UFS#2
Approved October 20, 2005.
September 22, Minutes
Indiana State University
Faculty Senate 2005-06
Time:
3:15 p.m.
Place:
HMSU, Dede III
Officers: Chair S. Lamb, Vice Chair V. Sheets, Secretary Sr. A. Anderson
Senators: C. Amlaner, V. Anderson, E. Bermudez, K. Bolinger, J. Buffington,
B. Evans, B. Frank, D. Gravitt, A. Halpern, E. Hampton, J. Harper, T. Hawkins, P.
Hightower, C. Hoffman, N. Hopkins, J. Hughes, R. Johnson, K. Liu, C. MacDonald, M.
Miller, G. Minty,
C. Montanez, T. Mulkey, F. Muyumba, L. O’Laughlin, P. Plummer, S. Pontius, J. Powers,
R. Schneirov, S. Shure, G. Stuart, Q. Weng, P. Wheeler, S. Wolf, D. Worley
Absent: J. Conant, S. Sharp
Ex-Officio: President Benjamin, Provost Maynard
Visitors: E. Kinley, G. Floyd, D. McKee, R. Libler, R. Toomey
I. Administrative Report
President Benjamin addressed:
1) his attendance at an economic summit in Morocco last week;
2) as part of the Liberal Education and America’s Promise (LEAP) initiative, four
presentations by AACU President Carol Geary Schneider occurred today on liberal
education;
3) rededication of Stalker Hall is tomorrow;
4) President’s fall address to the faculty is next Monday;
5) an Enrollment Management Taskforce has been constructed to address enrollment
management issues;
6) budget analysis continues.
Provost Maynard addressed:
1) a news release has informed that ISU is becoming a notebook campus; initiative
supported by the SGA and the Faculty Senate; an implementation committee will be
constructed; questions of faculty from last spring will be considered by the committee;
2) a process for prioritizing programs on campus will be rolled out the first of next
month; need to reaffirm “who we are”; all possibilities have to be considered with the criteria
known up-front and uniformly applied; some hard decisions have to be collectively forced;
the goal is to reinvest significant dollars in programs that have been decided to be
worthwhile—dollars taken will be reinvested back into Academic Affairs;
3) success of the Library Open House on Sept. 8th.
II. Budget Presentation
G. Floyd and D. McKee invited to the table by consensus. Information distributed:
the official fall enrollment for years 1981-2005; a discussion document on the 2005-06
budget; the preliminary planning for 2006-07; information links on the University Budget
Office web page.
Summarization of information shared:
Estimate method and potential loss to the University with present enrollment:
Forecasting model applied; accuracy modulated by foreseeable events (affected variables:
community college state penetration, VU offering of four-year degrees, two-year colleges
offering corrections courses, officer guard training decrease); Projected Loss (budgeted
revenue-projected revenue) = $1,768,153.; loss is two-thirds from tuition and one-third from
state.
If enrollments for first time, full time freshmen, in 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2005, had
been maintained the estimated additional revenue would have been approximately $9M—
1,634 more students x $5,746 (12-18 hrs fee bracket).
Financial aid (increases follow tuition) is not a significant drain—students enrolled
provide revenue in other areas.
The state chose to treat us differently for the first time and this difference in treatment
resulted in a net loss of $5M; as a result the institution is pursuing better positioning within
the state—more defined image, investing in new identity and new perspective within state,
aggressive marketing, better alumni impact on state economy, higher quality of students and
programs.
For the last three years revenue and enrollment growth has been the focus. Athletics
provide revenue on the general fund side and most are mainly supported by scholarships.
Capital campaign revenue will not free up dollars within the present budget and most
dollars received in this manner are “targeted by the donor.”
Accounting practices for employee benefits changed about 1.5 years ago; present and
future costs must be covered in accounting financial sheets; intent is to put dollars in place
today to fund future costs; a change in new hire policy capped exposure in growth of number
of employees in the pool covered by the institution’s retirement benefits; an obligation to
fund benefits for present employee base; because of the economy over the last several years,
the VEBA fund has not done as well as expected, and is currently under funded, with a
current value of $35M; a change in the health-care program from a “defined benefits” to a
“defined contribution” plan is a possibility; retirees age 65 and over are presently not
consuming a lot of resources—pay in more revenue than which is paid out; cannot guarantee
no changes in present health benefits package; more discussion on options within the Health
Benefits Committee is desired. Terms of the trust will not be violated and funds will not be
deflected to another budget pool.
III. Chair Report
Chair Lamb:
“I am hearing from the administration greater and greater concentration on
enrollment/budget issues and less emphasis on recent initiatives that have had marginal
impact upon enrollments. This is appropriate.
