Minutes of the Faculty Senate

Meeting convened at 1:02 p.m. by Ramanarayanan Viswanathan, President.

ROLL CALL

Members present: Edward J. Alfrey, James S. Allen, Mark A. Amos, Gary Apgar, Joseph Brown, Terry Clark, Jon D. Davey, Paula K. Davis, Lisabeth DiLalla, Stephen D. Ebbs, Philip C. Howze, H. Randy Hughes, Kathryn A. Hytten, Allan Karnes (ex officio, Mary E. Lamb, David A. Lightfoot, Douglas W. Lind, John D. McIntyre, Aldo D. Migone, Don Rice (ex officio), Mohammad Sayeh (for Sanjeev Kumar), Pamela A. Smoot, Gerald R. Spittler, Peggy Stockdale, Spyros Tragoudas (ex officio), Fernando Trevino (ex officio, Ramanarayanan Viswanathan, Matt R. Whiles, John R. Winings, David S. Worrells, Kay M. Zivkovich.

Members absent: Russ Trimble (ex officio).

Members absent without proxy: Peter Borgia, Carl R. Flowers, Maureen D. Francis, Lori Merrill-Fink, R. William Rowley.

Visitors and guests: Walter Wallis (Mathematics).

MINUTES

The minutes of the regular meeting on November 13, 2007, were approved as presented. P. Stockdale noted that in the minutes under R. Viswanathan's report, it states that the SIUC Graduate and Professional Student Council approved a resolution supporting the process and findings of the blue ribbon committee on plagiarism. She reported that the Undergraduate Student Government approved a similar resolution. Minutes were approved as presented.

REPORTS

1. R. Viswanathan reported: a) he attended the Chancellor's holiday coffee, at which there was a good turnout; b) Rob Benford has resigned his seat on the Senate because he has accepted chairmanship of the Sociology Department; he believes it would be a conflict of interest for him to continue on the Senate. R. Hughes read the letter submitted by R. Benford, which R. Benford asked be included as a part of the minutes (see appendix 1). A round of applause was given to R. Benford for his service on the Senate.

2. Interim Provost Rice reported: a) there is currently underway a search for an interim dean in the College of Engineering. He hopes to announce his selection by the beginning of next week; b) all sabbatical proposals have been reviewed, and the deans have been advised of those that have been approved. There will be 52 sabbaticals forwarded to the Board of Trustees for their approval in February; c) there are 42 dossiers, which will be reviewed over the holiday break. The intention is to announce decisions by the end of January; d) with six weeks to go in advance registration, 90.84% of students have pre-registered for the spring semester. There are 18% more freshmen who have registered than in the fall; sophomores are at 100%; juniors are at 99.49% and seniors are at 71.86%. Applications for fall 2008 are currently up 11.8% for freshman, 11.2% for transfers and 13.5% for re- admits relative to last year.

QUESTION AND ANSWER SESSION

1. P. Davis asked how many applications there were for sabbatical leaves. Interim Provost Rice responded there were 52 submitted. He explained that every year since he has been interim provost, if there is a dean or chair that expresses concern about a sabbatical application, or if he finds the proposal difficult to understand in terms of potential productivity or outcomes, he gets back in touch with the chair, dean or candidate and works with them so that the proposal is something he would feel comfortable submitting to the Board of Trustees. He did this with approximately four cases this year. R. Viswanathan commended Interim Provost Rice for his approach, which allows faculty the opportunity to work on their sabbaticals. Interim Provost Rice commented that the applications are getting better every year. D. Worrells noted that the online procedure is forthright and easy to follow.

2. P. Stockdale asked if the search procedures for the College of Engineering dean are different than what was previously announced. She thought the engineering faculty were going to vote on the candidates. Interim Provost Rice responded that it was deemed more appropriate to go through the normal search procedures, so it was arranged for the candidates to give talks to the faculty; a screening committee will then interview the candidates and make its recommendations to him. The faculty recommendations will come in the form of the opinion papers that are usually done for candidates; those will also go directly to him.

3. A. Karnes asked when the University will receive an income bonus instead of a shortfall. Interim Provost Rice responded that the faculty contract does allow for sharing any increase in the income fund that is attributable to increased enrollment. The Budget Office is currently preparing for distribution of those funds.

4. M. Lamb asked about the current status of Saluki Way. Chancellor Trevino responded that he did not have the up-to-date figures, but it is still anticipated that construction will begin around 2009-2010. Interim Provost Rice added that once the Board of Trustees sets an upper limit on what the cost will be and approves the total budget, it will allow Athletics and other units to begin soliciting donations.

REPORTS (cont.)

