Minutes of the Faculty Senate | Faculty Senate | SIU

Meeting convened at 1:00 p.m. by Peggy Stockdale, President.

ROLL CALL

Members present: Mark A. Amos, Thomas Britton (ex officio), Joseph Brown, Terry Clark, Jon D. Davey, Stephen D. Ebbs, James S. Ferraro, Anthony Fleege (for Thomas A. Shaw), 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, David A. Lightfoot, Douglas W. Lind, John McIntyre (for Cathy C. Mogharreban), Lori Merrill-Fink, Regina Pfister (for Joan M. Davis), Don Rice (ex officio), R. William Rowley, Mohammad R. Sayeh, Pamela A. Smoot, Gerald R. Spittler, Peggy Stockdale, Thomas H. Tarter, Brooke H. H. Thibeault, Rebecca J. Weston, Matt Whiles, Kay M. Zivkovich.

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

Members absent without proxy: Edward J. Alfrey, Michael J. Lydy.

Visitors and Guests: Jonathan Bean (History), David Carlson (Library Affairs), Don Castle (Student Center), Phyleccia Reed Cole (General Counsel), Michelle Hughes Miller (Sociology), Mark Wetstein (Broadcasting Service).

MINUTES

The minutes from the regular meeting on September 9, 2008, were corrected under the Provost's report (2.d) to reflect the correct the spelling of Dr. Peter Gitau. Minutes were approved as corrected.

REPORTS

1. P. Stockdale reported: a) the fall faculty meeting is scheduled for October 30. There will be a presentation on the NCA campus-wide accreditation process and the upcoming site visit; b) the Chancellor has been highlighting the concept of signature programs, although he has been intentionally vague about its definition and the criteria for defining such programs. She believes the Chancellor's intent is to spur discussion among the various groups in an effort to come up with a campus-wide definition of a signature program. She has asked the Budget Committee and UEPC to form a joint ad hoc committee to develop a proposal for signature programs from the perspective of faculty. Anyone interested in having input on this process should contact T. Clark or P. Smoot; c) the constituency heads were called on by the President's Office to form a preliminary committee to prepare for the upcoming chancellor search. The decision was made to conduct the search without the help of a search firm. The first task is to develop a comprehensive understanding of the duties, qualifications, experiences, etc. that the campus would like to see in the next chancellor. T. Britton, chair of the Graduate Council, developed a survey that he distributed to the members of that group in order to get input on what they believe should be the essential qualifications and most important challenges the next chancellor should be ready to meet. With T. Britton's permission, P. Stockdale indicated she modified the survey, which was distributed to Senators. She urged Senators to distribute the surveys to their colleagues and asked that any feedback be submitted to her either by campus mail or e-mail no later than October 21. M. Amos asked if it would be possible to get access to the criteria used for the last chancellor search or interview instruments Senators could examine to get an idea of how the previous process worked. P. Stockdale responded she could provide the interview protocol that was used for off-campus interviews during the last search; d) the University community has been asked to review and comment on revisions to the SIU Sexual Harassment Policy, as well as the Complaint and Investigation Procedures. Representatives from the Office of General Counsel will make a brief presentation, and then M. Lamb will lead the Senate in discussion. A survey has been posted on the Faculty Senate website that all faculty are invited to complete and return. President Poshard asked all constituency groups and all members of the University community to review the policy and procedures and send any comments to the Sexual Harassment Working Group, chaired by M. Miller. That group will synthesize the comments and suggested revisions and present a unified set of recommendations to the President. P. Stockdale then made some brief remarks about sexual harassment (see appendix 1).

2. P. Cole, Associate General Counsel, provided an overview of the proposed changes to the Sexual Harassment Policy and Sexual Harassment Complaint and Investigation Procedures.

EXECUTIVE COUNCIL

1. S. Kumar reported the Judicial Review Board elections were successfully conducted electronically. The Executive Council and Committee on Committees will be meeting soon to consider a slate of candidates for the Senate to vote on in December.

2. M. Lamb thanked P. Cole for her informative presentation. She then raised several concerns about the policy, as outlined in Attachment A to the Agenda. Provost Rice asked how those situations that are not sexually-related will be managed. P. Cole responded that if the issue is not related to sexual harassment, then it would fall either under policies related to protected classes (e.g., race, religion) or some other University policy germane to the issue. General Counsel has discussed possibly reviewing other University policies related to inappropriate behavior such as for protected classes and hostile environment.

P. Howze asked if there is a list of case law to which P. Cole referred in her presentation. She responded that she has a list and can make that available. P. Howze questioned why the change was made concerning complaints being made in writing. P. Cole responded that the law does not require complaints be made in writing; however, alleged victims are encouraged to do so and will certainly not be discouraged from doing so. General Counsel wanted to make it clear to administrators and others who may review those complaints that regardless of whether a statement is in writing, the complaint has been reported, and there is still an obligation on their part and the University's part to take action.