Since 2001, the number of full time freshmen has decreased by about 1,175 students
or by 29%. As you know, the financial impact has been tremendous. This is an emergency.
We have already heard today from Vice President Floyd, and Assistant Vice President Diann
McKee concerning budget implications of the enrollment challenge. Later we will here from
Vice President Libler, and Director of Admissions Richard Toomey concerning enrollment
challenges and initiatives.
The first meeting of the President’s Task Force on Enrollment has been held. At that
meeting, we were able to add Jeff Harper to the Recruitment subcommittee chaired by
Richard Toomey, and Arthur Halpern to the Scholarship subcommittee chaired by Becky
Libler. I have heard positive comments back from both of these faculty leaders.
Also, we presently have Virgil Sheets, Debra Worley, and Mary Howard-Hamilton
serving on the Taskforce on the First Year Experience.
At some point in time, I am going to ask Virgil, Jeff, and Arthur to give us brief
feedback on their committees.
At the first meeting of the President’s task force, Richard Toomey gave an impressive
presentation on enrollment challenges, and enrollment initiatives. I believe we are fortunate
to have him.
I do want to bring up an issue first brought to our attention last year by Frank Bell
specifically concerning admissions. We have destructive turnover in that domain. The
admissions staff receive training here at ISU, and then are purchased away with strong
packages by our competition, including Ivy Tech. We have enormous enrollment challenges,
but while we are dealing with those challenges, we must have the reward structure and the
budget that encourages talented knowledgeable people to stay in Admissions.
We are now aware that the Provost is close to constructing an academic program
prioritization committee. It is my opinion that if programs are ultimately identified that are to
have reduced funding or even be eliminated, these monies should be used to improve the
academic health of other programs. The end result must not be a diminishment of funding to
Academic Affairs.
If our collective goal is to strengthen the academic community, and the faculty is
asked to participate in the reallocation of academic funds, through the examination of
academic programs, this is in line with our primary authority.
But, I am of the strong opinion that substantial reallocation can occur without the
financial exigency card being played. I do not want the possibility that tenured faculty may
be dismissed to be on the table. The demoralization that would occur would be tremendous to
the institution. As the prioritization process proceeds, programs of strength as well as
challenged programs will be identified. But let us only identify reallocation opportunities that
will not trample on the sanctity of tenure.
One more time, program prioritization may be appropriate, if we can be assured that
examination of programs does not end up in a reduction of funding to the academic
community and that it does not mean the loss of tenure. Program prioritization must not be
used to destroy the morale of the campus through elimination of tenure.”
IV. SGA Report
The SGA has made appointment of student representatives to Senate standing
committees. Work over the summer to address student concerns resulted in support for the
Notebook Initiative. Two new programs have been approved: Bus Initiative—city bus
service to campus; student saver card—discounts with area business establishments.
V. Fifteen Minute Open Discussion
1) Statement encouraging faculty to advocate for the good of the University—not just a
particular department or college.
2) Request for the Program Priority Taskforce composition to include strong faculty
representation.
3) Statement that small programs vital to the campus should be protected.
4) Notation that small programs within Arts and Sciences generate credit hours outside the
College and operate with efficiency.
VI. FAC: Handbook Language re: University Initiatives
“Faculty appointments and annual reviews shall be founded on the disciplines and
missions of the academic units and the University. The assignment of academic rank and the
award of tenure shall be based on faculty achievements in the interrelated activities of
teaching or librarianship; research, scholarship, or creativity; and service.
Faculty engaged in the challenging work involved in teaching and facilitating learning
should be active in the profession and provide instruction based on current
scholarship. Student advising may be an appropriate mode of faculty engagement.
Faculty are expected to engage in research, scholarship or creativity that may include
original work focused on discovery and integration; and/or scholarship focused on teaching
and learning; and/or scholarship that applies methods and theories of their disciplines to
address substantial problems. Each academic unit (normally the department) will be
responsible for determining the relative importance of these research domains within the unit.
Service may consist of service to the University, to the discipline, or to the
community. Community service, as defined here and elsewhere in these policies, refers to
service in which the faculty member offers discipline-related expertise to an external agency,
company, or non-profit organization.”
Approved as amended. (Hoffman, Hopkins 36-0-1)
VII. Enrollment Presentation
R. Toomey and R. Libler invited to the table by consensus for a presentation on
enrollment. Highlights of the presentation focused on the Current Situation, Present Staff,
Recruitment Assignments and Strategies for Fall 2005, Directed Campaigns, What Worked
and Didn’t Work, and Future Alternatives.
The meeting adjourned at 5:40p.m.