Approved Electronically 8/19/11
27-20-7
FS #8
INDIANA STATE UNIVERSITY
FACULTY SENATE
April 21, 2011, 3:30 p.m.
HMSU Dede III
Present:
Absent:
Ex officio:
Deans:
Guests:
S. Lamb, J. Buffington, J. Conant, B. Corcoran, N. Corey, R. Dunbar, R. Guell, L. Hall,
D. Hantzis, , T. Hawkins, C. Hoffman, N. Hopkins, J. Hughes, L. Kahanov, K. Kincade,
C. Klarner, J. Kuhlman, M. Lewandowski, C. MacDonald, R. Osborn, T. Sawyer,
M. Schafer, R. Schneirov, V. Sheets, S. Shure, B. Yousif, L. Tinnerman
A. Anderson, K. Bolinger, C. Crowder, R. Goldbort, P. Hightower, J. Latimer, C. Lunce,
T. McDaniel, W. Redmond, G. Stachokas
President D. Bradley, Provost J. Maynard, R. English
A. Comer, B. Balch, J. Murray, B. Sims, B. Williams
M. A. Badar, C. Everly, E. Kinley, K. O’Lone, Y. Peterson, M. Shahhosseini
I.
Memorial Resolution for R. Gray read by C. Hoffman
Accepted by acclamation.
II.
Administrative report
President Bradley:
a)
State budget update: The Senate Finance Committee has approved the budget. It is
similar to the House budget. The seven universities went to the Commissioner and asked
her to intervene with the governor for some restoration of across the board cuts. The
Commissioner did so and was not totally rebuffed. I hope to see some improvements
related to the budget at the conference committee that will be held over the next few
days. If there is no change, we will be down about $4 million which was where we were at
the end of the House deliberations. This includes the R&R funding so our base funding is
actually down more than that. This does not impact anything for the current biennium,
but people who have been around longer than I say that this is a dangerous predicament
to be in. Hopefully, we will be able to get some relief in the conference committee, and
the budget will finally get approved by the governor.
b)
Commencement is coming up. Gary Dick, an ISU business graduate, will be our
commencement speaker. He is a business communications speaker in Indianapolis and
has been very good to the University. He also received a distinguished alumni award from
ISU. Don Scott’s name will be place on the new building for the College of Business. He
will be receiving an honorary degree. I encourage all of you to attend commencement
exercises in support of our students.
c)
The Alumni Association last week nominated Dave Campbell to the Board of Trustees. He
will replace Ron Carpenter. His name has been submitted to the governor, and I assume
the governor will act rather quickly on his nomination.
d)
Construction at the Federal Building is underway. Last week we received approval from
the budget committee to begin remodeling the Family and Consumer Science building,
which will be turned into a welcome center.
1
I would also like to mention that overall we had a very successful year. I do appreciate all the
support and energy the faculty has displayed in helping to achieve our goals and serving the
needs of our students.
Finally, if you have not already done so, I would encourage all of you to complete the work survey
and encourage your colleagues to do so as well.
Provost Maynard:
I join with the president in thanking each of you for all you have done this year. Much work has
been completed and progress has been made. It would not have been possible if not for the hard
work of faculty, our committees, etc.
Next Thursday evening is our faculty awards banquet. I hope each of you will make an effort to
attend. It is usually an interesting and enjoyable event. Some of you and several of your
colleagues will be honored at that time, and I look forward to seeing all of you there.
III.
Chair report – Steve Lamb
Dear Colleagues:
First, I want to thank this year’s Faculty Senate for being the opposite of apathetic. You were
engaged, and properly so, concerning the direction and health of the University.
I am so pleased that I have been associated with this group. It has been many years since we have
had a Senate body that was willing to take its responsibilities so seriously. A senate body that is all
of one mind is usually an unhealthy senate body. We have been the opposite of that.
I strongly hope that next year there will surface opportunities to advance the vitality of the Arts
and Sciences. This domain is the backbone of the institution. As we proceed, let us be aggressive
in encouraging the health of our backbone.
