THE PURDUE UNIVERSIT Y NORTH CENTRAL SENA TE
REPORT FROM WEST LAFAYETTE
7 DECEMBER 2012
This report covers four meetings:
University Senate Faculty Affairs Committee
University Policy Committee
Intercampus Faculty Council
University Senate
5 November 2012
14 November 2012
19 November 2012
19 November 2012
Official minutes with bracketed information from the PNC representative:
Purdue University Senate
2012/2013 Faculty Affairs Committee
Minutes
Third Meeting, Monday, 5 November 2012, 2:30 - 4:00 p.m.
Room 119, Hovde Hall
Present:
Advisors:
Guests:
Absent:
Walid Aref, Alan Beck, J. Stuart Bolton (Vice Chair), Donald Buskirk, Carlos Corvalan, Janusz Duzinkiewicz,
Levon Esters, David Kemmerer, Phillip Rawles, David Sanders, Charlene Sullivan (Chair), Yuewern Yih
Alysa C. Rollock, Mark J.T. Smith
None
Michael Levyne, Beverly Davenport Sypher
I. Call to Order
 Professor Charlene Sullivan, Chair, called the meeting to order at 2:33 p.m.
 The October meeting minutes were accepted with amendments. Professor Yih cannot serve on the policy committee,
Professor Duzinkiewicz agreed to serve. Under “New Business”, the reference to faculty affairs “groups” should be
Faculty Affairs “Committees”.
[At the October meeting, there appeared to have been an agreement for the University Policy Committee to have a
representative from the University Senate Faculty Affairs Committee in West Lafayette plus a representative from each of
the regional campuses. The choice of the regional representative on the Faculty Affairs Committee as the only Faculty
representative on the University Policy Committee seems to have obviated that arrangement. This was not formally
discussed, however, Vice President Rollock’s nomination of Prof. Duzinkiewicz gave a finality to the minimalist
arrangement. Subsequently, it became apparent that four faculty representatives might have been too numerous for the
University Policy Committee which numbers about 6 members.]
 The agenda for the current meeting was accepted.
II. Subcommittee Reports
 Censure and Dismissal Procedures.
There was no update on the Censure and Dismissal case. There is a committee, but details have not been shared.

Faculty Compensation and Benefits.
Vice President for Human Resources Luis Lewin and Al Diaz will be asked to attend a subcommittee meeting to
address what the driving factors are for future decisions related to the Purdue health Plan. Subcommittee Chair Donald
Buskirk reported faculty are surprised by the health options in the 2013 plan and concerned about the cost.
The committee discussed they feel the faculty aren’t consulted in the benefits decisions. Vice President Rollock
recommended that the Chair and Subcommittee Chair reach out to Vice President Lewin.

Grade Appeals.
Professor David Kemmerer gave an update on a current grade appeal case. All systems are working at this time with
no problems to report.
III. Old Business
 On-line Course Evaluation Subcommittee update.
Chair Charlene Sullivan gave a brief summary of the activities of the subcommittee. The committee discussed briefly
question content, timing of the evaluation and strategies for achieving good response rate.

COACHE Survey update
At last meeting the committee recommended Vice Provost Beverly Davenport Sypher and Professor Jay McCann
make a presentation to the University Senate.
Some concern was voiced about the way the departmental-level data will be used and distributed. The Provost
Office is directing the process of using the data to identify improvements in departmental and school level processes.
[Apparently, departments are given only their own data making comparisons difficult.]
IV. New Business
 Policy committee
The Faculty Affairs Committee discussed a possible change in the bylaws to require a minimum of voting members
for a vote and considered 51% for a quorum. The Committee Chairs have the responsibility to ensure that there is
appropriate attendance for important motions. And it was considered that the definition of “quorum” can vary for
agenda/minutes vote versus a vote on a document to be forwarded to the University Senate. The Committee
recommended that the Steering Committee of the Senate use its powers to ensure that documents that got placed on the
Senate agenda for action were able to document that a representative number of committee members had been in
attendance when votes were made to move documents forward out of committee. If such documentation was present, the
Steering Committee could send a document back to committee for further discussion.

Clinical Faculty Policy
Vice President Alysa Rollock informed the committee this policy is in its final form and will be brought for action at
the next meeting. It was added there are multiple avenues for feedback – policy office, Faculty Affairs Committee,
regional campuses’ faculty affairs committees and with Associate Vice Provost Steve Abel directly.
