Minutes of the Faculty Senate

Main Content

Meeting convened at 1:01 p.m. by Peggy Stockdale, President.

ROLL CALL

Members present: James S. Allen, Gary Apgar, Joseph Brown, Terry Clark, Brad Colwell (for Spyros Tragoudas, ex officio), Jon D. Davey, Lisabeth DiLalla, Stephen D. Ebbs, Anne Fletcher (for Lori Merrill- Fink), Carl R. Flowers, Maureen D. Francis, Philip C. Howze, H. Randy Hughes, Kathryn A. Hytten, Allan Karnes (ex officio), Sanjeev Kumar, Mary E. Lamb, Douglas W. Lind, John D. McIntyre, Aldo D. Migone, Don Rice (ex officio), Mohammad R. Sayeh, Pamela A. Smoot, Gerald R. Spittler, Peggy Stockdale, Rebecca J. Weston, Matt R. Whiles, John R. Winings.

Members absent: Russ Trimble (ex officio).

Members absent without proxy: Edward J. Alfrey, Mark A. Amos, Peter Borgia, Paula K. Davis, David A. Lightfoot, R. William Rowley, Thomas A. Shaw, Kay M. Zivkovich.

Visitors and guests: David Carlson (Library Affairs), Dennis Cradit (College of Business), Todd Sigler (Public Safety).

MINUTES

Minutes from the meeting of March 18, 2008, were approved as presented.

REPORTS

1. P. Stockdale thanked those who wrote letters to Representative Miller or any other legislator, as well as those who plan to go to Springfield for the Higher Education Lobby Day. She also reported that she and A. Karnes attended the Council of Illinois University Senate Presidents (CIUS) meeting on April 4. Issues discussed included how faculty senates govern themselves, campus safety, and the degree of participation on president and chancellor search committees. P. Stockdale noted she was somewhat surprised to find that SIU has a more open system than many other universities.

2. Provost Rice reported: a) over the years, nothing has moved to fruition for SIU in terms of getting dollars for new programs under the RAMP process. Proposals for FY10 are currently being put together, and he asked Vice President Haller if it would be worthwhile for the deans to engage in the process of planning new programs for FY10. Vice President Haller responded that it would likely be a waste of effort; however, they may revisit and re-prioritize proposals from FY09 based on what might be of interest to the state; b) the state currently has a $750 million shortfall, which state budget director John Filan believes could be closer to $800 million by the end of the FY08. J. Filan proposed, and the Governor accepted, the idea of sweeping designated budgets (those with any unexpended funds). This would avoid the state having to touch public universities. J. Filan has asked university presidents to support the budget sweeps. If this is not done, the state will have to find much of the money (as much as $500 million) from university budgets. For the SIU system, it could mean as much as 8% of the budget, or $12 million. Prior to the release of this information, Provost Rice indicated he spoke with the University's budget director, Carol Henry, who pointed out that SIUC is currently holding $4 million in contingency funds. Going by past history, the state has never asked for more than about $2 million back. Provost Rice then asked Vice President Stucky to consider releasing half of the contingency so that it would be available to spend; he asked for a week to ten days to take this under consideration. If the University's budget is swept, President Poshard has already gone on record as saying it would likely mean layoffs. Provost Rice noted he has already gone on record with the Stone Center that colleges do not have the funds in anything other than lines. A. Karnes pointed out that the onging battle is not Republicans vs. Democrats but Blagojevich versus Madigan. In order for the state to do the sweep, the House has to pass a bill allowing it, but Representative Madigan is refusing to even consider this option. A. Karnes commented that [universities] are simply pawns in the battle between Blagojevich and Madigan. Provost Rice agreed, adding that when he met with the Dean's Council, he told them not to expect release of the contingency. However, because the Purchasing deadlines are approaching, he asked that they have their paperwork prepared for hardware or software purchases should part of the contingency be released; c) the Executive Committee of the Board of Trustees will meet in closed session on April 9, with the open meeting being held on April 10. One of the topics of discussion by the Executive Committee will be differential tuition. The Board wants to review the whole concept of differential tuition, as well as potential criteria by which proposals for differential tuition would be judged. This is in preparation for discussion on the College of Business's proposal for differential tuition that will take place at the Board meeting. Several Board members are concerned that it may create a circumstance by which students would have to select a major based on what they can afford; d) he has no information on any pending administrative searches (e.g., provost or associate provost), and there likely will not be any until a chancellor or interim chancellor is in place.

