Approved: 25-0-0, April 15, 2010
FS # 8
UNIVERSITY FACULTY SENATE
MARCH 18, 2010
HMSU DEDE III
Present:
Absent:
Ex officio:
Deans:
Guests:
I.
II.
III.
Present: S. Lamb, A. Anderson, K. Bauserman, K. Bolinger, J. Buffington,
C. Chait, J. Conant, B. Corcoran, C. Crowder, L. Cutter, R. Dunbar,
S. Frey, R. Guell, D. Hantzis, P. Hightower, C. Hoffman, C. Klarner, M. Lewandowski,
W. Mitchell, W. Redmond, D. Richards, M. Sample, P. Shon, M. Schafer, V. Sheets,
S. Shure, L. Tinnerman, Q. Weng, D. Worley (27)
W. Campbell, P. Dutta, J. Fine, R. Goldbort, R. Johnson, J. Latimer, C. Lunce,
C. MacDonald, M. Schafer, S. Shure, T. Sawyer
President Bradley, Provost J. Maynard
A. Comer, J. Gatrell, T. Sauer, B. Sims, C. Tiillery
A. Chirhart, T. Hawkins N. Hopkins, E. Kinley, R. Lotspeich, S. Loughlin, R. Lugar, Marcia
Miller, Marsha. Miller, R. Perrin, R. Peters, L. Phillips, K. Yousif
Memorium for James B. Mishenheimer, Jr. Read by Dr. Robert Perrin
MOVE TO ACCEPT: Unanimous.
Administrative report (President Bradley)
a.
There is no goal to change the fundamental characteristics of the university for
faculty individually or collectively due to economic necessity. The handbook
reflects the characteristics accurately. It should be stressed that we need to be
cautious and prepare for budget cuts in the future. The state is about $150
million behind in revenue. If this does not change, the governor will take some
kind of action. There are only two pools of money the governor can reduce: K12 and higher education. They make up 60% of the budget.
b.
Dr. Ramey, VP of Student Affairs, will be leaving in June. I met with leadership to
discuss his departure. There are a set of goals that will need to be achieved as I
move forward. I would encourage you all to give me feedback related to these
goals. There will be no reporting line changes. My expectation to those kinds of
divisions will be met first half of April.
c.
Congratulations to Department of Music’s alumni, David Darling, who is the first
alumni to win a Grammy. Also congratulations go out to NHHS for work on the
doctoral nursing degree and doctor of physical therapy. The Commission is
supportive of our goals. I would also like to express my congratulations to the
women’s track team, with 3 All-Americans.
V. Sheets – Updates on the pool of nominees for Faculty Senate
a.
We need additional nominees.
b.
Nominee search has been extended another week.
c.
Senate elections will be held on April 8.
1
IV.
Chair report:
Colleagues;
We must protect the identity of the institution. That must be both our short run and long run priority. It
has been must gratifying that the chairs council, the local AAUP chapter, and the Executive Committee
have all had a very similar set of concerns this last week and have expressed those concerns to the
Administration. And I need to inform you, (as has the administrative report that you have just heard),
that we have heard some very reassuring statements from both the Provost and the President this last
week.
Few of you have had to study the handbook over the years as carefully as I have had to. Most of you
have had more productive ways to spend your time and that is as it should be. Nevertheless when the
handbook was written quite a few eons ago, (and I was here then) it stated that the normal teaching
load was 12 hours, and there was also an additional service component. That is service to the institution,
and/or to the discipline, was a normal expectation as well.
However the handbook also clearly states that faculty members may be released in part or in total from
their 12 teaching load in order to accomplish research, or to fulfill another assignment. It further states
that this release is accomplished at the discretion of the chair working with the relevant Dean.
The institution has greatly matured since those words were written. Research is now a normal
expectation required of our faculty. It is an expectation that has increased dramatically over my 40 year
tenure at ISU. We would be hard pressed to identify an individual who has achieved tenure without
proving to his/her departmental peers, a college committee, as well as to his chair, the dean, and to the
provost that the research quality and quantity is sufficient to enter into the tenured category. It is the
expectation that the research will mature and continue during that individual’s tenure at ISU.
We are a University. We are no longer Indiana Normal College.