[The “final” version of the Clinical Faculty Policy was sent to the Faculty Affairs Committee on 28 November 2012 and
passed on to the FAC at PNC .]
V. Announcements/Items of Interest

An inquiry was made of the Graduate School Dean Mark J.T. Smith concerning international universities and joint degree
versus dual degree. Dean Smith said it is currently under consideration in the Graduate Council. This is to be presented in
the November meeting and in January there will be a vote. Dean Smith asked of the Faculty Affairs Committee their
thoughts on the best way to communicate for feedback. It was suggested to him to communicate through Mike Brzezinski
and the IPOs and to present at the University Senate Meeting.
The meeting was adjourned at 3:44 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by Krista Kelley.
The Next meeting of the Faculty Affairs Committee will be January 7, 2013 in HOVDE 119 at 2:30.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Official minutes with additional bracketed information by PNC Representative
University Policy Committee
Minutes from Meeting 11/14/12
[Young Hall 1009]
[by Jessica Teets]
New Members



David Shaw (representing IT)
Janusz Duzinkiewicz (faculty representative)
Trent Kingerman (representing WL HR)
[The meeting began at 11:05 EST. In addition to the listed persons, a representative from the Dean of Students in West Lafayette,
Jessica Teets and another assistant of Vice President Rollock plus an unidentified individual were present. The chief Human
Resources person at PNC (Sue Miller), Purdue Calumet and IPFW were connected via conference phone. ]
UNIVERSITY -SPONSORED S OCIAL M EDIA OUTLETS POLICY
Background information from Martin Sickafoose, director of online marketing:


The university (on the West Lafayette campus) currently has about 200 social media presences.
Policy is expected to bring more cohesion among these outlets, offer administrators of sites better guidance on
maintaining sites and ensure messaging is consistent with the branding of the university.
2



While the guide provides information on best practices, need for policy as opposed to just having best practices is because
of requirement for approval by VP/VC/dean and registration with campus authority. Registration allows campus authority
to monitor outlets – not expected, but need to be able to step in if/when there are problems.
M&M has been having forums with current site administrators to share information about best practices and what to do
when problems with inappropriate posts arise. Want to continue to develop relationships with site admins so there is
better communication and coordination between sites.
The guide will be a dynamic document that is updated anytime information changes or a new issue arises.
Questions/Suggestions:











Does this pertain to personal use?
No – only university-sponsored sites, i.e., sites that a department or other unit puts up to represent the unit. Individual
Facebook accounts, etc., will not be governed by this policy.
Should recognized student organizations be covered by this policy?
No – dean of students office can work with organizations directly if something is inappropriate, just as they’ve been
doing. It’s an issue that should continue to be addressed under the student code of conduct. There are about 900
organizations on W Laf campus, so trying to formally register and monitor all of their social media activity would be too
cumbersome.
In regards to Ag extension offices, often there aren’t enough people to assign two administrators (similarly for some units
on regional campuses). How can this be addressed to comply with policy?
Still want to have a generic departmental email address set up (rather than using individual’s university email) that is used
to set up the site. For extension offices, they could provide site account information to another office and be the back-up
admin for each other. Last option is that the campus authority can be the second admin. It’s necessary to have two admins
because if someone is out for several days on vacation or sick, another person can still monitor the site and keep the
content current.
IPFW has its own campus policy, and in reviewing the system policy, they don’t see any conflicts so far, but wondered if
there’s still time after this meeting to provide feedback.
Yes – send any additional comments to Jessica Teets until Monday, Nov 26. And to clarify, if individual campuses want
to have more stringent policies, they may do so as long as they don’t conflict with this system policy.
Ball State has a good policy on social media, may want to review to see if anything needs to be tweaked in our policy.
M&M did benchmark prior to drafting policy and did see Ball State’s policy, but will look at it again since that’s the
second mention of it.
The policy says the campus authority is who may take a site down. Do they trump the chancellor or the police? How does
that work?
[The question was actually somewhat different. “Do chancellors and the campus police trump the campus site authority?]
The campus authority is who has the capability to intervene on a site because they will have the registration information,
but they can do so at the request of the police, chancellor, president. There have been instances where M&M has needed
to work with other authorities to address things that have come up on social media sites. Often the authorities are looking
at it more from a behavioral/safety point of view and will address as necessary, but M&M is who can work to have a post
removed from a site.
What about emergency notifications?
