Approved: 3/26/09
25-0-2
FS #5
FACULTY SENATE
JANUARY 22, 2009
HMSU DEDE III
Present:
V. Sheets, A. Troy, Anderson, A.S., K. Bauserman, S. Brake, M. Brennan, H. Chait,
B. Corcoran, J. Fine, S. Frey, R. Goldbort, R. Guell, E. Hampton, C. Hoffman, P. Jones,
S. Lamb, C. MacDonald, N. McEntire, M. Miller, H. Minniear, G. Minty, C. Montanez,
D. Richards, P. Shon, S. Pontius, M. Sample, T. Sawyer, D. (David) Worley, D. (Debra)
Worley, and T. Zaher. (S. Hoffman, advocate)
Absent:
N. Corey, L. Cutter, P. Dutta, A. Halpern, R. Johnson, N. Strikgas, Q. Weng, K. Wilkinson
Ex-officio:
Provost J. Maynard and R. English
Deans:
T. Foster, A. Comer
Guests:
M. Chambers, F. Kramer, D. Nichols, M. Oliveira
I.
Memorial Resolutons:
a.
Sarah Hawkins - read by F. Kramer, Family and Consumer Science
b.
James L. McDowell - read by M. Chambers, Political Science
c.
Arthur Edward Dowell – read by M. Chambers, Political Science
All memoriams were approved by acclamation. 30-0-0.
Il.
Administrative Report (Provost, J. Maynard, R. English)
a.
Provost J. Maynard - update on enrollment. Overall spring enrollment decrease by
approximately 50 students. Total enrollment comes to 9,402. Enrollment among
Indiana residence is down, but the University is continuing its effort to encourage
students who have not done well in the past to return to the University.
b.
The Provost mentioned that in re of Strategic Plan that consultants have met with
various group on campus.
c.
NCA meeting had to be rescheduled later this semester.
d.
The Provost mentioned that many conversations around campus revolve around
budget issues. He stated that the University will not know where it stands on the
budget until late spring, and that faculty should make plans for some worse case
scenarios and requires all to work together in new ways.
e.
Student academic dismissal s- 58 students who were dismissed because of low GPA’s
(less than 1.0) ere allowed to return to classes, but only 52 students actually did. The
1
Provost stated that the University continues to struggle with the quality of students it
enrolls.
III.
Chair Report (V. Sheets)
Welcome all! I hope this spring semester is off to a great start for everyone.
I'm sure I speak for all of us in welcoming Provost Maynard back. We are glad to see you are
doing so well, Jack.
First, I wanted to make a correction. In October, a memorial was read for Dr. John Oliver,
formerly of the Geography, Geology, and Anthropology Department. The memorial indicated
that a scholarship had been set up by his colleagues, friends, and students. Inadvertently,
the Oliver family was excluded from this list. I wanted to correct the record to note that the
scholarship fund was set up by John’s wife, and I believe contributions from all groups are
welcome.
Second, I know many of you are involved in NCA committees at various levels, and I wanted
to thank those who participated in our recent leadership meeting. Our new NCA liaison was
unable to attend due to the weather, but it was important for all present to get updates on
where we are at in the reaccreditation process. We continue to lack documentation
regarding student outcomes assessment. I encourage everyone to insure that your
department has provided evidence of a plan for collecting and using student outcome data.
The importance of this cannot be overstated.
Finally, of course, the budget is on all of our minds. The state revenue projections are bleak,
and even the best scenarios cut our appropriations. I appreciate the President's candor with
the campus about our situation. Although budget-cutting is never easy, forthright and open
discussion of our plight can at least prepare us to face the challenges that lie ahead.
It is unfortunate that vacant lines are easy targets for cutting. Many departments have had
their searches cancelled, even after interviews were scheduled. These programs are hurt by
happenstance that does not often align with our institutional priorities.
I am aware that cuts are being made across the campus. But whereas the primary function
of a university is academics, all proposed cuts should be evaluated against their academic
impact. Activities that do not demonstrably contribute to our academic mission should be
most closely scrutinized and sound justification must be given for their continuance.
The next two years are expected to be difficult. Whether we come out of it weaker or
stronger depends on our collective decision-making and resolve to stay focused on our
primary goal of educating students.
IV.
SGA Report (M. Oliveira’s statement:
My name is Marcel Oliveira and I am the Chief of Staff of Student Government Association,
here on behalf of our organization and President Michael Scott, Jr. On behalf of SGA, I would
like to thank the Faculty Senate and the entire faculty body for its ongoing efforts to connect
with Student Government and better academic life for students. Your efforts to keep SGA
informed and updated on your initiatives and projects have not gone unnoticed to us, and
we thank you for your outreach and hope you continue to ask for our input on your charges
2
and for our representation on your committees. As for the issues you have tackled, SGA
would like to thank you on behalf of the student body for pursuing changes that will without
a doubt be seen as an improvement by students of all areas. Your efforts to change the
grade appeal system and your interest in revising the study week policy and its
enforcement are most appreciated by us as an institution and as students in this university.
We would like to reinstate that we are willing and ready to help you in whatever way
possible as you pursue those and future charges, so please let us know if there are any
student representative positions that need filled or any student input that needs assessed.
Thank you.
V.
Special Purpose Faculty Advocate (S. Hoffman’s statement):
About eight weeks ago I was contacted by several people teaching in the Correctional
Education (CE) program. They were concerned with the direction the program is going and
many of the administrative decisions. I met with two faculty members and had a lengthy
phone interview with another. Others refused to meet with me because of fear for their
jobs. Just before the semester ended in December, a committee from the CE program drew
up a list of twenty-five issues. This was presented without signatures to Dr. Sheets who
took the letter to Dr. Maynard.
