Minutes of the Faculty Senate | Faculty Senate | SIU

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

ROLL CALL

Members present: Mark A. Amos, Thomas Britton (ex officio), Ron Caffey (for Joseph Brown), Peter Chametzky (for Kay M. Zivkovich), Jon D. Davey, Joan M. Davis, Stephen D. Ebbs, Carl R. Flowers, Philip C. Howze, H. Randy Hughes, Kathryn A. Hytten, Karen Jones (for Gary Apgar), Allan Karnes (ex officio), Sanjeev Kumar, Mary E. Lamb, Douglas W. Lind, Michael J. Lydy, John McIntyre (for Cathy C. Mogharreban), Don Rice (ex officio), R. William Rowley, Mohammad R. Sayeh, Thomas A. Shaw, Pamela A. Smoot, Gerald R. Spittler, Peggy Stockdale, Thomas H. Tarter, Brooke H. H. Thibeault, Rebecca J. Weston, Matt Whiles.

Members absent: Samuel Goldman (ex officio), Russ Trimble (ex officio).

Members absent without proxy: Edward J. Alfrey, Terry Clark, James S. Ferraro, David A. Lightfoot, Lori Merrill-Fink.

Visitors and Guests: David Carlson (Library Affairs), Farzad Pourboghrat (Electrical and Computer Engineering).

MINUTES

The minutes from the regular meeting on November 18, 2008, were approved as presented.

REPORTS

1. P. Stockdale reported: a) the preliminary search committee for chancellor has been meeting regularly and is moving forward with collecting information on potential candidates. They are attempting to collect a wide pool of candidates and welcome input about whom to consider; b) she is serving on the committee to examine the structure of the chief diversity officer position (formerly held by Seymour Bryson). There is currently an interim in that position whom the committee helped to select. They expect to have a recommendation on a new structure to the Chancellor early next year; c) she was asked to serve on a "senior marketing committee" that will oversee the activities of the integrated marketing committee. The latter committee has been doing all the marketing proposals for the University.

2. Provost Rice reported on the current searches: a) the College of Engineering dean search has quite a broad pool of candidates; b) an interim dean for the College of Applied Sciences and Arts is not yet in place, but he will do that shortly. The committee will also be responsible for the search for a permanent dean. His hope is to make that appointment before the next academic year; c) the School of Law will soon be searching for an interim dean; d) a search is in place for director of the Public Policy Institute; and e) a national search will begin shortly for a permanent director of assessment for the University.

Provost Rice also reported: a) Susan Logue, who has been Acting Associate Provost for Academic Administration on a 50% time basis, has stepped down from her position as associate dean of Library Affairs and will become 100% time Associate Provost. He believes this will increase the efficiency of that office and allow her to maintain focus on one area; b) spring enrollment numbers are down about 3.2%, although some colleges such as Agriculture and Engineering are doing well. Freshman and sophomore numbers are up, but senior registration is down about 34% from a year ago. Admissions applications for the following academic year are up, so the question now is how to best process and get out the information; c) the University received a 2.8% budget increase but is anticipating a 2.5% rescission for FY09. It is likely there will be an 8% rescission in FY10. What is not known is whether the 2.5% in FY09 will be permanent and then the 8% will be off of next year's general appropriation or whether the 2.5% will be thrown into next year's general appropriation, with 8% taken off that. The best guess is that the 2.5% is gone, and the 8% will be taken off the next appropriation. Planning for the impact of these cuts is underway. The Budget Office is looking at scenarios for furloughs; the Deans Council has asked for an opportunity to weigh in with a number of different proposals for saving money. Furloughs might be one, but a shorter work week or taking cuts in administrative salaries are some of the ideas that have been raised. The Deans Council has requested to meet with the Chancellor to discuss these and other ideas under consideration. Under the assumption that the rescission will be 2.5 to 2.8%, the University has the income and general revenue to cover that amount. It is very likely the contingency fund could be released as early as the spring semester. People will be advised, however, not to spend it on what they will not need down the line because they will be allowed to carry over 1.5% from FY09 to FY10; this way, if the administration must go back to the units in FY10, there will be a source of funds to help cope with the 8% cut.