P. Howze believes that under the section, "Disclosure of Documents" in the Complaint and Investigation Procedures, the University is muddying its terms [with the use of the words "charge" and "complaint."] If General Counsel is seeking some kind of parallel to the Illinois Department of Human Rights, for example, a charge is not a complaint; a charge is probable cause, whereas [a complaint shows cause, and therefore a complaint is issued against the accused]. P. Cole responded that General Council is not using the words "charge" or "complaint" in the same sense as, for example, the Labor Board, which makes a determination as to whether [a charge] rises to the level of issuing a complaint; rather, General Counsel is referring to charges as the allegations that have been made against a person and that the accused has a right to be made aware of those allegations. An investigation is then done related to the allegation, and a determination is made at the end. There is no issuing of a complaint step afterward.

J. Ferraro commented that he teaches two courses in sexuality and so has a particular interest in this area. He finds the proposed policy and procedures atrocious in the way they are written and believes they are in many ways worse than the current policy. What has been completely ignored is a statement made by the National Association of Scholars on Sexual Harassment and Academic Freedom. He prefaced his reading of that statement (included as appendix 3) by stating that obviously everyone agrees that sexual harassment is wrong and needs to be acted against strongly.

P. Cole indicated that General Counsel is taking in all concerns or questions that come out of these meetings with various groups. When her office makes its recommendations, they will be including all feedback and from where it came. The concern raised earlier by M. Lamb about who will be selected for the sexual harassment appeals panel was raised by another group at a prior meeting, and a change has been made to the proposal that the members come from the constituency groups. Also, the compliance officer plays no part in selecting those individuals, as s/he cannot go outside that group which would already be in place to hear an appeal of her/his decision. She noted that her office remains open to recommendations on how the appeals panel is selected. With respect to the issue of consensual relationships involving [faculty and students], she understands there is concern. General Counsel is not suggesting that [a faculty member] cannot marry a student at some later time or that people cannot engage in relationships; however, it is always inappropriate when the student is in that faculty member's class or the faculty member is coaching them directly. Additionally, it could be said that the president or provost is above everyone so that anyone could be considered their subordinate. General Counsel specifies direct and inherent power differences, not someone who is 20 people removed [from the individual with the power].

C. Flowers asked how the process will work once the policy and procedures are adopted by the Board of Trustees. P. Cole responded that when the Board adopts the policy, it will be for all campuses; each campus will have its own procedures (the document that details how the process flows). The procedures will be specific to each campus and are not approved by the Board but by the President and/or Chancellor. P. Stockdale noted that this is the Senate's opportunity to discuss the documents openly. [Everyone] has until the end of the month to provide personal comments to M. Miller, who will gather all the input she receives from all areas of campus and come up with one unified set of recommendations that will be forwarded to the President's office.

A. Karnes asked if a summary of the changes made to the policy as a result of all the feedback will be made available before it goes to the Board. P. Cole responded her office will do so; the Sexual Harassment Working Group will also present a proposal to the Board, and her office will prepare a document that will go to the Chancellor, President and others regarding all the feedback General Counsel has received from all the meetings. It will also state the specific items that have changed in their proposal and would state from what meeting or constituency group they came.

M. Lamb queried Senators as to their temperature on the issue--whether they are hot, lukewarm, etc. She expressed dissatisfaction with the way in which her and others' concerns have been dealt. If the consensus is that Senators are "hot," then she believes the Senate should consider a resolution for the next meeting to block the policy and procedures or at least makes a strong statement that the kind of power given to the compliance officer or any vice chancellor "shall not pass."

R. Hughes indicated he has deep concerns over the current policy, many of which he believes are not addressed in the proposed document. He also pointed out that the process among the four IEA locals is a different process than the one the Senate is [undergoing]. It is not an input or suggestion process but a bargaining process, which is a big component. P. Howze asked how one can bargain the unstable. R. Hughes responded that there are a wide range of issues [and their status] that are likely to be discussed. He does not believe bargaining is dependent on having a single document entirely worked out. P. Howze indicated he would not like to know that the Senate and the Association are working at cross purposes and believes the process will only get worse if the two groups do not [work together]. G. Spittler believes the Senate should be "hot" on the issue and would have the support of the non-tenure track faculty. The policy and procedures were discussed in their executive council a few weeks back, and those concerns addressed by M. Lamb are very similar to those raised by his NTT colleagues.

Upon polling the rest of the Senate, M. Lamb noted that a majority of Senators are hot, which she believes calls for some kind of resolution next month. P. Stockdale expressed concern about the timing, as the issue was to be wrapped up by the first of November, and the Senate will not meet again until later in November. She pointed out that the Senate will have an opportunity to review the revised policy and will know exactly what issues were taken into consideration. M. Lamb did not agree with the process and suggested the Senate needed to make a stronger statement against the proposed policy and procedures at its next meeting. She is uncomfortable with the Senate's responses being filtered through another group and with being told what its responses are and what should come out of those responses.