QUESTION AND ANSWER SESSION

A. Karnes commented that the University has the ability to carry over some of the income fund dollars from year to year. He asked if some of the contingency funds are made up of income funds. If not, is there a way to manipulate the budget so they become income funds that can be carried over. Provost Rice responded that the contingency funds are not part of what can be carried forward. It is possible to move some things around, but there is a limit on what can be carried forward. He and others are looking at what can be carried forward and are attempting to help people look at what they have available. They are pleased to try and help in the effort to make some changes or exchanges between colleges with OTS versus salary dollars.

P. Howze indicated that the last time the University was in a similar situation there was a cut of approximately $5.7 million; 80 people were released from the University, but only 20 were brought back. He asked if the deans are being prepared for the potential loss of over 100 positions on campus. Provost Rice responded that, in conversations with the deans, they all know what is available in college lines. He commented that the University cannot maintain the strength of its curricula and accommodate what is hoped will be increased enrollment and increased income fund and also cede lines. If there is planning for layoffs, he is not involved in those discussions. The reality is that non-tenure track faculty lines and other lines within the University are the ones that will be jeopardized.

M. Lamb asked if there are any funds from Saluki Way that could be [diverted to the income fund]. Provost Rice believes those funds are restricted, as they come from fees and donations. J. Allen questioned whether the University should continue to maintain a contingency fund since the idea was originally instituted as "wise and providential budgeting." Provost Rice responded that if the University does not have a contingency fund, the state will take funds that are not expended, i.e., funds needed to finish out the fiscal year.

P. Stockdale stated she is aware that lines are probably the most vulnerable should a sweep occur. She asked Provost Rice if he could articulate the kinds of things deans could do should some funds be released. Provost Rice responded that, unless there is an early release of the contingency funds, most deans will likely use the funds for certain one-time expenditures (e.g., computers, software).

J. McIntyre asked if a sweep would impact summer school offerings. Provost Rice responded that it is possible, partly because when funds are carried over, they are usually used for summer school. Allocations for summer school commitments have been made; he would like to think those are secured.

REPORTS (cont.)

3. P. Stockdale reported that at the last Board of Trustees meeting, Dean Cradit made a presentation on the College of Business's efforts to institute differential tuition. Since she had no information about this effort, she invited Dean Cradit to attend the Senate meeting and educate Senators about the proposal.

Dean Cradit provided some background on the differential tuition proposal for the College of Business, stating that for the last year or so, the college has been in serious discussions about long-term planning and revenue growth strategies that would allow them to invest in programming, student services, curricula and faculty research and support. In his discussions with graduates, alumni and people in the industry, he found that students are graduating without the "soft skills" (presentation, teamwork, management, etc.) needed to ensure success in their industry of choice. He believes this can only come from curricula revision and a thorough review and revision of the service delivery system. Last summer, the college was approached about the possibility of reviving an old idea of differential tuition, which they embraced and pursued. What he is proposing is a 15% differential on all declared business majors, with a pledge to students that every penny will go to student services. Dean Cradit noted that part of the 15% will subsume an existing tech fee that students are currently charged. The remainder will be set aside for need-based financial assistance, advising services (additional staff support and delivery of advising information in a 21st century manner), career preparation and placement services, recruitment and retention programs, an honors program, and minority affairs. The details are not yet in place because this has occurred so rapidly. He has been working with Legal Counsel on the wording. He commented that there are concerns that differential tuition will kill enrollments and students will go to less costly majors. However, in his discussions with deans at conferences, he has yet to find that such a thing has occurred. He believes the burden is on the faculty and staff to create genuine value and to make sure it is evident that it is being delivered and communicated effectively. The challenge will be to remain transparent and accountable, to show how the dollars are being spent, and to be able to measure it in such a way that all will agree it shows its value and impact. What he plans to propose is the formation of an oversight committee consisting of students, faculty, and staff that will have the authority to review how the funds have been spent, discuss creative ways in which to spend future dollars, and submit reports on an annual basis.

