Minutes of the Faculty Senate

Meeting convened at 1:03 p.m. by Ramanarayanan Viswanathan, President.

ROLL CALL

Members present: James S. Allen, Mark A. Amos, Gary Apgar, Robert D. Benford, Joseph Brown, Terry Clark, Brad Colwell (ex officio), Jon D. Davey, Paula K. Davis, Lisabeth DiLalla, Stephen D. Ebbs, Carl R. Flowers, Maureen D. Francis, Philip C. Howze, Kathryn A. Hytten, Allan Karnes (ex officio), Sanjeev Kumar, David A. Lightfoot, Karen Lips (for Matt R. Whiles), Scott McEathron (for Mark A. Amos), John D. McIntyre, Aldo D. Migone, Don Rice (ex officio), R. William Rowley, Gerald R. Spittler, Pamela A. Smoot, Peggy Stockdale, Fernando Trevino (ex officio), Russ Trimble (ex officio), Ramanarayanan Viswanathan, John R. Winings, David S. Worrells, Kay M. Zivkovich

MINUTES

The minutes of the regular meeting on July 10, 2007, were corrected under R. Viswanathan's report, fourth sentence, to read: "...however, 30% of this institution's incoming freshman students fall between 12-17 in Math and English." Minutes were approved as corrected.

REPORTS

1. R. Viswanathan thanked Faculty Senators for attending the special meeting on August 28 that was called to hear President Poshard's presentation on enrollment. He also reported that the final results of Senate elections will now be published in the meeting minutes and also sent to nominees.

2. Chancellor Trevino discussed the plagiarism accusations that have been made against President Poshard, first by the Daily Egyptian on his dissertation, and recently by the Chronicle of Higher Education on his masters thesis. Chancellor Trevino explained that when the issue surfaced, he, Interim Provost Rice and Vice Chancellor Koropchak met to discuss what policies and procedures were in place to handle these matters. He was told that there is precedent for such a case, and President Poshard should not be treated any differently than others have been treated in the past. It is important to stay true to the policies and procedures and to apply them consistently. The Graduate Catalog allows for an informal resolution if the person accused admits there may be errors or problems with the dissertation and is willing to correct any problems. The informal policy also calls for the department chair and the department from which the degree was granted to be the arbitrator. In this case, however, the department was unwilling to perform that function. Chancellor Trevino explained that there is a more formal process that can be applied. President Poshard has admitted he may have made some mistakes and is willing to address and correct them with the help of a committee. As a result, Chancellor Trevino has proposed a committee made up of representatives from the Faculty Senate, the Graduate Council and Faculty Association. Those groups will be asked to provide him names of individuals they feel would be comfortable exercising this role. He stressed that he does not want to select the committee because he does not want to be accused of cherry picking. Chancellor Trevino indicated he has already met with the Graduate Council to present his idea and seek input. He further explained that if the committee should, in the course of its investigation, find that the errors are not minor or are egregious, they can recommend a more formal process be followed. He noted the Faculty Association would like the committee's charge to be a little broader than just the immediate case. They would like the committee to make recommendations on how to handle any future allegations against faculty and staff, as well as recommendations on how to avoid future situations. Chancellor Trevino indicated that is not included in the initial charge to the committee, but he is willing to do so if the Senate is in agreement.

QUESTION AND ANSWER SESSION

P. Stockdale asked if the committee would be given the freedom to act independently and consult with whomever they wanted both inside and outside of the University. J. Koropchak believed that would be an option. P. Stockdale questioned whether it would make better sense for this committee to report directly to the Board of Trustees rather than any other individual. J. Koropchak responded that the procedures state the report should go to the person in charge of administering the Student Conduct Code, and that is the Chancellor. To do otherwise would be inconsistent with policy. P. Stockdale agreed that it was important to be consistent; however, she believes the public at large needs to be convinced that the process is not rigged. R. Viswanathan pointed out that the report will be forwarded to the Board of Trustees by the Chancellor. Any decisions afterward will be made by the Board.

S. Kumar commented that if the committee's charge is only to look at this specific case, then the procedures in the Graduate Catalog should be followed. However, if the charge is expanded, then it may be possible for the committee to go directly to the Board or even the Chancellor with a recommendation. Chancellor Trevino responded that the committee could be given an additional charge once it has completed the initial review. G. Spittler commented that it is important to maintain the integrity of the academic procedure itself. It is much simpler to deal with that first; anything else that may arise as a result is an entirely different matter.