M&M will look into adding information in the guide to address how/when to use social media to get out information
pertaining to an emergency, i.e., weather, closings, etc.
The disclaimers say that opinions on the site don’t represent the university, but if the site is university-sponsored how is
that accurate?
The disclaimer is referring to posts added to sites from individuals outside the university. So if someone expresses their
view by posting a comment on a [F]acebook page, that is their opinion, but not necessarily the university’s.
Administrators of sites should be posting as a representative of the university and not as themselves.
It’s believed that at least one of the regional campuses (Calumet?) has an open forum online where people can post
whatever comments they want. Is something like that covered by this policy?
Yes – it would fall under the wiki or blog as part of the definition of a social media outlet. Anything that is depicted as
being a representative site of the university is considered university-sponsored social media.
Exclusions: suggest that last sentence be reworded to say, “Accordingly, nothing in this policy is intended to limit any
speech or conduct protected by the First Amendment.” This would get away from the implication in the current wording
that the policy might apply to some forms of speech or conduct.
Definitions: suggest adding Instagram to the list of examples because it’s being used more and more and is different from
the others because it uses photos.
3


Definitions: suggest removing the last sentence in the definition of social media outlets and making it the second sentence
in the statement of policy. Just seems to flow better.
Suggest adding more detail in the guide about the process for terminating a site by the campus authority.
Next Steps
 Continue to send feedback to Jessica Teets by Monday, Nov. 26.
 Assuming there are no major issues brought up, this policy will go before the EPRG at its December meeting.
[The meeting ended at 11:55. Afterwards, the Director of Digital Marketing, Martin Sickafoose, informed the PNC representative
that Westboro Baptist Church in Kansas had contacted West Lafayette with a threat to demonstrate at PNC against performances
of The Laramie Project. He added that the Church’s threats often do not materialize. And such was the case this time. The next
meeting of the University Policy Committee is scheduled for Wednesday, 19 December 2012 at 11:00 EST.]
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
INTERCAMPUS FACULTY C OUNCIL , 2012-2013
SECOND M EETING, Monday, 19 November 2012
Lafayette Room, Memorial Union, West Lafayette
Present: IPFW
IUPUI
Purdue Calumet
Purdue North Central
Purdue West Lafayette
Registrar
Robert Barrett, Peter Dragnev
Majorie Rush Hovde, Jeffrey X. Watt
Ralph Cherry, David Pick
Jason Curtis, Janusz Duzinkiewicz
Morris Levy (Chair)
Robert Kubat
Absent: Joseph Camp (Secretary of the Faculties), J. Paul Robinson (Vice Chair)
Guests: Ada Emmett
Audeen Fentiman,
James Mullin
Michael Nusbaumer,
(Special Assistant to the Dean for Scholarly Communication),
(Assistant Director for Strategic Planning and the Regional Campuses),
(Dean of the Libraries),
(Speaker of the Indiana University Faculty, IPFW)
Call to order by Morris Levy at 11:05 am EST. An informal agenda was adopted by consensus:




Discussion with Audeen Fentiman on draft “Proposed Purdue System Plan”
Lunch
Discussion with James Mullins and Ada Emmett on “Open Access”
New business
I Audeen Fentiman and the draft “Proposed Purdue System Plan”
After a round of introductions, Special Assistant Fentiman explained that from her there will be “little talk, lots of listening”. Some
in attendance possessed a draft of the paper from 1 October; a newer draft exists from 29 October with significant revisions. The
changing document seeks to create a “structure for input” from “faculty, staff, students, and alumni”. There have been changes in
wording and emphasis. Formerly, the examination of Purdue’s System was ICHE driven; now it is driven by Purdue’s mission.
The mission statement will respect all components including distance education. The mission will lead to goals. From the goals,
metrics and structure will flow, not vice versa. The process is the focus now: the Task Force (formerly, the Steering Committee)
consists of all the VCAAs plus Fentiman and will now include two faculty members from each campus including IUPUI. Each
Senate will be asked for advice including identification of groups to be consulted for the mission statement. The Task Force should
be in place before Daniels is installed as President.
Prof. Pick began an extensive discussion. There will be two representatives from each Senate? The Intercampus Faculty Council
was formed precisely for purposes such as this. “Why aren’t we it?” Fentiman replied, “It’s a possibility.” Chairperson Levy stated
that the University Code stipulates the role of the IFC. The Council represents the system and reports directly to the President.
