Minutes of the Faculty Senate | Faculty Senate | SIU

Meeting convened at 1:02 p.m. by Peggy Stockdale, President.

ROLL CALL

Members present: James Allen (for Pamela A. Smoot), Mark A. Amos, Loretta Battaglia (for Stephen D. Ebbs), Thomas Britton (ex officio), Joseph Brown, Jon D. Davey, Joan M. Davis, James S. Ferraro, Carl R. Flowers, James Garvey (for Michael J. Lydy), Samuel Goldman (ex officio), Philip C. Howze, H. Randy Hughes, Kathryn A. Hytten, Allan Karnes (ex officio), Sanjeev Kumar, Mary E. Lamb, Douglas W. Lind, Cathy C. Mogharreban, Daniel Overturf (for R. William Rowley), Don Rice (ex officio), Mohammad R. Sayeh, Gerald R. Spittler, Peggy Stockdale, Thomas H. Tarter, Brooke H. H. Thibeault, Rebecca J. Weston, Matt Whiles, Kay M. Zivkovich.

Members absent: Russ Trimble (ex officio).

Members absent without proxy: Edward J. Alfrey, Gary Apgar, Terry Clark, David A. Lightfoot, Lori Merrill-Fink, Thomas A. Shaw.

Visitors and Guests: David Carlson (Library Affairs), Brian Feldt (Daily Egyptian), Peter Gitau (Student Affairs), Mark Kittleson (Health Education and Recreation), Emily Sunblade (Daily Egyptian), Adam Testa (Southern Illinoisan), Susan Tulis (Library Affairs).

MINUTES

The minutes from the regular meeting on February 10, 2009, were approved as presented.

REPORTS

1. P. Stockdale reported: a) she received the full report from the Plagiarism Committee. The Faculty Status and Welfare Committee will review the report and meet with Vice President Sarvela later in the week to provide feedback and a final chance to make some changes. The report will then be posted online to give everyone a chance to review and comment on the report. It will likely be a short window the goal is to present the report at an upcoming Board of Trustees meeting; b) she resigned from the Search Committee for Associate Chancellor for Diversity for no other reason than she is over-committed. The Committee on Committees will announce her replacement under its report. She also withdrew as an active member of the Sexual Harassment Working Group, although she will be available to provide advice. That group is working parallel to the discussions between the Faculty Association and administration and is attempting to provide advice to those parties consistent with the Senate's resolution of last semester; c) she is continuing to serve on the "pre-search" committee for chancellor, which is composed of constituency heads or their representatives. Former Vice President Haller continues to convene that group. It will evolve into the search committee that will be fully formed by the procedures in place. There is a strong feeling that a search firm will not be used, as the pre- committee is doing much of that work.

2. Chancellor Goldman reported: a) everyone is awaiting the Governor's budget speech, which will be given on March 18. At that time, the University should have some kind of blueprint of what might occur. He does not believe the state will go beyond the rescission they took, and the campus will start 2010 with a 2% reduced base; beyond that, he cannot tell. It has created problems because tuition cannot be set; b) the campus continues to struggle with the Banner System. There are 13,000 applications, although a better predictor is housing, which is up 17% over this time last year; c) he, the President and the SIUE Chancellor met with the Senate Appropriations Committee. They are going to be very harsh on universities to show efficiency and productivity. The House Appropriations meeting has been postponed until April.

QUESTION AND ANSWER SESSION

1. M. Lamb commented that the new television advertisements for SIU are short, informative and compelling. She wanted to express thanks to anyone involved with those ads. Chancellor Goldman noted that people should also go to the website and view the ads displayed there. The University also has a new lettermark that is shown on recent commercials. There will also be pens with the lettermark that are being paid for by a private donor. He stressed that the SIU logo will continue to be used and will not change; however, there was a need for a lettermark that is smaller and could go on pens and other kinds of [mementos].