J. Brown commented that he currently sits on the Student Conduct Code Review Committee, and he has not seen any plagiarism cases come up under the Conduct Code because they are always handled internally through the department and, in rare cases, at the dean's level. Because they are handled in the least oppressive and derisive way, it appears to others that the University is being easy on the President when in fact it is following tradition.

T. Clark spoke to G. Spittler's point, believing this is not an isolated case but is clearly a complicated issue which began ostensively at SIUE. A professor from SIUE was fired for plagiarism, and as a consequence a group identified by the press as "AFAC" began a fishing expedition to demonstrate examples of plagiarism. This is not just about President Poshard but about the goals and methods of AFAC. G. Spittler agreed, but believes the issue involves the integrity of a leader at an academic level, and that should be disposed of first to restore not only the integrity of the degree but the integrity of the President. Only after that is done should [the Senate address AFAC as another issue]. R. Viswanathan believed the committee could look at both issues simultaneously, but it would depend on how the charge is framed to committee. A. Karnes indicated he understands G. Spittler's concerns, but delaying action could cause another person's career and reputation to be put at risk because he does not believe AFAC is through [making accusations].

R. Benrford concurred with P. Stockdale that the focus should be on ensuring that whatever process is devised is not only fair and expeditious but also appears to the outside world to be that way. He is concerned that if the Senate turns its attention to "condemning the condemners," it will be distracted from the main issue at hand, and that will not help with managing the damage that has already been done to the institution's reputation. Another concern is the possibility that the Senate may run the risk of violating state laws that protect the anonymity of whistleblowers.

J. Allen suggested the Senate needed to focus on the allegations lodged against President Poshard. Once the committee completes that task, they would be well positioned to consider the other matters at hand, including whether to discuss the institutional implications of a more thorough procedure for adjudicating plagiarism, both at the undergraduate and graduate level; and considering programs that might address the importance of writing, like Writing Across the Curriculum or the University's writing program.

D. Lightfoot pointed out that since about 2003, the library has made available for free to all faculty and students the software necessary to detect plagiarism. This needs to be institutionalized so that it has to be used on all future dissertations, theses and probably other research. He believes the current procedures for dealing with plagiarism are adequate and does not see why President Poshard, as a student of the University, should be treated differently than any other student. As long as the plagiarism has not entered the realm of the research, results and discussion, corrections can and should be made, and the new thesis filed in the library in its correct form.

REPORTS (cont.)

4. E. Shay, Faculty/Staff Ombudsman, reported he has occupied his position for the last seven years and has seen many ups and downs. One thing of most importance about his position is that he does not discuss who individuals are or specific cases. Although last year was difficult, he remains optimistic. He reported that the number of cases he really deals with is probably a couple dozen, and even though there may be some situations that are especially difficult, such as this past year, by and large everyone gets along.

5. B. Colwell reported the Graduate Council last met on September 6 and unanimously approved the following motion: A Motion to endorse the process suggested by Chancellor Trevino in accordance with Graduate School policies.

6. T. Clark indicated he will report on the marketing plan at the next meeting.

EXECUTIVE COUNCIL

1. P. Stockdale presented for approval the Resolution to Recommend a Blue-Ribbon Panel to Evaluate Plagiarism Accusations against SIU President Poshard (included as Attachment A to the Agenda). She provided some background on the formation of the resolution, explaining that the Executive Council met while the allegations were still fresh and ideas were still being discussed as to how to deal with the matter. At the time, it was felt that there should be some kind of resolution to discuss. Consequently, the resolution is a week old and may need revision; it could be accepted as written or tweaked if the Senate wants to endorse Chancellor's recommendation. R. Viswanathan pointed out that both resolutions were written hastily in order to get them on the agenda. The resolutions are not an endorsement by the Executive Council; they are only being presented by the Executive Council for discussion by the Senate as a whole.

J. Allen requested a friendly amendment to replace the Resolved clause with the language that has been approved by the Graduate Council, although crafted in accordance with the way the Senate phrases its resolutions. R. Benford asked if the chief difference between the Chancellor's proposal and what is written in the resolution is reporting the findings to the Board of Trustees. Chancellor Trevino responded that he and Interim Provost Rice believe this is an academic matter, whereas the Trustees deal with other kinds of issues. The charge that has been leveled is against an SIUC granted degree, and he wants to put it in the hands of SIUC faculty. Whatever report is given to him will be transmitted to the Board. Any action after that will be up to them.