There is no need for separate elections. Fentiman emphasized that each campus should be represented and report back. Levy: “We
do that.” At Prof. Dragnev’s request, Speaker of the Indiana University Faculty at the IPFW Senate, Michael Nusbaumer, was
recognized by Levy as a guest. Fentiman stated that inclusion of Indiana University is absolutely necessary. Dragnev asked why
none of the drafts included the IFC. Barrett pushed for specific changes to the text to include the IFC. Fentiman replied that “the
consideration is not substance but style.” With respect to Senate representation “the IFC will probably be it” but she could not
make the change one her own. A decision of the group (Fentiman plus VCAAs) is required. Levy repeated the University Code
requirement that this issue must go through the IFC and answered yes to Registrar Kubat’s question whether the IFC was elected
4
by the various Senates [on at least one campus, the Senate ran a campus-wide election – Duzinkiewicz]. Fentiman stated that the
work should begin in late November and end in January. Prof. Curtis said that PNC would not be able to elect representatives
before January. Prof. Duzinkiewicz pointed out that in January President Daniels could veto the entire project. Fentiman agreed.
Barrett, however, reiterated that the IFC is already activated. No elections are necessary.
The IFC considered an offer and motion by Barrett for IU Speaker Nusbaumer to replace him on the IFC. After much discussion
the following motion passed unanimously; “The IFC shall invite the IU Speaker from IPFW to join in its deliberations as a
guest.” Barrett would remain. Levy called this a wise decision.
Pick asked if the IFC would get the latest version of the Fentiman document. Fentiman promised every effort would be made to
update the draft and both Dragnev and Levy assured that it will be distributed.
The discussion turned to Daniels and the regional campuses. Levy stated that Daniels does not understand the regional campuses.
Prof. Hovde pointed out Indiana University and Brown University are 40 miles apart and yet there are no problems. Why must the
close proximity of Purdue Calumet and Purdue North Central be a problem? Fentiman stated she was a great “proponent of
regional campuses” and it is important to recognize that most students at the regional campuses are first generation. A Presidential
Forum devoted to regional campuses will be held 4 December in Stuart 302. Prof. Cherry asked if Daniels would be present. No
one knew. Some members observed that classes will prevent their attendance at the Forum. Cherry notes that the Orientation
Committee must not be up to speed. Levy stated that Paul Robinson has returned from his trip. This will help. Duzinkiewicz
emphasized that we need to make our own case. Levy ended the discussion with the observation that the Presidential Forum on
regional campuses will be a public meeting.
The first part of the IFC meeting ended with a brief reference to how the Purdue President once had an office at IUPUI but that the
office was closed as a cost cutting measure by the last Administration. Fentiman repeated the strategy of the expanded Task Force:
mission -> principles -> goals -> matrices -> structure. The mission should be the starting point for the “large group” which will
serve best to channel feedback. She thanked the IFC for the opportunity to present the project.
II Levy generously treated the IFC to a lunch at the Sagamore Room 12:00 – 12:50.
III James Mullin and Open Access
Levy reconvened the meeting after a motion by Barrett and a second by Cherry.
Dean of the Libraries Mullins introduced Ada Emmett, Visiting Scholar from the University of Kansas.
Mullins explained that after the University Senate passed a resolution establishing Open Access on 23 January 2012, Vice
President for Ethics and Compliance, Alya Rollock, informed him that approval needed to be obtained from each of the regional
campuses as well. [This is further evidence of the growing realization that the University Code specifies defines the University
Senate as the governing body of the West Lafayette Faculty only – Duzinkiewicz.] The purpose of this meeting is to start this
process.
University Senate Document 11-3, approved on 23 January 2012 states:
21 November 2011
To: The University Senate
From: University Resources Policy Committee
Subject: University Open Access Policy
Disposition: University Senate for Information and Endorsement
The University Resources Policy Committee recommends that Purdue University adopt a policy that advances and
supports deposit to the Purdue e-Pubs digital repository all scholarly articles published by Purdue faculty, thereby
enabling open access in addition to and beyond the published, citable article.
Mullins asks that each regional senate pass the same or a similar measure.
