Minutes of the Faculty Senate

Meeting convened at 1:01 p.m. by David Worrells, President.

ROLL CALL

Members present: James S. Allen, Mark A. Amos, Gary Apgar, Robert Benford, Joseph Brown, Peter Chametzky, Terry Clark, Jon D. Davey, Paula K. Davis, Uday Desai, Lisabeth DiLalla, James E. Duggan, Stephen D. Ebbs, George Feldhamer, Carl R. Flowers, Mark L. Francis, Maureen Francis, Allan Karnes (ex officio), Sanjeev Kumar, Aldo D. Migone, R. William Rowley, Pamela A. Smoot, Gerald R. Spittler, Peggy Stockdale, Russ Trimble (ex officio), Susan E. Tulis, R. Viswanathan, Jan Waggoner (for John D. McIntyre), Matt R. Whiles, John R. Winings, Todd Winters, Kevin Wise, David S. Worrells.

Members absent: John M. Dunn (ex officio), Don Rice (ex officio), Spyros Tragoudas (ex officio).

Members absent without proxy: Peter Borgia.

Visitors and Guests: David Carlson (Library Affairs), Caleb Hale (Southern Illinoisan).

MINUTES

The minutes of the meeting on March 20, 2007, were approved to add the following sentences to the last paragraph under the Governance Committee report, item 1: "R. Viswanathan noted he did not agree with the conflict of interest statement included in the rationale because the only interest that both faculty and administration hold is the interest in the welfare of the University. He also did not believe the state of Illinois should be drawn into the discussion." Minutes were approved as amended.

REPORTS

1. D. Worrells reported the Chancellor Search Advisory Committee met with candidates in St. Louis over a three-day period last week. The committee prepared a list of questions which were asked of each candidate, and then the candidates had the opportunity to ask questions of the committee. The list was finally narrowed down to four from the initial eight candidates. The next step is the campus visits, for which he has been soliciting faculty participation in the open forums. J. Allen asked whether a group from SIUC will visit the campuses of each of the candidates to get feedback from the constituency groups there, as has been done in the past. D. Worrells responded that there was no discussion about doing that, but he will check with the search committee chair.

2. A. Karnes reported on the March meeting of the Faculty Advisory Committee (see appendix).

EXECUTIVE COUNCIL

R. Viswanathan reported that the Faculty Senate elections have been completed, and new Senators will be seated on April 24. There were two resignations from the School of Medicine Carol Bauer and Brad Schwartz. Lisabeth DiLalla, who received the second highest vote count in the recent School of Medicine election, will complete C. Bauer's term. B. Schwartz will not be replaced since the School of Medicine is entitled to three representatives (down one from last year).

COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES -- S. Kumar, Chair

S. Kumar reported a request was received for two representatives to serve on Student Conduct Code Review Committee. The committee forwarded the name of James Garofalo (Crime, Delinquency and Corrections) to serve as one of the representatives. A second person has yet to be named.

GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE -- G. Feldhamer, Chair

1. G. Feldhamer presented for approval the Proposed Revision to the Operating Paper of the Faculty and Faculty Senate (included as Attachment A to the Agenda). Although it was listed as a first reading on the agenda, he proposed that this be considered a second reading since it was read at the March 20 meeting. G. Feldhamer believes the revision should be voted on before next year's Faculty Senate is seated. G. Spittler moved that the Faculty Senate consider and vote on the proposed operating paper revision; seconded by [G. Feldhamer].

Motion carried on a voice vote.

G. Feldhamer indicated the proposed revision would limit individuals who would be eligible for election to the Faculty Senate, specifically deans and department chairs. There has been much debate about this issue within Executive Council, and there are some perceived pros and cons. U. Desai pointed out that the proposed wording would not exclude administrators with a 50% appointment. G. Feldhamer responded that the wording should actually be "equal to or greater than 50%"; it is his understanding that the revision is intended to exclude department chairs.

J. Brown questioned why this position is being taken; it seems to be based on the assumption that some people are administrators for life. His position is that an administrator comes from the faculty and returns to the faculty. J. Brown commented that when he came to SIUC, there was a split between the faculty and administration. He believes the proposed amendment would revive that animosity. He asked if there was a crisis that precipitated the amendment or whether it is some longstanding philosophical argument of which he is unaware. R. Benford responded by reading a paragraph from his final report to the 2005-2006 Senate as president (04206atta.pdf). He indicated his concern is primarily conflict of interest and how it comes into play with issues that come up in the Senate (e.g., Saluki Way, program elimination, Judicial Review Board, etc.) where there is clearly a position from the top of the administration. He suggested that the administrators who serve on the Senate essentially get to vote twice. R. Benford would like the proposed revision to go to the faculty at large for a vote, noting several faculty have expressed to him their support for such an amendment. G. Feldhamer believes the campus community has already spoken on this issue because they have elected people with administrative responsibilities. Those faculty in administrative positions are being disenfranchised because of the belief that their loyalties are in question. He believes it would be a shame to lose the insight, wisdom, expertise and institutional memory that are represented by many of the individuals who have administrative oversight. Additionally, the change would perpetuate the culture of "us versus them." R. Viswanathan disagreed with the "us versus them" approach, noting that the wisdom and counsel from all Senators is appreciated. He also argued that chairs and deans have other opportunities to express their opinions, such as Dean's Council and chair's meetings. He supported taking the resolution to the faculty to allow them to decide whether or not it is a meaningful change.

