Minutes of the Faculty Senate | Faculty Senate | SIU

[as amended]

Please note: These minutes represent a reconstruction of the December 11, 2012, meeting. The recording equipment normally used failed, and the Secretary was out of the room during crucial moments.

Meeting convened at 1:01 p.m. by Meera Komarraju, President.

ROLL CALL

Members present: Ira J. Altman, Ken B. Anderson, Kimberly Asner-Self, Connie J. Baker, George E. Boulukos, Rita Cheng (ex officio), Tsuchin Chu, Terry Clark, Bruce A. DeVantier, Mark J. Dolan, Stephanie Graves, Eric J. Holzmueller, Holly S. Hurlburt, Scott Ishman (ex officio), David M. Johnson, Jyotsna Kapur, Michelle Kibby-Faglier, Carolyn G. Kingcade, Meera Komarraju, John T. Legier, James A. MacLean, Diane Muzio, John W. Nicklow (ex officio), James W. Phegley, Nicole K. Roberts, Matthew Schlesinger, Brooke H. H. Thibeault, Stacy D. Thompson, James A. Wall, Gray Whaley (for Rachel B. Whaley), Greg Whitledge (for Edward J. Heist), Terri S. Wilson, Mingqing Xiao.

Members absent: Allan Karnes (ex officio).

Members absent without proxy: Blaine Bartholomew, Anthony T. Fleege, Qingfeng Ge, Edward Gershburg, Douglas W. Lind, Nancy L. Martin.

Visitors and guests: James Allen (Associate Provost for Academic Programs), Nilanjana Bardhan (Speech Communication), Daren Callahan (Library Affairs), Matt Daray (Daily Egyptian), Rachel Griffin (Speech Communication), James LeBeau (Criminology and Criminal Justice), Brian Lee (Chemistry and Biochemistry), Alexa Rogals (Journalism), Jennifer Smith (Foreign Languages and Literatures), Nathan Stucky (Speech Communication), Yasuko Taoka (Foreign Languages and Literatures), Pam Walker (Foreign Languages and Literatures).

MINUTES

The minutes from the regular meeting on November 13, 2012, were approved pending corrections that K. Anderson agreed to send to K. Asner-Self.

The minutes from the special meeting on November 20, 2012, were... [not recorded]

REPORTS

1. M. Komarraju reported that since the November 20 Faculty Senate meeting, she attended: a) three meetings of the 5-10-15 committee; b) a constituency heads meeting on November 20; and c) a Chancellor’s Executive Committee meeting on November 30. She also plans to attend the December 13 Board of Trustees meeting. At the 5-10-15 committee meeting, there was discussion of the possibility of a portfolio approach whereby a department/college may offer some low enrolling courses that would be subsidized by some high enrolling courses. The committee recognizes that some low enrolling courses may need to be offered, as students may need these courses for graduation or the courses may be required for the major.

2. Chancellor Cheng reported: [not captured]

QUESTION AND ANSWER SESSION

1. [not captured]

2. H. Hurlburt asked what faculty could do to respond to the racial issues that have been occurring on campus. Chancellor Cheng responded she has not had anyone express concerns to her, noting that graffiti is common on college campuses. She indicated that the claims of racism have not been substantiated, though they need to recognize those concerns. H. Hurlburt asked if faculty can tell students, then, that there are avenues that can be pursued [should any concerns arise]. Chancellor Cheng responded yes, adding that students can contact such offices as the Black Resource Center or Student Life for an immediate response.

REPORTS (cont.)

3. Provost Nicklow reported: a) applications are up 12% from last year, the largest increase there has been since the University began keeping those records; and housing applications are up 8%. He believes the momentum is building, but the main thing is yield. He believes it is all related to messaging and the increased scholarship packages being offered; b) several metrics are being proposed by the IBHE--cost per credit hour; cost for completion; cost at completion; and [completion]. [Colleges] have been working to get down to the 120 hours requirement; c) [he has received the recommendations of the ICE committee]; d) a pilot is being conducted on the use of e-textbooks. There will be 10 sections for which students will be provided a tablet, as well as training on its use.

QUESTION AND ANSWER SESSION (cont.)

3. K. Anderson asked [not captured]. Chancellor Cheng responded that the meeting was cancelled, but [she] asked for more information. Time to degree is an issue, and she believes it will be the next phase of discussion. The School of Medicine was included, which made the University seem more expensive.

4. G. Whaley asked Provost Nicklow [what the housing indicators mean]. Provost Nicklow responded that when students sign housing contracts for on-campus housing, [it is a good indicator that they will be coming to campus].