Last year, the decision was made to reduce the adjunct budget for the coming year. The ramifications of
this decision were exacerbated by the upcoming faculty retirements coupled with the budget crises.
It is now imperative that we find the resources to replenish our temporary faculty budget. And the
pathetic fact is that it does not take a great deal of resources to replenish that pool.
Certainly most faculty do agree that we have to satisfy student demand. To some extent we can do a
more efficient job with scheduling. The offerings of low demand electives associated with majors should
be staggered so that we can cover more of the high demand required courses. In some cases, where a
substantial writing component is not required, the number of sections offered can be reduced and the
class size increased without diminishing quality.
I am very pleased that the Provost appears to be moving away from requiring the majority of faculty to
teach a four course load per semester. If we are to retain University status, we cannot take on the
attributes of a community College system and hope to retain our identity. Departments, domains that
are going to have difficulty satisfying specific student demand with existing resources, no matter the
creative scheduling, should be quickly identified, and contingency plans made to address that
shortcoming.
And, faculty that are not contributing significantly to the research arena should be asked to assume a
greater course load. Departments are aware of faculty that have not been productive in the research
arena or have not assumed an additional assignment. It is reasonable that they be asked to assume an
additional load when they can be employed productively in their field of expertise. This is fair and should
be expected and required. Let us, as faculty, recognize the legitimacy of that position.
Now, given the President’s assertion that the resources needed to address the present budget crises
have been identified via the recent budget decisions, independent of the volunteer retirements, those
monies that are identified through volunteer retirements in the academic affairs arena could and should
be used to supplement the adjunct budget.
2
If ten voluntary retirements are forthcoming with an average salary of $60,000 from areas of low
student demand, the number of adjuncts sections that those resources could command would be equal
to 200 which would release 200 research productive faculty from assuming a four course load.
It is also the case that we have a reasonable expectation of higher enrollments, which again means an
increase in revenues.
While we are again downsizing the size of our tenured faculty (at least temporarily), it is rational to seek
additional resources for the temporary pool. We must aggressively investigate all possible avenues to
restore some of these monies.
I am pleased to report that I, as well as others, have heard very similar public statements forthcoming
from the Provost as well as the President.
To conclude, we must do all that is possible to protect and reinforce our status as a University. I think we
all understand that short run solutions can lead to failure in the long run especially if they become
engrained in the culture of the institution. I would like to achieve a commitment from the administration
that this will not be the case and I am so pleased that the President has made that commitment at
today’s meeting.
V.
VI.
Support Staff Council report (R. Torrence)
a.
Council nominations will be held in May with elections held in June. Adding 10 exempt
staff (EAP) to the Council.
b.
Finalizing plans for a lunch fundraiser to help a local nonprofit organization. Look for
more information coming soon.
SGA report (Mike Scott)
Final Faculty Senate Report – March 18, 2010
Thank you Chairman Lamb. Today I address you on this bittersweet occasion as it serves as my
last opportunity to report on behalf of the Student Government Association. When I first took office two
years ago, I had several goals that I set out to accomplish, more ambitious than reality, but a necessity just
in case some fell through.
I first want to thank Dr. Sheets, Provost Maynard, and the entire Faculty Senate for your diligence in
creating, then passing a comprehensive grade appeal policy. Your action created due process for students
faced with egregious assessment of their performance, and goes a long way in holding your colleagues
accountable in their grading and classroom leadership.
I also want to thank Dean Comer and the staff of the Cunningham Memorial Library for their efforts in
increasing student access to “the campus living room.” Through collaborative efforts of student
government, the deans, and the library staff, we were able to see 24-hour access during Study and Finals
Week – and some might say more importantly, free snacks and breakfast!
I was disheartened to hear that a Senate committee voted to end Study Week and/or the Study Week
Policy. While we understand and appreciate arguments that the policy or concept is insufficient, Student
Government does not believe regression to no policy is the best way to address Study Week. I call on the
Senate to work collaboratively with SGA, as was done in passage of the Study Week Policy, to work out a
solution that has the interest of students at heart, while respecting the basic academic freedoms of
faculty. I am positive that through shared governance, we will reach a happy medium.