This meeting is the last senate meeting that Charles Hoffman will attend as a member. However,
he has promised me that he will read (or at least edit) my memorial resolution. Colleagues,
Charles has been dear to me. He has fought so many battles for the benefit of faculty governance.
Charles was key in a distinct lawsuit, in obtaining the legal status for the Handbook as declared by
the court. In a recent adverse time, his counsel was crucial in resolving that issue. He has been a
lifetime advocate of faculty governance and has always been willing to be a voice for those who
did not have tenure, and did not have the wherewithal or stamina to speak to issues. I will always
miss his most unique personality at these meetings. Let us stand and give Charles a round of
applause for his forty plus years of service. {Applause}
C. Hoffman’s response: Thank you. It’s been a good run. It’s been 44 years. I have said over the
years that it is good that we have tenure because, if we didn’t, three of the five presidents under
whom I have served probably would have fired me. {laughter}
2
S. Lamb continued:
At the last meeting I informed Senators that I would construct a charge to be sent forward to
CAAC and GC to insure that new programs, including all those approved this year, undergo formal
scrutiny. The following is that charge
Charge to CAAC and Graduate Council;
The Executive Committee recommends to CAAC and GC that procedures be established to enable
those bodies to review the success of newly-created programs. The Executive Committee also
proposes that the CAAC body and the GC body make recommendations to the Senate via the
Executive Committee, as to the future of those newly created-programs on the basis of its
conclusions of these reviews. It may very well be that the manuals and procedures will have to be
changed in order to accomplish these goals. The Executive Committee finds these needs to be
imperative.
The following is our suggested charge to CAAC and GC: (which they may certainly modify):
All proposed programs that are applying for approval through the Faculty Senate will have specific
review dates assigned at approximately three and six years in the future, established from the
time at which the final approval of the program is given.
At these dates, the program will be required to demonstrate to the University CAAC or GC body,
the viability of the created program. That report will include:
1)
The number of majors and minors currently enrolled in the program;
2)
The average number of courses offered during the academic year supporting the
program. In the case where a specific course is required for more than one major,
fractional weights (based on percent enrollment) will have to be assigned and justified;
3)
The average number of FTE faculty assigned to this program per semester, as well as the
average SCH’s generated per semester associated with this program;
4)
Other resources which have been acquired to support the program, including FTE faculty;
5)
The value of the program to the identity of the College;
6)
The opportunities for graduates of the program, and the expected salary level of firstyear graduates. The sixth year report should have actual, rather than projected, results.
After reviewing the report and speaking with the champion(s) of each program, the CAAC or GC
council will submit an evaluation of its findings to the Executive Committee, as to the program's
viability.
Hopefully, the above will provide guidance when GC and CAAC construct their report delineating
this additional duty, by Executive Committee and the Faculty Senate. It would probably be
helpful for those bodies to review the guidelines constructed by the Program Review Process in its
deliberations a few years ago. Our collective advice is, however, "keep it simple."
3
V. Sheets: Given that this is Charles Hoffman‘s last meeting, I would like to make a motion that
we dedicate this meeting or at least a copy of the minutes of this meeting to Charles Hoffman.
Unanimous consent.
IV.
Staff Council Report by Leslie Krockenberger
 The Staff Council hosted a spring fling in March where we raised $800 for Staff
Scholarship fund.
 Recently we held Staff Council annual elections. We have eleven new and two returning
representatives to the Council. We had a great turn out for the elections – for 13 vacant
positions on Council, we had over 70 nominees. Elections of officers will be held at our
main meeting when it convenes again. Roxanne Torrence has reached her term limit as
chair of Staff Council. A new council chair will be taking over. She could not be with us
today, but she wanted me to read this statement:
I am sorry that I am not able to be with you today, but I am
participating in the leadership ISU retreat. I would like to express
my gratitude to the Faculty Senate. You have always been very
supportive of Staff Council -always looking out for the best interest
of all staff. You are to be commended for the work that you do.
To Dr. Lamb – just when you thought you were safe -words cannot
express my appreciation for your support and guidance over the past
three years. Your knowledge and experience has been a great help
to me. I know I promised last year that I wouldn’t talk about the
cups or the conflicts we shared, but just think, you will not have to
write my reports for me. Thank you.