S. Ebbs asked if there have been any efforts to form focus groups to get the students' perceptions on how the change would affect them or as a way [to test the market]. Dean Cradit responded that he has, on 18 separate occasions, met with student groups and registered student organizations and held open sessions. The major concern, both from students who would and would not be affected by the proposal, is whether it would create an environment where students with business majors would go elsewhere because they would not be able to afford the tuition. Dean Cradit pointed out the fact that students interested in a career in business do not necessarily need a business degree. He acknowledged there may be some students who elect to go elsewhere; however, he believes that if funds are specifically allocated to financial support for those most vulnerable, and the college delivers the services as promised and is able to document that it works, then students will get a leg up against their competitors at other schools in securing jobs.

J. Allen questioned how the College of Business will protect the funds generated from the differential tuition, not to mention protecting those students who may end up paying more and potentially getting less, in light of the previous discussion about sweeps and contingency funds. Dean Cradit responded that he had no immediate answer to that question.

S. Kumar commented that the challenges Dean Cradit mentioned--lack of soft skills and students going elsewhere--are challenges for the other colleges also. He questioned whether other colleges might view differential tuition as a way to charge students more and increase fees. Dean Cradit responded that he has already been asked that question by the Board of Trustees and has thus far refused to answer why his college and not another. He believes differential tuition is a fool-proof mechanism, a way to make sure that additional revenues are specifically targeted to investments in the college. There has to be a very clear, logical mechanism for how these dollars are vitally needed to enhance the quality of the degree, and there is no other source. One of the challenges is to set up a realistic process where it can be evaluated whether or not it is appropriate in the various colleges. The other question, which has yet to be raised here, is does this mean a business or professional degree is somehow more valuable than other degrees? The question has come up at other schools, and one of the reasons this is being done is because the College of Business believes its students recognize that they have the potential for higher starting salaries and long-term earnings and that this is a valid investment.

P. Howze expressed the hope that Dean Cradit will remember the library, pointing out that the real-time data his students will need is not cheap. He urged Dean Cradit to visit with the library dean/staff so they can put together some kind of package [for his college]. He believes students will expect, in this service milieu, that if they are not getting information from [the faculty], then they are supposed to get it from the library, which is in the same "leaky boat" as everyone else.

4. P. Stockdale introduced T. Sigler, Director of the Department of Public Safety (DPS), who discussed the various emergency response notification systems on campus, such as the Wireless Emergency Notification System (WENS) and e-mail notification. He urged people to use/join the B.E.R.T. teams that some buildings on campus have, as well as the radio notification system that gives dispatchers real time information. Radios can be purchased for campus buildings for approximately $60 and should be placed where they can be readily accessible.

Another initiative on which DPS is working is a Campus Life Safety Team, whose members represent Student Affairs, Public Safety, and faculty. The group gets together weekly for debriefings on cases from the week before and from the weekend. It has been effective because they can zero in on those students they have been informed about and do some follow-up on a confidential basis. He noted that there is good communication between DPS, the Wellness Center, and Student Judicial Affairs, and they are able to develop a plan of approach to do what is best for the students and the campus. T. Sigler indicated that the University has had an overall emergency response plan for several years. The group is very active and drills once a year.