SGA believes the best environment for student success is one where students have an outlined set of
basic rights and responsibilities both in and out of the classroom. Under the direction of Student Trustee
Matt Huckleby, working jointly with Dr. Sheets and several other Faculty Senate members, and Dr.
English, SGA has laid a foundation for a sincere and genuine conversation on a Student Rights &
Responsibilities Statement. The incoming SGA Administration has made adoption of this a high priority for
them, and I would hope that a year from today Jaden and Steven would be expressing gratitude for your
support and buy-in.
As I close, I would like to introduce to you Steven Flowers and Jaden Brown. Steven, a sophomore
Criminology and Political Science dual-major, from Terre Haute, will serve as the next President of Student
Government. In addition, Jaden, a senior Physical Education and Health major, also from Terre Haute, will
3
serve as the next Vice President and official SGA representative to Faculty Senate and Academic Affairs.
Would either of you like to speak?
Again, it has been a joy serving in this capacity over the past 24 months. I wish each of you continued
success and many blessings as we all March On! Thank you.
VII.
Special Purpose Faculty report (A. Solesky)
I have sent a targeted global message to many of the adjunct faculty introducing myself as their
advocate. I am currently working on development of a distribution list that would let me reach all
adjunct faculty in a more efficient way.
In response to the intended cut in adjunct faculty I have had several emails from concerned individuals. I
would like to make a statement of support for adjunct faculty as a reflection of these concerns.
Some departments (in the college of education as an example) went to the increase of a 12 hour credit
load, plus other duties, for tenure and tenure track faculty last year. Even with this increase, I know
there are programs/departments that still have difficulty meeting course and area needs without
adjunct support, especially in heavy clinical teaching areas. I hope that as cuts in adjunct faculty occur
that it truly does not happen in an across the board manner. This approach would be very detrimental to
programs and will likely affect student progress towards degrees.
I also would like to bring recognition to the significant contributions non-tenure track faculty provide to
the university in teaching as well as service, often without additional compensation. This group of
faculty brings a diverse base of knowledge and experience to the university and student body that
without will likely lessen the richness of education at the university.
VIII.
Approval of Faculty Senate Minutes of February 18, 2010 as corrected. (C. Hoffman/A.
Anderson 25-0-0)
IX.
15 Minute Open Discussion
a.
University Handbook reference to consultant service – restricting how much faculty can
operate outside their discipline.
S. Lamb – That has been brought to our attention, and from administration as well. That
will be an item for one of the standing committees.
b.
Discussion of provost memo of March 1.
R. Guell’s Statement:
Colleagues,
Like many of you I was jolted by the contents of the Provost’s memo and concerned about what it
implied for ISUs status and mission. After Tuesday’s formal Executive Committee meeting and
yesterday’s off-the-record conversation with the President and Provost, I want you to know that I am
now much more comfortable believing that, whatever our current financial challenges and however we
come together to solve them, the President does not intend to change character of the University
faculty’s research mission. Specifically, in that meeting he affirmed the important role of scholarship, the
need for faculty to have time to do that scholarship, the need for faculty to have sabbaticals available to
them to conduct intensive study, and that four-course loads when applied permanently and across-theboard are anathema to that mission of scholarship.
The March 1 memo, as unpleasant and threatening to the welfare of faculty and students as it is,
should be taken as a temporary statement of near exigency. Let me be clear, formal financial exigency
has a definition and set of protocols that are neither currently met nor being applied. In Illinois and
many other states, the circumstances are far worse and neither their Governors nor their University
4
leaders have yet faced the financial tsunami coming at them in a realistic fashion. In Indiana, the
Governor has faced the reality of declining resources and the University Presidents have made
unpleasant adjustments. One of those adjustments, whether we like it or not, will be a period,
probably the remainder of this biennium and into the next, where we have to work longer, harder, or
at least differently.
No one would ever accuse me of being a Marxist, but I have to give my Marxist colleagues their props:
they have a robust vocabulary and they label this type of thing “speedup.” Speedup is a pejorative in
the Marxist view because it is never just part of a short term solution, but rather part of the system’s
means of squeezing labor. I do not believe that the President, Provost or Deans desire to squeeze
faculty or in any way delight in the current situation. Neither do I believe that they are using the Rahm
Emanuel MO of “never letting a crisis go to waste” so that they can remake ISU in some “IVY Tech”
image.