QUESTION AND ANSWER SESSION

1. P. Stockdale asked how all the recent budget news has affected the Provost's decisions about faculty hiring. Provost Rice responded that there has been no discussion in the Chancellor's Office or with the Chancellor about closing searches. The Deans Council heard a presentation recently by Carol Henry (Budget Office) on [hypothetical] projections and how the next two fiscal years might look. That same report was given to the Chancellor's Planning and Budget Committee. The deans responded by suggesting the Chancellor seriously consider controls on searches--either cancelling them all or only allowing a certain number where there is very strong justification for the need for that particular specialty or individual. Searches are still being approved and are running smoothly, though he would suggest they be brought to fruition as early as possible.

2. A. Karnes asked how long a furlough would need to be in order to make up 8%. Provost Rice responded he did not know, but could say with respect to FY10 that they are anticipating an approximately $7 million shortfall with that 8%.

3. P. Howze asked who is serving on the preliminary chancellor search committee. P. Stockdale responded that the constituency heads were asked to serve on the committee.

4. P. Howze asked if the diversity restructuring committee report will come to the Senate. P. Stockdale responded that it is not in the committee's charge to do so; however, she can report on [the recommendations that are presented to the Chancellor].

REPORTS (cont.)

3. Judicial Review Board Chair F. Pourboghrat distributed and reviewed his report on the activities of the JRB during the past year (included as appendix 1). A. Karnes commented that, as a JRB member under the old process and now as a member under the new process, he believes the new process works very well. He pointed out that it also requires much more work because under the old process, there was only one JRB member involved in the hearing; now, there are five. Consequently, [over the past year,] all members served on at least two hearing panels. He believes the process and the results are much better and more impartial than they have been previously.

P. Howze thanked F. Pourboghrat and reiterated the need for consideration of the JRB workload. He noted that each case, conservatively, takes about 25 hours, which includes a thorough reading of the materials and writing of the decision. P. Stockdale commented on the JRB's recommendation for a summer month salary or course relief, questioning from where funding would come.

M. Lamb asked if there has been an attempt at this point to influence the Chancellor's decision by either a grievant, respondent or her/his respective legal counsel. F. Pourboghrat responded that he is aware there was communication made between the Chancellor and one of the parties to a recent grievance; what he is unsure about is whether this communication influenced the Chancellor's decision. In any event, such communication should not be accepted or even considered.

Provost Rice commented that the hearings in which he has participated have been lengthy. He believes part of this is because the respondent reads through much of the material s/he has already provided each party in advance in paper form. It would save some time in the hearing itself by allowing abbreviated statements. Provost Rice expressed appreciation that the hearings he has been involved with have been civil, informed and cordial.

4. A. Karnes reported on the December 5, 2008, meeting of the Faculty Advisory Council of the IBHE (see appendix 2). C. Flowers asked A. Karnes if the public agenda takes the place of the Illinois Commitment. A. Karnes responded that it does and can be found as a pdf form on the IBHE website (http://www.ibhe.state.il.us/).

5. T. Britton reported the Graduate Council met earlier in the day and discussed two significant issues. The first was a resolution to remove the "interim" from Provost Rice's title. The issue arose in an Executive Committee meeting of the Graduate Council. It was noted that Provost Rice could conceivably serve with an interim title close to six years by the time a chancellor search has been completed and a provost search begins--assuming Provost Rice wishes to continue in that role. Arguments included: a) whether it is fair to ask him to continue as an interim; b) having so many interims weakens the institution externally; and c) the disadvantage in removing the interim title with respect to the ability to conduct a search for the permanent position. Ultimately, the Council did not adopt the resolution, but instead appointed a task force to bring forth some recommendations on the use of both the "interim" and "acting" titles and draw some general principles from the discussion that can be applied in a policy. P. Stockdale asked Senators if they would like to appoint a similar task force or possibly ask for a joint Graduate Council/Faculty Senate task force to develop a proposal on this issue. [Hearing no objections], she asked M. Amos as Governance Committee Chair and S. Kumar as Vice President to serve on the task force and also asked for one volunteer; J. Davis volunteered to serve. P. Stockdale asked T. Britton to bring the request for a joint task force to the Graduate Council for approval. If they do not agree, then the Senate can act independently. She believes, however, that it makes sense for the two groups to work collaboratively. T. Britton did not believe there would be any objection.