2. J. Ferraro commented on the nursing program, noting it is his understanding that it will go online in the fall. He was only recently informed that three of Physiology's classes will be used by that program, and his understanding is that the College of Science Dean was not involved in that discussion. He questioned how this arrangement was made without consulting the departments involved. Provost Rice responded that early on, the Science Dean was involved in conversations about the kinds of courses that would be needed for the curriculum, as were Gary Kinsel from Chemistry and Biochemistry and the chairs of Microbiology and Zoology. The University's obligation is to provide courses that match the courses provided at Edwardsville. Ron Browning from Physiology came into the conversation late, so the degree to which those courses will or will not be used is a matter for conversation. There is going to be a meeting very shortly between himself, Associate Provost Patty Elmore and the aforementioned individuals to discuss specifically what courses and lab sections would be needed to accommodate those students in pre-nursing. There will be a follow-up meeting with those involved in Edwardsville to iron out exactly what this campus can and needs to provide. Chancellor Goldman noted that the nursing program is 1+3, meaning the first year is [fairly standard curriculum]. It is the second year when students are admitted to the school that those courses will be needed, so there is still some time to work those things out.

3. A. Karnes asked Provost Rice for a breakdown on promotion and tenure. Provost Rice responded the letters have been mailed. There were 57 applicants for promotion or promotion with tenure; 4 were denied, three of those being promotion to full.

REPORTS (cont.)

Chancellor Goldman reported on his first-time visit to SIU's Lake County site. The state, for whatever reason, needed a university presence there. It is the 16th wealthiest county in the country and one of the most rapidly growing. A facility was built, and all Illinois universities were invited to be there, although SIU is the dominant presence. There have been discussions about offering off campus and online programs there. The advantage is that it gives SIU a very direct presence in a high, developing urban center. He has spoken with some of the deans about taking courses to Lake County, which can be done because they would be cost recovery, and it would mean a gain for the colleges. The hope is that it can happen beginning in the fall. A. Karnes commented that although Lake County has a nice facility, it is very far north. Also, SIU would be limited on what it could charge for tuition. There is also the issue of how to get a faculty member up there to teach and then return to Carbondale in a timely manner in order to be able to teach on campus. It could work in the University's favor if a significant portion of online courses were in the mix. He suggested getting the state to pick up the extra cost that would be incurred so the University could [send faculty there to teach].

Chancellor Goldman reported that he has also visited SIU's office at Shawnee College in Anna. The University has a strong relationship with Shawnee, and there are various programs Shawnee is interested in SIU bringing to them. Provided the parameters can be met, SIU would offer dual enrollment--i.e., students would enroll simultaneously in Shawnee and SIU for the beginning of a program; if they are accepted, then students would have some courses with SIU during those first two years at a locked-in rate (the tuition rate at the time of their enrollment).

Chancellor Goldman reported that there is a federal grant program called Academic Competitive Grant (ACG) for high school students of very high caliber. The University would like to help parents in southern Illinois send their kids to Carbondale. [Admissions] is aware of who the ACG students are, and a commitment has been made that for 34 counties south of I-70, a tuition reduction of 20% will be given to those ACG students for the four years they attend SIU. This incentive will be provided as part of their financial aid package.

3. P. Stockdale introduced P. Gitau, the new Associate Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs and Dean of Students. P. Gitau briefly discussed his background and shared information on two important initiatives his office oversees--the Campus Violence Prevention Committee and "Saluki Student Care," a new student support program. The Campus Violence Prevention Committee is charged to "receive and gather information regarding individuals who may pose a threat to their own welfare, health or safety; and/or the welfare, health or safety of others." The committee works within the guidelines of current University policies and will intervene on behalf of the individual whose behavior is of concern and refer that person to the appropriate University department (e.g., Counseling Center, Wellness Center, Public Safety, Student Judicial Affairs, Human Resources). The purpose of the Saluki Student Care program is to "develop, facilitate and coordinate a university-wide program of care and support for students in distress." Team members are made up of representatives from areas including the Office of Transitional Programs, Center for Academic Success, the Wellness Center, First Year Experience and University 101. Anyone wanting more information on these initiatives can contact P. Gitau at pgitau@siu.edu or by calling 618-453-1254.