We all need to be clear how this came to pass. Since last Spring there have been three rounds of
budget cuts: the first, this time last year was to deal with the reduction in the biennial budget to ISU
that was working its way through the legislature and to create a 3% pool for raises; the second, in
December was to find money for Strategic priorities; and the third, in January was to deal with the
state budget cuts. It was the first of these rounds where the cuts took place that necessitated the
Provost’s memo. This train has been in the process of wrecking since last April.
In that first round, when at the time the other two rounds were not imagined, Deans proposed cutting
adjunct budgets to their current, problematic level. I thought then and I think now that those cuts
amounted to Deans playing chicken with the Provost. The Deans, my own in particular, had 20 years of
experience knowing that when push came to shove, money would be forthcoming for fully-enrolled
courses. I suspect that if they knew that two other rounds of cuts would be coming and that the
typical Provostial source of funds to deal with those unstaffed courses, retirements and resignations,
would be off the table, they would have cut differently, perhaps very differently. Had the President
known that more rounds were coming he might have not restricted the types of expenditures that
were up for consideration. As I said to the President Tuesday, the most dangerous people in the world
are those who have won at every game of chicken they have played. Financial reality and the
President’s current unwillingness to accept the recommendation of many faculty for short term,
across-the-board, and progressive pay cuts, have combined to take the steering wheel out of the
Provost’s hands. So unless enrollment skyrockets this fall, or the President finds other money, the
Provost won’t lose this round of chicken because he will be without options.
What has to happen now is for Deans and Department chairpersons to come up with a realistic Fall
2010 solution and then come up with a long term solution that sustainably solves the financial
problems as they relate to instruction. That will mean that for every dollar the Deans need to add back
to adjunct budgets they will have to come up with by cutting other things in their units. Because every
College has reduced its administrative staff in the last 18 months and because S&E and travel have
already been cut severely, that probably means reduced tenure-track lines going forward.
My conclusion is that so as long as there is a commitment by the President to 1) maintain the
Handbook definition of faculty workload, 2) honor the 45 year social contract of a one course
reduction for productively researching faculty over the long run, and 3) to respect the conscientiously
created solutions of Department Chairpersons and Deans in both the long and short run, I am
personally willing to work harder, longer, and differently for a while. I hope you; my colleagues will
consider what you can do to help ISU work through this. My Chairperson has already scheduled my
three courses for HH102 and I will take all comers. That could mean a total of 600 students and a lot of
late nights grading. I can do that for two years. I hope you will think seriously about what you can do.
5
c.
d.
e.
f.
X.
K. Bolinger’s response – I almost agree with Bob. I understand the need for cuts, but my
concern is that we continue to value faculty research time. Can some functions be
managed by faculty in the short run? I don’t disagree. We have to make sacrifices in
research time but I don’t know that it should be our first step.
D. Richards–teaching overloads. What is the provost’s view on faculty teaching a 4
course load or teaching outside their discipline? J. Maynard – It is an option, not a
mandate. I have charged the deans and chairs to make those decisions. Faculty, deans
and chairs can choose not to do that. The decision must be made by the deans and
department chairs. Faculty need to look at themselves to determine what they can do
(course redesign/course load capability, for instance.
D. Richards – is it your view that faculty members can do full research if they have those
options? J. Maynard – I expect this to be a temporary problem; it is not intended to
reduce sabbaticals/scholarship over time. We respond to what we must do, and we
have to meet our academic agenda as well. There is no simple answer.
B. Corcoran –issue of sabbaticals and the future of scholarship. That part needs to be
articulated. What if there are no sabbaticals in a two-three year time frame; how much
of a backlog would there be? To what degree does the administration consider the
effect of dispensing research opportunities for this current faculty and future faculty? Is
the disappearance of sabbaticals a financial decision or a political one?
President’s response: 1) I am interested in Faculty Senate input on how to address the
backlog issue; there should be conversations on how to be fair. I hope the next
biennium is better. If it is more than one year, it will be complicated. 2) I am hopeful
that this is an aberration. If we look at other states, our problems/ issues are less then
what is going on in many states. 3) We have been awarding 25-30 sabbaticals typically.