V.
SGA Report – no report.
VI.
Special purpose Advocate Report – A. Solesky
I believe that the issues that are coming up are being addressed and forthcoming.
Thank you.
VII.
Presentation of the Faculty Scholarships to Chaleise Everly and Kyle O’Lone by J. Buffington
First of all, I’d like to thank the scholarship committee, chaired by Robyn Osborn and manned by
Bassou El Mansour and M. Shahhosseini. This year, we had an all-time high of more than sixty
applications, and there were many deserving applicants. It was a tough job, but the committee has
selected two very deserving winners.
It is my pleasure to introduce to you the winners of this year’s Faculty Scholarships. Thanks to the
generosity of last year’s donors, we were able to offer two scholarships for the first time in
several years.
Chaleise Everly, as one of our professors puts it, is “one of the best students I have ever had, in
terms of both ability and work ethic. She learns very quickly and applies common sense and prior
experience to her study of statistics. She appears to want to learn for the sake of learning, rather
than merely to earn a grade. Chaleise’s work ethic is at a level that I have rarely encountered.
She is always willing to help her classmates, and seems to explain concepts patiently and skillfully.
4
Another said of her, “She earned a spot in my permanent memory as one of the top 10 students I
have had the pleasure to have taught.”
Kyle ,O'Lone has amply proven himself to be a highly motivated, totally dedicated student of
aviation. He is also a true “team player” who not only works hard for himself but who helps his
fellow students as well. He is an active member of the ISU “Flying Sycamores” flight team, as well
as Alpha Eta Rho, the ISU aviation fraternity, and finds time to work with the “Lighthouse
Mission,” all the while maintaining a 4.0 GPA.
Chaleise Everly and Kyle O’Lone addressed the Faculty Senate and thanked them for their
individual scholarship awards.
VIII.
Approval of Faculty Senate Minutes of March 24, 2011 as corrected (N. Hopkins/T. Sawyer
28-0-0).
IX.
Fifteen Minute Open Discussion
a.
N. Hopkins to President Bradley asking for the president’s comments related to his
objection to the faculty evaluation model (referring to N. Hopkins' question during 15
minute discussion at March 24 Faculty Senate when the president was not present).
President Bradley: I believe that that particular statement was difficult to interpret. It
would have lead to disagreements and that the issue of maintaining competitiveness with
regard to CUPA salaries and adjusting our target salaries with CUPA took that into
account. I am fully in agreement with the spirit that we need to keep up with what
salaries are across the country, but I felt that putting particular language in would not be
helpful to any of us in the long term.
R. Schneirov to President Bradley: Would you agree that it is unfair to take monies away
from people who are doing at good job at ISU and the need to keep their salaries at least
to cost of living, in order to award those who happen to have published a book or
something.
President: I would say in the long term that we need to maintain or make progress on
achieving our target salaries without talking about cost of living adjustments and who
determines what a cost of living adjustment is. If we cannot maintain or are losing ground
with regard to targets, then we are going to have to re-evaluate the entire process. I
believe that target salaries are much better indicators of what salaries are doing.
Sometimes salaries go up faster than the cost of living as measured by somebody.
Sometimes over a period of time they don’t go up faster than that; we have this target
salary calculation that does a good job of balancing that out over time.
R. Schneirov: If our target population in another state gets an increase below the cost of
living then it’s ok for ISU?
President: To give you an example (going back years ago) with inflation: Sometimes
salaries in the whole country do not keep up with the cost of living; sometimes salaries
move faster than the cost of living. I don’t think we want to be put in a box when every
year we have to look at that number.
5
R. Schneirov: It seems like the only box that we are in is the box that was created by the
salary pool - that which is available. It seems to me that it has always been a policy of this
Senate (going way back as far as I can remember) that we don’t reward people by taking
money away from other people.
b.
C. MacDonald: Are we considering increasing the number of Elluminate classrooms on
campus, as there is increased demand for courses in this format at both the graduate and
undergraduate levels? Scheduling rooms for these classes has become difficult, and use
of our office computers is not a satisfactory option.
