the governing
structure of the university. Today, faculty activists have a name for this process as applied to
academic labor; they call it the unbundling of the profession.
Nationally, adjunct appointments have gone from 22% in 1970, to 32% in 1982, to 42% in 1993,
to a current level of 46%. If we add to that percentage, full-time instructors off the tenure track
and graduate teaching assistants, then there can be no doubt that well over 60% of all those hired
to teach in American universities are hired off the tenure track.
Here at Indiana State in response to budgetary problems the percent of those teaching classes
who are off the tenure track has more than doubled in the last decade. According to two-year old
figures, 18% of all teaching academics at ISU are hired off the tenure track and they teach almost
40% of all student credit hours. Yet, the pay for these adjuncts make up, I am told, only about
5% of the instructional budget.
Tenured and tenure track faculty have acquiesced in the rise of adjuncts-both nationally and here
at ISU-- because it protects us from having to teach an excessive number of classes and because
it frees us to focus on upper division and graduate classes, pursuing our own researches, and
governing the university. And yet, the rise of adjuncts has its terrible downside.
When the majority of those hired no longer are required to have an active engagement in a
discipline and when they are vulnerable to losing their jobs with no notice or recourse, the values
that are at the core of the university are thrown at risk, particularly intellectual independence,
personal integrity, the willingness to take risks in experimenting in thinking and teaching in new
ways, and the ability to compel the university to respect these values-values we call academic
freedom and shared governance.
I can assure you that the Faculty Affairs Committee has approved a new policy for non-tenure
track faculty, which, if approved by the Senate and the administration, will address these
concerns and at the same time grant equity to our fellow adjunct colleagues.
And yet, there is another development that is now more immediate and threatening than the one
from the rise of non-tenure track faculty. In the last two years there has been a significant
decrease in the funds made available for hiring adjuncts. With virtually no discussion in the
Faculty Senate or the university as a whole, we have been faced with a large decline in the hiring
of adjuncts and a consequent increase in the workload of the regular faculty. The same process of
unbundling, whose burden has hitherto been borne by adjunct faculty is now being shifted onto
the back of regular faculty.
There is great concern at ISU that the discipline-specific process of teaching may be reduced to
quantifiable units that can be measured for the purposes of assessing and increasing the
productivity of each faculty member. These units, called student credit hours, are then multiplied
by different intensity factors, and assigned to each academic unit. At the same time, the
departments are being given higher minimum numbers for class sizes. If implemented, this will
eliminate classes and graduate programs that may be necessary for the survival of a discipline,
but which hinder productivity increases. Is it any wonder that recently when we were offered
options for ISU’s new market niche, none of them made any mention of academic excellence or
graduate work?
Finally, in addition to the above, we have a new policy on leaves. Leaves, which used to be
granted to all faculty for research, creativity, and scholarship, are now in principle limited to a
select few. The paltry amount of money used to fund leaves for professional development is now
viewed as a low priority budget item. We are faced with the prospect of fewer and fewer faculty
being granted leaves. In sum, we witness the prospect of our tenure track and tenured faculty
being divided into two groups: a dwindling number of research faculty, with an ever-larger
proportion being relegated to the unbundled task of teaching. And by teaching, I meant teaching
shorn of its intimate tie with discipline-specific research.
I ask you to consider: are we not witnessing the destruction of the research professor at ISU? Are
we not on a forced march toward becoming a glorified community college? Please consider.
4) S. Lamb made the following statement:
Academic Affairs, the Provost's Office, is in the process of identifying 1% of their budget for
internal reallocation and another 1% of their budget for external reallocation. This totals to about
$1,452,692. or 1.45 million. It is the case that some of the monies scheduled for external
reallocation to the central pool may return to Academic Affairs. It is also the case that other units
on campus have been asked to contribute 1% of their budgets to the central pool.
Nevertheless, the source of funds for both the internal reallocation as well as external allocations
from academic affairs is $1.1 million coming from retirements of faculty. The remainder of
about $0.3 million will come from the reduction of monies used to pay temporary full time and
adjunct faculty. The administration's hope is that a reduced need for temporary faculty will occur
due to the SCH target goals.
The following points of issue are significant:
The institution is composed of many units, and each unit has been asked to sacrifice in a
proportional manner to the central pool. However, some units might be considered more central
to the basic mission of the University, that of delivering an education. Proportional cuts may not
always be in the best long run interest of a body.
If we continue to pare 1% of the flesh from the heart of an institution year after year, the
institution might perish. If on the other hand, we sacrifice some appendages, such as a sixth toe,
the body might not suffer. Certainly the institution has some units that are more central to its
mission than are others. And it provides some services that are secondary to the central mission.
Chair Cerny, at the Dean's Council meeting, argued that it was time to look at all budgets
associated with the University operation. He argued that comparisons should be made between
the effects of cuts within academic affairs versus the effects of cuts within other units, while
recognizing the central mission of the University. And the President has argued that monies are
University monies, they do not belong to any one unit, that we have to consider the best interest
of the University in relationship to its mission.