We have the largest number of applications 5 or years. It will be a challenge to
manage. We need to work out a solution that will make sense .
S. Lamb’s response. It is the case that next year we’ll have 30 faculty here that are
typically on sabbatical. This will give us the ability to cover 180 courses that are
frequently covered by adjuncts. This will allow many more research productive faculty
to retain a 9 hour teaching load.
D. Hantzis–sabbaticals (March 1 letter)– she felt faculty governance had not been
consulted and thanked S. Lamb for pointing that out.
S. Lamb: AUUP made this position very clear. Full participation by faculty should be
sought. My perception was that it was not. A letter should have gone out later that
week. Assume most sabbatical people were unaware that the letter was sent out.
J. Maynard: A letter was not sent out. Did review sabbatical situation with individual
deans – Deans may present hardship cases to the provost.
S. Lamb: We have heard it is up to chairs and deans, working with faculty, to come up
with a solution to the scheduling crises given the shortage of adjunct monies. I think
this is critical, and hope deans will work with chairs to solve this crisis. I also hope that
the Provost and President do everything possible to supplement the adjunct monies. An
increase in enrollment should ameliorate this problem by providing extra funds. Short
term funds should be used before we change the character of the institution.
CAAC Action Item
Social Work Department to move from College of Arts and Sciences to College of Nursing and
Health and Human Services (NHHS).
6
a.
b.
c.
R. Lugar presented an overview/rational for the proposal. Program was awarded full
accreditation award for full eight years.
Marcia Miller welcomed social work to NHHS. R. Peters – allows social work to continue
and even excel. Applaud the deans for being fair to both colleges.
R. Guell – does the move of tenure and tenure track faculty alter the composition of
next year’s Senate (seats)? It won’t be official until it is approved by the Board of
Trustees.
R. Guell – what is the process when a unit wants to move from one college to another
college.? Does it give deans the opportunity to stifle debate and veto the move? Is that
valid?
S. Lamb’s response – No.
MOVE TO ACCEPT PROPOSAL: Social Work Department move from College of Arts and
Sciences to the College of Nursing, Health and Human Services. (V. Sheets/A. Anderson 27-0-0).
XI.
Tabled Event, Executive Committee Action Concerning Definition of Marriage Act.
Motion to remove from table (C. Hoffman/P. Hightower 25-0-0).
“I move that this body instruct the Executive Committee to desist from any effort to influence the
Indiana Legislature with respect to SJ0013 (Definition of Marriage) or any similar pieces of legislation
introduced into the legislature.” (Chait, Goldbort)
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
H. Chait – thanked S. Lamb for allowing this motion to come back to Senate. Central
issue concerns the formality in which the letter sent was approved and Executive
Committee’s right to express their opinion for all faculty (Senate). Found action of
Executive Committee (EC) to be inappropriate in regards to language in University
Handbook. It is very clear that what the EC did was contrary to the advisory authority of
the Faculty Senate.
To whom is the Executive Committee (EC) accountable? The EC’s action was in regards
to a position taken by AAUP - EC is not accountable to AAUP? It is accountable to this
body.
The purpose of the letter protects domestic partner benefits. Further discussion
regarding Michigan supreme court was purely informational – not a true amendment.
It seems unreasonable what happened in the Faculty Senate in 2007 (even that was not
brought to a vote) should bear weight now.
Believed EC members felt a need to accept a moral ground associated with bigotry and
intolerance. It seemed to be out of line. Felt a need to articulate what happened that
day at EC. Vote that day was 8-0-1 (B. Guell abstained).
D. Richards – if a sin was committed, it was one of thoughtfulness and that was the
mistake. Issue regarding IU amendment does not change public policy.
H. Chait - Everyone needs to be mindful that Faculty Executive Committee is responsible
to us, not the faculty in Bloomington.
H. Chait withdrew his original motion.
7
h.