I’ll summarize the high priority issues.
Need for full-time employment with some job security and benefits--Contrary to what the
director told FAC, many request 4 classes a semester. They are “professionals.” This is their
“career”; they are committed to teaching in the prison system. Many have taught more than
10 years in the program. They can see from the schedule that classes they used to teach are
now being assigned to new hires so that established faculty do not get full loads. They need
the health care especially and are being denied it by manipulation of the schedule. The new
policy seems to be quantity of faculty over quality of faculty. Many of the new hires seem to
be coming directly from the Department of Corrections (DOC).
Assignment of courses based on seniority, experience, and quality of teaching-- As the
second semester was about to begin, many veterans (ten years or more in the program)
found their schedules cut dramatically. Some went from full-time or nearly full-time in the
past to one or no courses. Enrollment was not a factor. Courses they had previously taught
were given to new or nearly new hires. Accountability in scheduling is needed.
Conflict of interest--In some instances the new teachers are also employed as prison
personnel. This creates a conflict of interest. In one instance the assistant superintendent is
teaching two courses previously taught by one of the now displaced instructors. He is
teaching them in the same facility that he manages for DOC. His students are placed in an
especially vulnerable position due to his powerful position within the prison.
Compensation for travel—The Faculty Handbook says mileage should be reimbursed if
teaching off site. If mileage cannot be paid because of budget shortfall, an inconvenience
payment of at least $100 per semester should be instituted. Other schools pay mileage or
an inconvenience payment much higher.
FAC will be looking at similar programs at other colleges to see if employment conditions
and compensation are comparable. It should be noted that the local IVY Tech has a growing
3
prison program. There is a need. The teachers I talked to expressed a commitment to this
area of teaching. Why is ISU not showing a similar commitment to them?
VI.
Approval of the Minutes of November 20, 2008. (S. Lamb/S. Pontius) 30-0-0.
VII.
Fifteen Minute Open Discussion (Issues/Concerns):
a.
Support Staff Council getting the same release time as others who chair committees
(e.g. senate chair) and adjunct faculty don’t become easy picking in reference to
budget cuts. Deans need to look at other sources.
b.
Are faculty going to be expected to start teaching out-of-discipline? It seems this is
the only way to make a 12-hour load actually reduce costs.
c.
The Provost stated that he asked deans to look at teaching of faculty members. He
stated that productivity is associated with release time. Every dean needs to work
with chairs if there is justification for deviations from 12 hour teaching load.
d.
Provost was asked about the 3rd association dean position in NHHP. Provost said
position was filled.
e.
Guell requested follow up on the 52 students out of 188 that were originally
dismissed from the university due to low GPA’s and accepted back. J. Maynard
stated that we should have a report on these students by the end of the semester.
Guell stated that mid-term grade reports could also be provided to see if process is
working. B. English indicated that this report could be developed.
f.
Financial Aid continues to have issues (processing GPA’s, etc) – how many students
did not come back because of similar issues? Maynard said that he would follow up
on this issue.
g.
T. Zaher asked what processes are in place to help students succeed. The Provost
stated that the deans are charged to look at each student individually and try to
maximize student’s strengths and look at their weaknesses.
h.
The Faculty Senate should hold discussion regarding size and nature of institution
(institution of choice or access school). What would keep institution more
competitive?
i.
What is the perception of the University by public (e.g. Athletics and Tribune Star
article)? Do they believe we have lots of places to cut (even though some things
have been paid by Foundation and do not come out of the general fund)?
VIII.
New Business
a.
College of Business (COT) constitution.
1)
Primary concern whether or not individuals could vote when they were
not physically present for discussion. Persons should not be able to vote
unless they participated in discussion (physically or electronically).
2)
FAC indicated revisions do not violate handbook.
Approved (C. Hoffman/E. Hampton) 30-0-0.
b.
College of Technology (COT) constitution.
1)
Change in committees due to reorganization from 5 to 3 departments.
2)
FAC indicated that revision d not violate Handbook.
Approved (Guell/Chait) 30-0-0.
c.
Electronic Thesis Dissertation (ETD)
4
1)
More flexible and student friendly than paper requirement.
Approved (C. Hoffman/R. Guell) 30-0-0.
d.
Grade Appeal document. (R. Guell presented)
1)
Proposal of friendly amendment by D. Richards/S. Lamb. Accepted (C.
Hoffman/S. Pontius.
A friendly amendment was added to clarify that the dean would convene the
grade appeal committee when he/she could not create a resolution that was
“satisfactory to the instructor and student.” (section IV, last sentence).
Approved (C. Hoffman/S. Pontius) 28-2-0.
IX.
Report on Voting Rights (D. Nichols) for Arts & Sciences
1)
D. Nichols statement: The Faculty Council appreciated the Senate’s
attention to our previous appeals of the student voting issue, and that on the
Council’s behalf, I urged the Senate to allow faculty governance bodies to
decide that issue on their own, in accordance with their particular views of
their governance mission and their pedagogical mission.
2)
Sheets observed that the proposed clarification of student voting authority
would not be decided by the Faculty Senate, but would rather be submitted
to the whole faculty for their decision, in accordance with the University
Constitution.
X.
Committee reports
A)
AAC - organizational chart; reviewed summer 2009 work week, recommendations
of chair advise administration re changes.
b)
AEC – no longer meets – work completed.
c)
CAAC – meets February 5. Looking at charge of department, school and
colleges.
d)
FAC – discussion of Correctional Education Program (CEP), change of grade
process.
e)
FEBC – working on phase retirement plan.
f)
GC - none.
g)
SAC – charges brought forward.
h)
URC – have not met yet.
Meeting adjourned at 5:00 p.m.
5