P. Stockdale presented the following wording in response to J. Allen's amendment: Therefore be it resolved that the Chancellor charge a committee of elected faculty representatives to informally review the allegations of plagiarism as set forth by the Graduate Catalog. P. Stockdale noted that some elected leaders did not wish to participate in the process, but should be allowed to select replacements. The resolution was further amended so that it read: Therefore be it resolved that the Chancellor charge a committee of elected faculty leaders or their representatives to informally review the allegations of plagiarism as set forth by the Graduate School policies. There was discussion as to whether the word "informally" should be used. P. Stockdale expressed concern about changing the charge from "informal" to "formal" because the policies call for an informal process first. S. Ebbs believed that the phrase, "according to the Graduate School policies" already implies the informal process, so adding the word would be redundant. J. Brown pointed out that the Faculty Senate has covered itself by saying there needs to be a hearing inasmuch as it is possible to follow the guidelines. J. Allen believed removing the word "informal" would clarify things sufficiently enough from a policy perspective. The Senate is not dictating terms or qualifying or setting conditions; it is simply stating the consensus of this group, and it appears to be the most appropriate way to state that the guidelines should be as closely followed as possible. P. Stockdale withdrew her objection to dropping the word "informally." She read the revised resolution as follows: Therefore be it resolved that the Chancellor charge a committee of elected faculty leaders or their representatives to review the allegations of plagiarism as set forth by the Graduate School policies. J. Allen called the question; seconded by G. Spittler.

Amendment to the resolution was approved unanimously on a 25-0-0 show of hands vote.

L. Dilalla suggested re-wording the sentence in the second resolved where it states that an accusation of plagiarism is a serious academic problem. R. Benford agreed, believing it is a bit of hyperbole. He suggested "an accusation of plagiarism is a serious charge in the academy...." M. Amos suggested it read, "a most serious charge...." P. Stockdale read the amended whereas as follows: "Whereas an accusation of plagiarism is a most serious charge in the academy...." This was accepted by the Executive Council as a friendly amendment.

Resolution, as amended, was approved unanimously on a 25 0-0 show of hands vote. [see appendix]

2. P. Stockdale presented for approval the Resolution to Censure the Anonymous Group, "Alumni and Faculty Against Corruption at SIU" (AFAC) (included as Attachment B to the Agenda). She indicated that, again, this was a resolution that was drafted a week ago and was not fully discussed by all members of the Executive Council. She noted that many faculty have expressed the opinion that the actions of AFAC and some of its members goes beyond responsible protest or whistleblowing and verges on near-extortionist tactics. Several Senators spoke against the resolution, believing the resolution would only call further, undeserved attention to the group and distracts from the issues at hand. Concern was also expressed as to whether the Senate would be in violation of the whistle blower statutes that protect people's anonymity when bringing forth accusations. Others argued that people's lives are being ruined by the accusations made by the group and that their actions are merely revenge for the actions that were taken against the SIUE faculty member. In addition, it is not the Senate's role to villainize the group; rather, the Senate should put its energies toward developing a committee that would look at the bigger picture of unequal treatment of people in cases of plagiarism and create a process that is expeditious and fair. After further discussion, P. Stockdale, on behalf of the Executive Council, withdrew the Resolution B.

COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES -- S. Kumar, Chair

1. S. Kumar presented for approval the nomination of David Worrells, Aviation Management and Flight, to serve on the Chancellor's Planning and Budget Advisory Committee. He reported that it was discussed in Executive Council that the Senate should have more representation on this important committee. T. Clark, in his role as chair of the Budget Committee, currently serves on the committee. T. Clark noted that there is an argument for adding a third representative to the committee. He explained that he serves on the committee not only as Budget Committee chair but also as the director of Barking Dawg Productions, the University's in-house ad agency. R. Viswanathan indicated this was something the Executive Council could take up at a later time.

Nomination was approved on a voice vote.

2. S. Kumar reported the committee received a request for two to three nominations for the Search Committee for Dean of the College of Mass Communication and Media Arts. The Committee on Committees forwarded the names of David Rush, Professor, Theater; and Richard Lanigan, Professor, Speech Communication.

BUDGET COMMITTEE -- T. Clark, Chair

T. Clark reported he had planned to make a presentation on the University's marketing plan but will postpone it until the next meeting.

FACULTY STATUS AND WELFARE COMMITTEE -- None.

GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE -- None.

UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION POLICY COMMITTEE -- None.

OLD BUSINESS -- None.

NEW BUSINESS

R. Viswanathan called for nominations to fill the vacant seat on the Committee on Committees. P. Howze moved the nomination of R. Benford; seconded by D. Worrells.

Nomination was approved on a voice vote.

ANNOUNCEMENTS -- None.

ADJOURNMENT

The meeting adjourned at 2:46 p.m.