Mullins and Emmitt represented information previously offered at the University Senate on 11 November 2011 in the document
“Senate Document 11-3 Open Access Supporting Documentation” available at http://www.purdue.edu/senate/meetings.cfm and in
a PowerPoint presentation given the same day but not saved on the University Senate website. Some of the salient points drawn
from that Senate presentation and offered to the IFC were:
Open Access is provided by E-Pubs with these characteristics and benefits:
•
•
•
Created 2006 by Purdue Libraries
Online digital document repository for scholarly publications from Purdue
Permanently archives published scholarly articles
5
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Also contains technical reports, conference proceedings, dissertations, and other documents by Purdue authors
Citation to article is to journal of record (e-Pubs record links to article in journal of record)
Monthly download notifications via e-mail
Google Analytics provides geographic access information-national and international
Indexed by Google Scholar
Drives more eyes to your research across disciplines, from outside the academy, and internationally
Facilitates compliance with funding agency requirements for open access to grant-funded publications
Provides a centralized, stable archive of your scholarship
In general, e-Pubs advances the University’s land grant and global mission, solidifies Purdue’s reputation as a top research
institution, and assists in recruiting the best students and faculty.
[PowerPoint obtained from Office of Ethics and Compliance]
In addition, Mullin and Emmitt pointed out that Open Access was first developed by private universities (Princeton, Duke,
Stanford); Purdue is the second public university to adopt it after Kansas. Open Access is not an act of altruism, rather it benefits
institutions by disseminating their research and proving to outside agencies evidence of faculty productivity. This can have an
impact on state funding.
Emmitt explained that the yet-to-be written university policy would be simple: 1) the faculty member grants the University
permission to deposit his article in its electronic repository, 2) the faculty member supplies a copy, 3) the faculty member may
withdraw it at any time. Permission will also have to obtained by the Faculty member from the publisher. Dragnev asked, “What
should we do?” Levy: “What should we submit?”
Mullin and Emmitt explained that E-Pubs is not system-wide. Each campus would have to establish and maintain its own
electronic repository. Barrett expressed concern about the cost. Emmitt replied that the hardware and software are not expensive.
The bulk of the expense goes to paying a librarian to operate and maintain the system. Nusbaumer observed that Fort Wayne
already has a similar system, Opus. Mullin explained that Opus is only a bibliographic service; it does not have the tracking
features of E-Pubs.
Mullin requested that each regional senate pass a resolution similar to University Senate Document 11-3. He is willing to send
supporting material and a presenter. In West Lafayette, the matter of Open Access and E-Pubs first was considered by the
University Resources Policy Committee before being presented at University Senate. An analogous process could be used at the
regional campuses. Once each campus has decided its position on Open Access, Vice President Alysa Rollock will work out the
actual policy document.
IV New Business
Prof. Curtis raised the issue of an academic deficiencies policy currently under development and announced in Purdue Today.
Town hall meetings are scheduled for West Lafayette but none at the regional campuses. Kubat replied that the issue of academic
deficiencies is confusing and is not ready to be brought to the University Senate. It is a work in progress. Consultations are
progressing with Paul McGuinness, Vice Chancellor for Enrollment (PNC). The current system is confusing as well. The proposed
policy would make a GPA of 1.8 the threshold for Freshmen probation. But students may not need the same courses when they
transfer between programs. Watt stated there should be no grade forgiveness and Kubat agreed that redlining and the resulting
grade inflation are out of the question. Curtis, Kubat and Levy agreed the matter of academic deficiencies was complex. Cherry
observed that this discussion mirrored concerns at Calumet. Kubat observed that the academic deficiencies policy has yet to go
from subcommittee to the Educational Policy Committee; it will be a while for it reaches the Senate. Levy concluded. “There is a
real need for the IFC.”
The next meeting of the IFC will be held at IUPUI, most likely on a Monday in January.
The meeting adjourned exactly at 2:00 pm EST.
reported by Duzinkiewicz
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Continued 
6
UNIVERSITY SENATE
Third Meeting, Monday, 19 November 2012
Room 302, Stewart Center
1. Call to order - 2:32 pm
Professor J. Paul Robinson
2. Approval of Minutes of 15 October 2012 – approved unanimously.
3. Acceptance of Agenda – approved unanimously.
4. Remarks by the President (not available on the Senate website.)
Acting President Timothy D. Sands
Acting President Sands delivered an upbeat report. The major issue is the biennial.
 WEST COAST PARTNERSHIP CENTER The “Discovery with Delivery Symposium” included a panel discussion
with 250 attendees. The concluding discussion focused on new research and student projects as incubators for
discovery.”