S. Kumar questioned whether action at the next meeting would create a problem with the time line. M. Miller responded first to M. Lamb's comment, explaining that the working group's task is not to filter; it is to bring together the comments of all the diverse constituencies on campus to make it easy for the President to see all those comments. The appendix will include verbatim all the comments that are received in writing all unfiltered. In addition, the main issues that the groups collectively identified as being problematic, along with the working group's own assessment of the policies and procedures, will all be [presented] together. The working group has scheduled open forums, two of which are scheduled for next week, for individuals to come and discuss their concerns. Again, the working group will be gathering this information and attempt to thematically identify those points that are considered problematic for faculty, staff and students. This will allow them to identify what they might want to recommend eventually to General Counsel for consideration. The time line currently is November 1 for receiving comments from constituency groups so the working group can begin working through the thematic analysis and have a report that combines them all and also adds their own assessment so that it is at the President's office by December 1. If the Senate does not have a resolution or all comments to her group by November 1, then the group will have to wait. It will delay their process, but will not stop the activity of collecting everyone's ideas.

P. Cole mentioned that she did not want her limited response time to concerns raised to be interpreted as her office trivializing those concerns; that is not the case. With respect to dealing with the union issue, her office is currently awaiting dates from Jim Clark of the IEA/NEA as to when they can meet with the heads of the four IEA/NEA-represented unions. The first meeting will be an informal discussion and not a bargaining session. At some point, this issue may have to be bargained, whether it is the proposal itself or the impact, and that will play into how other constituent comments are taken into account.

It was noted that once the surveys are collected, M. Lamb will compile the results and draft some verbiage that will be sent to the entire Senate. M. Lamb encouraged Senators to take extra copies of the survey and bring them to colleagues and friends--the more she receives, the better.

P. Stockdale indicated the plan is to come back in November with a resolution, at which time there will be an opportunity for further discussion. P. Howze recommended the matter stay within the current committee P. Stockdale established from within the Executive Council so they can continue with the work and draft a resolution. M. Lamb suggested inviting M. Miller to [the Executive Council meeting] to report what she has found and what are the areas of agreement and disagreement.

REPORTS (cont.)

3. A. Karnes reported on two recent meetings he attended of the Faculty Advisory Committee to the IBHE (see appendix 4).

4. T. Tarter reported he will pass on to the Springfield Faculty Council the concerns that have been raised with the Sexual Harassment Policy and Complaint Procedures.

UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION POLICY COMMITTEE -- P. Smoot, Chair

1. P. Smoot reported the committee considered four RMEs, two of which she is presenting resolutions for at this time. She presented the first, Resolution to Recommend Approval of the RME to Eliminate the Minor in Information Technology (included as Attachment B to the Agenda) for consideration.

Resolution was approved on a voice vote.

2. P. Smoot presented for approval the Resolution to Recommend Approval of the RME for the Addition of a Sport Administration Major in the Department of Kinesiology (included as Attachment C to the Agenda). P. Stockdale suggested a friendly amendment to the second "whereas" to remove the redundancy in the last sentence so that it reads, "... it has the potential to increase enrollment for the Department of Kinesiology." Also, she asked if [the major] would be resource-neutral. P. Smoot accepted the amendment and responded that it would be resource neutral.

Resolution, as amended, was approved on a voice vote. [see appendix 5]

3. P. Smoot reported the committee has a number of questions and concerns on the remaining two RMEs. She has invited the relevant parties to attend the committee's next meeting to address those concerns.

COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES -- R. Weston, Chair

R. Weston presented for approval the nomination of Eric Holzmueller, Assistant Professor, Forestry, to the Bookstore Advisory Council. In addition, she reported that the Committee on Committees had to make changes to two of the assignments approved in July. It was requested that a tenured faculty member be named to the Outstanding Service Award Selection Committee. The committee is therefore recommending Elizabeth Klaver, Professor, English, to that committee. The person approved to serve on the Recreational Sports and Services Advisory Committee no longer wanted to serve, so the Committee on Committees recommends Matthew Schlesinger, Associate Professor, Psychology, complete the term.

University Committee Assignments were approved on a voice vote.

GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE -- M. Amos, Chair

B. Thibeault (for M. Amos) reported the committee is continuing work on four issues: 1) faculty input on administrative searches; 2) composition of search committees; 3) changes in the Faculty Senate Operating Paper to allow for electronic voting; and 4) a formula for reallocation of Senators. The committee has been unable to meet but has communicated by e-mail. The hope is to have something on issues 1 and 4 for the November meeting.

BUDGET COMMITTEE -- None.

FACULTY STATUS AND WELFARE COMMITTEE -- None.

OLD BUSINESS -- None.

NEW BUSINESS -- None.

ANNOUNCEMENTS

1. P. Stockdale reminded Senators that the November meeting of the Faculty Senate will be held on the third Tuesday, November 18 because Veterans Day falls on the Senate's normal meeting day.

2. P. Stockdale thanked Senators for a very productive discussion on all the issues raised this meeting.

ADJOURNMENT

The meeting adjourned at 2:40 p.m.