4. A. Karnes reported that T. Clark substituted for him at the last meeting of the Faculty Advisory Council to the IBHE, so he has no report of that meeting. A. Karnes indicated he was unable to attend the FAC meeting because he attended the Higher Education Legislative Coalition meeting. That group consists mostly of legislative lobbyists and includes university and college lobbyists as well. At that time, they were predicting tax increases. The latest word is that the Governor will propose an income tax increase from 3% to 4.5%. Under the Illinois constitution, the tax increase has to be flat, so he is attempting to get around that by proposing to triple the personal exemption, with the possible cutoff at $59,000. The corporate rate is tied constitutionally to the personal rate, so the corporate rate can be no more than eight-fifths of the personal rate. The Governor is proposing an increase [in the personal rate to] 4.5%, and the corporate rate will go up proportionally. There has been discussion about increasing cigarette taxes, vehicle registration fees and things of that kind. A. Karnes indicated he has not seen anything about increasing or extending sales tax or taxing retirement income. The budget talk on March 18 is the first shot at the budget; it then moves to the legislature for an end result. A. Karnes noted the Governor is also supposed to propose $850 million in cuts; however, A. Karnes believes the Governor favors education and believes that higher education in particular has suffered over the last several years, so universities may be okay; it is wait and see. He has also heard nothing about a tuition freeze. J. Ferraro asked if there is talk of a capital plan. A. Karnes responded that there has been, and it may be part of the income tax increase. The Governor does not like a gas tax and wants to go more with the income tax increase.

5. T. Britton reported the Graduate Council is entertaining two proposals; one is on interim titles (the same one that is before the Senate). The proposal was referred to the Educational Policies Committee, and the Council will likely take action on it in April. The second proposal is from the Research Committee that makes redistributions in grant overhead dollars. There were two distributions discussed one is a minimum 4% commitment of funds for the library and the other is that 6% of overhead dollars be returned to the PI; currently, there is no guaranteed minimum. The proposal has met with a lot of concerns, one being that it does not fit every college's model and is more of a global approach. T. Britton indicated the proposal will be posted to the Graduate Council's website for comments. R. Weston asked from where the 10% total redirect is coming. T. Britton responded that it is not actually a 10% redirect; it comes from the total amount. The Chancellor's and the Vice Chancellor for Research's amounts would change slightly. P. Howze asked how much it is in raw dollars. D. Carlson responded that the total amount would be somewhere around $11 million, which would be around $100,000-$150,000 for the library. The sentiment expressed was that the amount should be committed to library materials.

6. T. Tarter reported that if his help is needed on a Senate issue or on the committee on which he serves, he is usually in Marion, Illinois, on the last Friday of the month. He is available to meet after 2PM.

EXECUTIVE COUNCIL

1. S. Kumar reported the Faculty Senate conducted elections in nine colleges and the non-tenure track faculty unit. A slate of candidates for each college is currently being established.

2. S. Kumar presented for approval the Resolution on the First Year Experience at SIUC (included as Attachment A to the Agenda). M. Amos reported that in September, he announced that the administration would undertake a self study for the first year experience. With the generous support of both the Provost's and Chancellor's offices, the first year of that self study is being completed, and they are coming forth with recommendations to move forward. There will be a first year experience next year for incoming students, and its purpose will be to encourage the students admitted to SIU so they can succeed while they are here. The resolution is calling for a statement of support from the Faculty Senate for its general philosophy and asks that the Senate encourage the administration to support the program in ways consistent with the overall mission and values of the University.

Resolution was approved unanimously on a voice vote.

3. S. Kumar presented for approval the Resolution on the Application of the Disciplinary Action and Termination for Cause Policy at SIUC (included as Attachment B to the Agenda). He indicated the resolution relates to a previous discussion by the Senate on the role and importance of the Judicial Review Board (JRB), what its decisions mean, etc.

J. Brown suggested removing the gender of the person in question in the fifth whereas. He also asked if the disciplinary policy was used incorrectly and if there are other policies used to challenge someone whose job performance is judged to be below average. P. Stockdale believes there are, and the Senate may have a discussion about the adequacy of those other mechanisms (e.g., merit, summer assignments, teaching load assignments). However, this resolution is attempting to address the use of this particular policy, which was meant for the purposes outlined in the fourth whereas and should not be used for the purpose of placing someone on probation from her/his tenure for below average performance. J. Brown believes resolution would be more balanced if a statement was added indicating there are other mechanisms. P. Stockdale agreed something could be added.