U. Desai suggested it might be useful to include a rationale both for and against the proposed change if it goes before the faculty for a vote. P. Stockdale agreed that there should be two succinct position papers added to the ballot so that both sides could be weighed. She commented that, as a member of the Governance Committee, she echoed many of the same concerns raised by G. Feldhamer, noting she cannot think of a time when there was a split vote between Faculty Senators with and without administrative roles. Department chairs will maintain that their first allegiance is to their faculty; if they have been told by other administrators to consider to whom their allegiance falls, then it is those administrators who should be held accountable. C. Flowers commented that administrators are still members of the faculty, and he concurred that the proposed change would disenfranchise part of the faculty. He agreed that faculty are aware of those for whom they are voting, and it is a disservice to them to move the issue forward.

M. Amos spoke in favor of the proposed change, indicating that most people do not know the status of the person for whom they are voting. Many simply go by what they hear about a person. He added that, whether there is one or not, there is an "appearance" of a conflict of interest. M. Amos reiterated the comment made earlier that chairs and deans have their own venues that do not include faculty for expressing their opinions. A comment was made at a previous meeting that the proposed change was not in keeping with shared governance; however, shared governance goes both ways. Those faculty that are administrators are not being disenfranchised because they are already enfranchised as administrators and have a venue in which to speak. The question is, do they get to vote twice. M. Amos indicated the proposed amendment would protect the integrity of the Faculty Senate. A. Migone asked whether the Governance Committee voted to bring this issue forward. G. Feldhamer responded that the committee voted to bring the issue to the Senate for a vote.

J. Allen reminded Senators that eight years ago the Senate voted no confidence in then-President Sanders; as a consequence, there was a memorandum of understanding ["Principles of Agreement"] with the Faculty Association and the Graduate Council about the various responsibilities of the three constituencies representing faculty interests. Over the last eight years, he believes the Senate has evolved in a way that has helped it to see the strengths and weaknesses of each representation of faculty interests. Graduate Council has administrators who would never be able to serve on the Senate; it also includes graduate students. The Senate does not include any students. In addition, the Graduate Council does not include term faculty and the Senate does and did so before that group unionized. The Principles of Agreement lays important groundwork for the multiple ways in which the faculty bodies represent faculty interests. It would have to be rewritten if a change is made as to who is eligible to serve on the Faculty Senate.

R. Benford commented that the JRB revisions that were finally worked out took five years. If there was truly shared governance, those revisions would have been made at least five years ago. Also, he asked Senators to ponder whether there are any areas currently in which the Senate has a significant influence over the outcomes of the decisions. T. Clark responded that the conversation on marketing of the University changed as a result of conversations that began in the Senate.

A. Karnes did not see how the proposed change would help faculty governance. If anything, it makes things more divisive. When he served on the Senate a few years back, he was a department chair part of that time. Being a chair helped him as a senator because he had access to information he might not have had as a regular faculty member. It allowed him to come to committee meetings and Senate meetings armed with information that helped the faculty argument. Most of the faculty who are chairs on this campus work hard and intend to go back to being full time faculty members in the future. He believes a check of their "loyalty thermostat" would show them to be on the faculty side.

A. Migone pointed out that department chairs are not members of the bargaining unit, which makes sense if the unit is to represent faculty. The same logic would apply in the case of excluding them from the Senate. He also believes that chairs are concerned about what could happen to their departments if they take a position against the administration. G. Feldhamer expressed the hope that the Senate would have a more holistic view of Southern Illinois University and how it operates. Although it is called the Faculty Senate, much of the Senate's business deals with students and the University as a whole beyond the immediate needs of the faculty. The Association is a little more directed specifically toward faculty issues, so in that regard he would disagree with the comparison. U. Desai then called the question.

There was some discussion about amending the proposed change so that it would not read in the negative; however, concerns were expressed that making the change could then disenfranchise more than the intended audience. A suggestion was made and accepted to go back to the original proposed language. D. Worrells called for a paper ballot.

Proposed revision to the Operating Paper failed 18-12 on a paper ballot vote.

2. G. Feldhamer presented for approval the Resolution on Guidelines and Procedures for Faculty Searches (included as Attachment B to the Agenda). He indicated many departments have procedures that are very straight-forward, but there are certain departments in which that is not the case. There may be more unilateral decision-making where faculty input is not sought or considered. The resolution addresses those few departments in which that may be the case. The resolution is encouraging the provost to make adequate assurances that these sorts of operating papers are addressed. Attached with the resolution are potential guidelines to be used for faculty searches in departments where there are no guidelines in place.