Administrators at the Deans' Council did appear to agree that it was becoming less and less
appropriate to use proportional reallocation to the central pool as a means of financing. And it is
my understanding that this issue will be brought to the PPARC, which is encouraging.
Should we not look carefully at the athletic budget? Is our funding of the Foundation Budget
necessary? Might we privatize our health center operation? Are there opportunities to share some
costs and responsibilities with other institutions? A total examination of the budget in light of our
mission should be undertaken before we continue to resort to proportional reallocation to the
central pool.
Frankly, I do not think that the process of identifying Academic Affairs monies from retirements
of faculty as the primary source of funds for reallocation passes the vision or creativity tests.
Certainly, it is the easiest way to proceed. It is a spreadsheet answer. But I suspect it does little to
protect the primary mission of the University.
One goal that has been agreed upon by the institution is that of investing in people. By that was
meant developing policies to ensure that we attract very high quality individuals to this
institution and we develop policies to retain quality individuals.
We may have made positive strides in putting forth resources to attract the best faculty to our
institution. But I do not think that we have made the same efforts to retain good faculty. Our
younger Assistant Professors that have been here just a few years are beginning to be enticed by
opportunities elsewhere. That coupled with reduced sabbaticals, greater teaching loads, less
health benefits, and small raises speak volumes to them. Our Associate and Full Professors have
been well aware of market differences at this institution for some time
It is my hope that monies identified from retirement of faculty be used to address this longrecognized need. Only by using these funds to decrease the exodus of our energetic and creative
people can we achieve our goals. Investing in people is our recognized goal.
In summary, it is my hope that retirement monies be used to reward those existing faculty who
are proving, or who have long-proved themselves, beneficial to the institution.
5) Present ISU Web design is cumbersome for users.
6) Student requests for the Schedule of Classes to also be available in hard copy form as well as
its intended electronic form.
VII. Minutes for the February 21, 2002 meeting were approved (Gilman, Muyumba 36-0-1).
VIII. CAAC Recommendation:
Approved Health and Safety Department name change (Hightower, Harmon 33-0-4).
IX. SAC Recommendations:
Registration, Adding and Dropping Timetable, approved as amended (Clouse, Liu 26-1-3).
Student Grievance Procedures, tabled (Liu, Lawrence 19-3-5).
D. Gilman made the following statement:
Grievances and appeals have a sad history here. Four years ago, we followed the grievance of a
colleague through a long and laborious process.
During my fifty-year association with Indiana State University, I have observed hundreds of acts
of kindness by faculty toward students. However, there have been students who have been
bullied, harassed, discriminated against, or shunned by faculty because of whatever reason. But
the outcome of any student appeal is likely to be even worse than a colleague's. For students, this
proposed well-intentioned procedure is unfair.
Let us assume that a student has a valid complaint on all or some of the conditions that I have
listed…
First there is the matter of timeliness. More time will be required for the completion of this
process than the student will have at the University. At each level in the appeal, trying to figure
out just how to deal with it results in delays of months. Second, there is the matter of who
participates in the process and who does not. If an appeal to the faculty member is futile,
administrators who have a close relationship with faculty and serve in this process will probably
not have the courage or the inclination to assist the student.
There are several ways that the appeals are thwarted. This is evidenced in how the appeal of a
student was dealt with at various levels.
First, a faculty member told the student, among other things, that she wasn't progressing in her
program because "she had not groveled enough" and "she wasn't playing the game" the way the
faculty member wanted her to. Second, the appeal at the department level was simply ignored.
Graduate committee members would not return phone calls. Two unit committees decided that it
would be inappropriate for them to hear the concerns of a student.
The student was sent from one administrator to another, with each saying go see somebody else.
Two deans let it be known that they didn't want to be bothered with a grievance.
The student was advised that Affirmative Action and EEOC were too busy with hiring to deal
with grievances, and besides, people in that office were packing up to move to another position.
At the next level, the procedure has been assigned to an intern, where it has remained for some
time. The student has left the University. So far, the student's problem has lasted nineteen
months.
Administrators who will help students in situations such as these are not included in this
procedure. First, the University Ombudsman listened, investigated, and was helpful. His role is
advisor and student advocate, but why is he left out of this process? Second, President Benjamin,
who views himself as a "court of last resort" and has often spoken of ISU being a "student-first
university," is not included and should be.
Furthermore presently, students are required to obtain signed consent from whomever denies
their appeal before they can proceed to another level. There should be a caveat that would allow
an aggrieved student to proceed without this kind of permission.
It is unlikely that this process would serve any student who has a legitimate grievance. When is
the last time a student was successful with a grievance?
The Faculty Senate rubberstamps procedures, and there are sacred cows in this one. This
procedure will ensure that the mistreatment of students occurs without much possibility of any
fair judgments.