3. W. Wallis, 2006-07 JRB Chair, reported that since his last report to the Senate, there have been two grievances filed through the JRB. The Board initially did not accept either grievance. Two other potential cases were discussed, but in both cases no grievance was filed. W. Wallis noted that 90% of grievances that come to the JRB are typically promotion and tenure cases. There were none of those over the past year.

4. A. Karnes reported on the December meeting of the Faculty Advisory Council to the IBHE (see appendix 2).

EXECUTIVE COUNCIL/COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES

1. R. Viswanathan presented for approval the Joint Resolution to Allow Continuing Judicial Review Board (JRB) Members to Serve on the Newly-Reconstituted JRB (included as Attachment A to the Agenda). He explained that the Executive Council and Committee on Committees met, reviewed the list of nominees from each college and came up with a short list of nominees. However, the continuing JRB members were given the opportunity to continue, if they so desired. The resolution lists the names of those members who agreed to continue. He pointed out the terms are staggered to allow for an equal number of seats to be filled in the following years.

Resolution was approved on a voice vote.

2. R. Viswanathan presented for approval the Candidates for Judicial Review Board (included as Attachment B to the Agenda), noting there are eight open seats on the new JRB. He provided brief background information on each of the candidates. A ballot was then distributed to Senators in which they were to mark "approve" or "do not approve" for each candidate. According to Senate rules, if a person receives a majority of the votes, s/he is approved.

J. Brown asked if there is a list of expected attributes for a JRB member other than their willingness to serve. R. Viswanathan responded that it is the joint committee that is given the responsibility to select the candidates for JRB. The qualifications and abilities of each candidate were discussed at length before the slate was determined. P. Stockdale pointed out that the criteria for being able to serve on the JRB changed with the new procedures. Candidates cannot have filed a grievance in the past three years, nor can they have served in an administrative capacity (chair or above) in the past three years. It was an attempt to find people who did not appear to be particularly biased to one side or the other, as was the accusation leveled against the JRB in the past.

R. Viswanathan indicated that L. DiLalla has asked that her term be changed from three years to one year. P. Davis has agreed to serve the longer term. He asked for a motion to interchange the two terms. P. Stockdale so moved; seconded by D. Worrells.

Motion to interchange the terms of P. Davis and L. DiLalla carried on a voice vote.

P. Stockdale announced the results of the balloting, stating that all the candidates were approved by a majority of the Senate.

3. R. Viswanathan presented for approval the Motions to Approve the Appointment of a Chair and Vice Chair to the Judicial Review Board (included as Attachment C to the Agenda). He noted that F. Pourboghrat recently completed a two-year term on the JRB, and M. Keim completed one year of her initial term and was just approved to serve two more years on the new JRB. J. Allen asked R. Viswanathan to explain the responsibilities of the chair and vice chair. R. Viswanathan responded that the JRB chair: a) does not participate in any panel deliberations; b) reviews all the grievances that come in and determines whether or not they have merit; c) may or may not consult the JRB as a whole when determining the merits of a grievance. If a case is accepted, then the JRB will meet to decide which five members will serve on the panel. R. Viswanathan indicated he could foresee that even if there are three or four cases in a year, almost all JRB members will serve on a panel, as opposed to the old procedures that called for only one JRB member to serve on a panel. The new JRB will have more of a role in the process. He pointed out the procedures state,"Released time for members of the JRB equivalent to one three-hour course each semester of service is strongly suggested." This has not happened in the past, but is something the Senate will need to monitor. R. Viswanathan explained that the vice chair can serve on panels and could possibly step into the role of chair the next year, if the joint committee makes that recommendation to the Senate and it is approved. P. Stockdale believes that under the new JRB procedure, there could be considerably more work for members. This year's light caseload was atypical. It could be a very heavy commitment to serve on the JRB under the new procedures, and she would urge the powers that be to find some way to compensate the service of those members, either in a course reduction or summer salary. R. Viswanathan indicated he could take this issue up with the Chancellor.

P. Davis asked if JRB decisions remain advisory to the Chancellor. R. Viswanathan responded that in the new procedures, it states that the majority recommendation of the panel would be treated the same way by the Chancellor as, for example, the Provost's recommendation would be treated in a promotion and tenure case. The way he sees it, the panel's decision would replace the Provost's decision.

Motions to approve the chair and vice chair carried on a voice vote.