L. DiLalla asked if there were plans for any required or even optional faculty training sessions on what faculty should do if an emergency occurs while teaching. T. Sigler responded that his department is willing to come in and conduct a session. He noted that half of the assignment of one of his officers, Scott Miller, is emergency response and recovery; S. Miller also does crime prevention programming. He can meet with as large or small a group as wanted. L. DiLalla asked whether training sessions would be required. T. Sigler responded they would not be, also noting that the blurb that is supposed to go in the syllabus was done to give some guidance and direction on what faculty can do in their particular classroom.

J. Brown asked whether one of the Faculty Senate meetings could be given over to a training session and inviting faculty and staff to participate. He believes more information is better than none. T. Sigler indicated that the B.E.R.T. members did a lot of this training. He has a PowerPoint presentation that addresses J. Brown's concern. He added that he could come in and actually lay out how the emergency response and plan are set up. A. Karnes believes the concern is more on a micro rather than a macro basis. If faculty are asked, "If this happens and you are in the room, what would you do?" they do not think about that much. No one has said, "This is what you should do." He believes some people would react very well in the heat of the moment, and others would not. T. Sigler believes it starts with laying out for them their options and what DPS would recommend they do based on the plan. The people who respond effectively will be able to answer the call; there are methods to deal with those individuals who do not, and that is to have them do something else. A. Karnes commented that he is not one to advocate mandatory training, but this may be something faculty could use. He knows there are procedures at the University for dealing with what may be a problem student, but he is unsure what they are. J. Davey asked if the blurb for the syllabus is on the DPS website. T. Sigler responded it is not; it was actually sent out through the Provost's office.

R. Hughes asked what is the most effective way to get people trained. T. Sigler believes the most effective way is to go through a tabletop exercise, actually think through what it is they would be required to do in a given situation. It can be as long or short as wanted. The size of the group would depend on the situation. It would be the people who would come together to actually implement a long- term response and recovery. He would need to find out what the group is trying to achieve with the exercise, and then tailor the exercise based upon the discussion. P. Stockdale indicated the Executive Council would talk about the matter and come back to the Senate with a recommendation.

5. B. Colwell reported the Graduate Council met on April 3 and had three announced resolutions: a) renaming of the College of Business and Administration; b) elimination of the Certificate in Systematic Biology, College of Science; and 3) establishment of a new masters degree in Civil and Environmental Engineering. All three resolutions will be voted on at the Council's next meeting. P. Stockdale asked if the Council has considered the issue of the research work that graduate fellowships do counting as a service requirement. B. Colwell responded that it was discussed, but no action was taken.

EXECUTIVE COUNCIL

S. Kumar reported the Council is looking into electronic voting for Faculty Senate and Judicial Review Board elections. A proposal has been drafted by Applied Research Consultants and is under review. He will report back once a decision is made. Also, Senate elections are now complete. Elected Senators are: James Ferraro (Physiology) and Thomas Tarter (Surgery) from the School of Medicine; Cathy Mogharreban (Curriculum and Instruction) from the College of Education and Human Services; Michael Lydy (Zoology) from the College of Science; and Brooke Thibeault (Foreign Languages and Literatures) from the Term Faculty Voting Unit.

FACULTY STATUS AND WELFARE COMMITTEE -- G. Apgar, Chair

1. G. Apgar presented for approval the Resolution Opposing the Offering of Four-Year Degrees at Community Colleges (included as Attachment A to the Agenda). He provided some background information on the resolution, stating he received a letter from Mid-Continent University about their offering of a bachelors degree in business management through John A. Logan College (JALC). G. Apgar called Representative Bost and faxed him a copy of the letter. Representative Bost returned his call after talking with Robert Mees, president of JALC, and it appears that community colleges in the state have begun positioning themselves for bachelor degree programs. G. Apgar indicated that upon further investigation on the Illinois Community College Board website, he found a report that was given to the IBHE on February 5, 2008, by President Mees and Jerry Weber, who he believes is president of another community college. The report outlines their five missions, number one of which is baccalaureate education. G. Apgar indicated he spoke with A. Karnes, who informed him of the proposed House Bill 5025 which would remove oversight of community colleges from the IBHE. The bill also would remove all oversight for degree programs and interest in offering degree programs outside the auspices of the IBHE.