But the outcome is frightening. First, inability to deal with students' grievances will cause good
students to leave the University. When students are enrolled in programs with low graduation
rates, this can seriously affect the future of those programs. Second, frustration produces
litigation, and there is a great potential for that here. The EEOC and civil courts can assess
substantial penalties. Third, delays and unresponsiveness create a bad public perception of the
University. Fourth, a worst-case scenario is that unresponsiveness can lead to situations
analogous to that currently being dealt with by religious institutions.
Also be aware that any student who is treated badly may be one of your students or could even
be someone in your family if that person should choose to attend here. You will watch them
spend sleepless nights wondering why they are treated so badly by the University they once
loved, why nobody will listen to their concerns, and just how they can salvage their dreams, their
educations, and their careers. I speak from experience.
Agenda reordered.
X. AAC Recommendations:
Approved (Liu, Jakaitis 23-0-4):
The AAC will conduct a Professional Satisfaction Survey of all tenured/tenure track faculty,
minimally, on a three-year basis. Obviously, replication of an existing survey will assure
comparability of data over time.
Approved AAC Search Committee Nominations (Hightower, Liu 26-0-1):
Dean of Library Search Committee:
Keith Byerman
Scott Davis
David Vancil
Alternate: Betsy Frank
Chief Information Officer Search Committee:
Alma Mary Anderson
Geoffrey Exoo
Jeff Harper
Alternate: Paul Hightower
Director of Diversity Search Committee:
Michael Bahr
Mark Hamm
Valentine Muyumba
Alternate: Nancy Lawrence.
XI. FEBC Salary Parity/Competitiveness 5-year Plan Report:
Accepted the FEBC report and approved sharing the report with the Board of Trustees
(Muyumba, Gilman 25-0-2).
F. Bell made the following statement:
I have put together these salary tables and numbers for our review. I think it is all reasonably
accurate, but if you find mistakes please let me know. I did this work to try to understand why
the top administrative salaries at ISU compare so very favorably with their counterparts at other
IIa (comprehensive) institutions while faculty salaries compare unfavorably. After looking at
these numbers, it seems that available money has been allocated without parity. The top 40
administrative salaries received not only more money for salary increases (than the entire
faculty) but a greater percentage has been allocated for top administrative salary increases as
well.
We all are aware of how poorly ISU faculty salaries have compared to the five, or so, previously
defined peer groups and how poorly our salaries compare with the most recent peer group. ISU
faculty salaries compare poorly with IIa (comprehensive) institution faculty salaries. ISU faculty
salaries compare poorly with other state institutions such as Ball State and The University of
Southern Indiana (institutions to which ISU faculty salaries compared very favorably only a few
years ago). And ISU faculty salaries compare very poorly with the faculty salaries at the
universities that comprise the Gateway and Missouri Valley Athletic Conferences.
Administrative efforts to manage faculty salaries have comprised of an under-funded, so-called
"pay for performance" system with which faculty have been forced to comply. This system has
clearly failed to help ISU faculty salaries maintain competitiveness with any reasonable cohort.
Faculty are concerned as we continue to watch more and more of our colleagues decide to leave
ISU in an attempt to improve their situations. Faculty are concerned as we watch valuable and
respected academic programs struggle, as faculty lines are lost. Faculty are concerned as we are
faced with less-competitive salary prospects and increased workloads while the number of
searches and the size of search applicant pools diminish. Faculty are concerned that we can no
longer afford to financially subsidize and grow administration disproportionately. In this
economic climate, we can no longer afford to sacrifice academic programs for administrative
bloat. I hope that this Senate will take action that will make a strong statement to our
administration, our stakeholders, our Commission for Higher Education and to our legislators
concerning the status of faculty salaries at ISU.
If faculty salaries had experienced the same rate of increase as enjoyed by the top administrative
salaries over the last ten years, faculty salaries would be competitive today. That the 1991-2001
cost of enhancing the top 40 administrative salaries exceeds the 1991-2001 cost of enhancing the
salaries of the entire faculty is alarming yet telling. From 1991-2001, the average of the top 17
administrative salaries increased by approximately 48% (the average of the top 40 administrative
salaries increased by approximately 46%) while the average faculty salary increased by
approximately 37%. This seems to explain how the salaries of the top administrators have
remained much more competitive than have the salaries of faculty. Had these administrative
salaries and faculty salaries increased from 1991-2001 with parity and equity, there would now
be no need to request a plan of action to address parity, equity and competitiveness. There has
been a lopsided, disproportionate allocation of resources at ISU. The faculty must expect and
receive fair and equitable salaries and it is time, after years of debate, to take action that will
bring about salary adjustments that restore competitiveness and parity and a concomitant
protection of our academic programs.
How long can the cannibalization of faculty lines continue to be a primary method of freeing up
money to support a long list of higher "institutional" priorities, including the disproportionate
financial support of top administrative salary and position proliferation?
The meeting adjourned at 5:30 p.m. (Jakaitis, Burger - voice vote).