Ed Kinley responded that this was a possibility and that he would have someone from his
office contact Prof. MacDonald, who then asked whether we were considering increasing
the number of Elluminate classrooms on campus, as there is increased demand for
courses in this format at both the graduate and undergraduate levels.
L. Tinnerman: International students who are allowed to take only so many distance ed
courses result in us having to create special sections of hybrid courses which then places
people who are truly distant ed students at a disadvantage. I would support C.
MacDonald’s recommendation that we have extra Elluminate classrooms.
X.
c.
J. Buffington: I am responsible for this one page handout on undergraduate GPA’s. The
Student Affairs Committee charged itself this year to examine GPA’s trends over the past
few years, particularly in light of the fact that in the fall of 2009 we instituted our new
plus/minus grading policy. The thought was that, perhaps because of those minuses,
grades would be lower than they were before (handout – informational item only). We
plan to exam the data next and will then have two years of plus/minus data.
d.
R. Guell: Requested R. Lotspeich be permitted to address the Senate regarding parking
issues (outside 15 minute period). Unanimous consent.
e.
N. Hopkins: Faculty Awards Banquet and invitations – did not receive one, nor did others.
Provost: I will follow up with this – everyone should have received an electronic invitation
to the Faculty Awards banquet.
CAAC items:
a)
Possible reconsideration of B.S. in Civil Engineering in Technology Major: Dean B. Sims,
M.A. Badar, A. M. Shahhosseini, R. Peters. Discussion followed.
B.S. In Civil Engineering Technology Approved (R.Guell/T. Sawyer 26-1-1)
b)
Elimination of Family and Consumer Sciences Major: Y. Peterson, Dean B. Williams, R.
Peters. -- Discussion
MOTION TO ELIMINATE Family and Consumer Sciences Major. APPROVED (Voice vote)
c)
Proposed: Merger of two departments: 1) Physical Education and 2) Recreation and
Sport Management.
T. Sawyer, Dean B. Williams, R. Peters.
6
APPROVED: Merger of Physical Education and Recreation and Sport Management to
form the Department of Kinesiology (J. Kuhlman/M. Schaffer - Voice vote).
XI.
Graduate Council items:
a)
Masters in Occupational Therapy
L. Kahanov presented rationale. Discussion.
APPROVED: Master's in Occupational Therapy (V. Sheets/J. Kuhlman 27-0-1)
b)
Master in Social Work
P. Weber presented rationale. Discussion
C. MacDonald' statement regarding the proposed MSW Program:
My department remains concerned about the MSW with a concentration in
mental health and substance abuse on a number of levels. Unfortunately, the
faculty member who is most concerned could not be here today, so I am
representing her concerns:
1)
This proposal was submitted without appropriate consultation with other
master's level clinical programs, including our Clinical Mental Health
Counseling program. Only in the past month has any consultation
occurred, and only after our program raised the concern.
Since this consultation has begun, the 2 programs have begun to identify
several possible areas of collaboration between the programs, including
courses on substance abuse, marriage and family therapy, and
psychopathology. We are striving to reduce course redundancy across
campus, and it appears this program was put forward without adequate
consideration of this factor. However, the details have not yet been
worked out. Thus, this vote seems premature.
2)
3)
Another issue will be competition for appropriate internship sites. The
Clinical Mental Health Counseling program enrolls about 12-15 new
students a year, and since the sites cannot bill for the services the interns
provide, it is difficult to find high quality sites than can support an intern as
it is. Our current placements include sites as far away as Indianapolis, Paris,
and Parke County. It appears that the MSW program students would likely
be competing for similar internship sites. Having 30 more students
needing similar experiences in this area would be very difficult.
A third issue is competition for jobs for program graduates. Most agencies
advertise simply for a master's level clinician, which would fit graduates of
either program. I just don't know that the local area can support another
20 or so master's level clinicians of any type per year.
7
4)
As you have heard from me before, I am also concerned about funding for
faculty. The MHC master’s program needs at least one more faculty line in
order to remain in compliance with our accreditation standards. The MSW
program would need 3 or 4 new faculty just to get off the ground.