Dr. Hantzis’ statement in regards to this issue:
I want to respond to what I heard as the three elements of Professor Chait’s objection. First,
there was a question about whether the Executive Committee has authority to act as an
autonomous body, representing itself as in sending a statement of concern about a legislative
matter to the General Assembly. I think that is worth examining because, as Professor Chait
observed, the Handbook is not clear. The second point suggested that the Faculty Senate is not
authorized nor even competent to engage issues of public policy; I believe very strongly that
higher education institutions should not practice what seems to have become a standard
“benign neglect” of public policy issues that impact educational policy or our communities. We
should pay attention to legislative agenda and respond. I was pleased to hear Senator Chait
suggest at least one other state policy matter to which we might have responded due to its
relevancy to our work and I look forward to this Senate taking an active voice in response to
public policy. The third point addressed the validity of the concern about SJR 13. I would
suggest that calling the resolution “dead” and therefore the expressed concern moot denies
the legislative history of the measure, which seems to be breathed into life again each session.
A record of our concern about the impact of this legislation on faculty benefits at ISU remains
valid.
I’m including also the question I asked during the earlier discussion, in case that would
be of help: I read the March 2 minutes of the Executive Committee meeting and I note that
Steve expressed concern about the lack of consultation with faculty governance about the
status of the sabbatical program. I appreciate the voicing of that concern. At the special
meeting of the AAUP, we discussed the clear policy of the AAUP that faculty should participate
fully in any determination or revision of their work load and it seems that certainly faculty did
not participate in this discussion. I also read that Jack said that some sabbaticals would be
reviewed on a case by case basis and that a letter would be sent to the campus that week
about that. Was a letter sent to the campus? I have not seen one.
Jack responded that he did not send a letter and that a few Deans spoke with him about
sabbaticals covered by other programs, for example Fulbright.
Then, I asked, “so the case by case review of sabbatical cancelations will take place how?” and
Jack said that the Dean would need to bring the case to him.
MOTION made to affirm the Executive Committee statement opposing the passage of
the Marriage Amendment (D Richards/D. Hantzis)


R. Guell, J. Buffinton – motion to amend the above by incorporating a phrase
clarifying the role of Faculty Senate. R. Guell’s statement would add that in the
future the Executive Committee does not have internal authority to make
policy recommendations without approval of the Faculty Senate.
Motion to merge the two statements failed. (6-17-4)
Original Motion to affirm the Ex. Committee statement passed, 14-6-7
MOTION: (Buffington/H. Chait). That the Executive committee should no longer make
policy or recommendations to legislature without approval of the Faculty Senate.
8
V. Sheets – I oppose this motion. I am concern with a regulation that all regulations
must be issued through Faculty Senate. We knew that time was running out. It would
be impossible to have taken that action and bring it to the Senate. I can envision times
when we would not be able to bring certain issues to Faculty Senate. First, the letter
did specify that it was from EC. It did not assume that the entire Faculty Senate should
endorse it.
Motion passed: 16-9-1.
XII.
Discussion of Results of Chronicle of Higher Education Survey Results as
compiled by Rick Lotspeich, member of Standing Committee for Administrative
Affairs to Faculty Senate.
Report from Administrative Affairs Committee on Chronicle of Higher Education Survey for 2009
- “Great Colleges to Work for”
Background
A survey of employee attitudes toward the work environment at ISU was taken April 2009 under
the aegis of the Chronicle of Higher Education, with the survey carried out and data processed by
ModernThink, LLC.
The Administrative Affairs Committee was charged with reviewing the survey results and
compiling a report for the Senate Executive Committee and Senate. We also have shared our
findings with the team headed by Linda Maule concerned with improving the ISU work
environment in pursuit of Strategic Goal 6: Attract high quality staff and faculty to ISU. We
were not asked to formulate policy recommendations based on what we found in the survey,
but simply to report facts and a reasoned interpretation of them.
As a committee member I volunteered to take the lead on this charge, but the final report is
from the AAC, not from me alone. This document has been referred to as Rick’s memo, but it is
not mine alone. It is an official communication from the Committee. I drafted the original, but it
was revised based on comments from other members of the Committee. It is a collaborative
product.
The Committee decided that our report and the data on which it is based – the processed survey
results – should be made available to ISU employees. All the relevant documents are now
posted under the Employee tab of the MyISU homepage. Documents are security protected.
Access requires the standard MyISU sign-in information.