Provost Rice commented that when institutions talk about post-tenure review, there is a formal set of procedures that are over and above the normal reviews that all faculty undergo (tenure and promotion, merit review, student reviews, etc.). Where it works well is when it is not mandated on a certain cycle or time period; rather, it is something a faculty member can request as part of a review of need for new startup or resolution of salary inequities or some other reason, and it is usually run by faculty. Where it works poorly is when it is done on some kind of cycle, and everyone goes through review. The implication is that it is punitive, that in some way someone will lose some rights, including tenure, rather than being a process to help faculty. Examples can be found in both cases. Provost Rice believes in this particular resolution, the Senate is stating that the disciplinary policy is not a policy that can be applied in a review of academic performance. Dismissal for cause usually pertains to some nefarious action or violation of something more than the academic standards of a program or college. So, that may need to be clarified. There are options to administrators when they do review people for merit, such as not giving them as much merit or a change in workload in an attempt to accommodate/remediate the problem. He believes that is what the Senate is asking to do.

G. Spittler questioned whether malfeasance, nonfeasance and misfeasance are also considered under dismissal for cause. Provost Rice responded that they are, but he does not [associate] those terms with an academic performance review. J. Ferraro expressed concern with using the words "below average" with respect to Garrison Keillor--where "all the children are above average." By definition, then, would not half the faculty be below average? P. Stockdale responded that is the implication of the decision, the precedent that could be set.

R. Weston questioned whether point 2 in the fourth whereas (demonstrated incompetence) contradicts the first resolved (job performance judged as below average...). Provost Rice responded that there have been conversations between administrators and faculty and administrators and administrators regarding the ability to do something versus neglecting to do something. What usually occurs is a change in the workload or a change in attitude or replacement to do a particular job. Demonstrated incompetence is usually based on reporting by college or by students or failure to do something that is under that person's purview, such as not meeting classes, failure to return grades in a timely manner or, in most cases, doing something that disadvantages a student or students. M. Lamb believes there is a distinction between below average and neglect of duty; for example, a faculty member who scores 3s on a 5-point scale teaching which may be below the average for the school--is very different from a teacher who does not meet classes.

J. Ferraro asked if the words "below average" are someone else's in the previous action being argued. M. Lamb responded that these are the words the dean alleged about this particular faculty member. J. Ferraro suggested adding quotes to show the words are not the Senate's. The way he reads it, all it says is that the disciplinary policy cannot be used to show below average performance, which suggests the Senate concurs that below average performance could be shown and actionable, but it cannot be done in this way. M. Amos disagreed, believing the resolution is saying below average cannot be used to revoke tenure.

M. Whiles expressed concern that Senators are being asked to approve a resolution that relates to a particular case without having all the facts, many of which he believes are confidential. A. Karnes pointed out that the major thrust and purpose of the resolution is to state that the disciplinary policy is not the proper policy to use [under those kinds of circumstances]. M. Whiles suggested ending the resolution at that point rather than invoking reversal of a case and other issues of which Senators are unaware. A. Karnes responded that if it is the wrong policy and it was inappropriately used and upheld, then the Senate should urge reversal of that action. Just the fact that it was used--it is the wrong policy!

S. Kumar commented that [the resolution] is not really about a particular case; it is the fact that the JRB made a decision and it should be accepted. Revisions to the faculty grievance procedure were approved that state that JRB decisions should be accepted by the chancellor. T. Tarter commented that in light of the Provost's explanation of what post tenure review means, he believes the resolution is perfectly reasonable; in fact, a regular review of performance is not used as a way to evaluate [anything that may be covered under the disciplinary policy]. P. Stockdale reiterated that the intent of the resolution was to address the faculty's opinion that the disciplinary policy not be used as a device for post tenure review in a way the Provost described or in other ways that post tenure review can be conducted. It is the Executive Council's opinion that if the Board of Trustees permits it to be used in this way, then they have created a post tenure review system through the use of this policy. The Executive Council believes it is an inappropriate use of the policy, that it was not written as a post tenure review device; rather, it is a termination for cause policy.

D. Lind asked if the JRB is advisory to the chancellor. M. Amos responded that [the "Grievance Procedure for Faculty" states] that the decision of the JRB replaces the decision of the administrator being appealed; therefore, if it is the provost's decision being appealed, then it would mean the provost. If it is the dean's decision, then it would replace that. S. Kumar noted the wording is "similar decisions of the administrator being appealed." P. Howze (a current JRB member) commented that the JRB is a creature of the Faculty Senate. The underpinning this type of resolution, whether this text is accepted or not, is a desire to come before the Senate to reaffirm the JRB's purpose and reason for being. He noted that each case takes between 40-60 hours to carry out and, in fact, this matter came about in the context of the faculty member's merit evaluation, and the evaluation of someone's merit may not be used for dual purposes. If someone is not performing to standard, then give that person no merit rather than resort to other such measures as threatening the person's tenure by issuing a statement that s/he is now on probation. The JRB is looking for affirmation from the Senate as to whether it should continue because it is perilously close to not continuing.