APPROVED: Master's in Social Work (T. Sawyer/J. Kuhlman 16-9-1)
XII.
AAC Discussion items:

Proposed purchase of the Cherry Street Parking Facility:
R. Lotspeich Statement to Faculty Senate: Financial Analysis of Proposed Purchase of the Cherry
Street Parking Facility:
Although it has not been often exercised, the Administrative Affairs Committee has a
responsibility listed in the Bylaws of the University faculty to advise with respect to budgetary
matters. Given that this proposed purchase is substantial, we thought it prudent to examine the
potential impact on ISU.
A. Brief Summary of Our Analysis
Purchase of the parking facility is an investment in real capital, so we have provided a review
based on standard project analysis. This has three main components:
1. Capital cost
2. Operations and maintenance cost
3. Revenues generated from selling parking permits for the facility
The memorandum forwarded from the Administrative Affairs Committee to the Senate and the
Senate Executive Committee contains the results of our analysis, which considered a variety of
scenarios with respect to the three components. We present the analysis in table 1 in terms of
annual net income, and in table 2 in terms of Net Present Value. The annual net income is
calculated by subtracting an annualized capital cost and annual operations & maintenance from
annual revenues. For calculating revenues we used the permit price at $360 per year. This
proposed price has recently been lowered to $250, which would have the effect of lowering all
the revenue projections we used in our analysis.
The tables allow readers to quickly see the implications of different assumptions with respect to
the three elements of the analysis. The greatest sensitivity of net income is in relation to
assumptions on capacity utilization of the facility.
Using the most likely estimate of project life (40 years) and of interest rate (4.38 percent) the capital
charge is $256,000 annually. Assuming an annual O&M cost of $90,000 and 100 percent utilization
results in an annual loss of $117,000. This is a best case scenario.
The most likely outcome is capacity utilization of around 27 percent, which would result in an annual
loss of $285,000.
8
It is questionable whether $90,000 is enough to actually cover all Operations & Maintenance. A
higher cost would reduce the negative net income further.
To summarize: as a financial project, this is a very bad investment.
B. Comments in View of the Broad Picture
The University is not in business, and so does not seek to maximize financial returns on investment
projects. Indeed we expect a public university to run at a net loss financially, with that loss covered
by public subventions. So we should consider whether there is some other worthwhile goal that
might be achieved by purchasing the parking facility. To get insight into that potential the
Committee met on Tuesday (19 April) with President Bradley and CFO Diann McKee. In that meeting
we also asked about the financial particulars of this proposed purchase.
With respect to the financial analysis we had undertaken, we learned nothing in the meeting that
changed our conclusions. CFO McKee asserted that $90,000 is a good estimate of the annual
operating cost. She also told us that her own analysis showed that the facility would break even if
parking permits were sold for $250/year. But she acknowledged that this did not take into
consideration the capital cost. She argued that this capital cost should not be considered in relation
to the parking facility alone, because it would be assigned to an auxiliary budget specific to all
parking services at ISU. This assignment does not, however, diminish the cost.
This led to further conversation about the administration’s plans for financing the loss that the
purchase would imply. President Bradley and CFO McKee asserted that their intention was to raise
the price of all parking permits at ISU to a level sufficiently high so all the cost in the parking services
auxiliary budget would be covered by revenue from the sale of permits. In effect, this would mean
users of other parking areas would subsidize those parking in the facility. President Bradley also
indicated that he intended to ensure that the parking facility would be utilized at a high rate, if
necessary by a low price of a permit to park in the facility, which would increase the rate of implied
subsidy.
In terms of some non-financial goal served by the purchase, McKee and Bradley said simply that it is
essential to provide parking services for students and employees, and that the geographic layout of
the campus required a large expansion of parking spaces in the southeast region of the campus. So
the goal is simply to meet a perceived obligation to provide convenient parking to all students and
employees who may want it. President Bradley made reference to the parking plan compiled by a
consultant that indicated this need.