Overview of Survey
The core of the survey is 60 statements, grouped into 15 categories or “dimensions” to which
participants responded with five options: Strongly Agree, Agree, Neutral, Disagree and Strongly
Disagree. All were stated in a positive mode, so responses of Agree or Strongly Agree indicate a
positive outlook on the work environment. The sum of percentages choosing these positive
responses is what we refer to as the “score.”
There was a separate section with a similar structure for attitudes toward employee benefits
programs, and another section that allowed verbal responses to two open ended questions.
9
Further descriptive details are contained in the Committee’s report.
I asked Tom Steiger, who is much more familiar with survey research than the Committee
members, to review the survey’s approach and evaluate it. He expressed the view that it has
flaws in its design if the purpose was to elicit the best possible information about how ISU
employees evaluate their place of work. Yet these are not so severe that we should dismiss the
results. There is valid information in the survey that can be used to guide policy decisions
toward improving the ISU work environment.
The survey allows comparisons in three basic ways.
First, it allows comparison between ISU and other participating institutions. In our report we
limit comparisons to the group of public institutions that participated. But data is available to
make other comparisons if anyone wants to.
Second, employees are divided into three main groups: administrators, faculty and professional
support staff. Comparisons across these groups are possible.
Third, results from some of the main units of ISU were reported separately, and so comparisons
can be made between the colleges of Arts & Sciences, Business, Education and Nursing.
We did not undertake any kind of sensitivity analysis, such as determining whether differences
between ISU and other public universities, or differences between ISU colleges are statistically
significant. What we highlight in our report are differences that are relatively large. But we did
not construct any kind of confidence intervals.
Highlights of Results from the Survey
1. In most categories of survey items the ISU score (percentage of respondents choosing
Strongly Agree or Agree) is lower than the average for public institutions, in five cases by more
than 10 percentage points. These comparisons are summarized in table 1. The greatest
differences are in the following categories:
4 – Compensation & Benefits (15 percentage points lower);
8 – Connection to Institution & Pride (14 percentage points lower);
2 – Teaching Environment (12 percentage points lower);
6 – Policies, Resources & Efficiency (11 percentage points lower);
15 – Respect & Appreciation (11 percentage points lower);
10 – Confidence in Senior Leadership (9 percentage points lower); and
11 – Faculty, Administration & Staff Relations (9 percentage points lower).
The overall average score for ISU is 7 percentage points below the average for public
institutions.
In one category ISU scores are 7 percentage points above the average: 5 – Facilities and
Security.
2. Administrators express a more positive view of ISU than do Faculty and Professional Support
Staff. There are some distinctions in results for Faculty and for Professional Support Staff, but
overall these two groups of employees are more alike than different, and both are distinct from
Administrators in their survey responses.
10
3. Table 2 shows scores disaggregated across major units of ISU. The most striking feature of
this comparison is the low satisfaction reported by people working in the College of Arts and
Sciences (CAS). They show the lowest overall score (17 percentage points below the ISU
average, 24 percentage points below the average of all participating public institutions).
Personnel in Nursing show the greatest satisfaction, with the highest overall score (18
percentage points above the ISU average). Respondents from the College of Business show an
exceptionally high satisfaction with Compensation & Benefits, the only group to have such a
score above the average for public institutions (31 percentage points above the overall ISU score
and 16 percentage points above the average for public universities). While we urge caution in
interpreting these figures for Nursing, because the sample is only 6, we think the other
comparisons with large differences (double digit) allow drawing valid inferences.
4. The verbatim comments in responses to the two open ended questions make for interesting
reading, but are difficult to summarize. Our approach was to identify certain themes in these
comments and then make counts for how often each theme appears in the responses. Table 4
shows counts of themes in positive verbal comments as well as counts of praise applied to
personnel groups – i.e. administrators, faculty and support staff. Praise was applied to Faculty in
six instances and to Administrators in 11. Table 5 shows counts of themes in negative verbal
comments on the ISU work environment, as well as counts of how often blame for negative
aspects was assigned to particular groups of personnel. Blame was assigned to faculty in 6
instances and to administrators in 28 instances.
I would be happy to try to answer questions you may have.
Meeting adjourned 5:35 pm.
11