J. Allen believes the fundamental principle behind the resolution, which is not stated and should be, is the Senate's support for the unanimous decision of the JRB and of the fundamental structure created by the Senate to deal with every case. G. Spittler pointed out the issue has turned from commenting on a policy that was erroneously applied in one instance to the position and authority of the JRB. P. Stockdale agreed the discussion has morphed into that issue, but believes that may be a forthcoming resolution. The Executive Council is currently in discussions with the Chancellor about his interpretation of the grievance document, which is why a resolution on JRB decisions in general was not brought forth. However, because of the actions taken in this particular case and the potential wide-ranging impact it would have on faculty altogether, the Council believed it should be discussed at this point in time. A. Karnes agreed; however, the resolution at hand addresses the fact that this issue is proceeding to the Board of Trustees. If they do not take the appeal and overturn the decision, there will be a precedent set on this campus that would allow a dean or chair to get rid of faculty whether they have tenure or not. In effect, it would be a top-down post tenure review system, and the Senate should be on record as opposing that type of action.

P. Stockdale indicated there are two friendly amendments to the resolution; one to change first resolved to, "faculty member whose annual performance reviews are judged as "below average," and another to make the resolution gender neutral; M. Lamb asked if the friendly amendment that notes that there are other policies that could be used to improve performance should be added. K. Hytten asked if there are other policies that can be used for the person who is actually is doing something that is more than below average, but is problematic. Since there is no description of what below average means, then in her mind it would mean someone who is not attending meetings or [something along those lines]; it could be more than that, but that would not rule out below average. She questioned what policy would be used to take disciplinary action against a faculty member who is not performing up to standard expectations. P. Stockdale responded that the disciplinary policy should be used in cases where someone has demonstrated absolute incompetent performance, failed to perform reasonable assignments, neglected her/his duty, etc. The resolution is not asking to change the disciplinary policy; it is asking that it not be used for purposes for which it was not intended. P. Stockdale believes the Senate should have a discussion [later] about other ways to address below average performance.

Provost Rice commented that, in his personal opinion, the resolution is attempting to do too much. It moves back and forth from the general to a specific situation. The Senate needs to decide where it wants to sit. Also, he understands why the term below average is used, but when an individual does not perform her/his duties at the level of expectation for a faculty member in a particular program, that is different than being below average. He believes what the Senate is attempting to address is a situation that is a bit more egregious, but he does not get the sense of that in the resolution. R. Hughes indicated if the Senate wants the resolution to go to the Board of Trustees before it acts, then [he would offer an amendment to delete the first resolved, as there is uncertainty among Senators about what is meant by below average].

T. Tarter noted that he is aware the JRB is in discussions with the Chancellor about its role, but he believes it is safe to say that the Senate as a whole stands behind the JRB; the Board should at least be aware of that. P. Stockdale indicated she reported to the Senate last month that she had sent a letter on behalf of the Executive Council specifically about the appeal of this case, so that action has been taken. She asked Senators if they wanted to proceed with deleting the first resolved. The consensus was to do so. M. Amos also suggested that since the emphasis has shifted to following the JRB recommendations, the word "unanimous" should be added to the last whereas and the now first resolved to indicate the resolution is speaking to one case. P. Stockdale reviewed the friendly amendments: to delete the first resolved; change the gender; and add the word "unanimous" as requested above. She then called for a vote.

Resolution, as amended, was approved 13-9-1 on a show of hands vote. [see appendix 1]

3. S. Kumar presented for approval the Resolution to Change the "Interim" Title of Current "Interim" Administrators at SIUC (included as Attachment C to the Agenda). P. Stockdale introduced M. Kittleson, who chaired the joint committee of the Graduate Council and Faculty Senate on the interim titles. S. Kumar noted that the resolutions in Attachment C and Attachment D both address the use of "interim" in titles one deals with current titles, and the other with future titles. M. Kittleson reported the ad hoc committee discussed definitions and found during review that the term "acting" was somewhat simultaneously used with "interim." The committee defines "acting" as when someone is gone for x number of weeks due to illness or something to that extent, but is returning. However, "interim" is when someone is replaced and is not returning. They are encouraging all colleges to follow the same terminology and are also encouraging deans and above to perhaps use [the committee's recommendations] as a protocol, though the committee understands that departments may be different than dean level. M. Kittleson noted that the Graduate Council has concerns about the number of interims on campus and the fact that it reflects poorly from a PR standpoint. It is also unfair to those interims to be called such when they have been interims for several years. Consequently, the committee recommends that for the future, interim titles should only be used if someone is needed to take over until such time a permanent person can be put in place. These are rare instances, however, as most times these people will give sufficient notice. However, the committee also believes that [when] any type of search, whether internal or national, is conducted, then the person in the position is no longer interim, and that title should be removed.