C. Implications for Other Budgetary Needs
Because the plan is to treat all parking costs and revenues in an auxiliary budget, there is no direct
loss to other functions of the University. Although we can look at the implied annual loss in our
financial analysis and ask how many faculty salaries it might support, that calculation is suggestive
rather than real. Pursuit of this investment project with the intended accounting in an auxiliary
budget will not have the effect of directly reducing funding for faculty salaries or for any other
purpose.
However, it will have the effect of raising the price of parking higher than it would need to be. And
this is the final conclusion of the Committee’s examination of the matter.
9
I would like to add an observation of my own here, which is separate from the work of the
Committee. From an economist’s perspective, the price to students of attending a university should
be considered in a holistic fashion. And the compensation of employees should be similarly
considered as a package. If the price of a parking permit is higher, then students are effectively
paying a higher price for their studies. If employees must pay a higher price for parking, then
effectively their overall compensation is reduced.
The purchase of the Cherry Street Parking Facility is not necessary because there are other, less
costly solutions to meeting parking needs at ISU. By insisting on an unnecessarily costly solution,
the ISU administration is effectively reducing employee compensation and raising the price of
attending ISU.

ISU plans for parking
R. Guell’s statement forwarded to the Senate April 21, 2011
My departmental colleague, Rick Lotspeich, has performed an analysis that should serve as a
clarion call to us to recommend against the purchase of the Cherry Street garage. As the analysis
(sent to you yesterday) points out, this will waste at least $160,000 (and more likely $300,000)
annually, and will cost faculty 25% more than we are currently paying for surface parking. The
President has never disputed this (or my back of the envelope) analysis that this is a very expensive
solution. The President's argument for the purchase is that we need parking capacity in THAT
location and as a result there are no options.
There are, in fact, many options. If you would indulge me, I will lay them out:
1)
Do nothing until there is actually a deficit. There will be many spaces freed up on the
north side and on the immediate south side of the SCoB and former CoE, as SCoB faculty
and staff move. Lot N (11th and Chestnut) is always empty. This option would not
prevent faculty or students from parking in the garage as they currently have that ability
right now should they wish to pay the city's price. In any event, walking won't kill us....as
a matter of fact it would do us a little good.
2)
Recognize that ISU is an outlier in that freshmen are allowed to park on campus at all.
Neither IU, Purdue, nor BSU allow freshmen to park (at least anywhere near the center
of campus). If we instituted that policy that would free hundreds of spaces. In addition,
there is some literature that suggests that allowing freshmen to park decreases
engagement as it encourages the academically unwise habit of making ISU a suitcase
campus.
3)
Require that all freshmen park in designated lots away from the crowded areas. (N, the
North side of the current SCoB/old CoE, and any place they wish to pave on Foundationpurchased property on the east of campus or across 3rd street.)
4)
Use the Driver's Training area as a parking lot and move that facility to a location east of
the railroad tracks.
Whether the $4.8 million comes from "reserves" or (as I think more likely) is the profit that the
university anticipates this year from extra enrollments and fewer T/TT faculty, there is an
opportunity cost to spending it now. If it is not money that could go to academic affairs directly (an
argument often asserted) but were left in investments it would generate at least 4.38% ($210K) in
net interest gains to the university. (If the $4.8 million were instead used to reduce other debt the
10
bond payments would be reduced, thereby yielding that net interest gains.) That net interest gain
is money that can be spent anywhere and without restriction. If the money is not restricted, the
result is essentially the same. In this case, if you only look at the flow of permanently available
interest the distinction between money available for academic affairs and that which can only be
spent on buildings is completely obliterated.
MOTION TO ACCEPT the following statement prepared by R. Guell :
The Faculty Senate wishes to exercise its advisory authority on budgetary
matters by urging that the President cease all discussions with the city on
the purchase of the Cherry Street parking facility and by urging the Board
of Trustees to reject a purchase agreement should one be presented to it;
and that this motion be read to the Board of Trustees by Chairperson Lamb
at the May 2011 meeting. (R. Guell/N. Hopkins 19-6-1)
S. Lamb: Thanked R. Lotspeich for his work/ presentation related to the Cherry Street Parking Facility.
Meeting adjourned: 5:25 p.m.
11