4. R. Viswanathan presented for approval the Joint Resolution to Approve Retaining Eligible Judicial Review Board Nominees to Fill Vacancies on the JRB (included as Attachment D to the Agenda). He explained the resolution basically states that there are 10 more individuals who were nominated by their college colleagues who agreed to serve on JRB. The resolution recommends the joint committee, if it so desires, should consider these college-nominated candidates to fill vacancies without having to go back to the colleges for new nominations. Then, should there be any vacancy during the next cycle, the joint committee could look to this list of candidates who have already agreed to serve. R. Viswanathan explained that the second resolved states that the names be kept on file for the next three years, i.e., they could be considered along with new nominations. M. Amos clarified that the candidates listed were not only nominated but were vetted by the committee as well. R. Viswanathan believed it conceivable that if there are only one or two vacancies, the joint committee could pick one or two from list rather than asking for new nominees from the colleges. In addition, when the next year cycle comes and four more candidates need to be selected, nominations will not only be solicited from the colleges, but the list of candidates will include these individuals as well.

P. Howze believed that if the slate of candidates listed in the resolution will be used to fill mid-term vacancies, then it would be a reasonable request; however, the resolution is seeking to do two things, and as a result, is somewhat [overreaching]. He believes that when new vacancies occur that are not mid-term, then a fresh slate should be presented. R. Hughes questioned whether the second resolved absolves the joint committee of vetting the candidates, noting that in either one year or three year's time, their eligibility may change. P. Stockdale believes the resolution means that these individuals could be recommended by the joint committee; they would be vetted again at that time and voted on by the Senate; their inclusion is not automatic.

J. Allen expressed concern about the lack of representation from the different colleges that might be critical to the JRB's conversations and be disadvantageous to the grievant. He is unsure that working from the list will address that problem. R. Viswanathan explained that the resolution does not preclude, even during mid-term vacancies, going after particular colleges to get nominations. If, for example, there is a vacancy in Liberal Arts, there are already some faculty from that college on the list, and if the committee feels they are well qualified, then they could choose from those. By stating, "if so desired," in the resolution, it allows the joint committee that option. Basically, the joint committee would like to keep the names on file because they have been nominated by their colleges and agreed to serve. J. Allen expressed concern that five or ten years from now this will look like a [closed list]. While it may be understandable in the context of the current conversation about the resolution, the meaning may be forgotten by another Senate years from now. He moved that the resolution be returned to committee for a re-write; seconded by P. Howze. During the discussion that followed, other concerns were raised, including that the resolution assumes the college nominations would not change and therefore takes away the ability of the colleges to appoint another person; the logistics involved in soliciting and counting nominations; and the appropriateness of including names if this is a policy issue.

P. Stockdale commented that the joint committee's thought was that they have a list of 10 people who have already been nominated and have already been vetted; though the list may not hold up over time, it should be, at least for the next couple of years, a fairly good list. It might be possible to pre-approve this group as being eligible to be considered, and then the joint committee would have other processes for getting people that need to fill criteria that this group does not meet.

Motion to send the resolution back to the joint committee for a re-write carried on a voice vote.

COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES -- S. Kumar, Chair

P. Stockdale (for S. Kumar) reported that the committee was asked to select a representative to serve on the Search Committee for the Interim Dean of the College of Engineering. The committee selected R. Benford, who agreed to serve. J. Allen questioned whether this selection made sense in light of R. Benford's resignation statement about having a conflict of interest. P. Stockdale noted that R. Benford was nominated before it was known he would be [resigning and making a statement]. J. Allen pointed out that in light of his resignation and the reasons he provided, R. Benford is no longer faculty in his capacity of becoming chair of his department. J. Allen believes the committee should reconsider its selection. R. Hughes commented that if R. Benford believes it is a conflict of interest to serve, then he would recuse himself. R. Benford's nomination was based on what he could bring to the search process. J. Brown suggested the Senate ask R. Benford if he wanted to recuse himself in light of the statements he made. K. Hytten pointed out that the Provost reported the search would be complete by Friday. Presumably, R. Benford has already started serving. J. Allen questioned forwarding the nomination without the Senate having a chance to vote on the matter. R. Viswanathan pointed out that the Committee on Committees has the authority to directly appoint nominees to ad hoc and search committees. R. Benford's appointment to the search committee was made as an announcement only. S. Tragoudas noted the committee has not yet met, but will meet in an hour.

BUDGET COMMITTEE -- T. Clark, Chair

T. Clark commented that since the new marketing initiative for the University came out of the Faculty Senate Budget Committee, he would like to note that SIU had an ad that ran when the basketball team played against USC on ESPN. The University paid for one 30-second run, and it ran twice. The ad, which showed Brian Mullins with equations coming out of his head to compute the trajectory of the ball, brought together academics and [rock star] basketball players who can think in equations.

FACULTY STATUS AND WELFARE COMMITTEE -- None.

GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE -- M.Amos, Chair

M. Amos reported that this semester, the committee was part of the discussions the interim provost had with chairs and departments concerning increasing diversity of faculty; however, the committee was not invited to any of those meetings.