J. Waggoner suggested removing the last sentence of the "Resolved" which states that guidelines and procedures are attached. She did not believe it was appropriate that they be part of the resolution. G. Feldhamer indicated they could be made available on the web. J. Duggan asked if the committee was the author of the guidelines. G. Feldhamer responded that the committee read through the guidelines, and they have been revised numerous times, so the committee is certainly aware of the content. He noted that there were actually a couple of members who took the lead in writing the guidelines. J. Duggan indicated he would like to see the authorship included with the guidelines if they are in fact attached. P. Davis believed the guidelines were a model presented by some of the units which were then modified by the Governance Committee. S. Kumar responded that guidelines were prepared with the belief that they would be a good model to go as an example. They are not based on guidelines from departments on campus. A. Migone pointed out that departments without guidelines currently in their operating papers would not have to put anything in them because that is not how the operating papers are changed. Operating papers are covered by the contract. S. Kumar indicated that if the guidelines go as a part of the resolution, then departments can look at and modify them if they so choose.

Resolution was approved on a voice vote.

UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION POLICY COMMITTEE -- T. Winters, Chair

T. Winters reported the committee has two issues pending that will be discussed at its next meeting The first is an RME to elevate some specialties in the Department of Kinesiology to majors; the second is an RME to establish an interdisciplinary minor in Latino and Latino American Studies.

FACULTY STATUS AND WELFARE COMMITTEE -- No report.

BUDGET COMMITTEE -- T. Clark, Chair

T. Clark reported the Chancellor's Planning and Budget Advisory Committee continues to meet. Next year will likely be the worst year in terms of the budget. The 2/4/6% budget scenario is proceeding. All units have been asked to develop models for each percentage cut. They will not be across the board, meaning some units will be harder hit than others. The Illinois Veterans Grant is costing the University approximately $1.8 million. There is some talk that the chancellor believes it will be taken care of at the state level. Some of the committee is concerned that the $1.8 million is not included in the University's deficit problem at this time. Enrollment is still a question mark for this year, although applications are up 11%.

D. Worrells asked where the funds are coming from to pay for Coach Lowry's raise. T. Clark responded that, from what he understands, there are some alumni that have a strong interest in SIU basketball. They have stepped forward and agreed to fund the raise. R. Benford questioned what will happen in the future because [that kind of salary] elevates the University in that marketplace. J. Waggoner agreed, asking if there was any data to support that the increase can be sustained by outside donors; if not, then from what coffers will it come. Also, she asked if there was any data showing a correlation between increased enrollment and basketball. K. Wise responded that a quote he read stated that if the Foundation does not raise the money, then the University would have to pick up the tab. T. Clark indicated he would ask for a breakdown of where the money is coming from at the next budget meeting. K. Wise commented that the raise for one year was double what the Faculty Association received for equity and compression adjustment. J. Allen pointed out that there is a seeming conflict with the emphasis on athletics from academics. The plans for an academic classroom have been dropped, despite President Poshard's guarantee that it would be part of Saluki Way. Instead, all that is being contemplated is a new arena and a new stadium. K. Wise indicated [his department] he is going through an exercise to look at cuts in journals and serials. If there is money from private donors or the Foundation is raising money, he believes faculty should be told how much money is being raised. T. Clark indicated he would ask this question.

A. Karnes expressed concern about the budget cuts, indicating it is his understanding that there will be no civil service or graduate assistant positions cut. For most departments, that only leaves two sources for cuts: OTS and faculty lines. G. Spittler indicated that cutting faculty will result in either unacceptably larger classes or fewer sections, both of which will result in an increased drop in enrollment and possibly increased unrest among alumni, resulting in less dollars from them. A. Karnes indicated that one of the rules of budget cutting is that production facilities are spared over support functions because once production is cut, it is hard to put it back up again. S. Ebbs asked whether no cuts means no civil service will be eliminated as opposed to someone who is reduced from 100% to 75%. T. Clark responded that he has not heard anything about cutting people back to part-time. He believes there are two reasons why the chancellor proposed there would be no cuts in civil service; one is political and the other is to avoid the bumping scenario.

OLD BUSINESS - None.

NEW BUSINESS

1. M. Amos reported there will be a Lobby Day in Springfield on May 2 that will be in support of either HB750 or the gross receipts tax. The tax is not just for higher education but all of education. The Faculty Association will be running buses if anyone is interested in going on either April 25 or May 2.

2. J. Duggan asked on behalf of P. Stockdale if, when the new contract is signed by the Board of Trustees, the current Judicial Review Board members would need to resign so new members could be seated according to the new procedures. M. Amos responded that it will likely take about six months to revise the JRB's structure and create a pool of candidates. A. Karnes asked if the JRB will be operating under the old rules for any promotion and tenure grievances filed this spring. M. Amos responded that the current rules would apply.

ANNOUNCEMENTS - None.

ADJOURNMENT

The meeting adjourned at 2:53 p.m.