5. M. Komarraju asked if there was any chance of getting additional weighting[?] Chancellor Cheng responded that the conversations have been interesting, but self-serving.

6. K. Anderson asked if the increase in applications is a result of the Chicago schools strike. Provost Nicklow believes it has more to do with the rollout of the scholarships. The pool is larger, and high-achieving students tend to apply early. Once classes began, [the school counselors] reached out to the University to help students apply.

REPORTS (cont.)

4. A. Noble-Allgire, chair of the Judicial Review Board (JRB), submitted and reviewed her report (included as Attachment A to the Agenda). While the Chancellor had upheld all JRB rulings in favor of administrators, she had overturned all rulings in favor of grievants. In one case, the JRB had voted unanimously for the strongest remedy under its jurisdiction, granting tenure and promotion where it had been denied. The Chancellor agreed that there had been certain procedural flaws in this case, but called only for revision of the Provost’s letter denying tenure; the grievant will still be denied tenure and promotion. There was discussion about the [role of panels in granting relief to grievants], particularly in cases such and tenure and promotion. JRB panels are not empowered to review the substance of tenure and promotion cases, only procedure; but the JRB is allowed to recommend reversal of negative tenure and promotion decisions. A few current JRB members hesitate to reverse negative tenure decisions by the Provost without access to the complete dossier, although JRB remedies are within the parameters of its authority. It was also mentioned that the panel’s recommendations to the Chancellor are, according to the “Grievance Procedure for Faculty,” supposed to carry the same weight as that of the administrator whose decision is being appealed. G. Boulukos asked the Chancellor whether she had ever treated a finding by the Provost as she had treated this finding by the JRB, that the grievant should be awarded tenure and promotion. Chancellor Cheng responded that she could not think of such a case. G. Boulukos asked if she meant one that is not on appeal. She responded that she would always defer to a decision coming directly from the Provost. G. Boulukos asked if she had reviewed the substance of the dossier in this case. The Chancellor responded that she had.

J. LeBeau spoke in support of the JRB recommendation to provide training to administrators who write and review tenure and promotion documents, pointing out that candidates depend on review letters from deans, and those deans should make sure their facts are straight. K. Anderson pointed out to A. Noble-Allgire that if the JRB would like the Senate to convene a task force to look into the concerns raised in her report, then there first needs to be a specific proposal submitted to the Senate. D. Muzio asked about the structure of the JRB and who gives it its charge. A. Noble-Allgire responded that the Faculty Senate appoints the Board, and they report to the Senate. K. Anderson questioned whether [it would be appropriate to expand the charge of the JRB so that it might be able to review the dossiers and consider recommending tenure]. A. Noble-Allgire responded that such a possibility has not been discussed within the JRB. D. Johnson noted that the confusion about the justification for the remedies available to the JRB was troubling. If the JRB is empowered to reach the verdict that a negative tenure and promotion decision should be overturned, there is presumably logic behind this. He suggested that this remedy was modeled on parallel legal proceedings where major failures in due process suffice to overturn guilty verdicts. In such cases, prosecutors are not simply given a “do-over”, which appears to have been the result in the case under discussion. J. Kapur asked what remedy, if any, was now available to the faculty member in question. A. Noble-Allgire responded that the case is no longer under the purview of the JRB.

After further discussion, M. Komarraju charged the JRB with developing a more specific proposal on the formation of a task force to look into the issues in the JRB’s report. D. Muzio suggested that the JRB should have more regular contact with the Senate, rather than only once a year, so that issues that may arise are brought forth in a more timely manner.

5. S. Ishman reported that at its last meeting, the Graduate Council discussed the 5/10/15 rule and funding and potential uses of the McLafferty annex facility. Two resolutions were also approved. One was an RME to change the name of the Fisheries and Illinois Aquaculture Center to the Center for Fisheries, Aquaculture and Aquatic Sciences. The other was to change the incomplete grade policy for graduate students only. Both resolutions were forwarded to the Provost. Provost Nicklow noted that the policy will be effective summer 2013 and beyond. M. Schlesinger asked if the incomplete grade policy would provide more specifics about when the incomplete grade could be granted. Also, how much of a course had to be completed with a passing grade? Would it be one test, half a semester, or more? K. Anderson commented that faculty are intelligent and knowledgeable people and can make their own judgment about what would qualify as passing work; the policy does not need to be too specific.