 INNOVATION & COMMERCIALIZATION FORUM The third Presidential Forum focused on a comparison of
disclosure and patent activity. Sands presented slides illustrating the number of patented filed and patents filled
among major public universities in the Midwest. Overall Purdue’s numbers are rising but still behind Wisconsin,
Illinois and Michigan.
 PURDUE UNIVERSITY COMMITMENT AND THE B IENNIAL REQUEST Purdue is 1) driving economic growth in
Indiana, not only meeting the existing needs, 2) and providing a global gateway for Indiana [including the 2nd highest
number of foreign students at a public university], 3) “Reaching Higher, Achieving More” means “Completion,
Productivity, Quality”.
 REDEFINING OUR FINANCIAL M ODEL This is a continuing process: 3 years ago: “Sustaining New Synergies”; 2
years ago: “Decadal Funding Plan” and 1 year ago “Balanced Capital Approach”.
 A NEW ENVIRONMENT There will be a 1% increase in FY 2015 according to performance funding.
Total System Operating Request
2013/2014:
$313,240,121
2014/2015
$313,392,767 - similar to 2005 levels
Hardest hit are the regional campuses which has prompted a “big discussion” with the state. A new measurement is
necessary; graduation rates are much higher than indicated by current data.
Overall, the situation is better but not as it was prior to the Recession.
5. Remarks of the Chairperson (not available on the Senate website.)
Professor J. Paul Robinson
This talk has been difficult to prepare. Much may cause anguish and internal. One year is not much time – certainly not
much time to follow Ex-Chair Levy. One conclusion is clear, it is better to focus on one’s specialty than other people’s
business. We like what we do as professors. But what if it could be done better? We self-select by cutting inferior faculty.
The process is continuous, flexible and fresh in our mind. How are administrators judged who do not perform? The
Administration is too large and expensive especially considering the outcry over college costs. Bloomberg on-line
recently ran a story “Bureaucrat Paid $250,000 Fed Outcry Over College Costs” (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/201211-14/bureaucrats-paid-250-000-feed-outcry-over-college-costs.html) presenting Purdue as a poster child for
“administrative bloat”. At the same time, “The Administration sees themselves as arbiters of faculty governance” and
faculty performance. An article in the Columbia Daily Tribune describes University of Missouri’s administrative culture
as “toxic”. The Administration always has the final word. At Purdue the grievance policy and procedures yield “multiple
examples of administrative failure”. Faculty are held to a deadline, administrators are not. “Purdue is like a brick wall.”
Robinson is monitoring several cases. The University is facing severe financial challenges. At the same time, the
Administration is spending large sums of money on outside legal help directed at faculty member, sometimes $500,000
for one case. Robinson has had to use the Freedom of Information Act to obtain information about Faculty cases pursued
by the Administration. This was different 20 years ago. “I had [easy] access, now I do not…. interaction at the College
level dissolves on the University level.” The Administration has an open checkbook if it wants legal advice, the Faculty
does not. The University once hired three law firms simultaneously. The Faculty has to take responsibility, the
Administration does not. Further, administrators cannot write strategic plans but hire outside consultants to do it for them.
This is plagiarism. The Administration calls legal counsel every time a policy changes, yet the policy document fails if the
Administration does not follow the rules. Robinson gave examples of improper actions by the Administration in response
to complaints about discrimination and harassment: faculty members are improperly informed, paper work is supplied
undated, and retaliation is pursued. “If you go overboard, you will pay a price.” Fortunately, a faculty member can report
administrative misconduct to the AAUP.
7
Before finishing, Robinson reminisced about changes over the years. In 1990, the University President served as Senate
Chair. “Great story how it changed.” In 1989, health care charged no copays and an employee and family paid $1284 per
year. Purdue’s expertise is not being used to save money. Instead there is bloat that attracted the attention of Bloomberg.
The speech ended with a challenge: deal with the bloat or I will expose one instance each month.
6. Résumé of Items Under Consideration
For Information
by Various Standing Committees
Professor James S. Lehnert
The Steering Committee has new members. The town hall meeting on a new academic deficiencies policy and announced
by the Educational Policy Committee is set for 10:30 – noon 27 November. The previous one was packed.
7. Question Time
On behalf of his colleagues, Prof. Levy thanked Chairperson Robinson upon his return from abroad. Interim President
Sands expressed a sense of honor and pleasure in helping to orient the President-elect. “I will be in the middle.”
8. Senate Document 12-2 Reapportionment
For Action
Professor James S. Lehnert
Passed: 67 for, 0 against, 2 abstentions.