The second resolution addresses what to do with current interims (actually Attachment C). The committee came up with a protocol for the administration to follow, as there has not been one before. The idea is to prevent the backdoor entry of people getting into positions and not being able to get out. They were also attempting to prevent those people who have been in interim positions for long periods of time from not being given the their due credit. Provost Rice added as a point of information that last fall he asked the deans--and through the deans, chairs and directors--to review their operating papers and, if necessary, provide provisions for a process of appointing an acting or interim chair/dean. That has not been completed, but some operating papers have in fact been [violated] because they had no process.

P. Stockdale noted the resolutions are in the reverse order of how they have been presented by M. Kittleson. M. Kittleson reiterated that the committee is proposing for the future (Attachment D) that interim titles not be used unless it is a temporary position. If the person provides enough notice, then at least an internal search could be conducted and a person could be appointed as an interim. P. Stockdale pointed out that the interim appointment can be limited, for example, to 12 months. M. Kittleson agreed, but noted a national search is encouraged, even if the interim person wants to apply. The committee believes it is important to have a national search to get the best of the best.

P. Stockdale asked that the resolutions be dealt with in the order they are presented on the agenda. S. Kumar agreed, noting M. Kittleson has given an overview of both resolutions; discussion should continue on the resolution for current interims (Attachment C). P. Howze believes the "resolved" is onerous because it is time-consuming. He did not believe [the recommendations] could be done within a reasonable period of time unless it is an abridged process (e.g., faculty meet and give their vote of confidence in a single session). It takes at least a year to conduct a formal [written evaluation] and half a year to get the faculty to agree upon someone.

J. Ferraro questioned why the administration would need the approval of faculty constituency groups to approve an interim title. S. Kumar responded that the committee is attempting to prevent backdoor entry of someone who gets appointed, then the search is cancelled, and the person continues because the supervisor wants it that way. The committee wanted to have other bodies give approval as well for continuation of the contract. P. Howze commented that all those with interim titles are known. Why not simply remove "interim" from the title of all those who have it and give the Senate a guarantee that the person's term will end on x date. J. Allen pointed out that the problem is not the titles, it is the turnover of leadership. If a search of some kind has to happen for every interim before the process of filling the position permanently even begins--and then going through this backdoor process to insure the interim has the support of all the constituency groups would require a phenomenal level of administrative paperwork, not to mention finding people willing to participate on search committees. M. Kittleson agreed, noting the committee's major focus was what to do in the future so there are not so many interims. There is also the issue of the current interims, some of whom have been in their positions for many years. It does not take long to do an internal search in a way that it is transparent to demonstrate that a department or college is getting a decent person. The discussion should be about what to do with current interims and then what to do in the future. This issue is hurting the institution. The North Central Accreditation five or ten years ago reprimanded the University on its number of interims.

P. Stockdale indicated there are actually two processes that the resolution in Attachment C provides for; one is urging searches for interim positions; the second is a follow-up procedure--if a search is not done for some reason, that allows for input from the faculty and other constituents. M. Kittleson indicated for the current interims, the committee proposes some type of assessment and then removing the interim title at the dean level and above. Then, in the future when someone steps down and there is an opening, a quick internal search be done, and the person who gets the position serves as the actual and not as an interim. This would only be for a certain period of time; then a decision can be made as to whether to conduct some type of search.