R. Viswanathan asked the committee to revisit two items related to the new JRB procedures. The first is the criteria that states potential members cannot have had a grievance for the past three years. He would like the committee to examine what is meant by grievance (through the JRB? Association? a lawsuit?). P. Stockdale has mentioned there could be some legal issues involved in excluding faculty based on these criteria (e.g., if it is a legitimate grievance, why should the person be disqualified?). Also, he would like the committee to define what is meant by an administrator. According to past JRB guidelines, an administrator was defined as someone who has "supervisory responsibility over faculty performance." R. Viswanathan believes these are some issues that need to be addressed.

UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION POLICY COMMITTEE -- None.

OLD BUSINESS

1. K. Zivkovich reported that the Art Over Easy Fund Raiser for the School of Art and Design was a great success. In its first year, it raised $5,000; the second year, $20,000. Without ticket sales this year, over $35,000 was raised. She indicated that much hard work was done by the Art Advisory Board and there was support from faculty and graduate students. The fund raiser showed there is art support in a rural community made up of diverse people and diverse thinkers.

2. J. Brown reported he is a member of the Student Conduct Code Review Committee, which will possibly be holding its last meeting later in the afternoon. J. Brown commented that he is unsure students will be pleased with the changes that are being made in the Code. The committee was asked to revise the Code out of sequence because of some very specific issues involving minority students and a crisis that happened a little over a year ago. He does not believe the issues that seem to be of most concern to students what an interim suspension means; how accused students can be represented at hearings; and how far the University's jurisdiction stretches off campus for bad behavior--have been, or will be, adequately addressed. R. Viswanathan asked if there was any role the Senate could play. J. Brown responded that there is such a diverse student population on this campus. Some students have survived war and do not necessarily need to be told about disciplinary behaviors, as some 17-year olds who have not faced that might. There are several issues the committee has not investigated and those issues may need to be addressed in the shorter term.

NEW BUSINESS

J. Allen moved to waive the five-day rule to request that the Committee on Committees select another person to serve on the Search Committee for Interim Dean of the College of Engineering. G. Spittler asked for clarification on what the Senate is voting on exactly. A. Karnes commented that he has no vote on the Senate, but if he did, he would second the motion because an appointment of the Faculty Senate that serves on an ad hoc committee or any other committee, is a representative of the faculty. If R. Benford no longer considers himself a member of the faculty, then he would not be an appropriate appointee. P. Smoot seconded the motion made by J. Allen.

Motion to waive the five-day rule carried 12-10 on a show of hands vote.

J. Allen moved that the Committee on Committees reconsider its decision, which would mean R. Benford would not serve in the interim. P. Stockdale pointed out that if the motion were to pass, the Senate would have to appoint someone who would have to attend a meeting in an hour. If the motion is to rescind the nomination, she suggested R. Benford's replacement someone in the room. J. Allen responded that the motion is for the committee reconsider its appointment of R. Benford to the search committee in light of the statements he made in his resignation. R. Viswanathan pointed out, and J. Allen agreed, that the Committee on Committees could take the recommendation or not.

M. Lamb spoke against the motion, stating that R. Benford clearly has a scruple against serving on the Senate; however, it is not clear that he has a scruple against serving on the committee. The Senate should respect R. Benford's own decision-making ability, as well as the ability to decide his own scruples. In light of M. Lamb's statement, J. Allen amended his motion to state that the Senate request R. Benford to consider his appointment in light of his resignation from [Faculty Senate]. R. Viswanathan clarified that the motion is now addressed to R. Benford rather than to the Committee on Committees. The decision will be R. Benford's. R. Hughes believes the motion is purposeless because of course R. Benford will leave it to his own decision. It is not something that needs to be asked. J. Allen disagreed because it is the Faculty Senate that makes the appointment; it is not left only to R. Benford to do so without the Senate advising.

P. Stockdale questioned whether J. Allen's initial motion was seconded. J. Allen responded that only the five-day waiver was seconded. The Senate is actually framing a motion to leave it open to R. Benford in light of what he has written; however, it is the Senate asking him to do so. M. Amos argued that the Senate already decided on the appointment in the form of the Committee on Committees. He added that he would like to know if there is precedent for the Senate asking any particular Senator to search his or her conscience. G. Spittler believes R. Benford did not make the decision to resign from the Senate on the spur of the moment. His letter sounded thoughtfully written and very soberly considered. He cannot believe that R. Benford would have accepted the committee nomination without that knowledge.

It was clarified that the motion states that the Senate request R. Benford to reconsider his acceptance of serving on the interim dean search committee for College of Engineering in light of his letter of resignation from Faculty Senate. J. Brown seconded the motion.

Motion failed 9-14 on a show of hands vote.

J. Allen thanked the Senate for the conversation.

ADJOURNMENT

The meeting adjourned at 2:34 p.m.