T. Britton reported the second issue discussed by the Graduate Council was signature programs. P. Stockdale distributed copies to Senators of a draft policy developed by the Executive Committee of the Graduate Council. T. Britton indicated the draft was posted and discussed, and two committees brought forth a number of suggestions related to the proposal. It is the Council's belief that if there is indeed going to be the designation of signature programs, then the group wants to make sure it specifies or recommends the criteria to be used and identifies the body that will make the recommendations on signature programs--from the prospective of graduate education and research only. Council members brainstormed and came up with criteria related to quality, excellence and distinctiveness, as one of the objectives is marketing. The Council believes it is important to have this on record because the Chancellor has indicated on more than one occasion his intention to use the signature program designation as a means of allocating resources (which itself is a concern). T. Britton indicated he was charged by the Graduate Council with preparing an edited version of the policy draft that incorporates comments made at the Council meeting earlier. He will then come back in February with a better recommendation based on their discussions. Provost Rice expressed his concerns about the discussion of reallocating resources for signature programs in light of the budget for FY10 and perhaps FY11. He is unsure from where the funds would come and urged caution in trying to develop any kind of reward system for that designation.

P. Howze asked whether it is the plan of the task force that will be examining the issue of interim titles to come up with recommendations on [the use of such titles]. T. Britton responded that he believes the intention is to come back with a recommendation. Provost Rice expressed appreciation that there was some discussion of his situation; however, there are a number of acting and interim administrators within the University who have held those positions for as long or longer than he. Therefore, he asks that the task force make its deliberations broader. P. Howze indicated the issue at hand is a question of straight talk. It will be helpful if people know exactly what is happening. T. Britton believes the issue is one of transparency, and with that comes plain language.

EXECUTIVE COUNCIL

1. S. Kumar presented for approval the Resolution on Signature Programs (included as Attachment A to the Agenda). He turned the discussion over to P. Smoot who, with T. Clark, drafted the resolution. P. Smoot indicated she and T. Clark attempted to put forth some guidelines, but are open to suggestions from the group. P. Stockdale explained that one reason she distributed the Graduate Council's draft policy was to give Senators an idea of the criteria being considered by the Council. In reading the Senate's resolution, the focus is on marketing rather than resource allocation. In any event, if there is going to be a designation of signature programs or some [other concept], the Senate needs to have a voice in determining the criteria for such a program. P. Smoot indicated she would like input from the Senate before a vote is taken on the resolution. During discussion, several comments/concerns were raised, including: a) reallocating resources is a dangerous thing, and if there is no clear criteria on how those programs are chosen, then many programs will feel left out of the process; b) "signature program" is not synonymous with a producing program, that is, a program that typically exhibits a high level of enrollment and thus a fairly high level of tuition returned to the school (though a high level quality program does the same). If that alone is a criterion, then [the administration] is looking in the wrong area; c) the Graduate Council's draft policy includes a [long application process]. It is possible that half the programs at the University will believe they are worthy. How many man hours will be wasted in the attempt to obtain funds that more than likely will not be there?; d) there are already certain numbers used to evaluate how productive programs are and how much research productivity is generated. Could not those numbers be used to make a selection on an annual or semi annual basis rather than coming up with something totally different? P. Stockdale reported she raised the issue with the Chancellor that there are already in place a number of ways in which programs are evaluated annual reviews, program reviews, accreditations, review of faculty, etc. She expressed her concern that a signature program proposal might be used to replace those processes already in place. He did not seem very responsive to that concern, and her impression from talking to him is that he is moving forward and will find resources to reallocate; e) the questions to consider are: are the faculty in a research university with strong arts and strong applied programs willing to allow someone else to define what is a signature program? If it is simply a matter of advertising, [what programs do faculty want] as the face of the University? Who should decide what is a signature program?; f) whatever reason for the signature programs, the role of the Senate may be to examine the possible consequences to the University to its academic image and identity and whether reallocation to those targeted areas will compromise the ability to offer the core education; g) is there any data to show that signature program designation is an effective marketing strategy, to highlight certain programs as opposed to others? Provost Rice responded he is not aware of any data, but certainly there are many examples of universities and colleges doing so, whether by pointing to a particular program or to particular scholars in various areas. He believes a better marketing tool for SIUC would be what Assistant Vice Chancellor Victoria Valle wants to do through Royal and Company, which is to begin communicating with high school sophomores and juniors to find out their interests, and then turn around and tell them about the University's programs in that area.