P. Howze commented that the President had no difficulty in making the decision when it came to the Chancellor; it was just confirmed. The hope is that in the future, if there is going to be a search for each of these positions, that they be announced and that search committees be formed. P. Howze believes the resolution (Attachment C) would be workable if the last four lines of the resolved were deleted (stopping after "...demonstrated by a formal evaluation process."). He believes the process of finding out whether or not someone enjoys the confidence of the faculty will take a year in itself. P. Stockdale accepted P. Howze's suggestion as friendly amendment. S. Kumar questioned why the faculty constituency groups cannot give their stamp of approval. P. Howze responded that one reason is that before long, it will be May 1, and faculty are gone until August; then, the discussion begins and gets drawn out. P. Stockdale noted this question came up in Graduate Council. The Senate, Graduate Council and Faculty Association do not have the authority to approve a change in title. She agrees with P. Howze that the phrase "has the confidence of the faculty" implies faculty approval.

Resolution, as amended, was approved 20-0-0 on a show of hands vote. [see appendix 2]

4. S. Kumar presented for approval the Resolution on the Use of "Interim" Title for Administrative Positions (included as Attachment D to the Agenda). He noted there has already been much discussion on the resolution. Since the prior resolution was approved with a change in the resolved, then the Senate may want to delete the similar wording in the second resolution (Attachment D).

P. Stockdale explained that there are several parts to the resolution; one is to define the terms "acting" and "interim"; another is to conduct a search; and the third addresses cases where [the department/college] wants to have the person filling the temporary position be permanent, which can be done through the same process. A friendly amendment was made to put period after "process" under the first bullet point and deleting the remaining.

B. Thibeault asked how likely is it that a [national] search would be completed in 12 months. M. Kittleson responded that it varies. It can certainly be done if the three months the person is in the temporary position is added. The committee is proposing 12 months, but if it is 14 months, that is fine as well. What they do not want to happen is for something to go on for four or five years before a decision is made to conduct a national search. There may a case where interviews are done and the offer is made, but that person cannot come for another three months. P. Stockdale suggested adding the word "approximately" to the time frames, which might give the wiggle room needed.

J. Ferraro indicated his reading of the resolution is that if someone gives three weeks notice, then there can be no interim and someone would have to be selected from a national search in three weeks. M. Kittleson responded that the term "interim" should only be used in very sudden emergencies, if a person leaves and someone is needed to take over. However, if a person gives enough notice, then an internal search can be conducted to appoint someone [permanently]. P. Stockdale added that a non- search for appointment is an interim, and that interim has a very short life span (three months, give or take), but there is enough time to complete an internal search, for which the interim can be a candidate. R. Hughes believes the question is what is the appropriate amount of time to conduct the internal search; that should be defined. P. Stockdale suggested amending the first resolved under the interim appointment paragraph to read, "Appointing individuals to serve as interims should be avoided and should be used only when the position to be filled becomes vacant, with insufficient time to conduct an internal search." This amendment, along with the amended bullet points, were accepted as friendly amendments.

Resolution, as amended, was approved 17-0-0 on a show of hands vote. [appendix 3]

UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION POLICY COMMITTEE -- P. Smoot, Chair

J. Allen presented for approval the Resolution to Recommend Approval of the RME to Eliminate the Computer Engineering Specialization Within the Bachelor of Science Degree in Electrical Engineering (included as Attachment E to the Agenda). Because of the loss of a quorum, this item was tabled until the next meeting.

GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE -- M. Amos, Chair

M. Amos reported the committee is currently working on a resolution to change the non-tenure track representation on the Faculty Senate.

FACULTY STATUS AND WELFARE COMMITTEE -- P. Howze, Chair

P. Howze reported the committee will be looking at the plagiarism report.

BUDGET COMMITTEE -- T. Clark, Chair

P. Stockdale (for T. Clark) reported the Missouri Valley Conference expo went well.

COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES -- R. Weston, Chair

R. Weston reported that Mohammad Sayeh, Professor, Electrical and Computer Engineering, has been named to replace P. Stockdale on the Search Committee for Associate Chancellor for Diversity.

OLD BUSINESS -- None.

NEW BUSINESS -- None.

ANNOUNCEMENTS -- None.

1. R. Hughes extended an invitation to Senators to attend an event the IEA locals are organizing on campus on April 4. Those who would like to attend or want more information can contact him (hrhughes@math.siu.edu) or P. Howze (phowze@lib.siu.edu).

2. P. Stockdale announced the Southern Illinois Civic Orchestra Concert scheduled for March 25.

ADJOURNMENT

The meeting adjourned at 3:29 p.m.

Respectfully submitted, 
Mary Ellen Lamb, Secretary

MEL:ba