EXECUTIVE COUNCIL

T. Clark reported the Council discussed: a) the ICEs; b) the 5/10/15 rule; c) possible initiatives for the spring, such as having a conversation on the nature of academia and how to prepare for change; d) the difficulties some committee chairs are having in getting their committees to meet. T. Clark urged Senators to attend their standing committee meetings. T. Clark also reported the Council met a second time to discuss and vet the candidates for JRB. A third, special Council meeting took place at which the survey of faculty morale was discussed. The survey will be an agenda item for the Senate in February.

M. Kibby asked if exceptions to the 5/10/15 rule were discussed. For example, [if faculty teach a larger class, to try and offer smaller ones so they will balance out(?)]. M. Komarraju responded that yes, the conversation is heading in that direction.

EXECUTIVE COUNCIL/COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES

1. Ballots were distributed in order to elect four individuals to serve on the Judicial Review Board. Senators were instructed to vote to approve or not approve each candidate on the slate. K. Asner-Self and K. Anderson collected the ballots and left the room to count. [Results announced later in the meeting.]

2. [M. Komarraju] presented for approval the motion to approve A. Noble-Allgire (School of Law) as chair of the JRB for 2012-2013 (included as Attachment C to the Agenda).

Motion carried on a voice vote.

[M. Komarraju] presented for approval the motion to approve Jason Greene (College of Business) as vice chair of the JRB for 2012-2013 (included as Attachment C to the Agenda).

Motion carried on a voice vote.

UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION POLICY COMMITTEE -- D. Johnson, Chair

M. Komarraju distributed an outline of proposed rules for debate in order to [allow structured debate] on the two resolutions being presented. B. DeVantier questioned whether the use of such rules would be in conflict with Robert’s Rules of Order. M. Komarraju responded they would not, but are only being used as a guide to allow time for all interested persons to be heard, as well as enough time for Senate debate and vote on each resolution.

1. J. Legier (for UEPC Chair D. Johnson) distributed a revised copy of the Resolution to Recommend Approval of the RME to Restructure the Curricula of the Department of Foreign Languages and Literatures and Rename the Department as the Department of Languages, Cultures, and International Trade, College of Liberal Arts, which had been included as Attachment D to the Agenda. D. Johnson recused himself from overseeing the RME, as he chairs the relevant department. J. Legier indicated the revised copy reflects only minor editorial changes (see appendix 1 to these minutes). G. Boulukos, on behalf of the Faculty Association, reported that he was unable to provide any formal report as called for in the Faculty Association contract, because he had been briefed only at the last minute, and the process of coordination between the administration, department, and Faculty Association had gone badly. He raised concerns about possible pressure on the department from the central administration. D. Johnson, chair of the Department of Foreign Languages and Literatures (DFLL), indicated that external reviews have urged the department to revise its curriculum and improve departmental cohesion. The reform plan unites the department’s many small programs under one umbrella major and allows it to better coordinate its curricula across areas. [much of debate not captured].

B. Thibeault, who is the Associate Director of the Foreign Language and International Trade program (FLIT) spoke against restructuring the DFLL whereby all the majors within the program are combined under one umbrella degree program with sub-specializations (see appendix 2). She stated that the FLIT program was a well established program and enrolled sufficient numbers of students. The other programs in the department could combine under one umbrella program and FLIT could remain a separate program. Current students in the FLIT program, as well as alumni, are supportive of keeping it as a separate program. Currently, students can graduate with more than one major from the department. Under the restructuring, instead of separate majors, they would have separate specializations. She stated that FLIT is a brand that employers recognize; losing that would not be helpful for students.

D. Johnson spoke in support of the motion, stating that successive external reviews have urged the department to revise its curriculum and improve departmental cohesion. The reform plan unites the department’s many small programs under one umbrella major and would allow it to better coordinate curricula across areas. FLIT has a rather high number of majors enrolled, but the number of graduates has not consistently met the threshold set by the state. The members of the department discussed this issue at length, voted and came up with the current plan. Taking this back to the department for further reconsideration would not serve a useful purpose, as the conclusion is likely to be similar. B. Lee, an at-large member of the UEPC, noted that the committee had held two lengthy meetings on the RME, and B. Thibeault participated in one such meeting. The RME was unanimously approved by the committee.

After lengthy debate, M. Komarraju called for a vote on the resolution.

Resolution, as amended, was approved 8-6-7 on a show of hands vote.

Several Senators believed the motion had in fact not carried, as abstentions should be counted as negative votes. Several of those who abstained did not believe their votes would be counted that way. M. Komarraju announced that a recess would be taken to allow members of the Executive Council to consult Robert’s Rules for a correct interpretation of the procedures. Additionally, the JRB vote resulted in a tie for the fourth vacancy, so Council members need to resolve that issue as well.