J. Brown indicated he was unclear what the statement, "transparent plan of implementation" in the last resolved meant. G. Apgar responded that the resolution is calling for President Poshard and President Mees to meet and discuss what happens between this institution and theirs. In Representative Bost's conversations with President Mees, there was some indication that in the past there was some movement to have SIU offer degrees at JALC; however, with the changes in administration here, there has been limited movement in that area. At this point, it appears SIU has an office based at JALC, but he is unclear on the plan. J. Brown suggested the wording be changed to read something along the lines of having the president of SIU address the Senate to present the results of his meeting and discuss his plan for responding to this. S. Ebbs asked if the Senate should take this opportunity to broaden the resolution to be more inclusive, stating there is strong opposition to the entire idea. G. Spittler agreed that community colleges should not be allowed to grant four-year degrees, but the Senate needs to be careful to protect the option of four-year institutions such as SIU to use their facilities as a venue for the operation of its courses. The resolution should differentiate between a baccalaureate that is being offered by the institution and a degree that is offered by the institution the community college is hosting. J. Allen pointed out that the degree is not being offered by JALC but by Mid-Continent University, much like SIU does with its off-site programs. He suggested the Senate needed to be careful not to cut off its market by stating it does not want any four-year degrees being offered at any community college. He suggesting modifying the first resolved to address the specific opposition of "the granting of four-year degrees by community colleges."

A. Karnes commented that JALC is not doing students a favor by hooking up with Mid-Continent University. The question that should be addressed is why JACL is not sending its students here. It is possible it has something to do with when classes are offered, specifically during the evening. If that is the case, the University may need to look into that issue. M. Lamb believes SIU is not doing nearly enough to recruit students from JALC. She commented that she has a number of friends who have students at JALC, and they say the University has no presence there. They are not aware of any letters inviting them to come to SIU. She believes it is time for the enrollment and recruitment people to take much more seriously the recruitment of students from JALC.

P. Stockdale recommended the resolution be sent back to committee for redrafting. It can be presented for a vote at the meeting in two weeks. J. Allen noted the sentiment seems to be that it might be appropriate for community colleges to offer their site for the delivery of four year degrees by other institutions, including SIU, but that the Senate is truly opposed to community colleges themselves actually offering four year degrees. Also, Senators would like an opportunity to hear from the SIU president to help them understand what he is doing in a more proactive way to address this issue. J. Allen also believed that M. Lamb's comment about why SIU is not more proactive in the recruitment of able students from community colleges [should be included]. M. Lamb responded that her intent was not to speak to the resolution; however, she thought it was important to take it into account. She added that she was not at all impressed with Assistant Vice Chancellor Victoria Valle's answers when she addressed the Senate and would like to push her a little harder on what she is doing to invite, specifically, JALC students to campus because it is apparently not happening.