9. Senate Document 12-1 Changes to Academic Regulations and
For Action
Procedures on Academic Year and Calendar- Revised
Professor Teri Reed-Rhoads
More incentives are needed to expand summer offerings. Minor revisions were added to the existing document: Academic
Calendar (University Senate Document 90-30, April 22, 1991) to permit flexible summer term lengths and, in a friendly
from Senator Grutzner, summer work must be explicitly equivalent to the fall and spring semesters. The document passed
unanimously.
10. Update on the Core Curriculum
For Action
Professor Teresa Taber Doughty
Prof. Doughty began her PowerPoint presentation (http://www.purdue.edu/senate/meetings.cfm) with praise for the
University Core Curriculum which since its inception last Spring has been the picture of team work. All member are
volunteers [including Mario Ortiz from PNC] and their efforts have been heroic. The UCC structure is similar to that of
the Graduate School with three panels: communications, science and humanities. To date there are
Foundational Courses: – 166 approved
•Behavior/Social Sciences = 26 approved/3 pending
•Humanities
= 42 approved/10 pending
•Information Literacy
= 3 approved/6 pending
•Oral Communication
= 3 approved
•Quantitative Reasoning = 25 approved/1 pending
•Science
= 52 approved/1 pending
•STS
= 14 approved/6 pending
•Written Communication = 1 approved/4 pending
Some barriers exist with ITaP on taking ownership of webpage.
Timeline •December 7th – All approved courses submitted to Registrar’s Office
•Spring Semester –
•Additional course nominations for Spring 2014
•Website development
•Embedded outcome alignment with programs
•Assessment requirements
•Communication/coordination plan for incoming students (STAR, Boiler Gold Rush)
Alignment of Indiana’s Statewide General Transfer Core (GTC) Curriculum and Purdue (WL) Outcomes-Based
Undergraduate Core Curriculum
8
A detailed alignment of State and Purdue Quantitative Reasoning goals appears on the PowerPoint. SB 182 requires a 30
hour core. Purdue’s Core will need to be increased by 6. Doughty concluded with the reiteration that the task is mammoth.
Discussion:
Unidentified: Why are there so few courses in written communication?
Prof. Gravell: Some courses will need to be cross listed.
Prof. Sander: Same concern for information literacy, why so few? Also what are the consequences if Purdue
does not comply?
Prof. Pick (Calumet): ICHE has the power to terminate a program.
11. Blackboard Learn Questions/Concerns
For Information
Two PowerPoint presentations:
1) “Blackboard Learn: Issues and Questions as Determined by Dr. Michael Hill [Food Animal Production
Medicine], Faculty and Staff” http://www.purdue.edu/senate/meetings.cfm Blackboard Learn is a failure, a
massive waste of time and resources and an embarrassment resulting in loss of face before students. I will no
longer use it.
2) Dr. Gerry McCartney. Vice President for Information Technology presented a graphic PowerPoint slide
http://www.purdue.edu/senate/meetings.cfm with one central theme: over the years Blackboard has bought up all its
competitors, some far superior, in order to discontinue them and establish a monopoly. There is no Option B.
Krannert School does have a more limited, home grown system. Extensive complaining from the Senators
followed.
[An informal discussion with a member of the Faculty Affairs Committee revealed that Purdue’s pioneer use of
Blackboard Learn means that Purdue is Blackboard’s guinea pig for working out its flaws. Legal action might be taken.]
12. Update on the COACHE Survey
For Information
Vice Provost Beverly Davenport Sypher
Vice Provost Sypher began with a positive experience. She had spent the last two days at the Heroes’ Summit in DC
where people began with expecting the best from others and acted with respect and civility, honor and care.
Turning to the COACHE survey, Vice Provost Sypher stated that it was conducted because “we care about the Faculty”
knowing that the Faculty is the core strength of the University. “We care that you succeed.” The COACHE survey cost
West Lafayette $33,000, the regional campuses opted out. Vice Provost Sypher showed a PowerPoint presentation
previously presented to the Faculty Affairs Committee. The presentation is saved separately, not on the Senate website:
https://www2.itap.purdue.edu/bot/viewDocument.cfm?id=5694. A partial timeline prepared for the Board of Trustees
appears at https://www2.itap.purdue.edu/bot/viewDocument.cfm?id=5706.