T. Tarter believes signature programs already define themselves. Any signature program has to go to the mission of the university or [school]. Education is the key component of the School of Medicine's mission. Problem-based learning was developed there; they receive NIH grants in medical education. The emphasis on education makes these signature programs of the School of Medicine. Certainly, research-based assignments in cancer and Alzheimers are conducted, and there is a new Cancer Institute, but ask anyone from the School of Medicine what their signature program is, the uniform answer the one that ties it all together is education. In Carbondale, there are likely programs that speak to the mission, with diversity being one essential element. Provost Rice believes this moves more into signature characteristics rather than signature programs, which is different than what the Chancellor initially had in mind. M. Lamb commented that one of the University's missions is to turn out graduates. She believes in this particular economy, high school students are very aware of the problems of [joining] professions. She questioned whether concentrating on career paths might not be more effective.

P. Stockdale asked P. Smoot if she would like to continue with the resolution or table it and continue discussion within the two committees and come up with something more specific. P. Smoot withdrew the resolution for further discussion within Budget and UEPC. She suggested possibly also meeting with members of the Graduate Council. P. Stockdale agreed, with the charge that it be reconsidered in a timely manner.

2. S. Kumar distributed ballots for the Judicial Review Board election. After a tally of the votes was taken, the following four faculty were elected to three year terms: Frances Harackiewicz, College of Engineering; Saliwe Kawewe, College of Education & Human Services; Elizabeth Klaver, College of Liberal Arts; and Matthew Whiles, College of Science. A fifth member, John McIntyre, College of Education & Human Services, was elected to serve out the remaining one year term of Marybelle Keim.

GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE -- M. Amos, Chair

M. Amos presented for approval the Proposed Revisions to the Operating Paper of the Faculty and the Faculty Senate (included as Attachment B to the Agenda). He noted that a first reading of the proposed revisions took place at the November Senate meeting. The Senate will now be voting on the changes which, if approved, will go to the faculty at large for a vote. He indicated there will be another revision proposed in February with respect to the Faculty Senate Elections Committee; if elections are conducted electronically, there will be a change in the functions of that committee. R. Hughes then distributed and briefly explained the Huntington-Hill Method for apportioning the number of tenured and tenure track faculty for each college. P. Stockdale suggested the method be appended to the Operating Paper for future reference.

Proposed revisions to the Operating Paper of the Faculty and the Faculty Senate were approved 22-0 on a show of hands vote.

COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES -- R. Weston, Chair

1. R. Weston presented for approval the nomination of Susan Tulis, Associate Professor, Library Affairs, to serve on the Traffic and Parking Committee.

Nomination was approved on a voice vote.

2. R. Weston reported the committee was asked to consider the merging of two committees, the Library Affairs Advisory Committee and the Computing Advisory Committee, in order to form the Cyberinfrastructure Committee for Teaching and Research. The Committee on Committees's response is as follows: "The Committee on Committees is strongly opposed to the merging of the Library Affairs and the Computing Advisory Committees. A review of the operating papers of those two committees indicate that they have different purposes which will not be met by a larger committee. We do not advocate further discussion of this matter."

BUDGET COMMITTEE -- No report.

UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION POLICY COMMITTEE -- No report.

FACULTY STATUS AND WELFARE COMMITTEE -- P. Howze, Chair

P. Howze reported the committee has been reviewing the proposed Plagiarism Policy and hopes to have a resolution for the Senate to consider at the next meeting. P. Stockdale commented that there may have been some confusion within the University community regarding the Plagiarism Policy and the Plagiarism Guide. She explained that there was a committee put in place to review the plagiarism policies system-wide and then specific policies and procedures for the SIUC campus. The plagiarism guide is essentially a set of definitions and principles; the policy was specific to the President's office. The two documents were posted on the Senate's website for general review. She did not believe a committee was needed to review them and do a resolution, but rather people could send comments to the President's office. She also received snippets of campus documents such as the "Code of Ethics for Faculty" and the "Research Misconduct Code" that already had wording to deal with plagiarism. She requested the complete documents from Vice President Haller, and those are the documents she asked the Faculty Status and Welfare Committee to examine. In the meantime, the University community obtained the presidential documents and came under the impression that those were the only policies and procedures that were being developed, which caused much confusion. P. Howze added that the initial committee that reviewed the dissertation and thesis of Glenn Poshard wrote a report that included a series of recommendations; one of those was to review the policy, and another was to fix the policy. It began as something simple and grew into something unrecognizable; however, his committee will attempt to clarify the issue and present something at the next meeting.

OLD BUSINESS -- None.

NEW BUSINESS -- None.

ANNOUNCEMENTS -- None.

ADJOURNMENT

The meeting adjourned at 2:49 p.m.