2. G. Apgar reported that on February 4, the committee was asked to look into the funding history of other than salary (OTS) dollars and consider a resolution to increase the rate of OTS funding throughout the University system. OTS funding was compared from budgets supplied by Cheryl Reinhardt in the Provost's office; he created an Excel sheet which shows a linear reduction in OTS funding from FY2000- 2008, which averages about a 9.65% reduction per year. Further discussions ensued to elucidate the problem of OTS funding and the overall funding of the University. Evidently, there have been many unfunded mandates from the legislature which has altered the funds in individual lines. During the committee's conversations with C. Reinhardt, it became abundantly obvious that the budgetary process is a multi-layered dynamic organism. Every year, the University has the opportunity to adjust the funding mechanism by [a line] in colleges to support the overall mission of the system. While difficult to completely follow, it is apparent that the Provost's office has been proactive in taking direct responsibility for a number of direct budgetary shortfalls without passing those charges on to individual colleges. At each level of the system, administrators hold autonomy to utilize funds at their discretion for maximum benefit. The reduction for OTS funding is a requisite effect of that reduction in funding, both from the state and the income fund. The committee feels that direct lobbying for higher education should be paramount to all faculty and staff. There is an overall underfunding of higher education in the state, and the downward trend of OTS funding is but one casualty in an arena of insufficient resources. All Senators are encouraged to participate in the Higher Education Lobby Day on April 9. The committee recommends that the Faculty Senate take up this matter at a later date [should] additional financial support be made available by the state for higher education. University administration should be encouraged to continue to seek ways to increase OTS funding whenever possible in order to recruit and retain high quality faculty.

S. Ebbs commented that the Senate previously discussed last year's budget cuts and how departments and colleges were forced to give up money. He was the acting chair of the Department of Plant Biology during the round of cuts last spring. Departments were asked to make cuts as units and then were given specific guidelines (cannot cut faculty, TAs, etc.). His department was in the position where they had no staff that could be cut and so were told they had to cut OTS. He would like to see some discussion about departments that are already cut to the bone and then are forced to cut further. There are units that only have OTS to give in times of rescission, and it forces them even deeper into the hole. A. Karnes believes the parameters that were put on budget cuts last year strangled departments. They could not cut civil service or GA lines. What does that leave? Only OTS and faculty. G. Apgar indicated that during the discussion on OTS, the committee considered comparing programs; they did not because they believe it is the administrator's job at each of those levels to make a priority call. They have to use this as their business model and put the appropriate funds where needed; so, rather than "pulling a knife" against fellow faculty members and fellow departments, the committee wanted to look at it in a broader view to say what has happened at the Provost level with OTS funding across [campus].

P. Howze raised another pressing concern in that many faculty are not being seen at national and international conferences because of a lack of travel money, which makes it very difficult to get on committees of prominent organizations if they do not see faculty on a regular basis; in fact, some terms are tied to a commitment that faculty attend conferences for two to three years. It is not something that will go away, and it needs to continue to be a pressure point. P. Howze pointed out that many faculty will not stay if someone else offers another package.

UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION POLICY COMMITTEE -- P. Smoot, Chair

1. P. Smoot reported the committee met last week and invited V. Valle to attend to discuss the admission requirements. V. Valle admitted that SIU has a very serious recruitment and retention problem on which they are working. P. Stockdale explained to the Senate that she was given information by the Provost that 47% of the freshman class last year did not meet admission requirements, so she asked the committee to look into the issue. P. Smoot indicated she asked V. Valle about the 47%, and V. Valle's response was that it was not true. She explained that they are attempting to ascertain why students leave and why they stay. She believes some are leaving because they are not being challenged. V. Valle did state that SIU does have a presence at JALC and that there is actually an office there with two people who are supposed to be recruiting. V. Valle commented that she would like to see more done in terms of recruiting JALC students.

2. P. Smoot reported the committee has received an RME from the College of Business for a specialization in management of health care enterprises. She hopes to have a resolution to bring forth by the next meeting.

BUDGET COMMITTEE -- T. Clark, Chair

A. Migone (for T. Clark) reported that the committee met a couple of times to discuss in-state tuition rates for students from bordering states. They have been examining some data on that and are scheduled to meet again next week.

GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE -- None.

COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES -- None.

ANNOUNCEMENTS

1. G. Apgar announced that the College of Agricultural Sciences is holding its annual Ag Industry Day on April 18. He invited everyone to come and enjoy a free lunch.

2. P. Stockdale reminded Senators of the dual meeting on April 22, when the 2007-08 Senate meets for a final time and the 2008-09 Senate convenes.

ADJOURNMENT

The meeting adjourned at 2:55 p.m.