After a five minute recess, M. Komarraju called the meeting back to order. She reported that members of the Executive Council reviewed Robert’s Rules and determined that the abstentions should be counted as negative votes; therefore, the resolution failed. Additionally, as a result of the tie between two candidates in the JRB election, two separate ballots were distributed to allow Senators to vote to approve or not approve each candidate. The ballots were then collected and tallied.

2. D. Johnson presented for approval the Resolution to Recommend Approval of the RME to Rename the Department of Speech Communication to the Department of Communication Studies, College of Liberal Arts (included as Attachment E to the Agenda). D. Johnson noted that the UEPC had held a lengthy meeting at which both supporters of the name change and opponents had been invited to participate. N. Stucky, chair of the Department of Speech Communication, spoke in favor of the resolution, as did J. Kapur, who believes the name is obsolete and needs to be changed to reflect current trends. She objected, however, to Speech Communications overstating their differences from the College of Communications and presenting the research and teaching in MCMA as merely professional, managerial, or social-science based. This was a lawyerly rather than scholarly approach, and it denied the considerable overlap in students and research between Speech Communications and colleagues in Cinema and Photography and Radio/TV, who take an arts and humanities-based approach to understanding communications. As faculty, they should not be competing with each other and taking on branding strategies that deny the work others do.

She also pointed out that she had only recently heard about the proposed change, i.e., from the Faculty Senate minutes and had initially wanted to ask to postpone voting on the resolution until others in MCMA were able to discuss the resolution. However, postponing the vote would lead to another year’s delay in the name change for Speech Communications; so, in the interest of collegiality and the fact that the UEPC had tried to give MCMA a fair hearing by having a MCMA rep speak to them, she would vote in favor of the resolution. J. Kapur indicated she would like to propose a friendly amendment to the last whereas as follows: WHEREAS objections to the name change from the College of Mass Communication and Media Arts have been given a full and fair hearing and the intellectual overlaps between the two units recognized, both factors were deemed less weighty than the reasons in favor of the change.... D. Johnson accepted this as a friendly amendment.

J. Wall reported that the Department of Radio/TV had discussed and unanimously voted “no” on the name change earlier in the year, at which time Dafna Lemish (then Chair of Radio/TV and now the interim dean of MCMA) had brought it to the department. At this time, there was discussion between the College of Liberal Arts Dean, N. Stucky, J. Wall and J. Kapur. It turned out that the name change discussed by D. Lemish with Radio/TV was for changing the name of Speech Communications to the Department of Communications, a name Speech Communications had never proposed but which was passed on by the MCMA dean at the time, Gary Kolb, to D. Lemish to discuss in her department. G. Kolb did not forward the proposal to Cinema and Photography. Subsequently, Radio/TV discussed and voted on a name change that was not the real one. As the chair, D. Lemish summarized that vote in an informal note to G. Kolb, which he then forwarded to the UEPC. All in all, MCMA faculty did not get to discuss the name change as proposed by Speech Communications; and the vote that was taken was not on the correct proposal.

G. Whaley asked what [the MCMA faculty who are objecting believe] is at stake. J. Wall responded that a number of faculty in [his] department perceive themselves as communication studies [scholars]. He believes part of it is a perception problem. H. Hurlburt asked if it would be possible to cross-list [the major with departments in MCMA]. [discussion not captured] After further discussion, K. Asner-Self called the question; seconded by K. Anderson.

Motion to call the question was approved 19-0 on a show of hands vote.

Resolution, as amended, was approved 15-1-3 on a show of hands vote. [see appendix 3]

H. Hurlburt again expressed concern about counting abstentions as negative votes, noting that she and some of those sitting nearby did not realize their votes would be counted as such. She found it very troubling.

[A subsequent special meeting of the Executive Council reversed the decision that abstentions are counted as negative votes (see appendix 4). M. Komarraju’s original and correct interpretation of the vote means the resolution to restructure the curricula and rename the Department of Foreign Languages and Literatures was approved.]

EXECUTIVE COUNCIL/COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES (cont.)

M. Komarraju announced the elected representatives to the JRB are: Laura Dreuth Zeman (Education and Human Services); Frances Harachiewicz (Engineering); Hilary Sanfey (Medicine); and Andrew Wood (Science).

ADJOURNMENT

The meeting adjourned at 3:53 p.m. for lack of a quorum.

Respectfully submitted, 
Kimberly Asner-Self, Secretary

KAS:ba