COACHE The Collaborative on Academic Careers in Higher Education at the Harvard Graduate School of Education
 Diagnostic to improve faculty recruitment, retention and development
 Since 2003, 15,000 pre-tenure faculty at 200 colleges and universities
 2011-12: 27,660 faculty at 76 institutions, 49% response rate
 Purdue sample: 1,661 faculty on WL campus, 47% response rate
General Findings:
 88% would recommend their departments
 64% would recommend Purdue University
 Men are generally more satisfied than women.
 Pre-tenure are more satisfied than tenured faculty.
 Associate professors are the most dissatisfied.
 Two “best aspects” of Purdue:
 quality of colleagues
 cost of living
 Two “worst aspects” of Purdue:
 geographic location
 compensation
 Top two “adjustments” faculty would like to negotiate:
 salary
 research support
Vice Provost Sypher identified areas for improvement: tenure and promotion clarity and reasonableness, service
expectations, collegiality, recognition and appreciation, departmental quality, leadership in communicating priorities,
9
pace of decision making and faculty input. Faculty leave because of salary, institutions with more similar values, better
resources, personal/family reasons or a better location. The Administration has several initiatives in place and will
develop more:
▪ Increased engagement with faculty
▪Conference for Pre-tenure Women
▪ Retention and equity
▪Childcare Task Force
▪ Promotion and Tenure Task Force
▪Mentoring Work Group
▪ Department Head Leadership Program ▪Exit Interviews
Vice Provost Sypher concluded by listing other efforts by the Administration to help the faculty. 37% of faculty spouses
are employed by Purdue. Information from the COACHE survey is extensive and valuable. Faculty should access it and
the Administration will use it to continue its efforts to improve the quality of work and life for the faculty.
Discussion
 A senator complained that departments receive only limited information, insufficient for meaningful
comparisons. Interim President Sands directed the Provost to make sure that the information moves from the
Deans to the Departments. Vice Provost Sypher confirmed this.
 Ex-Chair Levy noted that that the COACHE survey was conducted in October 2011, this is November 2012.
Also, the Senate’s Presidential Advisory Committee issued an significant survey on faculty views. Vice
Provost Sypher replied that the COACHE survey involved 27,660 faculty members nation-wide and results
were not received till the end of June. [A report was given to the Faculty Affairs Committee at its first meeting
of 2012/2013.] She also expressed appreciation for the Senate survey. Ex-Chair Levy regretted the absence of
the regional campuses in the survey.
 Prof. Yih emphasized the importance of being able to compare departments. Vice Provost Sypher said she
would take this to the Deans.
13. New Business
Prof. Frank Dooley, recently named Associate Vice Provost of Undergraduate Academic Affairs, who has been heading
the study group on trimesters produced a document with 100 points “summarizing everything” and available at
http://www.purdue.edu/senate/meetings.cfm . The first section provides some answers, with numbers 1 and 4 of special
importance:
Questions that Were Answered
1) What is the stance of the Board of Trustees on this issue and do they have the final word?
a. Per Tim Sands, the Trustees support the concept, but he is not sure how they could force us into the situation if
it did not make any sense. The faculty has control over the curriculum and the calendar. Practically speaking this
is the body (the University Senate) that will make the decision. If the faculty doesn’t buy into this, it would fail.
2) Can we have good market research about those who would be paying (the students and their parents)? In addition, can
we have a discussion formed with more rigor by the Ford Foundation report?
a. Per Tim Sands, yes. Our response is that our planning will be a slow, deliberate process so we have time to
make discoveries and make determinations.
3) Is there a point in this process at which we pull the plug and say it will not be adopted? What might that look like?
What if the faculty input is largely negative and there is not a large buy in? How would that affect the decision?
a. Per Tim Sands, faculty will follow their own and their department’s lead. If we incentivize the summer, and
people utilize the option, we expect summer may grow. If the incentives do not lead to growth in summer, we
can’t move.
4) Will trimesters extend to the regional campuses?
a. No, although it was discussed with the regional campuses when the concept was first considered.
5) Can anyone in the room identify any other universities currently successfully using the trimester model?
a. Per Tim Sands, it is in use at the University of Waterloo.
b. Per Frank Dooley, the University of Minnesota has announced an intention to evaluate moving to trimesters.
[The range, depth and originality of some of the nearly 100 points may be of interest to readers.]
14. Memorial Resolutions – four names were read followed by a moment of silence.
15. Adjournment – 5:02 pm
Reported by Janusz Duzinkiewicz
3 December 2012
10